Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands

[Die Neue Zeit]

"As we set about the task of rediscovering Lenin's actual outlook, the terms 'party of a new type' and 'vanguard party' are actually helpful - but only if they are applied to the SPD as well as the Bolsheviks. The SPD was a vanguard party, first because it defined its own mission as 'filling up' the proletariat with the awareness and skills needed to fulfil its own world-historical mission, and second because the SPD developed an innovative panoply of methods for spreading enlightenment and 'combination.' The term 'vanguard party' was not used during this period (I do not believe the term can be found in Lenin's writings), but 'vanguard' was, and this is what people meant by it. Any other definition is historically misleading and confusing. (http://books.google.ca/books?id=8AVUvEUsdCgC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0)" (Lars Lih)



With the above having been said, what was the pre-WWI history of the international proletariat's first vanguard party like?

[ComradeOm]

The SPD as a "vanguard party"? I don't see how you can argue this without then labelling every Marxist party that has ever existed as a "vanguard party". Really, what party has not sought to "'fill up' the proletariat with the awareness and skills needed to fulfil its own world-historical mission" through "an innovative panoply of methods for spreading enlightenment"? Frankly the second clause is downright bizarre

[Tower of Bebel]

The definition as written above is indead misleading. But the SPD was part of the proletarian vanguard back then.

The question I still have is what the initial question should represent (;)). Sure, JR, after all the talk about the founders of marxism you should know enough already about the Social-Democratic Party of Germany? Could you elaborate your question?

[Die Neue Zeit]

The SPD as a "vanguard party"? I don't see how you can argue this without then labelling every Marxist party that has ever existed as a "vanguard party". Really, what party has not sought to "'fill up' the proletariat with the awareness and skills needed to fulfil its own world-historical mission" through "an innovative panoply of methods for spreading enlightenment"? Frankly the second clause is downright bizarre

["You've got mail!" :D ]

Comrade,

Lars Lih was trying to apply the word "vanguard" to a mass party, even one with revolutionary and non-revolutionary tendencies. The RSDLP was lucky or unlucky enough not to have outright non-Marxist tendencies, who flocked to the SRs or withered away with Rabochaya Mysl, for example.

Note here that he said nothing about the more diverse Belgian experience (which, IMO, is an example of how NOT to build a vanguard party, since outright liberal elements were included).

The reason why he (IMO, correctly) applied the word "vanguard" to the SPD is because, during its formation, there really wasn't much of a class struggle, which was sidelined by the struggle for German unification. Coincidentally (not really), why did Kautsky desperately resort to that outright silly notion (especially nowadays) that socialism could only be instilled into the working class by either bourgeois or petit-bourgeois intellectuals?

This ties in to your fascism thread remarks quite nicely. The SPD wasn't formed in a revolutionary environment. This is the model, barring notable errors in accepting "social-democratic" hacks, that we should emulate in the present environment, and not the 1912 Bolshevik model.

[At the same time, the additional possibility of "entering" into the Democratic Socialists of America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Socialists_of_America), the United States Labor Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_Party_(United_States)), and the Social-Democratic Party of America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democratic_Party_of_America) could be entertained.]


Sure, JR, after all the talk about the founders of marxism you should know enough already about the Social-Democratic Party of Germany? Could you elaborate your question?

Comrade, this thread is both a question for more information and a rhetorical question. ;)

[ComradeOm]

Lars Lih was trying to apply the word "vanguard" to a mass party, even one with revolutionary and non-revolutionary tendenciesWhich is exactly what I take issue with. Regardless of theoretical definitions, the "vanguard parties" that emerged in Europe after 1917 were simply not the same as the preceding generation of socialist parties. Lars Lih appears to be ignoring these differences by adopting an extremely broad definition as to just what constitutes a "vanguard party". If you're going to do so then its better to just drop the "vanguard" label and talk about mass parties


The RSDLP was lucky or unlucky enough not to have outright non-Marxist tendencies, who flocked to the SRs or withered away with Rabochaya Mysl, for exampleNote that this did not stop the Menshevik wing of the party from being thoroughly infiltrated by liberals who possessed, at best, a cursory knowledge of Marxism. This of course was one of the primary reasons for Lenin's insistence on limiting Bolshevik membership - a defining trait of vanguard parties and a major differentiation from the SPD model


This ties in to your fascism thread remarks quite nicely. The SPD wasn't formed in a revolutionary environment. This is the model, barring notable errors in accepting "social-democratic" hacks, that we should emulate in the present environment, and not the 1912 Bolshevik model.And what happened when revolutionary conditions did arrive? The SPD promptly fell into civil war with the machinery of the party being ultimately turned against the communists. Even in the preceding decades it had been the agenda of the reformists that the party had continually followed in cooperating closely with the Imperial government

Now one can say that the SPD would not have done these actions if it had not been compromised by reformists... but this occurred precisely because the party did not follow the vanguard model! I have no issue with people exploring other, non-CP, avenues of progress but revisiting a clear failure a century later does not particularly appeal to me

[Die Neue Zeit]

Comrade, how can you be sure that the same reactionary infiltration will occur to Social-Labour Democracy? Lenin's criteria were actually flawed, in that there were three conditions and not four (as discussed between Leo and Led Zeppelin in the "Little Lenin" Theory thread): full agreement with the objective of "full workers' ownership and control over the economy..." - labour democracy - "... as a very realistic means to end the exploitation of labor" - social-labour democracy.

Only from that point can there be mere "acceptance" of the SLD programme by, for example, maximalists (revolutionary demands only, no minimum or real-reformist ones).

Besides, the American reactionaries have the three "social-democratic" parties that I listed above - three.


And what happened when revolutionary conditions did arrive? The SPD promptly fell into civil war with the machinery of the party being ultimately turned against the communists. Even in the preceding decades it had been the agenda of the reformists that the party had continually followed in cooperating closely with the Imperial government

That's because the split (USPD) came too late. The Bolshevik timing for a split and the end of the RSDLP was just right.

This is where Social Proletocracy comes in. :)

[ComradeOm]

Comrade, how can you be sure that the same reactionary infiltration will occur to Social-Labour Democracy?The obvious answer being that it always has. Can you name one pre-1917 Marxist party that did not succumb to reformism and counter-revolution? The labour parties that today persecute communists and defend the super-rich, including the SPD, are the direct descendants of those late 19th C parties that you are defending!

As I mentioned in the other thread, democratic-socialists and communists have contradictory aims regarding the state. One seeks to conquer the bourgeois state and the other seeks to destroy it. How can any party possibly exist with that core issue in dispute? It was this very point, reformulated by Lenin in State & Revolution that shattered the uneasy union between socialist and communist in 1917. There was a time when all Marxists (democratic-socialist or communist) operated from a common theoretical base and towards a common goal... that time has passed for good


Besides, the American reactionaries have the three "social-democratic" parties that I listed above - three.One of which is defunct, another is social-democratic, and the third is a member of the Socialist International. 'Nuff said;)


That's because the split (USPD) came too late. The Bolshevik timing for a split and the end of the RSDLP was just rightSo you want to build a mass inclusive socialist party... that will promptly split when a revolutionary situation arise? Pardon me for asking... but why? :confused:

[Die Neue Zeit]

The obvious answer being that it always has. Can you name one pre-1917 Marxist party that did not succumb to reformism and counter-revolution?

Comrade, didn't the RSDLP itself become the Bolsheviks (notwithstanding the "Marxist-Leninist" counter-revolution), discarding the Mensheviks and absorbing Trotsky's waffling Mezhraiontsy? :D


As I mentioned in the other thread, democratic-socialists and communists have contradictory aims regarding the state. One seeks to conquer the bourgeois state and the other seeks to destroy it. How can any party possibly exist with that core issue in dispute?

You've forgotten one other aspect of "conquering" the bourgeois state: grassroots agitation for referenda (kinda like the bourgeois-democratic system in California).

Unlike the traditional dem-socs, who had difficulties connecting at the grassroots level, the new dem-socs - however relatively nonexistent they are for now - have discarded conventional parliamentarianism and have opted for the "direct democracy" route.

Now, both you and I both disagree with their position on conquering vs. smashing state power (as opposed to state administration / bureaucracy), but grassroots connection is very important. That is the purpose of my USL chapter section in Article Submissions.


It was this very point, reformulated by Lenin in State & Revolution that shattered the uneasy union between socialist and communist in 1917. There was a time when all Marxists (democratic-socialist or communist) operated from a common theoretical base and towards a common goal... that time has passed for good

Has it, especially since the dem-socs have expressed disillusionment with traditional parliamentarianism?


One of which is defunct, another is social-democratic, and the third is a member of the Socialist International. 'Nuff said ;)

You didn't answer my question, though. The "social-democratic" hacks can feel right at home in those parties (that they aren't uniting to form "Social-Democratic Labour" exhibits the sectarianism infection on even the "social-democratic" current :( ).

The only time Social-Labour Democracy will have to worry about counter-entryism is during the revolutionary tide. But then again, it may already have been replaced by Social Proletocracy, which discards the dem-socs. :D


So you want to build a mass inclusive socialist party... that will promptly split when a revolutionary situation arise? Pardon me for asking... but why? :confused:

Because that's how successful revolutions are made. During non-revolutionary times, inclusiveness is necessary to expose real-reformist treachery to the proletariat (although membership must be defined along Lenin's and not Martov's lines, but with the fourth basic criterium that I mentioned).

The absence of this inclusiveness results in a severe deficit in public transparency, since isolated so-called "revolutionary" currents can exhibit real-reformist or even "social-democratic" crap, as was the case with the Avakianite "World Can't Wait" campaign, without being called to account for such bogus.

During revolutionary times, Proletocracy and especially Social Proletocracy emphasize an exclusively revolutionary-Marxist agenda.

Again, if you're interested in my WIP...

http://www.revleft.com/vb/united-social-labour-t75056/index.html


Why would there be the inclusion of non-economistic reformists like pareconists and their French-socialist obsession with egalitarianism (as pointed out by the market-socialist David Schweickart)? Well, this is all because of the need for political transparency for all the working class to see, as part of the initial merger between political socialism and the workers’ labour movement (hence the name “United Social Labour”). As Lenin remarked in 1907:

For there can be no mass party, no party of a class, without full clarity of essential shadings, without an open struggle between various tendencies, without informing the masses as to which leaders and which organisations of the Party are pursuing this or that line. Without this, a party worthy of the name cannot be built, and we are building it.

As the United Social Labour organization matures, there will be a consolidation of tendencies within into two distinct groups, just like in the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party: a revolutionary tendency and a reformist tendency. Ultimately, after years of momentous class struggle outside and transparent struggle between the two tendencies inside (thus giving workers, as Ben put it, “bitter experience with the treachery of reformism”), the two tendencies will part ways and form their own separate parties, with the former forming the revolutionary Marxist mass party itself.

[ComradeOm]

Comrade, didn't the RSDLP itself become the Bolsheviks (notwithstanding the "Marxist-Leninist" counter-revolution), discarding the Mensheviks and absorbing Trotsky's waffling Mezhraiontsy? :DTrue, where the revolution was successful the revolutionary wing of the party destroyed or absorbed the reformist wing. And why did this occur? Because Lenin realised the futility of the SPD model and ensured that the Bolsheviks would not become polluted by liberal or democratic-socialist ideals! That is why the Bolsheviks did not collapse alongside the Provisional Government


Unlike the traditional dem-socs, who had difficulties connecting at the grassroots level:Blinks: The early 20th C SPD had a grassroots network that far surpasses that of any modern political party of any creed. I forget the actual figures but the organisation was absolutely vast - millions of party members (and an electoral base of almost a third of the population) and thousands of full-time organisers and activists.

Now the obvious sin of the SPD leadership was its disconnection with this party base... but I see absolutely no reason why any new democratic-socialist party, again speaking of theoretical language, would not encounter the exact same problem


Now, both you and I both disagree with their position on conquering vs. smashing state power (as opposed to state administration / bureaucracy), but grassroots connection is very important. That is the purpose of my USL chapter section in Article SubmissionsInstead of trying to "buy in" grassroots support would it not be preferable for communist organs to seek to build their own? No doubt there could be alliances with democratic-socialists on relevant political topics but again I fail to see the logic in "corrupting" the party membership with those who disagree with its fundamental tenets

I mean, if you have a party in which 70% of the grassroots membership is opposed to violent revolution (and an even greater percentage of the leadership) then you have a reformist party. In fact you have the SPD. This danger is inherent in any political marriage (where ideals are, by definition, compromised) but particularly acute in the example whereby you are specifically targeting groups with extensive grassroots membership/support


Has it, especially since the dem-socs have expressed disillusionment with traditional parliamentarianism?So you've got the democratic-socialists and communists to form one party. Now they're sitting down to write the party's manifesto. How do you deal with the unbridgeable difference that is the fate of the state?


You didn't answer my question, though. The "social-democratic" hacks can feel right at home in those parties (that they aren't uniting to form "Social-Democratic Labour" exhibits the sectarianism infection on even the "social-democratic" current :( )I'm not following. If nobody wants to unite with democratic-socialists then its evidence that 1) large "umbrella" parties are out of fashion and 2) they're so small as to be insignificant

As it is, the largest of the parties that you inked to, the Democratic Socialists of America, is a member of the Socialist International and a close affiliate of the Democratic Party. I think its safe to say that it is completely riddled with social-democrats and other liberal types


The only time Social-Labour Democracy will have to worry about counter-entryism is during the revolutionary tide. But then again, it may already have been replaced by Social Proletocracy, which discards the dem-socs. :DSo the difference between 1917-1923 and today is that you're around to show everyone the light? Because last time the communists came out on the losing side in that fight ;)


Because that's how successful revolutions are made. During non-revolutionary times, inclusiveness is necessary to expose real-reformist treachery to the proletariatThe evidence suggests that "exposing" the proletariat to such theories is identical to "educating" them in the social-democratic school. You know why the communists lost in the German Revolution? It wasn't because the SPD leadership was reformist, its because the bulk of the party followed the leadership down the counter-revolutionary path


(although membership must be defined along Lenin's and not Martov's lines, but with the fourth basic criterium that I mentioned)Lenin's criteria being that the party must remain ideologically pure by not admitting those of opposing political creeds? :confused:


The absence of this inclusiveness results in a severe deficit in public transparency, since isolated so-called "revolutionary" currents can exhibit real-reformist or even "social-democratic" crap, as was the case with the Avakianite "World Can't Wait" campaign, without being called to account for such bogusAgain, you've identified a flaw in many CPs but are proposing a solution that has no bearing on the problem. To illustrate your logic in this example (as I see it)

1) Many CPs are overly cliquish and opaque
2) Some democratic-socialist parties have more transparent structures
3) A union of communist and democratic-socialist parties is desirable

Point 1 is obviously true but point 2 is far more questionable. Regardless, there is a huge gap in the your logic in arriving at the last step. Common sense suggests that if there is a flaw in the standard structure of CPs then we should seek to fix that by adapting a new structure. I've seen nothing, practical or theoretical, to convince me that a radical departure, back to a failed model, is necessary to achieve this

[Die Neue Zeit]

True, where the revolution was successful the revolutionary wing of the party destroyed or absorbed the reformist wing. And why did this occur? Because Lenin realised the futility of the SPD model and ensured that the Bolsheviks would not become polluted by liberal or democratic-socialist ideals! That is why the Bolsheviks did not collapse alongside the Provisional Government

That time will come; don't worry. :)


:Blinks: The early 20th C SPD had a grassroots network that far surpasses that of any modern political party of any creed. I forget the actual figures but the organisation was absolutely vast - millions of party members (and an electoral base of almost a third of the population) and thousands of full-time organisers and activists.

I stand corrected on this technical issue, but what about the Democrats in the US today?




Now the obvious sin of the SPD leadership was its disconnection with this party base... but I see absolutely no reason why any new democratic-socialist party, again speaking of theoretical language, would not encounter the exact same problem

Well, to be fair I don't think a multi-million-member political party - unless it's global like what Bordiga wanted - would be feasible for even the US.

The definition of "mass party" needs shifting. About one million SLD members in the US, at the current population level, is for me the breaking point.


Instead of trying to "buy in" grassroots support would it not be preferable for communist organs to seek to build their own? No doubt there could be alliances with democratic-socialists on relevant political topics but again I fail to see the logic in "corrupting" the party membership with those who disagree with its [B]fundamental tenets

There's only one fundamental tenet, though, as I said above. :confused: For them, they see this tenet as being achievable through the referendum "road to power."


I mean, if you have a party in which 70% of the grassroots membership is opposed to violent revolution (and an even greater percentage of the leadership) then you have a reformist party. In fact you have the SPD. This danger is inherent in any political marriage (where ideals are, by definition, compromised) but particularly acute in the example whereby you are specifically targeting groups with extensive grassroots membership/support

I'll think about this in greater detail. Obviously at some point, as the organization grows, the first of the four conditions for "membership" has to be narrowed, bit by bit. [That is, unless of course, the growth is due mostly to an increase in the revolutionary majority. As you said, dem-soc politics right now is in the toilet.]


So you've got the democratic-socialists and communists to form one party. Now they're sitting down to write the party's manifesto. How do you deal with the unbridgeable difference that is the fate of the state?

The current SLD organization has a revolutionary majority. There are ways to maintain this majority. :)


As it is, the largest of the parties that you inked to, the Democratic Socialists of America, is a member of the Socialist International and a close affiliate of the Democratic Party. I think its safe to say that it is completely riddled with social-democrats and other liberal types

Yeah, so my original question to you is: why would "social-democrats" be interested in "entering" the SLD when they've got the DSA and the USLP???


Lenin's criteria being that the party must remain ideologically pure by not admitting those of opposing political creeds? :confused:

Lenin had only three conditions: acceptance of (not agreement with) the program, regular financial support, and intra-organizational participation. The Mensheviks accepted the program.

That's why my fourth condition is necessary: agreement with the one fundamental tenet/objective of SLD.


Again, you've identified a flaw in many CPs but are proposing a solution that has no bearing on the problem. To illustrate your logic in this example (as I see it)

1) Many CPs are overly cliquish and opaque
2) Some democratic-socialist parties have more transparent structures
3) A union of communist and democratic-socialist parties is desirable

Point 1 is obviously true but point 2 is far more questionable. Regardless, there is a huge gap in the your logic in arriving at the last step. Common sense suggests that if there is a flaw in the standard structure of CPs then we should seek to fix that by adapting a new structure. I've seen nothing, practical or theoretical, to convince me that a radical departure, back to a failed model, is necessary to achieve this

I'll address this later, cuz I've got work. :(

EDIT:

1) Workers have no central access to a transparent diversity of post-"social-democratic" views (again, the Lenin quotes in my USL article), which they need
2) Your first point is an understatement (caricature "DC") - "many" should read "most"
3) Well, definitely more transparent (PUBLIC post-decision criticisms, which the real DC can allow one moment and gag the next (http://www.revleft.com/vb/unity-action-freedom-t74836/index.html)), but more bureaucratic (top leadership leaning towards "social-democratic" opportunism), thus alienating lots of rank-and-file dem-socs
4) A folding of communist and "communist" parties into SLD, along with an influx of both disgruntled dem-socs and unorganized comrades (alienated because of #2), is desirable

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://www.colby.edu/personal/r/rmscheck/GermanyB4.html


The anti-socialist laws had strengthened but also radicalized and ostracized the socialist workers' movement. The fall of the anti-socialist laws in 1890 allowed the SPD to build up a centrally organized mass party. Membership grew impressively: 100,000 in 1890; 1.1 million in 1914. Votes rose as well: 1.4 million in 1891, 4.25 million in 1912 - from 19 to 34 percent of the overall vote. The SPD drew its strength from the big cities and industrial areas such as the Ruhr, Saxony, and Berlin. In Berlin 75% voted for the SPD in 1912. The SPD was underrepresented in rural and Catholic areas. The free (socialist) trade unions had 2.5 million members in 1914, more than twice the party's membership.

The SPD was a distinctive party. Whereas most bourgeois parties were rather informal associations with few permanent members and a minimal bureaucracy, the SPD became a home to its members and, together with the trade unions, formed a state within the state. The SPD and the socialist trade unions built up an extensive bureaucracy and formed an alternative cultural and social network. Working men and women joined Socialist clubs, sports teams, men's and women's choirs, and poetry groups; socialist associations and institutions existed for almost everything, from party or union-sponsored child care centers to funeral homes; working-class people read the party newspaper and many of the theoretical works by their leaders printed by socialist publishing houses; whenever they felt that the state-supported social security system proved insufficient they could join the union's health and accident insurance or draw from the union's poverty funds.

...

In 1890, the SPD wasn't really a "mass party," per se.

[ComradeOm]

I stand corrected on this technical issue, but what about the Democrats in the US today?What about them? Are the Democrats a mass party? I'd imagine so. This is not some party structure unique to socialist or communist groups. For example, the 1920s sa the organisation of counter-revolutionaries and reactionaries into fascist mass parties


The definition of "mass party" needs shifting. About one million SLD members in the US, at the current population level, is for me the breaking pointThe actual numbers involved are relatively unimportant. Its the shift in structure from small isolated cells (or circles) to political parties drawing on popular support and comprising a dedicated party apparatus. In short its the development of the modern political party. Compare the composition of the First International to that of the Second


I'll think about this in greater detail. Obviously at some point, as the organization grows, the first of the four conditions for "membership" has to be narrowed, bit by bitWhich is impossible if the reformist wing of the party remains a significant force. Any attempt by revolutionaries to narrow the membership criteria will be either blocked or met with a sizeable split. Either core ideals are comprised (ie, social revolution is no longer the party's goal) or the factions will got their separate ways

That's an issue that no amount of theory is going to explain away. If parties can split over ego or minor differences in theory then why stick to a doomed marriage such as you are suggesting? A unified SPD-esque party is simply an anachronism


Yeah, so my original question to you is: why would "social-democrats" be interested in "entering" the SLD when they've got the DSA and the USLP???No idea. Why did they join the SPD, RSDLP, or later CPs? That communist parties pick up liberal influences is an historical fact. All efforts should be directed at shielding the party from such potential membership... not inviting them in


Lenin had only three conditions: acceptance of (not agreement with) the programWhich brings me back to the previous question - will this new party call for social revolution in its party programme? And how can you maintain party unity if it does (or doesn't)


3) Well, definitely more transparent (PUBLIC post-decision criticisms, which the real DC can allow one moment and gag the next (http://www.revleft.com/vb/unity-action-freedom-t74836/index.html)), but more bureaucratic (top leadership leaning towards "social-democratic" opportunism), thus alienating lots of rank-and-file dem-socsI was going to comment on this when I did get round to typing up my notes on your work but I see its relevant here. Interesting analysis of the various party models (although I did note some historical inaccuracies) but the conclusion is, to put it mildly, underwhelming. Instead of proposing that the new party possess X structure, you suggest over two dozen possible 'combinations'


4) A folding of communist and "communist" parties into SLD, along with an influx of both disgruntled dem-socs and unorganized comrades (alienated because of #2), is desirableAgain, why? Simply to make up the numbers?


In 1890, the SPD wasn't really a "mass party," per se.How on earth do you arrive at that conclusion? That quote reads like the very definition of a mass party

[Die Neue Zeit]

What about them? Are the Democrats a mass party? I'd imagine so. This is not some party structure unique to socialist or communist groups. For example, the 1920s sa the organisation of counter-revolutionaries and reactionaries into fascist mass parties

Comrade, I'm not sure the Democrats have a real grassroots network, per se (at least as dedicated as that of the SPD, which had a Hezbollah-like "state within a state" organization).


Which is impossible if the reformist wing of the party remains a significant force. Any attempt by revolutionaries to narrow the membership criteria will be either blocked or met with a sizeable split. Either core ideals are comprised (ie, social revolution is no longer the party's goal) or the factions will got their separate ways

...

All efforts should be directed at shielding the party from such potential membership... not inviting them in

Again, how do you define "reformist"? The DeLeonist platform is an extreme version of the parliamentary road to power. There is also the "referendum road to socialism" (those advocated by LEFT-Chavistas). What about those advocating the "mass strikes road to socialism"? All three types advocate a social revolution (though they eschew armed insurrection as being part of the process).

Again, this is what separates the proper democratic-socialists from the "social-democrats."


Which brings me back to the previous question - will this new party call for social revolution in its party programme? And how can you maintain party unity if it does (or doesn't)

[United Social Labour / Social-Labour Democracy / Social Labour & Participatory Democracy WILL call for social revolution.]


Interesting analysis of the various party models (although I did note some historical inaccuracies)

I look forward to your nitpicking. :p ;) :D


Instead of proposing that the new party possess X structure, you suggest over two dozen possible 'combinations'

D1: GEN, FCT, or RES
UN: DIR, REP, or ORG
D2: PUB only

There are only nine possible combinations. :confused:

[ComradeOm]

All three types advocate a social revolution (though they eschew armed insurrection as being part of the process).The point is that social revolution is impossible without actual insurrection. In whatever form the latter might take. There is no "referendum road to socialism" and the state apparatus cannot simply be appropriated for the socialist cause. This is exactly why reformism is merely another form of revisionism and it is why the differences between social-democrats and democratic-socialists are entirely academic
:redstar2000:


D1: GEN, FCT, or RES
UN: DIR, REP, or ORG
D2: PUB only

There are only nine possible combinations. :confused:My mistake, I got my maths wrong :o

The point still stands though. You've dissected previous organisational models but fail to present an alternative, instead settling for nine possible combinations that could comprise wildly different models

[Die Neue Zeit]

The point is that social revolution is impossible without actual insurrection.

I realized that, even as I started this thread.


There is no "referendum road to socialism"

Indeed:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/participation-referenda-t79508/index.html


Referendums are a good idea in theory but a disaster in practice. Unfortunately, under "false consciousness" too many people feel better about themselves for voting in an authoritarian pattern on referenda.

Moreover, referendums are subject to considerable influence by the wealthy. I'm not saying direct democracy is a bad idea, only that right now the majority of workers are no longer in any decision making role




My mistake, I got my maths wrong :o

The point still stands though. You've dissected previous organisational models but fail to present an alternative, instead settling for nine possible combinations that could comprise wildly different models

Why have I "failed"?

Kautsky and Lenin's democratic centralism was quite flexible, having six possible combinations:

D1: FCT or RES
UN: REP
D2: PUB, INT, or 000

"Organizational proletocratism" is different in that a different set of combinations is used, combinations of which allow very public criticism of decisions that have already been made (not just limited to "inside the party").

It also has the benefit of retaining centrality while dumping "centralism" as a relic-turned-ideological-fetish.

[ComradeOm]

I realized that, even as I started this threadThen why are we having this discussion? You have yet to tell me how you can reconcile communism (or revolutionary socialism, if you will) with a revisionist 'movement' that eschews armed insurrection. In the end the choice between revolution and reformism is binary and with no room for compromise. You have yet to show why almost a century of this experience is wrong

In your work you define revolutionary Marxism as "the revolutionary merger of both the entire workers' movement and a 'Marxism' purged of reductionism, revisionism, and sectarianism" (Chapter 5)

Now leaving aside other issues with that statement, the most glaring point is that reformism (the inclusion of which you argue for in both that text and this post) is by definition a revisionist tendency. It cannot be accommodated within the workers' movement without compromising core Marxist tenants... such as actual revolution


It also has the benefit of retaining centrality while dumping "centralism" as a relic-turned-ideological-fetish.When I look at that matrix I see a host of different party models. I do not however see any recommendation model or prescription for future parties. Its an underwhelming conclusion

Incidentally I just received Broue's The German Revolution in the post. Its a weighty tome but I look forward to learning more about the emergence and split of the SPD. No doubt I'll be sharing some of this new found in this thread :)

[Die Neue Zeit]

In your work you define revolutionary Marxism as "the revolutionary merger of both the entire workers' movement and a 'Marxism' purged of reductionism, revisionism, and sectarianism" (Chapter 5)

Correct. :)


Now leaving aside other issues with that statement

Other issues? [We need to talk out of this board.]


the most glaring point is that reformism (the inclusion of which you argue for in both that text and this post) is by definition a revisionist tendency. It cannot be accommodated within the workers' movement without compromising core Marxist tenants... such as actual revolution

Comrade, you need to distinguish between United Social Labour / Social-Labour Democracy / Social Labour & Participatory Democracy on the one hand and Social Proletocracy on the other. In the latter, of course no revisionists would be allowed!

It is on organizational questions pertaining to the former that I advocate a "corrected" version of the SPD model ("corrected," again, meaning the inclusion of DeLeonists and other dem-socs while excluding social-fascists).


When I look at that matrix I see a host of different party models. I do not however see any recommendation model or prescription for future parties. Its an underwhelming conclusion

I don't think you get the emphasis on flexibility here. Except for "Comrade" Stalin's bureaucratic centralism, all the models in that chapter section have at least two possible combinations.




Incidentally I just received Broue's The German Revolution in the post. Its a weighty tome but I look forward to learning more about the emergence and split of the SPD. No doubt I'll be sharing some of this new found in this thread :)

I look forward to the history of the USPD, too. :)

[ComradeOm]

Comrade, you need to distinguish between United Social Labour / Social-Labour Democracy / Social Labour & Participatory Democracy on the one hand and Social Proletocracy on the other. In the latter, of course no revisionists would be allowed!So the party will not tolerate reformists (including democratic-socialists) or reformist tendencies? Again I must point out that democratic-socialism, and all currents that disavow revolution, is a form of revisionism


meaning the inclusion of DeLeonists and other dem-socsI guess not...


I don't think you get the emphasis on flexibility here. Except for "Comrade" Stalin's bureaucratic centralism, all the models in that chapter section have at least two possible combinationsBut there is a difference between 'flexibility' and not having a clear structure at all. What I would have expected from your analysis is a conclusion that evaluated the different combinations before suggesting one or two that would have been preferred over the others. Or alternatively a sketch as to how and why the party would go through so many radical structural changes

But then that's not particularly relevant to the point at hand

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ USL / CSSL / SLD / SLPD: revolutionary Marxists, undogmatic Trotskyists / Maoists / M-Ls, "anarcho-Marxists," typical democratic-socialists, DeLeonists, pareconists, "market socialists," etc.



SPD ("[b]Social-Abolitionism and Proletarian Democracy," though "Social Proletocracy" is to the point): revolutionary Marxists only (but to emerge only as a mass organization)

:)

[I think you didn't get my post above when you replied. I said that revisionists wouldn't be included in SPD, but then you confused their inclusion in USL / CSSL / SLD / SLPD with the notion of including them in the SPD.]

[Die Neue Zeit]

I read this recent letter in the Weekly Worker that has confirmed my musings:

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/757/letters.html

SPD model

David Taylor is, I’m afraid, part of the soup of Stalinist thinking from which communism needs to escape (Letters, January 29).

Lenin’s model for communist organisation was not the infallible dictatorship of an elite, imposing “full agreement on definite aims”, but the German SPD - a mass, working class, democratic party, in which various Marxist tendencies argued out policy in front of the working class and put their views to the vote. That gave the majority the right to specify action and the minority the duty to support that action, but also the right of criticism.

Moreover, the SPD organised sporting, cultural and social events within the class. It strove to serve and represent a working class that was conscious of its own interests and capable of expressing its own views. The aim was to enable the working class to act as a ruling class.

The idea was that if workers are told the truth they will both understand it and act upon it. So the party criticised sundry viewpoints, both from within the working class and from outside it, from a rational and scientific viewpoint rather than sweep ideas under the carpet.

So, yes, a communist party does differ radically from a bourgeois party. History demonstrates that this kind of model is not infallible, but it is the only approach that puts the working class in control.

Arthur Lawrence
email