Permanent Revolution
- Thread starter cockneyrebel
- Start date
mk12 said:your only posting that here because you know a certain someone won't reply to you. you're free over here.
Who? Butchers?
I can't reply over there. Do you need him to help you?
(I'm not saying he's wrong, but the point is the same - make the points yourself rather than repeat what you think others are saying).
mk12 said:
So you're accusing belboid of running away from an argument you're unable to make?
Explain it then - or don't say it?mk12 said:
mk12 said:
pm?
mk12 said:
This, kids, is what happens when you reject Trotskyism. You become a religious nutter!
urbanrevolt
New Member
mk12 said:
For example- but also strike action, antidpeportation campaigns, all sorts of things. Locally in Mcr we have participated in stop the warmongers for example- tho' I'm not sure why they didn;t just take over (democratically) stop the war- i was away at time it was founded
mk12 said:(peace be with me)
You should be so lucky.
I grant you 2 virgins.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
'independent' organisation doesn't really exist tho, except for very short-term acts, wildcat strikes etc. As soon as any kind of generalisation begins, that 'independence' is lost, as organisations either come to the fore or are formed anew. I have some sympathy with a critique of 'Leninism' especially as practised by the left sects over here, but that is not to say it is entirely without merit, or that we should chuck out the baby with the bath water (as 'certain' people are prone to do).mk12 said:
urbanrevolt
New Member
It depends what you mean by independent working class organisation- independent of the bourgeois? Independent of the party?
I presume MK means the latter but why shouldn;t the working class independently and freely organise ourselves into a party?
Not quite sure what he meant.
I presume MK means the latter but why shouldn;t the working class independently and freely organise ourselves into a party?
Not quite sure what he meant.
urbanrevolt
New Member
I'm sure he'll enlighten us in due course!
i pm'ed him with the answer (didn't want to derail this one).
Independent of bourgeois, parties that fight "in the name" of the w/c, independent of their "official" parties. Fighting as a class rather than as a party (the two have rarely, if ever, been one in the same). I've experienced how some people have put their party ahead of the wider movement.
"why shouldn;t the working class independently and freely organise ourselves into a party?"
That question is too simplistic though. What do you mean by "a party". Lenin didn't want the working class (as a whole) to organise freely into a party. This is what the 1903 split was all about - a wide, broad based party encompassing the mass of workers or a tight-knit, centralised party.
And I don't have anything against people uniting together into an organisation. But there is a difference between this and selecitng yourselves as the vanguard who will lead the rest of the w/c to socialism.
Independent of bourgeois, parties that fight "in the name" of the w/c, independent of their "official" parties. Fighting as a class rather than as a party (the two have rarely, if ever, been one in the same). I've experienced how some people have put their party ahead of the wider movement.
"why shouldn;t the working class independently and freely organise ourselves into a party?"
That question is too simplistic though. What do you mean by "a party". Lenin didn't want the working class (as a whole) to organise freely into a party. This is what the 1903 split was all about - a wide, broad based party encompassing the mass of workers or a tight-knit, centralised party.
And I don't have anything against people uniting together into an organisation. But there is a difference between this and selecitng yourselves as the vanguard who will lead the rest of the w/c to socialism.
urbanrevolt
New Member
See knew you would- just wanted to flush you into the open.
Of course some groups have put the party or group ahead of the struggle- that's sectarianism for you. However, I think there is no reason whatsoever why working class people can't freely form themselves as a party. The party seeks to organise the most militant sections of the class, the most militant fighters so in that sense can be seen as a vanguard- but this term has been abused both in in insult heaped upon it but also to some extent in practice by some people preaching to the wider working class.
It is only vanguard in the sense of having advanced guards of fighters- sometimes they'll be outside the party we merely seek to organise them. On Lenin- I think you're wrong. He argued for a disciplined cadre party of fighters fit for the task to seize power but this is not incompatible with drawing in the masses- it is essential to draw in the masses to seize power!
Have you ever read The Bolsheviks Come To Power by Rabinowitch- I'm reading it now. Lenin was indeed unremitting in his perspective of the working class seizing power but he needed to win the Bolsheviks to this position- they were democratic as any revolutionary socialist party worthy of the name should be.
Of course some groups have put the party or group ahead of the struggle- that's sectarianism for you. However, I think there is no reason whatsoever why working class people can't freely form themselves as a party. The party seeks to organise the most militant sections of the class, the most militant fighters so in that sense can be seen as a vanguard- but this term has been abused both in in insult heaped upon it but also to some extent in practice by some people preaching to the wider working class.
It is only vanguard in the sense of having advanced guards of fighters- sometimes they'll be outside the party we merely seek to organise them. On Lenin- I think you're wrong. He argued for a disciplined cadre party of fighters fit for the task to seize power but this is not incompatible with drawing in the masses- it is essential to draw in the masses to seize power!
Have you ever read The Bolsheviks Come To Power by Rabinowitch- I'm reading it now. Lenin was indeed unremitting in his perspective of the working class seizing power but he needed to win the Bolsheviks to this position- they were democratic as any revolutionary socialist party worthy of the name should be.
Only ever a small minority of the "masses" though. THey only numbered 230,000 when they took power (out of 3mil workers and many many millions of peasants).
Why? Can't there be more than one "militant" section of the class. A party (like the bolsheviks) claimed they were the most "militant" party in 1917, but people were to the left of them all through 1917 (as trotsky and lenin admitted) and when they took power, there were more militant people OUTSIDE the party calling for more radical measures, more democracy etc (which the bolsheviks refused and suppressed). So this "idea" that there can be one party which has all the "best" workers in it has never existed, and I doubt, ever will.
What, when he said that if the CC didn't agree with him he'd go to the sailors and resign? Hardly democratic! And I don't think Lenin ever wanted the "working class seizing power", he wanted the Bolshevik party to seize power. But this is another discussion for somewhere else I guess.
230,000 out of 3 mil? Small minority? What were they meant to do, wait until they had a majority as members - the LP had 400,000 in the UK at it's peak - was that a 'small minority' in 1997 (because that's a lot smaller compared to the number of people)? (actually the comparison with the LP is a shit one)
How much support must they have had?
More important is the difference and exponential increase between their membership and support between Feb and October and why. Their membership in October would never have been as such without the work prior to February, including 'what is to be done' and 'open the gates' (both being tactically brilliant) - but the point was that any party will be a minority.
mk - the IWCA are a minority that working class people (or the majority of) reject. And they (the w/c) reject its approach. Does that mean they're fighting as a party rather than as a class?
How much support must they have had?
More important is the difference and exponential increase between their membership and support between Feb and October and why. Their membership in October would never have been as such without the work prior to February, including 'what is to be done' and 'open the gates' (both being tactically brilliant) - but the point was that any party will be a minority.
mk - the IWCA are a minority that working class people (or the majority of) reject. And they (the w/c) reject its approach. Does that mean they're fighting as a party rather than as a class?
Well I don't get how you can call 230,000 out of 3 mil a small minority in the context of a political party.
Still, full marks on learning the 'don't explain yourself' school of argument.
Still, full marks on learning the 'don't explain yourself' school of argument.
"Well I don't get how you can call 230,000 out of 3 mil a small minority in the context of a political party"
It's a small minority of a population of 184million though isn't it? Were only those 230,000 the "vanguard", the "most enlightened" of the masses? Even when there were non-Bolsheviks who had argued for workers' control and soviet power long before them? What about the Left SRs, the non-party masses in Kronstadt, the Mensheviks , the anarchists...all these parties were arguably to the left of the Bolsheviks at different stages through 1917-21. Yet only the Bolsheviks represented the "vanguard" workers.
It's ironic how the "best militants" can declare elections void, and those who protested and went on strike against this were declared "backward".
My point was: there is never a one, eternal "vanguard". The Bolsheviks' slogans coincided with the mass movement in Sept-Dec 1917, then their popularity dwindled and they were losing elections in most places (obviously they cancelled or shut down these soviets). Other parties were more popular at some times, less popular at some times. Focusing on the history of party's isn't good enough.
It's a small minority of a population of 184million though isn't it? Were only those 230,000 the "vanguard", the "most enlightened" of the masses? Even when there were non-Bolsheviks who had argued for workers' control and soviet power long before them? What about the Left SRs, the non-party masses in Kronstadt, the Mensheviks , the anarchists...all these parties were arguably to the left of the Bolsheviks at different stages through 1917-21. Yet only the Bolsheviks represented the "vanguard" workers.
It's ironic how the "best militants" can declare elections void, and those who protested and went on strike against this were declared "backward".
My point was: there is never a one, eternal "vanguard". The Bolsheviks' slogans coincided with the mass movement in Sept-Dec 1917, then their popularity dwindled and they were losing elections in most places (obviously they cancelled or shut down these soviets). Other parties were more popular at some times, less popular at some times. Focusing on the history of party's isn't good enough.
Similar threads
