Socialism

[anomaly]

Originally posted by Holocaustpulp
anomaly: I think we have reached an utterly broad consensus, yet still a consensus. The idea of influencing internet forums should be a secondary action for any willing socialist, however, and party politics should come first.

- HP

Yes, it is an extremely broad consensus, which are perhaps the best kind. Funny you should mention party politics...I of course have an idea there, regarding action. I have proposed on revleft that we anti-capitalists begin to send emails to any green or Marxist party we can locate, to urge the unification of the radical left. If we can get enough people to contact these parties, we can generate some real change in radical leftist parties. As always, there is power, or in this case the promise of change, in numbers. This idea is a bit off the wall, but I think that it can have an impact on the many leftist parties we see, especially if we can get these leftist parties to engage in discussion with us.

[Holocaustpulp]

anomaly: Interesting idea, yet we must have the leftist parties denounce their bourgeois mindsets (which is very difficult).

- HP

[anomaly]

Originally posted by Holocaustpulp
anomaly: Interesting idea, yet we must have the leftist parties denounce their bourgeois mindsets (which is very difficult).

- HP

Yes, but I do think that if we can get a large number of participants, we could really affect these parties. Therefore I ask for participants on this site. I am quite sure that I'll get some willing participants from our friends on revleft...by the way, if revleft down today? I can't seem to get there.

[redjordi]

the main problem with the proposals made by anomaly is that they do not seem rooted in reality.

as Marxists we are materialistic and as Marx explained, in the last analysis is social being that determines consciousness. it will be the concrete experience in struggle and the changes in the political and social conditions that will push larger sections of the working class to draw socialist conclusions and get organise to implement them

it will not happen as a result of discusions in internet forums neither as a result of email writing campaigns to left organisations

forums like this can be very useful as means of educating activists, discusing different points and maybe coordinating solidarity actions, and getting ideas for how to intervene in the real movement of the class.

but only intervention in the real movement of the class, its organisations and its daily experiences under capitalism, will advance the ideas and organisation of socialists

comradely

redjordi

[Holocaustpulp]

rejordi: As Lenin mentioned in "What is to be Done?", socialists don't partake exclusively in events that will produce palpable results simply because this is against progress. While this internet forum takeover idea may not be able to produce large victories, it can at the very least get our message out. I have participated in such forums and gladly taken on the capitalists. I have not yet lost an argument.

- HP

[anomaly]

Yes, holocaust explains things very well. But redjordi, what do you think of my other internet-utilizing idea, in which I propose organizing a mass contact of leftist political parties to urge some sort of unification. They too realize that there is power in numbers, and at the very least I'm sure we could establish some form of communications with these parties.

Holocaust, I too have not yet lost an argument. Those cappies are persistent, if not extremely bright, I'll give them that. I was rather angry recently as a cappie I was debating was being rather ignorant. I was explaing my ideas on socialist economy and in my bureacracy idea, he simply made up a bureacratic position, and then criticized me for this imagined position's existence! Yes, cappies can be rather thick skulled.

[redjordi]

HP: in What is To Be Done, Lenin is arguing for a national political organisation to intervene in the labour movement and to do so around a newspaper which can be used as a collective organiser

I am not saying we should not intervene in internet forums putting forward our ideas, but at the same time we must first clarify what our ideas are (we need political education) and secondly we must intervene in the REAL movement of the masses of workers and youth where they are (be it in the anti war movement, in the trade unions, working class political organisations, etc). The internet is no substitute for that.

anomaly: you have to first ask yourself "why is it that there are different left wing political organisations". The answer is, mainly, that these organisations have different ideas about how to struggle, what to struggle for etc, which make them think of the need to have a separate political organisation.

I think that the point is not so much unity, but rather unity of action. That is, to have common activity around a set of simple points which we can all agree on. For instance the Hands Off Venezuela campaign (http://www.handsoffvenezuela.org) is an example of this. People from different political organisations and many from none, working toghether around the defence of the Venezuelan revolution. There are many more examples like this, in which socialists, while maintaining and advancing their ideas, work with others in the mass movement for common goals.

redjordi

PS My personal opinion is that debating capitalists in capitalists forums (that is, in front of a capitalist audience), can be a good exercise, but is not very practical if what we are taking about is the building of a revolutionary Marxist political organisation able to lead the working class to victory.

[anomaly]

redjordi: I do not think a programme that excludes such prominent members of the global anti-capitalist movement such as anarchists and environmentalists can be successful. We must atleast integrate them intol whatever revolution we plan to undertake. I am in favor of preliminary politcal revolution, in a richer country, as I've previously stated, so as to create a web os AC action throughout the world. If we are to exclude the anarchists and greens form political representation in a socialist state, I doubt the state's success. Rather, as I've previously written, I am in favor of a large 'vanguard' party, as some have been calling it. Such a party can encorporate the entire radical left, rather than just Marxists. Indeed there are some in the radical left who are in some areas anti-Marxist, and their views deserve representation. The only class that deserves alienation from political activity is the capitalist class, which is why I call for a one party state. In short, I do not want our movement confined to merely a socialist one, and to accomplish this, I am in favor of a unifying party. Uniting around a particular cause may work well for the short term, but what of the long term? What of after the revolution? Are we simply to say to our green and black allies, 'thanks, but now the state is ours, get out'? I say no. It is time to end the old days of petty disagreements between comrades who wants generally the same thing, that is, the end of capitalism. Through my idea of economic evolution, unity can be achieved.

BTW, I suggest than anyone who describes themselves as socialist go try their luck on a cappie forum. It is an excellent way to test your knowledge and to test your ability to sufficiently debate a capitalist.

[redjordi]

hi anomaly,

there are a whole number of things I disagree with in your post, but the main one is still that it has no relation with the real class struggle.

Originally posted by anomaly
redjordi: I do not think a programme that excludes such prominent members of the global anti-capitalist movement such as anarchists and environmentalists can be successful. We must atleast integrate them intol whatever revolution we plan to undertake.

Where did I say we should exclude anybody from a revolution? Look at Venezuela, there is a revolution in which there are plenty of different political views. They are all being presented to the masses and, through their own experience the masses select the leaders and ideas that correspond more closely to their aspirations at each moment. Marxists, anarchists, reformists, environmentalists, bourgeois democrats, etc all currents of though are represented.

I am in favor of preliminary politcal revolution, in a richer country, as I've previously stated, so as to create a web os AC action throughout the world.

I am in favour flying a kyte on a sunny Friday morning. Unfortunately I have to go to work. You might be in favour of many things, but in the real world the revolution has already started, in Latin America. What do we do? Do we tell them to wait until there is revolution in a richer country? Revolution in Latin America however will also have the effect of accelerating the ripening of conditions in Europe and the US, no doubt. Events like the NO in the French referendum, the crisis of the SPD in Germany, etc point out to a sharpening of class struggle also there.

By the way, why a political revolution. As far as I understand this means a revolution that only affects the political structures. Do you propose leaving private property of the means of production untouched?

If we are to exclude the anarchists and greens form political representation in a socialist state, I doubt the state's success.

A socialist state is a contradiction in terms. If what you mean is a workers' state, that is, after the workers have taken power, then again, where did I advocate excluding anarchists and Greens from political representation. In a workers' state in a an advanced capitalist country in modern conditions, all political trends would have the maximum freedom, including the procapitalistsunless they took arms against the workers' state.

Rather, as I've previously written, I am in favor of a large 'vanguard' party, as some have been calling it.

Well, you see, in the real world, if you advocate a 'vanguard party' you will immediately lose the anarchists and the Greens.

Such a party can encorporate the entire radical left, rather than just Marxists.

I am in favour of a party that can incorporate the whole of the working class in which different working class political tendencies can have their say and their ideas can be debated and tested in practice.

Indeed there are some in the radical left who are in some areas anti-Marxist, and their views deserve representation.

You still ignore the fact that if there are different political organisations in the left is because they have real political differences. If you take Venezuela for instance, there are some who say that Chavez is a bourgeois and cannot be supported, there are some anarchists that say that Chavez is a military officer and therefore as bad as the opposition, and then there are revolutionary Marxists that argue that there is a revolution in Venezuela and the process can only be completed through socialism. How can you work together in practice?

The only class that deserves alienation from political activity is the capitalist class, which is why I call for a one party state.

This is really confussed. "The capitalist class deserves" is a moral statement, not a scientific analysis. Now, if you mean after the workers' take power then there will be NO capitalist class. If you mean before taking power, I cannot see how you are going to enforce it. A one party state? As I said before under a workers' state in an advanced capitalist country under modern conditions all political tendencies would be allowed, and I do not see why not.

In short, I do not want our movement confined to merely a socialist one, and to accomplish this, I am in favor of a unifying party.

Studying the history of the labour movement is useful so that we do not repeat the same mistakes or have to go through the same experiences. A unified party already existed and it was called the First International. It played a useful role in allowing the penetration of Marxist ideas in the existing labour movement at that time, and then in a period of reaction the intrigues of the anarchists wrecked it. Next time there was an international organisaton of the working class it was founded on socialist principles.

Uniting around a particular cause may work well for the short term, but what of the long term? What of after the revolution? Are we simply to say to our green and black allies, 'thanks, but now the state is ours, get out'?

Who said that? As I explained in a workers' state all political tendencies would be allowed to operate freely and try to win a majority. This was the case in the early days of the soviets in Russia (until other political tendencies took uo arms against the soviet state)

I say no. It is time to end the old days of petty disagreements between comrades who wants generally the same thing, that is, the end of capitalism. Through my idea of economic evolution, unity can be achieved.

Oh, so, there are plenty of tendencies around, but we must all unite around YOUR idea of "economic evolution"? Why is that?

In the real world, if you want to build an organisation you must intervene in the real movement of the working class (assuming you think the working class is the only and most consequent revolutionary class, and the only that can overthrow capitalism), and prove in practice that your ideas are better and more effective than others.

comradely

redjordi

[P.O.U.M]

Has anyone ever seen two people in a rowboat, each rowing in opposite directions? The boat gets nowhere.

An Anti-capitalist party would have much of the same results as the rowboat. Especially if reformists and revolutionists were in the same party. These two broad groups have two entirely different perspectives on how to achieve socialism. How can they be expected to work together? One group would have to completly sacrifice their princples and theories. This would also include anarchists who would have to basically renounce the whole of anarchist thought to be a part of your "vanguard" and anti-capital state. You may view the anarchists ideas about state and parties as nonsense, but that does not mean the anarchists are going to declare their ideas null and void to be a part of a anti-capital party.

Instead you should look into the ideas of a 'United Front.' A united front is a group of organizations or individual people fighting for a common goal but still retaining their respective ideologies and party programmes or what have you. The Hands Off Venezuela campaign is one such united front. There is a variety of socialist groups and unions working with the HoV campaign to keep US imperialism out of Venezeula to defend the revolution. But all the socialist groups within the united front still continue doing their own party work and still hold their own ideas.

Also as Bolsheviks we do not demand a one party rule. We would not kick anyone out the state. Its a matter of are the others willing to join the state. The "black allies" will for the most part absolutly refuse. You seem to have this tendency to forget that the anarchists programme is based of the state as an unneccesary evil. The greens also have a tendency to be liberal capitalists. I would never side with a capitalist wither liberal or not. They have this annoying tendency to proclaim favor of revolution during the most intense struggles, but once the slightest chance is possible, the have a knack to side with the counter revolution.

It is time to end the old days of petty disagreements between comrades who wants generally the same thing, that is, the end of capitalism.

It seems to me that you have a real scorn and distaste for theory. You are asking everyone to denounce every single theory and idea they have to "unite." Unity under a lost cause. The anarchists will not listen to statists nor the statists with the anarchists. The reformists will not follow the revolutionist nor the revolutionaries use parliamentary precedures.

[Holocaustpulp]

rejordi: "In the real world, if you want to build an organisation you must intervene in the real movement of the working class (assuming you think the working class is the only and most consequent revolutionary class, and the only that can overthrow capitalism), and prove in practice that your ideas are better and more effective than others."

Very much indeed.

"...in What is To Be Done, Lenin is arguing for a national political organisation to intervene in the labour movement and to do so around a newspaper which can be used as a collective organiser."

Yes, but he has detailed points, one of which I mentioned above. Lenin argued that achieving "palpable results" was backward in that it coincided with the opportunist "economic struggle" with a political character.

"...and secondly we must intervene in the REAL movement of the masses of workers and youth where they are (be it in the anti war movement, in the trade unions, working class political organisations, etc). The internet is no substitute for that."

Internet is purely a secondary thing. Perhaps of all people I should realize this most - I have not found a political organization to manifest my socialist ideals, and the interney is definitely "no substitute".

Concerning this debate over a generalized party, there should be no strict generalized party lines, but rather bringing like-minded (but not totally like-minded) parties under the socialist party's policies. To generalize a concoction of parties is simply tantamount to reapeating the eventual split of the Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party.

- Holocaustpulp

[anomaly]

If I cannot have the support of the anarchists (and once socialism is created somewhere in this world, the anarchists will support us over the capitalists certainly), then atleast we should have general unity among Marxists. I want a political party that includes most of the radical left, or atleast can incorporate or gain the support of most of them. I do not want a minority party to have power, as I plan to have a one party state in a  socialist state, and I see no way around this without jeopardizing the progress of the socialist movement. So am I to assume that you all are in favor of a socialist party? If not, what party are you in favor of? Perhaps we should have an alliance of political parties and organisations in order to gain power, and then wittle this alliance down to one ruling party to function efficiently.

Let's specify this conversation a bit: how many of you are in favor of a one party state?

[P.O.U.M]

So am I to assume that you all are in favor of a socialist party? If not, what party are you in favor of?

Bolshevism. A party based on democratic centralism.

Bolshevism: The Road to Revolution
What Is To Be Done?

Perhaps we should have an alliance of political parties and organisations in order to gain power

United Front

Trotsky on the United Front  

Let's specify this conversation a bit: how many of you are in favor of a one party state?

Not I says the POUM.

I love third person :p

[anomaly]

So POUM, you are in favor of another Bolshevik party? I'm in favor of democratic centralism and a mass vanguard party as described by Lenin, but may I suggest changing the name a bit on the party? Bolshevism makes me think of Stalin, rightfully and wrongfully, and many others think of Stalin as well. I realize that you are in favor of the 'United Front', but what does this mean for modern action? Is not the political arena where the party must be, in order to gain political power? What of after the revolution, how will the united front, or whatever you propose, be handled? I would much rather keep the front in tact as a political mass, in a form similar to my ACP. Such a party would allow for the membership of almost all on the radical left, and give the movement more power. The idea of yours of the separation of the party can be taken care of by creating a unifying concept to the party. In the ACP's case, it's economic evolution, ensuring that each ideology will have its day under the sun, so to speak. That is, socialists will have socialism, communists and anarchists will eventually get their anarcho-communism, and enviros will get their green reforms. Such a policy favors all. The only task to do is to convince the anarchists that state socialism and world socialism after it is a neccesary transitional period from capitalism to anarcho-communism. By doing this, we'd weed out those utopian anarchists who believe that communism can take physical form without utilizing the state. With promised power, and promised economic evolution, the anarchists need only the support of the people to make their goal take material form. In such a party that weeds out those opposed to socialism, but is still a mostly united radical leftist party, with similar goals, what flaws do you see?

Also, how do you propose to be efficient in the least in reforms if not through the use of a one-party state? Yuo intend to allow the bourgeoisie to stall the congressional process, and halt reforms that would be beneficial to the proletariat? You are thus giving the capitalist too much power.

In short, I think a United Front would be effective in a revolution, just as Castro knew. But after the revolution, the destiny of the United Front may be up to others seeking individual power, and thus the destruction of unwanted parts of the United front by the majority party in it become a reality. That means the anarchists and the greens are angered and displaced, and will be enemies of the new state. Your plan accounts for actions during the revolution extremely well, but it does not account well for political organisation after the revolution.

While we're discussing, what are your opinions of my socialist economy idea? In brief, I envision an economy that is set up in bureacratic structure. It will be a nationalized economy with completely planned economic production, except in a few cases (like the entertainment industry and small private businesses like genral stores or restaurants etc.). Planning will begin on the most local of levels, with each factory or field receiving orders from the local government as to the needs on production (the local government is also advised by the state and federal governments). Production will be planned to produce a small surplus, to ensure that human and natural resources are not wasted, as they are in capitalist production. Workers on a field or in a factory shall elect one of their peers to plan the production of the local unit. This planner shall work closely with an expert of economy and the characteristics of the ecoonmy (its needs, its rate of growth, ect.). This should ensure sufficient production of products. The government will set up large areas of sale, simply very large markets, and shall control the prices of goods to be in accordance with the wages of workers. Food may be distributed freely among homes, in addition to extra food being available at a market. This distribution will be based on the bare neccesity of food to each home, based on th number of people in each home. If extra food is desired, the occupants will go to a local government run market. The local government will oversee ost of this local economic working, while the state governemnt and federal governemtn will be concerned with economic needs, taxes, and in the feds case, foreign trade. Taxes may potentially be relatively low, since military spending will be greatly reduced. Instead, the govenrment will run much cheaper guerrilla units. Most money will be spent on human welfare projects and redistributive policy. The production system is circular in that the workers select a planner, who works with an economist, who is overseen by the local government, which is overseen by the state and federal governments. All governemnt offices will be voted on by the people. That's basically a roguh description of my idea. It's a form of socialism that gives much representation and power to the local production place, and that, I think, and its democratic nature, are its true beauty.