/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

the party disciplines the worker councils

total bureaucrat death is a precondition for communism being established

>>2877452
Exactly.

We sacrifice the bureaucrats in a mesoamerican pagan ritual

we'll keep the party around because they have hella banging vibes yo

Communism will be established when literally everyone becomes a bureaucrat

The power of the party is in their possession of a monopoly on violence. Simply redistribite arms to the citizenry so that a single power over the masses is impossible.

>>2877437
They are neither communists nor even marxists.
>However you may interpret the nature of the present Soviet state, one thing is indubitable: at the end of its second decade of existence, it has not only not died away, but not begun to 'die away.' Worse than that, it has grown into a hitherto unheard of apparatus of compulsion. The bureaucracy has not only not disappeared, yielding its place to the masses, but has turned into an uncontrolled force dominating the masses

why would you assume the party would "give up power"?

>>2877437
you mean the kprp now the cpp? They havent been the cpk since the 80s man. But to answer your substantial question - it becomes the administration of things. "full communism" would require extraordinary advances in the means of production to outsource all labour to. We'd live like the fat blobs of wall-e on that spaceship. That day is near unthinkable so in the meantime there still needs to be people around to coordinate plan and justify society around. Hydro quebec isnt run as a flat cuddle puddle and the federation of star trek still has a council.

>>2877628
>That day is near unthinkable so in the meantime there still needs to be people around to coordinate plan and justify society around.
So just a world ruled by people like Sam Altman and Peter Thiel but labeled as "communism"?

Nothing actually changes it's just that class antagonism dissolves, thus the state ceases being one definitionally, since the state is an organization for the oppression of some class

it immediately betrays all of its principals by forming trade deals with capitalist nations and multinational corporations because we live in the real world where nations cannot function as hermetically sealed self-sustained habitats completely independent from the rest of the world, i.e. the global capitalist economy

>>2881783
>administration of things
Yes that's what Marxists call their state. It's funny because they style themselves as more erudite but it sounds dumber than the anarchist nonsense about horizontally federate communes or whatever.

>>2884494
that's lenin's definition at least
I think the function of the state has to be distinguished from human organization broadly, which forms spontaneously from the relations/mode of production, and the state is part of it
once class antagonisms dissolve, the state ceases to function for oppressing some class, and becomes indistinguishable from broader human organization

there's many types of human organization, but it appears what characterizes a state (or the state part of human organization) specifically is class suppression

or something like that

You're treating "the Party" as if its purpose is to rule forever. That's not what Marxism-Leninism actually argues. The Party exists because classes still exist. As long as there's a bourgeoisie, imperialism, sabotage, black markets, unequal development, and the possibility of capitalist restoration, you need an organized political vanguard to defend proletarian rule. That's what the dictatorship of the proletariat is. Communism, by definition, is a classless society. If there are no classes left to suppress, then the state loses its political function and gradually withers away. The same logic applies to the Party as a ruling organization. It either transforms into a technical/administrative association or disappears along with the political state.

The real question isn't "would the Party willingly give up power?" It's whether the material conditions that made a ruling party necessary have actually disappeared. If they haven't, dissolving it is just handing society back to whoever can organize capital first. Morons keep thinking this is about politicians refusing to leave office. But Marxists aren't talking about individual ambitions. We're talking about institutions that exist because class struggle still exists. Remove the cause, and the institution becomes obsolete. Keep the cause, and abolishing the institution is idealist bullshit.

>>2884695
I agree with most of your post, however
>We're talking about institutions that exist because class struggle still exists it's worth
mentioning that under socialism, that is under the dictatorship of the proletariat, class society already ceased to exist. Unlike bourgeois retards like trots, libs and anarshits believe, socialist bureaucrats aren't a class. They are people who are tasked with doing politics, military, economics, law etc. in the interest of the people. The vanguard party remains very important under socialism because her power is needed to organize the proletariat against anti-communist threats from the outside and thwart all sorts of counter-revolutionary attempts from within, including putting liberals/lolberts/anarshits in their place who are nothing but spoiled anti-social retards by default, just like their "conservative" bourgeois brethren, who incessantily rage about "socialist bureaucracy" as well.
Whether a vanguard party is still required under late stage socialism/early stage communism will be discussed when society has actually evolved to that point, pros and cons will be apparent then. Right now that discussion is a waste of time.

>>2884722
Fair point. I'd just make one distinction: I'd say socialism abolishes exploiting classes as the basis of production, but class struggle doesn't instantly vanish. The old bourgeoisie doesn't evaporate the day the red flag goes up. You still have remnants of the old classes, imperialist pressure, unequal development, people trying to restore capitalism, and new bourgeois elements that can emerge if commodity production and privilege aren't kept in check. That's why Lenin kept insisting the dictatorship of the proletariat remains necessary after the revolution.

>>2884695
>You're treating "the Party" as if its purpose is to rule forever. That's not what Marxism-Leninism actually argues. The Party exists because classes still exist.
Finally someone who reads.

<Socialism means the abolition of classes. The dictatorship of the proletariat has done all it could to abolish classes. But classes cannot be abolished at one stroke. And classes still remain and will remain in the era of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The dictatorship will become unnecessary when classes disappear. Without the dictatorship of the proletariat they will not disappear. Classes have remained, but in the era of the dictatorship of the proletariat every class has undergone a change, and the relations between the classes have also changed. The class struggle does not disappear under the dictatorship of the proletariat; it merely assumes different forms. Under capitalism the proletariat was an oppressed class, a class which had been deprived of the means of production, the only class which stood directly and completely opposed to the bourgeoisie, and therefore the only one capable of being revolutionary to the very end. Having overthrown the bourgeoisie and conquered political power, the proletariat has become the ruling class; it wields state power, it exercises control over means of production already socialized; it guides the wavering and intermediary elements and classes; it crushes the increasingly stubborn resistance of the exploiters. All these are specific tasks of the class struggle, tasks which the proletariat formerly did not and could not have set itself. The class of exploiters, the landowners and capitalists, has not disappeared and cannot disappear all at once under the dictatorship of the proletariat. The exploiters have been smashed, but not destroyed. They still have an inter national base in the form of international capital, of which they are a branch. They still retain certain means of production in part, they still have money, they still have vast social connections. Because they have been defeated, the energy of their resistance has increased a hundred and a thousandfold. The “art” of state, military and economic administration gives them a superiority, and a very great superiority, so that their importance is incomparably greater than their numerical proportion of the population. The class struggle waged by the overthrown exploiters against the victorious vanguard of the exploited, i.e., the proletariat, has become incomparably more bitter. And it cannot be otherwise in the case of a revolution, unless this concept is replaced (as it is by all the heroes of the Second International) by reformist illusions.

- Lenin, Economics And Politics In The Era Of The Dictatorship Of The Proletariat, 30 October, 1919

>>2877631
notice your meme image says the "state" not the "party"

>>2884695
>The real question isn't "would the Party willingly give up power?" It's whether the material conditions that made a ruling party necessary have actually disappeared.

that's question 1

>If they haven't, dissolving it is just handing society back to whoever can organize capital first.

true, if they haven't

but if they have

then the party will either self-dissolve, or hold onto power after its purpose has been fulfilled. You know what happens when a group of people hold onto power for longer than was necessary for their historical purpose? Revolution.

>>2884899
Sure. History isn't short on examples of people declaring class struggle "over" while capitalist restoration was still a real possibility, and Lenin was pretty explicit that the bourgeoisie remains dangerous after losing state power. Stalin also repeatedly argued that class struggle can even sharpen during socialist construction because the defeated classes don't politely accept defeat.

So yes: if a party became nothing more than a self-perpetuating clique ruling for its own sake after its historical role had ended, it'd cease to be a proletarian vanguard. Marxists shouldn't defend that. The problem is that people usually assume the Party's purpose has been fulfilled decades before the material conditions actually say so. That's the point being disputed, not whether a revolutionary institution should outlive its historical necessity.

>>2877439
The worker councils are the organs of the party…

>after communism is established
communism is not a state of affairs to be established

communism is never happening.

>>2885020
The real movement needs not your approval

>>2885037
There is not real movement, there aint even any motion at all.

>>2885118
>there aint even any motion at all.
parmenides predicted this

>>2877437
the party never stops bay bee!!! 🎉🎉🎉🎉

Public execution

>>2884898
L'État est parti

>>2884695
>Remove the cause, and the institution becomes obsolete
That is literally the crux of the question. What happens to the Party once it's become obsolete. Saying it "fades away" doesn't answer it.

>>2877437
>What happens to the party after communism is established?
It ceases to become a progressive force, and very likely fights to safeguard its own interests that diverge from those of the proletariats. From then on the solution is to perpetuate class struggle once the DoTP serves no more purpose