An introductory post made for the upcoming debate on the party on ##marxism.
A few basic theses:
Soviet Power Plug
To many socialists–myself included–the revolution of 1917 is an important referent. This was a time when our class, led by our party, rose up against the wasteful and murderous interimperialist war, smashed the last vestige of despotic monarchical power in Europe, and conquered state power. Whatever we may think about the future outcomes, it is difficult to oppose the revolution as such.
Because of the central importance of 1917, we have made into universals things that were conjunctural or particular to a given time and place. While some of these notions may have more general applicability, it is vital not to assume this heritage unobserved.
One instance of this is the system of Soviet democracy. It’s common currency on the left that bourgeois parliamentary democracy is a less representative and materially inferior system to council–or Soviet–democracy. Without minimising the flaws in bourgeois parliaments, and taking into account Soviets may play a useful role in the organisation of a socialist commonwealth, I will explain why this position is not accurate. I have been swayed by the arguments of a comprehensive paper, Decision-making and supervision in a communist commonwealth (pdf), from which I take many of the arguments and examples. All errors are mine.
Context: Applicable to the advanced capitalist countries
Thesis 1: Primary Function
1.1 Socialism needs majority support to be viable.
1.2 There has to be a vehicle for (a) marshaling and expressing that support and (b) doing so in such a way that society as a whole can gauge the strength of the support. Continue reading
This is the first post in a series I did on the topic of the communist party. Originally, this particular post was essentially taken word for word from the notes I wrote in preparation for the debate in IRC on the topic of the party. However, I have since given it a minor update to provide for greater consistency and also to present the issue in a less static form.
The “party question” is one of the “burning questions of our movement,” to borrow a phrase from Lenin, and therefore the need to address it is great. However, we cannot look at the development of parties in moralist terms — that is, what kind of approach fits in with our own preconceived opinions and feelings — but only from a Marxist standpoint, i.e. from a materialist understanding of society and class forces. From this standpoint we must ask: how does the proletarian class party develop in a capitalist society? And from then we must move on: what is the relation of this class party to the non-party masses of the class?
On an entirely abstract level we can say that through the class struggle with the bourgeoisie, the proletariat acquires a consciousness of its own and formulates a revolutionary opposition to its exploiters and the system which exploits it. This, however, is a false formula which needs throwing out; it is a crude mechanistic view which fails to take in more than one factor. In the real social world, we see that this is obviously not the case. There may be a rise in class consciousness and “anti-capitalist” sentiments in the heat of a struggle, but this generally dies down. How many of the Spanish miners will remain this militant after the strike? Very few, it must be said. This is because a revolutionary consciousness does not arise from momentary opposition to capital or the state in various individual struggles, but from the reflection and connection of these struggles and the recognition of the struggle between proletariat and bourgeoisie and the following revolutionary position against the bourgeoisie. The mystifications of bourgeois ideology regarding the very nature of capitalism and also the bourgeois lies of democracy and “popular government,” for the most part, prevent this from happening; the minority of the class which does manage to break through this “barrier” of capitalist ideology is nothing other than the proletarian vanguard, the most militant and class-conscious workers who push the rest forward.
Clio poses in The Allegory of Painting by Jan Vermeer van Delft
Recently, I’ve been looking at theories of history. My interest in a theory of history derives from my interest in finding a political project which is at once progressive in content and direction, but also not doomed.
It might help to understand that I came from an anarchist background, and was involved with the Workers Solidarity Movement, a platformist group in Ireland. Whilst involved in the project I began casting about for some strategic approaches we might take that had more than a chance in hell of working.
At the ##marxism channel, on the Freenode IRC network, we’re holding debates on some of the burning questions for Marxists. A few days ago, we held a surprisingly interesting debate on the class nature of the USSR.
The format of the debate is that typical of debating competitions, and the purpose is not so much to solve these problems definiteively–which would be rather unrealistic–but to have an excuse to study, clarify our own ideas, confront them with those of others, and hopefully learn in the process. Of course, the rhetorical skills employed in debating are worth training in their own right for anyone who wants to participate in politics, at least on the public-facing end of things.
We’re holding a debate on the role of the party on Saturday, 23rd of June, at 1800 hours UTC. Though it would be an atypical time, if you’re curious what we’re like, you could join us for it. I’m sure it will be interesting.
Hi, all,
This is a little introduction post. It seems a good idea to tell something about myself before getting into deeper waters, and it will hopefully break the ice.
After having finished my law degree in 2010, I suppose I’m a Spanish lawyer, though I’m not practicing yet. Like many desperate Spaniards in these times, I am preparing civil service exams in order to access a relatively stable job. Before studying law and–so they say–selling out, I studied Computer Science at a British university, and I still have an abiding love for the discipline, even though there are few chances I will get paid work as a programmer. Complicating things (I’m already Spanish and young) I also have a disability, which makes getting a job a near-impossible task.
Politically, I regard myself as a Marxist. I’m just about equally dismayed by the tiny autonomists or trotskyist sects as I am by the “official” left in Spain, which leaves me somewhat disconnected from local struggles. Not many of the 15M movement comrades in my area, either. So I have a rather pessimistic outlook in the short term, as you can imagine; but I think we must remember the very core of the dialectic: things change.
