Differences Within an Organization

91 posts / 0 new
Last post
slothjabber
Not really

... it's more like this:

 

SJ (I'm not going to speak for JK): I'm for organisation...

 

LB: So am I. But I also might not be.

 

SJ: How's that work then?

 

LB: (goes on holiday for three weeks)

 

SJ: are you still there?

 

LB: Leninist!

 

You don't even know whether you'd be in favour 'my form of organisation' because I haven't told you what it is. But, you still think that you're against it, for some reason, which to my mind suggests that you've already judgedd the question without even trying to find out what it is.

 

And, yes, you're a supporter of purges, you've said time and again on several threads that you want non-communist workers purged from the workers' councils - which is among the worst things the Bolsheiks did - while at the same time both calling other people 'Leninists/Bolsheviks' and claiming that it's the rest of us that are 'scared of the working class', which amount to either signs of huge cognitive dissonanvce, or massive hypocrisy: I'm as yet unsure which.

mhou
Quote:. But I don't conceive

Quote:
. But I don't conceive of the party as being a specific organisation. In my conception the distinction between 'party' and 'non-party' communists would be communists who seek to work with other communists, and communists who don't seek to work with other communists.
This is the part that I didn't agree with, slothjabber. I see the tangible-existing party-form as a necessary instrument for those 'of the party' to act as the party, and carry out the tasks of communists before and during the revolutionary movement. The 'compact', centralized international organization.
jk1921
Perhaps

mhou wrote:

Quote:
. But I don't conceive of the party as being a specific organisation. In my conception the distinction between 'party' and 'non-party' communists would be communists who seek to work with other communists, and communists who don't seek to work with other communists.
This is the part that I didn't agree with, slothjabber. I see the tangible-existing party-form as a necessary instrument for those 'of the party' to act as the party, and carry out the tasks of communists before and during the revolutionary movement. The 'compact', centralized international organization.

I understand the points that both mhou and slothjabber are making and I am not sure they are in total opposition to one another. It seems possible that slothjabber is right that there is a section of the proletariat that idenitfies with communism that is not reducible to "the party," but which has the effect of being a party in the broader sense, but at the same time that mhou is correct that an actual party mechanism is a necessary component of the revolutionary process. Perhaps calling the section of the proletariat that identifies with communism a "party"  is a useful concept in slothjabber's critique of LBird in order to demonstate that despite his admonitions to the contrary, LBird's councils purged of non-communists only repeats the Leninist party substituionism he so claims to abhor, regardless of whether or not these purges are carried out by an actual party mechanism or just by the oragnized collective violence of the part of the proletariat that identifies with communism writ large?

LBird
Proletarian Political Organisational Form?

Anton Pannekoek, in Lenin as Philosopher, p. 103, wrote:
Its object is to be itself master of production and itself to regulate labour, the basis of life. Only then is capitalism really destroyed. Such an aim cannot be attained by an ignorant mass, confident followers of a party presenting itself as an expert leadership. It can be attained only if the workers themselves, the entire class, understand the conditions, ways and means of their fight; when every man knows from his own judgement, what to do. They must, every man of them, act themselves, decide themselves, hence think out and know for themselves. Only in this way will a real class organisation be built up from below, having the form of something like workers’ councils.
[my bold]

https://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1938/lenin/ch08.htm

If Pannekoek is a 'purgist', then I'm a 'purgist', too.

Demogorgon
LBird, as has been pointed

LBird, as has been pointed out again and again by several people, your position and Pannekoek's are poles apart. Pannekoek would have never supported your contention about the workers' councils containing only communists (and who decides what a communist is in that context anyway?). What part of that post supports your contention that no non-communists will be allowed in the councils? The quote (and your bolded parts) have absolutely no relevance whatsoever to the critiques made to you which you are still ignoring.

If you do not understand the critique, why not ask us for a clarification? If you do understand it, it just looks like you're dodging the question.

By the way, I'm still waiting for an answer: what should we do if councils start to elect Menshevik or Liberal delegates?

Some points of conduct:

  • Please stop posting parodies of the discussion (and no counter-parodies from anyone else please).
  • I note also the title, a "Berian confession". Underneath the humour (I use the word in its broadest possible sense) is the implication that not only are comrades Leninist but also Stalinist.

This sort of sniping does nothing to advance discussion, and frankly gives the impression of you being less than serious. If I remember rightly, when we last had this discussion you attempted to apologise for those you may have insulted, and that apology was accepted. Please don't go back down this road again.

LBird
Slander and evasion - but by whom?

Demogorgon wrote:
One last thing. Please stop posting parodies of the discussion (and no counter-parodies from anyone else please). It helps the debate get no further and, oddly enough, some people may find it a little bit insulting.

Don't you think some of the positions ascribed to me have also been 'a little bit insulting'?

I suggest you look a little closer to home to discover who's been 'insulting'. My parodies seem the only rational response to such tactics.

Demogorgon wrote:
If you do not understand the critique, why not ask us for a clarification? If you do understand it, it just looks like you're dodging the question.

Funnily enough, that is exactly what I think that the supporters of Leninism are doing on this, and other, threads!

Demogorgon wrote:
By the way, I'm still waiting for an answer: what should we do if councils start to elect Menshevik or Liberal delegates?

I've already answered this, but you prefer not to read what I've already written. If Workers' Councils are non-Communist, then they will fail. They will embody a less than class conscious proletariat, and will go the same way as those of the German Revolution.

Now, you, jk and sj can disagree with me, because we have a political difference. You are Leninists, whereas I'm a Pannekoekian.

It would be interesting to discuss these differences, but it seems that slander is the preferred tactic against my views. This comes as no surprise to those who disagree with the notion that there is a party who have a clearer class consciousness than the class.

Let's get the central issue straight: uneven consciousness and its distribution.

We all agree that proletarian class consciousness is uneven. But...

...Leninists insist that 'party' consciousness is less uneven, whereas opponents of Lenin insist that 'party' consciousness is more uneven.

So, to anti-Leninsts, the uneveness of the class is preferable to the greater uneveness of the party.

In my opinion, a worker who has come to a level of class consciousness based on their own experience weakens their existing level of consciousness by joining a Leninist-style party of the Bolshevik model.

My personal experience, together will the personal experience of friends and comrades, added to the historical trajectory of all the known Leninist-type organisations across the world since 1917, lead me to believe that this is so. And so do others.

I don't expect an answer, by the way, just endless irrelevant discussions of the RSDLP and its factions. Oh, yeah, and I already know that your Leninism is the 'True' version, unlike all the other liars, scoundrels and vagabonds who have sullied His name for their own nefarious purposes.

I'd call it religious fervour, rather than omnibus dubitandum.

LBird
Response to later edit

Demogorgon wrote:
Underneath the humour (I use the word in its broadest possible sense) is the implication that not only are comrades Leninist but also Stalinist.

I appreciate your acknowledgement of my humourous intent.

What you seem not to understand is that many anti-Leninsts do think that the political methods of Lenin lead to Stalin. This is not 'sniping' and I am very 'serious'.

I'll happily apologise for 'insults' inadvertantly taken, but the 'Lenin leads to Stalin' political opinion has a long and respectable history. I won't apologise for pointing out the dangers of that route to comrades. I'm not a Leninist. I don't agree with the Bolshevik model.

slothjabber
apologies and clarifications

I'd like to apologise to comrades for, once again, allowing my irritation with LBird's style of argumentation to come out in my posts. I am prepared to try to remain civil during the debate, if it continues with LBird, but I also have to say that I have little confidence in LBird's willingness to honestly engage with the rest of us. I would like of course to be proved wrong. But I suspect that LBird is not here to debate in good faith.

 

jk1921 wrote:

...I understand the points that both mhou and slothjabber are making and I am not sure they are in total opposition to one another. It seems possible that slothjabber is right that there is a section of the proletariat that idenitfies with communism that is not reducible to "the party," but which has the effect of being a party in the broader sense, but at the same time that mhou is correct that an actual party mechanism is a necessary component of the revolutionary process...

 

Me too. I certainly don't think they're in total opposition to each other, or really in opposition to each other at all. This is how I can think I agree with mhou, while mhou thinks he disagrees with me.

 

I also think I'm not being totally clear. I agree that there will be 'political organisations' - probably, more than one. But I also believe that 'the Party' is not reducible to (one of?) these political organisations.

 

There is a great deal of artificiality in these discussions. 'Would the working class be able to suppress the ICC in a revolutionary situation?' - well, this implies that the ICC would still exist in a revolutionary situation, which I don't think is realistic. I hope the ICC, and the ICT, and all the other fragments of organisations of the Communist Left, cease to exist within the next 5 years, to be honest. I hope that they will be subsumed into a new formation (the 'World Communist Party').

 

But even if the 'World Communist Party' is formed, will it be 'the Party' as we're discussing here? Unfortunately, I think it's likely that alongside the 'World Communist Party' there will also be the 'World Anarchist Federation' and the 'World Socialist Party' - at a very minimum. All of these organisations (regrouping Left Communists, class-struggle Anarchists and Impossiblists respectively) can be seen as emodying to some extent the political programme of the proletariat (which in the end expresses the class interest of the proletariat). The Left Communists of the World Communist Party will not have a monopoly on 'truth'. The historic interests of the proletariat (and thus humanity) will also find expression in other currents and (maybe, unfortunately) in other organisations. In this case I don't see the utility of thinking of 'the Party' as being a single, specific organisation (even one that we all - except the Bordigists of course - agree doesn't exist yet).

LBird
Faithless iconoclast

slothjabber wrote:
But I suspect that LBird is not here to debate in good faith.

That's been said before, sj.

But I'm the one posting quotes from Pannekoek, trying to provide a basis for an opposing ideological standpoint, to be contrasted to the Leninist standpoint, whereas you've been party to slander, which continues.

Does 'good faith' mean I have to agree with your philosophical underpinnings? If so, I agree, I'm posting in 'bad faith'.

Now you can truly have the party newspaper headlines screaming 'LBird admits bad faith!'. I mean, what would the RSDLP have done with me?

Not to mention the master's 'Materialism and LBirdio-criticism'.

PS. one thing I should clarify, before I'm accused of it. I don't think that you're all Stalinists, now. But I think that a continued adherence to Leninist norms will inevitably lead you in that direction, with or without the 14 interventionist armies, proletarian class break-up, and the NEP.

This is a serious political criticism, and can't be deflected by accusations of 'bad faith'.

Demogorgon
"I've already answered this,

"I've already answered this, but you prefer not to read what I've already written. If Workers' Councils are non-Communist, then they will fail. They will embody a less than class conscious proletariat, and will go the same way as those of the German Revolution."

That's a prognosis (one which I happen to agree with incidentally!), not an answer to the question which is about what the conduct of communists should be in such a situation.

"Now, you, jk and sj can disagree with me, because we have a political difference. You are Leninists, whereas I'm a Pannekoekian."

We are not Leninists (if you repeat this charge, you must define what you mean by Leninist, as has been asked on numerous occasions!). I also, for reasons repeatedly stated, do not believe you are arguing in the spirit of Pannekoek either.

"We all agree that proletarian class consciousness is uneven."

Thank the lord! Because you have consistently given the impression this is not your position. Perhaps, at least, we're getting somewhere.

"...Leninists insist that 'party' consciousness is less uneven, whereas opponents of Lenin insist that 'party' consciousness is more uneven.

So, to anti-Leninsts, the uneveness of the class is preferable to the greater uneveness of the party."

What are you talking about?

"In my opinion, a worker who has come to a level of class consciousness based on their own experience weakens their existing level of consciousness by joining a Leninist-style party of the Bolshevik model.

My personal experience, together will the personal experience of friends and comrades, added to the historical trajectory of all the known Leninist-type organisations across the world since 1917, lead me to believe that this is so. And so do others."

I see. What has this got to with the discussion of the ICC's model of organisation or vision of consciousness?

"I don't expect an answer, by the way, just endless irrelevant discussions of the RSDLP and its factions. Oh, yeah, and I already know that your Leninism is the 'True' version, unlike all the other liars, scoundrels and vagabonds who have sullied His name for their own nefarious purposes."

Well, it looks my hopes of getting somewhere have been dashed because, once again, you're arguing with the ghosts of your own past and not with us. Why don't you actually argue against our specific positions, instead of making them up on the fly and attributing them to the fictional Leninist that seems to haunt your every step.

"What you seem not to understand is that many anti-Leninsts do think that the political methods of Lenin lead to Stalin. This is not 'sniping' and I am very 'serious'."

Oh, I understand your position on that all-too-well. But it is impossible to actually debate the question with you because you don't define (a) what Leninism is, (b) what these specific methods are (you can't simply reduce this to what Lenin or the Bolsheviks did because they did lots of contradictory things - unless you think patiently explaining errors to the masses automatically leads to the GULAG of course).

Until you actually do this, we cannot take you seriously because it's just a rant. The reason why it's sniping is because its come to substitute for actual political argument.

"I'll happily apologise for 'insults' inadvertantly taken"

My mum always said, a real apology is changing your behaviour.

"but the 'Lenin leads to Stalin' political opinion has a long and respectable history. I won't apologise for pointing out the dangers of that route to comrades. I'm not a Leninist. I don't agree with the Bolshevik model."

If your purpose is to actually have a debate with us, clarify where you stand, pose honest disagreements between comrades, that's fine.

For us, there is a class line. For us, Stalinism and the "Leninism" of the leftist, state capitalist parties is part of the bourgeoisie. When you make the sorts of accusations that you're making against us, it sounds to us like you are saying that our politics is bourgeois. Not just confused, wrong, mistaken,  (even dangerously so), or opportunist, or whatever - but the politics of the class enemy.

We do not "debate" with such organisations - they are utterly lost to the working class and can never be recovered. Individuals may be "rescued" from them and we certainly debate with individuals who wish to know more about our positions, but not with the organisations themselves.

If that is how you see us, then it is difficult to see any basis for fruitful discussion on either side.

LBird
Utterly lost and irrecoverable

Demogorgon wrote:
We do not "debate" with such organisations - they are utterly lost to the working class and can never be recovered. Individuals may be "rescued" from them...

Unfortunately, this 'individual' does not wish to be 'rescued'.

Demogorgon wrote:
If that is how you see us, then it is difficult to see any basis for fruitful discussion on either side.

Yeah, I'd come to this realisation a few weeks ago, and tried to refrain from posting, and just continue to passively read and, hopefully, learn more.

But the mis-characterisation of my posts grew too much, and I plunged back into the mess. A poor judgement on my part. Comrades can still read my various posts containing quotes from Pannekoek and my opinions of what they mean. They'll have to defend themselves, now.

Thanks anyway, for your time, comrade.

Demogorgon
And so, once again, when any

And so, once again, when any attempt is made to really get to the core of disagreements, you flee from the discussion. How long will this latest "leaving" last? And, when you return are you going to repeat, yet again, the same allegations of Leninism?

If you want to actually develop a useful discussion why don't you start a new thread on Leninism? Make a list of what you see the characteristics of Leninism being and then show - with evidence - how we fit them.

Or is it just easier to call us names and then complain about how we won't let you play with us?

jk1921
I actually have a slight bit

I actually have a slight bit of sympathy for LBird's predicament. And by slight, I mean really slight. It could very well be the case that whatever the ICC says its position is on something that those positions could have "hidden imnpliations" that it is not aware of. These positions could then, theoretically, be subjected to critique and their ultimate implications shown. For example, The ICC says it is not Leninist, but LBird beleives that its "position" on science ultiamtely leads to Leninism, which poses the possibility of a future development towards Stalinism (LBird, I am making that up as an example, so please don't accuse me of mischaracterizing your views). There is nothing wrong with arguing that an organization's professed position really leads to something quite other than what it thinks it does. This is the exact thign we are doing to LBird.

That said, LBird hasn't really done very much critique. He seems to simply be repeating old tropes about organization inevitably leading to a Leninist dystopia w/o really explaining how, falling back on categorical oppositional labels (You are all Leninists, I am not) and then crying foul about being mischaracterized whenever anyone attempts to show the ultimate implications of his own confused and contradictory positions. And he does it with an air of absolute certainty to boot.

Demogorgon
"Its object is to be itself

"Its object is to be itself master of production and itself to regulate labour, the basis of life. Only then is capitalism really destroyed. Such an aim cannot be attained by an ignorant mass, confident followers of a party presenting itself as an expert leadership. It can be attained only if the workers themselves, the entire class, understand the conditions, ways and means of their fight; when every man knows from his own judgement, what to do. They must, every man of them, act themselves, decide themselves, hence think out and know for themselves. Only in this way will a real class organisation be built up from below, having the form of something like workers’ councils."

It's worth having a quick look at this quote and the bits bolded as it highlights the absurdity of this entire debate. I don't think I would disagree with any of this ... but nowhere does it suggest the idea that non-communists must be excluded from the councils.

It states that in order to succeed, the entire class must reach a level of consciousness. This is absolutely correct! The question is how does the class reach this level, what determines its advances and retreats and how the working class deals with the disagreements that will arise in periods of retreat.

For the ICC, it is quite clear. At no point, ever, should the councils be subject to political criteria. The councils are not simply an organ of mass organisation and action, they are themselves an arena for the development of mass consciousness. Consciousness can only develop through the confrontation of the various positions that exist within the mass of the working class and if non-proletarian positions begin to gain hold, closing off the councils actually destroys one of the instruments with which the class can confront them.

Even worse, just who is it who decides who's communist enough to be in the councils? The majority of the workers? Communist workers? Sadly, neither being a communist or being in a majority, or even being a worker provides a hotline to truth. And even if this were the case, ejecting non-communists denies them the opportunity of engaging in the process of developing their own consciousness - it is simply argumentum ad baculum, with the worrying potential for the employment of real force against class brothers and sisters.

slothjabber
once more and again...

LBird wrote:

slothjabber wrote:
But I suspect that LBird is not here to debate in good faith.

That's been said before, sj.

But I'm the one posting quotes from Pannekoek, trying to provide a basis for an opposing ideological standpoint, to be contrasted to the Leninist standpoint, whereas you've been party to slander, which continues...

 

I think it's slander, accusing someone of slandering you, without offering any evidence.

So; you want to purge workers from the councils (a position of the Leninists), which means you are scared of the working class (an accusation you've levelled at the rest of us), and instead want an ideological elite to administer post-revolutionary society (which makes you a substitutionist, in my opinion one of the many many things the Bolshevbiks were wrong about in the period 1917-21).

I think you're quitre right to oppose Pannekoek to the Leninists here, I think there is an opposing political standpoint to 'Leninism', and it's the standpoint that the ICC and its supoporters are putting forward against your Leninism. I can't for the life of me reason why you think you are the one defending Pannekoek's position. You want councils composed of communists only (which as I've said makes you a Leninist) even if they're a minority of the class (as you stated in an earlier post, which is absolutely the position of the Bolsheviks as the revolution degenerated) - unlike the ICC and its supporters, who want councils regrouping the whole working class. Unlike those you accuse of 'Leninism' you want 'the party (ie, communists)' to take power, only you pretend you don't by not calling the organisation of communists 'the party'.

As far as I can see your main criticism of the Bolsheviks is  that they weren't big enough. There were about 1/4 million Bolsheviks in August 1917. Presumably, if there had been 1.35 million (45% of the Russian working class) they would have been justified in seizing power, excluding other revolutionary current s and the rest of working class, in line with your political ideology.

As for Pannekoek, it's obvious that the failure of the Dutch and German Left was in allowing the workers and sailors in Bremen Hamburg and Keil to revolt, form soviets and end the war, before the Communists could gerrymander majorities (even if they were only a large minority) in the soviets that shouldn't have been formed. Damned workers, not being developed enough for you. Stupid German communists wanting a revolution before 45% of the workers had become communists.

 

LBird wrote:
...

Does 'good faith' mean I have to agree with your philosophical underpinnings? If so, I agree, I'm posting in 'bad faith'...

 

No, it means admitting the positions you have and not ascribing positions to others that they don't profess.

 

LBird wrote:
...

Now you can truly have the party newspaper headlines screaming 'LBird admits bad faith!'. I mean, what would the RSDLP have done with me?

Not to mention the master's 'Materialism and LBirdio-criticism'.

PS. one thing I should clarify, before I'm accused of it. I don't think that you're all Stalinists, now. But I think that a continued adherence to Leninist norms will inevitably lead you in that direction, with or without the 14 interventionist armies, proletarian class break-up, and the NEP...

 

Leninist norms of demanding (contra the Bolsheviks) the participation of the entire working class in the soviets; Leninist norms like refusing to take state power, Leninist norms like seeking the greatest unity of revolutionary currents, you mean, or do you really mean the Leninist norms that you extol (purges, councils of a self-selecting elite, sectarianism towards other revolutionaries), unlike the ICC and its supporters?

LBird wrote:
...This is a serious political criticism, and can't be deflected by accusations of 'bad faith'.

It can be shown to be false quite easily though.

No-one here but you thinks that 'communists' should take power. No-one here but you thinks workers should be excluded from workers' councils. No-one here but you has been claiming that revolutionaries would refuse to work with each other. So, Leninist, it seems to me you have a choice; either justifty your Leninism, or once again walk away from the debate.

 

In case you don't, I'll post this again:

 

"LBird seems to believe that there will be 'party' Communists and 'non-party' Communists, whereas to myself and I think the other supporters of the ICC position a 'non-party Communist' is more or less equivalent to 'a Communist who will not work with other Communists' - but I think the use of the term 'proletarian politial organisation' is reasonable if 'party' is thought to be too loaded a term. I agree with LBird that the proletarian politcal organisation cannot be a monolithic entity, and welcome the statement he made early on - "A Communist organisation must be controlled by the entire membership, from below...". I agree, though LBird also says that the entire working class should control the party (including those outside the councils? Excluding those outside the councils? If what LBirdd means here is 'all communists should control the proletarian political organisation' then I agree, because all communists are the proletarian political organisation). But that implies that there are no 'non-party communists' - communists who do not seek to work with other communists, that LBird seems to think will also exist. That I think is a ridiculous position. However, as LBird hasn't returned to elaborate on this question it's difficult to determine whether such a position is intrinsic to his system or a reductio ad absurdum."

 

jk1921
Truth

Demogorgon wrote:

 At no point, ever, should the councils be subject to political criteria. The councils are not simply an organ of mass organisation and action, they are themselves an arena for the development of mass consciousness. Consciousness can only develop through the confrontation of the various positions that exist within the mass of the working class and if non-proletarian positions begin to gain hold, closing off the councils actually destroys one of the instruments with which the class can confront them.

Even worse, just who is it who decides who's communist enough to be in the councils? The majority of the workers? Communist workers? Sadly, neither being a communist or being in a majority, or even being a worker provides a hotline to truth. And even if this were the case, ejecting non-communists denies them the opportunity of engaging in the process of developing their own consciousness - it is simply argumentum ad baculum, with the worrying potential for the employment of real force against class brothers and sisters.

I have been suffering from a case of the "crumbling certainties" lately; my own "hotline to the truth" has been having network problems, but I totally agree with the way Demo summarizes the Marxist position on all of this above. Its a fairly concise explanation of why the widest possible debate within the class through organs open to all workers is an absolute material necessity for the success of the revolution and the construction of communism. Because, as the comrade keenly points out, simply calling oneself a communist is no guarantee of access to truth about how all of this can be accomplished.

What is LBird's response? That whatever the ICC says, it really has another position that it keeps in hiding or perhaps that its position have implication that we aren't aware of? If that is the case, it would be instructive if he could try to elucidate this rather than just falling back on, "You are Leninists. Leninists will betray the class, regardless of whatever they say."

Proletarian Dy
The anti-Leninism of ICC is in truth LENINISM?

I'm not sure if I understand the debate here. If I'm wrong then I apologize.

The ICC comrades and symphatizers patiently explain why they're not Leninist and they're anti-Leninism. 

But It seems that the main point of LBird arguments is this: "My definition of Leninism is the absolute truth. If you're not in agreement with my definition, then you're Leninist. My definition of anti-Leninism is absolutely right. If you're anti-Leninism is not in accordance with my definition, then you're a Leninist". In short, "If you don't agree with me, then you're a Leninist".

Does this mean that ONLY the councilists are the real anti-Leninist?

 

jk1921
Who are the real Leninists?

Proletarian Dy wrote:

Does this mean that ONLY the councilists are the real anti-Leninist?

Maybe there are councilists that the comrade thinks are really Leninists? I mean just because someone says they are a councilist doesn't mean they really are? In fact, that is precisely the critique being made of LBird here--a self-professed councilist who we think is really a Leninist (or the caricature of Leninism).

This all has the quality of a postmodern house of mirrors to it, which underscores the need to arrive at some kind of objective criteria against which these competing claims can be evaluated. What exactly is a Leninist and who are the real Leninists here, the ICC or LBird? Of course, in order for this to work there would have to be an agreement that it is even possible to arrive at an objective answer through some methodology or another and I am not sure the comrade would accept that.

But at the end of the day, Demo is right, if the comrade doesn't think this is possible, that the ICC cannot be trusted no matter what it says because it suffers from some original sin, some genetic defect, than it is not clear why he continues to participate here. What is his game plan exactly? This is not an attempt to tell him to get lost, but to urge him to clarify just what his goals are.

Proletarian Dy
LBird is trying to help that the ICC see the "truth"?

"But at the end of the day, Demo is right, if the comrade doesn't think this is possible, that the ICC cannot be trusted no matter what it says because it suffers from some original sin, some genetic defect, than it is not clear why he continues to participate here. What is his game plan exactly? This is not an attempt to tell him to get lost, but to urge him to clarify just what his goals are."

Maybe for LBird, he is very much "sincere" to help the ICC to see the "truth": that ICC is a 'leninist' no matter how it explains that it is not.

However, LBird is like a person looking in front of a mirror: what he/she saw in front of him/her is not himself/herself but the other person he/she is imagining. And in this case, he saw the ICC in front of him. Thus, he is 'shouting': "there's a leninist in front of me!"

Fred
Quote: Anton Pannekoek, in

Quote:
Anton Pannekoek, in Lenin as Philosopher, p. 103, wrote:

Its object is to be itself master of production and itself to regulate labour, the basis of life. Only then is capitalism really destroyed. Such an aim cannot be attained by an ignorant mass, confident followers of a party presenting itself as an expert leadership. It can be attained only if the workers themselves, the entire class, understand the conditions, ways and means of their fight; when every man knows from his own judgement, what to do. They must, every man of them, act themselves, decide themselves, hence think out and know for themselves. Only in this way will a real class organisation be built up from below, having the form of something like workers’ councils.

   What Pannekoek doesn't indicate though in this quote is what period of time in the struggle he's talking about.  If he means the period leaving up to the revolution, and the revolution itself,  then it is unlikely that at this point  everyone involved  will have sufficient consciousness to "act themselves, decide themselves, hence think out and know for themselves."  Surely it is only after the seizure of power by the working class, and as it has actually to work out on the ground  how to start building the new non-exploitative  society, that communist consciousness begins to grow more and mature throughout the class including its revolutionary organizations.  In advance of building Communism we don't really know what it is do we?  We know what it isn't, and we have ideas and indicators based on past mistakes on how possibly to proceed, and what not to do.  But for anyone to think they know what communism is looking forward from our position in this present shit hole, is to be both arrogant and stupid.  One of the great excitements about the whole communist endeavor is that it's a great exploratory adventure, and that we don't know in advance what it'll be like and how everything will turn out. If we did then would there be much point in doing it?       

Pages