[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internet about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon
leftypol archives


File: 1659701216907.jpg (109.07 KB, 527x783, 1-3.jpg)

 No.1106518

How did the successful communist parties grow their support base? I know the Bolsheviks did a lot of Union and Striking stuff. Did they do mutual aid? And what are the 'western' communist parties doing so unsuccessfully that they have such a small support base?

 No.1106519

>And what are the 'western' communist parties doing so unsuccessfully that they have such a small support base?
being all talk and no action

 No.1106522

All of those parties had a core issue that affected a large portion of the population they rallied around. For the Bolsheviks it was peace, land and bread. For your pic related it was apartheid. Western communist parties simply didn't have something to exploit so they were kind of aimless.

Also, virulent anti-communism made them paranoid. In France the PCF thought the 1968 uprising was a glowup at first. In Germany the KPD was outlawed.

 No.1106523

Their activists went out among the workers and engaded with them, talked to them etc. etc.

 No.1106527

>>1106523
That's really all it was. Western communist parties were big when they did this. But communists got run out of the unions and that combined with anti-communist propaganda meant that communist parties shifted from being full of workers to being full of students and academics.

 No.1106528

Before the RSDLP lenin was involved in underground labour union organisation, several of these groups coalesced into the RSDLP, immediately prior to the revolution they formed workers councils (soviets) at various levels, in workplaces, villages, communities and so on.

I don’t really know about bolshevik mutual aid, although that sort of thing is basically part and parcel of conducting a successful civil war, which they did. Also, the USSR came about in very specific conditions with WW1 and so on

 No.1106533

File: 1659702649121.jpg (69.81 KB, 640x893, 765765.jpg)

>>1106522
>In France the PCF
Can you recommend any good books or articles about the party? ive been wanting to learn about their history.

 No.1106567

Maybe communism was something about the workers or smthn idk im here for the aesthetics

 No.1106757

>And what are the 'western' communist parties doing so unsuccessfully that they have such a small support base?
A century of anti labour actions by the state and the Stalinist counter-revolution has pretty much destroyed most communist parties, the Italian communist party went from fighting fascist paramilitaries in the street and trying to form worker Soviets to socdems who actively collaborated with the bourgeoisie within like a decade. Most communist parties spend most of their efforts trying to engage with parliamentarism rather than organising the working class

 No.1106778

taking advantage of a national crisis

 No.1106779

>>1106518
Read CHAIRMAN GONZALO

 No.1106782

>>1106527
No this is wrong, western communist parties generally always had and still have a wide base of workers that are well represented in their leadership, they simply shifted from being revolutionary organizations aiming to topple their government and their ruling class to political institutions integrated to the democratic bourgeois political landscape. They basically became socdems in function, for example you can see this as soon as the 30s when Maurice Thorez, the general secretary of PCF, begged the workers to end a massive strike.

 No.1106786

>>1106782
Depends where you are maybe. In my country the CP completely liquidated after 1991. All there is now is either Trots (academics) or ultra sectarian ML splinters (students).

 No.1106826

>>1106786
> In my country the CP completely liquidated after 1991.
Italy?

 No.1106840

>what are the 'western' communist parties doing so unsuccessfully that they have such a small support base?
<sectarianism and splitting over minutiae despite agreeing on 99% of what they want, preferring to leave bourgeois domination uncontested before sullying their pure ideals
<wearing the badge of "scientific" socialism but being nauseatingly idealistic and dogmatic when it comes time to do anything
<debating over the words of dead revolutionaries and the actions of failed states instead of analyzing their own conditions
<foregoing analysis and rigor in favor of writing liturgical devotions to their party's chosen communist saints
<trying to coopt bourgeois institutions and parties but being coopted in turn
I really think parties should have members trained in project management or take a page out of military organizational planning or something, like get data crunching nerds and planners to critically evaluate tasks, goals, results, etc. and work from there to get a serious organization off the ground. The meetings I've been to are mostly sitting around talking about theory or enlisting people to hand out newsletters, there's no real urgency despite how awful (and worsening) everything is

 No.1107391

>>1106840

the nerd shit with evaluating metrics makes sense but a lot of parties don't have concrete activity other than host x number of educational events, spread out y number of leaftlets per month, write z number articles on the blog and posts on twitter and feel skittish about having goals around membership numbers because there is this notion in some groups that this is inorganic and that when the conditions are right half the work will do itself as in workers will start forming strike committees on their own and workers councils on their own and the cardre just has to be ready to educate agitate and network between these already bubbling formations. my main issue with that is that unless you are from one of those workplaces you will just be an outsider with some fancy lit and it will be hard to gain the trust of the masses like that. on the other side of this are party members that are doing salting in workplaces with the goal of organizing new, potentially radical unions in workplaces that haven't been organized yet. i think the latter is a better strategy and certainly there's a ton of metrics there you could measure like % support and # of organic leaders and % of union members that are now devoted communists etc but the problem with students and academics and PMC types is that they already have a privileged position and are on the way to having some career and don't want to give that up to organize amazon or something like that because the work there is grueling and hard and it would fuck up their career plans amongst other things.

also, while conditions really are horrible, many people in the first world just don't feel them as bad as the third world does so spending tons of effort to start a revolutionary movement amongst workers synthetically just doesn't make sense. things will eventually get way worse when the middle class gets fully hollowed out and when the next world war pops off but it may take a decade or two who knows

 No.1107493

>>1106519
>being all talk and no action
they were successfully demonized after WW2 and the churches and liberals and christian charities and socdem unions hog all the "community" and "action" stuff.

 No.1107664

>>1106518
they had a large support base in many countries… it really depends on the history. Sadly a lot of the time the story goes: "communists about to take power, coalition of bourgeois states conspire to crush the communist movement - international communism (Stalin) don't help out, even tell them to wait, not act - country's communist movement is successfully crushed."

Another thing is if you consider the class composition of the socialist revolutions which happened, it might have been that really in the early 1900s the most backwards countries were too underdeveloped, and the more developed countries were too well off, maybe it was not meant to be, the world literally wasnt ready. After WW2 in the west, many movements were crushed by force.

1967 and 68 brought a wave of revolutions - and they all failed, though some came surprisingly close. Revisionism further crushed communism globaly by dismantling (outlawing, killing communists and their orgs) communist and workers power in socialist countries, which demoralized the socialist movement everywhere.

The situation right now is one of extreme duality - countries where there would be the most potential for revolution is where there is constant reactionary violence, supported directly or not by the state. In wealthy countries, they're mostly bought off, sadly, and in e.g. the US there's this duality in one country, with preemptive reaction and an atmosphere of violence among oppressed nations, and sufficient privileges and atomization for the majority of white people.
>>1106523
>>1106527
>>1106528
this too
>>1106757
:(
>>1106840
>like get data crunching nerds and planners to critically evaluate tasks, goals, results, etc. and work from there to get a serious organization off the ground
technosummarization


Unique IPs: 16

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]