Marx and the peaceful implementation of Socialism

[spartan]

So i was reading up on the Social Democrat Karl Kautsky and in his "The Dictatorship of the Proletariat" book in chapter two "Democracy and the conquest of political power" he quotes a speech by Marx made in 1872 at the congress of the international at the Hague in Holland in which he says:

The worker must one day capture political power in order to found the new organisation of labour. He must reverse the old policy, which the old institutions maintain, if he will not, like the Christians of old who despised and neglected such things, renounce the things of this world.

But we do not assert that the way to reach this goal is the same everywhere.

We know that the institutions, the manners and the customs of the various countries must be considered, and we do not deny that there are countries like England and America, and, if I understood your arrangements better, I might even add Holland, where the worker may attain his object by peaceful means. But not in all countries is this the case.

So as Socialists should we support in certain circumstances Socialist parties who want to gain power via the ballot box to implement Socialism?

Certainly Hugo Chavez has proved that not only can a Socialist party win elections it doesnt have to comnpromise with it's Socialist goals either when in power.

[dirtycommiebastard]

So as Socialists should we support some Socialist parties who want to gain power via the ballot box to implement Socialism?

If the Socialist Party is the institution though which the masses of the labour movement are expressing their discontent, then yes. Because the workers may believe that real change is possible through parliamentary means. It would be criminal to suggest that we should not support a socialist candidate over a bourgeois candidate if the workers are the ones pushing for the election of the leader of the Socialist Party.

We have to use government positions to influence the working class, even though the establishment of socialism is virtually impossible from the top down, as a true establishment of socialism will occur because workers from the bottom will be the ones to take action.

[Demogorgon]

When Socialism is possible by peaceful means, we must support it. Indeed in circumstances when it is only possible by violent means, we must view violence as being a necessary evil, rather than anything to be savoured.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Spartan, you need to realize that "The Dictatorship of the Proletariat" was written when the very founder of "Marxism" himself had long since turned into a RENEGADE:

The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/prrk/index.htm)

[Die Neue Zeit]

If the Socialist Party is the institution though which the masses of the labour movement are expressing their discontent, then yes. Because the workers may believe that real change is possible through parliamentary means. It would be criminal to suggest that we should not support a socialist candidate over a bourgeois candidate if the workers are the ones pushing for the election of the leader of the Socialist Party.

We have to use government positions to influence the working class, even though the establishment of socialism is virtually impossible from the top down, as a true establishment of socialism will occur because workers from the bottom will be the ones to take action.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1174724&postcount=8


In regards to the class struggle itself, this class struggle must not be carried out within parliamentary organs. Material developments have closed the door to the parliamentary option, contrary to Kautsky’s parliamentary reductionism. This chapter section was written shortly after the 40th anniversary of the death of Martin Luther King Jr. In his time, the development of the media came to a point wherein minimum demands (to be revisited as a concept later) could be achieved by "demanding" from outside (most notably through publicized civil disobedience). Today, even more non-parliamentary channels have emerged (for the benefit of even genuine reformists), in the form of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and of course the Internet. Of course, the only form of “parliamentarianism” that would be acceptable is the kind that would exist in the emerging organs of workers' power themselves, akin to soviets, workplace committees, and non-bourgeois communal councils. Building these alternative organs – a common task for both revolutionaries and genuine reformists within the United Social Labour organization (the Mensheviks did indeed help to build the soviets in 1917) – is not just for the post-revolution environment, but also for reminding working-class people everywhere of the class struggle: that things are changing for the better.

As for the prospects of parliamentarianism, which should be treated by workers with utter contempt through coordinated mass spoilage (as opposed to abstention, which reinforces the bourgeois notion that abstainers are either stupid or content), even bourgeois-oriented academics are increasingly worried about the state of bourgeois “democracy” sliding into authoritarian capitalism. Over the past several decades, more and more power has accumulated within factually non-accountable sectors of the executive branch. In the United States, this would be the “imperial presidency”: a shift in subordinate executive power from the Cabinet to the president’s “Executive Office” (headed by the Chief of Staff). In Westminster-model countries, the legislative power has become increasingly one of a rubber-stamping function of the executive policies (even under minority-government scenarios), and there has been a similar shift in subordinate executive power from the Cabinet to the “Prime Minister’s Office.” Nowadays, there is no difference between parties in opposition and parties outside parliament, save for the fact that non-Marxist opposition parties receive electoral funding from bourgeois elements.



You may wish to check out the Theory thread on "Social Democracy," where Comrade mikelepore and I are debating:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/social-democracy-and-t81767/index.html


Ever heard of Augusto Pinochet? :( At this revolutionary point, the bourgeoisie could care less about the legality of the "parliamentary road to power," and will VIOLENTLY attempt to suppress the revolution. Either way, there WILL be blood spilled.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Spartan, if you've actually ever read the whole of the speech you'd know that Marx went on to say that:


This being the case, we must also recognize the fact that in most countries on the Continent the lever of our revolution must be force; it is force to which we must some day appeal in order to erect the rule of labor.

This is not to say that I deny that in this instance Marx may have been entertaining social-democratic fantasies, rather in this case I think he was sadly mistaken as I explain below.


So as Socialists should we support in certain circumstances Socialist parties who want to gain power via the ballot box to implement Socialism?

Marx is correct in saying that revolution will take different forms in different times and places, however, this should not amount to a support for parliamentary participation.

Power can not be gained by the proletariat via the ballot box. This is the case for several reasons.

Firstly, it is important to acknowledge the nature of parliament. Unlike Kautsky and the Social-Democrats like to maintain, along with Pluralists and the like, parliament is in no way represents a pure democracy which is a-class. Parliament is first and foremost an organ of bourgeois rule. To suggest that the proletariat as a class can seize power via organs of bourgeois rule.

Further, the very nature of parliamentary democracy places power in the hands of individual representatives and not the class as a whole. To encourage parliamentarianism is to encourage the proletariat to put their faith in their socialist Messiah's and to passively put their hands in their pockets, being content with writing numbers on a peice of
paper every 4 years.


I am not a Labor Leader; I do not want you to follow me or anyone else; if you are looking for a Moses to lead you out of this capitalist wilderness, you will stay right where you are. I would not lead you into the promised land if I could, because if I lead you in, some one else would lead you out. You must use your heads as well as your hands, and get yourself out of your present condition.

Voting is not a revolutionary act, it does not put power in the hands of the workers, it does the opposite and encourages the masses to be passive and obedient.

Certainly no one here will deny the need to smash state power and not simply capture it. The capitalist state machinery can not be wielded in the name of the proletariat or even fine tuned, it must be smashed.
Did Marx not right in his Civil War in France:


But the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.


The centralized state power, with its ubiquitous organs of standing army, police, bureaucracy, clergy, and judicature — organs wrought after the plan of a systematic and hierarchic division of labor — originates from the days of absolute monarchy, serving nascent middle class society as a mighty weapon in its struggle against feudalism.


Certainly Hugo Chavez has proved that not only can a Socialist party win elections it doesnt have to comnpromise with it's Socialist goals either when in power.

I would not call Chavez anything more than a bourgeois social-democrat appeasing the masses with his fight for "socialism in the 21st century" and "anti-imperialism"


If the Socialist Party is the institution though which the masses of the labour movement are expressing their discontent, then yes. Because the workers may believe that real change is possible through parliamentary means. It would be criminal to suggest that we should not support a socialist candidate over a bourgeois candidate if the workers are the ones pushing for the election of the leader of the Socialist Party.

So instead of acting to imbue the proletariat with a revolutionary class consciousness, the communists should be acting to appease them and use the masses to their political advantage?


We have to use government positions to influence the working class, even though the establishment of socialism is virtually impossible from the top down, as a true establishment of socialism will occur because workers from the bottom will be the ones to take action.

As I have said above, ticking boxes on a ballot paper every 4 years is not "taking action". Further, to suggest that communists will be able to influence the workers from the seat of government is quite laughable. Workers must be influenced on the ground, not radicalised for the top down.

[dirtycommiebastard]

I would not call Chavez anything more than a bourgeois social-democrat appeasing the masses with his fight for "socialism in the 21st century" and "anti-imperialism" I don't think any Marxist or Anarchist would disagree with you. Your point though serves no purpose, because, at the present moment, he IS the leadership of the proletarian movement in Venezuela and until another leadership replaces him (a real vanguard) he will continue to do what he thinks is best for his 'socialism of the 21st century'.

So instead of acting to imbue the proletariat with a revolutionary class consciousness, the communists should be acting to appease them and use the masses to their political advantage?

I never implied that. My implication was that as a Communist, if a position of power within parliamentary means is within your grasp, you should take it to further influence the mass movement as top-down change cannot actually create socialism.



As I have said above, ticking boxes on a ballot paper every 4 years is not "taking action". Further, to suggest that communists will be able to influence the workers from the seat of government is quite laughable. Workers must be influenced on the ground, not radicalised for the top down. Thats complete idealism and is completely divorced from materialism. To deny that Chavez for example is playing a role in inspiring workers is what is actually laughable.

Actual revolution, as in the abolition of capitalism and the establishment of socialism will not occur because one President says so. It has to be done by the oppressed class and I am not denying this, but Chavez' progress in Venezuela is commendable as a reformist and he should be critically supported while still pushing for real Socialist alternatives from he bottom. You will never convince the workers of Venezuela of your ideas by slandering their leader but I guess actual concepts of reality are beyond left-communists.

[Niccolò Rossi]

I don't think any Marxist or Anarchist would disagree with you. Your point though serves no purpose, because, at the present moment, he IS the leadership of the proletarian movement in Venezuela and until another leadership replaces him (a real vanguard) he will continue to do what he thinks is best for his 'socialism of the 21st century'.

Huh? O I see, my point was useless and yours was immensely illuminating...

The point I was making was that Chavez's "socialism of the 21st century" is not an example of a successful parliamentary, peaceful socialism which Spartan was making it out to be. Further, the fact that he is the current leadership of the Venezuelan proletariat is irrelevant to this discussion. The fact is he doe snot represent a successful example of a so-called "peaceful revolution"


I never implied that. My implication was that as a Communist, if a position of power within parliamentary means is within your grasp, you should take it to further influence the mass movement as top-down change cannot actually create socialism.May I ask how taking governemnt positions increase their mass influence? How exactly are parliamentary matters and the day-to-day runnings of the state matter close to the proletariat. The way the communists can increase their mass influence is by engaging in educational and agitational work on the ground in the midst of the masses, not elevated to the position of hostile power we seek to destroy.


Thats complete idealism and is completely divorced from materialism. To deny that Chavez for example is playing a role in inspiring workers is what is actually laughable.1. I was not making the case that Chavez is not playing a leading role for the Venezuelan proletariat. As I said above, I was merely attacking Spartans suggestion that his regime is a successful example of "peaceful revolution".


2. Slapping me with labels such as “Idealist” adds no credit what so ever to your misrepresentation of my argument, all it makes you look is desperate. Argue on the merits of the case, don't throw about words like their going out of fashion.


You will never convince the workers of Venezuela of your ideas by slandering their leader but I guess actual concepts of reality are beyond left-communists. O my, I thought we might avoid the name calling, such a shame to see you stoop so low.
;)

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Comrade, since you've noted my Pinochet example, I would also like to note THE most successful example of peaceful revolution to date: the social-democratic "October Revolution" (November 7, 1917) itself! :D


How exactly are parliamentary matters and the day-to-day runnings of the state matter close to the proletariat?

You should also note the Enabling Law in effect, which has given Chavez powers to legislate by decree, thereby rendering the National Assembly lazy on at least some matters. :lol:

[Ol' Dirty]

Peaceful revolution is a superb means to the socialistic end, but I doubt that that revolution would come through the ballot box, at least primarily. it's said that if voting could change anything, it would be illegal. Nonviolent struggle against the state apparatus would be far more effective than voting alone. In certain contexts, voting could be a convenient tool to use, but nonviolent direct action would most likely be more effective.

It can be argued that in some cases, transarmament, nonviolent struggle against capital and popular revolution is more effective than violence alone, primarily, or at all:

A primary weakness of the capitalist system is that the bourgeoisie depends upon the proletariat to create virtually everything: from agricultural tools, heavy industrial equipment, to weapons and consumer goods. A great asset of the proletarian class is its capability to simply strangle the bourgeoisie with very little violence at all. Should the 90% or more of the working people in a society simply refuse to work for the bourgeoisie, then capitalism essentially starves, shrivels and chokes to death.

A Kalashnikov is a perfect instrument of war, but it is essentially limited to its primary, planned function: destruction. A mass of guerillas armed with RPG-7's and AK’s can be demonized incredibly by big money, the church and the state. As the bourgeoisie controls the means of communication, it can easily propagandize an armed workers movement as 'criminals' and 'terrorists,' regardless of the intentions of said movement.

It is far more difficult, however, to demonize millions of women, children and the elderly of different cultures and backgrounds with their fists in the air, peacefully demanding progressive change. (I apologize for any way this can be deemed as sexist, but it still far easier to elicit compassion from a picture of a woman than a man, as men are, on average, stronger and more physically powerful.)

A nonviolent struggle that paralyzes the capitalist machine is perhaps more effective than one that violently demands progressive change, at least in some circumstances.

There are, of course, times when a violent struggle is necessary to disable a belligerent force that aims to kill innocents. In some cases, it is important to engage a dangerous threat with weapons. Still, using violence should be a movements last option, rather than its first.

[Sam_b]

I think, as some comrades have already said, that we need to make a distinction between achieving socialism through the ballot box (thus 'reformism' of bourgeois democracy) and participating within the political system. I myself have absolutely no problems with the latter as a tactic, reasons being twofold:

- That participation raises our profile (though not replacing groundwork of course)

- That legislation and reforms can be attempted to be put through, benefitting workers.

Neither of these, however, should mean sacrifcing organisational building, and the work that we do within workplaces and working class communities. Lenin and the Bolsheviks recognised this in their relationship to the Provisional government.

Ultimately, we do not know in what form a revolution will take place: be it with guns, or as Jacob said, like what happened in the October Revolution. However, it is clear that it will not come through some sort of socialist 'government'. We reject bourgeois democracy as voting between several established parties every four or five years doesn't change anything and certainly isn't people's power; so why this method to socialism would be advocated is beyond me.

[mikelepore]

Power can not be gained by the proletariat via the ballot box. This is the case for several reasons.

Firstly, it is important to acknowledge the nature of parliament. Unlike Kautsky and the Social-Democrats like to maintain, along with Pluralists and the like, parliament is in no way represents a pure democracy which is a-class. Parliament is first and foremost an organ of bourgeois rule. To suggest that the proletariat as a class can seize power via organs of bourgeois rule.

I think that's nonsense. How could those political offices be organs of bourgeois rule if the people were to elect Marxists to a majority of those offices? That would make the institutions, which have been organs of bourgeous rule all the way up until today, now cease to be organs of bourgeous rule. The very thing that makes them organ of bourgeois rule is the fact that the majority of the people have so far continued to believe in bourgeois values and have voted accordingly.


Further, the very nature of parliamentary democracy places power in the hands of individual representatives and not the class as a whole. To encourage parliamentarianism is to encourage the proletariat to put their faith in their socialist Messiah's and to passively put their hands in their pockets, being content with writing numbers on a peice of
paper every 4 years.

More nonsense. Either the laws that say the capitalists are the rightful owners of the means of production will be repealed or they will not be repealed. This is a binary choice, do or don't. The thing that's consistent with Marxism is to repeal them. That requires electing Marxists to the legislature. If we don't, capitalism continues as before, forever.


Voting is not a revolutionary act, it does not put power in the hands of the workers, it does the opposite and encourages the masses to be passive and obedient.

There is no sign of obedience or passivity in voting for a political platform to declare the property rights of the ruling class to be null and void and to transfer the means of production to the workers' organization.


Certainly no one here will deny the need to smash state power and not simply capture it. The capitalist state machinery can not be wielded in the name of the proletariat or even fine tuned, it must be smashed.

That's worse than nonsense. It's dangerous and suicidal nonsense. Am I the only one around here who has noticed that the state has tanks, mortar, flame throwers and machine guns? There can be no such thing as "smashing" the state. The only possible way for a Marxist revolution to dismantle the state is first to get elected to be the people who control it.


How exactly are parliamentary matters and the day-to-day runnings of the state matter close to the proletariat.

I guess you got off on quite a tangent there, because the original poster asked about Marx's speech at the Hague, which said nothing about the day-to-day running of state matters. It was about doing the civilized thing instead of the barbaric thing, waiting for the majority of the people to adopt a political mandate to approve of revolutionary change, so that the revolutionary transformation can be made peacefully.

[Niccolò Rossi]

To preface my reply I should make clear some definitions. LovelyShadeOfRed made an important point in that a "peaceful revolution" does not have to equate to parliamentary reformism. We could well imagine a "peaceful revolution" carried through via the mass strike (violence may be necessary at some point in the real world but this is a hypothetical). Such a tactic for a "peaceful revolution" is certainly geared toward the proletarian masses more so than any small band of armed "revolutionaries" engaging in an insurrection.

However, Marx's speech at The Hague in 1972 to the IWA was nothing short of an endorsement of parliamentarianism. This is the subject of debate, whether Marx was correct in saying that revolution can be achieved by the ballot box.


I think that's nonsense. How could those political offices be organs of bourgeois rule if the people were to elect Marxists to a majority of those offices? That would make the institutions, which have been organs of bourgeous rule all the way up until today, now cease to be organs of bourgeous rule. The very thing that makes them organ of bourgeois rule is the fact that the majority of the people have so far continued to believe in bourgeois values and have voted accordingly


If I may quote Pannekoek



But let us assume that a large number of people are elected by the masses as the representatives of their true intentions and are sent to parliament. They meet there, but soon realize that the parliament does not govern; it only has the mission of passing the laws, but does not implement them. In the bourgeois State there is a separation of powers between making and executing the laws. The parliament possesses only the first power, while it is the second power which is really determinate; the real power, that of implementing the laws, is in the hands of the bureaucracy and the departments of the State, at whose summit is the government executive as the highest authority. This means that, in the democratic countries, the government personnel, the ministers, are designated by the parliamentary majority. In reality, however, they are not elected, they are nominated, behind closed doors with a lot of skullduggery and wheeling and dealing, by the leaders of the parties with a parliamentary majority. Even if there were to be an aspect of popular will manifested in the parliament, this would still not hold true in the government.
In the personnel staffing the government offices, the popular will is to be found only—and there, in a weakened form mixed with other influences—alongside bureaucratism, which directly rules and dominates the people. But even the ministers are almost powerless against the organizations of the bureaucracy, who are nominally subordinate to them. The bureaucracy pulls all the strings and does all the work, not the ministers. It is the bureaucrats who remain in office and are still there when the next batch of elected politicians arrives in office. They rely on the ministers to defend them in parliament and to authorize funding for them, but if the ministers cross them, they will make life impossible for them.
This is the whole meaning of the social democratic concept of the workers being able to take power and overthrow capitalism by means of the normal rule of general suffrage. Do they really think they can make anyone believe that all of these functionaries, office workers, department administrators, confidential advisors, judges and officials high and low, will be capable of carrying out any sort of change on behalf of the freedom of the proletariat at the behest of the likes of Ebert and Scheidemann, or Dittmann and Ledebour? The bureaucracy, at the highest levels, belongs to the same class as the exploiters of the workers, and in its middle layers as well as in its lowest ranks its members all enjoy a secure and privileged position compared to the rest of the population. This is why they feel solidarity with the ruling layers which belong to the bourgeoisie, and are linked to them by a thousand invisible ties of education, family relationships and personal connections.
Perhaps the social democratic leaders have come to believe that, by taking the place of the previous government ministers, they could pave the way to socialism by passing new laws. In reality, however, nothing has changed in the State apparatus and the system of power as a result of this change of government personnel. And the fact that these gentlemen do not want to admit that this is indeed the case is proven by the fact that their only concern has been to occupy the government posts, believing that, with this change of personnel, the revolution is over. This is made equally clear by the fact that the modern organizations created by the proletariat have, under their leadership, a statist character and smell about them, like the State but on a smaller scale: the former servants, now officials, have promoted themselves to masters; they have created a dense bureaucracy, with its own interests, which displays—in an even more accentuated form—the character of the bourgeois parliaments at the commanding heights of their respective parties and groups, which only express the impotence of the masses of their memberships.
Are we therefore saying that the use of parliament and the struggle for democracy is a false tactic of social democracy? We all know that, under the rule of a powerful and still unchallenged capitalism, the parliamentary struggle can be a means of arousing and awakening class consciousness, and has indeed done so, and even Liebknecht used it that way during the war. But it is for that very reason that the specific character of democratic parliamentarism cannot be ignored. It has calmed the combative spirit of the masses, it has inculcated them with the false belief that they were in control of the situation and squelched any thoughts of rebellion which may have arisen among them. It performed invaluable services for capitalism, allowing it to develop peacefully and without turmoil. Naturally, capitalism had to adopt the especially harmful formula of deceit and demagogy in the parliamentary struggle, in order to fulfill its aim of driving the population to insanity. And now the parliamentary democracy is performing a yet greater service for capitalism, as it is enrolling the workers organizations in the effort to save capitalism.
Capitalism has been quite considerably weakened, materially and morally, during the world war, and will only be able to survive if the workers themselves once again help it to get back on its feet. The social democratic labor leaders are elected as government ministers, because only the authority inherited from their party and the mirage of the promise of socialism could keep the workers pacified, until the old State order could be sufficiently reinforced. This is the role and the purpose of democracy, of parliamentary democracy, in this period in which it is not a question of the advent of socialism, but of its prevention. Democracy cannot free the workers, it can only plunge them deeper into slavery, diverting their attention from the genuine path to freedom; it does not facilitate but blocks the revolution, reinforcing the bourgeoisie's capacity for resistance and making the struggle for socialism a more difficult, costly and time-consuming task for the proletariat.


More nonsense. Either the laws that say the capitalists are the rightful owners of the means of production will be repealed or they will not be repealed. This is a binary choice, do or don't. The thing that's consistent with Marxism is to repeal them. That requires electing Marxists to the legislature. If we don't, capitalism continues as before, forever.


The choice is binary, you are correct, however I don't believe that the existing property relations can simply be repealed by parliamentary decree.


There is no sign of obedience or passivity in voting for a political platform to declare the property rights of the ruling class to be null and void and to transfer the means of production to the workers' organization.


The problem is not the ends but the means. Parliamentary participation encourages the proletariat to put it's faith in it's labour leaders, it's “democratically” elected messiahs who promise to liberate them from oppression. It encourages them to stuff their hands in their pockets and leave the work to their representatives.


I must apologise for my inability to make a more thorough response, my thoughts are scattered at the present moment. I would suggest you read Social Democracy and Communsim (1927) and Chapter 6 – Democracy of Workers Councils.

[Ol' Dirty]

Zeitgeist makes a superb point: though electoral politics does have the potential to agitate the working classes, the primary focus of a revolutionary movement should be on direct action. Excessive reliance on electoral politics can dilute a groups substance and turn it into slacktivists, or armchair revolutionaries. It would be dangerous to underestimate the power of many people taking to the streets.

[Die Neue Zeit]

One of the central themes of my work-in-progress is PROPER communication as a means to faciltate the revolutionary merger of Marxism and the workers' movement.

I've read p. 72 and 73 of Lars Lih's Lenin Rediscovered (courtesy of Google Books), and the author had this to say about the parliamentary ("talking shop") TACTIC:


One central forum for this activity was parliament. We sometimes tend to equate "parliamentary activity with mild-mannered reformism. But, at the end of the nineteenth century, when oratory in general and parliamentary oratory in particular was much more popular and prestigious than today, the SPD's use of the parliamentary forum was an essential means of taking its stand and spreading its message...

The existence of parliament and especially the right of interpellation (the right of an ordinary member to demand an answer of a cabinet minister on any topic) allowed small parliamentary minorities to obtain a nation-wide hearing for their criticism of the government...

Another weapon used by the SPD in its role as people's tribune - one of central importance to Lenin and Iskra - was what Lenin called political indictments: the exposure of corruption and scandal. Uncovering abuses, often with the help of sympathetic whistle-blowers who passed on incriminating documents, was a major activity of the socialist press.



In today's parliaments, with various "rules" that limit oppositional questioning ("Question Periods" in British parliamentary systems), what's the point of "talking shop" tactics?