|Snafu on Wed, 2 Nov 2011 09:32:38 +0100 (CET)|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|Re: <nettime> The Revolutionary Role of a Transnational Counterparty|
I agree with Keith here. Dmytri, you are positing that this external party structure rooted in various national contexts would be a merely tactical layer that does not exercise power within the party where a completely different democratic model would be developed. But when you elect a class of professional politicians, it is unlikely that they will abdicate their power to other bodies as their legitimation (and income) derives from the bourgeois institutional structures the Transnational Counterparty is meant to deny. Historically, the revolutionary potential of several CPs has been neutralized through institutional integration. Conversely, when social movements have organized in revolutionary committees, these bodies have invariably formed the core of the society-to-come. Hence, the notion that an organized revolutionary body will dissolve itself is as delusional as the transitional notion of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Every time you create an institutional structure--whether legitimated by an electoral process, a revolutionary formation, or a hybrid such as the one you are proposing--this structure bears upon the movement that created it. It cannot deny itself simply because too many people have invested their lives in it and believe in the symbolic-material power that emanates from it. And if there are multiple layers in it that respond to different constituencies (the external electoral body, the internal militants) most likely these components will enter an extenuating war of attrition with each other. The OWS is building its own institutions from below. The question for me is how to strengthen these institutions and help them think strategically rather than superimposing a new layer from above. On 10/31/11 2:59 AM, Keith Sanborn wrote:
Party specialization for those seen as incapable of representing themselves may seem quite pragmatic but it's the beginning of hierarchy. It wd clearly give rise to internal party hierarchy, whether acknowledged or unacknowledged and you're stuck with party cadres with specialized expert self-interest. A mass party has to be non-hierarchical from the beginning, which precludes the use of previous models of party relations with a mass they "represent." there can be different kinds of participation perhaps but social structures themselves must be altered or you're back with the same old illusions of 20th century democracies whether capitalist or "people's" democracies. The slippage into representation vs participation is critical and fatal.
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: firstname.lastname@example.org