Die Neue Zeit

There is also the hurdle of the two-party system, which I see as no small obstacle. The leadership of the SPUSA also seems to be quite wary of Marxists seeking to bring them into a more genuine alignment with the workers' interests.

Well, using the SPUSA as an example again since that's what I'm familiar with, wouldn't you say they are committed to bourgeois legalism? Their maximum programmatic goals seem entirely within the bounds of the Constitution and their proposed amendments aren't that ambitious. I can see why you might be interested in the SPUSA(i.e. their status on your "Organization" bar) since it seems that with the proper change of leadership and a change in strategic and theoretical outlook, you could have a solid basis for a true party of the workers.

I think there is potential in the anarchists. Many of them seem to be liberals clinging to romanticism and their ideals, but there are also many that are genuinely dedicated to the interests of the working class. Given the choice between their ideals and sitting out a real revolutionary movement of the workers, and joining us; I think they would prefer the latter. If I remember, this has some precedence in the Russian Revolution. The platformists seem like they would be ideal candidates, and anarcho-syndicalists, the worst.

How do you mean by that? Strategy is important, but unless they have a maximum programme then I see their long term potential stunted. Take the SPUSA for example, the actually seem to be prey to the same mentality that much of the revolutionary left is.

"Hopefully people start voting for us, but if not, then oh well."

Their commitment to bourgeois legalism and 'rule of law' is a handicap I think. We should only use such things as long as they are useful to us; and it seems undeniable that as the communist movement reaches its zenith, such things may well have to be cast aside. Even Enver Hoxha of all people realized this. My problem with such parties is twofold: they actually don't seem to have a good strategy in advancing class struggle and building upon the gains of the workers' movement, having fallen prey to the same political nihilism as their revolutionary counterparts; in a potentially revolutionary situation, I can see such parties bowing before bourgeois pressure.

What good would the Japanese communist party do though? I thought they were just common liberals, not even at the level of social-democrats. In addition, I also thought that the overwhelming mass of Die Linke had no interest in reaching communism even through reforms alone. To my knowledge, those that actually advocate revolutionary change only make up at most 5% of Die Linke.

Oh no, I'm not serious at all; it's just a joke. I think parties are absolutely essential right now since serious working class organization and mobilization is about nonexistent. I think we need parties with a centralized leadership and democratic decision making to coordinate political and economic activism and a new International. Right now, we're too ideologically battered to have a cohesive international. I'm still wary of the party taking state power, but it's not a principled position on my part and I still consider all possibilities.

What most people don't realize on the subject of reforms is that first of all, I don't think Marx made a holy writ against them. In addition, most seem to ignore Marx's statement that the communists should not have a party of their own apart from the non revolutionary workers. So far, your model party is the only one I've seen that actually co-opts non-revolutionary workers into working in their class interests.

I think that Revolutionary Strategy should be essential reading for all revolutionaries; that's what gave me the proper perspective on the mass strike. When political and economic activism are divorced, then it's not different from a blind man flailing around in the dark. Sometimes I wonder how anarcho-syndicalists can uphold their beliefs in this regard in the face of the preponderance of the evidence which says their strategy doesn't work; it seems that they just have their ideological blinders on, but I don't think there is any great shame in admitting that they're wrong.

Way too many communists among all the tendencies on both sides of the divide seem to have this idealist assumption that capitalism is going to roll over and die on its own.

I'm talking about the idea of building socialism in one country to begin with. Isn't that what the bourgeois phase of development is for; to lay the foundations upon which socialism will be achieved? Should be concerned with the build up of productive forces? That does seem like what capitalists are for.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...3&postcount=39

What do you make of this thread?

I think there could be some interesting discussions, but the DOTP seems to be fairly unambiguous. A lot of people seem to be under the mistaken assumption that it can only occur under socialism.

Someone should make a group about third world caesarean socialism.