tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6920488656220463337.post5674204187015380282..comments2024-02-07T19:30:21.880+11:00Comments on Left Focus: John Passant on the Revolutionary PartyVaughann722http://www.blogger.com/profile/11604027151490275320noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6920488656220463337.post-65544585379583255352009-07-11T17:16:56.383+10:002009-07-11T17:16:56.383+10:00Dear Lev
The essence of the revolutionary left is...Dear Lev<br /><br />The essence of the revolutionary left is democracy. I think, although I do find your last comment difficult to follow, that you conflate Stalinism with socialism. To me stalinism is state capitalism.En Passant with John Passanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07995648116853299140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6920488656220463337.post-4279093760457287662009-07-08T18:21:46.224+10:002009-07-08T18:21:46.224+10:00Redgum, the so-called "very low level" i...Redgum, the so-called "very low level" is the very practical and visceral reality of the tens of millions that have found their way to the grave due to the deliberate action or sheer incompetence of self-identified Leninist regimes.<br /><br />Of course pro-capitalist (and indeed, pro-feudal) powers have sought to overthrow socialist governments. Well, pity a socialism that can't deal with this very normal behaviour in international relations and tries to excuse the bad behaviour of said governments on failed interventions of decades prior.<br /><br />When making the comparison of the left's involvement and non-involvement in the reformist project one thing is certain; the ruling classes and the Labor right praise every day to their preferred deity that the revolutionary left is not seriously involved in democratic politics.Lev Lafayettehttp://isocracy.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6920488656220463337.post-37517493952529655312009-07-05T18:36:08.670+10:002009-07-05T18:36:08.670+10:00I meant in the comment below that Gramsci's id...I meant in the comment below that Gramsci's ideas were made in isolation (not mad in isolation).En Passant with John Passanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07995648116853299140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6920488656220463337.post-55923654182143002702009-07-05T18:34:19.697+10:002009-07-05T18:34:19.697+10:00Thanks Tristan
I think the point is that revoluti...Thanks Tristan<br /><br />I think the point is that revolutionary reformism slips into reformism and can trade away the gains made previously. Strikes and demonstrations spearheaded the 8 hour day, and equal pay for equal work (which we still aren't close to). <br /><br />The essence of reformism in practice (and I cite Hawke/Keating and Rudd) is that in periods when profit is under pressure (e.g. since the 1970s) the reformists negotiate changes that can be inimical to workers' interests - e.g. the Accord. <br /><br />That was based on an essentially class collaborationist approach, one that led to Howard and his continuation of the Hawke/Keating reformism.<br /><br />I think it fair to say the Accord destroyed the essence of the labour movment - rank and file activity and action.<br /><br />While it may be useful to adopt Gramsci - and I am unsure if the various wars he suggested flow from phenomenology rather than Marxism - certainly is writings were mad in isolation and adapted by the PCI reformists.<br /><br />But he was writing for a revolutionary group, not a reformist one, so we need to view his views in that light.<br /><br />And certainly he saw the various wars as ones to be waged by revolutionaries, not reformers.<br /><br />And there's the rub. I am not sure how working within Labor advances Gramsci's ideas of war of manoeuvre.<br /><br />Take something concrete like the ABCC. It seems to me that only industrial action can defeat Gillard's Gestapo. So we revolutionaries work for that reform with building workers, not creating illusions in lobbying ALP politicians and passing motions which will be ignored at national Conference.<br /><br />This flows I think from the basic difference of change from below and change from above.En Passant with John Passanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07995648116853299140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6920488656220463337.post-60565071877438513672009-07-03T18:49:33.942+10:002009-07-03T18:49:33.942+10:00also: I know I seem to contradict myself above re:...also: I know I seem to contradict myself above re: the proletariat and war... But it's a tough call... Peace is what people wanted - and what they demanded... But could it have been delivered? The point I'm making is that I think - slogans aside - the Bolsheviks would have known they couldn't deliver peace...Tristan Ewinsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6920488656220463337.post-4691525180147600582009-07-03T18:46:38.741+10:002009-07-03T18:46:38.741+10:00Reform and revolution are not necessarily mutually...Reform and revolution are not necessarily mutually exclusive... Consider the achievements of years of reform - animated by class struggle: 8 hour day, welfare, work safety laws, recognised and legal industrial action, public education, progressive taxation... <br /><br />Of course workers should always have the right to withdraw their labour if they so choose... But it's still a step forward...<br /><br />Togliatti and Santiago Carillo are good examples of the fusion of revolutionary and reforming impuluses... Carillo even talked of 'revolutionary reforms'... The point being that we ought aim for reforms - emboldened by mobilisation from below - which shift the balance of class forces in our favour... Such struggle can take place over decades...But it is the substance of change that counts...<br /><br />The Russian Revolution of 1917 was linked with the specific circumstances of Russia at the time... (ie: a proletariat that had had enough of war - which had killed millions - and was not going to take it anymore...; and a state apparatus 'falling apart' under that pressure)<br /><br />People today still look to the 1917 example... But the truth is that when the struggle took on the form of a 'war of movement', with no liberal consensus or compromise; the struggle became further brutalised... <br /><br />It was right to endeavour to end the war of course - but given that the civil war that ensued was just as brutal - what was gained? The Left SRs, for instance, didn't want to accept Brest-Litovsk (spelling?) Could civil war have been averted? <br /><br />Bread, Peace, Land was right in principle... But could another compromise have been possible? Remember the road that was taken led to Kronstadt as well... And without denying the threat the Bolsheviks faced from foreign invaders...one wonders whether or not it could have been predicted that 'Bread, Peace, Land' could not - in entirety - be delivered....<br /><br />The point I make is that the circumstances of 1917 were not ideal... And it is an error to seek to emulate that example under our current circumstnaces... <br /><br />On one hand I agree that we need organisations - including political parties - whose work it is to mobilise working people and oppressed minorities 'from below'... But here the class struggle will ebb and flow - and a long term 'war of position' may be possible without the scale of human suffering that has ensued with the breaking down of liberal and pluralist compromise... <br /><br />One of the key tasks we face - is consolidating our rights to engage in civil disobedience - and promote a mindset of resistance to those who face exploitation and oppression... But there are other ways of achieving this can under conditions of mutual desperation, collapse of all order, escalation of violence...Tristan Ewinsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6920488656220463337.post-34778538065396000512009-07-03T14:29:20.468+10:002009-07-03T14:29:20.468+10:00I meant march separately strike together.I meant march separately strike together.En Passant with John Passanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07995648116853299140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6920488656220463337.post-68563773526771075152009-07-03T14:27:54.050+10:002009-07-03T14:27:54.050+10:00Thanks Terry for the links to the socialist allian...Thanks Terry for the links to the socialist alliance talks. I read both Dave and Verity's contributions with interest.<br /><br />I was a member of Socialist Alliance early on - in 2001.<br /><br />It was an unsteady mix then of groups with different visions of socialism. <br /><br />What seemed to unite us was the view that an electoral (and action) alliance would bring a wider working class audience for anti-capitalist ideas, including those of the many different socialist formations within the group.<br /><br />But the relationship between theory and practice intervened as did the fact that the organisation was and is a spectacular failure in gaining even an electoral following among workers.<br /><br />You can't short circuit history. <br /><br />That's why march together strike separately seems apt to me if that means to continue with the various theoretical and practical debates (including the way forward for the left) in and between the various groups on the Left but unite in action against the common enemy - the bosses and their politicians - including Labor politicians.<br /><br />ALP politicians and Labor Party memberbs are different groupings and I long for the day when the latter march with us and strike with us as a Labor Party contingent against Federal or State Labor Government's and their attacks on workers, women, indigenous people, afghanis etc etc.En Passant with John Passanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07995648116853299140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6920488656220463337.post-544027161536312742009-07-03T10:34:03.159+10:002009-07-03T10:34:03.159+10:00Thanks for the comments. I think Redgum in his com...Thanks for the comments. I think Redgum in his comment of 30 June misunderstands some of the concepts of Lenin's approach. Lenin was for a party of workers. The analysis by Lars T Lih of What is to be done might help Redgum understand this better. <br /><br />And certainly the name change from Bolsheviks to Communsit Party is more complex than Redgum suggests. In any event the Bolsheviks split with and from the Menshiviks well before then.<br /><br />And while Redgum might think the debate is sterile, and the grouplets tiny and irrelevant, that is exactly the same sort of criticism levelled at Lenin in the early 1900s.<br /><br />It is these sorts of debates which help clarify ideas to be tested in real upsurges, as 1917 shows. And as Iran today shows (in a negative way unfortunately since the Iranian left seems mired in stalinism and nationalism).<br /><br />As for Redgum's nonsensenical statement that Socialist Alternative somehow sees itself as the vanguard,read our website (www.sa.org.au)or Mick Armstrong's pamphlet From Little Things Big Things Grow.En Passant with John Passanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07995648116853299140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6920488656220463337.post-12444463073039268922009-06-30T10:53:08.075+10:002009-06-30T10:53:08.075+10:00Lev Lafayette is commenting at a very low level.
...Lev Lafayette is commenting at a very low level.<br /><br />So-called suspicion of Leninism is really a propaganda device by capitalism.<br /><br />Capitalism built its wealth through savage exploitation of the Third World and Colonial empires all of which were conquered and ruled by the most brutal, arbitary totalitarian and authoritarian military, slaveowners regimes.<br /><br />It then further developed its position by subverting democratic and socialism governments in the Third World, and invading socialist or provoking socialist movements eg Russia, Cuba, Vietnam, Chile, Francos Spain, Indonesia.<br /><br />This caused deformations within these states, independently of the Leninist revolutionary project.<br /><br />Capitalism then uses the deformations, it has caused, to build propaganda amongst the rich Western nations who have long fed on the rest of the world's peoples.<br /><br />The real problem with today's self-described Leninist organisatoins is that they are not Leninist. They follow a pure, sectarian, isolated line, so far removed from the masses, that Lenin would laugh at their pretensons.<br /><br />Lenin never developed a Communist Party to abolish capitalism or fuedalism. He supported a SDLP within which a necessary Bolshevik-Menshevik-Bund dynamic developed, with the Leninists occupying a vanguard role WITHIN THE RSDLP AND WORKERS MOVEMENT.<br /><br />The Communist Party came only AFTER the revolution.<br /><br />Today's silly Left groups pretend to be a vanguard (outside the movment) and want to be a sectarian Communist Party (before a revolution).<br /><br />But this is not a criticism of Leninism properly understood, and we should not put up with Western anti-Leninist propaganda.<br /><br />Leninism really just means "professional revolutionary" within the masses.Redgumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00566889742015150914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6920488656220463337.post-82735850841860849522009-06-29T10:57:47.174+10:002009-06-29T10:57:47.174+10:00In order to achieve social change in liberal democ...In order to achieve social change in liberal democracies, there is a need for parliamentary and extra-parliamentary activity and the two should co-ordinate their activities ("March separately, strike together" etc).<br /><br />Without the extraparliamentary wing, the reformist wing will become co-opted by the parliamentary process. Without the parliamentary wing, the public activists will have no ability to actually implement change.<br /><br />One may point out that the revolutionary organisations in Australia have not implemented a single social reform in their entire history. They live in a world of perpetual opposition. <br /><br />Likewise, the public is extremely suspicious of Leninism, and for good reason. What self-described Leninist organisation in the world, following its seizure of power, has not ended up with a totalitarian and authoritarian Statist regime?Lev Lafayettehttp://isocracy.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6920488656220463337.post-32460083021405651942009-06-29T10:48:41.354+10:002009-06-29T10:48:41.354+10:00This is the usual sterile debate that trhe left ha...This is the usual sterile debate that trhe left has stomached ever since the Victorian Socialist Party and Marx's critque of Weitling.<br /><br />Little sectarian grouplets loudly asserting some rhetorical line from books does not assist.<br /><br />The point is - you take the scientific method - and apply it to modern circumstances. This means it is the trade union movement that will decide what political tactics suit their class position.<br /><br />If self-styled "r-r-revolutionaries" from their campus citadels think unions are not pursuing the "correct" line, then it is up to them to develop a mechanism for raising the consciousness of workers and unions.<br /><br />At the moment, workers and unions just laugh at all these silly sectarian useless sects such as Socialist Alliance and smaller.<br /><br />Anyway Marx said that the means to revolution depended on the nature of political institutions - not vain "a priori" concepts of "revolution" or "reformism".Redgumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00566889742015150914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6920488656220463337.post-82502154011431588682009-06-28T19:45:26.174+10:002009-06-28T19:45:26.174+10:00In Australia we are at a point where only 15% of t...In Australia we are at a point where only 15% of the working population are union members. The union movement has suffered from image problems & a reluctance of working Australians to be active within their associated industries. The union movement should & could be much more than protest marches & demonstrations.<br />Like it or not this perception has alienated many of the workers whose dues finance such endevours.<br />The combined Unions alliance with the Labor party is at times questionable as the core beliefs of unionism is generally ignored by the rulling governments, no greater example of this is the existing New South Wales state Labor government who over a decade has systematically destroyed workers rights & conditions within the ranks of the public service but come election time come with cap in hand to the unions.<br />So all Unions need to explore ways other than industrial relations to remain an alternative political voice in Australia.<br />Having independent policies on issues to that of the Labor party, which in some cases does exist now but it could be said is poorly promoted, being active within the community in areas such as assisting the homeless, disabled or marginalised people possibly forming cooperative schemes with established & recognised community groups such as the Salvation Army, would help to show unionists in a new light from which the community is used too.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6920488656220463337.post-90591213346552409362009-06-28T10:22:56.049+10:002009-06-28T10:22:56.049+10:00Readers might be interested in the talks that were...Readers might be interested in the talks that were presented at the ``A Century of Struggle — Laborism and the radical alternative: Lessons for today'' conference, held in Melbourne, Australia, on May 30, 2009. It was organised by Socialist Alliance and sponsored by Green Left Weekly, Australia’s leading socialist newspaper. Two of the talks are available at http://links.org.au/taxonomy/term/377 with more to follow, so please check back.Terry Townsendhttp://links.org.aunoreply@blogger.com