Elections, Participation in the Parliaments & Reformism

[manic expression]

Then why participate in them? Why legitimize them? Could it be that it's because they take them seriously? That's called reformism.

OK, let me try to explain this. Bourgeois elections, while obviously being part of capitalism, heighten the political consciousness of the average person (more importantly, the average worker). People are discussing issues they would never think about usually. Participating in electoral campaigns gives communist parties the ability to better reach out to the public by using this avenue of discourse. Are you just going to hide away while everyone else is talking about the feasibility of universal healthcare, or are you going to explain that socialist societies provide better healthcare for everyone? That means being part of the electoral cycle, whether you like it or not. Secondly, if you get someone to vote for you, that person will think about your party in a radically different way; they contributed to your cause and after deciding they agree with your program, they took the time and effort to pull your party's lever. That's what builds support within the working class, and that's one of the reasons why the Bolsheviks had so much support when they overthrew the bourgeoisie in November of 1917.


I thought we Marxists were supposed to look past what people or groups call themselves and look at what they actually do.What do you call organizing and promoting a general strike?


Besides, their intentions are irrelevant; what matters is that they are behaving like a bourgeois political party. If you act like a bourgeois political party, then sooner or later you will become one. Being determines consciousness.No, that's not how it works. "Being", in this case, is determined by one's class character. What tactics a party uses is besides the point. Let me ask you, if a fascist party participates in bourgeois elections, will it inevitably become capitalist? Of course not, it's still fascist. The same applies to revolutionary parties.


Exactly! Which is why the working class should be out there burning banks to the ground and fighting the fucking pigs. The KKE seems to want to stop this from happening. I contend that they are doing this because they know that this isn't a good way to get votes.

I may be wrong...we'll find out, soon enough.Burning a bank down, in the present circumstance, is incredibly counterproductive. The cold-hard reality is that such actions are done in isolation from the working class, and so it becomes nothing but individualist terrorism and serves to alienate potential supporters. If you're a worker who's trying to feed your family, how does a burning bank help you? It's not revolutionary, it's mindless destruction.

If you believe what you're saying, why don't you just get a few friends and burn down your local bank? Arson isn't going to accomplish much at all, and that's what we're saying here.

[ernie]

OK, let me try to explain this. Bourgeois elections, while obviously being part of capitalism, heighten the political consciousness of the average person (more importantly, the average worker). People are discussing issues they would never think about usually. Participating in electoral campaigns gives communist parties the ability to better reach out to the public by using this avenue of discourse. Are you just going to hide away while everyone else is talking about the feasibility of universal healthcare, or are you going to explain that socialist societies provide better healthcare for everyone? That means being part of the electoral cycle, whether you like it or not. Secondly, if you get someone to vote for you, that person will think about your party in a radically different way; they contributed to your cause and after deciding they agree with your program, they took the time and effort to pull your party's lever. That's what builds support within the working class, and that's one of the reasons why the Bolsheviks had so much support when they overthrew the bourgeoisie in November of 1917.
Well that's the crux of our disagreement, isn't it? There's no way anybody is going to convince me that voting accomplishes anything in the advanced capitalist countries (Greece included).


What do you call organizing and promoting a general strike?
It depends. If they leave it at that, I call it reformism. If they jump from that to using other tactics that offer resistance, then I call it revolutionary.


No, that's not how it works. "Being", in this case, is determined by one's class character. What tactics a party uses is besides the point. Let me ask you, if a fascist party participates in bourgeois elections, will it inevitably become capitalist? Of course not, it's still fascist. The same applies to revolutionary parties.
But politicians aren't members of the working class. The more votes a party gets, the more its members become politicians, and the less revolutionary it becomes. I can't believe you dispute this; we've seen this happen literally hundreds of times in the last century.


Burning a bank down, in the present circumstance, is incredibly counterproductive. The cold-hard reality is that such actions are done in isolation from the working class, and so it becomes nothing but individualist terrorism and serves to alienate potential supporters. If you're a worker who's trying to feed your family, how does a burning bank help you? It's not revolutionary, it's mindless destruction.
When those actions are done by the working class, then it will have a tremendous revolutionary potential. If it alienates people, that just means they aren't ready for revolutionary politics. We must hate this system and all it stands for before we can destroy it.


If you believe what you're saying, why don't you just get a few friends and burn down your local bank? Arson isn't going to accomplish much at all, and that's what we're saying here.
First of all, I am not saying that these actions by themselves accomplish anything. I am saying that, when the revolution is close, then part of the resistance will be expressed as violence towards the ruling class. So actions like burning down a bank, trashing a government building, etc., while maybe not revolutionary in and of themselves, do show a revolutionary attitude.

And what you're saying now is not what the KKE said in the message shown. They are condemning these actions and are calling on people to do the same. That is, they are actively trying to stop workers from participating in the riots, even when they could very well do so and participate in the general strike at the same time.

I speculated on their reasons for doing this based on what I know of other "communist parties".

[manic expression]

Well that's the crux of our disagreement, isn't it? There's no way anybody is going to convince me that voting accomplishes anything in the advanced capitalist countries (Greece included).

Read what I wrote again, you didn't understand my point at all.


It depends. If they leave it at that, I call it reformism. If they jump from that to using other tactics that offer resistance, then I call it revolutionary.

So if they burn banks down, they're revolutionary, and if they continue to organize the working class into a communist organization and promote a revolutionary platform, they're reformist? That's beyond thoughtless.


But politicians aren't members of the working class. The more votes a party gets, the more its members become politicians, and the less revolutionary it becomes. I can't believe you dispute this; we've seen this happen literally hundreds of times in the last century.

Communist politicians can represent the interest of the workers without working 10-hour days in a coal mine; they are members of a vanguard party and are thus revolutionaries. Marx wasn't a worker, Lenin wasn't, Luxemburg wasn't, Castro wasn't, Debs wasn't, along with practically every revolutionary leader...ever. To be a full-time activist, especially for revolutionary politics, you need to give all of your time to it, it's not a hobby. You obviously haven't studied Marxist writings enough, because mechanical analyses such as your own are always disparaged.

Oh, and I'd LOVE to see some historical evidence on your part, since I've outlined a specific case in which a party involved in electoral campaigns forcefully overthrew capitalism. What evidence do you have? None. Not a coincidence.


When those actions are done by the working class, then it will have a tremendous revolutionary potential. If it alienates people, that just means they aren't ready for revolutionary politics. We must hate this system and all it stands for before we can destroy it.

:lol::lol: Yeah...if those stupid unionized striking workers don't get how awesomely revolutionary arson is, it's their own damn fault! And if anyone doesn't want to burn down Moe's Auto Service across the street, they don't want to destroy capitalism!:rolleyes: Maybe I shouldn't be so sarcastic since you're relatively new (to RevLeft and to Marxism, apparently), but it's just too much to bear.

There's a very, very good reason the working class has NEVER engaged in wanton bank-burning. Think about it for a bit and you should figure it out.


First of all, I am not saying that these actions by themselves accomplish anything. I am saying that, when the revolution is close, then part of the resistance will be expressed as violence towards the ruling class. So actions like burning down a bank, trashing a government building, etc., while maybe not revolutionary in and of themselves, do show a revolutionary attitude.

No, revolutions are not some sort of violent orgasm against rulers, revolutions consist of the forceful overthrow of all existing social conditions. Does burning down a bank or throwing a bomb accomplish that? No, it has NOTHING to do with the latter. That is why the Bolsheviks made a revolution while the Narodniks weren't even close. Educate yourself.

Oh, and I'm glad you decided the revolution is "close", I guess I can buy a plane ticket to Athens and gang-stomp the first banker I see.


And what you're saying now is not what the KKE said in the message shown. They are condemning these actions and are calling on people to do the same. That is, they are actively trying to stop workers from participating in the riots, even when they could very well do so and participate in the general strike at the same time.

The KKE is perfectly reasonable in denouncing the small minority which is, in addition to attacking KKE-led rallies, diverting attention to something that has no long-term viability. The LA riots were arguably more potent than the ones we're seeing now, but what did they come to? Is Compton any better? Not at all.


I speculated on their reasons for doing this based on what I know of other "communist parties".

You mean the CPUSA? If that's what you mean, it has nothing to do with the KKE. Don't generalize every "communist party" from what you know about the CPUSA, it's unfair, inaccurate and insulting.

[manic expression]

manic expression -- you're a Leninist, so we're never going to agree on these points.

This isn't a question of ideology, it's a question of whether or not you can comprehend the effectiveness of using electoral campaigns. You don't have to be a Leninist to see this most obvious fact.


Actually, I understand perfectly. I just completely disagree with you, and think historical evidence is on my side. In fact, I understand the whole Leninist paradigm pretty well, and I think that it's flat out wrong.

And you have the gall to talk of historical evidence! Sorry, but you haven't cited a single shred of evidence, whereas I have outlined a concrete example of a revolutionary party involved in elections.


If I haven't been able to clearly express my opinion on all this (I though I did), it might be because English is not my first language. Anyway, just so it's clear, here are the two things I've been saying:


The KKE is a reformist party. They are using that kid's death to make electoral gains.
Politically-charged riots are going to be a symptom of revolutionary times. That's why I labeled the rioters as having a "revolutionary attitude".


As far as all the other things you mention in your last post, it's all just part of the Leninist formula. We'll have to disagree on that as well.

Just chalking this up to some sort of "gentlemanly disagreement" is ridiculous. You made the assertion that, objectively, all parties which run in elections are reformist. That is, quite plainly, absurd, and I've more than debunked every single one of your positions.

You keep repeating yourself without making any logical argument for them. You have no arguments, only parrot-like slogans.

I'm not asking you to be a Leninist, I'm asking you to use logic and rational thought for a change.

[ernie]

This isn't a question of ideology, it's a question of whether or not you can comprehend the effectiveness of using electoral campaigns. You don't have to be a Leninist to see this most obvious fact.
Effective for what? For making reformist demands? For getting into parliament? Sure.

For raising revolutionary consciousness in the working class...no. In fact, they are counter-productive. As I said, workers must leave all hope of improving their condition through elections. Asking people to vote for your party is implicitly telling them that the electoral system works. In other words, it's a fucking lie. When was the last time a leftist party was able to obtain any important reform in the US or Canada or France?

It's a different matter in developing countries; such tactics can still bring about real change, and supporting leftist parties there makes more sense. But that has nothing to do with communism.


And you have the gall to talk of historical evidence! Sorry, but you haven't cited a single shred of evidence, whereas I have outlined a concrete example of a revolutionary party involved in elections.
You mean the Bolsheviks? That was 100 years ago! Care to "outline" a contemporary example?

Also, I'd say that they were revolutionary in spite of participating in elections. Back then, I can see why that might have seemed like a good strategy to get people involved in a revolutionary program. Today, this isn't the case.

But even if you could somehow show that "the Bolsheviks made the revolution" (using dialectics, no doubt) and that participating in elections was an important part of their activities, then that would still leave you with...the USSR. Not exactly a communist utopia.

Note that I don't "blame" Lenin or the Russian workers and peasants for anything. They overthrew a semi-Feudal regime, which was a great step forward. That's not what I want...I want communism.


Just chalking this up to some sort of "gentlemanly disagreement" is ridiculous. You made the assertion that, objectively, all parties which run in elections are reformist. That is, quite plainly, absurd, and I've more than debunked every single one of your positions.
I made the assertion that, in modern capitalist countries, all parties that participate in elections will sooner or later become reformist, if not in words, definitely in deeds. In fact, I think that the concept of a "communist party" is somewhat of an oxymoron.

Historical evidence is overwhelmingly on my side here. Look at communist parties in Western Europe and in North America. What do they have to show for themselves in the last 60 years? Absolutely nothing revolutionary. Why? Because using the bourgeois electoral system doesn't work for us.

[manic expression]

Effective for what? For making reformist demands? For getting into parliament? Sure.

For raising revolutionary consciousness in the working class...no. In fact, they are counter-productive. As I said, workers must leave all hope of improving their condition through elections.

:rolleyes:

Bourgeois elections, while obviously being part of capitalism, heighten the political consciousness of the average person (more importantly, the average worker). People are discussing issues they would never think about usually. Participating in electoral campaigns gives communist parties the ability to better reach out to the public by using this avenue of discourse. Are you just going to hide away while everyone else is talking about the feasibility of universal healthcare, or are you going to explain that socialist societies provide better healthcare for everyone? That means being part of the electoral cycle, whether you like it or not. Secondly, if you get someone to vote for you, that person will think about your party in a radically different way; they contributed to your cause and after deciding they agree with your program, they took the time and effort to pull your party's lever. That's what builds support within the working class, and that's one of the reasons why the Bolsheviks had so much support when they overthrew the bourgeoisie in November of 1917.


Asking people to vote for your party is implicitly telling them that the electoral system works. In other words, it's a fucking lie. When was the last time a leftist party was able to obtain any important reform in the US or Canada or France?

No, it's not, and that's an insulting example of you (again) putting words in my mouth. If someone votes for a revolutionary party called "The (x) Communist Party", they're doing it because they understand the party isn't just seeking petty reform. When they pull the lever, it's to support working class progress, not to enact this or that legislation necessarily.

If the revolutionary program is correctly articulated during the campaign, there will be no doubt as to where that party stands when it comes to capitalism.


It's a different matter in developing countries; such tactics can still bring about real change, and supporting leftist parties there makes more sense. But that has nothing to do with communism.

You can't just say it "makes more sense" and leave it at that. That's not an argument, that's a sentence.


You mean the Bolsheviks? That was 100 years ago! Care to "outline" a contemporary example?

So something's irrelevant if it happened more than 90 years ago? Revolutions come with an expiration date? Is that your argument? Stop being stubborn and look at what actually happened: capitalism was overthrown by a party that ran in elections. It doesn't matter if it happened yesterday or during the second industrial revolution, the example is quite applicable either way.

And recent events in Nepal, as a matter of fact, also show that you're completely wrong. Along with the elections of Allende and Arbenz in Latin America. If you want to say they weren't revolutionary, take that up with the people of Chile and Guatemala.


Also, I'd say that they were revolutionary in spite of participating in elections. Back then, I can see why that might have seemed like a good strategy to get people involved in a revolutionary program. Today, this isn't the case.

No, you're totally right. Right now, it's definitely NOT a good idea to "get people involved in a revolutionary program". I can't believe those dumb communists keep trying when they could just burn down their local credit union instead.

:rolleyes:


But even if you could somehow show that "the Bolsheviks made the revolution" (using dialectics, no doubt) and that participating in elections was an important part of their activities, then that would still leave you with...the USSR. Not exactly a communist utopia.

You mean the abolition of private property, the end of imperialist war and the political empowerment of the working class is something you don't want? What do you think a revolution is? The Bolsheviks created socialism which lasted for decades, something no anarchist has ever been able to do and something no anarchist will ever be able to do.

Honestly, whining about the challenges the USSR faced and the mistakes that were made during that great project is ludicrous. At any rate, it's inconsequential: the Bolsheviks made a working-class revolution, and they did it partially because they weren't afraid to engage in electoral discourse.


Note that I don't "blame" Lenin or the Russian workers and peasants for anything. They overthrew a semi-Feudal regime, which was a great step forward. That's not what I want...I want communism.

Yeah, that's why we're all here. The point is how to get there, and the Bolsheviks and those who learned from their example got closer than anyone ever has.


I made the assertion that, in modern capitalist countries, all parties that participate in elections will sooner or later become reformist, if not in words, definitely in deeds. In fact, I think that the concept of a "communist party" is somewhat of an oxymoron.

An oxymoron?

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/


Historical evidence is overwhelmingly on my side here. Look at communist parties in Western Europe and in North America. What do they have to show for themselves in the last 60 years? Absolutely nothing revolutionary. Why? Because using the bourgeois electoral system doesn't work for us.

First of all, that's untrue because communist parties in the US HAVE done great things to help the working class here. The Black Panthers and Young Lords, both adamantly communist organizations, fought police brutality and organized the urban poor in many different struggles. That, alone, is worth remembering, and it is something you seem determined to forget.

[ernie]

Bourgeois elections, while obviously being part of capitalism, heighten the political consciousness of the average person (more importantly, the average worker). People are discussing issues they would never think about usually.
Sure, they're talking about better health care, better public education, a higher minimum wage, etc. All reformist goals which have nothing to do with revolution.

We want them to be talking about how it's not in their interests to support the parasitic ruling class, and about how to overthrow them. Or about how to take control of their workplace, by force if necessary, and fight the fucking cops when they come to defend the bosses. Bourgeois elections have nothing to do with this.

Participating in electoral campaigns gives communist parties the ability to better reach out to the public by using this avenue of discourse.
Again, to say what? To promise a better welfare program if they get elected? That's not revolutionary.

Are you just going to hide away while everyone else is talking about the feasibility of universal healthcare, or are you going to explain that socialist societies provide better healthcare for everyone?
Neither. I'd rather tell them that the only way to escape wage-slavery is to destroy class society. Maybe they won't listen, but at least I'll be telling them the truth.

Secondly, if you get someone to vote for you, that person will think about your party in a radically different way; they contributed to your cause and after deciding they agree with your program, they took the time and effort to pull your party's lever.
What I'm arguing is that that particular cause is not worthwhile, because it doesn't lead to communism. Further, I am saying that history tells us that this is the case. The few societies that have achieved the version of socialism you propose never achieved communism.


That's what builds support within the working class, and that's one of the reasons why the Bolsheviks had so much support when they overthrew the bourgeoisie in November of 1917.
Support for the despotism of the party which, while infinitely superior to the despotism of the Czars, was still despotism. More importantly, it's not communism.


No, it's not, and that's an insulting example of you (again) putting words in my mouth.
What? I didn't put words into your mouth. I said that you are implicitly saying that the electoral system works. If it didn't, then why are you asking people to vote for you? (After all, you can use the electoral period to "better reach" workers without asking them to vote for a candidate.) Are you not promising that something will change if your particular candidate gets elected? That logically implies that the bourgeois political system can be used to serve the workers. It cannot.


If someone votes for a revolutionary party called "The (x) Communist Party", they're doing it because they understand the party isn't just seeking petty reform.
This is debatable. But even if a worker voted for that party for that reason, he'd still be wrong. That's what I want to be telling workers.


When they pull the lever, it's to support working class progress, not to enact this or that legislation necessarily.
But, again, is getting some communist party in power really progress for the working class? I think it isn't. At least, it's not the progress we want to make, which is toward communism.

And if you don't really care about getting that party into power, then why the are you participating in the elections? As I said before, you can use this period of "heightened political senses" to reach workers without asking them to vote for anybody.


If the revolutionary program is correctly articulated during the campaign, there will be no doubt as to where that party stands when it comes to capitalism.
This raises the other issue I've pointed out. Do the leaders of that particular party have the worker's interest in mind? If so, will that always be the case? If they get elected to parliament, won't their material reality change and, therefore, their class interests?

Of course it does, and it has. The social democrats in Germany and the Labour party in the UK are but two examples of this.


So something's irrelevant if it happened more than 90 years ago? Revolutions come with an expiration date? Is that your argument?
My argument is that the conditions of 1917 Russia are totally different than the conditions in the modern capitalist countries. I thought this would be obvious.


Stop being stubborn and look at what actually happened: capitalism was overthrown by a party that ran in elections.
No, capitalism was not overthrown. Not capitalism as we know it now, anyway. And it sure as hell wasn't overthrown by a party.


It doesn't matter if it happened yesterday or during the second industrial revolution, the example is quite applicable either way.
No, as a matter of fact they aren't. Unless you want to argue that the fact that the means of production have changed tremendously (and therefore the material reality has changed) in the last 200 years is irrelevant.


And recent events in Nepal, as a matter of fact, also show that you're completely wrong.
Last time I checked, Nepal wasn't a modern capitalist country. In fact, now that you mention it, Nepal's current situation is rather similar to China's 60 years ago. I wonder if that's why the Maoists in Nepal are getting so much support. Maybe it's just a coincidence...


Along with the elections of Allende and Arbenz in Latin America. If you want to say they weren't revolutionary, take that up with the people of Chile and Guatemala.
The bourgeoisie were also revolutionary in 1789 in France. So why do you want to overthrow them?

Revolutionary means different things in different conditions. I won't debate over whether or not Allende or Arbenz were revolutionary. They were not communists, though.


No, you're totally right. Right now, it's definitely NOT a good idea to "get people involved in a revolutionary program". I can't believe those dumb communists keep trying when they could just burn down their local credit union instead.
You're just being dishonest here. I think it was evident what I meant: what's not a good strategy is to participate in bourgeois elections.


You mean the abolition of private property, the end of imperialist war and the political empowerment of the working class is something you don't want?
So you're saying that the USSR was a communist society?


The Bolsheviks created socialism which lasted for decades, something no anarchist has ever been able to do and something no anarchist will ever be able to do.

Honestly, whining about the challenges the USSR faced and the mistakes that were made during that great project is ludicrous.
Who's whining? I already explained that I think the USSR was an infinitely large improvement over the previous regime. It wasn't communist, though. It didn't lead to communism and, looking at what happened with other similar revolutions, I think it's pretty clear that that kind of socialism can't lead to communism.


At any rate, it's inconsequential: the Bolsheviks made a working-class revolution, and they did it partially because they weren't afraid to engage in electoral discourse.
Again, the Bolsheviks didn't make the revolution. They happened to be part of it. And I'm positive that their "courage" to engage in electoral discourse had absolutely nothing to do with the revolution.


Yeah, that's why we're all here. The point is how to get there, and the Bolsheviks and those who learned from their example got closer than anyone ever has.
False. The Paris Commune got much closer to an actual classless society, and they didn't follow the Bolshevik paradigm. Ditto for Syndicalist Barcelona.


An oxymoron?

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/

Marx and Engels didn't have the 100 years of historical experience that we do now. They had a good justification for thinking that the political organization known as a party could be revolutionary. I think they'd have a different opinion if they were alive today.

[Pogue]

I think the idea is flawed. Bourgeoisie political power will corrupt. It's also sending mixed messages to the working class - are we reformist or revolutionary? The workers movement has been outside of all bourgeoisie institutions, because we're out to smash their state and their system of relations. Working inside it will just lead to us being swallowed up by it. I can't see how appealing for votes really gets our publicity up either, it hasn't seemed to have worked so far.

This isn't meant to be an insult, just an opinion - I would have joined the SWP or SP in the UK here years ago (I used to subscribe to the SP paper) if it wasn't for the fact that they worked for votes and I didn't understand/disagreed with this as I was a revolutionary.

[manic expression]

Sure, they're talking about better health care, better public education, a higher minimum wage, etc. All reformist goals which have nothing to do with revolution.

We want them to be talking about how it's not in their interests to support the parasitic ruling class, and about how to overthrow them. Or about how to take control of their workplace, by force if necessary, and fight the fucking cops when they come to defend the bosses. Bourgeois elections have nothing to do with this.

You obviously know nothing about the KKE, because what you're saying is completely wrong. The KKE have, at every turn, promoted revolutionary change and spurned reformism. Stop acting like a 7-year old and learn a few facts before you open your mouth.


Again, to say what? To promise a better welfare program if they get elected? That's not revolutionary.

Again, you're blabbering about something you know NOTHING about. What do you know of the KKE's program? What Infoshop told you?


Neither. I'd rather tell them that the only way to escape wage-slavery is to destroy class society. Maybe they won't listen, but at least I'll be telling them the truth.

I think "socialism" is basically what you mean, and that's what I said. Try reading closer next time.


What I'm arguing is that that particular cause is not worthwhile, because it doesn't lead to communism. Further, I am saying that history tells us that this is the case. The few societies that have achieved the version of socialism you propose never achieved communism.

So bringing workers into the communist movement doesn't help achieve communism? Good logic there, kid.


Support for the despotism of the party which, while infinitely superior to the despotism of the Czars, was still despotism. More importantly, it's not communism.

They put all power into the hands of the Soviets, so your Infoshopped-history is a lie. Secondly, like I said, the Bolsheviks and their supporters have achieved socialism; what has anarchism done? Jack shit, that's what.


What? I didn't put words into your mouth. I said that you are implicitly saying that the electoral system works. If it didn't, then why are you asking people to vote for you? (After all, you can use the electoral period to "better reach" workers without asking them to vote for a candidate.) Are you not promising that something will change if your particular candidate gets elected? That logically implies that the bourgeois political system can be used to serve the workers. It cannot.

Yes, you did. You suggested that I said bourgeois elections are revolutionary. If you understood a SINGLE word of what I wrote, you'd realize that this is incorrect.

And no, I didn't imply that the electoral system works. You still can't comprehend my argument, probably you didn't try to.


This is debatable. But even if a worker voted for that party for that reason, he'd still be wrong. That's what I want to be telling workers.

First, you're NOT telling the workers that, because you have no relevance to anyone. Second, you made another statement with no logical reasoning behind it. You sound like a child who's already made up their mind about something they don't understand.


But, again, is getting some communist party in power really progress for the working class? I think it isn't. At least, it's not the progress we want to make, which is toward communism.

Yes, it is. If you don't believe a vanguard party can represent the interests of the working class, go play dress-up with a ski mask and leave the revolutionary work to the grownups.


And if you don't really care about getting that party into power, then why the are you participating in the elections? As I said before, you can use this period of "heightened political senses" to reach workers without asking them to vote for anybody.

Well, that's barely understandable. Anyway, the whole point of heightened political consciousness is that people are deciding who to vote for, because to most people in the real world, voting is an important decision for them. If you get them to vote for a communist party, that is a concrete act of support for revolution.


This raises the other issue I've pointed out. Do the leaders of that particular party have the worker's interest in mind? If so, will that always be the case? If they get elected to parliament, won't their material reality change and, therefore, their class interests?

If they are a vanguard party, then yes, they do. Actions matter, such as calling a general strike and denouncing capitalism. That's what the KKE routinely does.


Of course it does, and it has. The social democrats in Germany and the Labour party in the UK are but two examples of this.

Yeah, that's why they're social democrats, and that's why Lenin split with them.

Stay in school.


My argument is that the conditions of 1917 Russia are totally different than the conditions in the modern capitalist countries. I thought this would be obvious.

Then it shouldn't be hard for you to pinpoint something specific, which you haven't done. How, exactly, are political and ideological dynamics significantly different from now?


No, capitalism was not overthrown. Not capitalism as we know it now, anyway. And it sure as hell wasn't overthrown by a party.

It was. The abolition of private property and the establishment of working-class control translates to the abolition of capitalism.

You probably don't even know what capitalism is, so this isn't a surprise.


No, as a matter of fact they aren't. Unless you want to argue that the fact that the means of production have changed tremendously (and therefore the material reality has changed) in the last 200 years is irrelevant.

Burden of proof, kid. Show how capitalism has qualitatively changed since 1917 and you might have an argument.


Last time I checked, Nepal wasn't a modern capitalist country. In fact, now that you mention it, Nepal's current situation is rather similar to China's 60 years ago. I wonder if that's why the Maoists in Nepal are getting so much support. Maybe it's just a coincidence...

And you still haven't illustrated why developing countries should permit participation in elections, while developed countries should not.

Once again, we come back to the fact that you have no argument.


The bourgeoisie were also revolutionary in 1789 in France. So why do you want to overthrow them?

The bourgeoisie was revolutionary, but their exploitation of the working class and the full development of capitalism rendered them reactionary after their ascension.

That's Marxism 101, kid.


Revolutionary means different things in different conditions. I won't debate over whether or not Allende or Arbenz were revolutionary. They were not communists, though.

You don't want to argue about them? That's because you probably don't even know what they did.


You're just being dishonest here. I think it was evident what I meant: what's not a good strategy is to participate in bourgeois elections.

Back then, I can see why that might have seemed like a good strategy to get people involved in a revolutionary program. Today, this isn't the case.

:rolleyes:


So you're saying that the USSR was a communist society?

I didn't say that, I said it was socialist, which is far more than any anarchist has ever done.


Who's whining? I already explained that I think the USSR was an infinitely large improvement over the previous regime. It wasn't communist, though. It didn't lead to communism and, looking at what happened with other similar revolutions, I think it's pretty clear that that kind of socialism can't lead to communism.

Saying that we're not living in communism now, and thus Leninism failed, is probably the dumbest argument I've ever heard. Try again.


Again, the Bolsheviks didn't make the revolution. They happened to be part of it. And I'm positive that their "courage" to engage in electoral discourse had absolutely nothing to do with the revolution.

You obviously don't know what happened in November 1917. Educate yourself.


False. The Paris Commune got much closer to an actual classless society, and they didn't follow the Bolshevik paradigm. Ditto for Syndicalist Barcelona.

Which is why Lenin emulated the Paris Commune in many aspects.

Barcelona? Give me a break, that system crashed as soon as the lightest resistance against it formed. Do you even know what happened with the May Days? The first challenge against the communes brought them crashing down. In contrast, the USSR survived dozens (literally dozens) of armies invading from all sides.

Again, you don't know what you're talking about.


Marx and Engels didn't have the 100 years of historical experience that we do now. They had a good justification for thinking that the political organization known as a party could be revolutionary. I think they'd have a different opinion if they were alive today.

So now you're claiming to represent 100 years of historical experience! Listen, Marx and Engels rejected the people who said the exact same things you're saying now. Lenin's arguments against the anarchists were drawn straight from Engels' writings.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch04.htm#s2

But yes, dear, Marx completely agrees with you. Hurry upstairs now, it's past your bedtime. :rolleyes:

[ernie]

Since more than half of your arguments are some variation of "grow up, kid" (and the other half is all reformist clap-trap), it's quite a waste of time to keep posting.

What bothers me is that reformist bullshit like yours is what pushes a lot of young workers away from radical politics; they (justifiably) flee in disgust. Not that many people are listening to Leninists nowadays...:cool:

[manic expression]

Since more than half of your arguments are some variation of "grow up, kid" (and the other half is all reformist clap-trap), it's quite a waste of time to keep posting.

What bothers me is that reformist bullshit like yours is what pushes a lot of young workers away from radical politics; they (justifiably) flee in disgust. Not that many people are listening to Leninists nowadays...:cool:

It's not my fault you're incapable of rational argument. If you make immature points you'll get called a kid.

Oh, and if your idea of radical politics is burning down banks, you're not a leftist, you're a theoretical arsonist. Congrats. Leave the revolutionary stuff to people who understand the world.

[KC]

Just link to Left Wing Communism. If he actually cares about understanding your (i.e. the correct) point of view then he'll read it.

[ernie]

Just link to Left Wing Communism. If he actually cares about understanding your (i.e. the correct) point of view then he'll read it.
If you're referring to Lenin's work, I've already read it. I wasn't impressed. And it's not because because "Lenin wrote it"; I actually thought The State and Revolution was pretty good, and Imperialism -- THSOC had some good insights about the nature of imperialism.

[Herman]

If you can read Spanish, please read my signature. It will give you some insight as to why participating in "bourgeois" elections is not a bad idea.

[Charles Xavier]

I think ernie doesn't understand what a revolution is, he thinks a revolution is a big gun battle. Revolution however is not a gun battle its years of class struggle. Participating in politics is necessarily. The goal of a communist party is to better working and living conditions of working people. Raising the minimum wage does better working and living conditions of working people. It is only through consistant policy of leading the demands of working people that we will gain the trust of the working class.

And this is not a tactic but living and breathing marxism.

The KKE is one of the shining examples of how a communist party in the Imperialist countries must organize.


Since more than half of your arguments are some variation of "grow up, kid" (and the other half is all reformist clap-trap), it's quite a waste of time to keep posting.

What bothers me is that reformist bullshit like yours is what pushes a lot of young workers away from radical politics; they (justifiably) flee in disgust. Not that many people are listening to Leninists nowadays...:cool:

And obviously burning down banks brings young workers into radical politics.:laugh:

[BobKKKindle$]

We should all be able to agree that participation in bourgeois parliaments is not capable of overturning capitalism, because parliaments exist mainly to obscure the fact that we are all members of a society based on class division in which the bourgeoisie is able to use its wealth to dominate the political process and obstruct any attempt to improve the lives of working people - but this fact alone does not mean that communists should not take part in elections or hope to be elected as representatives as even though parliaments have become "historically obsolete" (Lenin) the condition of class consciousness is such that parliaments are still capable of playing a useful role in terms of agitation and propaganda. Communists can use elections and, in the event of successful election, parliamentary seats, to propagate radical areas and thereby expose the failure of capitalism to meet human needs.

[davidasearles]

The problem is that most have no idea of a specific goal.

If you did decide to run for parliament or congress specifically what would you have parliament or congress do?

For the longest time I was the opinion that running in campaign for a US Congress seat or the presidency would be the best way of propagating the idea that the workers ought to have collective control of the industrial means of production and distribution. I don't know about other countries ( and we have to look at each situation on its own ) congress could pass a statute recognizing the right of workers to collective control and the US Supreme Court could declare the statute a nullity in a heartbeat for being in violation of the US Constitution. Instead of running for office I have decided to attempt to mount a grassroots campaign demanding that congress adopt a specific proposal to amend the US Constitution.

That kind of campaign, where you're not running for office, avoids all kinds of complications regarding the ever present temptation of diluting your message by playing parliamentary footsie concerning any demand less than for a complete recognition of the workers right to collective control of the industrial means of production and distribution.

[Sam_b]

think ernie doesn't understand what a revolution is, he thinks a revolution is a big gun battle. Revolution however is not a gun battle its years of class struggle

Agreed. He also seems to lean dangerously towards 'propaganda of the deed' styled arguments, talking about the likes of 'trashing government buildings' being inherantly revolutionary. This seems to completely negate any historical analysis or the principle idea of organising the working class.


Sure, they're talking about better health care, better public education, a higher minimum wage, etc. All reformist goals which have nothing to do with revolution.

And this is where ernie is just plain wrong, treating these subjects as somewhat unpure and unrevolutionary. Yes, these are indeed reformist goals per se, but didn't Lenin talk about 'peace, bread and land'? Personally I would find it ridiculous if a socialist didn't support an increase in the minimum wage: we all know that revolution cannot come through the ballot box, but the question is should socialists push for reformist measures to go through parliament as well? Otherwise we go into the argument that 'things need to get worse to get better' and they've been destroyed on these boards countless times.

I think above all this thread highlights the dual-pronged approach of the left, and that of political priorities: putting emphasis on building class-consciousness in communities and showing up this current economic crisis for what it is, that of a crisis of capitalism, as well as holding governments to aco**** and fighting for a change of conditions that will improve the lives of working people.

[Pogue]

Parliament was made by the bourgeoisie, why would we participate?

[Sam_b]

Parliament was made by the bourgeoisie, why would we participate?

Have you not read any of this thread?

[Pogue]

Yeh I was just making a short statement outlining my view and hoping to see if anyone would follow up on it in an intelligent manner. I'm still waiting.

[BIG BROTHER]

To all those who say a party can't be revolutionary and use the parliament at the same time, what about the Bolshevik party? I think that example should be enough to show that you can use both the parliament and promote revolutionary politics.

The difference between a reformist party and a revolutionary party using the parliament is that the reformist party actually thinks that they can bring socialism through the parliament. Meanwhile the revolutionary party uses the parliament as a way to agitate the working class, promote consciousness and struggling against the ruling class.

And as the Russian revolution showed the Bolsheviks never became a reformist party, they rather helped the workers overthrow capitalism.

[davidasearles]

Sam B.

the dual-pronged approach of the left, and that of political priorities: putting emphasis on building class-consciousness in communities and showing up this current economic crisis for what it is, that of a crisis of capitalism, as well as holding governments to account and fighting for a change of conditions that will improve the lives of working people.

das:

To me "class consciousness" is way over rated as a concept.

"BUILDING" class consciousness is even more so.

Assuming a political democracy (which I do assume in the US) I would suggest that if there is a viable plan for people to work toward that appears to lead to collective control of the industrial means of production and distribution by the workers - that people would not need to be class conscious TO ANY DEGREE. If the people, including all of us, were only conscious enough to demand collective control by the workers to me that would seem to be enough.

How many lefties on this site are guilty of this? - talk and dream about class consciousness raising but seldom IF EVER discuss here (and by extension disucss elsewhere) for collective control of the industrial means of production by the workers! Why is that?

[Sam_b]

Yeh I was just making a short statement outlining my view and hoping to see if anyone would follow up on it in an intelligent manner. I'm still waiting.

You posted a one-liner of an opinion that has already been pretty well debated against in this thread. What did you expect?


To me "class consciousness" is way over rated as a concept.


Its not overrated in the slightest, comrade. Its one of the essentials thats needed to build a revolutionary movement. How can the ruling class be overthrown if workers have no idea about where they stand in the class structure? How can workers call for collective control when they have no idea about why that should be the case, or why it is unfair that they have to expropriate their labour for a cost to the ruling classes?

[Charles Xavier]

Yeh I was just making a short statement outlining my view and hoping to see if anyone would follow up on it in an intelligent manner. I'm still waiting.


Haven't you read any of the thread?

[Pogue]

I was more generally vocing my opinion with a rhetorical question, you know, a one liner. Sorry if that offends you, diddums.

[davidasearles]

das:

To me "class consciousness" is way over rated as a concept.

sam b:

Its not overrated in the slightest, comrade. Its one of the essentials thats needed to build a revolutionary movement. How can the ruling class be overthrown if workers have no idea about where they stand in the class structure? How can workers call for collective control when they have no idea about why that should be the case, or why it is unfair that they have to expropriate their labour for a cost to the ruling classes?

das:

Thank you for the response Sam.

The left or a good proportion of the left is so tied up with thinking about class consciousness, "building" class consciousness, theorizing about class consciousness that they forget (if they ever knew) that the goal is collective control of the industrial means of production by the workers (where I went to school anyway).

To me "class consciousness" is too much of a religion that way too much of the left is requiring that everyone sign onto before agreeing to participate with them in promoting the idea of collective worker control (or even for the most part even talking to them about collective worker control.)

"How can workers call for collective control when they have no idea about why that should be the case?"

To me it is sufficient that a particular worker realize (which capitalism is now doing a hell of a job in helping with) that without collective worker control of the industrial means of production that he or she has essentially has no, or will soon have essentially no ability to acquire for that particular worker and his or her family the material necessities of a decent life .

What a person thinks needs to be taught to intellectually help a worker figure that out, that's what they should do. But a lot of what the left does (which is termed building class consciousness) actaull;y does so little to promote the idea of collective worker control that I doubt it would be consistent with anyone's concept of an application of demonstrably reliable educational theory.

[Labor Shall Rule]

David,

By saying "it's too much of a religion," I assume you mean that you think that most leftists would flex their tactics to approach an artificial image, or a subjective view of the conditions that are contradictory to the true state of working class consciousness. But theory and tactics are interdependent on the conditions, it's motion from one point to the other won't change unless the base moves itself.

It's obvious that spontaneity has produced 'liberal' demands in most occasions, so preaching for collective ownership would not produce the best results. It's impossible to forge radical solutions to long problems if those contradictions aren't solvable in the eyes of those workers at that time ('time' being the state of class relations). In that way, 'consciousness' is a determinant of whether their actions (inputs) will produce their desired result (outputs).

In a way, a communist party is a consumer. We want a certain output-structural demands that challenge capitalism-which is impossible (and elitist) to ask of at this current time. This is why it's crucial to develop class consciousness. This can only be done through assisting workers in developing workplace organizations that would act as 'schools' of socialist thought.

[davidasearles]

das:

a religion that way too much of the left is requiring that everyone sign onto before agreeing to participate with them in promoting the idea of collective worker control (or even for the most part even talking to them about collective worker control.)


lrs:

By saying "it's too much of a religion," I assume you mean that you think that most leftists would flex their tactics to approach an artificial image, or a subjective view of the conditions that are contradictory to the true state of working class consciousness. But theory and tactics are interdependent on the conditions, it's motion from one point to the other won't change unless the base moves itself.

das:

You assume a lot. perhaps I wasn't explicit enough in the context given.

Religion: common beliefs and morals as well as practices and reverence for the same things.

http://www.helium.com/items/989770-five-sociological-characteristics-of-religion

There is to much revernce for the idea that there is an indendent "class consciousness" that must be obtained before a person an particiapte in a movement toward establishing collective worker control.

If a person agrees that there ought to be collective control of the industrial means of production and will openly give that opinion to others inluding the people who represent him or her in elected bodies, if there is such a thing as class consciousness, woudn't this be a suffienct demonstration that this person has it?

Too much of the left says that there is a thing called class consciousnes that it must try to build it up BEFORE broadcasting a message of collective worker control of the industrial means of production and distribution. I suggest that it is a self-defeating imaginary impediment that the left has set up to explain its failure to convince people of the necessity of worker collective control even before going out and actually trying to get this idea across using the same methods that would be used in trying to convince anyone of any other thing. It adheres to this idea much as a devout religious person adheres to any article of faith. That's why I say that the left is too religious in this.

[RedSonRising]

A revolution needs to assume attack on the capitalist state from all angles; workers literally siezing the means of production of closed down factories, as seen in Argentine and now newly in the US by republic workers, is a great sign of progress, but without the proper legisltion it is not possible. Revolutionary parties may not soley liberate the working class, but their ability to organize is an immense help to the building of class conscioussness and a great channel for agitation. One cannot rely solely on activism, or on structural politics, or on music designed to inspire popular movements, or for people to one day decide to establish/elect socialism out of the blue. Revolution without some sense reformism is hard to accomplish.

[davidasearles]

rsr:

Revolutionary parties may not soley liberate the working class, but their ability to organize is an immense help to the building of class conscioussness and a great channel for agitation.

das:

Maybe that means something to you but I just don't see that it means anything.

But then again "revolutionary party" is another article of faith accepted (in my opinion) because it sounds oh so romantic.

[piet11111]

well i personally consider participation in Bourgeois "democracy" as a waste of time but there are some benefits and very serious downsides to it.

pro's

- a platform for organisation and to get into the public eye.
- legitimacy just look at the russian revolution after the Bolshevists gained the majority of seats in the soviets they could carry out their revolution with a public mandate of sorts.

con's
- compromises have to be made all the time at the expense of your political integrity (but temporary gains can be won for the people)
- attracting careerists to your party that will sell out sooner or later.
- its hard to argue without looking like a hypocrite against a form of government you are a part off.

history has shown us that the majority of genuine revolutionary party's that take part in elections and government eventually transform into just another Bourgeois party that because of its original platform is likely to absorb all the discontent against the system for quite a long time until the people know that the "socialist" party's are class traitors.

taking part in government corrupts so do not take part in it is my opinion.

[davidasearles]

piet:

i personally consider participation in Bourgeois "democracy" as a waste of time but there are some benefits and very serious downsides to it.

das:

Thank you for the response.

Bourgeoisie use the public highway systems to drive their expensive cars upon. They also use them to transport the material results of bourgeois production. Does that make the highway system "bourgeois" so that workers should not drive their Fords on them either to or from the revolution?

Couldn't the state also be in that category?

[Labor Shall Rule]

Too much of the left says that there is a thing called class consciousnes that it must try to build it up BEFORE broadcasting a message of collective worker control of the industrial means of production and distribution. I suggest that it is a self-defeating imaginary impediment that the left has set up to explain its failure to convince people of the necessity of worker collective control even before going out and actually trying to get this idea across using the same methods that would be used in trying to convince anyone of any other thing. It adheres to this idea much as a devout religious person adheres to any article of faith. That's why I say that the left is too religious in this.

It's not 'self-defeating' to realize that workers dart ahead of theory-or of political conversion-based on their own experience. It takes a lot of guts to lock the doors, and tell management to fuck off. It's an action (i.e. human activity) that is typically not carried out unless prior experiences affirm the success of it's application. To have that tenacity, you need to have had to have done something like that before.

In our case, it hasn't been done for a long time.

[davidasearles]

das:

I suggest that it is a self-defeating imaginary impediment that the left has set up to explain its failure to convince people of the necessity of worker collective control even before going out and actually trying to get this idea across using the same methods that would be used in trying to convince anyone of any other thing.

lrs:

It's not 'self-defeating' to realize that workers dart ahead of theory-or of political conversion-based on their own experience. It takes a lot of guts to lock the doors, and tell management to fuck off. It's an action (i.e. human activity) that is typically not carried out unless prior experiences affirm the success of it's application. To have that tenacity, you need to have had to have done something like that before.

das:

But that is not what I suggested is it?

For the most part the left isn't sugesting aggitation toward a goal such as slamming the factory door (or perhaps taking some other possible more effective measures before the slam heard round the world). Sadly for the most part the left DOES NOT openly discuss collective ownership of the industrial means of production as THE or even a primary goal. Individual left groups for some reason are too invested in specifically not advocating this goal. To my mind no one has adequately explained why the apparent decision of not advocating the goal of collective worker control jibes with any recognized educational theory; that the goal will be reached sooner for NOT advovating it as opposed to later.

[piet11111]

piet:

i personally consider participation in Bourgeois "democracy" as a waste of time but there are some benefits and very serious downsides to it.

das:

Thank you for the response.

Bourgeoisie use the public highway systems to drive their expensive cars upon. They also use them to transport the material results of bourgeois production. Does that make the highway system "bourgeois" so that workers should not drive their Fords on them either to or from the revolution?

Couldn't the state also be in that category?

if you need me to explain the difference between a system of government set up to resemble democracy (but sharing more in common with a rigged gambling machine) and a transportation network unable to be used for anything but as a road then i would rather waste my time doing something i can actually enjoy.

[davidasearles]

piet:

i personally consider participation in Bourgeois "democracy" as a waste of time but there are some benefits and very serious downsides to it.

das:

Thank you for the response.

Bourgeoisie use the public highway systems to drive their expensive cars upon. They also use them to transport the material results of bourgeois production. Does that make the highway system "bourgeois" so that workers should not drive their Fords on them either to or from the revolution?

Couldn't the state also be in that category?

das writes:

piet responds by comparing the state to a rigged slot machine - whereas a road can only be used as a road.

das continues:

That's it then, no analysis but a metaphor, a poor one at that. Political democracy without class rule must resemble a rigged slot machine exactly why?

Essentially because that is the way that we have always thought and god forbid our poor excuses for revolutionary thinkers should ever entertain anything that would require a single synapse to fire in a slightly different pattern than previously accustomed to.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Religion: common beliefs and morals as well as practices and reverence for the same things.

http://www.helium.com/items/989770-five-sociological-characteristics-of-religion

There is too much reverence for the idea that there is an independent "class consciousness" that must be obtained before a person an participate in a movement toward establishing collective worker control.

If a person agrees that there ought to be collective control of the industrial means of production and will openly give that opinion to others including the people who represent him or her in elected bodies, if there is such a thing as class consciousness, wouldn't this be a sufficient demonstration that this person has it?

Too much of the left says that there is a thing called class consciousness that it must try to build it up BEFORE broadcasting a message of collective worker control of the industrial means of production and distribution. I suggest that it is a self-defeating imaginary impediment that the left has set up to explain its failure to convince people of the necessity of worker collective control even before going out and actually trying to get this idea across using the same methods that would be used in trying to convince anyone of any other thing. It adheres to this idea much as a devout religious person adheres to any article of faith. That's why I say that the left is too religious in this.

Dave, why not have both? What you're talking about here is described as "revolutionary-socialist class consciousness," not mere "class consciousness" or "socialist consciousness" (that of reformists / class-collaborationists). It is possible for *some* to attain the ultimate consciousness. However, for much of the masses, "class consciousness" needs to be built.

That is why the classical scientific socialists - Marx, Engels, Bebel, Liebknecht, Kautsky, Lenin, etc. - stressed the merger of revolutionary socialism and the worker-*class* movement.

That is also the justification for the minimum-maximum program, in which the end goals are clearly stated (contrary to your objections), and which various minimums - IF correctly formulated - build "class consciousness" and provide a smooth "transition" to the ultimate consciousness.

The problem with much of the left is that, like you said, not enough discussion occurs on the maximum program. In addition to this, however, most of the various minimums aren't correctly formulated (because they're too liberal, because they're too economistic, etc.).

[davidasearles]

das:

Why not have both? You’re asking me? I accept both. You in particular have chosen to believe "class consciousness" needs to be built for the masses before you can dare come out of the closet and advocate of collective worker control of the industrial means of production and distribution.

+++++++++++++++
The person referring to him/herself as "Jacob Richter":

That is why the classical scientific socialists - Marx, Engels, Bebel, Liebknecht, Kautsky, Lenin, etc. - stresses the merger of revolutionary socialism and the worker-*class* movement.

+++++++++++++++
das:

It doesn't matter how many names that you drop, does it?

You have chosen to believe some unsubstantiated notion that knowledge and acceptance of traditional class explanations are a prerequisite to any person's acceptance of the conclusion that workers ought to have collective control of the industrial means of production and distribution.

It's almost like you don't want people to accept the idea UNLESS they have come to it through analysis that you think is OK.

It's not established that these machinations of proposing "minimum programs" (which bizarrely never come close to referring to worker collective control) increase to any degree what is termed "class consciousness" or why that would be demonstrably preferable to openly submit arguments in favor of collective worker control.

You might better ask yourself why it can't be both, or better, why is it that you can never directly address the goal of collective worker control.