jacobian Welcome to the second ##marxism debate, and the first debate on the organisational form of the party. The purpose of this discussion is to explore positions with respect to specific political organisations regardless of their strategic orientation. That is, the term party here is to refer only to the existence of specifically political organisations, and not a particular strategic orientation of those organisations. These strategic orientations may included groups as diverse as the Spanish FAI or the German SPD or even the AAUD-E (fused political/economic party-syndicates).
jacobian The debate participants are free to take any stance with respect to the notion of the party, including that it should not (or does not) exist.
jacobian The structure will be as follows. We will have a round-robin structure with two constructive periods where participants may present their view on the structure. Between the constructive sessions there will be a cross examination. The cross-examination should ask for clarifications regarding points made in the constructives. Usually it proves impossible for the second constructive not to make any rebuttal, since sometimes this is required for clarification, so this will be allowed.
jacobian After the second constructive and cross-examinations we will have a first rebuttal round, followed by a second rebuttal round. In these rebuttals, the positions of the other constructives may be targetted. The participants should use the second rebuttal to present their conclusions.
jacobian All the constructives are eight minutes all the cross-examinations are three minutes and all the rebuttals are eight minutes too. As moderator I will check time. If the participant so desires I can give a one minute warning.
jacobian I will voice you and then you can ask questions.
jacobian If there are no questions then I will proceed with the constructives.
VIPPER jacobian: Will we be given a reserve of time like in the last debate, to be used whenever we wish?
jacobian How much was in the previous
VIPPER Five minutes for the entire debate
jacobian Ok, I will allow 5 minutes reserve, to be asked for prior to calling time.
VIPPER jacobian: Will we be allowed to ask the moderator questions in PM during the debate?
jacobian Any other questions?
Q-collective A reserve?
jacobian Yes, please feel free to PM during the debate.
VIPPER Q-collective: Yes, like a pool of time you can draw from
ipatrol I broadly support the resolve by Q-collective
Q-collective Ok
ipatrol With a few additions
Bronterre What is the order of speaking?
jacobian modulus I have a suggestion, using ##marxism-ot for chatting amongst ourselves–those of us who are not participating
Q-collective Good suggestion
jacobian Those who are not participating are urged to switch to ##marxism-ot if they would like to talk
ipatrol Shall we begin?
jacobian The order of speaking was chosen randomly
jacobian It will be a simple round-robin of the following order: Bronterre, VIPPER, ipatrol, Q-collective, agnosticnixie
Bronterre So should I start now?
jacobian If there are no other questions I will silence all but Bronterre
ipatrol Ok
Q-collective Go
VIPPER No problems here
jacobian Ok, your 8 minutes begin as soon as you say you are ready, Bronterre
Bronterre The question of the mass party is lined to fundamental issues:
Bronterre 1. How a transition from capitalism to socialism can occur
Bronterre 2. Whether capitalist domination in the economy and therefore wider society can be seriously challenged prior to attaining power.
Bronterre Traditionally, given the dispossession of the proletariat, socialists have pursued a “politics first” strategy, i.e. first attain power and then use that power to expropriate the capitalists and transition to socialism.
Bronterre My view is that the economic base must be altered prior to attaining political power and in parallel with the rise of the mass party. I call this an “economics first” strategy. Co-ops are the best method for this.
Bronterre The role of the party fits this approach.
Bronterre Democratic capitalism, as exists in the western advanced countries, has certain bugs in its code that we can exploit. There are other bugs which used to exist, but which were patched and are not longer exploitable. Those are the insurrectionary and union methods.
Bronterre The current gaps lie in the democratic posturing of existing society and the pro-business climate that means co-ops cannot be crushed as openly as a bolshie trade union.
Bronterre The same applies for a mass party that aims to win in the current state set up. This is by no means an ideal form of democracy, but it is fairly democratic, and sufficiently so that we can make use of it.
Bronterre There are no fatal flaws to the democratic operation. Our difficulty is that we are not popular and that elections reflect that, not that elections or the game is rigged. More precisely, of course, they are rigged, but that is not due to the democracy element in our society, it is due to the capitalist element. Not only do they fund political parties they also control the social investment process such that the constraints in which any political party can operate are very tight (hence the absolute necessity for a large co-operative sector). In addition, I see the state as having a different history and different interests to capital itself. It is Darth Vader to Capital’s Palpatine :) It can be turned from the dark side.
Bronterre The reality of modern democratic capitalism is that legitimacy to rule stems from the ballot box. Legitimacy is not merely an ethical concern, but a pragmatic one. WE are no longer dealing with masses of peasants, even in Ireland. The population is fairly educated and will not be so easily ordered around as in the the 1930s. Terror can suffice to modernise a country, it cannot succeed in moving from capitalism to socialism.
Bronterre I contend that with a combination of co-ops and a mass party that we can win a majority over to socialism and that this will be a stable majority, not a fly-by-night majority born of desperation a la October 1917.
Bronterre If we need majority support (or some combination of active support and benign acquiescence), what vehicles are capable of this? Not trade unions. They are weakening severely in the west. Not a vanguard party and that will supplant the democratic organs of society. A mass party is by far the best way of a) educating the public of our political vision and b) measuring and giving public expression to that support.
Bronterre The public expression bit is very important. If we do not have it, then there is an increased chance that our opponents will be able to mobilise for a civil war. We need them to be as unpopular as possible when they try to do this. Disdaining the democratic card and handing it to them would strengthen them a lot.
Bronterre Now, winning elections is by no means the end all and be all of the party. Apart from fostering a socialist culture, it should aim to use the democratic process as the starting point of socialist transformation. Think France 1789 or Spain 1936 where elections set a transformative, even revolutionary ball in motion. A 1917 scenario is far less likely to occur and should not be an aim given that chaos is not a good foundation from which to build socialism.
Bronterre The question then turns to how what type of mass party.
Bronterre That is it for now
jacobian We will start cross examination
jacobian Participants may now ask for clarification on any points.
ipatrol Ok, first, what if that gap closes too?
ipatrol What if they find ways to suppress co-ops?
Bronterre Should I answer now? Or wait for other questions
jacobian Yes, go ahead and answer
jacobian We will allow cross-examination to be relatively free form
Bronterre They can’t close the gap in the short term. That is my assessment. If they do, then that leads to a shutting down of the democratic space and makes a revolutionary strategy viable once again. Co-ops are not a dogmatic principle.
VIPPER So, if I understood you correctly, you believe it is possible for a democratic taking of power?
Bronterre Yes, but a confrontation will have to be had with the security state. So it won’t be plain sailing either
ipatrol Bronterre: so your rationale is to minimize violent conflict?
jacobian Time is up
jacobian It is now time for VIPPER’s constructive.
VIPPER Alright then
VIPPER Now, part of my position is argued in greater clarity and length on the blog
VIPPER But I will repeat the points I made there now
VIPPER We cannot look at the question of a political party from an idealist or a moralist perspective
VIPPER That is to say, we cannot look at it by looking at whatever “ideal” forms of organization make us feel the best, but only from a Marxist perspective
VIPPER In this we must look at the development of the proletarian class party from the viewpoint of class struggle.
VIPPER Now, due to the prevailing mystifications of the capitalist system due to the bourgeoisie’s own ruling ideas, the day-to-day struggles of the proletariat will not result in a revolutionary consciousness
VIPPER This is in contrast to workerist fantasies
VIPPER Revolutionary consciousness does not come about due to momentary opposition to capital or the state but from the connection of and reflection upon these various episodes in the class struggle to reach a position of recognition of the class struggle and a proletarian position in this struggle
VIPPER Only a minority is able to do this: we call this strata of the workers the “proletarian vanguard”
VIPPER From the struggle various elements of the vanguard draw different lessons and demands
VIPPER Each of these are programs belonging to various sects and groups
VIPPER However, due to the common struggle against capital, in the historical process the various elements of the vanguard dissolve into a single program and a party organized around it
VIPPER (By program we mean the crystallized lessons and demands of the workers in the struggle; things like the eight-hour day, abolition of the bourgeois state, etc.)
VIPPER Historically this has lead to the communist program, which demands the total abolition of bourgeois society and the establishment of a society based upon common ownership.
VIPPER Once again, I implore you to check the blog post on this of mine for greater exposition of these points.
jacobian Time
jacobian We will now begin cross examinations
ipatrol Ok
Bronterre Does the proletarian vanguard party aim to take power? If so, how? How will it be held accountable? What will it do in power?
Q-collective VIPPER: by programme, do you mean an actual document? Many sects imply by “programme” all the lessons from 1848 to now, which is why I’m asking.
ipatrol Why is only a minority able to do this?
VIPPER I will answer these questions one-by-one
agnosticnixie Doesn’t a minority vanguard party run a risk of distancing itself from the rest of the working class–in the worst cases turning into labourist affairs
VIPPER Bronterre: I will say this about the issue because I intend to present in greater detail the relation of the party to the class as a whole in my second constructive: the party does not seek to impose its own dictatorship but intends to be an organ of proletarian dictatorship
VIPPER Q-collective: These demands are and should be presented in a compact document, yes. But the things on this document find their origin in class struggle as crystallized lessons.
Q-collective Fair enough
VIPPER ipatrol: Because the ruling ideas of every age are those of the ruling class.
Bronterre Cool
jacobian Time is up
jacobian Ipatrol can now begin constructive.
ipatrol jacobian: can I have mine later? my lunch just finished cooking
jacobian Are you ready ipatrol ?
jacobian Ok
ipatrol Sorry
jacobian Q-collective
Q-collective Ok
jacobian You may begin constructive when ready
Q-collective For a longer introduction I’ll refer again to my theses on http://spiritofcontradiction.eu/q-collective/2012/06/23/theses-for-partyism
Q-collective However, my position on the party can be summed up as follows:
Q-collective 1. The party creates the working class as a “class for its own”, a class-collective.
Q-collective 2. The revolution is really not a single moment, as it requires a long preparation. But if one was to choose a single moment as the revolution, it would be the toppling of the capitalist constitutional order.
Q-collective 3. For this we need a mass movement that is politicised; a party-movement. I agree with VIPPER in that “mere labour struggles” will not produce a revolutionary proletariat. Not for nothing did Marx emphasize that the class struggle is a political struggle.
Q-collective 4. However, this party cannot just take over the reigns of power of the existing state. This is due to the fact that the capitalist state is unfit for workers rule.
Q-collective 5. What is also unfit is the whole concept of elections, that is an essentially oligarchic principle and, thus, anti-democratic.
Q-collective Incidentally points 4 and 5 is where I differ with Bronterre :)
Q-collective 6. The question of democracy is really the beginning and end of working class politics: It can build our class and build the road towards communism.
Q-collective 7. To achieve this party-movement, the revolutionary left itself has to transform: From a sect ridden landscape that is often stuck in 1917, to a movement that can be united around a single document that we call a programme. Not on the basis of agreement, but on acceptance.
Q-collective 8. Thus our task today is to fight against the status quo and for a newly constituted revolutionary left. As much as the left is the problem, the many committed militants are also part of the solution.
Q-collective This fight consists of multiple parts, such as the fight against the universally existing economism on the left and the unification of the left around a communist programme. But firstly it must be a battle for democracy, that is, for the right to disagree.
Q-collective I also agree with VIPPER in that there are most likely going to be several “centers of thought” where working class intellectuals gather and which will vie for influence
Q-collective But I probably differ in that such “centers” don’t necessarily have to be in the leadership.
Q-collective I think I’ll leave it at that for now.
jacobian Ok
jacobian Ok, we will begin cross-examinations
jacobian You may proceed
Q-collective Do ask
Bronterre Can you describe in more detail how the constitutional order will toppled? Will gaining a majority in elections be part of that scenario? What do you see replacing the capitalist state? How will they interact with the actually existing civil service?
ipatrol Your online theses mentions sortition, how and why would this work?
agnosticnixie Is the party movement in this scenario formed from a vanguard or simply a mass movement, in which case how is it a party–also the anarchist position was generally “sack the bureaucrats, put workers in their stead”
Q-collective Bronterre: The constitutional order may be toppled in whatever tactical way is possible: violent, non-violent. I prefer non-violent though. And yes, these politics are explicitly majoritarian, so at the very least the working class movement has to support or allow such a revolution to happen
Q-collective ipatrol: I’ll come back to this in my second construct as it is a bigger question.
ipatrol Ah
jacobian Ok, time
VIPPER By “democracy” do you mean democracy in the abstract, a class-neutral democracy and “rule of the people”?
Q-collective Was answering agnosticnixie
VIPPER Damn
jacobian We will proceed with agnosticnixie
jacobian You may start when ready
jacobian This is your first constructive
agnosticnixie So following my last interrogation; I see the value of a mass revolutionary organization of the working class but I’m uncertain about the terminology of party politics
agnosticnixie From a purely semantic aspect, party politics are very tied to the core aspects of bourgeois, parliamentary revolutionism, and I admit that it’s partly a very french holdover in anarchism–being a party of sorts but against parties
agnosticnixie That aside, I agree with bronterre on a few points but with certain caveats
agnosticnixie A push for revolution through economics can, if it’s not done with a political will for class consciousness and class warfare lead to more reactionary cooperatives, essentially like Mondragon, essentially being a form of economic labourism where instead of being reformists at the parliamentary level we have reformists at the economic level
agnosticnixie At the same time the very idea of a seizure of power through electoralism is also flawed–election is the essence of bourgeois politics, and represents more a surrender of power to the bourgeoisie than a gain of it–as such this is where I worry about the implications of party formation
jacobian Time
agnosticnixie The problems of the Gotha program, as seen through the 19th and 20th century quasi left electoralist parties, are inherent to the nature of bourgeois electoralist politics, and as such would essentially be repeated at all times; in that sense of party, a party would be an inevitable failure due to its adhesion, even partial, to the
jacobian Ok, now we will begin cross-examination
jacobian agnosticnixie will be given time to complete out of reserve
agnosticnixie System of bourgeois politics.–okay done
jacobian Ok, now cross examinations
jacobian You may proceed
ipatrol Ok, if power can’t be seized electorally, how can it be taken?
Q-collective I’ll refrain from asking, as it is taking agnosticnixie forever to answer
agnosticnixie Revolutionary mass action–toppling the system; I tentatively agree that in some cases an electoralist victory can trigger a revolution (the examples given by Bronterre, although neither electoral victory involved a mass movement directly, only triggered it)
VIPPER agnosticnixie: How do you see revolutionary consciousness as unfolding?
agnosticnixie But I don’t see how it can win it–VIPPER–is there a meaning of unfolding I’m missing
jacobian Ok, time
VIPPER I was probably too vague
jacobian Let me remind participants
jacobian They can PM me for reserve time if they feel they want to extend any portion.
jacobian There are 5 minutes in reserve time.
jacobian We will proceed with ipatrol’s constructive
ipatrol Thank you jacobian
ipatrol Now, by party, I usually consider it to mean a political organization in general, not the existing electoral parties
ipatrol The fact remains that capitalism is organized. States organize the bourgeoisie, international organizations unite states, international corporations also unite bourgeoisie, industry groups, the Bohemian Grove, etcetera
ipatrol To fight it, we must also organize
ipatrol The saying in the US is, “United we stand, divided we fall”
ipatrol That could not be more true
ipatrol There are several ways of doing this
ipatrol Labor unions, special interest groups, electoral parties, think tanks, are all examples of this
ipatrol The most effective option would be for the party to combine these functions
ipatrol The IWW used to have a good idea about this, before they were suppressed by the government
ipatrol As a union, we can bring capitalism to a halt
ipatrol Through, as the IWW said, a general strike
ipatrol The party should be run through direct democracy using modern communication over the phone, SMS, and internet
ipatrol Only then can it be truly proletarian
jacobian Time
jacobian It is the opinion of the moderator that we might exchange the second constructive and second rebuttal phases for 10 minutes if that proves to the liking of the participants in consensus.
jacobian This is due to the fact that 5 participants has made the proceedings rather lengthy.
ipatrol Ok, any questions?
Q-collective ipatrol: How exactly will we seize power? Your constructive reminds me of the “long march through the institutions” narrative of pre-eurocommunist CP’s. And how exactly will we seize power through a general strike? How will you prevent, for example, the happenings in Portugal’s Carnation Revolution or in Iran’s 1979 revolution that both started as massive strikes and embryonic soviets, yet were seized by, respectively, the social-democracy and the islamic fundamentalists, i.e. to existing political authorities.
ipatrol Q-collective: by, as stated by some other participants, retaining our class conciousness
ipatrol We must conciously work towards that objective
Q-collective How and when? During the general strike itself?
ipatrol Q-collective: before and during
Q-collective What are our tasks before?
ipatrol Violence will only happen if they try to make us work at gunpoint
ipatrol Q-collective: just be mindful of what we are doing. keep spreading the message
ipatrol Only a majority of the population can securely gain power
ipatrol Using, as Q-collective said, the core or backbone of the capitalist world
jacobian Ok time.
jacobian Briefly, can we have a meta-discussion on the format.
VIPPER What is the issue? Do we want to extend the length of the second phases?
jacobian Are participants prepared to proceed as planned, or would we rather go directly to Rebuttal phase.
jacobian I was thinking we could switch to rebuttal in exchange for extra time.
Q-collective I rather like to combine my second constructive and rebuttal
VIPPER I think having a second constructive is rather important as both Q-collective and I, at the very least, have planned to elaborate on key points in the second constructive
ipatrol Q-collective: so it’s back-and-forth?
jacobian Fair enough, we’ll proceed with a second constructive then.
jacobian You may proceed with your second constructive Bronterre
Bronterre Grand. How much time do I have?
jacobian 8 minutes
jacobian Plus the 5 discretionary that you may use at any time.
Bronterre Anti-parliamentarism is as much a construct of capitalist society as a socialist critique, e.g. in the English speaking world at least, politicians serve as the capitalists’ mudguard: they become the scapegoat for capitalism’s ills and everyone, even politicians complain about politicians.
Bronterre We should forthrightly reject that conception and promote a democratic party as a vehicle for expressing the political wishes of the masses. Unions are indispensable but they have their own function and logic and are too narrowly based to fill that role.
Bronterre The relationship with the state is critical to how we perceive the mass party.
Bronterre The anti-state critique made some sense in the 19th century when the state was thoroughly aristocratic. It was a class state; it explicitly excluded workers from the state, not unlike an apartheid regime. Its very class nature provoked class consciousness on the part of the workers. That has changed. The democratic capitalists triumphed (belatedly in WW2) and the overt class nature of society is no longer at work.
Bronterre The fiction of civic equality reigns and the capitalists have outflanked us.
Bronterre We have to update our strategies to cope, and by updating I mean reverting to some old school Marxist orthodoxy :)
Bronterre But with the exception of questioning the central importance of the proletariat
Bronterre The focus on prolertarianism has seen a severe decline in our forturnes over the last 30 years at least. Even the financial crisis has not seen a reversal. I don’t see one coming in the near future either.
Bronterre We need to win mass support. What other vehicles other than a mass party can give public expression to that support? I
Bronterre Unless there is a clear expression of public support–i.e. other tendencies and parties are suppressed–either civil war will result those tendencies will worm their way into the party a la the NEP men in Russia in the 1920s.
Bronterre It is therefore in our interests to support democracy.
Bronterre The vast majority of society are potentially our supporters. There is no need to fear existing democracy, limited though it is.
Bronterre Its main flaws lie in its relationship to capital which cannot be changed without altering the economic base
Bronterre I broadly agree with Q regarding the need for a mass party to develop an independent culture. I also strongly agree that the class will be a creation of the party rather than vice versa. I am more skeptical of the need to place all our chips on the proletariat though. I am unsure as to my own thinking on this issue but I feel, again to promote co-ops, that they could be the source of our long-term base.
Bronterre The state has a much longer history than capitalism and if nowadays capital holds sway over the state it should be remembered wasn’t always like that. In fact, the dominance of capital over the state is fairly recent. It is a historical phenomenon that finally only came to be in 1945 in Europe.
Bronterre And the US can still boss around capital. What has a beginning has an end. Capital’s dominance over the state can be ended. The state has potentially different interests than that of capital, hard as it is to imagine in the current situation.
Bronterre Thus, I am less inclined than Comrade Q in the need to replace the State. Or at least I would like more detail on it will be replaced as the state has evolved from being a vehicle for the aristocratic suppression of the masses to being a more complex and contradictory vehicle for ordering society. WE have to be careful about tinkering with a very complex machine. It is easier to mess it up than to improve it, as the Bolsheviks found out.
jacobian Ok
jacobian Now we will switch to cross-examinations
jacobian You may proceed.
Q-collective I remain sceptical on your emphasis to take over the state, but will return to that in my constructive :)
VIPPER Bronterre: So you are saying that we ought to question the centrality of class in regards to socialist transformation and the state, especially the centrality of the proletariat?
ipatrol Bronterre: why do you say capital has only dominated the state since 1945?
Bronterre ipatrol: more exactly, I think it finally only achieved complete dominance in Europe with the suppression of fascism. It was dominant in some countries much earlier, e.g. UK
ipatrol Bronterre: wasn’t fascism a capitalist reaction to marxism?
Bronterre VIPPER: yes, we should question it. I am not sure of my own position on this though. I am still working it out. I am inclined to think class will become important again because of the party rather than vice versa
Bronterre Fascism was a coalition of aristocratic elements in the state apparatus, capitalist support and petty bourgeois masses
ipatrol Bronterre: how is that not cart before the horse?
VIPPER Bronterre: So you advocate a move away from class in our analysis of society?
jacobian Time
jacobian It is now time for VIPPER’s second constructive.
VIPPER Hello once again
VIPPER I have a lot to elaborate on so excuse me if I cram lots into a short time
VIPPER To recap on what I have already said: through the struggle of the class a minority of the class achieves a revolutionary consciousness; various elements of this minority exist and draw different lessons and demands from the struggle; the historical process tends to dissolve all of these programs and sects into a common organization with a common goal and a communist program, given a scientific basis by Marxism; and this organization is the class party. Now I will pick up where I left off and will connect this to the issue of the class as a whole.
VIPPER The rise and fall of political parties cannot be separated from the class struggle. Indeed, in periods of “normal” development, “wherein the productive forces of bourgeois society are developing as luxuriantly as it is possible for them to do within bourgeois relationships,” we cannot speak of revolution or revolutionary movements as Marx reminds us. Objectively we must say that such periods are counter-revolutionary or non-revolutionary. The tasks of the party in such a period are to merely remain at least marginally relevant and to not lapse into populism, economism, or other such deviations from the communist program. The party is in such a period small by necessity and may even break down once again into sects and competing groups as it becomes disconnected from the struggle.
VIPPER These do not compromise every period, though: periods of crisis, for example, are objectively revolutionary or pre-revolutionary. Indeed, our own period is such a period, at least since the crisis and perhaps even dating back to the 1970s. In such a period we can speak of a revolution and a revolutionary movement.
VIPPER In such a period the mystifications of bourgeois society are weakened, the class is further united in conditions and struggle, and the struggle as a whole intensifies. In such a period the party is able to form, as comrade Q-collective has put it, a sort of “party-movement,” where the party is the nucleus of the class movement as a whole. Indeed, as Bordiga (obligatory reference right here) mentions, we cannot even speak of a class-in-action (a klasse-für-sich) without speaking of a party directing the trajectory of this movement.
VIPPER I also agree on the point that we cannot have a “toppling of the bourgeois constitutional order” without having a majority on the side of the revolution grouped around the party and the program of revolution. (On this I agree with both Q-collective and Lenin).
VIPPER I must, however, disagree with regards to the emphasis on democracy: democracy is not a principle for us, it is a means to an end, a means to class power. What is important in the proletarian state is not that it represents the majority of “the people” but the proletariat, which in the advanced countries are indeed the majority and thus elections and democracy are useful tools in proletarian dictatorship. In capitalist society, as Engels said, “Universal suffrage is thus the gauge of the maturity of the working class. It cannot and never will be anything more in the modern state; but that is enough” (Here I must express emphasis that I do not even believe it is particularly worthwhile as a “gauge”!). The revolution can only proceed through the smashing of the bourgeois state. What will replace it is unknown to me: to say “All power to the Soviets!” is indeed something I cannot do without any soviets.
VIPPER If this class party is to be revolutionary at all, it must lead the class movement along a revolutionary trajectory, as opposed to an electoralist one: indeed, complete abstention from use of parliament during a revolutionary period, and agitation against this body, is a position that I would encourage any future class party to take.
VIPPER As for the internal organization of this party, there are several factors.
VIPPER On the one hand, centralization is indeed a principle for us, unlike democracy: in order to prevent sectionalism and localism we must subordinate these interests to that of the movement as a whole; concretely this means the subordinational on local, regional, national bodies to higher ones, culminating in the subordination of all sections to the International.
VIPPER Democracy is useful, however, in a party, at least in conditions where democracy is feasible.
VIPPER On the one hand, it is useful for choosing the people most suited for the job by popular consensus: only the people who are interested in the positions will be candidates for certain positions and the collective knowledge of the electors will decide the best candidate for the position within the party.
jacobian Ok, time
jacobian We will begin cross-examinations
Q-collective VIPPER: you say: “the historical process tends to dissolve all of these programs and sects into a common organization with a common goal and a communist program”. Could you elaborate this “historical process”? I’m asking because in my first constructive I explicitly call for a rebellion from the existing left against their sect leaderships.Do you agree with this? Or did you have something else in mind? As regarding democracy: I agree with the caveat that it is only viable in countries where the working class is a majority (this is in most big countries nowadays though, so this caveat is rapidly becoming a thing of the past).
Bronterre Does the party assume power? If so, how? What does it do in power? How would it be held accountable?
VIPPER Q-collective: Of course. This historical process establishes itself concretely through a series of splits and mergers culminating in the formation of a common organization. This is a painful and long process, but it is guided by the intensification and advancement of the struggle, as well as the recognition of objective need.
VIPPER Bronterre: The party only assumes power when the workers themselves have chosen it for the majority of their delegates.
VIPPER Party power is not, I believe, incompatible with workers’ power.
Bronterre Delegates to a Workers Council?
VIPPER The notion that the party alone takes power with no input from the class is a distortion of the relation between class state and class party.
VIPPER They may be from a workers’ council. As I said, I do not know concretely what form the organs of proletarian power will take. Historically they have taken that form.
jacobian Ok, time
jacobian It is now your constructive, ipatrol.
ipatrol I agree the most with VIPPER and Q-collective
ipatrol The state is designed to protect the status quo
ipatrol To use the US for example, even the federalist papers say this
ipatrol So we must make our own
ipatrol Chances are, at the time of revolution, the party will morph into the new government, so its structure is important
ipatrol We cannot just leave things to the “historical process” as VIPPER said, we must actively plan this out
ipatrol I do feel, somewhat unlike Q-collective that we have a wide variety of tools in our arsenal
ipatrol Labor unions are declining because they stopped fighting for the broader revolution but labor unionism is not dead
ipatrol Co-ops are fine, but at most they can only nibble away at the edges of capitalism
ipatrol The general strike is a great way of stopping capitalism, as long as we have a large portion of the people joining it
ipatrol Soldiers, police, and the unemployed are key groups to sign up
ipatrol The first two to avoid violence, the last one so the strike is not foiled by them
jacobian Ok, time
jacobian cross examinations
Q-collective No questions this time. Good constructive. Although just adding that (unlike VIPPER for example, who rules out elections) I do not rule out any tactic. Tactics are applicable given a specific situation and form the basis of our toolset. So yes, we have a very broad set of tools in our arsenal.
Bronterre ipatrol: labor unions are declining because they stopped fighting for the broader revolution
Bronterre That being the case why aren’t the population of any western country straining at the leash to have a revolution?
ipatrol Q-collective: agreed, we should join elections for, if no other reason, than to be able to say we earnestly tried
VIPPER I would like to point out that I only argued against the use of elections in a revolutionary period
ipatrol Bronterre: disillusionment
Q-collective VIPPER: ok, fair enough
VIPPER Rather than in a non- or counter-revolutionary period
VIPPER Also, I propose that if there are no question that cross-ex be ended
ipatrol VIPPER: I don’t feel such temporal distinctions exist
ipatrol Carpe diem
ipatrol jacobian: I second VIPPER’s motion
jacobian Yes
jacobian Cross examination is ended.
Q-collective Bronterre had a question?
VIPPER Oh yes
VIPPER He did
VIPPER But ipatrol answered it
VIPPER Albeit with a single word
jacobian It is now time for your second constructive.
Q-collective As promised I’ll go more in depth in sortition (again, I agree with VIPPER’s caveat, but I’ll leave that for now). I do have some ideas regarding organisation, although they are not fully crystallized. I don’t expect them to become fully crystallized until we have an actual shot at a unity project for the simple reason that this is going to be a collective endeavor.
Q-collective What I do see as a primary method for organisation though is demarchy. I go further than most in this in that I propose most official functions to be selected on a demarchic base instead of having bureaucrats.
Q-collective The concept of demarchy seems difficult, but is actually quite simple and revolves around a few key concepts:
Q-collective 1. All positions are not elected but selected by lottery, much like juries are formed in the US judiciary system.
Q-collective 2. All positions are not filled by a single person (like ministers, etc) but by a group of people that statistically represent the collective.
Q-collective 3. All positions have a high turnover rate, time between selections shouldn’t be longer than a year, often much shorter.
Q-collective This has several implications:
Q-collective 1. Since the positions that are filled are statistically representative of the collective, we can genuinely state that “the people are in power” (demos and kratos, the two Greek words making up “democracy”). Aristotle described it as such: “so that it results that in democracies the poor are more powerful than the rich, because there are more of them and whatever is decided by the majority is sovereign.” (Politics Book 6 Part II)
Q-collective 2. Since everyone “governs and is governed in turns”, this requires a rather high level of general education among the whole party membership and, since the party-movement seeks to replace society by a new one, indeed the whole working class. Educational societies are not just a nice feature of alternative culture, but an essential component.
Q-collective 3. It also implies a party-movement of genuine mass proportions. Indeed, such a model can only work on a massive scale. It is not said that the left, if it was to unite, could already implement demarchy in all aspects. Indeed, as you put it, in the beginning we would probably need a brand of “enlightened moderators”.
Q-collective 4. In extension to the last two points: Demarchy is the concrete link between the party-movement and the society of the future. The party-movement represents the politically conscious part of our class that wants to take power and if it doesn’t consist of the majority of the working class outright, the majority has to be sympathetic to this project.
Q-collective I’ll also reply to agnosticnixie’s question in the first examination: Mass movement that strive for political change is a party (in the way Marx and Engels meant anyway, in those days electoral-machines did not yet exist) and vice-versa a genuine communist party that seeks to organise the working class must be a mass movement.
Q-collective Secondly: The problem with bureaucracies are not that they exist, but why they exist. This has to do with skill levels and, as such, special education. It is very probable that after the capitalist state will cease to exist that there will still be many middle layers with special skill sets and special knowledge which empowers them vis-a-vis the working class. They can only be “absorbed” into the working class (for example, via universal education) over time.
Q-collective This links to Bronterre’s last question: What will replace the capitalist state? The answer is that working class rule will only constitute a semi-state: It will still be a state in the sense that it enforces its class rule and prevents other classes from monopolising power. But as soon as all classes are “absorbed” into the working class, we’re left with a society of free producers and the state has fully collapsed into society itself. Aka: we have communism.
Q-collective Incidentally, I agree that we should go back in many ways to Orthodox Marxism and that pre-1909 Kautsky has a lot to teach the modern day far left. But I think we should reject taking over the existing state as it will never work in our favor. All its institutions have everything to lose with a revolution and will work against it at every step along the way.
Q-collective Lastly, I’d like to explicitly reject the “general strikist” strategy ipatrol seems to be defending. I’ll refer to this blog for a more extensive argument: http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=6618
Q-collective But the core point is that it doesn’t work that way: Workers will not spontaneously bring up alternative political forms during a general strike. This takes (a lot of) time and is the whole purpose of the party-movement.
Q-collective During a general strike the question becomes very concrete: Who rules? And history learns us that workers will always look to existing political authorities, such as the Social-Democrats in 1974 Portugal or the Islamists in 1979 Iran.
Q-collective I must say though that I don’t throw out the general strike as a principle though, it is very much a viable tactic. It is not however a viable strategy. Said differently: We shouldn’t be putting all our eggs in the general strike basket. If we are to wage one, the working class itself should be in the position to be ready to take political power.
Q-collective And I’d like to leave it at that. Thank you.
jacobian We will now move to cross ex
Q-collective I expect a lot of questions, so I’d like to draw my 5 minutes reserve and 2 + 2 extra I didn’t spend in the constructives.
ipatrol Q-collective: I think you misunderstand my opinion on the general strike
ipatrol I said to use it as a tactiv
Q-collective ipatrol: ok, that is fair enough then
VIPPER Q-collective: When you mean party-movement do you mean the party itself encompasses the class? Or that there is majority support for this party and it forms the “center,” so to speak, of the mass movement?
Bronterre I remain unclear as to how you see power being taken. Could you clarify on that point?
VIPPER Which does not preclude the party itself from being quite large
ipatrol Q-collective: why do you like sortition versus direct voting?
agnosticnixie Wouldn’t the implication of the general strike as a tactic be that the agitation towards mass class consciousness be done before
Q-collective VIPPER: it can go either way really. I’m not set of a definite answer to that.
Q-collective Bronterre: With “taking power” I mean the party-movement / working class movement enforcing its institutions over society, while abolishing the old state.
jacobian Ok, Q, would you like extra time
Bronterre Very anti-statist!
ipatrol Q-collective: and my question?
Q-collective Answering
jacobian Q has asked the moderator prior to use his extension–he is working with his discretionary time
VIPPER Q-collective: While you say that sortition is more democratic, is this necessarily better?
ipatrol Q-collective: sortition means appointment by lottery, BTW
Q-collective ipatrol: Elections are fundamentally an oligarchic principle that relies on having money to wage campaigns, be liked by the press to get positive “public opinion”, etc. So in reality elections are mostly available for an in-crowd that is almost impossible to break for those that wish to work outside the system.
Q-collective ipatrol: I know :-)
VIPPER I.e. are elections, while less democratic, more effective at choosing better officers?
ipatrol Q-collective: is this an attribute of elections, or capitalism?
VIPPER (I am speaking about within the party structure itself)
Q-collective VIPPER: I would go further: Elections are anti democratic.
Q-collective Ah
Q-collective Well
ipatrol Q-collective: why do you need large campaigns every time someone wants to build a larger water line for example
Q-collective I agree with you (I believe it was you) that the party lays the basis for the society of the future. As such, I do think sortition needs to have a place in the party-movement.
VIPPER ipatrol: I think it’s best to let him answer the question at hand first
VIPPER Q-collective: That was ipatrol, btw
ipatrol VIPPER: I was expounding
Q-collective Hmm
ipatrol Q-collective: it was me
jacobian You have one minute Q-collective
Q-collective “ipatrol Q-collective: is this an attribute of elections, or capitalism?” Both really. It is just so that capitalism finds perfect use in elections in enforcing its class hegemony
Q-collective I think I’m done
jacobian Ok
ipatrol Q-collective: fair enough
jacobian It is time for agnosticnixie’s second constructive
agnosticnixie The problem of making a distinction between a revolutionary and a non revolutionary period sometimes becomes not just a matter of hindsight but a matter of sect–this basically makes it difficult for a party movement that’s active in electoral politics to do much
agnosticnixie Basically since VIPPER brought up the “pass” they give regarding non revolutionary periods and participation in the system
agnosticnixie It’s been objectively very hard to get parties which did this sort of things to finally act on their programs once the revolutionary crisis happened: for one jaures you have the whole union sacrée
agnosticnixie Along with this, there’s the problem of organization of the party (this includes bakuninist vanguards here) in such a way that it doesn’t become the sole holder of power which becomes, imo, a problem in terms of class power as despite the best revolutionary intentions, political inertia has a way to set itself in place, effectively relegating the best of ideals to second place after keeping power
agnosticnixie That said I agree with VIPPER that a part of it is combatting sectarianism
agnosticnixie This can be a pitfall even with large parties, if they effectively form a replacement bureaucracy that’s based on party organization rather than class organization effectively paving the way for a different class society
jacobian Time
agnosticnixie 30 sec
jacobian Ok
agnosticnixie Effectively I could see the organizational value of a party more as an affinity group operating from mass movement structures rather than the movement proper unless said party was the whole class
agnosticnixie Okay, that was probably one minute, but done
jacobian Ok
jacobian We will now begin cross-ex
Q-collective agnosticnixie: just wanting to know: Was my answer in my second constructive helpful? (regarding mass movement = party)
agnosticnixie Sort of, that’s what I tried to build on at the end
Q-collective Ok
ipatrol agnosticnixie: you say things we shouldn’t do, but how should we avoid them?
agnosticnixie I agree roughly with Q-collective’s idea of sortition, although I’d favor a hybrid of voluntarism, sortition and election (would take too long to explain for now) for society-wide/class-wide organizing
jacobian Time
jacobian Ok, again, I’d like to convene a meta-discussion
ipatrol On what?
jacobian Would it be acceptable to participants to proceed with a single rebuttal phase, with 5 bonus minutes?
Bronterre Fine by me
jacobian This is in the interest of time, as this has actually become quite extensive.
ipatrol You mean a third round?
jacobian Rather than a third and fourth ipatrol
agnosticnixie Clocking in at 2 hours
ipatrol jacobian: ok
jacobian It will instead be a conclusion round
ipatrol Yeah, EST is approaching the dinner hour
VIPPER Yeah
jacobian You will be allowed to call on 5 extra minutes if you so desire.
jacobian Great, Q-collective ?
Q-collective Yup
agnosticnixie Ssilly Americans eating in the middle of the afternoon
jacobian Ok, that’s consensus then
VIPPER Two more rounds will probably take us to around 6:00 or so
jacobian We will now proceed with rebuttal and concluding remarks.
VIPPER Which is dangerously close to feeding time
Q-collective “ipatrol agnosticnixie: you say things we shouldn’t do, but how should we avoid them?”
Q-collective Good question! Something I didn’t explicitly refer to during my talks. But with “unity in disagreement” I’m referring to open debates, open disagreements, open attacks (rhetorically speaking) on leaderships to combat opportunism and fight for the programme (or the different intepretations of that).
jacobian Q-collective, was trying to take meta-discussion time! The gods will not turn their eyes away.
jacobian It is now time for rebuttal and conclusion
jacobian Bronterre, you may proceed
Bronterre Righto, 5 minutes?
jacobian 8 minutes, with 5 bonus if you would like to call them
Bronterre Since I am at risk of appearing as a state fan-boy, I must emphasise that I see its role as very limited.
Bronterre Hence the focus on co-ops which are a non-state avenue to socialism.
Bronterre But the role of the party is intimately associated with how we see the state so I address it a lot in this debate.
Bronterre We need to have state power as a defensive measure to prevent a co-operative commonwealth from being disrupted by hostile elements.
Bronterre I have a differing historical analysis of the state compared to others I think. I will try to expand on that in a future blog post.
Bronterre To return to the key point as I see it
Bronterre Why is majority support necessary?
Bronterre We won’t be able to sustain a socialist mode of production otherwise. Without an active majority, ownership of the means of production will revert to minority control thereby creating the preconditions for the re-emergence of class society.
Bronterre Democracy is not an optional tactic
Bronterre Since a majority of the population are workers there is no need from a purely self-interested point of view to dispense with existing democratic forms.
Bronterre There is a burden of proof on those who wish to institute alternative forms as to why they are better. As I said, it’s easier to break that machine than to fix it.
Bronterre I think that a long-term mass party can, in conjunction with co-ops and other forms, win that majority prior to a revolution.
Bronterre In any case, workers councils and sortition based parliaments do not exist. Actual parliaments do.
Bronterre So we are faced with the question of how to interact with them. Ignoring them has gotten the anarchists precisely nowhere.
Bronterre I do not think that it will be possible to grow to the size where the party can institute dual power and crush the state without participating in elections.
Bronterre There hasn’t been a non-electoralist mass movement of that size since the CNT and even it was a minority.
Bronterre Since parliaments have legitimacy amongst the population (mostly workers remember!) we need to capture them.
Bronterre We can introduce demarchy if we feel like it. But first we must win. And to win, we have to play.
Bronterre While I am sympathetic to sortition, I do not agree that Aristotle’s views are directly applicable to modern times. I would favour experimentation of some level of sortition, but having seen how crap many people were at administration in my previous organisation I would be cautious.
Bronterre Administration is not the same as bureaucratism. The important thing is to separate decisioning making power from administration of it. We should be flexible as to how this can be done.
jacobian 30 seconds unless extra time is applied...
Bronterre The question arises as to how prevent the capitalists from exercising their power. The capitalist class dominates; it does not rule directly. We need to start a shift in the economic base–in the relations of production–such that socialist policies of transformation cannot be wrecked by the inevitable capitalist reaction. Sortition on its own does not solve that; the ideas of the ruling class will still permeate an assembly populated by random selection unless a rival socialist mode of production is on the rise.
Bronterre Finally
Bronterre A mass party must be mass and that entails encompassing a wide variety of tendencies. In order to accomodate them and in fact to harness their talents, we need to be very tolerant of differing points of view. As others have said, we should promote loosely affiliated think tanks and the like.
jacobian Time unless you would like to avail of discretionary
Bronterre No, done.
jacobian Ok, we will go directly to the next participant
VIPPER I must here disagree with the positions put forward here by my good comrades. Before that I would like to thank them for their patience in both their expositions and elaborations.
VIPPER With comrade Bronterre I must disagree with the position that we should question the centrality of class in our analysis: to do so is not a return to “old-school Marxist orthodoxy,” which in my opinion is not a viable goal, but rather “old-school Marxist heterodoxy,” i.e. Bernsteinianism. I must also fundamentally disagree with his position that we capture the bourgeois state: the bourgeois state is wholly unfit for the tasks of proletarian dictatorship. However, I must admit that his ideas on cooperatives and socialist transformation in a mass movement are indeed interesting and potentially very valuable. There ought to be a flexibility of tactics regarding what should be done to draw the class to the party, and we should also, while avoiding utopianism, attempt to ease the transformation of our own society into a socialist one. This is not fundamentally incompatible with my own view and I think it is in fact a very thoughtful proposal.
VIPPER With comrade ipatrol I must disagree on, first of all, the thesis that the party forms the nucleus of the revolutionary state and also the use of the general strike. The general strike is quantitatively but not qualitatively different than similar smaller strikes, as has been shown by recent experience in Spain, Portugal, Greece, etc., and only signifies the growth of the struggle which, while good, does not lead to the toppling of the bourgeois state and never has.
VIPPER To fetishize the general strike is downright dangerous. It has a great many problems as a “revolution.”
VIPPER However, that is not within the scope of the debate.
VIPPER With comrade Q-collective I must agree on many things but disagree on a few issues. First of all, as I said, democracy is not fundamentally a principle for Marxists: therefore the question of elections vs. sortition must be reduced to the question of which produces better officers for the party positions. In an election those who are motivated run and the collective knowledge of the electors goes into choosing them; with sortition this is a random process. Indeed, it can lead to apathy, as is often the case here in juries in the US.
VIPPER Finally, with comrade agnosticnixie, I accept the worries that the party may be detached from the class, or that it may degenerate; this is something, however, that must be fought against not with platitudes but adherence to a program and strict discipline. We cannot disconnect the party from the class struggle’s ups and downs, and if the party is falling apart in a counter-revolutionary period we can only try our best.
VIPPER As a more general criticism, I must disagree with the idea of electoralism. Since the majority of us are in agreement that parliament and the bourgeois state are not revolutionary avenues, I will take this as a given. In a non-revolutionary period, participation in elections is a fine enough tactic given revolution and the building of a revolutionary movement are not on the table; it is in fact one of the few things the party can do to maintain a connection with the class when class struggle is dying down and objective conditions weigh against it. However, in a revolutionary or pre-revolutionary period, I must denounce the use of parliament as just leading the mass of the workers into the swamp of parliamentary cretinism.
VIPPER In this matter I would like to refer to the Theses of the Abstentionist Faction of the Italian Socialist Party
VIPPER Finally, as I have emphasized throughout the debate, we have to look at the development of the party from the viewpoint of class struggle and the materialist conception of history and society. It is only on these grounds that we will be able to resolve “the party question” and finally get our feet off the clouds of “ideal forms” and sects and back on to the ground of social reality.
VIPPER Materialism is the foundation of our worldview
VIPPER To refuse to look at the issue in a materialist fashion is to abdicate taking any serious position at all.
VIPPER And with that I will end my rebuttal.
jacobian Ok
jacobian Rebuttal and conclusion ipatrol
ipatrol First, I thank my comrades here for allowing me to participate in this debate
ipatrol Right now, if the party were founded tomorrow, the most that it could do would be to spread the message and grow itself
ipatrol Marxism is still a dirty word in my country, and probably in many others
ipatrol I mentioned the general strike as a tactic to give us the opportunity for revolution, not as a revolution in itself, but I digress
ipatrol I still feel that direct democracy is possible. Each issue before the party can be voted on
ipatrol Ultimately, the form the party will take will have to be hashed out through discussion and compromise, but we can learn from our predecessors
ipatrol The party is a forum to organize specific actions and to promote class solidarity
ipatrol It is an outgrowth of the historical materialist process of the progression towards increasing organization of society
ipatrol There is no time like the present to begin, indeed, I would like to meet you all in person so we can actually begin a party
ipatrol The best way to prevent class alienation of the party is to give them direct power over its affairs
ipatrol Then we can decide what to do next
jacobian Ok, time
jacobian It is now time for Q-collective’s rebuttal and conclusion.
Q-collective I don’t have a lot of concluding remarks :) Bronterre clearly has a different definition of the state than I figure most of the other debaters tonight. This is not going to be explained or resolved in a few minutes.
Q-collective To VIPPER I’d like to concede (again) on the caveat earlier placed regarding societies where the working class is not a majority (i.e, some third world countries). However, I disagree with him on the centrality of democracy. As I stated on my blogpost: “The binding factor, really the alpha and omega, in all this is the question of democracy. It is through the fight for democracy that we can point out the lies and hypocrisy of the capitalist class, it is through democracy that we can build a genuine mass movement of millions where there can exist ‘unity in disagreement’, it is through democracy that the working class can be lifted out of its slave status and be educated as a potential ruling class and it is only through democracy that the working class can seize power and build towards a communist future.” Besides, apathy is a very big problem in electoral systems as well. I’ll leave it at that as I don’t have the time to delve into it more. I will refer to a video + discussion thread on the subject though. The video gives a useful intro into sortition, if you’re interested: http://www.revleft.com/vb/lecture-democracy-video-t172673/index.html
Q-collective To add to my “illegal” remark (puh jacobian :p ): I think we should explicitly fight for an open environment. Away with “internal discussions”! Down with the sect leaderships that fight for their self-preservation! We need openness, freedom to think, freedom to criticise. Only then can we become in the position to start educating ourselves and the wider class into politics and as such start building the wider party-movement. Learning to think is an essential precondition to become a ruling class, but first the left itself has to stop blindly following this or that “brand” of communism and relearn to think.
Q-collective Thank you for this interesting debate and for putting up with me :)
jacobian Ok
jacobian You may make concluding remarks and rebuttals agnosticnixie
agnosticnixie For rebuttals, I’d like to note that the reference to pre-capitalist societies leaves me with a problem, and reminds me of some of the somewhat left nationalist appeals to “pre imperialist” states of the feudal era
agnosticnixie One of the weakest points in FoD’s attempts at painting the habsburg dynasty as foreign dominance when it was spanish in pretty much every way except name, imo
agnosticnixie Also I still feel that a purely electoral system would not merely be permeated by class, but dominated by it
agnosticnixie Regarding one of VIPPER’s points, I completely forgot what I had to say, but I would note that outside of a minimal program, extended programs can rapidly become platitudes themselves
agnosticnixie Oh yeah, I’m not sure what “better leaders” would be really, or if any system of choice can really give such a result on an absolute basis
agnosticnixie Otherwise It was a fairly interesting debate, even if all my questions went over the time. And thanks for putting up with me
jacobian Does that conclude?
agnosticnixie Yeah
agnosticnixie Admittedly I broke my anarchist contractual obligations to foam at the mention of parties
jacobian Excellent.
jacobian Ok, now since I’m a trollish mod and because I’m a romantic anti-analytic at heart and due to the convincing case made by Q, the winners will be drawn by sortition. VIPPER wins for constructive, Bronterre for cross-ex, and Q for concluding remarks.