FYI, notes on faction-less but multi-tendency and genuine one-party system commentary: “Against the collective power of the propertied classes the working class cannot act, as a class, except by constituting itself into a political party, distinct from, and opposed to, all old parties formed by the propertied classes. This constitution of the working class into a political party is indispensable in order to insure the triumph of the social revolution and its ultimate end -- the abolition of classes. The combination of forces which the working class has already effected by its economical struggles ought at the same time to serve as a lever for its struggles against the political power of landlords and capitalists. The lords of the land and the lords of capital will always use their political privileges for the defense and perpetuation of their economical monopolies and for enslaving labor. To conquer political power has therefore become the great duty of the working [class].” (Marx) - Resolution by the Hague Congress on the Establishment of Working-Class Parties by the International Workingmen’s Association [http://www.marxists.org/history/inte...e/parties.htm] - “When Marx and Engels declared the necessity of organizing into a political party, they did not say ‘into a political party or into political parties’ or ‘into a political party or two.’ They were quite clear about a singular party-movement.” (Me) - http://www.revleft.com/vb/do-you-sup...690/index.html - Relate Lewin’s “no-party state” to the coordinator class - Define the faction-less but multi-tendency one-party system as the post-state transitional body politic in accordance with the reconciliatory definition of “the state” offered in this work - Razlatzki vs. Schwartz on pluralism: http://books.google.com/books?id=ppZIhynKp0wC - http://www.revleft.com/vb/workers-po...796/index.html - “In all, there can be three distinct groups in a genuine one-party system: the political, mass, worker-class party-movement proper, the professional or full-time state/polity ‘party,’ and the purely administrative state/polity ‘party.’” (Me) - http://www.revleft.com/vb/all-power-...105/index.html - “With regards to the German Revolution, had the very ultra-left formation of the KPD not occurred and had the renegades in the USPD been given the boot, I'm sure the MSPD-USPD experiences in parliamentarism, cabinet coalitions (through the Rat der Volksbeauftragten, or Council of People's Representatives), and the Arbeiterrate ("Workers Councils") would have prompted a USPD with majority working-class political support to simply claim "All Power to Independent Social Democracy!" Arbeiterrate be damned.” (Me) - http://www.revleft.com/vb/deleon-vs-...755/index.html - “From the other side there's another system of economic institutionalism, this time conceptualized and partially implemented by Nikita Khrushchev. His take on the "withering away of the state" involved massive reorganization of the "ruling party" such that direct administration over the economy, at the expense of state and/or polity organs, would be the primary focus and that cultural, political, and other non-economic functions would be prioritized further down or outsourced to youth organizations (Komsomol), trade unions, public-sponsored mass vigilante groups (druzhinniki, or auxiliary citizen militiamen), "comrades courts," etc. Other than the hare-brained scheme of specifically bifurcating the "ruling party" into specialized sections for "Industry" and "Agriculture," the key flaw in Khrushchev's approach to the "withering away of the state" was the absence of a mass party-movement with an explicitly political character, in relation to which all members of the "ruling party" would be merely non-voting members. This merely goes back to Lenin's own fundamental error with regards to the dumbing down of politics during the transitional period. Assuming the existence of a mass party-movement with an explicitly political character in both cases, how should workers go about economic administration on an institutional basis?” (Me) - “For me, there's no right or wrong answer here. Personal inclinations depend on whether or not a comrade supports a genuine one-party system, and even then there are still possibilities. For those comrades who knowledgeably and understandably still oppose a genuine one-party system, SIU/RIU/SPS is the way to go, though it should be cautioned that the One Big Union under any of the DeLeonist variants (especially the newer ones) risks losing its political character by diving into systemic, collective workers management over the economy. For those comrades who do support a genuine one-party system, some may not buy the "withering away of the state" argument posed by Khrushchev and may completely side with Zhdanov & Kuznetsov to make doubly sure there's redundant political character for the "ruling party," in relation to Razlatzki's actual political party-movement constitutionally entrenched as the ruling party proper. Personally, whatever happens with the "ruling party," I still see a mix that includes a DeLeonist variant. One can't swing from Zhdanov-Kuznetsov all the way to Khrushchev or back again re. "party political work" vs. direct economic management, without crossing paths with Malenkov first (the Stalin and Brezhnev eras saw waffling between Z-K and M), and a Malenkov-style apparatus just doesn't have the numbers to chug along just fine without the DeLeonist variant.” (Me) - The Split in Stalin’s Secretariat, 1939-1948 by Jonathan Harris [http://books.google.com/books?id=ghO...ec=frontcover] - Consider Kaganovich re. preceding Malenkov (by splitting Orgraspred) - The Communist Party of the Soviet Union by Leonard Schapiro [http://books.google.com/books?id=Vrs...ec=frontcover]
