Political support vs. electoral support and parliamentary stubbornness: PLP vs. WSM

[Die Neue Zeit]

There are a number of left organizations that are maximalists. In the US, the Progressive Labor Party (PLP) advocates going straight towards the communist mode of production. In the UK, the Socialist Party of Great Britain (SPGB) and its World Socialist Movement (WSM) advocate going straight towards a free-access economy. Both organizations have stated that some significant form of political support is required from the working class before proceeding with this in a small-d democratic manner.

However, the similarities between the two end here.

One organization has thought outside the box (or, rather, has inadvertently rediscovered a long-forgotten political stance) about political support. The other has stuck to electoral support, universal suffrage, ballot boxes, and parliamentary stubbornness.

One organization does not bother with constitutional limits (amendments, checks and balances, etc.) when it comes to planning to exercise power after gaining its definition of political support. The other has not factored in those same constitutional limits when it comes to planning to exercise power after gaining a parliamentary majority at the ballot box.

One organization's aim for the working class is to take power by legal means where possible and by extra-legal means when necessary; whether such means are peaceful or violent depends on the actions of the bourgeoisie. The other has totally forgotten even the Second International concept of worker-class revolution in terms of (perhaps overly) defensive tactics: "primarily as a defensive reaction against attempts by the bourgeoisie to eliminate democratic freedoms or to overturn the election of a socialist majority in parliament" (Eric Blanc).

So what exactly is the Progressive Labor Party's view on political support?

Communism means the Party leads every aspect of society. For this to work, millions of workers — eventually everyone — must become communist organizers.

Thoughts?

[ckaihatsu]

Hierarchy is just a *vehicle* -- it's not automatically 'bad' but depends on the political *trajectory* chosen by such a hierarchy / institution. It's definitely more *expedient*, but at the cost of being less bottom-up in participation, which *could* become a problem over the long-term, all other factors being neutral.

I don't justify hierarchy (a vanguard *party*) in the abstract, as any kind of *desired* vehicle, especially when today's communications technology would allow all revolutionaries worldwide to be active in an ongoing participatory 'vanguard' (not 'vanguard party').

Stalin was right and Trotsky a criminal

http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/19...50#post2881150