********************  POSTING RULES & NOTES  ********************
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.

On 7/2/18 9:31 AM, Jason wrote:
The revisionist strategy was that they left "electors free to vote for any liberal candidate they liked" versus the left strategy of 1) having conditions [such as that the liberals were for universal suffrage] and 2) it being a party decision and a question of discipline.

As that passage says: "The left, like the left in other parties, did not refuse, during the course of the elections, to support liberal candidates who took a stand in favour of universal suffrage against property-based electoral rights." Rosa Luxemburg supported this explicitly (see The Letters Of Rosa Luxemburg, pages 185-7).

So, 113 years ago, the left-wing of the Dutch social democracy said it was acceptable to vote for liberal candidates but only on the basis that they were for universal suffrage. When universal suffrage in the USA is abolished and we return to voting based on property rights, I too will vote for any liberal who supports a return to universal suffrage.

So the left strategy was that socialists were *under discipline* to vote for *certain* liberals. The revisionist strategy was that socialists were "free" to vote for any liberal, some of whom did not support universal suffrage.

And on your other email about the British Labor Party: again, feel free to engage with Lenin's argument here: https://www.communist-party.org.uk/76-m-l-education/1933-lenin-on-labour-speech-on-affiliation-to-the-british-labour-party.html.

It is generally a mistake to quote Lenin chapter and verse, especially when you can find statements that are contradictory. In 1922, just two years after the one you refer to above that characterizes Labour as "bourgeois", you can read the Communist recommendation of the workers government that was a departure from the ultraleft past. Keep in mind that the Comintern was deeply involved with the disastrous March Action in Germany that literally acted on the premise that Social Democratic workers were counter-revolutionary. It was the blow to German Communism that compelled a different road, incorporated in the United Front that Paul Levi fought for, and the workers government that was an extension of the United Front.

All you need to do is read Theses on Comintern Tactics from 1922 (https://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/4th-congress/tactics.htm) to a different take on the Second International and Labour:

"In place of a bourgeois/social-democratic coalition, whether open or disguised, Communists propose a united front involving all workers, and a coalition of all workers’ parties around economic and political issues, which will fight and finally overthrow bourgeois power. Following a united struggle of all workers against the bourgeoisie, the entire state apparatus must pass into the hands of a workers’ government, so strengthening the position of power held by the working class."


"The first two types of workers’ governments (the workers’ and peasants’ and the social-democratic/Communist governments) fall short of representing the dictatorship of the proletariat, but are still an important starting-point for the winning of this dictatorship."

Get it? Workers parties? That meant the Communists AND those parties that the idiotic ultraleftists operating under Bela Kun's putschist conceptions considered "bourgeois" just two years earlier.

So funny that someone so bent on proving Lenin was in favor of Menshevik electoral strategy would cite something he wrote in 1920 that reflected ultraleft thinking in the Kremlin. Maybe, not so funny.

Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 

Reply via email to