We shouldn't say no to ANY opportunity to further our agenda even to a small degree. Simply the act of working in these fashions increases our movements prestige.
Results 1 to 20 of 47
Why do some Communists support parliamentary participation?
I don't understand why people think that working within parliamentary proceedings will do anything but hinder the revolution. I know there is something about using the rifts in between the parties to be able help the revolution, but is it not so blatantly obvious that in modern times the bourgeois parties will stand together against communism. I don’t know can someone explain, i know the Lenin supported the idea, maybe a Leninist can explain to me how it would be relevant in modern times.
Maybe party uniforms would be an idea. When the Party marches into a town, it should look like a military occupation is on the way.
-Azula
^for proof all leftists are just roleplaying
We shouldn't say no to ANY opportunity to further our agenda even to a small degree. Simply the act of working in these fashions increases our movements prestige.
[FONT=System][FONT=Arial][FONT=Impact][FONT=Arial Narrow]"A “mass” organ? We totally fail to understand what kind of animal this is. Do you mean to say we must descend to a lower level, from the advanced workers to the mass, that we must write more simply and closer to life? Do you mean to say our aim is to descend closer to the “mass” instead of raising this already stirring mass to the level of an organized political movement?" --V.I. Lenin
[/FONT] [FONT=Arial Narrow]"The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers." [/FONT]
[/FONT] [/FONT][/FONT]
Intentionally supporting a withholding of vital social services from working class folks because these would otherwise "bribe them out of revolutionary potential" is completely idiotic and insane, even if these services are provided by a Bourgeois government (although they povide these services in crumbs).
"The Earth does not belong to us, we belong to the Earth" -Chief Seattle
"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor, they call me a Communist." Hélder Pessoa Câmara
when the government is considering passing a anti-strike law, sometimes we need to bite the bullet sometimes and support "democracies" in order to get the small victories. besides, who said we cant do both? we're smart enough to pull it off.
Maybe those laws preventing strikes is whats needed to wake up the workers and make them realize the system doesn't support them. TBH i don't quiet see the difference between it and reformist thoughts.
Maybe party uniforms would be an idea. When the Party marches into a town, it should look like a military occupation is on the way.
-Azula
^for proof all leftists are just roleplaying
Vote
What is the percentage of people that vote in elections anyway, in most developed countries around 65% at best. People already see that voting is useless because the day after your still going to wake up and work.
Now you want to say to people no no these things actually do something so vote the socialist party and we'll nationalise the commanding heights. Your then going to throw all your money at this election, your hundreds of dollars mean nothing to their millions of dollars.
A better idea would be to try to reach the people who don't vote it's soon going to be the same percentage of those who do.
Freedom is a road seldom traveled by the multitude.
i wouldnt put so much faith in the working class rising up anytime soon in my area. though in practice the rising up ideas has worked in some areas. I am torn on this issue myself and i would have to brush up on my history and local laws to really get a full picture.
How do you want to bring in communism?
i) By starting a party and gaining public support
public thinks ooo yes, these are a real working class left wing political option i should look at
ii) By waiting one day to overthrow the bourgeois capitalist wankers who enslave us.
public thinks should I call the police, this terrorist is scaring me
Sure, one day the time may come for a revolution, in the current time though talking about it only makes us look like deluded fools, so for now, approaching things from the political system is what we should look at
Economic Left/Right: -5.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.51
Don't you think any good that might be accomplished by comrades in theses parties which are participating in these bourgeois structures just going to make the face of capitalism more bearable to the workers. Shouldn't the Communists form a separate body in which to help the workers out side of the parliamentary process? This to show that its not the capitalists whom are working in there favor but the Communists?
All it sounds like it would accomplish is reforming capitalism and distracting the working class. Most are so sick of the process and just lump all those politicians into one lump, these are the people who we should be appealing to. The system is corrupt so why partake in it and associate our "prestige" with such corruption.
Maybe party uniforms would be an idea. When the Party marches into a town, it should look like a military occupation is on the way.
-Azula
^for proof all leftists are just roleplaying
I think wherever current conditions are unbearable, and a betterment could be achieved through reform, supporting reform is adequate. It should never be the priortized action, though, and as such I am highly skeptical of all parties, groups or individuals primarly aiming primarly at parliamentary influence.
You have to analyze that concept in its times.
In 1850 Marx delivered an address, and had this to say,
Back then they just the action of having the presence of a mass socialist party would help raise awareness and encourage the proletariat to gain their own political knowledge and confidence.
The problem came over those politicians who were beginning to look for short-term victories and abandon all attempts at a long-term agenda, even if they claimed to practice it. They began to "compromise" with opponents in parliament to pass some laws. Inevitably these parties began to get dragged into the apparatus of the state.
Then the debate of reformists and revolutionaries arose. Reformists were fine with collaborating with the bourgeoisie parties and in the process become one of them. Revolutionaries continued their original stance and became intransigent in the process.
Lenin was a member of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party, before its split between Mensheviks and Bolsheviks. They were still following old social democratic principles that until the time of the revolution, their party would act as an agitator in representative bodies and try to pass some things to improve the material conditions of workers.
However like other revolutionaries he recognized that they should abandon this approach once the time for revolution came, and to ensure this would happen he made sure that his Bolsheviks had no trace of "reformists" so that the party's action would be uniform.
Lenin's stance towards participation in bourgeoisie parliaments was simple:
In other words Lenin saw the bourgeoisie parliaments as simply one front among many for a communist party, and should not be afraid to abandon those once revolution is imminent.
Reformists on the other hand relegated their activities purely to participation in parliament and passing legislation, in other words "legal" activities.
This was different in the case of the SPD in Germany, which had a diverse collection of ideologies in the party. Unfortunately the one came out were opportunists (Frederich Ebert), who voted for war credits in WWI and came in control of the post-war government. This government put down the Socialist Revolutions and ultimately led to a massacre of workers and the deaths of Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg.
SPD was not alone in this. Similar actions arose out of the Socialist movement in France and Italy, and the rest of the world, part of the division in the socialist movement between revolutionaries and reformists.
I guess what I'm getting at is that a true revolutionary party sees participation in bourgeoisie establishments as one of many fronts. The moment however when that party focuses exclusively on that is when it is lost.
Last edited by Red Commissar; 4th August 2010 at 23:08.
It's really not a difficult concept. The bourgeois elections are very important to the working class. Obviously, it tends to be a vote for who exactly will be fucking them next, but you never see the amount of political activism and discussion you see in the elections outside of them. Millions of workers vote and are very interested in the elections.
Thus, it would be irresponsible of a party that considers itself a party of the working class to ignore the immense opportunity to promote a socialist alternative to capitalism during the elections. They give revolutionaries a chance to show a different way out of the electoral sham that currently exists in the United States. It is necessary for revolutionaries to stand up and say that the two corporate parties are not the only options, but merely electing progressives is not an option either. What is needed is to form a movement to fight back against oppression and exploitation and build for socialist revolution.
Elections give socialists a chance to reach out to people who might not tend to be politically active at any other time and show them the folly of bourgeois politics. Frankly, if you choose to ignore them, that's just another way of alienating the working class. Some parties miss out on the vital opportunity that elections give, to provide a socialist answer to capitalist exploitation.
The basic ideas of Marxism, upon which alone a revolutionary party can be constructed, are continuous in their application and have been for a hundred years. The ideas of Marxism, which create revolutionary parties, are stronger than the parties they create, and never fail to survive their downfall. They never fail to find representatives in the old organizations to lead the work of reconstruction. These are the continuators of the tradition, the defenders of the orthodox doctrine. The task of the uncorrupted revolutionists, obliged by circumstances to start the work of organizational reconstruction, has never been to proclaim a new revelation – there has been no lack of such Messiahs, and they have all been lost in the shuffle – but to reinstate the old program and bring it up to date.
- James P. Cannon, 'The Degeneration of the Communist Party'
Since most countries use a system of National, Provincial and Municipal. How are each treated, is there need to be represented in all?
Maybe party uniforms would be an idea. When the Party marches into a town, it should look like a military occupation is on the way.
-Azula
^for proof all leftists are just roleplaying
Plus, just because a party uses the election process does not mean they don't also want revolution. But as said before to start planning the armed revolution before it is possible makes you look silly and out of touch and a "terrorist" to the...........right, the working class.
"If you tremble indignation at every injustice then you are a comrade of mine."
"Production by the masses, the interests of the masses, the experiences and feelings of the masses - to these the leading cadres should pay constant attention."
"Our duty is to hold ourselves responsible to the people. Every word, every act and every policy must conform to the people's interests, and if mistakes occur, they must be corrected - that is what being responsible to the people means."
Communist Parties should not participate in parliament to improve the conditions of the working class, entirely because it prolongs the Capitalist system, thus prolongs their suffering.
By slightly improving the conditions of the working class in the immediate moment through reform, you are acting against revolution because it inevitably makes revolution less likely to occur.
Communist Parties should use the parliamentary system only to gain support for Communism, but reform does not do this, it does the opposite, it makes people less revolutionary.
I'm not big on the idea of participating in parliament, I think it misguides the working class away from the only solution, Revolution. A Communist Party is supposed to guide the people towards their liberation, fighting to improve the lives for the workers in the Capitalist system causes much more mass suffering in the mid-long term, thus mis-directs them. -
Which is why I think it's reactionary how Communists jump on the band wagon and think that by fighting for jobs, you are automaticly doing something "good", simply because it's helping somebody in this instantance.
Fighting to improve workers conditions in the Capitalist system is like charity, it improves the conditions only slightly, but the damage done by doing this is much more severe.
"If you tremble with indignation at every injustice then you are a comrade of mine." - Che Guevara
I think in the short-term, our goal should be informing people of our aims and properly educating people about the past and the future. It may be necessary to follow these means in order to gain enough of a level of popular support to make a revolution possible.
Yes, participation in capitalism does prolong it, i agree, however, as I said in the post above, I think it could help us achieve our goals of educating the majority of the population. You are right that it is thinking about the short term, not the long.
I agree 100% on that it "misguides the working class away form the only solution, Revolution."
Maybe party uniforms would be an idea. When the Party marches into a town, it should look like a military occupation is on the way.
-Azula
^for proof all leftists are just roleplaying
This formulation is wrong on two levels.
For one, it sees elections as class neutral, a platform in the abstract from which revolutionaries can connect with the class. Elections in reality offer no platform for workers to struggle, they are the class terrain of the bourgeoisie.
Furthermore, your conception of class consciousness is an ideological one; class consciousness is a set of ideas to be acquired. The logical extention of this is to see the process of the development and generalisation of class consciousness as a propoganda war, hence the role of revolutionaries is (not dissimilar to born-again Christians) to 'spread the message' something any channel will serve to do. It is not, it can not.
Nic.
This pretty much sums it up for me.You either look to completly improve the conditions of the working class or you dont.There is no point in being half-hearted.
