Serious question, so no "there should be no Party" shitposting please. (I'm aware of that strain of thought, but I want to hear from people who disagree with it.)
How do you keep a socialist party socialist after it's obtained power? Most of the Marxist-Leninist states went full counter-revolutionary in the late '80s and early '90s once the people running it realized "privatization" meant they could transfer all the public enterprises into their own bank accounts. And even during the one-party period I've heard more than a few stories about apparatchiks using their position to advance themselves at popular expense.
And don't even get me started on socdems - some of the early ones were genuinely leftist, but once they started participating in governments they mostly turned into Rosa killers. Or they outright switched sides to the *right* wing of bourgeois democracy, necessitating the creation of a new socdem party to replace them.
Once you control state power, you're in a position to benefit from state power, which causes your material interests to diverge from those of the people at large, right? So how (short of hoping you get incorruptible leaders) do we stop that, if we want to have leaders at all?
My thought is deliberate internal power sharing. Biggest faction gets party leader, second biggest faction gets treasurer, other leadership positions get picked by the two of them, alternating starting with the treasurer. At the very least would make it much harder for a Blair to remake the party in his own image and attempts to stab the workers in the back would HOPEFULLY lead to enough of a spat to get the attention of workers so they get involved.
Adam Jackson
Power is incredibly addictive, so I would argue routine checkups on the government by the populace. The slightest hint of corruption is thoroughly investigated and the evidence laid out, rhetorically, in the public square.
Juan Evans
Suck my dick
Lucas Morgan
Direct democracy is essential. The workers themselves must be the party. In an industrial society all power can, and should, be invested in the councils of workers.
Nathan Ramirez
g u n s
Levi Walker
This.
Mason Reed
Because what a difference guns have made in the U.S.
Jack Rodriguez
The party must be inseparable from the syndicates/soviets. Also lots of guns.
Cooper Hernandez
You can't.
/thread
Luis James
We're talking about a radically different environment here. Marx and Engels were correct in that proles need to be armed with guns before and after the revolution. Any attempts to disarm them should be met with utmost violence.
Jose Phillips
ORGANIC CENTRALISM R G A N I C
C E N T R A L I S M
Nicholas Gonzalez
don't create one
Luis Howard
cultural revolution
then remove the old bureaucrats and put the pure indoctrinated youth
Angel Price
Make the bureaucrats be recallable. Legalize all the other parties.
Lincoln Allen
No centralization of hierarchy.
Gabriel Jenkins
...
Asher Clark
If they put a knife in our backs, we sink some bullets into their spine. Why do some people try to make this harder than it has to be?
Mason Butler
Outlaw non-socialist parties? Make all capitalist parties illegal?
Austin Lee
Multi-Party democracy
there's a reason the first thing the Bolsheviks did was to disband the soviets by force
How can you have government for the people if you don't let the people clean house?
Gavin Flores
BOURGEOIS DEMOCRACY PLS LEAVE
Tyler Peterson
This, combined with full weaponization of the populace and power decentralized into many small communities.
see
Kayden Butler
...
Easton Wilson
This board amazes me.
Colton Powell
...
Nicholas Rivera
…Yes. What are we supposed to use? Pikes? Sledgehammers? Strongly-worded letters?
Adrian Torres
Pikes sound pretty lit fam.
Alexander Gomez
Sortition
Anyone who wants power must go.
Jason Kelly
And then, capitalism was restored and everyone lived happily ever after. The end.
Elijah Carter
says more about your shitty system that the other parties
Ayden Robinson
Yeah it's like revolutions just happen lol, there are no guns involved what are guns
Dominic Ramirez
this tbh
the Bolshevik obsession with a one party state stems from the fact that the Socialist-Revolutionaries thrashed them in the 1917 election in Russia
