fifth international

[reddevil]

do we need one? i heard chavez wanted to create one, although it would not be revolutionary in character.

[Wanted Man]

There is already one, and it has already had a split. :laugh:

[reddevil]

where can i go 2 get some more info on it?

[Wanted Man]

Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_for_the_Fifth_International).

Of course, this is not the same thing that Chávez envisions. This is basically just another trotskyist splinter. Personally, I'm not sure if a "Fifth International" is needed. Certainly, it's not the name that I would use for it, it's becoming a bit of a sad joke now.

What matters, in my opinion, is to improve the contacts between the communist parties, which is exactly what they are doing. Such a thing is much more important than just having a fancy name for some tiny sect, or a populistic hobby horse for Mr Chávez.

[Tower of Bebel]

We need a Revolutionary International Working Class Party. We don't need a loose Internationale anymore, yet we do have to retrace or steps and dare question organizational concepts like democratic centralism and the vanguard party.

[Red October]

we do have to retrace or steps and dare question organizational concepts like democratic centralism and the vanguard party.

How would this be done while being considered Leninists? What would be put in it's place?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Rakunin:


We need a Revolutionary International Working Class Party. We don't need a loose Internationale anymore, yet we do have to retrace or steps and dare question organizational concepts like democratic centralism and the vanguard party.

Well, the petty bourgeois 'leaders' we have had for the last 150 or so years, coupled with the mystical theory that has colonised the brains of most Marxists, has not helped. And this is not likely to change while comrades view the world through ruling-class eyes.

[Tower of Bebel]

How would this be done while being considered Leninists? What would be put in it's place?
I mean a mechanism that would allow permanent criticism instead of unquestionable truths (it is an international organization, it involves millions of workers!): "Marxism is a revolutionary worldview that must always struggle for new revelations. Marxism must abhor nothing so much as the possibility that it becomes congealed in its current form. It is at its best when butting heads in self-criticism, and in historical thunder and lightning, it retains its strength" (Rosa Luxemburg). Which means I can appreciate Rosa lichtenstein's attempts to criticize one of such "truths", yet I don't always agree with the conclusions.

But maybe that's just me.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ "Permanent criticism": Comrade, I like that descriptive term for post-decision criticisms not being gagged (since most of them pertain to "party statements," "party lines," etc. and not to proper actions):

http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/organization/lenin_in_context.htm


Later Lenin clarified how tolerant of political disagreements his concept of democratic centralism was. He wrote "The principle of democratic centralism and autonomy for local Party organizations implies universal and full freedom to criticize so long as this does not disturb the unity of a definite action; it rules out all criticisms which disrupts or makes difficult the unity of a definite action; it rules out all criticisms which disrupts or makes difficult the unity of an action decided on by the Party." Nowhere does Lenin suggest that democratic centralism applies to doctrine. Every member would of course have his or her interpretation of political questions, but once a decision had been made to build a strike or a demonstration, etc., it was incumbent upon each member to concentrate on building the action.



I will also insist that certain definite actions SHOULD be subject to public criticism (especially if "entryism" is deemed to be such), including elections (since direct proposal initatives work better for minimum demands, methinks).