******************** 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. *****************************************************************
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 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 . -Jason On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 6:57 PM, Louis Proyect <l...@panix.com> wrote: > On 7/1/18 6:23 PM, Jason wrote: > >> >> Second, that's hardly my sole argument, given I gave other references to >> revolutionaries in the Second International supporting voting for liberal >> bourgeois parties. One can also see this in Shorske’s history and I can >> provide other references if needed. >> > > Look, your reference was to a Dutch party that, like Lenin's, was divided > over supporting bourgeois candidates. You simply found the Dutch equivalent > of the Mensheviks who backed the Dutch equivalent of the Cadets. Didn't you > understand that I would track down the reference? You are trying to > invalidate my claim that voting for liberals is a revision of Marxism by > referring to an author who describes exactly that strategy as revisionist? > Ridiculous. > > --- > > http://www.left-dis.nl/uk/dutchleft.pdf > > Although it was completely isolated, the Marxist minority [in other words, > the Dutch equivalent of the Bolsheviks] didn’t capitulate and resolutely > carried on fighting. From 1905 to 1907, the Marxist current found itself > confronted with a vigorous counter-offensive by the revisionists. The > parliamentary fraction, which was the real leadership of the party, went > further and further in collaborating with the bourgeoisie. In 1905, during > the elections for the provincial states, the revisionists raised the > question of supporting the liberals against the Anti-Revolutionaire Partij > (‘Anti-Revolutionary Party’ – ARP) government of Abraham Kuyper, which had > broken the transport strike. 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. It had adopted a resolution in this sense > during the 1905 Hague Congress: “[the Party] declares that during the > elections it will only support candidates who stand for the urgent > introduction of universal suffrage”. > > But for the Marxists, there could be no question of turning this tactical > and temporary support into a principle. Contrary to what Troelstra wished, > it was not at all a matter of calling workers to vote for “liberals of any > stripe”, even if they were anti-clerical. From a class standpoint, the > fight was not against a particular capitalist party but against capitalism > as a totality. In order to avoid being mixed up with the petty bourgeois > and small peasant elements, the workers had to be clear about their real > identity. As Pannekoek, Gorter and Van Ravesteyn wrote it, in a booklet – > ‘The Founding of the SDP’ – distributed to the German social democrat press > to explain the scission of 1909: “On every occasion the party must show the > workers that their enemies sit on the left side of parliament just as much > as on the right...”. > > But instead of respecting the resolutions of the Congress, the party > leadership, the parliamentary fraction and the socialist daily Het Volk > left socialist electors free to vote for any liberal candidate they liked. > Although firm on positions which had been classical ones within the > workers’ movement, the Marxists found themselves isolated from the working > masses. Troelstra played on this as much as he could. There were, however, > reactions within the party. > _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
