A Program

What program can we show that all leftists would agree on? I think I got an idea to start it.

1. Abolition of capitalism and private property
2. Worker control of the means of production through direct democratic institutions.
3. A transitional state, known as the dictatorship of the proletariat, to reach the end of a classless and stateless society.
...anyone else?

Above you have presented the essentials of the socialist revolution. Now for each stage there must be a form and function. That means there will have to be a form to the function of overthrowing capitalist society, as well as several sub-functions. As for the transitional state we will need both a form and a function. Our conceptions of forms must be both broad and specific, starting with the broad, and working our way down to the specific.

Got anything in mind?

United Left Program Draft 1

Here I hope to present a framework for revolutionary action that all members of the left may hopefully agree upon. Though since I do not believe that my propositions will be accepted without many objections, this draft is more so intended to spark debate on the subject of a revolutionary program.

1. The Revolutionary Movement: As discussed earlier, each element of the program necessarily consists of a form and a function. The function of the revolutionary movement I propose is the abolition of the capitalist relations of production, and their replacement with a transitional socialist state. This state will also necessarily have a form and function that will be discussed later. The form of the socialist movement I propose consists of the working class organized into massive peaceful protests and strikes, that will not initiate violent contact with authorities but will respond to crackdowns with rioting. From rioting, the revolutionary workers may further assemble into organized militant opposition against the bourgiose if necessary. Next will come the management of the workers state.

2. Dictatorship of the Proletariat: The ultimate function of the state will be to establish a stateless and classless society where resources are democratically managed, and where each person is free to develop and exercise their physical and mental faculties. The sub-functions of the DOtP will be to phase out outmoded bourgiose patterns of thought, to protect the revolutionary proletariat from bourgiose resistance, and to produce an abundance of living materials. The form the state must take in my opinion is that of a Federation of democratic communes who determine federal policies through representative democratic procedures. This state will also necessarily operate an integrated defense force in addition to local militias.

That is the conclusion of the broad programmatic draft I present here. I look forward to your critiques of my ideas, and to the introduction of your own. I also encourage that no one be restricted by the format of my draft. We are open to any method of organization, including ones where the division of state functions and movement functions is rejected. While drafting this I considered grouping the entire program into a single communization project but I wish to receive your input first. Thanks and good luck on your own approachs!

Comrades, Might we be getting ahead of ourselves in thinking of the ulltimate goal of revolution, DotP, etc.? I was thinking more in terms of getting to know each other and our tendencies, learning to work together, and knitting our various politics and tendencies into various hypothetical actions. Thus we could all express our various politics in engaging, say, the need to bring capitalism into question at OWS, or organizing a mass strike in support of striking workers, or lending our "expertise" to a comrade who is organizing domestic workers in her neighborhood ...

The left currently cannot work together. Yet, all of the living systems of life, cells to ecosystems, are differentiated unities. All of the living systems of life are self-organizing "democracies." So what I'm hoping this group will begin to accomplish is to learn to organize effectively in our various ways--together!

I'm recommending that we start "small" while keeping our eye on the larger goal, but will be open to what the group decides.

Positivist, Zulu, who knows a lot about a lot, might not have a lot of time to offer, but would like an invitation.

A future group project? Form a hypothetical anarchist/socialist/communist party from our tendencies?

My red-green best.

I don't think every member of the Left agrees that there needs to be a "transitional state".

I don't think every member of the Left agrees that there needs to be a "transitional state".

Yes definitely not. I set up this draft as a starting point for debate. I don't even advocate the exact course of action on the program.

How do you think communists can use online communications for revolutionary propaganda and organization?

We do have a tremendous advantage compared to previous century revolutionaries.

Well first off I don't agree with the Leninist conception of a transitional society. For me a transition should last no more than 5 years at the very most. The reason for this is due to the necessity of the working class being ready to take over the means of production before the revolution happens. Further explaining this position read this article.

The first and most vital issue, is as I said in the thread opposition to reformism in all it's guises. This includes opposition to state capitalism.

Second which I hope we can all agree on quite easily is the abolition of money.

How do you think communists can use online communications for revolutionary propaganda and organization?

We do have a tremendous advantage compared to previous century revolutionaries.

I'd say that the Internet can be used as a new space for the exposition of our ideas. This can be achieved through free video critiques of current conditions posted to video sharing bases such as youtube and through the operation of independent websites were socialist ideas are debated. Though the latter option has limited power to draw in non-socialists as debates are usually conducted between two viewpoints foreign to them. (Between different offshoots of socialism.) Where as in the videos, any position may be refuted. Though I believe the ultimate capability we now possess (given adequate technical understanding) is to operate websites that frame current events from a communist perspective without expressly acknowledging that the news is being presented in such a way. By doing this we may reach an audience across the entire left-leftcentrist community. I suggest this in the conviction that an objective perspective is impossible and that the bourgiose perspective is be shoved down the throat of anyone who turns on their Tv or opens up a newspaper. (Or in our modern world, anyone who surf's the Internet.) Said site could only attract a substantial audience if esthetically appealing though and soundly constructed (no bugs, viruses, cookies) making abundant technical knowledge a necessity for operation. Another Internet media tool that would be useful would be a facebook page where socialist ideas compete with opposing ideas. There was a thread on this a while ago I'm gonna go check it out.

Well first off I don't agree with the Leninist conception of a transitional society. For me a transition should last no more than 5 years at the very most. The reason for this is due to the necessity of the working class being ready to take over the means of production before the revolution happens. Further explaining this position read this article.

The first and most vital issue, is as I said in the thread opposition to reformism in all it's guises. This includes opposition to state capitalism.

Second which I hope we can all agree on quite easily is the abolition of money.

The problem with immediate abolition of market exchange is that it will be enormously unpopular. Within bourgiose culture there has arisen patterns of thought, feeling and action that support the capitalist means of production. In order for socialism to be implemented I believe that it would be necessary to phase out these customs. What I am suggesting is the development of a totally new culture, which may be spearheaded during the revolutionary period, but only totally solidified after a period of targeted construction of said culture. The most dangerous trend I refer to is consumerism. As long as people continue to want and love the consumption of commodities, they will be unwilling to adopt new productive relations where consumption is no more.

The problem with immediate abolition of market exchange is that it will be enormously unpopular. Within bourgiose culture there has arisen patterns of thought, feeling and action that support the capitalist means of production. In order for socialism to be implemented I believe that it would be necessary to phase out these customs. What I am suggesting is the development of a totally new culture, which may be spearheaded during the revolutionary period, but only totally solidified after a period of targeted construction of said culture. The most dangerous trend I refer to is consumerism. As long as people continue to want and love the consumption of commodities, they will be unwilling to adopt new productive relations where consumption is no more.

One of the many reasons the previous attempts at creating socialism failed is because a minority tried to impose it upon the ignorant majority. To create socialism we must find conditions which not only make it possible but those which make it probable, we must build an unbeatable movement. If a majority are in favour of socialism no force on earth could stop them. In order for the majority to be in favour of socialism they must know what it is. If they know what socialism is then they will already know what they are fighting for, then it goes without saying that opinions on things such as the abolition of money will also have changed. Declining material conditions will do most of the work for us, however, we must also build a mass socialist movement to make sure that the socialist ideal becomes the new prominent ideology and not a regressive one in it's place.

Draft Program:
Suggestion: Also we should look at the option of a internationally organized communist party that plans a worldwide revolution or multiple revolutions as we need to deal with many bourgeois states. All countries may not be won over at same time but the working class should be internationalist in approach and so its party should also be that way.

Comrades, We're off to a good start: we're communicating, which is always a dicey proposition for the left.

This post will be something of a re-statement of my first, i.e., I believe we're getting ahead of ourselves. We are ignoring the beginning--the organization--that could engender successful revolutionary movements leading to a DotP, socialism, etc. Marxism has yet to successfully address the birth of the revolutionary process, although it has had much to say of its adulthood.

Anti-Capitalist referred to "worker control of the means of production through direct democratic institutions." Yes! So how would we and our various politics address the beginnings of such worker-controlled democratic processes? How do we begin to create a movement that, as Positivist writes, "consists of the working class organized into massive peaceful protests and strikes"?

Positivist notes that in such a process, "for each stage there must be a form and function." For sure! But what is the organization of viable socialist forms and functions? Marxism has been unable to answer this question. Just saying we must form soviets is inadequate. What is the organization of a soviet? How do we begin a revolutionary process?

Manic Impressive. Thanks for the article, which became a part of my learning process. You referred to the need to "build a mass socialist movement," and to the "necessity of the working class being ready to take over the means of production before the revolution happens." Aren't you suggesting here, as I'm emphasizing, that this group needs to focus on the beginning of the revolutionary process, and not its ultimate goal?

Positivist, you wrote, "What I am suggesting is the development of a totally new culture..." Yes, indeed! So how do we go about developing such a culture? How could our various politics/tendencies merge into the creation of a "proletkult," an idea initially proposed by Alexander Bogdanov and Maxim Gorky but opposed by Lenin? Could this group develop a hypothetical "proletkult"? Such projects would bring us and our politics together in a common project. We would begin to learn how to organize. Together.

Here's another suggestion for our various politics. Create a "New Town," or "Proleville" from the bottom up. Convert some Milltown into a worker's self-managed paradise whose influence grows regionally.

I hope no one experiences me as being obstinate or self-absorbed. I truly believe we must begin at the beginning, which would be learning to design pan-leftist projects that bring us and our hypothetical workers together.

My red-green best.

Comrades, We're off to a good start: we're communicating, which is always a dicey proposition for the left.

This post will be something of a re-statement of my first, i.e., I believe we're getting ahead of ourselves. We are ignoring the beginning--the organization--that could engender successful revolutionary movements leading to a DotP, socialism, etc. Marxism has yet to successfully address the birth of the revolutionary process, although it has had much to say of its adulthood.

Anti-Capitalist referred to "worker control of the means of production through direct democratic institutions." Yes! So how would we and our various politics address the beginnings of such worker-controlled democratic processes? How do we begin to create a movement that, as Positivist writes, "consists of the working class organized into massive peaceful protests and strikes"?

Positivist notes that in such a process, "for each stage there must be a form and function." For sure! But what is the organization of viable socialist forms and functions? Marxism has been unable to answer this question. Just saying we must form soviets is inadequate. What is the organization of a soviet? How do we begin a revolutionary process?

Manic Impressive. Thanks for the article, which became a part of my learning process. You referred to the need to "build a mass socialist movement," and to the "necessity of the working class being ready to take over the means of production before the revolution happens." Aren't you suggesting here, as I'm emphasizing, that this group needs to focus on the beginning of the revolutionary process, and not its ultimate goal?

Positivist, you wrote, "What I am suggesting is the development of a totally new culture..." Yes, indeed! So how do we go about developing such a culture? How could our various politics/tendencies merge into the creation of a "proletkult," an idea initially proposed by Alexander Bogdanov and Maxim Gorky but opposed by Lenin? Could this group develop a hypothetical "proletkult"? Such projects would bring us and our politics together in a common project. We would begin to learn how to organize. Together.

Here's another suggestion for our various politics. Create a "New Town," or "Proleville" from the bottom up. Convert some Milltown into a worker's self-managed paradise whose influence grows regionally.

I hope no one experiences me as being obstinate or self-absorbed. I truly believe we must begin at the beginning, which would be learning to design pan-leftist projects that bring us and our hypothetical workers together.

My red-green best.

In my opinion, the form of organization that must be adopted by a revolutionary movement would have to be that of a centralized democracy. In said centralized democracy the activities of the organization would be voted on via the Internet following a period of free debate where opposing viewpoints could civilly make their case. Hopefully this debating process could achieve near consensus amongst organization members but voting would still be necessary to affirm this consensus or to make decisions when consensus is impossible. I propose centralized democracy rather than decentralized as the activities of one group of activists reflects on, and effects the entire movement. Though centralized decisions would pertain to general initiatives and policies in order to limit restrictive (and discouraging) micromanagement. Now this is the form of a revolutionary organization that I advocate. A prolekult like organization would require an entirely different method of organization however as they have a different function. The function of the revolutionary organization would be the overthrow of capitalism while the function of the prolekult organization would be to agitate and inspire people into resisting xPitalism through the revolutionary organs.

Positivist, Others, The original "left unity" thread is still going in Politics, and Chtulhu (sic) just made a long post. The current discussion there is on "natural democracy/left unity."

Comrades, We'll need to organize a hypothetical project emphasizing left unity eventually, won't we? This would be premature right now, but ....

Positivist, Yes, centralized democracy at the top, but decentralized, grassroots democracy below. This is the way life organizes: local "democratic" organisms create communities with "higher" levels of organization. This organization then becomes a seamless organizational unity top to bottom, but this "top" organization is always grassrooted.

Positivist, ego aside, the preceding paragraph trumpets the theme I believe the left must come to understand: We are natural beings currently living terminally unnaturally. We are living beings and must organize our communities and societies as does the rest of life. Marx and Engels knew we are natural beings, but lived before the dawn (evolution aside) of the new sciences of the organization of life. These sciences of organization are now available to we who must learn to organize, but they have been universally ignored by the left.

As for proletkult, I find this to be a fascinating idea and aborted experiment. I meant it only as a possible focus for a hypothetical organizing project for us, but surely in any revolutionary process we would want to begin to emphasize the cultural aspects of the developing movement. People would be coming together in new, communal formations, and that would be a "culture" that revolutionaries would need to be aware of and help facilitate.

And yes, we are currently using the internet and can employ it to organize, BUT: the internet is, ultimately a creation of
The System and is rife with potential for sabotage, surveillance, etc. Recent experiences at Revleft indicate just how fragile this "lifeline" is.

A final note on "grassroots-centralized democracy." Let's say our ideal society is based in soviets. These grassroots soviets would develop an internal "centralized democracy" and would further come together into town, industry, regional, and national forms of centralized democracy, just as the grassroots organization of a cell merges with the "higher" organization of an organ, body, herd or society, etc.

My constant theme is that life has a universal pattern of organization that humans as natural beings must emulate, and that capitalism's organization acts as a cancer of all other life forms.

The rest of life practices "left unity." What enables organisms to come together in communities in which each self-organizing organism preserves its identity while contributing to and existing within the larger whole, which is also able to preserve its identity while living within and contributing to still larger wholes? This describes cells/organs/bodies, and it also describes a communist society: "Only in community [with others has each] individual the means of cultivating his gifts in all directions; only in the community, therefore, is personal freedom possible." (Marx, German Ideology)

The organization of life is the organization of community and communism.

My red-green best.

Comrades, Damn! Has Mr. Natural killed yet another thread? Many threads have ended after I posted. Well, at least these are "Natural" deaths.

Can we get some life here? I'm looking at the various political tendencies of our members, and surely we could pick a project, analyze it from our various perspectives, develop a common program, and then continue in the direction indicated. The left needs organization and some opening leadership. How about us?

My red-green best.

I'm looking to reopen this thread on a unified socialist program. Any ideas? Ideal components would include organization of the working class movement, actions of unified proletariat, policy immediately following seizure of power (if necessary), policies of interacting with rest of world (if necessary), policies and length of transitional period (if necessary.)

I'm hoping this cause isn't dead. I fail to see how anyone of us can hope to untie the proletariat, if we can't unite ourselves.

If we wish to achieve this goal, we may wish to act with the FI. The FI (USFI) in 1985 had moved to support pluralism, meaning they accept any parties that respect workers democracy. If Stalinist parties (are you okay with this term?) were to accept this, we would be well on our way.

Furthermore, on closing the Stalin-Trotsky divide, I wonder if it would be possible to unite socialism in one country and world revolution. Something along the lines of lending supply and forces to neighboring revolutions, under their vanguard party (another point, how do we feel about Vanguardism?), while developing the DotP in our own nation.

I'm not an expert, and this will need much more debate from experts.

But there could be a simpler (albeit possibly only short term) option. We could unite the parties, and let the proletariat decide in the soviets.

And another note. We could attract attention by advertising (for lack of a better word) this group/cause by putting a link to this page in our signatures.

I am glad to see such a response, that is exactly the kind of thinking we need! The reconciliation between SiOC and world revolution is of prime importance. I believe that nations where the workers class conscioussness is greater should focus on building a society where workers manage and own capital, while working to spread this mode of production worldwide. The Leninist model id the best bet for this. Lenin worked to protect the establishment of workers control in Russia, while also forming a communist international which acted to promote class conscioussness amongst other workers of the world.

Exactly.

Furthermore, on the Leninist model, at the time of the Russian Revolution, the Soviets were the tool of building a DotP. I believe that through Soviet democracy, we can attract various leftist parties, by supporting the idea that anyone of any tendency can stand for election in the soviets. Ie, a Trotskyist and a Stalinist can argue as much as they want, but it would be up to the locals to decide who should represent them.

PS I've tried to become a member of the Fourth International page on Revleft, and currently my request is pending (I don't think anyone has looked at it yet). However, I could run this idea by the FI page on Facebook if you guys want me to.

I definitely agree with the promotion of Soviet democracy. I believe that by turning to Lenin many of the conflicts between MLs and Trotskyists may be reconciled. Most MLs hold to the view of the ability of workers to take control of the means of production within their respective state, but also recognize the benefit of spreading socialism and communism as only achievable universally.

Hopefully so.

I'd say the biggest problem we would have is the die hard supporters of Stalin, Trotsky, Mao etc.

However, I was reading a while ago a poll about the Stalin-Trotsky divide. The question was: Is it harmful to our cause, or is it crucial to theory? The majority of the people who voted found it harmful.

On another note, Maoism is another large tendency of the left. Which we will need to address. I think we could agree with the Maoists that China has become another capitalist nation. And the World Revolution has been addressed. However, Mao was very stern with his beliefs, and I believe this may carry on with modern Maoists. For example, the Cultural Revolution was an attempt to wipe out right-wing factions within the party. I'm not sure how modern Maoists would react to working with other tendencies.

I myself, though not a Maoist, believe in Mao's mass line and support cultural revolution as part of proletarian liberation. I don't think that the intolerance of other tendencies will permeate from Mao to his modern adeherents as I in my acceptance of certain Maoist principles did not become more intolerant. The only way to know for sure is to try them out. But I unequivocially agree that it is the obssession with history amongst stalinists, Maoists, hoxhaists, and trotskyists which fuels the divide.

Indeed.

I myself, similarly not a Maoist, support some Maoist principles. But not the Cultural Revolution (I see it as just another purge). I support the Great Leap Forward (but I think it was implemented a bit badly).

I just mention it to bring up the topic, and to make sure that this movement will not be betrayed, because I thought that a hard core Maoist may not accept this movement.

Yes I think I'm going to message some of the previously active members in this group to foster further discussion.

Well, its been to long since I did anything here, so here I am.

Another issue I have found is that some leftists do not support vanguardism. At least one argument I am aware of is that a vanguard can lead to dictatorship. From my view (which is Trotskyist, and obviously this is not going to be a view shared by this group) is that this has historically been the case in Russia and China.

Discussion will be necessary to try and bridge this gap between vanguardists and anti-vanguardists. However, as a first suggestion, I propose that the vanguard is given strict restrictions on its authority. It will control things such as disaster relief, defence, diplomacy (however, agreements may need to be ratified by the people) etc. It will need to stockpile a percentage of resources gathered (within reason). These resources will be allocated as necessary (disaster relief, logistics in a time of war etc).

However, all administration of local areas will be taken care of by the Soviets (which are elected by the proletariat of the local area, and can be dismissed by said proletariat at any time), and the vanguard will have virtually no authority. It may direct the soviets, but the soviets have the authority to dismiss the vanguard's authority (unless it needs to mobilise a militia in a time of war or something).

For example, the vanguard may direct the soviets to expand industry (and allocate resources to do so), but if it will cause a famine or something, the Soviets have the right to refuse, or to expand industry over a long period of time.

I do not believe this will be a universally accepted approach, and as such, I would like some discussion on this.

I believe that the vanguard is the organization of the class conscioussness section of the proletariat, and as such is the appropriate body to take on number of governmental roles. While I maintain the belief in the integration of the entire working claw into the management if the state through workers councils, I also believe that in times of civil strife, it may be necessary for the vanguard to take control of the functions usually assigned to the councils. Though ut is imperative that the vanguard retain its own democracy during this period.

Though ut is imperative that the vanguard retain its own democracy during this period.

I just wish to confirm, do you mean it will retain a soviet democracy, or some other system. May you please explain it a bit more. Cheers.

I mean that if hypothetically, the Soviet system of democracy needed to be suspended as the result of sabotage (which would likely occur during a civil war period) that the party (which is still open to new members) should assume political supremacy, but only on the condition that it operates democratically.

In this way the proletariat remains to operate its dictatorship, as opposed to a single leader or a cabal of leaders operating on its behalf.