Does Luxembourgism support party control?

[Sand Castle]

I've asked dumber questions than this. Besides, it's an easy question. Does Luxemburgism support the democratic "dictatorship" of a Communist Party? If that question is unclear, then let me put it this way. Is Lux. a multi-party system?

Thanks.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I'm pretty sure Luxemburgism supports democratic worker's councils so i'm not exactly sure what there would be as far as political parties go.

[Sand Castle]

I'm pretty sure Luxemburgism supports democratic worker's councils so i'm not exactly sure what there would be as far as political parties go.

That is as far as I got in my research too. I couldn't find further information. Maybe I'm not good at searching. Either way, that's why I'm asking here.

[LOLseph Stalin]

That is as far as I got in my research too. I couldn't find further information. Maybe I'm not good at searching. Either way, that's why I'm asking here.

Don't worry. I'm not an expert yet either.

[Tower of Bebel]

Luxemburg was all in favor of the democratic class dictatorship of the proletariat. If this takes the form of a party of the working class as a whole, then we could say: yes.

[Sand Castle]

Thanks, you two, for answering me.

[Black Sheep]

How about some more general info on luxemburgism proletarian organization?It was critical of the soviet union,right?

Any help from a left commie?

[Devrim]

There is a Luxemburgist tendency. They have their own boards where you can ask them:
http://luxemburgism.forumr.net/index.htm
or a forum on here:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=67

I would imagine that the Luxemburgists today would be critical of the idea of a party dictatorship, and critical of the party dicatorship in Russia in the 1920s.

Ask them yourselves though.

Devrim

[INDK]

I don't quite understand the question but I think I have the gist of it so here goes nothing;

Rosa always implied emphasis on a swift and democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and she and the ideology named for her are in the Left/Council Communist spectrum which do emphasize using parties, which I learned during my time in the Left Communist usergroup where TAT brought up the subject and Leo explained effectively. So I'd imagine a democratic dictatorship of a Communist party being utilized, sure.

I don't think this should be confused with a Bolshevik-style party dictatorship however, just like how Left Communists are for a vanguard party but should not be confused with using a Bolshevik vanguard.

[Black Sheep]

I don't think this should be confused with a Bolshevik-style party dictatorship however

No communist supports that in the way you mean it.

[INDK]

Wouldn't a... Bolshevik?

[Black Sheep]

zomg are there bolsheviks alive still today!?

[INDK]

By that I meant Leninist, I was attempting to keep my terms consistent.

[Black Sheep]

Yeah sorry, i have a weird sense of humor.

But again, no Leninist aims for a dictatorship of a small clique...
It's for democratic control of workers councils.

The whole boogie man thing about the party's dictatorship (and not of the working class) exists because of some criticism of the soviet union (which i cannot support or reject, i simply do not know).
But no Leninist aims for dictatorship of the party.

[INDK]

You don't think the idea of the Leninist vanguard can be a little exclusive compared to how much involvement people are supposed to have in Communism?

[LUXEMBURGUISTA]

If this takes the form of a party of the working class as a whole, then we could say: yes.

I think that it could confuse the positions of RL. I think that it would be better to say: if the dictatorship of the proletariat takes the form of the working class as a whole, then we could say: yes. But if the dictatorship ¿of the proletariat? takes the form of a only one party, then Rosa Luxemburg was very clearly: NO.

Against Bolshevism (in all of its forms), Luxemburgism even support a multitendency system, a multy-party system. The ideas of RL on that can be read in her criticism of the Russian Revolution.

On the differences between the whole (the proletariat) and its parts (the parties), you can read the own Communist Manifesto. For Marx, the communist are another party more inside the proletariat, without any singular interests. He used the word "party" as "part of the whole", not as a specific organization which function is to be the "director" of the proletariat. This is a bolshevisk invent.

SALUD

[Tower of Bebel]

Against Bolshevism (in all of its forms), Luxemburgism even support a multitendency system, a multy-party system. The ideas of RL on that can be read in her criticism of the Russian Revolution.

You're right, but that was something she did in the context of the Russian revolution. During the Russian Revolution the Bolsheviks were never really the party of the majority of society. Therefor a multi-party system needed to be established if a dictatorship of the minority had to be prevented. Yet unsurmountable contradictions prevented this from happening. If Russia was to stay isolated it was either red terror or white terror.

In Europe it is possible to organize a workers' organization with support of the majority of society because the working class is the majority of society.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

By that I meant Leninist, I was attempting to keep my terms consistent.

[FONT=Arial]Leninism as an ideology expressed in Lenin's writings was not a call for any sort of dictatorship. The exclusion of opposition parties and centralization of authority are not matters most self-expressed Leninists support.

I'm an anarchist, by the way, not a Leninist. But I think we often think of different branches in shaded glasses. Luckily I've noticed sectarianism has been radically declining on this forum.
[/FONT]

[Black Dagger]

Luxemburg was all in favor of the democratic class dictatorship of the proletariat. If this takes the form of a party of the working class as a whole, then we could say: yes.

I understand the utility of political parties outside of revolutionary situations - butwhy is a single political party suitable (or desireable) in the face of the abolition of class a whole?

What of workers who are not a member of the party?

If the working class as a whole is in a position to assert control over society (presumably this would involve well-organised workers councils of some form) - as a class - and 'suppress' the bourgeoisie - then adding a further layer of organisation on top of that (i.e. a political party) seems superfluous?

If its purpose is organising the class on a larger scale, could this not be achieved through federalism and occur naturally? Rather than trying to transform a permanent non-revolutionary organisation (say 'The Communist Party of X') necessarily separate from workers organisation (in content rather than rhetoric obviously, it is a political group not a federation of workers councils) into a permanent revolutionary organisation (something it is not)? I think entities like that should be take a back-seat to non-party - worker organisation that do not discriminate on the basis of a workers personal politics.

Though perhaps you agree? I'm not sure.

[Tower of Bebel]

I understand the utility of political parties outside of revolutionary situations - butwhy is a single political party suitable (or desireable) in the face of the abolition of class a whole?

What of workers who are not a member of the party?

If the working class as a whole is in a position to assert control over society (presumably this would involve well-organised workers councils of some form) - as a class - and 'suppress' the bourgeoisie - then adding a further layer of organisation on top of that (i.e. a political party) seems superfluous?

If its purpose is organising the class on a larger scale, could this not be achieved through federalism and occur naturally? Rather than trying to transform a permanent non-revolutionary organisation (say 'The Communist Party of X') necessarily separate from workers organisation (in content rather than rhetoric obviously, it is a political group not a federation of workers councils) into a permanent revolutionary organisation (something it is not)? I think entities like that should be take a back-seat to non-party - worker organisation that do not discriminate on the basis of a workers personal politics.

Though perhaps you agree? I'm not sure.

I think what Marx saw as the form or shape of the DotP would be the ideal situation (a federation of communes), but I also think that a more centralized organization (not like the Bolshevik party of the twenties however - but something more democraticly "centralized" with a focus on unity in action, not ideas or even structures), supported by the majority of society, is needed to guide society where spontanious forms of self-organization have failed or are threatened by counterrevolution.