Why don't socialists participate and succeed in democracy/elections?

[benhur]

Socialists always brush this aside as bourgeois, but by doing this, they're only playing into the hands of the bourgeois. We're giving them a chance to point a finger at us and say, "These socialists don't believe in democracy, they're violent and believe in dictatorships, as evidenced by Stalinism, Moaism:blink: in the past." And so forth. Point being, non-participation in a democratic process doesn't look good at all.

Second, it's impossible to achieve these things through other means, the state is simply too powerful. Democracy seems to be a safer option.

Third, how come even worthless BNP could succeed (to an extent), whereas socialists are found wanting?:crying: Doesn't this show that people think of us as vague idealists and dreamers, totally incapable of leading nations? Isn't it time to change this image?

[Chapter 24]

Socialists always brush this aside as bourgeois, but by doing this, they're only playing into the hands of the bourgeois.
By participating in bourgeois elections "socialists" would be participating on a strictly bourgeois platform, using bourgeois tactics and methods in order to win. And even after winning, they are limited to what change they would want to bring in a bourgeois state, not a worker's on.

We're giving them a chance to point a finger at us and say, "These socialists don't believe in democracy, they're violent and believe in dictatorships."
Which is why it is necessary to organize and educate. Not dismiss all of the work done and simply give in to bourgeois elections. By participating in those the parties themselves will only true bourgeois. CPUSA? Those aren't communists, they're social-dems.

Second, it's impossible to achieve these things through other means, the state is simply too powerful. Democracy seems to be a safer option.
So I take it you don't believe in revolution? So why, exactly, do you call yourself a Trotskyist when he believed in a vanguard that would push the revolution forward? There is nothing socialists can acheive with bourgeois-democracy.

Third, how come even worthless BNP could succeed (to an extent), whereas socialists are found wanting?:crying: Doesn't this show that people think of us as vague idealists and dreamers, totally incapable of leading nations? Isn't it time to change this image?
I'll let a British comrade take it from here as I really don't know too much about the BNP to comment on this.

[Forward Union]

Socialists always brush this aside as bourgeois, but by doing this, they're only playing into the hands of the bourgeois. We're giving them a chance to point a finger at us and say, "These socialists don't believe in democracy, they're violent and believe in dictatorships, as evidenced by Stalinism, Moaism:blink: in the past." And so forth. Point being, non-participation in a democratic process doesn't look good at all.


I don't think that's true at all. No one trusts politicians. I think you're saying this because you have no understanding of what the alternatives are today. That's not an insult at all comrade, just an observation.

I've been involved in building grassroots resistance and the power of the working class outside of capitalist "democracy" for some time, and it's got us a widespread reputation as "do gooders" I imagine a bit like robin hood. For example, community innitiatives like setting up community gardens in deprived working class areas, resisting evictions, illegally hooking up OAPs with central heating in the winter. Campaigning on housing issues and taking direct action to make victories. All in the name of an openly Anarchist organisation. For me that was "Reading Grassroots Action" and other of these things have been done by other groups.

This builds tremendous support and and radicalises and inspires people to take up action themselves, they also start to see that they can fix their problems through opposing capitalis mand not working within it. I also reccomend you look at the work LCAP is doing in London. In places were socialists have been elected, they've been powerles tools (look at bethenal green)

Wearing suits and parading about getting people to "vote" every 4 years for a limited position of power (bussinesses are more powerful than governments and are unellected) is no way forward. People don't get ellected based on the content of their policies, they just need to look good and make statements about dealign with education.

The BNP is not trying to organise a revolution but a coup. It doesnt want the workers to be empowered or have democracy, it wants to control the mechanisms of state itself. We can copy a lot of what they have done, but entering into parliamentry democracy is adverse to our cause. Furthermore, the only places they have done well, are places where they have been doing grassroots community organising in our absense.

Look at the Socialist Party, the SWP, Respect etc, who all stand in local elections and repeatedly fail. The only time's they have done well, was when there was a genuine grassroots movement for them to scav votes from. Anarchists seem to be the only people seriously involved in the low level grassroots organising that I think needs to be done.



Second, it's impossible to achieve these things through other means, the state is simply too powerful. Democracy seems to be a safer option.


I don't think that's true at all, our local Anarchist group of about 20 people managed to force the council into giving us land rights (two plots of land for 99 years) and meeting with us asking us to stop our activites for bribes. We also made them re-write their housing policy and lost them a seat.

On the other hand I've known sincere-hearted greens and indipendants who have won elections around a particular issues (notably in stopping an incinerator get built in a working class area) and found that the companies have more institutional power than them, and just told the local council to fuck off.

[Das war einmal]

I would think the answer is really simple. Socialists or communist are for an equal distribution of wealth and more or less want to nationalize private corporations. So they dont get a lot of money from capitalist institution if any. And since democracy only works if you have a big bag of money (to finance campaign, register yourself and sometimes, hire people to promote your party), you know why they dont have a lot of success.

[Forward Union]

I would think the answer is really simple. Socialists or communist are for an equal distribution of wealth and more or less want to nationalize private corporations. So they dont get a lot of money from capitalist institution if any. And since democracy only works if you have a big bag of money (to finance campaign, register yourself and sometimes, hire people to promote your party), you know why they dont have a lot of success.

This is certainly a valid point. But it goes further. Some socialists have managed to fund campaigns, stand in local elections, and even win*

But as I've said, coorporations and bussinesses determine national and international policy. Microsoft does deals with the EU, and Gates is not even ellected. The economy is not crashing because of Government policy, but because of bussiness decisions etc.

A socialist party in power would find itself being a pidgeon amongst the cats, it would be unable to impliment it's political policies, and would be limited to filling the cracks in the walls with cheap plasta.

It would end up like the last major Socialist party in England, and member of the Socialist International, The Labour Party


*See: George Galloway

[mikelepore]

People may give all kinds of philosophical reasons, but the practical reason is that, to get a political party on the ballot (in the U.S.) it costs a lot of money to hire a crew of people to walk the streets and gather hundreds of thousands of signatures on nominating petitions. That's the part about why socialists don't participate more, that is, why don't they even try most of the time. Why they don't succeed when they do try is another story.

[PRC-UTE]

People may give all kinds of philosophical reasons, but the practical reason is that, to get a political party on the ballot (in the U.S.) it costs a lot of money to hire a crew of people to walk the streets and gather hundreds of thousands of signatures on nominating petitions.

a valid point, however it's harder in the States, though. it's easier for small parties to get a foothold in most other parliaments.

[Revy]

It's preferable to run in elections, to raise socialist consciousness, and what will get you success as a popular party is building and organizing. This won't be done with a "left popular front" that will just dilute your core principles and anti-capitalist orientation. No, it will come when you organize for socialism, with other socialists, seeking out alliances with other socialists, building the party and a coalition, putting the revolutionary struggle above the party, and being uncompromisingly loyal to party democracy.

I think there are far less differences between the main British socialist parties and our American socialist parties.

[N3wday]

I know in the U.S., WWP I believe (I may be wrong), runs in elections in order to promote their politics. Often as far as I can tell without really expecting to win, but more for an opportunity to walk door to door in neighborhoods and talk up their politics. That's never really struck me as a something that seems particularly effective, but, nonetheless gives an idea of creative ways groups have been involved in electoralism.

In the U.S. there's a wiiiiiide disconnect between local and national politics, so local politics generally have very limited influence and running a national campaign, that actually has a chance to win and is free of opportunism, is near impossible.

However, that being said, there may be the possibility of using local campaigns effectively. I'm generally suspicious of this, but I haven't thought it through, nor am I very familiar with times it's been tried, methods employed etc. So, I won't outright rule it out as an ineffective tactic.

But there are times in history when elections have been used effectively by Communists. The German KDP comes to mind, but clearly conditions are greatly different from then and now.

So I suppose what I'm getting at, is it's wrong to rule out all elections at all times, as simply reformist. But, I think fair to say they're generally much less effective now (at least in the U.S.) then the multitude of other tactics available to promote revolution.

[Labor Shall Rule]

I doubt that most people on this site would stipulate that electoralism is an important part of revolutionary strategy-well, at least at this point of crisis for the left. Reformism is clearly making a political re-entry though.

It's obvious that reformism will be a force to contend with though-new forms of regulationism (and the ideology that occupies it) seeks to subordinate capital to the needs of the working class through taxation, 'redistribution', price and wage fixing, and even nationalization as the structural contradictions that are inherent with capitalist production become more apparent through the financial crisis. But let them play Parliament (or Congress) if they want. They'd have to propel industries to create a sufficient surplus to get the cash to pay for even the most modest reforms – an impossibility in a globalized economy that is propped up by overwhelming amounts of fictitious capital.

What we are faced with now is this: are we ready for a crisis of reformism?

[Guerrilla22]

The electoral ystem was established and is maintained by the ruling class and is designed to maintain the status quo, this is especially true in the US where there are two parties, a centrist party and a conservative party. It's their system and trying to make gains by participating in it would be self defeating.

There is a user on this site that advocates using the electoral system to take control of the government and then use a constitutional amendment to collectivize property. This would require socialist to take the preisdency and a two thirds majority in both houses and survive any court challenges. This is somehow going to be easier than a worker's takeover of businesses and the government through violent means?

[OneNamedNameLess]

There has already been some excellent answers on this so i'm just giving a personal reason of why I don't vote. The reason is simple. There are two main parties in the UK and voting for them as a socialist would be folly. The battle is between the Conservatives and Labour and casting a vote for an alternative party is not worthwhile as a victory would be miraculous and sporadic. In Scotland the SNP have emerged as a third party and are currently in power up here. In local elections SNP and Labour appear to be the only major contendors. I don't believe in voting as I do not think it is effective.

On the other hand, I wouldn't rule out what a socialist victory could achieve within a democracy. Take Chavez and Morales for instance. Both have managed to implement radical policies through their election. Obviously South American examples differ from European, North American and Oceanic ones where most members here appear to stay. However, I think it is worth mentioning. Not much chance of a Morales or Chavez being elected here though :(

As for the BNP, their growth has been intensified by a higher rate of immigration. The continuous stream of migrants and asylum seekers over the past few years has fueled their growth in popularity. Their proposals are simple and vulnerable and ignorant people are attracted to them. Sad but true, blaming foreigners for a nation's problems is not new and somehow persists in the world today no matter which continent or country we refer to.

[Leo]

These socialists don't believe in democracy, they're violent and believe in dictatorshipsWell (genuine, not liberal) socialists are exactly like that. We don't believe in democracy, we are for class violence and proletarian dictatorship, and see the democracy of today as the circus of bourgeois dictatorship.


as evidenced by Stalinism, MoaismBoth ideologies that claimed to be democratic and advocated participation in elections and "democratic struggles" as they called them.


Second, it's impossible to achieve these things through other means, the state is simply too powerful. Democracy seems to be a safer option.The state really is quite powerful, that's indeed why it's impossible to achieve the overthrow of it's class enemy for the working class through institutions of it's class enemy, through institutions of the state, especially through an ideologically deceitful one such as democracy. It is nothing but a murderous circus attempting to cover or justify all the crimes of bourgeois order. The working class has no interests in it, and thus, genuine socialists has got no place in it.

The only way to achieve anything is the overthrow of it's class enemy and the destruction of it's class enemies state mechanism by the working class.


Third, how come even worthless BNP could succeed (to an extent), whereas socialists are found wanting?Well, most self-proclaimed "socialists" have been trying. Maybe you gotta ask what they are gaining in trying, and what they have gained in all the "socialist deputies" who have went to parliaments and all the "socialist governments" even who have been formed.

[JimmyJazz]

The question is why the labor movement is weak. When it was strong (first couple decades of the 1900's), so were socialist showings in elections.

However, as Lightning noted, participation in parliamentary elections is a tactic and not a path all the way to power. Those with capitalist interests are not going to be peacefully expropriated simply because it is shown to be the "will of the people" through elections. Obviously, they're going to put up a fight to defend their material interests, including by abandoning democracy for fascism when necessary. This is what Engels meant when he said that the capitalists would "know what to do" when socialists started winning a democratic majority:


And lastly, the possessing class rules directly through the medium of universal suffrage. As long as the oppressed class, in our case, therefore, the proletariat, is not yet ripe to emancipate itself, it will in its majority regard the existing order of society as the only one possible and, politically, will form the tail of the capitalist class, its extreme Left wing. To the extent, however, that this class matures for its self-emancipation, it constitutes itself as its own party and elects its own representatives, and not those of the capitalists. Thus, universal suffrage is the gauge of the maturity of the working class. It cannot and never will be anything more, in the present-day state; but that is sufficient. On the day the thermometer of universal suffrage registers boiling point among the workers, both they and the capitalists will know what to do.

[lombas]

What about entrism?

[god0fmusic]

Third, how come even worthless BNP could succeed (to an extent), whereas socialists are found wanting?:crying: Doesn't this show that people think of us as vague idealists and dreamers, totally incapable of leading nations? Isn't it time to change this image?

the right has always been more united than the left. the right, for the most part is more coercive. the only time when the left cought up with them in power was when Lenin and Stalin decided to be extremely coercive. this kind of coercion used mainly by the right wings is what makes them so powerful. keep in mind that right wings who dont use coercion also dont have much fame, for example Ron Paul. he is anti-authoritarian. he doesnt get elected because he does not believe in using coercion. people don't like him because he doesn't look like a leader in which people can put their faiths into, he looks simply like a smart guy who can manage things properly. people like to be controlled, and Ron Paul is not there to control anyone.
god-like apearance and coercion are the key to rule.

now, this doesnt mean that coercion is the way to achieve our aim. the way to achieve our aim is reason and direct action. direct and organized (by organized i dont refer to political parties or syndicates) action will come to rival coercion in the long run.


about participating in the government... i am an anarchist and i dont believe in participating in big government, but i do accept participation in municipalities or other small divisions within the state. it might be ineffective though, so other methods have to be used outside of this. you can't rely purely on one method.

[Leo]

When it was strong (first couple decades of the 1900's), so were socialist showings in elections.

That all ended up very badly though.

If you accept the current heirs of those socialists (social democrats, socialist parties, even communist parties if elected) who have been elected then to be socialists, you could say that "socialist" showings in elections are even stronger.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

"stuff"

I would +Rep you but it says i need to spread rep around but the Lcap stuff is really impressive , if i had the time and lived in london (As opposed to the occasional weekend) I would join.

[JimmyJazz]

That all ended up very badly though.

If you accept the current heirs of those socialists (social democrats, socialist parties, even communist parties if elected) who have been elected then to be socialists, you could say that "socialist" showings in elections are even stronger.

Well, technically Lenin is their heir as well, no? He certainly advocated participation in parliamentary elections as a tactic.

[genstrike]

What about entrism?

You mean joining Blairite class collaborationist political parties (Labour, NDP, etc), working hard to get a gang of Third Way hacks elected, and hope the party brass lets you either have some influence or some power?

Entryism is simply collaboration with the class collaborationist parliamentary left. And I don't see how it is effective. If I get 20 of my socialist and anarchist friends together and we all join the NDP, they are still going to push the same neoliberal policies. If we take over a constituency association, the party brass would come down on us like a ton of bricks. If we get elected, we have to follow "caucus solidarity" (read: don't criticize the right wing policies of the party brass) or we'll get expelled from the party.

No matter how hard I try, I really can't see the point to entryism.

[Leo]

Well, technically Lenin is their heir as well, no? He certainly advocated participation in parliamentary elections as a tactic.

Yes, and it was a mistaken and opportunistic tactic which was criticized by the left communists in Comintern.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Yes, and it was a mistaken and opportunistic tactic which was criticized by the left communists in Comintern.

:rolleyes:

Such "revolutionary" rhetoric to cover bankrupt, broad-economistic calls for abstention (as opposed to outright spoilage, ballot refusals, etc.) never ceases to confound me.



http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/495/marxism.html


By the middle 1890s it is possible to distinguish five different trends in the international workers’ movement:

(a) Right syndicalists or ‘non-political’ trade-unionists. The most important element was the right wing in the British trade union movement, but the trend was also found elsewhere in Europe, and within Germany under the banner of the SPD, as well as in the catholic and other trade union organisations. The Russian ‘economists’ were ideological representatives of this trend with a Marxist coloration. This tendency held that it was sufficient to defend the immediate economic interests of workers in the direct struggle with their employers - primarily through trade union action, but also through seeking pro-worker legislation.

(b) Non-Marxist socialists. The usual ‘representative figure’ is Bernstein, because he was an ex-Marxist, relatively ‘sophisticated’ in his writings and engaged in argument by the German centre and left. In fact Bernstein is not particularly representative: there were various other forms of non-Marxist socialism, like those of the English Fabians and Independent Labour Party or the semi-Radical trend in France led by Jean Jaurès. This tendency argued, on very various grounds, that the task of the movement simply was to fight within the existing state order for reforms which shifted society towards socialist ‘values’. Its direct inheritors are the modern socialist parties.

(c) The ‘Kautskyan Marxist’ centre, mainly based in the SPD but also found in France (where the most prominent leader was Jules Guesde) and elsewhere; the Russian Iskra tendency around 1900, and hence both the Bolsheviks and part of the Mensheviks, were part of this tendency. This tendency had generally Marxist reference points. It foresaw a decline of capitalism and a revolution at some point in the future, but was ambiguous as to the role in this of the parliamentary-constitutional state. Its main focus in practice was on ‘preparatory tasks’: ie, building up the organised workers’ movement, including trade unions and cooperatives, but particularly building an organised workers’ political party which would take on all political questions posed for the society as a whole.

(d) A ‘Hegelian Marxist’ and semi-syndicalist left tendency within the International. Prominent leaders or writers included Antonio Labriola in Italy, Herman Gorter in the Netherlands and Rosa Luxemburg in Poland and Germany. This tendency argued that the International should not merely prepare for the revolution, but should fight for it by promoting strike action and the general strike, which was seen as the means by which the proletariat escaped from the dynamics of commodity fetishism and began to emancipate itself; it tended to deprioritise or reject electoral and parliamentary activity. Luxemburg’s pamphlet The mass strike is part of the ongoing polemics of this tendency against the right and centre round the ‘strategy’ of the general strike. Trotsky seems to have been intermediate between this position and the centre.

(e) Outright left anarcho-syndicalists were outside the International, but, as can be seen from (d), their ideas had significant indirect influence within it; they were strongest in Italy, Spain and France (another Hegelian Marxist, Georges Sorel, was a theoretician of revolutionary syndicalism in France). They were also present in the USA and Britain (International Workers of the World and De Leonist Socialist Labour Parties).

As I said in another thread, only four of those five tendencies have a solid existence, even if marginalized (the spat between Trotskyists and Left-Communists is little more than a right-left schism within Tendency D). One of them needs to be rebuilt from scratch... badly. :(



On the other hand, perhaps my creative proposals will help illuminate what's needed for modern electoral tactics:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/party-recallable-closed-t94427/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/electoral-tactics-referendum-t93347/index.html


You mean joining Blairite class collaborationist political parties (Labour, NDP, etc), working hard to get a gang of Third Way hacks elected, and hope the party brass lets you either have some influence or some power?

Entryism is simply collaboration with the class collaborationist parliamentary left. And I don't see how it is effective. If I get 20 of my socialist and anarchist friends together and we all join the NDP, they are still going to push the same neoliberal policies. If we take over a constituency association, the party brass would come down on us like a ton of bricks. If we get elected, we have to follow "caucus solidarity" (read: don't criticize the right wing policies of the party brass) or we'll get expelled from the party.

No matter how hard I try, I really can't see the point to entryism.

<sarcasm> Oh, but that's the "Marxist" way of doing things, comrade! Michel Pablo and Ted Grant (Militant, CMI, IMT) said so! </sarcasm>

[Agathon]

The question is why the labor movement is weak. When it was strong (first couple decades of the 1900's), so were socialist showings in elections.

This is actually the answer, as far as I am concerned.

The idea that the only alternative to democracy is dictatorship is a flawed one. There are a variety of ways in which the consent of the governed can be obtained, not all of which involve a single voter going to a ballot box in isolation from other voters.

Voting, as it occurs in current democracies, is a market transaction. People vote as individual "consumers" of political parties. To claim that this is socialist is the same as claiming that a market economy where everyone had exactly the same amount of income was socialist (it's not, for obvious reasons).

Unions served a very important purpose in subverting the individualist market model of voting by essentially compelling their members to engage in public political discourse. My Dad's union would talk to the members about voting, and there would be back and forth discussion between the membership and union leaders about real issues. The quality of the discussion is not what mattered. What mattered is that it took place and altered the context in which voting took place and made it public rather than private. Even people who voted against their union's slate benefited from the existence of the union.

As everyone here knows, that's one of the major reasons that unions have been the subject of mass attack from the right for the last 40 years. It is imperative for the right that ordinary people do not get together and discuss political issues on their own terms. When they do, their voting patterns change as they develop class consciousness.

Democracy is not a panacea. It is an extremely flawed system of government, and is probably not capable of solving the coming environmental crisis. Nevertheless, it is in the interests of socialist to develop alternative forms of consent based governance based on compulsory participation in small groups which then kick up to larger groups and so on up until the government.

All power to the Soviets.

You know it makes sense. :)

[Mister X]

You mean joining Blairite class collaborationist political parties (Labour, NDP, etc), working hard to get a gang of Third Way hacks elected, and hope the party brass lets you either have some influence or some power?

Entryism is simply collaboration with the class collaborationist parliamentary left. And I don't see how it is effective. If I get 20 of my socialist and anarchist friends together and we all join the NDP, they are still going to push the same neoliberal policies. If we take over a constituency association, the party brass would come down on us like a ton of bricks. If we get elected, we have to follow "caucus solidarity" (read: don't criticize the right wing policies of the party brass) or we'll get expelled from the party.

No matter how hard I try, I really can't see the point to entryism.

So Trotsky was a class-collaborationist when he proposed the tactic of entrism to the French and Spanish Trotksyists?
I am not saying that in these material conditions entrism is the way to go but I can't help but respond to posts that ignore history and mix up ideas.
Entrism might not be the best tactic but it is certainly not class-collaborationist.

Class-collaboration is when you ally yourself with the interests of the bourgeoisie, the entrists on the other hand try to win over class-collaborationists to revolutionary Marxists.

Entrism is performed by many organizations to this day including the IS in the Netherlands where they practiced entrism as Trotsky described it a few years ago, the CWI still performs forms of entrism and the IMT as well.

It is a good method for small organizations to "steal" activists from bigger organizations but that's about it.

[lombas]

You mean joining Blairite class collaborationist political parties (Labour, NDP, etc), working hard to get a gang of Third Way hacks elected, and hope the party brass lets you either have some influence or some power?

Entryism is simply collaboration with the class collaborationist parliamentary left. And I don't see how it is effective. If I get 20 of my socialist and anarchist friends together and we all join the NDP, they are still going to push the same neoliberal policies. If we take over a constituency association, the party brass would come down on us like a ton of bricks. If we get elected, we have to follow "caucus solidarity" (read: don't criticize the right wing policies of the party brass) or we'll get expelled from the party.

No matter how hard I try, I really can't see the point to entryism.

Don't get upset, comrade. I just wanted to point some people to the fact that the working class is already organized, in many countries, in parties that - though they certainly serve the interests of the bourgeoisie - can be influenced by a movement that raises class-consciousness and explains marxist theories, thus offering an awareness to confront common practical situations (like the recession today).

In fact, I would like to stress that this is not only a possibility but also a responsibility and even an obligation of all class-aware leftists.

[genstrike]

Don't get upset, comrade. I just wanted to point some people to the fact that the working class is already organized, in many countries, in parties that - though they certainly serve the interests of the bourgeoisie - can be influenced by a movement that raises class-consciousness and explains marxist theories, thus offering an awareness to confront common practical situations (like the recession today).

In fact, I would like to stress that this is not only a possibility but also a responsibility and even an obligation of all class-aware leftists.

I don't know if the working class is that organized into parties. Maybe it was in Trotsky's time, but not now. In my country (Canada), I think the portion of people who are members of political parties is something along the line of 1%, and most of those would probably be Conservatives and Liberals. If you throw a rock into a workplace, you aren't going to hit a New Democrat. Really, the only people who are organized into the NDP are the labour bureaucracy. There is no mass working class political party, and despite their flaws and decline, unions have organized around 30% of workers, compared to less than 1% for the NDP.

And I'm not so sure that any political party would implement a program that will confront these practical situations in a positive way. So far, all I have seen from mainstream parties is proposals to save capitalism in some way by taking money from the working class and throwing it at capitalists.



So Trotsky was a class-collaborationist when he proposed the tactic of entrism to the French and Spanish Trotksyists?
I am not saying that in these material conditions entrism is the way to go but I can't help but respond to posts that ignore history and mix up ideas.
Entrism might not be the best tactic but it is certainly not class-collaborationist.

Class-collaboration is when you ally yourself with the interests of the bourgeoisie, the entrists on the other hand try to win over class-collaborationists to revolutionary Marxists.

Entrism is performed by many organizations to this day including the IS in the Netherlands where they practiced entrism as Trotsky described it a few years ago, the CWI still performs forms of entrism and the IMT as well.

It is a good method for small organizations to "steal" activists from bigger organizations but that's about it.

I said it was collaboration with class collaborationist parties. Even if you are just a member to poach other activists, you have to pay dues to be a member of the party and will be expected to donate your time and money to the party.

You might be able to stal a couple activists from a party, but it would probably be easier to try to steal them through issue-based campaigns and things like public discussion forums and book clubs. And even then, it's not an easy thing to do. I know people that hate the NDP yet will not leave the party.

I don't know, maybe it's my background. I spent about a week volunteering with the NDP and a couple years organizing against their policies.

[Mister X]

I said it was collaboration with class collaborationist parties. Even if you are just a member to poach other activists, you have to pay dues to be a member of the party and will be expected to donate your time and money to the party.

You might be able to stal a couple activists from a party, but it would probably be easier to try to steal them through issue-based campaigns and things like public discussion forums and book clubs. And even then, it's not an easy thing to do. I know people that hate the NDP yet will not leave the party.

I don't know, maybe it's my background. I spent about a week volunteering with the NDP and a couple years organizing against their policies.

WE must have different experiences then. I am a member of the NDP due to my union being affiliated with the NDP and I pay 10$ a year. I am not required to work for them for example do electoral propaganda for them, it is all voluntary.
What I do is go to their conferences and push for socialist resolutions such as nationalization of the banks, the oil etc and through that I win support for my ideas.

The thing is that I am not organized in a party so that can't be considered entrism but this is how it works. I was a member of the Communist Party of Canada but after going more deep into Marxism I understood how it was social-chauvinistic and anti-marxist.

The other "independent" workers parties in Canada are all tiny and insignificant.
I haven't found yet an organization in Canada that has potential.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The other "independent" workers parties in Canada are all tiny and insignificant.

I haven't found yet an organization in Canada that has potential.

That's why I'm agitating on this board for such a Class-Strugglist Social Labour to be formed. :(

As for other groups: the official "socialist" party is an ultra-sectarian group, others are Trot circle-sects, two are "official communist parties," and one's a glorified think-tank (Socialist Project).

[Mister X]

That's why I'm agitating on this board for such a Class-Strugglist Social Labour to be formed. http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/sad.gif

As for other groups: the official "socialist" party is an ultra-sectarian group, others are Trot circle-sects, two are "official communist parties," and one's a glorified think-tank (Socialist Project). __________________


Well I have other criteria. Which are:
1) Genuine Bolshevik Leninist(Trotskyist), with no sellouts and no popular frontism(Like the IS).
2)Non-Sectarian. I would join the Spartacists but it seems like their only activity is to criticize other left-wing organizations. That is why many people think that they are funded by the CIA(which I don't think its true by the way). Also non-sectarian in regards to unions and other parties(Like the RCP which is not socialist)
3)Organized along Bolshevik lines. (Tell me if you want further explanation on this).

The Communist Party of Canada as I said is social-chauvinist and has abandoned Bolshevism since the degeneration of the USSR. The M-L does not qualify my criteria. As about the Trot organizations , well they are all cultish with no connection to anybody besides their small circle.
The Socialist Caucus inside the NDP along with Fightback are quite better than anything else in their tactics and analysis but I am not so sure about them yet.

As about your idea of a class-strugglist party it is easy on words but hard to build. I think entrism in the NDP should be a first step towards that. Let's face it our numbers are tiny. Under these material conditions of capitalist crisis , I am sure that we can win over a lot of activists from the NDP (not that there are too many activists there, but they are more than all the left combined. which is about 5 000 people in Canada).
If you win over a big portion of the activists of the NDP then you ave a base in order to build a class-strugglist socialist party along Bolshevik lines.

[davidasearles]

Why don't socialists participate and succeed in democracy/elections?

To me "socialism" and just who is a socialist new will be resolved in a thousand years of discussion so I use an approach of using operational definitions. Instead of saying who is and who isn't a socialist I look at who advocates collective worker control of the industrial means of production and who doesn't.

So I would frame the question as: Do people who advocate worker collective control of the industrial means of production and distribution participate in the established political; process, and if not, why not?

One might guess from the text in my signature what my answers to the above may be, but I will wait to see what others say about what I have already written before continuing further with my own comments.

[Mister X]

So I would frame the question as: Do people who advocate worker collective control of the industrial means of production and distribution participate in the established political; process, and if not, why not?

Comrade I think you should distinguish between tactics and what we want to achieve.
That goes for everyone. We all want to achieve a society where workers control the means of production in a democratic way. But how will this come about? How can we reach the broadest layers of the working class and agitate to even the most backward layers of the proletariat?
That's why we need to be firm in principle and flexible in tactics(as old Lenin said). If it means working in trade-unions so be it. If it means participating in the bourgeois election knowing that nothing will change through parliamentarianism ,then so be it.



proposed amendment to U.S. Constitution


Section 1. Exclusion of the workers from collective ownership and control of the industrial means of production and distribution shall not exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. The workers have a right to organize into industrial unions which shall control and operate the means of production and distribution and allocate the products of labor as the workers at all times democratically determine.
Section 3. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

If you think that you will achieve a workers democracy through amendments to the US constitution you are far from the truth.
The political system is created in order to follow up with the capitalist mode of production. Therefore we cannot use it in order to achieve our goals.
Therefore we need to smash the current state and build a new workers state and follow through with the dictatorship of the proletariat as described by Marx(not to be confused with the Stalinist dictatorship over the proletariat).

[lombas]

I don't know if the working class is that organized into parties. Maybe it was in Trotsky's time, but not now. In my country (Canada), I think the portion of people who are members of political parties is something along the line of 1%, and most of those would probably be Conservatives and Liberals. If you throw a rock into a workplace, you aren't going to hit a New Democrat. Really, the only people who are organized into the NDP are the labour bureaucracy. There is no mass working class political party, and despite their flaws and decline, unions have organized around 30% of workers, compared to less than 1% for the NDP.

It's not only about the members, it's especially about those represented by the votes.

Yes, I hear you coming, a lot of "mass-workers-parties" (the social-democrats) don't represent true workers anymore, but those blinded by capitalist propaganda. Is this a reason not to try to convince these people they still belong to the same proletariat as in Trotsky's days?

Where I live, a lot of the former social-democratic votes go to the far right. I would do anything to get them back to vote "left".

Revolution is also education and organization.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Well I have other criteria. Which are:
1) Genuine Bolshevik Leninist(Trotskyist), with no sellouts and no popular frontism(Like the IS).
2)Non-Sectarian. I would join the Spartacists but it seems like their only activity is to criticize other left-wing organizations. That is why many people think that they are funded by the CIA(which I don't think its true by the way). Also non-sectarian in regards to unions and other parties(Like the RCP which is not socialist)
3)Organized along Bolshevik lines. (Tell me if you want further explanation on this).

I gotta disagree here. The CPGB, "democratist" Communist League, and the multi-tendency SPUSA are better, Erfurtian precedents for national "branches" of Class-Strugglist Social Labour than any Trotskyist "Bolshevik" party.

[davidasearles]

mister x to das:

If you think that you will achieve a workers democracy through amendments to the US constitution you are far from the truth.

das:

You would probably agree with me that what either of us thinks will or will not happen and what is pretty much besides the point especially when there are so many variables. The only thing that any of us can do is to propose what we think would be a reasonable course for us as individuals to attempt to pursue.

For myself I don't see participation in political parties as a good way to use my energies- again for myself I see that advocating for a broad movement to push for collective worker control of the industrial means of production and distribution is a more effective way for me to get as many people as possible to adopt this as a goal. What those people then do with the idea is up to them. Work within established unions, or other organizations, or start their own - what ever floats peoples boats, that's what they need to do.

It seems to me that pursing what has to be viewed as an organic social change at this point by trying to participate within the legislatures themselves by trying to get elected to me seems like a waste of time, ditto trying to use a campaign of running a single candidate or small slate of candidates as a basis for agitating from a political platform. But that's me.

[Mister X]

I gotta disagree here. The CPGB, "democratist" Communist League, and the multi-tendency SPUSA are better, Erfurtian precedents for national "branches" of Class-Strugglist Social Labour than any Trotskyist "Bolshevik" party.

If you have a multi-tendency party with reformists, left-wing communists etc. then you are wasting your time with useless power struggles and you are not productive. We need a Bolshevik-like party which is uniform, but of course with democratic centralism. That is why the bolsheviks broke away from the RSLDP .

Unfortunately your type of party will either lose credibility in a revolutionary situation when the reformists won't want to take action, either it will break to 2 parts, the reformist and the revolutionary and therefore become weaker due to the split and infighting . After the infighting in the crucial times of revolution , it would probably fail to lead the proletariat to victory. That is why I would never waste my time on an organization like that. (I could give a more through explanation but that is my general basis of disagreement)



You would probably agree with me that what either of us thinks will or will not happen and what is pretty much besides the point especially when there are so many variables. The only thing that any of us can do is to propose what we think would be a reasonable course for us as individuals to attempt to pursue.

For myself I don't see participation in political parties as a good way to use my energies- again for myself I see that advocating for a broad movement to push for collective worker control of the industrial means of production and distribution is a more effective way for me to get as many people as possible to adopt this as a goal. What those people then do with the idea is up to them. Work within established unions, or other organizations, or start their own - what ever floats peoples boats, that's what they need to do.

It seems to me that pursing what has to be viewed as an organic social change at this point by trying to participate within the legislatures themselves by trying to get elected to me seems like a waste of time, ditto trying to use a campaign of running a single candidate or small slate of candidates as a basis for agitating from a political platform. But that's me.

No I don't agree with you. The bourgeois system as I explained before arose due to capitalism and you cannot use it to create socialism. It is common knowledge confirmed by history(it is not just theory). Read about Bernstein and the German Social-Democrats, the French Social-Democrats etc.

It seems that you have no definiste plan and this shows your political immaturity. In a revolutionary situation you don't have time to do whatever floats your boat, if you do so , you're dead.

You need a definite plan of action and if your plan doesn't work then you're fucked. That's why you study history and you make sure that you have the correct plan, which is a bolshevik plan. That's all.

[Die Neue Zeit]

If you have a multi-tendency party with reformists, left-wing communists etc. then you are wasting your time with useless power struggles and you are not productive. We need a Bolshevik-like party which is uniform, but of course with democratic centralism. That is why the bolsheviks broke away from the RSLDP.

http://z11.invisionfree.com/Kasama_Threads/index.php?showtopic=241

Um, the principle of "class strugglism" does its job quite well in terms of filtering out most "reformists." :) The principles of transnational emancipation and partiinost filter out those with fetishes for spontaneity.

As for the remaining reformists who for one reason or another happen to be class-strugglists, well the RSDLP(B) wasn't entirely purged of accommodationism: the 1917 stance of Zinoviev, Kamenev, and Stalin on the Provisional Government.

[davidasearles]

Mister X:

The bourgeois system as I explained before arose due to capitalism and you cannot use it to create socialism.

das:

I do not think that you mean to imply that nothing that has developed during or is a product of the bourgeios system can be used to help create socialism.

There has been an illogic on this topic pertaining to the democratic political state by the left going back to Marx, Engels and Bakunin. Look at even Engels (the most practically logical of the three, in my opinion)

"The state, therefore, has not existed from all eternity. There have been societies which have managed without it, which had no notion of the state or state power. At a definite stage of economic development, which necessarily involved the cleavage of society into classes, the state became a necessity because of this cleavage. We are now rapidly approaching a stage in the development of production at which the existence of these classes has not only ceased to be a necessity, but becomes a positive hindrance to production. They will fall as inevitably as they once arose. The state inevitably falls with them. The society which organizes production anew on the basis of free and equal association of the producers will put the whole state machinery where it will then belong - into the museum of antiquities, next to the spinning wheel and the bronze ax." Chap 9, Origins Family Private Property and State.

______________________

"Revolutionary Socialism"

Is besides the point

[genstrike]

WE must have different experiences then. I am a member of the NDP due to my union being affiliated with the NDP and I pay 10$ a year.

So, you materially support the NDP to the tune of $10 a year, plus convention fees?


What I do is go to their conferences and push for socialist resolutions such as nationalization of the banks, the oil etc and through that I win support for my ideas.

Passing a socialist resolution at an NDP convention isn't going to help, because the people with the actual power in the NDP don't listen to convention resolutions (at least, in my experience living in the only province with an NDP government).


The other "independent" workers parties in Canada are all tiny and insignificant.

So are socialists within the NDP. If you can find me a member of an organization like fightback or the socialist caucus, or any self-described Marxist (who actually acts like a Marxist) or person who believes in class struggle or is anti-capitalist in the NDP holding political office anywhere in Canada, I'll buy you a case of beer.

On the other hand, I can only name four NDPers holding political office in Manitoba (out of a 40 MPs and MLAs) of who are progressive social democrats, and no actual socialists. The rest are blairite third way hacks.


It's not only about the members, it's especially about those represented by the votes.

Seriously? How does working within a former socialist party get you in contact with people who mark an x in a box every four years?


If you have a multi-tendency party with reformists, left-wing communists etc. then you are wasting your time with useless power struggles and you are not productive.

And the difference between that and working on useless power struggles and resolutions within the NDP is...?


We need a Bolshevik-like party which is uniform, but of course with democratic centralism. That is why the bolsheviks broke away from the RSLDP .

The NDP will never be that party.


Unfortunately your type of party will either lose credibility in a revolutionary situation when the reformists won't want to take action, either it will break to 2 parts, the reformist and the revolutionary and therefore become weaker due to the split and infighting . After the infighting in the crucial times of revolution , it would probably fail to lead the proletariat to victory. That is why I would never waste my time on an organization like that. (I could give a more through explanation but that is my general basis of disagreement)

But you would waste time on a completely reformist party with no (or at least, a very tiny) revolutionary segment?

[lombas]

Seriously? How does working within a former socialist party get you in contact with people who mark an x in a box every four years?


That's quite sloganesque, but whatever. A party represents people. If you're active in one, even a local section, you get to meet people. You make contacts, you find people who are, like you, kind of disgsted by the leadership's right-wing course. You're forming a tendency within the party. Voters notice this, and class-consciousness rises when internal party struggles are publicly addressed. Workers who voted for the far-right because they felt so let down by their representatives, grow more interest in the party.

Don't think it's easy for me to accept. I don't think entrism is easy for anyone who is class-conscious, influenced by revolutionary thought, &c.

But I can't stress enough that we have a duty to fulfill. Yes, talking this and thus is very useful and certainly produces enough theory to put into practice. But in the meanwhile, there are billions of people out there who are exploited every day. The question is: how can we educate them and prepare a revolutionary condition?

[genstrike]

I apologize for referring to the NDP so much, but it is my local former social democratic party and the one I have the most experience with (against?). Really, you could probably replace "NDP" with the Labour Party or Socialist Party of your choice.


That's quite sloganesque, but whatever.

I think it's a valid question. You were saying that it is about the voters, not the members. But if you are joining a political party in order to engage people, you aren't going to engage people who only show up to vote every four years in any meaningful way, especially when you are a tiny entryist socialist group. 99% of NDP voters probably have never even heard of the Socialist Caucus or Fightback or any other of the tiny socialist groups within the party.


A party represents people.

Not really. Most political parties in a capitalist state represent certain interests (either capitalist interests or in some cases, sections of the labour bureaucracy), and people aren't one of them.


If you're active in one, even a local section, you get to meet people. You make contacts, you find people who are, like you, kind of disgsted by the leadership's right-wing course.

You don't need to join a party to meet people. Why not just get involved with various people's struggles? For example, I'm a student, so I'm working with other students on struggles against increasing tuition. And in our mid-sized city, there isn't a shortage of struggles. In fact, a good portion of these stuggles are against our NDP government, which has a welfare policy to the right of the Chamber of Commerce.


Voters notice this, and class-consciousness rises when internal party struggles are publicly addressed.

Divisions in the NDP do nothing to raise class consciousness. And a lot of voters don't even notice internal party politics.


Workers who voted for the far-right because they felt so let down by their representatives, grow more interest in the party.

And how will we stop them from getting let down again? Get them to elect another NDPer who will betray them?


But I can't stress enough that we have a duty to fulfill.

I have no duty to join a capitalist party


Yes, talking this and thus is very useful and certainly produces enough theory to put into practice. But in the meanwhile, there are billions of people out there who are exploited every day. The question is: how can we educate them and prepare a revolutionary condition?

There are better ways than joining the NDP. No one is saying that we should spend all our time sitting around on revleft debating the finer points of Marx and Lenin, I just don't think entryism is the strategy that will get us from here to where we need to be. Quite frankly, I don't think it will get us anywhere. What we need is more of a strategy of accompaniment with social movements, not political parties.

[Die Neue Zeit]

But if you are joining a political party in order to engage people, you aren't going to engage people who only show up to vote every four years in any meaningful way, especially when you are a tiny entryist socialist group. 99% of NDP voters probably have never even heard of the Socialist Caucus or Fightback or any other of the tiny socialist groups within the party.

That's true. "Party politics" has become a joke, but...


You don't need to join a party to meet people. Why not just get involved with various people's struggles? For example, I'm a student, so I'm working with other students on struggles against increasing tuition. And in our mid-sized city, there isn't a shortage of struggles. In fact, a good portion of these stuggles are against our NDP government, which has a welfare policy to the right of the Chamber of Commerce.

[...]

What we need is more of a strategy of accompaniment with social movements, not political parties.

That wasn't the point of my programmatic advocacy of a politico-ideologically independent class party - a real party that gives meaning to "party life," with its own cultural, educational, sports, media, and other organizations (including co-ops, too). :(

All those various struggles you speak of are segmented, single-issue struggles without an overarching perspective. :(

[Mister X]

So, you materially support the NDP to the tune of $10 a year, plus convention fees?

I am supporting the NDP just like a rope is supporting a hanged man.


Passing a socialist resolution at an NDP convention isn't going to help, because the people with the actual power in the NDP don't listen to convention resolutions (at least, in my experience living in the only province with an NDP government).


Do you think I am an idiot? I know that better than you. But when genuine activists withing the NDP see the sellout they will turn more radical. It is analogous to the Bolsheviks saying all power to the Soviets (when the Mensheviks and the SR's controlled the Soviets). It is exposing the rotteness of the Social Democrat reformists.



So are socialists within the NDP. If you can find me a member of an organization like fightback or the socialist caucus, or any self-described Marxist (who actually acts like a Marxist) or person who believes in class struggle or is anti-capitalist in the NDP holding political office anywhere in Canada, I'll buy you a case of beer.

On the other hand, I can only name four NDPers holding political office in Manitoba (out of a 40 MPs and MLAs) of who are progressive social democrats, and no actual socialists. The rest are blairite third way hacks.


Again yout analysis is moralistic and anti-marxist. You don't see the division between the rank-and-file and the bureaucracy. Trotsky himself advocated antrism for the handfull of marxists in France and Spain just to win people over from the Social Democrats. You need to see the NDP as not one homogeneous piece but divided . And these divisions become more acute , the more the class struggle becomes acute. And then it is easier to win over not 1-2 people but hundreds and hundres. But you need a groundwork for that.

If you expect that declaring a revolutionary party of your own will bring the solution and create a vanguard, then you are blind to the failures of the IS, RCP, CPC, CPC-ML etc . Which are isolated sects that are going nowhere.


And the difference between that and working on useless power struggles and resolutions within the NDP is...?

It must be noted that the NDP IS NOT the Bolshevik vanguard for the revolution. Those who employ entrism have already an organization(like Socialist Caucus) and work withing the NDP in order to increase their membership out of the NDP activists , not the NDP membership.



The NDP will never be that party.

No shit. I never claimed that . Read what I write before you respond comrade.



But you would waste time on a completely reformist party with no (or at least, a very tiny) revolutionary segment?

There is a radical segment in the NDP . Using this segment and especialy under THESE conditions of capitalist crisis we can grow like the Waffles long time ago (I was in the Waffle so I can provide you with details). Of course we must not commit the same idiotic mistakes as the Waffle.

[Revy]

You mean joining Blairite class collaborationist political parties (Labour, NDP, etc), working hard to get a gang of Third Way hacks elected, and hope the party brass lets you either have some influence or some power?

Entryism is simply collaboration with the class collaborationist parliamentary left. And I don't see how it is effective. If I get 20 of my socialist and anarchist friends together and we all join the NDP, they are still going to push the same neoliberal policies. If we take over a constituency association, the party brass would come down on us like a ton of bricks. If we get elected, we have to follow "caucus solidarity" (read: don't criticize the right wing policies of the party brass) or we'll get expelled from the party.

No matter how hard I try, I really can't see the point to entryism.

I agree with you. I think that the Communist Party of Canada is better to vote for, even for those that aren't Leninist.

between social democrats and Leninists, I choose Leninists, even though I am not a Leninist.

Ideally i'd like to see a party like the Socialist Party USA in Canada. but until then people in Canada should vote Communist.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The official CPC didn't run anybody in my rather urban riding. The only "far left" party that runs candidates in practically every riding is the "anti-revisionist" CPC-ML.

[Revy]

a justification I could see for building socialist consciousness within the NDP is that it could prepare for a new socialist party. so that rather creating a socialist party out of nothing you could create a new party out of the most left-wing NDP members.

[Mister X]

I agree with you. I think that the Communist Party of Canada is better to vote for, even for those that aren't Leninist.

Prove to me that the CPC is Leninist!
They are reformist chauvinists that supported the NDP-Liberal coalition(Which Fightback and socialist caucus condemned by the way)
So either you have no idea what Leninism is or you have no idea what the CPC is. Maybe both.



between social democrats and Leninists, I choose Leninists, even though I am not a Leninist.

Me too(although I am a Leninist). But the situation here is to chose where to spread your propaganda. Between a tiny group (5-10 in every city) of Social-chauvinists with "marxist" rhetoric , or a huge party where social-democratic activists are. I choose the latter.


Ideally i'd like to see a party like the Socialist Party USA in Canada. but until then people in Canada should vote Communist.

First of all don't reccomend where we should vote as you have no idea on what the situation in Canada is apparently.
Second of all the SPUSA is another broad left reformist organization. We don't need another one we have the NDP.



The official CPC didn't run anybody in my rather urban riding. The only "far left" party that runs candidates in practically every riding is the "anti-revisionist" CPC-ML.

What's the point of voting for a radical left party ? So they can get 0.000015 percent rather than 0.000001?

What is needed is propaganda, agitation and being active in the movement. Not voting . I did not bother to vote for anybody.



a justification I could see for building socialist consciousness within the NDP is that it could prepare for a new socialist party. so that rather creating a socialist party out of nothing you could create a new party out of the most left-wing NDP members.

No shit, that is what people are trying to do here.....

[genstrike]

The official CPC didn't run anybody in my rather urban riding. The only "far left" party that runs candidates in practically every riding is the "anti-revisionist" CPC-ML.

Actually, the CPC-ML only ran candidates in 59 ridings out of 308 compared to 24 for the CPC. I think it depends on where you live though, as in my province, the CPC wins at number of candidates 3-0

[Die Neue Zeit]

That still doesn't address my response to you on partiinost. :(

[genstrike]

That still doesn't address my response to you on partiinost. :(

Well, I think it would be a good idea in general although it seems pretty far off at the moment, so until then we should be trying to engage social movements fighting for some elements of the future society we want to create (or just helping people manage the society that we have now) in a manner that is constructive to both us and the movements.

A good example would be something like OCAP, which is militant and anti-capitalist and has engaged a lot of poor people in Ontario.

[eirinn_x]

In my opinion, you have to first ask what is the expense of "waiting for the revolution". I would agree that in principle, the only absolute solution to the problems faced by the world is an eventual revolution, a shattering of the class system and abolition of oppression and poverty. However as a socialist, I have always believed that it goes directly against everything I believe in and everything socialists should do to do nothing to help those who need it because it is "not enough" or because it does not directly lead to a shake-up of the system or working class empowerment. To those who have posted giving details of things they have done in their communities without being elected or going through the democratic process then I take my hat off to you. However, I believe that as individuals, we are relatively powerless in terms of world change and instead, a truly socialist thing to do would be to work as much as we can to do what we can. In many instances, this follows the path of the political process.
I live in a council in the North of England which, during the 1980s, had a Labour majority. After a Conservative election victory in 1987, the leader of the Labour Group said to the councillors and party activists "Well, we shall just have to bring our own bit of socialism here then." The result of this was improvements in living conditions in some of our worst estates, the establishment in the town centre of a new sports and art facility, a successful funding application for two of our biggest (and poorest performing) high schools and countless other small benefits. This would no doubt be dismissed as "bourgeois" by those who would rather sit tight pontificating with like-minded, middle class friends over a glass of wine about at what point the revolution will arrive (as there can obviously be no doubt it will), but the fact is that it directly benefited the most vulnerable in the area, and the benefits are still being felt today despite significant cutbacks by the Conservative majority we now have.

I believe that those who refuse to act within the system we have (and as I mentioned, I'm not including those who actually do something for example the community activists who have posted above) run a serious danger of doing more harm than good. Yes, a revolution may be the only complete answer. But realistically, if all socialists took this view then we essentially leave the working class at the mercy of all capitalists and genuinely bourgeois organisations, both socially and electorally. It could also be said that if we try to move the system and general attitudes towards the left that it may increase working class empowerment and make eventual social upheaval and reconstruction more likely and easier.
We have to try and make life better for those who need it. There are those who need immediate help and relief, both at home and abroad, and if we refuse to give it on the basis of a hypothetical revolution that may or may not happen, instead favouring a passive attitude and the defaming of everything as "Blairite", "bourgeois", "tokenistic" etc., etc., we are as bad if not worse than any capitalist or oppressor of the working class in that we are sitting back and letting it happen.

[davidasearles]

The electoral ystem was established and is maintained by the ruling class and is designed to maintain the status quo, this is especially true in the US where there are two parties, a centrist party and a conservative party. It's their system and trying to make gains by participating in it would be self defeating.

There is a user on this site that advocates using the electoral system to take control of the government and then use a constitutional amendment to collectivize property. This would require socialist to take the preisdency and a two thirds majority in both houses and survive any court challenges. This is somehow going to be easier than a worker's takeover of businesses and the government through violent means?

Oh you mean that we're going to have to have a majority agree with us? Screw that, we'll establish worker collective control by the gun (pointed mostly at workers who currently are the majority political force upon which the cureent regime obtains any idea of legitimacy.) Makes great sense, sure to get a lot of support.

[JimmyJazz]

This is actually the answer, as far as I am concerned.

The idea that the only alternative to democracy is dictatorship is a flawed one. There are a variety of ways in which the consent of the governed can be obtained, not all of which involve a single voter going to a ballot box in isolation from other voters.

Voting, as it occurs in current democracies, is a market transaction. People vote as individual "consumers" of political parties. To claim that this is socialist is the same as claiming that a market economy where everyone had exactly the same amount of income was socialist (it's not, for obvious reasons).

Unions served a very important purpose in subverting the individualist market model of voting by essentially compelling their members to engage in public political discourse. My Dad's union would talk to the members about voting, and there would be back and forth discussion between the membership and union leaders about real issues. The quality of the discussion is not what mattered. What mattered is that it took place and altered the context in which voting took place and made it public rather than private. Even people who voted against their union's slate benefited from the existence of the union.

As everyone here knows, that's one of the major reasons that unions have been the subject of mass attack from the right for the last 40 years. It is imperative for the right that ordinary people do not get together and discuss political issues on their own terms. When they do, their voting patterns change as they develop class consciousness.

Democracy is not a panacea. It is an extremely flawed system of government, and is probably not capable of solving the coming environmental crisis. Nevertheless, it is in the interests of socialist to develop alternative forms of consent based governance based on compulsory participation in small groups which then kick up to larger groups and so on up until the government.

All power to the Soviets.

You know it makes sense. :)

AMEN, and not just because you quoted me before you wrote all of it. I've written very similar things in the past (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1253276&postcount=54).

Collective organizations (including those which are only education/discussion based) lead to collective consciousness, leads to collective action, leads to a government that is good for workers. I am proud to be a collectivist, not just about my political ends, but about my political means as well.

Individuals, sitting isolated in their living rooms in front of a TV that blares corporate perspectives, right up to the moment where they walk down the street every four years and pull a lever in a secret voting booth, is not a process which is going to bring about socialism even if we give it a million years. A class perspective comes about only by talking to other people of your class, not by gorging your brain on the MSM, corporate press releases, and the capitalist politicians' speeches.

[Cumannach]

In my opinion, you have to first ask what is the expense of "waiting for the revolution"...

Precisely.

[genstrike]

We have to try and make life better for those who need it. There are those who need immediate help and relief, both at home and abroad, and if we refuse to give it on the basis of a hypothetical revolution that may or may not happen, instead favouring a passive attitude and the defaming of everything as "Blairite", "bourgeois", "tokenistic" etc., etc., we are as bad if not worse than any capitalist or oppressor of the working class in that we are sitting back and letting it happen.

But what about the people who need help and live under a Blairite party? When I use that word, I am using it to describe a party which fills the same political space as the various Labour and Socialist Parties, but has a position on welfare to the right of the Chamber of Commerce. Electing those people sadly hasn't helped the people who need it most to any significant degree. When it comes to social democratic parties in power, I call them as I see them. Calling the Manitoba NDP a Blairite party isn't a defamation, it's a fact.


Do you think I am an idiot? I know that better than you. But when genuine activists withing the NDP see the sellout they will turn more radical. It is analogous to the Bolsheviks saying all power to the Soviets (when the Mensheviks and the SR's controlled the Soviets). It is exposing the rotteness of the Social Democrat reformists.

I don't know if this happens on much of a scale. My province has been governed by a constantly failing NDP for over 9 years, and I haven't seen any major upswing in radicalism.


Again yout analysis is moralistic and anti-marxist. You don't see the division between the rank-and-file and the bureaucracy. Trotsky himself advocated antrism for the handfull of marxists in France and Spain just to win people over from the Social Democrats. You need to see the NDP as not one homogeneous piece but divided . And these divisions become more acute , the more the class struggle becomes acute. And then it is easier to win over not 1-2 people but hundreds and hundres. But you need a groundwork for that.

If you expect that declaring a revolutionary party of your own will bring the solution and create a vanguard, then you are blind to the failures of the IS, RCP, CPC, CPC-ML etc . Which are isolated sects that are going nowhere.

Is there that much of a difference of opinion between the rank and file and the bureaucracy though? My right-wing premier always gets at least 90% support at conventions. The last person to run for the leadership of the federal party from the Socialist Caucus got like 1% of the vote. It doesn't seem like there is

And I don't see how divisions within the NDP make the class struggle more acute if none of the major factions within the NDP actually believes in class struggle.