Minimum Programe and Mass Line

[Guardia Rossa]

I have been talking to some Trotskists and they say once in a while that "We must first push/we can't at first push further than the demands of the people, only by making important victories can we push forward harsher demands"

I remember reading in Wikipedia about Mass Line this: "The essential element of the mass line is consulting the masses, interpreting their suggestions within the framework of Marxist-Leninism, and then enforcing the resulting policies, although it may no longer closely resemble the original suggestion."

Both to me appear to be showing the people that they can and at the same time show that only with the communists they can push whatever demands they have, including the dissolution of the present state of things, but, what is the practical difference between both?

[Heretek]

There isn't that much of a difference. The historic difference between trotskyists and stalinists was mostly the question of internationalism. Otherwise their programs begin to mimic each other. Trotkysites sometimes begin to mention the lack of democracy in M-Lism

[Guardia Rossa]

Any contributions?

[The Idler]

Wilhelm Liebknecht argued for "No Compromise, No Political trading!", a slogan adopted by the socialist movement.
James Connolly argued against those insisting on being "practical" in politics, for it schools you to think along the lines, and in the grooves of those who rob you.
Marx argued instead of the conservative motto: “A fair day's wage for a fair day's work!” they ought to inscribe on their banner the revolutionary watchword: “Abolition of the wages system!"
Hardly minimum programmes, and nothing to do with a mass line.

[Art Vandelay]

It sounds like these so called Trotskyists that you've been speaking to should probably dust off their copy of the transitional program and give it another read. The strategy outlined above it what is known as tailism and couldn't have less to do with the political line Trotsky spent his life advocating.

“The reformists have a good smell for what the audience wants as Norman Thomas – he gives them that. But that is not serious revolutionary activity. We must have the courage to be unpopular, to say “you are fools,” “you are stupid,” “they betray you,” and every once in a while with a scandal launch our ideas with passion. It is necessary to shake the worker from time to time, to explain, and then shake him again – that all belongs to the art of propaganda. But it must be scientific, not bent to the moods of the masses. We are the most realistic people because we reckon with facts which cannot be changed by the eloquence of Norman Thomas. If we win immediate success we swim with the current of the masses and that current is the revolution.” - Leon Trotsky

There isn't that much of a difference. The historic difference between trotskyists and stalinists was mostly the question of internationalism. Otherwise their programs begin to mimic each other. Trotkysites sometimes begin to mention the lack of democracy in M-Lism

There isn't that much of a difference, except in regards to internationalism? Well that's a pretty significant difference for Marxists is it not? It's also not the case the question of internationalism is the only difference between Trotskyists and Stalinists (there are major theoretical and strategic difference aside from permanent revolution vs socialism in one country), and that's quite clear to anyone familiar with the political content in question. You're opinion is also incompatible with that of the historic communist left, which considers Trotskyism a genuine - albeit misguided - tendency within the workers' movement until the second world war.

[ckaihatsu]

Political Spectrum, Simplified

[Remus Bleys]

Political Spectrum, Simplified

fucking nothing you say ever makes any fucking sense. why do you waste your life like this? what the fuck is wrong with you that you conjure this up?

Are you even a communist, or are you just into making shit up?

[ckaihatsu]

fucking nothing you say ever makes any fucking sense. why do you waste your life like this? what the fuck is wrong with you that you conjure this up?

Are you even a communist, or are you just into making shit up?

No hugs and high-fives from you, then -- ?

Do you have a point about the *content* of what I posted-- ?

[Remus Bleys]

No hugs and high-fives from you, then -- ?

Do you have a point about the *content* of what I posted-- ?

umm yeah. its bullshit. it doesn't make any sense, because its bullshit you made up. It kinda looks cool, but it literally has no content or meaning. You act like its ever so helpful, its not, its lazy and nonsensical

[ckaihatsu]

umm yeah. its bullshit. it doesn't make any sense, because its bullshit you made up. It kinda looks cool, but it literally has no content or meaning. You act like its ever so helpful, its not, its lazy and nonsensical

Move on, then -- it's not meant for you, and it won't harm you or yours in any way. (Try deep breaths.)

[Remus Bleys]

Move on, then -- it's not meant for you, and it won't harm you or yours in any way.

well we are on the learning, and you are passing this bullshit off as "knowledge" so i thought i would step in and clarify for anyone unsure that they should ignore you, that their intuition is correct, and that you are nothing but a moron.

(Try deep breaths.)

You dont physically affect me in any way.

[ckaihatsu]

well we are on the learning, and you are passing this bullshit off as "knowledge" so i thought i would step in and clarify for anyone unsure that they should ignore you, that their intuition is correct, and that you are nothing but a moron.

Their 'intuition' -- ?

As though others can't *think* for themselves and come to their own *conclusions* regarding anything they see here at RevLeft -- ?

That's quite *presumptuous* of you, roundly.

You dont physically affect me in any way.

Give your fingers a rest.

[Remus Bleys]

Their 'intuition' -- ?

As though others can't *think* for themselves and come to their own *conclusions* regarding anything they see here at RevLeft -- ?

That's quite *presumptuous* of you, roundly.





Give your fingers a rest.

GOD DAMN
seriously

how fucking moronic are you

i said "their intuition" clearly the fact that i assigned intuition to other people MEANS that I think they can think for themselves.

This is a forum designed for learners. I do not want learners to look at your stupid posts and think theres something they have to learn to understand it. And those who suspect there isn't, they need to know that you are full of shit, they need that to be confirmed. I do not want people to think that you have something to teach them because of the "points" you somehow gained. That is why I am posting. I don't give a shit about you, youre an annoyance. We want people in this forum to learn, not to be confused or taught utter nonsense. That is why i am replying to you.

[ckaihatsu]

GOD DAMN
seriously

how fucking moronic are you

i said "their intuition" clearly the fact that i assigned intuition to other people MEANS that I think they can think for themselves.

This is a forum designed for learners. I do not want learners to look at your stupid posts and think theres something they have to learn to understand it. And those who suspect there isn't, they need to know that you are full of shit, they need that to be confirmed. I do not want people to think that you have something to teach them because of the "points" you somehow gained. That is why I am posting. I don't give a shit about you, youre an annoyance. We want people in this forum to learn, not to be confused or taught utter nonsense. That is why i am replying to you.

So you've made your opinion clear -- congratulations.

You're still being presumptuous if you think that, despite your expressed opinion, people are still going to be 'confused' (misguided) by what I've posted here.

If my posts are so 'stupid' and 'nonsense' then that would be apparent, right -- ? Or maybe you're just missing something.

[John Nada]

Except for Art Vandelay reply, a bunch of non-answers(though ckaihatsu's Outer Limits style graphs are trippy ). Nothing about minimum, maximum or transitional programs, nor anything about the mass line.

Briefly the minimum program is the maximum achievable under capitalism as a shorter-term objective paving the way for the maximum program of proletarian socialist revolution, a dictatorship of the proletariat and socialist construction

Wilhelm Liebknecht argued for "No Compromise, No Political trading!", a slogan adopted by the socialist movement.
James Connolly argued against those insisting on being "practical" in politics, for it schools you to think along the lines, and in the grooves of those who rob you.
Marx argued instead of the conservative motto: “A fair day's wage for a fair day's work!” they ought to inscribe on their banner the revolutionary watchword: “Abolition of the wages system!"
Hardly minimum programmes, and nothing to do with a mass line.

All horrible examples of supposed opponents of minimum programs. Wihelm Liebknech wrote drafts for the famous Gotha Program and the Erfrut Program, of which both Marx and Engels wrote even more well-known constructive criticism. The Erfurt Program was explicitly a minimum program

James Connoly was literally murdered by the British state fighting for the minimum program of Irish liberation. National liberation is usually part of minimum programs in oppressed nations

And Marx wrote up a minimum program for the French Workers' Party: https://www.marxists.org/archive/mar...ti-ouvrier.htm

Both to me appear to be showing the people that they can and at the same time show that only with the communists they can push whatever demands they have, including the dissolution of the present state of things, but, what is the practical difference between both?

The mass line is more practical organizational work. It's not a minimum/maximum program per se, but a propaganda and educational method such as during a people's war(which has a minimum/maximum programs as strategic objectives). Mao said that it is the masses(the people) which make history, not individuals. It's not a small group of leaders that makes revolutions but the people, particularly the proletariat. The people themselves see what's wrong and have good ideas, but may not articulate it in systematic manner and it may be clouded by bourgeois ideology. And at the same time, the party itself may have reactionary ideas that the people will notice. So it's the party of the proletariat's task to not rule over and order people around, nor tail reactionary tendencies, but to take the people's concerns into account and work democratically.

We should go to the masses and learn from them, synthesize their experience into better, articulated principles and methods, then do propaganda among the masses, and call upon them to put these principles and methods into practice so as to solve their problems and help them achieve liberation and happiness.

"Get Organized!" (November 29, 1943), Selected Works, Vol. III, p. 158.

http://www.marx2mao.com/Mao/QCM66.html#s11

Trotsky came up with transitional programs as a "bridge" between the minimum program, short-term democratic demands to pave the way for the maximum program, which are strategic socialist demands which is a dictatorship of the proletariat and socialist construction. He thought that reformists were just stretching out the minimum program perpetually and never trying to reach a maximum program("The movement is everything, the goal nothing"), so he tried to fill the gap. It's proletarian demands that go beyond democratic demands under capitalism to move to the maximum program(a dictatorship of the proletariat and transition to socialism).

The strategic task of the next period – prerevolutionary period of agitation, propaganda and organization – consists in overcoming the contradiction between the maturity of the objective revolutionary conditions and the immaturity of the proletariat and its vanguard (the confusion and disappointment of the older generation, the inexperience of the younger generation . It is necessary to help the masses in the process of the daily struggle to find the bridge between present demand and the socialist program of the revolution. This bridge should include a system of transitional demands, stemming from today’s conditions and from today’s consciousness of wide layers of the working class and unalterably leading to one final conclusion: the conquest of power by the proletariat.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/tro...tp-text.htm#mt

It sounds like these so called Trotskyists that you've been speaking to should probably dust off their copy of the transitional program and give it another read. The strategy outlined above it what is known as tailism and couldn't have less to do with the political line Trotsky spent his life advocating for.

Honestly, depending on the organization, it does seem like some Trots call what's essentially a mass line or minimum program a transitional program, and some Maoist call what's essentially a transitional/minimum program a mass line. When compare Marx and Engels's critiques of workers' parties' programs or the Bolsheviks' programs it seems like a lost art.

[Art Vandelay]

Trotsky came up with transitional programs as a "bridge" between the minimum program, short-term democratic demands to pave the way for the maximum program, which are strategic socialist demands which is a dictatorship of the proletariat and socialist construction. He thought that reformists were just stretching out the minimum program perpetually and never trying to reach a maximum program("The movement is everything, the goal nothing"), so he tried to fill the gap. It's proletarian demands that go beyond democratic demands under capitalism to move to the maximum program(a dictatorship of the proletariat and transition to socialism).

You're certainly correct in pointing out that one of Trotsky's main criticisms of the min-max program of social-democracy was that it had a logic built into it which perpetually put socialism on the back burner in favor of immediate demands. While the transitional method undoubtedly found its most precise and salient articulation in The Death Agony of Capitalism and the Tasks of the Fourth International, I think it's important to mention that seedlings of transitional demands can be traced back to the works of Marx & Engels themselves and were also employed by the Bolsehviks in 1917.

Honestly, depending on the organization, it does seem like some Trots call what's essentially a mass line or minimum program a transitional program, and some Maoist call what's essentially a transitional/minimum program a mass line.

While I can't speak to how certain Maoist organisations operate, I can certainly say that you are spot on in reference to many Trotskyists. The vast majority of ostensible Trotskyist organisations these days pay lip service to the transitional method, while carrying out a program which is virtually identical to the min-max program in practice. The irony is that they use the words of Lenin and Trotsky to justify a political practice which stands in stark opposition to what they stood for.

The logic employed is generally of a very stagist nature. Any talk of socialism or revolution is jettisoned in favor of drawing the maximum amount of people possible into the sphere of influence of the party; ultimately failing to account for the fact that the entire point of the transitional method is to link present day issues which arise organically out of the class struggle to the concept of revolution, by spelling out what this would entail, who it would benefit, why it is necessary, etc. It is assumed that at a latter date a conversation will be broached where talk of socialism and revolution will finally take place. Unfortunately, much like the history of the Second International shows up, this later date never seems to arrive. It's actually quite humorous since I genuinely don't understand how these people think they will pull this off. Okay, so your party now has a sufficient membership size and one day you're going to pull them to the side and say...oh by the way...we also stand for the overthrow of the government. It's an absurd and patronizing approach that presupposes some shortcut to building a revolutionary vanguard which simply doesn't exist, and ultimately conforms to all the caricatures of Leninism as a piece of trickery designed to make workers revolutionary without their knowledge.

It isn't the transitional method at all, but a rebranding of the min-max program of social-democracy under the packaging of the Fourth International. Talk of socialism and revolution is either completely absent or merely a lifeless decoration used to pretty up reforms. As far back as the manifesto Marx & Engels were clear that it was high time communists were open and honest about their aims and desires, and yet, over 160 years later (and in the period of imperialist decay where capital is unable to further develop the forces of production, no less), we still have self-proclaimed Trotskyists carrying out a political strategy that would make Karl Kautsky blush. This has nothing in common with the politics of Lenin and Trotsky, who, when speaking of socialism, didn't bandy about it as an abstraction, but sharpened individuals understanding of it while drawing clear class lines of demarcation.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Back to the OP -
The mass line isn't populism, or simply a question of articulating popular demands. It's, rather, a process of taking those popular demands, and articulating revolutionary answers to the questions those demands raise. In a way it's a way of pushing beyond any sort of "minimum" - making revolution in a way that really responds to the needs of the masses.

[The Idler]

I'm not suggesting following the course of any individuals own lives as a model but this pamphlet from 1899 is a great argument against a minimum program
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lie...w/1899/nocomp/

The harm of a compromise does not consist in the danger of a formal selling out or side-tracking of party principles. That has probably never been intended by any one in our party. Even when our comrades in Essen in the election before the last voted for the “cannon king” out of spite, they had no idea of surrendering even one iota of our program. The danger and root of the evil does not lie here. It lies in giving up, keeping in the background or forgetting the class struggle basis, for this is the source of the whole modern labor movement.

and from Socialism Made Easy from 1909 (http://www.marxist.net/ireland/connolly/socialism/)

The slavish multitude who refused to second their efforts from a craven fear lest their skins might suffer were practical, but they were soulless serfs, nevertheless.
Revolution is never practical - until the hour of the Revolution strikes. Then it alone is practical, and all the efforts of the conservatives and compromisers become the most futile and visionary of human imaginings.

The minimum program of the French Workers Party was not written by Marx but by Guesde.

Guesde's election programme which followed was a list of reforms such as full freedom of the press, assembly and organisation; separation of the Church and State; an eight-hour working day; a legal minimum wage and workmen's compensation. Marx was not involved in drawing up this programme and was in fact critical of certain parts of it, especially the demand for a legal minimum wage, though he did not contest the desirability of the party adding such a programme of reforms to its socialist objective (one of the points on which we say he was in error).
...
It is thus inaccurate to describe, as has become customary, this document as the preamble or introduction to the programme of "the French Workers' Party". Marx did not draft it for this party since it did not exist as such in 1880 but for its predecessor, the Federation of the Party of Socialist Workers in France, to give it its full title. Naturally, as tends to happen when there are splits, the two organisations resulting from the 1882 split both claimed to be the inheritors of the original party and traced their origin back to it. In addition, Guesde, Lafargue and the others in the POF hoped to derive prestige from the fact that their declaration of principles had been drafted by Marx.
...
Guesde and Lafargue had no right to change Marx's draft and then claim that it had been dictated by him in the changed form in which they propagated it. A mark of their success—and damage—here is the fact that most people in France who are aware of the document think that Marx accepted the contradiction in the POF version, that is, the "common ownership of banks". It would be nice if Marx's famous remark "One thing is certain, I'm not a Marxist" (Engels' letter to Bernstein, 3 November 1882) had been occasioned by this change to his 1880 draft, but there is no evidence at all for this conclusion! It was, however, made in connection with the Guesdists.

from
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/s...ion-principles

[Guardia Rossa]

Thanks Juan, Art and TGDU.

(Bukharinist and Bordigist stahp, you have already blocked me from accessing this thread from the other computer...)