Autonomism and other "new" tendency's

[Sasha]

if i read threads like these (http://www.revleft.com/vb/anarchists-obsession-state-t91875/index.html) and a lot of the other threads on this board it seems to me that a lot of people are theoreticly stuck at some point in the 1920's or 30's. This when both marxist as anarchist theory has devoloped further in the last decades and spawned intresting movements and thinkers.

I for one am realy intrested in the autonomist tendency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomism), am i alone in that?
and if so, what other recent tendencys or writers are writing sensible stuff about the stuation today instead of about tsaristic russia or shit like that.

[jaffe]

I'm really interested in autonomia and situationism. Unfortunatly autonomism in the netherlands is nothing more than dressing up black, looking mad and saying you're against (what?:confused:) for a lot of people.

[bcbm]

Unfortunatly autonomism in the netherlands is nothing more than dressing up black, looking mad and saying you're against (what?http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/confused1.gif) for a lot of people.

You forgot squatting. ;)

[manic expression]

The thing is that the game hasn't significantly changed since the early 1900's. After the development of imperialism, capitalism and class conflict has followed much the same patterns. It's a cop-out to say old theories are worthless just because they're old; if you show me how they're outdated you might have a point (interestingly enough, no one seems capable of doing this), but until then you don't. What Marx and Lenin wrote is still 100% relevant today, and if you doubt that you don't understand it enough.

However, to say that most are living in the 20's is incorrect because just about everyone in the Leninist camp has been struggling over the fall of the USSR, what it means and how to move forward, as well as the nature of the ongoing crash, the elections, etc. Your theory is essentially out of touch with what most communist movements are actually doing today.

http://www.sacp.org.za/docs/history/failed.html
http://marxists.catbull.com/history//international/comintern/sections/sacp/1990/slovo-critique.htm

Articles and discussions such as these have been put out around the world by socialists, and they've created quite a stir and will continue to do so. To imply that no one is talking about new developments is not only a strawman, it shows a complete naivete when it comes to the left in general.

And on "new" tendencies, most have very little relevance. Situationism had its time in the sun, and now it is, as you said, an "interesting" subject to be discussed in academia and nowhere else. I might pay attention to situationism or autonomism if they ever warrant attention, but that has not been the case.

[Sasha]

i'm not saying marxist or leninst theory is obsolete i'm saying that it progressed and evolved.
its like philosophy, nietsche and kant said very true, usefull and intresting stuf but that doesn't mean you shouldn't study adorno too.

for me a political theory is a means in the strugle not an end. i have a feeling that for some (espacely ML's) it became an religion.
Marx is god, das kapital is his bible and lenin is his prophet. (only kidding.... kind of)

[Junius]

What impresses you about autonomism in particular? Have you read much of what Negri has to say? I've read a couple of things, for example, Multitudes or the Working Class? and it seems vague. I think autonomists are mainly anarchists who like some of what Marx has to say and decide to call themselves autonomists because it sounds anti-Leninist and has an 'anarchist' feeling to it. A comrade told me that it had Maoist roots, which explains a bit of what they have to say. Seems more of an academic strand than something which has real-world relevance.

[Sasha]

firstly, the autonomist movement is without a doubt the most prominent (or vocal) group on the radical left in germany, holland, denmark, italy and greece so i think that they do have an real-worl relevance.

i havent read a lot of the theory yet but the idea that through strugle and direct action you can already both make everyday life better and set the stage for an revolutionary momentum at the sametime is sommething that realy apeals to me.
most ML groups i encountered are either realy focused on the unions (wich i find frustrating becuase they fail to regonise the trend towards precarity) or selling newspapers and organising discussion groups.
I have the feeling a lot of these groups, how well intentioned they might be, are waiting till christmas and easter fall on the same day and don't get anything substancial done in the meantime.
I want to get bussy and get my hands dirty, no mather on how small the scale.

i think that the fact that the only times i realy ever have the time to read in-dept political theory is when i'm in jail is kind of an example on how i look towards the revolutionary struggle.

[Junius]

Originally posted by psycho
firstly, the autonomist movement is without a doubt the most prominent (or vocal) group on the radical left in germany, holland, denmark, italy and greece so i think that they do have an real-worl relevance.I don't know much about Europe, but I'm not sure. At least in Greece, I know the Leninist parties are pretty prominent. This also depends on what you define as autonomism. Is the Black Block an autonomist group according to you? RAAN? Anti-fascism? Looking at the groups listed on the wikipedia page, they seem really to be little more than anarchist trends. Of course you can argue that Leninists are not part of the radical trend...


Originally posted by psycho
i havent read a lot of the theory yet but the idea that through strugle and direct action you can already both make everyday life better and set the stage for an revolutionary momentum at the sametime is sommething that realy apeals to me.What does this 'direct action' entail and how does it promote revolutionary momentum?


Originally posted by psycho
most ML groups i encountered are either realy focused on the unions (wich i find frustrating becuase they fail to regonise the trend towards precarity)Yes, Left Communists are opposed to the unions too.


Originally posted by psycho
or selling newspapers and organising discussion groups.I think these are important things; not necessarily selling as many newspapers as you can, but certainly getting your ideas out there, and debating them.


Originally posted by psycho
I want to get bussy and get my hands dirty, no mather on how small the scale. What about work-place organising? Strikes and so forth?


Originally posted by psycho
i think that the fact that the only times i realy ever have the time to read in-dept political theory is when i'm in jail is kind of an example on how i look towards the revolutionary struggle.Fair enough. :blink: I used to be a bit 'anti-theory' like you, then I realized that without studying the theory and history of the communist movement, its a bit like wondering in the dark. If anything, we should learn from those mistakes...

[Pogue]

Autonomism is the ideology that the working class can overthrow capitalism free of any external organisation i.e. no unions, parties, etc, but will organise themselves spontaneously in a directly led workers (workers in autonomous theory being pretty much anyone who is not part of the ruling class) revolution, in which power will be directly transferred to their self-made community organisations.

Its outlined well in the comic strip TinTin: Breaking Free which Comrade Joe has a link too. I think the whole theory is a relevant response to the failures of vanguardism.
It's pretty much very similar to anarchism, like sometimes its called the anarcho-autonomie movement and stuff, I think theres some slight differences though.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I'm an Autonomist.

[YSR]

Yeah, I definitely identify as part of the autonomist marxian tradition. In one of history's odd twists, a disproportionate number of the workers in my local IWW group are as well.

I think some of the best introductory work to autonomism is Harry Cleaver, particular his "Reading Capital Politically. There are some problems with the direction that some of the autonomists have gone in the post-operaismo tradition, particularly Negri's latest works. At this point, Negri isn't even a Marxist or anything else approaching a revolutionary. But I don't think he represents the "main figure" in autonomism or operaismo ("workerism" in Italian) intellectually or politically.

For classic operaist pieces, I'd check out Mario Tronti's "The Strategy of Refusal." I've heard good things about his "Lenin in England" but haven't checked out. Also see Sergio Bologna and Bifo for classic Italian operaist works. In terms of more contemporary work, I really like Harry Cleaver, like I said. Also the work of Colectivos Situaciones from Argentina (trans. to English in some places by a friend of mine) and Precarias a la Deriva from Spain.


A comrade told me that it had Maoist roots, which explains a bit of what they have to say. Seems more of an academic strand than something which has real-world relevance.

Wouldn't agree. While some academics have become big supporters, it's not a movement like other strands of Marxian thought. It's a mode of analysis, which may be why some its louder voices are academics. But for what Marxian tradition isn't that true for?


Unfortunatly autonomism in the netherlands is nothing more than dressing up black, looking mad and saying you're against (what?http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/confused1.gif) for a lot of people.

Don't know much about that (although squatting rules!) but I think there is a difference between autonomism as a movement that exists primarily in Germany and the Netherlands, and autonomism as a theory of working class history and praxis that has its roots in Italy.

[BobKKKindle$]

Negri's main theoretical flaw is that his analysis of global capitalism (as explained in 'Empire') rejects the possibility of conflict between rival imperialist powers as it, as it portrays contemporary capitalism as a system without definite centres of power on an international level, and according to Negri firms are not tied to any specific nation-state. This is problematic, as the inevitability of inter-imperialist conflict was one of the key conclusions that Lenin reached through his own analysis, and an assertion that has been disproved by recent events such as the proxy conflict in Georgia, which derived from the imperialist antagonisms between the United States and Russia, as well as the ongoing tensions between the United States and some members of the European Union over the invasion of Iraq. On the broader issue of ideological developments within the left, the "new left" movement of the 1960s highlighted the oppression of a range of social groups including women and homosexuals, and so broadened the scope of radical discourse beyond a narrow focus on class - an important ideological development which has been reflected in the shift in emphasis away from solely economic concerns and towards other issues such as abortion rights and sexual freedom.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Negri's "Empire" is, to a large extent, a rehash of the old "ultra-imperialism" proposed by a certain renegade.

On the other hand, the monopolization of all B2B and B2C credit in the hands of a single transnational bank under absolute public ownership is a useful "transitional demand" (as Lenin himself pointed out that Pangaea-like "ultra-imperialism" is hypothetically possible under very extraordinary conditions).

[Sasha]

just went on a retail therapy shopping spree and bought a ton of books, including a book about the autonomus theory of negri (lets call it the italian autonomism) and this book from AKpress wich seems mostly about the german/dutch/danish tradition autonomen.
now if i would only have time to read them....

[YSR]

Again, Negri's Empire is Marxist in language only and, while interesting, not a representative of the Autonomist school. Negri's earlier work is equally difficult to understand, but is considerably more revolutionary in character.

But again, what makes autonomism interesting is that it doesn't have a single "voice" representing it. Negri should not be taken as the "representative" of autonomist thought.

[Bilan]

I heard negri's "Marx beyond Marx" was really good.
I don't identify as an autonomist marxist, but it seems to sound alot like me anyway.

[Rascolnikova]

I for one am realy intrested in the autonomist tendency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomism), am i alone in that?
and if so, what other recent tendencys or writers are writing sensible stuff about the stuation today instead of about tsaristic russia or shit like that.

Check out Zizek. He uses current cultural analysis and argues for re-politicization of the economy--this strategy in marked contrast to the process that happened in the sixties and seventies when the economy was de-politicized and political emphasis shifted to (apparently) social issues at the expense of class struggle.

This also provides some insight into why the left at times may appear stuck in the past--strong leftists movements, in the US, at least, were all before this shift.

[The Douche]

I heard negri's "Marx beyond Marx" was really good.
I don't identify as an autonomist marxist, but it seems to sound alot like me anyway.

It is, I read it in Iraq but it got lost when I shipped it home along with a lot of my other books, I need to re-buy and re-read it.

I am sure that you would take some major issues with the organizational model that the autonomists put forth though.

[Herman]

I'm an Autonomist.

I'm not.

[YSR]

Check out Zizek.

Check him out, but don't take him as an autonomist. He's definitely not.

[Rascolnikova]

Check him out, but don't take him as an autonomist. He's definitely not.

Heh.. . yes, definitely so. Sorry 'bout that. I was answering about


other recent tendencys or writers are writing sensible stuff about the stuation today instead of about tsaristic russia or shit like that.

:)

[ex_next_worker]

In what respects does autonomism differ from anarchism?

Check out Katsiaficas's book Subversion of Politics, it's focused on European autonomous movements.. I've recently read a little of it and it seems pretty great.

[Sasha]

^ just bought that, have to start realy reading it but as an test i read the part about the dutch autonomist movement.
There wehere a lot of sloppy "close but not completly true" factual mistakes but the overall story seemded realy good and correct.

i am now busy in "orgasms of history, 3000 years of spontaneous insurrection" by Yves Fremion (AKpress), also realy good.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

Check him out, but don't take him as an autonomist. He's definitely not.
No he's not. He's a good old fashion Marxist... just a 21th century one. I look at a lot of new tendencies with intellectual admiration, but I think the more useful theoretical move is to constantly attempt to reclaim the liberatory power of the already existing Marxist apparatus. Every time we "try the same thing" we have new historical conditions that will influence and alter the effects of that action. This is why I find the, "we've never seen true communism" so disingenuous. We've seen communism put into place, but it fits what ever material conditions it's applied to. Do you expect super fun magic happy land from communism when it's being applied to pre-industrial Russia?

Long story short. Zizek is good.

[YSR]

Long story short. Zizek is good.

Zizek basically says that revolutions are impossible. He's a social democrat.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

Zizek basically says that revolutions are impossible. He's a social democrat.
I don't know how to tell you that, but that is clearly wrong. In his latest book, he argues for global liberation. He argues that we should reclaim Marx, Lenin, Mao, and revolutionary terror. I recommend you read it, especially if you're going to situate Zizek as a social democrat.

http://www.versobooks.com/books/tuvwxyz/xyz-titles/zizek_defense_lost_causes.shtml

[YSR]

In 1990 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Democracy_of_Slovenia) he ran for President on the ticket of a liberal party.

[bcbm]

In 1990 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Democracy_of_Slovenia) he ran for President on the ticket of a liberal party.

Which do you think would be more indicative of his current thoughts: shit that happened two decades ago, or his latest book?

[KC]

Zizek's one of those weird post-Marxist academics. He's interesting to read, but doesn't really say anything useful.

[Rascolnikova]

Zizek's one of those weird post-Marxist academics. He's interesting to read, but doesn't really say anything useful.

I feel that Zizek is useful, because his insight on applications of Marxism to present conditions make Marxism feel more relevant and more insightful to me--and I can only assume this would be the case for others.

Also, he advocates for revolutionary terror, and you don't see a lot of well respected academics doing that these days. . .

[ex_next_worker]

In his latest book, he argues for global liberation. He argues that we should reclaim Marx, Lenin, Mao, and revolutionary terror.

Can you talk more on what he has to say about revolutionary terror? I gotta get this book.

[S. Zetor]

I haven't read Zizek's new book, but it sure sounds interesting, and I agree with the people who find him useful.

Personally I mean useful in the sense that he provides some good insights and just simple verbal propaganda and slogans you can pick up and throw in in discussions here and there. I don't think anybody thinks he's some new Lenin, so let's give the guy his due credit.

Some of his shortcomings in my opinion are that he likes making "paradoxes" a bit too much, and if he has the choice of sticking to the historical record on the one hand, and making a good joke while twisting the record on the other, he rather makes the joke.. that's a bit of a turn-off if you know the historical record yourself :-)

[Pogue]

Bit of a necro I know but sorry.

I've recently associated more with Autonomism and I think the IWW could be classified as such too. I see it as a modfe of reovlutionary struggle which escapes being controled and maniuplated by the bourgeoisie.

I also feel the revolution wont ve organised by a vanguard. I am still an Anarcho-Syndicalist but I think its compatible with Autonomism because a General Strike can be part of a directly woker led revolution. Autonomists don't reject organisation, they just want pure, ideology freee worker organisaiton, pure class struggle, liberation. Theres alot more emphasis on the actual revolution than other tendencies, more focus on what we're triyng to abolish. I think its interesting because its more adapted to the 21st century. It just appeals to me because I can see a revolution happening in a similar way to what autonomism advocates for. I also see the importance of revolutionary syndicates though, but only as a form of direct worker self organisation.

I think Paris 68 hilights autonomism well, that event was largely influenced by autonomism.

[BobKKKindle$]

ideology freeeThere is no such thing as an "ideology free" movement or organization, because an ideology is simply a set of values and principles which shape the way we view the world and behave towards others. The majority of workers in a capitalist society exhibit a combination of reactionary and progressive ideas because the means of communication (i.e. the technologies and institutions which are used to propagate and enforce the dominant ideology, including the education system as well as the mass media) are in the hands of the ruling class, who have an interest in undermining class unity and turning workers against each other in order to avert the danger of social revolution and maintain the existing condition of society. In this context, the goal of revolutionaries is to fight against reactionary ideas and raise the political consciousness of the working class by intervening in workers struggles and agitating. The question we have to answer, with this aim in mind, is what form our organizations should take. Autonomists support organizations which encompass the whole of the working class, even those workers who hold deeply reactionary ideas, and this is a fundamentally flawed strategy because organizations which do not limit themselves to the most radical and militant workers will inevitably reflect the most dominant attitudes of the society in which they operate - including the reactionary attitudes. Ironically, an example which demonstrates this is the SPD in Germany prior to WW1. The SPD involved every political layer of the working class and so when it eventually faced a serious test of revolutionary morale in the form of the war, almost all of the party's delegates capitulated to opportunism and national chauvinism, and thereafter the party eventually betrayed the working class. Leninists are not elitists or blanquists - but we do recognize that a party which aims to change the views of the working class and maintain a consistently revolutionary position on all issues must be limited to the most advanced layer of the working class, and then conduct its agitation inside other organizations and movements which have a broader support base, such as trade unions.

[duffers]

Autonomists don't reject organisation, they just want pure, ideology freee worker organisaiton, pure class struggle, liberation.

Quite the poor assessment of what Autonomism is. Not quite sure what could give the false impression that is devoid of ideological basis. It is merely a grassroots individualist day to day affirmation of political thought.

[Pogue]

Quite the poor assessment of what Autonomism is. Not quite sure what could give the false impression that is devoid of ideological basis. It is merely a grassroots individualist day to day affirmation of political thought.

The ideology bit perhaps. I didn't really put across what I meant as much. I guess its that they're less attached to dogma and following a rigid ideological line as say, some Leninist are. I can't really explain it well. Its more, if its a genuine workers revolution then the working class will organise without needing to be Leninists to do so.

[Pogue]

There is no such thing as an "ideology free" movement or organization, because an ideology is simply a set of values and principles which shape the way we view the world and behave towards others. The majority of workers in a capitalist society exhibit a combination of reactionary and progressive ideas because the means of communication (i.e. the technologies and institutions which are used to propagate and enforce the dominant ideology, including the education system as well as the mass media) are in the hands of the ruling class, who have an interest in undermining class unity and turning workers against each other in order to avert the danger of social revolution and maintain the existing condition of society. In this context, the goal of revolutionaries is to fight against reactionary ideas and raise the political consciousness of the working class by intervening in workers struggles and agitating. The question we have to answer, with this aim in mind, is what form our organizations should take. Autonomists support organizations which encompass the whole of the working class, even those workers who hold deeply reactionary ideas, and this is a fundamentally flawed strategy because organizations which do not limit themselves to the most radical and militant workers will inevitably reflect the most dominant attitudes of the society in which they operate - including the reactionary attitudes. Ironically, an example which demonstrates this is the SPD in Germany prior to WW1. The SPD involved every political layer of the working class and so when it eventually faced a serious test of revolutionary morale in the form of the war, almost all of the party's delegates capitulated to opportunism and national chauvinism, and thereafter the party eventually betrayed the working class. Leninists are not elitists or blanquists - but we do recognize that a party which aims to change the views of the working class and maintain a consistently revolutionary position on all issues must be limited to the most advanced layer of the working class, and then conduct its agitation inside other organizations and movements which have a broader support base, such as trade unions.

How do you explain uprisings like Hungrary 1956, Prague Spring, Paris 68, etc? They didn't have Leninist parties working for them, they were opposed by Leninist parties (more so for the first two).

[BobKKKindle$]

How do you explain uprisings..[etc]First of all, Trotskyists (i.e. the genuine followers of Lenin's revolutionary and internationalist legacy) gave complete support to all of the uprisings you mentioned, and even Trotskyists who mistakenly believed that Hungary and Czechoslovakia were workers states due to the absence of private property interpreted the events in these countries as political revolutions, directed against the ruling bureaucracy, due to the major role of Soviets and other democratic bodies which could potentially have formed the basis of a genuine workers state, if the workers who participated in the uprisings had managed to defend themselves against the subsequent military invasion conducted by the USSR. Although Stalinists (i.e. people who mischaracterize Lenin's politics in order to support their own reactionary positions) supported the invasion on Hungary on the grounds that the uprising was intended to restore capitalism, there was a mixed reaction towards the events in Czechoslovakia.

However, this is not the most important point - as you point out, these uprisings occurred in countries where Leninist parties had not been able to develop strong links witn the mass working class in the years leading up to the events. This does not, however, in any way disprove Lenin's arguments, because exactly the same thing happened in the case of the 1905 revolution in Russia. All of these uprisings eventually failed in their effort to radically change society and arguably allowed the forces of reaction to reassert themselves, and the main reason for this was the absence of an organized revolutionary leadership conscious of its own objective and the need to move beyond the boundaries of violent rebellion and the pursuit of reforms within the framework of capitalism - and this leadership could only have been provided in the form of a disciplined party comprised of politically-conscious activists, in other words, a party based on Lenin's model of organization. The failure of these uprisings proves the lesson that a reliance on spontaneity does not lead a successful socialist revolution - there must always be an conscious element as well.

[Sasha]

i'm now halfway in a excelent book that i would encourage people (espacily those intrested in Autonomism) to read;

The Subversion of Politics: European Autonomous Social Movements And The Decolonization Of Everyday Life

Since the modern anti-globalization movement kicked off with the 1999 WTO protests in Seattle, a new generation has been engaging in anti-capitalist direct action. Its aims, politics, lifestyles, and tactics grow directly out of the autonomous social movements that emerged in Europe from the 1970s through the mid-1990s. In fact, today's infamous "Black Blocs" are the direct descendants of the European "Autonomen." But these important historical connections are rarely noted, and never understood.

The Subversion of Politics sets the record straight, filling in the gaps between the momentous events of 1968 and 1999. Katsiaficas presents the protagonists of social revolt—Italian feminists, squatters, disarmament and anti-nuclear activists, punk rockers, and anti-fascist street fighters—in a compelling and sympathetic light. At the same time, he offers a work of great critical depth, drawing from these political practices a new theory of freedom and autonomy that redefines the parameters of the political itself.

George Katsiaficas—Fulbright fellow, former student of Herbert Marcuse, and long-time activist—is Professor of Humanities and Social Sciences at Wentworth Institute of Technology in Boston, Massachusetts. Author or editor of more than 10 books, he is writing a book on the Gwangju Uprising and East Asian social movements.

"...a scholarly gem which is indispensable reading for anyone interested in how social change occurs, especially in the advanced industrial countries." —Carl Boggs, National University

"This book is an important corrective to the all-too-common view that global capitalism is triumphant, that there is no basis for opposing the values it promotes." —Barbara Epstein, University of California at Santa Cruz

"This elegantly and lively account has been meticulously researched and reveals new antisystemic forms of participatory democracy for achieving a greater individual and community control over everyday life. Thus the book's most notable value is to offer us some perspective on how to limit the damaging effects of global capitalism on our lives."—Susanne Peters, University of Giessen

"AK Press's republication of George Katsiaficas's The Subversion of Politics comes at a good moment: when autonomous social movements are redefining the politics of the Americas from Mexico to Argentina. Katsiaficas's book is a unique history of autonomists in Italy, Germany and other parts Europe from the 1970s on. It affords a better understanding of the similarities (and differences) between the autonomy of the American and European movements. It is a good place to think and re-think the anti-party politics of the future."—George Caffentzis, Midnight Notes Collective

buy online:
http://www.akpress.org/2006/items/subversionpoliticsakpress
http://www.eroseffect.com/books/subversion.html (also free download (http://www.eroseffect.com/books/subversion_download.htm))

[Pogue]

First of all, Trotskyists (i.e. the genuine followers of Lenin's revolutionary and internationalist legacy) gave complete support to all of the uprisings you mentioned, and even Trotskyists who mistakenly believed that Hungary and Czechoslovakia were workers states due to the absence of private property interpreted the events in these countries as political revolutions, directed against the ruling bureaucracy, due to the major role of Soviets and other democratic bodies which could potentially have formed the basis of a genuine workers state, if the workers who participated in the uprisings had managed to defend themselves against the subsequent military invasion conducted by the USSR. Although Stalinists (i.e. people who mischaracterize Lenin's politics in order to support their own reactionary positions) supported the invasion on Hungary on the grounds that the uprising was intended to restore capitalism, there was a mixed reaction towards the events in Czechoslovakia.

However, this is not the most important point - as you point out, these uprisings occurred in countries where Leninist parties had not been able to develop strong links witn the mass working class in the years leading up to the events. This does not, however, in any way disprove Lenin's arguments, because exactly the same thing happened in the case of the 1905 revolution in Russia. All of these uprisings eventually failed in their effort to radically change society and arguably allowed the forces of reaction to reassert themselves, and the main reason for this was the absence of an organized revolutionary leadership conscious of its own objective and the need to move beyond the boundaries of violent rebellion and the pursuit of reforms within the framework of capitalism - and this leadership could only have been provided in the form of a disciplined party comprised of politically-conscious activists, in other words, a party based on Lenin's model of organization. The failure of these uprisings proves the lesson that a reliance on spontaneity does not lead a successful socialist revolution - there must always be an conscious element as well.

Why does this conscious element have to be a party? Why not a syndicate, or merely a group of activists? Why specifically a party? Is party just a word for an organised group of revolutionaries?

[BobKKKindle$]

Why specifically a party? Is party just a word for an organised group of revolutionaries?

A vanguard party differs from other forms of organization in two crucial respects - firstly, it is limited to the most militant and class-conscious section of the working class and so is able to uphold a consistently revolutionary position and not fall under the influence of opportunist elements which might otherwise try to push the party in a reformist or chauvinist direction. By contrast, trade unions fall are organizations which reflect a range of different views and tendencies. Secondly, a vanguard party maintains discipline through democratic centralism, which allows individual members to participate in the formulation of party policy and practical decision-making, but ensures that, once a decision has been taken through a process of democratic discussion and voting, all members agree to respect and abide by the decision. Discipline is essential in a revolutionary situation, especially in countries ruled by autocratic governments which seek to destroy all forms of political dissent, because rapidly changing events require cohesion and unified action.

[Pogue]

A vanguard party differs from other forms of organization in two crucial respects - firstly, it is limited to the most militant and class-conscious section of the working class and so is able to uphold a consistently revolutionary position and not fall under the influence of opportunist elements which might otherwise try to push the party in a reformist or chauvinist direction. By contrast, trade unions fall are organizations which reflect a range of different views and tendencies. Secondly, a vanguard party maintains discipline through democratic centralism, which allows individual members to participate in the formulation of party policy and practical decision-making, but ensures that, once a decision has been taken through a process of democratic discussion and voting, all members agree to respect and abide by the decision. Discipline is essential in a revolutionary situation, especially in countries ruled by autocratic governments which seek to destroy all forms of political dissent, because rapidly changing events require cohesion and unified action.

Why can't a revolutionary syndicate form a basis for such organisation upon less rigid lines in terms of heirachy? Syndicates educate people through struggle and discussion too.

[duffers]

The ideology bit perhaps. I didn't really put across what I meant as much. I guess its that they're less attached to dogma and following a rigid ideological line as say, some Leninist are. I can't really explain it well. Its more, if its a genuine workers revolution then the working class will organise without needing to be Leninists to do so.

But that's precisely why it is communism, and Leninism isn't.