Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

The Party

POST REPLY
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 43
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 15 Jan 2012, 12:29
Ideology: Other Leftist
Pioneer
Post 09 Feb 2012, 20:42
thanks for that, thats actuality something that i was thinking should be installed to govern the UK
Soviet cogitations: 124
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Mar 2012, 00:06
Unperson
Post 26 Mar 2012, 01:12
For me? The PARTY, right or wrong! Bourgeois do them too!
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 26 Mar 2012, 15:01
and that's why they suck
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
JAM
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 172
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 09 Mar 2012, 02:37
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 26 Mar 2012, 23:09
The party should be the worker's political orientation through the revolution process in order to avoid chaos and diversion among the working class. It is the reference point which promotes the unity among the working class preventing the factionalism struggles and everything that tend to weak and divide the worker's will. As everybody knows unity is strength and the way i see it the party must be the guardian of that unity. No revolution can survive without unity and the Commune of Paris is a perfect example of that. Lenin understood this problem very well. It's very easy to create divisions and factions, specially when you've already overthrown the previous political system and the political power is in your hands. Hard is to maintain that same unity after that.
"If I could control Hollywood, I could control the world." -Joseph Stalin
Soviet cogitations: 495
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 03 Mar 2008, 02:36
Komsomol
Post 27 Mar 2012, 19:15
so what do you do if you disagree with people in the party?or if the leadership is behaving badly?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 172
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Feb 2012, 16:12
Ideology: Left Communism
Pioneer
Post 27 Mar 2012, 21:51
ckkomel wrote:
...theyre walking backwards the path of socialist revolution by introducing capitalist and market measures. Well that's for sure is not a good thing...


That's arguable: Cuba is still a technologically and industrially backward country, and it ain't getting no aid from advanced socialist countries. Cuba is also a rather small country which, IIRC, isn't fully self-sufficient raw material-wise. The situation is aggravated because they also need technology exports: I'd reckon that most of whatever machinery they have is late Soviet-era stuff.

They need technological and industrial development, and they need to boost the productivity of agriculture. They must do so in a mostly-capitalist world. Cuba has no other feasible option than to implement market reforms: Unfortunately, they can only develop their economy by trading with capitalist countries.

The basic question is whether they prefer a watered-down form of socialist self-management in the classic Titoist fashion or a State capitalist economy á la Deng Xiaoping. I'd think that a relatively restricted form of socialist self-management is better than the Chinese model, mostly 'cause it doesn't turn the Party hierarchy into defacto capitalists. Mass "kolhozization" of the economy is probably the optimal course still open to Cuba.

In my opinion, Third world socialist-ruled countries shouldn't shy away from market reforms, but they can't make the Chinese mistake of making them permanent: A NEP should last 5-15 years, tops. If you're going to split production in individual cooperatives, you need to encourage them (through incentive) to voluntarily merge into larger cooperatives: The end goal being that all workers will run all of the economy, including both production and distibution (communism, baby!). During the transition, a carefully controlled market will provide more foreign currency for machinery imports, modernization and R&D.

A market concentrates capital: It stands to reason that cooperatives under market socialism might naturally tend to concentrate. If capitalist investors can only be granted non-voting shares, the scheme becomes manageable.

It would enable a certain development of productive forces. And some market reforms might actually get the Yanks to lift the travel ban. That'd give Cuba lots of tourist revenue.
Cm'on baby, eat the rich!!! - Motörhead
JAM
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 172
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 09 Mar 2012, 02:37
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 27 Mar 2012, 22:48
Sholokhov wrote:
so what do you do if you disagree with people in the party?or if the leadership is behaving badly?


If you don't have the support of the majority you have 2 options:

1- you follow the leadership line even if you don't agree with it and wait to see its results. If the results are bad you might have a chance to prove that your line is better and get the support of the majority. If the results turns out to be good, well there isn't too much you can do.

2- Leave the party or the movement and if your desire is the success of it try to avoid anything that could be harmful for the movement and positive for its enemies. This includes systematic and public opposition which leads ultimately to arguments that will be used by other parties or movements against your old party, creation of a factionalism culture within your class, etc.

I am telling this because for some people is better to see its own party, movement or country crashed and burned than to see it succeeding under the leadership of someone else, specially if you have strong divergences with it (personal in most cases). I think this is the worst attitude to take. I'm not thinking about no one in particular.
"If I could control Hollywood, I could control the world." -Joseph Stalin
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 172
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Feb 2012, 16:12
Ideology: Left Communism
Pioneer
Post 28 Mar 2012, 00:13
JAM wrote:
1- you follow the leadership line even if you don't agree with it and wait to see its results. If the results are bad you might have a chance to prove that your line is better and get the support of the majority. If the results turns out to be good, well there isn't too much you can do.


That's quite problematic when the majority chooses not to allow debate. Those problems are compounded when the leadership fills its ranks through co-optation rather than election. Should the leadership be hijacked by counterrevolutionaries, there's no practical way to throw them off the seat. They can become an apparatus dedicated to the preservation of wrong policy.
Cm'on baby, eat the rich!!! - Motörhead
JAM
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 172
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 09 Mar 2012, 02:37
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 28 Mar 2012, 01:09
KlassWar wrote:

That's quite problematic when the majority chooses not to allow debate. Those problems are compounded when the leadership fills its ranks through co-optation rather than election. Should the leadership be hijacked by counterrevolutionaries, there's no practical way to throw them off the seat. They can become an apparatus dedicated to the preservation of wrong policy.



Personally i don't believe in hijacking leaderships, specially in communist parties. Can you show me an example? If the leadership of a certain party is counter revolutionary, so are its members and its base of support. The parties do not sustain by themselves, they need a base of support. For the communist parties that base of support is the working class. If the leadership is highjacked by counter revolutionaries (which as i said is quite unlikely in communist parties or movements since they are very easy to detect and the working class is not dumb) the working class can always remove its support to the party and give it to another one. They are not forced to support a party just because of the name. You cannot throw them off the seat but you can throw away your support from the party and by doing that you're indirectly throwing them off the seat because as i said before the parties are nothing without a social base of support.

The majority of the working class today turned its back to the communist parties in the last decades. That is one of the most serious problems of communism today. The communist parties lost its own identity much because of the USSR's fall and subsequently a major part of its base of support. Much of the revisionist theories and policies have led to this mess. Once the communist movements regained the workers confidence they'll be back on track again and viewed as a future solution to their problems.

The debate is meaningless until you have the results of those policies and is only adequate once you reached the end of the road. That is what happens in most of the ruling parties of today.
"If I could control Hollywood, I could control the world." -Joseph Stalin
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 381
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 15 Nov 2010, 16:48
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 28 Mar 2012, 02:58
I think the problem isn't so much the Party but the concept of democratic centralism. The fact that in almost all communist parties, the executive branch is nearly unanimous is in my opinion, counter-revolutionary and I would at this time agree with Mikhail Bakunin who stated that power corrupts. Participatory Democracy or Direct Democracy is the way to go both as a party system but also as political system for socialist countries. The concept of party needs to be completely rethought because of its authoritarian tendencies. Even here at the PSL, as small of a party as we, and as open and democratic as we are, we can still see a trend of division between party members and the leadership. I would encourage a greater emphasis on the legislative alternative to the executive. I mean were not running a corporation, we want democracy in socialist states, we should start by rethinking our parties.

Quote:
1- you follow the leadership line even if you don't agree with it and wait to see its results. If the results are bad you might have a chance to prove that your line is better and get the support of the majority. If the results turns out to be good, well there isn't too much you can do.


pretty much the contradictions of democratic centralism



I think the Governance(using the correct translation) of the Proletariat should represent the transfer of the decision making process to the Soviets as the means of production will also be the means of governance by the Proletariat. The workplace will also become a place of political expression and of freedom. This form of Participatory Democracy will negate the process that occurred in almost all former socialist countries: the de-politicization of the workers of the socialist state. Yet again another fallacy of democratic centralism.
Party framework should be more open to new ideas. The introduction of the concept in the Communist Movement that NEW IDEAS ARE POSITIVE will negate the factionalism we have world wide. I mean its about time we grew up and stopped pointing fingers at each other while crying "Revisionism". The challenging of Democratic Centralism can actively be considered revisionism but is it necessary?: Absolutely!
Image

In the Soviet Union you destroy free-market, In America free-market destroys you
JAM
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 172
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 09 Mar 2012, 02:37
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 28 Mar 2012, 03:43
Red Armenian wrote:
I think the problem isn't so much the Party but the concept of democratic centralism. The fact that in almost all communist parties, the executive branch is nearly unanimous is in my opinion, counter-revolutionary and I would at this time agree with Mikhail Bakunin who stated that power corrupts. Participatory Democracy or Direct Democracy is the way to go both as a party system but also as political system for socialist countries. The concept of party needs to be completely rethought because of its authoritarian tendencies. Even here at the PSL, as small of a party as we, and as open and democratic as we are, we can still see a trend of division between party members and the leadership. I would encourage a greater emphasis on the legislative alternative to the executive. I mean were not running a corporation, we want democracy in socialist states, we should start by rethinking our parties.


pretty much the contradictions of democratic centralism



I think the Governance(using the correct translation) of the Proletariat should represent the transfer of the decision making process to the Soviets as the means of production will also be the means of governance by the Proletariat. The workplace will also become a place of political expression and of freedom. This form of Participatory Democracy will negate the process that occurred in almost all former socialist countries: the de-politicization of the workers of the socialist state. Yet again another fallacy of democratic centralism.
Party framework should be more open to new ideas. The introduction of the concept in the Communist Movement that NEW IDEAS ARE POSITIVE will negate the factionalism we have world wide. I mean its about time we grew up and stopped pointing fingers at each other while crying "Revisionism". The challenging of Democratic Centralism can actively be considered revisionism but is it necessary?: Absolutely!



The party needs to protect itself through the confidence and reliance among its members and the link between them and the working class. The situation that KlassWar mention of counter revolutionaries hijacking the leadership and controlling the party is much more likely to happen (or should i say will certainly happen?) under the system you are proposing.

What you are proposing is not new. Something similar to that was proposed to be implemented in the Portuguese Communist Party but was rejected by the majority of its members. The people who proposed that system left the party soon after. Do you want to know where they are now? The main leader is now one of the most important centre-right wing members of parliament, other is president of one of the biggest private held companies in the Iberian Peninsula and the majority of them are former social democrats ministers or currently members of parliament.

Do you know what i mean?

Initially, i was in the same road where you are now, claiming for more democracy within the workers movement but more you learn more you see that the Democratic Centralism is the best system to keep the party safe and stronger. If you want my personal opinion, one of the main reasons (if not the only main reason!) why the Portuguese Communist Party is the most successful in Western Europe is precisely because it kept the democratic centralism unlike other communist parties in Europe.
"If I could control Hollywood, I could control the world." -Joseph Stalin
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 172
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Feb 2012, 16:12
Ideology: Left Communism
Pioneer
Post 29 Mar 2012, 01:00
JAM wrote:
Personally i don't believe in hijacking leaderships, specially in communist parties. Can you show me an example? If the leadership of a certain party is counter revolutionary


Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev and Deng Xiaoping ring a bell?

Militant masses vegetating under an opportunist leadership is also a far from uncommon state of affairs.
Cm'on baby, eat the rich!!! - Motörhead
JAM
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 172
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 09 Mar 2012, 02:37
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 29 Mar 2012, 01:46
KlassWar wrote:

Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev and Deng Xiaoping ring a bell?

Militant masses vegetating under an opportunist leadership is also a far from uncommon state of affairs.



I wasn't referring to that phase where the party is almost indistinguishable from the state/government. Nonetheless, i don't know if you can classify those two of counter-revolutionaries.

Deng Xiaoping had a point there, China never went through the capitalist stage, not even as a transitional period and basically he was following a marxist commandment just like Lenin did in 1921 with NEP. The problem was that China didn't return to the socialist model unlike the USSR under Stalin.

I also don't believe Gorbachev was a counter-revolutionary. I'm not sure if he really had a hidden agenda and i am more inclined to believe that he was a really weak leader who didn't who neither had the strength nor vision to preserve the USSR during the turmoil of the late 80's. You have also to keep in mind that a power struggle was taking place within the communist party between 2 factions which eventually collided in August 1991. This faction struggle was very similar to the one in the post-Lenin period (if we consider that like Stalin, Gorbachev was far from being a consensual leader) and the ending would have been pretty the same if Stalin didn't have taken actions to eliminate it. That's why other systems that not democratic centralism can bring confusions like the one in August 1991.

As far as opportunistic leaderships are concerned, they are most likely to happen under more democratic systems than the democratic centralism.
"If I could control Hollywood, I could control the world." -Joseph Stalin
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.