Socialist Parties

[Nulono]

There's the Socialist Party, the Communist Party USA, the Socialist Workers Party, the Party for Socialism and Liberation, the Socialist Youth-- you get the idea.

Do you think this fragmentation could be contributing to the lack of success the movement is facing?

[alexo]

Yes, same everywhere. republicanism in ireland is split into so many small groups it is a joke. IRSP, Eirigi, 32 CSM, RSF, SF, . that is not even to mention the leftist groups who oppose the republican socialist agenda, SWP, CPI, Socialist party.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Well that all depends on what "movement" you are talking about.

Do I think the sectarianism and fracturing of Trotskyist, Stalinist, Anarchist, etc. movements are harmful and "contributing to the lack of success the movement is facing"? - No, not in the least, but that's only because I understand "the movement" as being something totally different to what they do.

[bellyscratch]

I think slight divisions are a good thing to give different perspectives and increase debate so things do not get stale and has a better chance of keeping democracy in a post-revolutionary society. However, I think it has now gone beyond that and there are far too many different parties (mainly coming out of the Leninist/Trotskyist tradition) and it has resulted in lots of sectarianism

[Q]

While I agree that there are lots of splinters out there, I think a merger is only going to happen on a princpled basis. Princples are "a central idea to being a communist". Thusly, without a principle, you can't be considered a communist and a discussion on merger is inherently flawed from the start. I think these should be considered principles:

1. A working class orientation: self-explainatory really, the working class is the only consistently revolutionary class that can change society.
2. Struggle: change can only be done by class struggle.
3. Solidarity: basic solidarity among all of the working class in the direct class struggle and unity in political organisation.
4. Internationalism: the logical extension of solidarity on an international scale, but also the realisation that the struggle against capitalism has to be international.
5. Socialism: our intermediate goal.
6. Revolution: the means to this goal.
7. Workers' democracy: without workers' control and management over society, socialism is doomed from the start.

[Agnapostate]

Didn't the SWP once focus on the destruction of the lumpenproletariat? :lol:

[Revy]

This is an argument as old as the socialist movement itself.

In the end, parties do not matter, but the working class and its level of revolutionary consciousness. Uniting very different parties into one organization changes nothing.

The capitalists don't have one party, but they've been successful, haven't they?

[Martin Blank]

While I agree that there are lots of splinters out there, I think a merger is only going to happen on a princpled basis. Princples are "a central idea to being a communist". Thusly, without a principle, you can't be considered a communist and a discussion on merger is inherently flawed from the start. I think these should be considered principles:

I think this is an important point, and it highlights the difference between those who want to "unite the left" only for the sake of uniting the left, and those who want to unite to bring about social revolution. There's been a lot of people in the past who have wanted unity for the sake of unity, but their efforts have all inevitably failed.

That said, even Q's principles raise issues that would have to be hashed out before any kind of lasting unity could be achieved. For example:...


1. A working class orientation: self-explainatory really, the working class is the only consistently revolutionary class that can change society.

To what extent is "orientation" enough? And why an "orientation", and not an actual attempt to be a part of the working class? Having an "orientation" is fine if your organization is composed on non-workers, but if we all agree with the principle set down in the First International, that the liberation of the working class is the task of workers themselves, then what is the point of an "orientation"? (Incidentally, that principle of self-liberation sets higher than all others, IMO.)


2. Struggle: change can only be done by class struggle.

What constitutes class struggle? Is it a political struggle, as Marx and Engels outlined, or is it explicitly at the point of production? And if it is a political struggle, what kinds of actions constitute class struggle and which don't? Is pleading with the capitalist class for "jobs not war" a part of the class struggle, or is that merely begging?


3. Solidarity: basic solidarity among all of the working class in the direct class struggle and unity in political organisation.

What is solidarity? This term, like others used below, has lost a lot of its original meaning. Today, even the most vile corporatist union official can mouth words of "solidarity" while stabbing workers in the back. The meaning of the term has to be clarified in order to develop agreement.


4. Internationalism: the logical extension of solidarity on an international scale, but also the realisation that the struggle against capitalism has to be international.

What is internationalism? Is it simply "the enemy of my enemy is my ally", as some on here venture to believe? This gets into the question of what constitutes "anti-imperialism", and it also is tied to Points 1 and 2 above, because (again, IMO) there often seems to be a disconnect between what self-described socialists and communists do in the national arena and in the international arena when it comes to this issue.


5. Socialism: our intermediate goal.

Personally, this term is the biggest bag of mush out there. What is socialism? These days, and especially when you get outside of the organized movement itself, this means all things to all people. Some people consider public roads and the post office to be "socialism". Others have a more discerning definition. Does it mean the transition from the capitalist to communist mode of production? Does it mean the lower phase of the communist mode of production? Is it a mode of production separate from capitalism and communism? Does nationalization equal socialism?


6. Revolution: the means to this goal.

History knows all sorts of revolutions. What kind of revolution is needed? What classes are in motion, and to what extent does the balance of class forces change in the process of revolution? What constitutes a revolutionary situation, and would any of us really recognize it in time?


7. Workers' democracy: without workers' control and management over society, socialism is doomed from the start.

What is workers' control? This has become an issue since the October Revolution. To what extent should or will workers themselves have control over the means of production and exchange? Will it be direct, through workplace committees and an independent Congress of the Economy? Or will it be "representative", through state-run commissaries and appointed managers with "workers' control" limited to consultation? Will it be a multi-party system, with many workers', socialist and communist parties vying with each other while working together to enable the transition to continue? Or, will it be a single-party/"leading party" system, where there is one party in charge and one or more parties operating as satellites?

I raise these questions not to piss on anybody's parade, but to point out that there is more to this than an abstract agreement over bumper-sticker "principles". I know Q is sincere in his opinions and generally correct in his view, but there is the question of making sure everyone involved in such a unity is speaking the same political language.


This is an argument as old as the socialist movement itself.

In the end, parties do not matter, but the working class and its level of revolutionary consciousness. Uniting very different parties into one organization changes nothing.

The capitalists don't have one party, but they've been successful, haven't they?

I think this is a nail-hits-head argument. The issue is not whether the working class is organized into one, two or 10 parties; that kind of unity will develop organically, through the process of working together and, in some cases, working separately. This is the context in which we can understand the view that one step forward of the real movement is worth more than a dozen paper programs.

But there is another level to this, and that is developing a united front for defeating/overthrowing capitalist rule. I think we often forget that workers' councils, workplace committees, revolutionary industrial unions, etc., are themselves the highest forms of the united front. They represent the development of the new society within the shell of the old.

I mean, Q and I could argue for weeks about whether the Old Man was right when he wrote "On Dictators and the Heights of Oslo", but I'd rather work with him on achieving a practical unity that actually advances our class toward the defeat of capitalist rule.

If there is somewhere to concentrate our efforts on achieving unity, this is it.

[Q]

Miles: In your post you ask with every principle what exactly this entails, a justified question. The question of principled unity is still forming for me, so the post also serves the function to see I'm on the right track or not, in other words: if people agree in principle that unity should be based on principles (still following? :p ) and not on every minor idea that flows out there (I'm willing to write more on the latter part if you like).

But yeah, principles should serve the function to be clear to everyone and therefore your questions are good ones.

[STJ]

There's the Socialist Party, the Communist Party USA, the Socialist Workers Party, the Party for Socialism and Liberation, the Socialist Youth-- you get the idea.

Do you think this fragmentation could be contributing to the lack of success the movement is facing?
Well the American Communist Party is not a real party all they tell people todo is vote for the Democratic Party which is part of the problem.

[Agnapostate]

The capitalists don't have one party, but they've been successful, haven't they?

In many cases, the Dems and Repubs effectively function as two factions of one party.

[Revulero]

I think its good to have differing views and perspectives, parties should eliminate democratic centralism and tolerate differing views instead of splintering into small defunct intellectual groups. Stuff like this makes the left seem like a joke.

[ComradeDeidara]

A communist party is the vanguard party of the Proletriat class. Its for the advancemnet and organization of the workers to fight against the Bourgeiose class. Its not a club for bricking, but an organization that is established to help and lead the workers in their struggle for freedom. We can't have bickering in this kind organization as it would weaken it. For this reason, Democratic Centralism is nessary to keep the party from splitting or becomeing revisionist. The party is needed for victory of the working class and socialism.

[Pogue]

I think its a problem, the split. We have a task ahead of us and I know if I was going to dedicate my time and risk alot towards building a better society I'd want to do it in a group I knew had the size and ideas neccesary for this to happen. But our disagreements inevitably lead to splits. I think our size is depressing and at times absurd, and I have real fears basically no one is ever going to make gains. I wish we could cooperate more but i think its unrealistic on most things. I mean, if on a demo etc I saw a Trot or a maoist getting batoned to the floor i'd help them, and in a revolution i wouldnt kick off a factional in fight but disputes happen because we do all disagree. fundamentally if ure a leninist or an anarchist from day 0 your approach to revolution is different so you know...

[Revulero]

Yea, this is a major problem that is affecting the common goals we wish to accomplish. Don't get me wrong, diversity of ideas is a good thing, but for the left it has made things worse. I'm not a major sectarian and I would be willing to work with anti-revisionists to anarchists as long as it doesn't interfere with my core beliefs and is something I agree on. I think completly ignoring other factions will lead us nowhere, but as H-L-V-S was basically saying, we all have different theories and beliefs that will always divide us in some way or another on any issue right down to the things that happened in history, which is pretty sad.

[Revulero]

A communist party is the vanguard party of the Proletriat class. Its for the advancemnet and organization of the workers to fight against the Bourgeiose class. Its not a club for bricking, but an organization that is established to help and lead the workers in their struggle for freedom. We can't have bickering in this kind organization as it would weaken it. For this reason, Democratic Centralism is nessary to keep the party from splitting or becomeing revisionist. The party is needed for victory of the working class and socialism.

I understand the reason for a vanguard party, but I fear if you put them in the hands of "commited revolutionaries" who happen to be oppurtunists, they could corrupt a potential revolution and turn it into a bureacracy. I don't think proletarians will need a vanguard party when its time for revolution, because I believe when its time, they will know what theyre fighting for. My reason against democratic centralistion is because it could ruin a party if its dominated by the wrong people, a good example is the Communist Party USA which is dominated by misguided socialists and democrats. Also imagine if counter revolutionaries infiltrated a party by entryism, what would happen to the party and it real commited members? Would they have to follow something their against or create another party to compete with the hundreds of others that are fighting for the same goal? I prefer a united party with different ideas, not dominated by one ideology, by doing this it will keep us in check with each other and when its time for revolution I believe the workers will choose what they want.

[ComradeDeidara]

Though I repsect your constructive Cricitism and not slandering me, i must disagree with you. The Commited revolutonarys were needed in Russia as it was dangerous to be an oppostion so it needed a small party of experienced revolutionaries with support and sympatheizers of the masses. This dosen't have to be in all countires, like the US.
The Party is needed for the revolution as it would be use for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Also, there needs to be an organize from of government if the workers of the country hope to defend the revolution from imperialis and reactionist forces.
And though I agree with you on the domination of the wrong people, that problem should also support nessarity of pruging in the party.
For your United party, what about the revisionist (Trotskyites, Maoists, Left Communists, and Eurocommunists) who would lead the party to destruction, like Gorbachev?

[redarmyfaction38]

I understand the reason for a vanguard party, but I fear if you put them in the hands of "commited revolutionaries" who happen to be oppurtunists, they could corrupt a potential revolution and turn it into a bureacracy. I don't think proletarians will need a vanguard party when its time for revolution, because I believe when its time, they will know what theyre fighting for. My reason against democratic centralistion is because it could ruin a party if its dominated by the wrong people, a good example is the Communist Party USA which is dominated by misguided socialists and democrats. Also imagine if counter revolutionaries infiltrated a party by entryism, what would happen to the party and it real commited members? Would they have to follow something their against or create another party to compete with the hundreds of others that are fighting for the same goal? I prefer a united party with different ideas, not dominated by one ideology, by doing this it will keep us in check with each other and when its time for revolution I believe the workers will choose what they want.
i was a member of militant, the biggest complaint the likes of the swp had was that all 8000 members agreed on policy, we were accused of being robots etc.
truth was much different, our "party" emphasised political education, emphasised taking part in struggle, emphasised being part of the working class rather than being above it and it accepted that it's actual working class members carried a whole history of prejudice and betrayal by "labour" and "communist" parties not to mention "trade union leaders".
it was the biggest threat to capitalism in britain since the general strike.
militant no longer exists, however, there are at least 8000 difficult to manage, un co operative and bolshevik workers out there causing the bosses a headache, there are at least 5 factions i know of, born out of militants demise.
and, in the end, as trotsky said, we might march seperately but we will strike together.
imo, all the different factions, whilst rendering the movement ineffective in bourgouis parliamentary terms, actually reflect the strength of marxist/leninist/trotskyist education, we are all thinking for ourselves, we accept no facts as given, we question everything including all we have learnt.
AND we reflect the attitudes of the youth that are going to be most affected by this latest collapse of capitalist economics.
imo.

[Die Neue Zeit]

[This post is a revolutionary-centrist response to both comrades Miles and Q. Later on I'll repost a programmatic summary of the basic principles for lasting unity.]


That said, even Q's principles raise issues that would have to be hashed out before any kind of lasting unity could be achieved. For example:


1. A working class orientation: self-explainatory really, the working class is the only consistently revolutionary class that can change society.

To what extent is "orientation" enough? And why an "orientation", and not an actual attempt to be a part of the working class? Having an "orientation" is fine if your organization is composed on non-workers, but if we all agree with the principle set down in the First International, that the liberation of the working class is the task of workers themselves, then what is the point of an "orientation"? (Incidentally, that principle of self-liberation sets higher than all others, IMO.)


2. Struggle: change can only be done by class struggle.

What constitutes class struggle? Is it a political struggle, as Marx and Engels outlined, or is it explicitly at the point of production? And if it is a political struggle, what kinds of actions constitute class struggle and which don't? Is pleading with the capitalist class for "jobs not war" a part of the class struggle, or is that merely begging?

The two principles can be combined into one: class strugglism. As for the latter question on politics vs. economism, Marx said that there were open and hidden class struggles. The former is certainly a political struggle, but I'm not so sure about the latter.

It should also be asked: is the struggle for "socialism" as per below a political struggle or an economic one?

It has to be agreed upon that the capture of the full political power of a ruling class for itself is part of the process.



3. Solidarity: basic solidarity among all of the working class in the direct class struggle and unity in political organisation.

What is solidarity? This term, like others used below, has lost a lot of its original meaning. Today, even the most vile corporatist union official can mouth words of "solidarity" while stabbing workers in the back. The meaning of the term has to be clarified in order to develop agreement.


4. Internationalism: the logical extension of solidarity on an international scale, but also the realisation that the struggle against capitalism has to be international.

What is internationalism? Is it simply "the enemy of my enemy is my ally", as some on here venture to believe? This gets into the question of what constitutes "anti-imperialism", and it also is tied to Points 1 and 2 above, because (again, IMO) there often seems to be a disconnect between what self-described socialists and communists do in the national arena and in the international arena when it comes to this issue.

There's a more fundamental issue at stake here: inter-nationalism ("between nations") is no longer sufficient. Transnationalism ("beyond/transcending nations") is the order of the day, and that also means transnational organization (a la Bordiga the left-communist), not just an "international" with a bunch of national parties.



5. Socialism: our intermediate goal.

Personally, this term is the biggest bag of mush out there. What is socialism? These days, and especially when you get outside of the organized movement itself, this means all things to all people. Some people consider public roads and the post office to be "socialism". Others have a more discerning definition. Does it mean the transition from the capitalist to communist mode of production? Does it mean the lower phase of the communist mode of production? Is it a mode of production separate from capitalism and communism? Does nationalization equal socialism?

I altered the Basic Principles text to mention "social labour" and the "participatory economy."



6. Revolution: the means to this goal.

History knows all sorts of revolutions. What kind of revolution is needed? What classes are in motion, and to what extent does the balance of class forces change in the process of revolution? What constitutes a revolutionary situation, and would any of us really recognize it in time?

This is where my proper centrism/"Kautskyism" kicks in. I think Q here is, in the traditional "revolutionism," implying the usual political revolution and not the underrated social revolution, which turns off a lot of workers. However, the political revolution - the capture of the full political power of a ruling class for itself - is inherently part of the class struggle. Mentioning class struggle and social revolution (and also explicitly rejecting the politics of social evolution a la Bernstein) is enough to unite all class-strugglists, "revolutionists" or otherwise.



Basic Principles

Once more, human labour – be it manual or mental – and its technological, labour-saving equivalent are the only non-natural sources of value production. The written history of all societies, up to and including the present, is primarily one of open and hidden class struggles over the exploitation of these non-natural sources of value production. The modern bourgeois-capitalist society has not abolished the very non-conspiracist class antagonisms, but has instead established in place of the old ones both new conditions of oppression – primarily the various forms of wage labour and hidden debt slavery – and new forms of class struggle, a very scientific concept which, fundamentally speaking, can no longer be taken for granted.

Nevertheless, without the technological, economic, political, and other developments associated with this society, the realistic possibility of abolishing the exploitation and alienation of human labour through, along with more emancipatory measures, the full establishment of collective worker control and responsibility over an all-encompassing participatory economy – free from surplus labour appropriations by any elite minority, from private ownership of productive and other non-possessive property, and from all forms of debt slavery – could not have come about.

Transnationally obstructing both this socially revolutionary transformation and socially revolutionary transformations aimed at abolishing non-class oppression and alienation are the following: private philanthropy by the bourgeoisie and petit-bourgeoisie; scientific management and social engineering by the coordinators; social-statist legislation and administration within the framework of the bourgeois-capitalist state, especially social-corporatist ones by the aforementioned classes; so-called “vanguardism” on the part of philosopher-conspirators who do not rely on a highly class-conscious, organized, and politico-ideologically independent working class; and the politics of spontaneous development, including the politics of social evolution, fashionable “identity politics,” and the class accommodation accompanying both. The equally transnational emancipation of labour, which has nothing to lose but its chains, can only be brought about by a highly class-conscious and organized working class independently, capturing the full political power of a ruling class for itself in accordance with the slogan “WORKERS OF THE WORLD, UNITE!”

Class-Strugglist Social Labour (“the Social-Labourists”) disdains to conceal its views and its anti-capitalist task regarding the above versus barbarism, the common ruin of the contending classes: Against the aforementioned obstructions, the working class in itself cannot act as a class for itself except through its vast majority constituting itself into a simultaneously transnational, social-revolutionary, class-strugglist, and worker-class-only “party” – distinct from and intransigently opposed to all non-worker parties and to all class-accommodationist parties. Therefore, the merger of social labour and the worker-class movement that is Class-Strugglist Social Labour seeks to educate, agitate, and organize the various divisions of the working class and their struggles into a class-conscious, collectively unified, and politico-ideologically independent whole, thereby making that class for itself aware of its historic aim and capable of choosing the best means to attain this aim.

[Martin Blank]

Miles: In your post you ask with every principle what exactly this entails, a justified question. The question of principled unity is still forming for me, so the post also serves the function to see I'm on the right track or not, in other words: if people agree in principle that unity should be based on principles (still following? :p ) and not on every minor idea that flows out there (I'm willing to write more on the latter part if you like).

But yeah, principles should serve the function to be clear to everyone and therefore your questions are good ones.

I do think you're more or less on the right track here. We've seen the failures that have resulted from attempts at unity on the basis of mere slogans and on the basis of reconciling doctrines. Unity on the basis of principles and program remain the only workable way.

But beyond principles themselves is a question of culture -- organizational culture. It is not enough to just agree politically, even though this is about 90 percent of it. There has to develop a culture of camaraderie and trust among members in order for it to succeed. Honestly, this is why many self-described Leninist groups fail so often, even when they agree enough to be a single organization.

Someone once described democratic centralism (as practiced by most Leninist groups) to me as "organized mistrust". That is, the leaders don't trust the members and the members don't trust the leaders, and therefore every mechanism in the organization is designed to play to one or another's mistrust. An organization whose members don't trust each other could not lead ants to a picnic, much less lead a revolutionary struggle. To put it another way: If there is no trust, there is no organization; there is only a collection of individuals constantly watching their backs.

Trust among members, and trust by the class of the organization as a whole, is central to its success. Let's remember that, as revolutionaries, we're asking workers to have confidence in our perspective -- i.e., to trust that we know what we're talking about and doing. If we cannot have trust among ourselves, there's no way that other workers are going to trust us.

Of course, the problem is that there are some self-described socialists and communists who do nothing but breed mistrust. They see members of other organizations as "opponents" and "enemies", for no reason other than they are not in their organization. Unity is seen not as a goal or a necessity, but as a "tactic" (e.g., "regroupment tactic"). Entries and raids make up the bulk (if not the sole focus) of their "party-building" work. At times, it seems these elements have more trust in the capitalist state (i.e., they are willing to appeal to them to bring about positive social change) than they do in their "comrades" in other organizations.

As I said, though, I think you're on the right track. Just take your time and think it through.

[Martin Blank]

A communist party is the vanguard party of the Proletariat class. Its for the advancement and organization of the workers to fight against the Bourgeois class. Its not a club for bricking, but an organization that is established to help and lead the workers in their struggle for freedom. We can't have bickering in this kind organization as it would weaken it. For this reason, Democratic Centralism is necessary to keep the party from splitting or becoming revisionist. The party is needed for victory of the working class and socialism.

Comrade, I think we all know what the "official Marxist-Leninist" definition of a communist party is. But in the context of this discussion, and since you raise it, that model of organization raises a number of questions of its own. For example,...

"It's for the advancement and organization of the workers to fight against the Bourgeois class. It's not a club for bickering, but an organization that is established to help and lead the workers in their struggle for freedom." The implication from this is that the proletarian party is not organized by, led by or even composed of the proletariat. Rather, it is an outside entity, separate from the working class and leading it as one leads a dog on a leash.

"We can't have bickering in this kind organization as it would weaken it." The working class -- even its most politically aware elements -- is not of one mind. There will inevitably be differences of opinion and understanding, varying shades of disagreement over tactics and strategy. Whether you like it or not, these will exist -- especially in times of great upheaval, since those are the moments that most compel people to think for themselves. The question is how does a proletarian political organization meet these differences: Does it suppress them in favor of an "authoritative" line worked out in advance? Or, does it open debate before the entire class and work on a principled agreement that extends beyond one's exclusive membership?

"For this reason, Democratic Centralism is necessary to keep the party from splitting or becoming revisionist." Organizational discipline is only as solid as is the political agreement among members. Thus, it is inevitable that when there is disagreement, organizational cohesion lessens. Again, the issue is whether to suppress those disagreements or meet them head-on. Past experience shows that the fastest way to split a group is to suppress disagreements and impose an organizational solution on a political problem.


The Party is needed for the revolution as it would be used for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Also, there needs to be an organize from of government if the workers of the country hope to defend the revolution from imperialist and reactionary forces.

This comment is also worth bringing up, since it really goes to the heart of the matter, which is the question of what kind of leadership role the party has.

There are two types of leadership roles a communist party can have in a revolution: political leadership and practical leadership. These two are not exclusive, but they are different enough that there is a need to strike a balance between them.

Historically, the role of the party is that of political leadership. That is, it offers a program and guide for achieving the revolution, but sees the actual act of revolution as belonging to the working class itself. Political leadership means that, through education and agitation, workers look to organize themselves to carry out their own liberation, with and through their own organizations. To give a concrete example: The proletarian party educates and agitates about the necessity for armed workers' self-defense and how it can be done, but it is the responsibility of workers themselves to actually organize such defense organizations and maintain them.

This is different from practical leadership, which is when the party steps in and organizes the bodies that should be organized by workers themselves. The use of practical leadership is a balancing act. On the one hand, "lead by example" can be a powerful way of breaking through layers of fear and hesitation among sections of the working class that have been relatively dormant for so long. On the other hand, too much "lead by example" results in a party going over to substitutionism -- i.e., the party substituting itself for the class. In my experience, resorting to asserting practical leadership is only worthwhile and effective when the ties between class and party are so strong that it is difficult to tell where one ends and the other begins.

[ComradeDeidara]

Comrade Miles, I do believe that most people know what the definition is, but there are those who wish to do away with revolutionary elements of it.

I believe that Stalin hit the nail on the vanguard party when he said,

"The Party is the vanguard of the working class.The Party is the advanced organized detachment of the working class. The Party is the highest form of class organization of the proletariat. The Party is the political leader of the working class." The Party is "an instrument in the hands of the proletariat for achieving the dictatorship (of the proletariat)" and for "consolidating and expanding the dictatorship (of the proletariat")once socialism is won.(Stalin, Foundations Of Leninism, 1924)


Theres nothing wrong with disagreements in the party, but theres a difference between that and Revisionism. Revisionists would lead the party to destruction, like what Gorvachev did to the Communist party of the USSR.

And for my arguement about the role of the party, it ties in with Stalin's quote.

[pauljpoposky]

There's the Socialist Party, the Communist Party USA, the Socialist Workers Party, the Party for Socialism and Liberation, the Socialist Youth-- you get the idea.

Do you think this fragmentation could be contributing to the lack of success the movement is facing?

absolutely! you hit the nail right on the head!

sectarianism is the failed strategy of the last century, and those who practice it now (in my experience they seem to exist to varying degrees in just about EVERY left-organization regardless of tendency) are doing NOTHING to move us forward because we must move forward AS A CLASS, not as a sect within the class. we cannot have any sort of mass party of labor or united front unless there is dialog and some common work and revolutionary mass leadership responsive to the mass initiative of the class itself. we dont have that right now, in part, because our "leaders" arent leading anything. in many cases the sects dont even debate each other, not really, because they dont even have an open dialog in which to carry on the debate in the first place.

It is my most profound hope that our generation in the left can find common ground to come together, overcome this, and then we can have a real debate and sort out the details. ultimately I think the working class must decide.

[Martin Blank]

Comrade Miles, I do believe that most people know what the definition is, but there are those who wish to do away with revolutionary elements of it.

It would be worthwhile if you could point out how, in your opinion, any of those here in this thread are advocating or implying such an action. It would give us all something to discuss in greater detail.


I believe that Stalin hit the nail on the vanguard party when he said,

"The Party is the vanguard of the working class.The Party is the advanced organized detachment of the working class. The Party is the highest form of class organization of the proletariat. The Party is the political leader of the working class." The Party is "an instrument in the hands of the proletariat for achieving the dictatorship (of the proletariat)" and for "consolidating and expanding the dictatorship (of the proletariat")once socialism is won.(Stalin, Foundations Of Leninism, 1924)

Forgive me if I sound overly critical, but this quote is really nothing more than a series of bumper-sticker slogans. It's "all hat, no cattle", as the Texans might say. There are a lot of questions that need to be addressed from this paragraph.

How is the party the vanguard? What gives it that position? Why are the two terms considered interchangeable, which is a departure from Marx's position? What kind of contradictions exist when you accept that, on the one hand, "The Party is the highest form of class organization", and that, on the other hand, "The Party is the political leader", and how do you resolve the issue of political versus practical leadership? Moreover, if "The Party is 'an instrument ... for achieving the dictatorship (of the proletariat)'," how does that reconcile with the two above comments?


There's nothing wrong with disagreements in the party, but there's a difference between that and Revisionism. Revisionists would lead the party to destruction, like what Gorbachev did to the Communist party of the USSR.

How do you define revisionism? More often than not, political differences in an organization are described by one side or the other as revisionism. Moreover, there will always be others outside of your own particular organization that will define your politics as revisionist.


And for my argument about the role of the party, it ties in with Stalin's quote.

The questions I've asked above are also tied in to the issue of political and practical leadership.

[ComradeDeidara]

Miles:Forgive me if I sound overly critical, but this quote is really nothing more than a series of bumper-sticker slogans. It's "all hat, no cattle", as the Texans might say. There are a lot of questions that need to be addressed from this paragraph.

Me:Well thats your opinion.

Miles:How is the party the vanguard? What gives it that position? Why are the two terms considered interchangeable, which is a departure from Marx's position? What kind of contradictions exist when you accept that, on the one hand, "The Party is the highest form of class organization", and that, on the other hand, "The Party is the political leader", and how do you resolve the issue of political versus practical leadership? Moreover, if "The Party is 'an instrument ... for achieving the dictatorship (of the proletariat)'," how does that reconcile with the two above comments?

Me:It's suppose to be an organization that is on the fronts for the Revolution.
This veiw of the party was developed by Vladimer Lenin, the brilliant revolutionary and Marxist Theocatian. I think that we see the party as both having pracitcal and politcal leaderships. And the party would be the system that the workers would use for their beneifet, like a senate.


Miles:How do you define revisionism? More often than not, political differences in an organization are described by one side or the other as revisionism. Moreover, there will always be others outside of your own particular organization that will define your politics as revisionist.

Me:Revisionism in Marxism is the down watering of Marxist prinicples and beleifs to conform to the Bourgoiese state, but it still consider itself Marxist. Though your right about opinions, Marxism-Leinism isn't just a beleif, but a science and Ideology (World-outlook)

Sorry if this is out of topic,but for Democratic Centralism, It dosen't restrict freedom to discuss, but encourges it! But when a democratic motion is passed, all members are to uphold the decision. This is to have freedom of debate, but unity in action.

Also sorry for not including quotes

[Martin Blank]

Well that's your opinion.

Well, I understand that. I was interested in your opinion on why you disagree.


It's suppose to be an organization that is on the fronts for the Revolution. This view of the party was developed by Vladimir Lenin, the brilliant revolutionary and Marxist Theoretician. I think that we see the party as both having practical and political leaderships. And the party would be the system that the workers would use for their benefit, like a senate.

OK, so let me see if I understand what you're saying here. First, your conception of the party is that it is a combination of state apparatus and political organization ("the party would be the system that the workers would use for their benefit, like a senate"), and thus has both practical and political leadership. Second, because the party is a "vanguard party", and the party operates as the state, the state is a "vanguard state", where only the "vanguard" participates. Third, you attribute this conception to Lenin and see it as "Marxism-Leninism" as explained by Stalin.

Is this your position? Correct me if I am wrong.


Revisionism in Marxism is the down watering of Marxist principles and beliefs to conform to the Bourgeois state, but it still consider itself Marxist. Though you're right about opinions, Marxism-Leninism isn't just a belief, but a science and Ideology (World-outlook)

As I was trying to get across before, what one group considers revisionism another considers consistent "Marxism". For example, there are many people here who can argue about how Stalin was a "revisionist" (among other things).

On a more practical level, how do you deal with differences in ideology when the practical conclusions are parallel? Moreover, how about when the ideology is the same, but the conclusions are fundamentally different?


Sorry if this is out of topic, but for Democratic Centralism, It doesn't restrict freedom to discuss, but encourages it! But when a democratic motion is passed, all members are to uphold the decision. This is to have freedom of debate, but unity in action.

What kind of motions fall under "unity in action", in your opinion? Are there merely motions pertaining to action (party activity at public events, etc.), or do questions of "science and Ideology" also fall into this category?


Also sorry for not including quotes

Honestly, comrade, that's the least of my concerns here.

[travisdandy2000]

Well, Lenin wasn't a social democrat, he advocated for splits, and more splits, along the line of vital issues. What's the point of a broad based movement that doesn't stand for anything concrete? Should I work with someone who thinks that the Zionist have common cause with the Natives they are murdering, just because capitalism exsist in both places? It is important that revolutionary groups take firm and clear stands, and let any splits that may occur happen, when a revolutionary situation arises, we will see who was correct.

[Revulero]

Well, Lenin wasn't a social democrat, he advocated for splits, and more splits, along the line of vital issues. What's the point of a broad based movement that doesn't stand for anything concrete? Should I work with someone who thinks that the Zionist have common cause with the Natives they are murdering, just because capitalism exsist in both places? It is important that revolutionary groups take firm and clear stands, and let any splits that may occur happen, when a revolutionary situation arises, we will see who was correct.

Sadly these splits on "vital issues" have caused us to turn are backs on each other. I also don't see how a revolutionary situation can arise when we are split fighting amongst ourselves and fighting capitalism at the same time. How can we get support when we are being attacked by the propaganda the media creates against us and the name calling we have towards each other. It's impossible to repeat the October revolution and eliminate the opposition because Lenin and the Bolsheviks are not in the situation we are today, they don't have to deal with CNN or BBC brainwahing the average person.

[ComradeDeidara]

Well, I understand that. I was interested in your opinion on why you disagree.[QUOTE=Miles;1431270]

Well its because I think its a good definition of the Vanguard Party.



[QUOTE=Miles;1431270]OK, so let me see if I understand what you're saying here. First, your conception of the party is that it is a combination of state apparatus and political organization ("the party would be the system that the workers would use for their benefit, like a senate"), and thus has both practical and political leadership. Second, because the party is a "vanguard party", and the party operates as the state, the state is a "vanguard state", where only the "vanguard" participates. Third, you attribute this conception to Lenin and see it as "Marxism-Leninism" as explained by Stalin.

Is this your position? Correct me if I am wrong.[QUOTE=Miles;1431270]

Yes, that basically it.


[QUOTE=Miles;1431270]
As I was trying to get across before, what one group considers revisionism another considers consistent "Marxism". For example, there are many people here who can argue about how Stalin was a "revisionist" (among other things).

On a more practical level, how do you deal with differences in ideology when the practical conclusions are parallel? Moreover, how about when the ideology is the same, but the conclusions are fundamentally different?
[QUOTE=Miles;1431270]

Though I understand your position, I must argue that you don't see Marxism-Leninism as what it really is, A science! In biology, people don't have different veiws on what biology is, there are set laws in that field that classifies it as biology. Thats what darws the line between Marxism-Leninism and Revisionism.


[QUOTE=Miles;1431270]What kind of motions fall under "unity in action", in your opinion? Are there merely motions pertaining to action (party activity at public events, etc.), or do questions of "science and Ideology" also fall into this category?[QUOTE=Miles;1431270]

Action basically. Science and ideology are what are debated.



[QUOTE=Miles;1431270]Honestly, comrade, that's the least of my concerns here.

And what are your concerns?

[ComradeDeidara]

Sadly these splits on "vital issues" have caused us to turn are backs on each other. I also don't see how a revolutionary situation can arise when we are split fighting amongst ourselves and fighting capitalism at the same time. How can we get support when we are being attacked by the propaganda the media creates against us and the name calling we have towards each other. It's impossible to repeat the October revolution and eliminate the opposition because Lenin and the Bolsheviks are not in the situation we are today, they don't have to deal with CNN or BBC brainwahing the average person.

But maybe its time we should start our own media?
Like how the Bolsheviks made the newspaper, The Iskra.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I believe that Stalin hit the nail on the vanguard party when he said,

"The Party is the vanguard of the working class.The Party is the advanced organized detachment of the working class. The Party is the highest form of class organization of the proletariat. The Party is the political leader of the working class." The Party is "an instrument in the hands of the proletariat for achieving the dictatorship (of the proletariat)" and for "consolidating and expanding the dictatorship (of the proletariat")once socialism is won.(Stalin, Foundations Of Leninism, 1924)

Statements #1 and #2 are half-right and half-wrong, and it is due to the absolute correctness of Statement #3: that the party - or rather, the party-movement - is the highest form of class organization of the proletariat (contrary to the ultra-leftist or lifestylist rantings of anti-party communists). Lenin reiterated again and again the German and overall European position of the revolutionary Social-Democratic party as being "the merger of socialism and the worker movement." Marx once said that "the working class cannot act, as a class, except by constituting itself into a political party."

Constituting itself, and not constituting just its "vanguard," is the key (hence why Statement #4 is wrong). Nevertheless, because of the uneven development of consciousness activity, the party-movement itself is unevenly developed, with vanguard elements both inside and outside.

The last statement, however, is downright wrong, in that the DOTP precedes socialism.

[Martin Blank]

Well, we're finally getting to some more concrete elements of this discussion, which is good. Now we can start shining some light on to them, sifting through the political language barriers and getting to the meaningful elements.


Well, it's because I think it's a good definition of the Vanguard Party.

It's not a definition. It's a series of slogans designed to be memorized like a catechism. That's the problem I have with it. As well, this "definition" based on subjective (idealistic) assertions, not objective (material) reality. What, objectively speaking, makes a communist party a communist party?


Yes, that's basically it.

The problem here is that your position bears no relation to what Marx (or Lenin, for that matter) actually wrote or advocated. In fact, when it comes to Marx's view on the proletarian party, your position is the negation of his position. If you're going to rise or fall based on what Marx wrote, a deeper study of his views on organization would be warranted.


Though I understand your position, I must argue that you don't see Marxism-Leninism as what it really is, A science! In biology, people don't have different views on what biology is, there are set laws in that field that classifies it as biology. That's what draws the line between Marxism-Leninism and Revisionism.

You're right, I don't see this as a science ... and neither did Marx.

Biology is a science. Sociology is a science. Political economy is a science. What makes communists different from bourgeois philosophers and scientists is not that there is "other science" called "Marxism" we subscribe to, but rather a scientific method of analysis that we utilize to understand what is discovered in these areas.

I understand where the mistake comes in. Engels began referring to "Marxism" as a science near the end of Marx's life. However, Marx himself repeatedly swore off such descriptions and rebuked Engels for his attempts to claim him as some great discoverer of a "new science". Nevertheless, the characterization of Marx's views as a "science" continued to flourish, and Marx's own views on the subject were quietly forgotten.

Lenin repeated this mistake once or twice, but more often than not avoided calling it such. He talked of "scientific socialism" (as opposed to utopian socialism), but generally in the context of explaining Marx's contributions to social science and political economy.

The point I'm trying to make is that using terms such as "science" to describe a scientific method takes a living thing and attempts to turn it into a marble statue -- an icon to worship, not an object to study. And in the process, you end up losing sight of the dynamics of development. Material conditions change, and it is necessary to continually analyze and understand those changes, or else you end up in the position of the "True Socialists" of the past who attempt to mechanically apply old positions and "laws" on a current situation that has new features.


Action basically. Science and ideology are what are debated.

But here are the contradictions I see in what all you're saying: First, you have transformed a scientific method into a "science", and by doing so you end up freezing the principles and theories developed by Marx and Lenin in time, removing them from their historical context and turning them into virtually immutable "laws". Second, this contrived "science" becomes the basis for loyalty and fidelity to what you consider "Marxism-Leninism", and, as you put it, "draws the line between" it and "Revisionism". Third, you have said previously that there is a need to remove "revisionists" from an organization when they appear, since they would "lead the party to destruction".

Within this context, I have to ask you what kind of productive debate you see as possible over questions of "science and ideology", when the inevitable result, based on your stated positions above, will be a split into hostile camps, with each side accusing the other of "revisionism"?


And what are your concerns?

Well, what you see above begins to express them. Do understand, comrade, that I began my political life (some 20-plus years ago!) within the "Marxist-Leninist" current, so I know the arguments, the players and the positions. I say this, first, so that you understand there is no need to try to "educate" me on the "basics", and, second, so that if you want to get deeper into this issue, you are more than welcome to do so.

[ComradeDeidara]

Sorry for not being on for awhile.

.[/QUOTE]It's not a definition. It's a series of slogans designed to be memorized like a catechism. That's the problem I have with it. As well, this "definition" based on subjective (idealistic) assertions, not objective (material) reality. What, objectively speaking, makes a communist party a communist party?.[/QUOTE]

Well let look back to the Communist Manifesto, which in the section "Proletarians and Communist", states, "The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: (1) In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. (2) In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole."


[/QUOTE]The problem here is that your position bears no relation to what Marx (or Lenin, for that matter) actually wrote or advocated. In fact, when it comes to Marx's view on the proletarian party, your position is the negation of his position. If you're going to rise or fall based on what Marx wrote, a deeper study of his views on organization would be warranted..[/QUOTE]

If you read what I posted above, you would see that Marx thought the importance of a vanguard party while Lenin formulized it.



[/QUOTE]You're right, I don't see this as a science ... and neither did Marx.

Biology is a science. Sociology is a science. Political economy is a science. What makes communists different from bourgeois philosophers and scientists is not that there is "other science" called "Marxism" we subscribe to, but rather a scientific method of analysis that we utilize to understand what is discovered in these areas..[/QUOTE]

That is where you're worng. Marxism is a science as it has theorized class struggle, outlined the exploitve nature of Capitalism, and it's philosophies(Dialetic Materialism, Historical Materialism,ect.) are brillaint in understanding the world around us, not to mention other examples. If Science is the way of attaining knowlegde, then I don't see how Marxism-Leninism can't be considered a science.


.[/QUOTE]The point I'm trying to make is that using terms such as "science" to describe a scientific method takes a living thing and attempts to turn it into a marble statue -- an icon to worship, not an object to study. And in the process, you end up losing sight of the dynamics of development. Material conditions change, and it is necessary to continually analyze and understand those changes, or else you end up in the position of the "True Socialists" of the past who attempt to mechanically apply old positions and "laws" on a current situation that has new features..[/QUOTE]

Thats why Marxism is a science, not a religion. Look at Engels and Lenin. They weren't Marx but they used Marxist princples to make new discoveries on the Status quo. Lenin even tried to applied it in age of Imperialism and it led to the first Socialist nation. You must realized that Scienctific methods must follow a science.



.[/QUOTE]But here are the contradictions I see in what all you're saying: First, you have transformed a scientific method into a "science", and by doing so you end up freezing the principles and theories developed by Marx and Lenin in time, removing them from their historical context and turning them into virtually immutable "laws". Second, this contrived "science" becomes the basis for loyalty and fidelity to what you consider "Marxism-Leninism", and, as you put it, "draws the line between" it and "Revisionism". Third, you have said previously that there is a need to remove "revisionists" from an organization when they appear, since they would "lead the party to destruction".
.[/QUOTE]

As Marxist, we must fight agianst the two evils of Dogmatism and Revisionism.

[/QUOTE] Within this context, I have to ask you what kind of productive debate you see as possible over questions of "science and ideology", when the inevitable result, based on your stated positions above, will be a split into hostile camps, with each side accusing the other of "revisionism"? [/QUOTE]

Revisionism is embeded in different forms. From Tortskyism to Maosim to Eurocommunism. Revisionists don't say "I'm not a believer in Marxism". But Revisionists are basically thoughs who wish to distort Marxist principles. But as we're humans, we accuse each other of the same thing so its natural for it, but since it's a science, if a person dosen't follow the principles of Marxism and tries to distort it, then that person is a revisonist.


.[/QUOTE]Well, what you see above begins to express them. Do understand, comrade, that I began my political life (some 20-plus years ago!) within the "Marxist-Leninist" current, so I know the arguments, the players and the positions. I say this, first, so that you understand there is no need to try to "educate" me on the "basics", and, second, so that if you want to get deeper into this issue, you are more than welcome to do so.[/QUOTE].[/QUOTE]

Well thank you for this as I won't have to waste time on lessons.

[PeaderO'Donnell]

Yes, same everywhere. republicanism in ireland is split into so many small groups it is a joke. IRSP, Eirigi, 32 CSM, RSF, SF, . that is not even to mention the leftist groups who oppose the republican socialist agenda, SWP, CPI, Socialist party.

I really dislike and distrust them but the SWP doesnt oppose the Republican Socialist agenda. Infact they gave unconditional but critical support to the INLA/IRA...even if they werent exactly shouting the fact openly.

The CPI is basically cowardly on the issue of armed struggle but at least historically was not opposed to Republican Socialism.

Provisional Sinn Fein are in coalition with the fascist DUP and were involved in destroying arms much needed to give the "nationalist" working class some real secuirity. They are no longer Irish Republicans anymore than Fianna Fail or Fine Gael are.

The Socialist Party is Unionist.

[Red Rebel]

Blaming sectarianism for the failings of the movement isn't the correct answer. In Russia and Cuba there were plenty of revolutionary movements but in the end the Bolsheviks and M 26 7 won and the revolutionaries gravitated towards those groups or were destroyed.

As time go on and the revolution intensifies the best comrades, the most dedicated cadres and most class conscious individuals will move towards one party. Until power is taken over the deep and shallow splits in the movement are healthy.

[DancingLarry]

There's nothing at all wrong in a multiplicity of theories, ideologies, organizations. In the abstract that multiplicity provides strength in alternatives, cross-fertilization. Where that theoretical strength has not emerged, but practical weakness has is in the lack of a doctrine of Unity in Action. Let's face it, whatever theoretical and ideological differences we may have, we all support workers anywhere and everywhere struggling against exploitative capital, we all oppose the wars of imperialism, we all support an end to false divisions and discrimination on lines of race, gender, orientation, national origin/migrant status, etc., and these are the places where all our various theories and ideologies converge in real practical life, are they not? But too often, you have a dozen little groups each trying to take possession of an issue, a cause, a campaign, a constituency, each with their "front group", no one willing to put aside their highly bourgeois sense of ownership and patterns of competition to achieve the goals we all agree on.

My POV is that we don't need a new organization or party that tries to impose a unity of principles, but rather we need to be about the business of promoting the value of comradeship and solidarity in the sphere of Action. The fact is that in a small political niche (or a small niche in any sphere of life, really) each additional voice and shoulder to the wheel doesn't just add to the effort, it multiplies. We don't need to give up our own identities and ideologies to gain those synergies, we just all need to add the principle of Unity in Action to our existing values and principles, and we all will stand to benefit, as a class, as a movement, and each of our own little groups will benefit as a stronger more visible movement attracts those who naturally adhere to one or another of our more theoretical positions.

One more thing. I know it's easy to dismiss this place as "just a message board" but something happens here that simply never happened in the sectarian politics I came of age with back in the 70s. People of all different tendencies engage in a multi-sided, ongoing conversation, rather than locking ourselves behind sectarian ideological walls. That's progress right there, but there's more to it than that. The mainstream bourgeois political parties have discovered that political blogs and discussion sites in fact are a valuable addition to their toolkit of practical politics when they simply choose to use them that way. The same thing applies to us. We can learn to make use of the ubiquity of the web just as much as the bourgeoisie has.

[Poppytry]

There's the Socialist Party, the Communist Party USA, the Socialist Workers Party, the Party for Socialism and Liberation, the Socialist Youth-- you get the idea.

Do you think this fragmentation could be contributing to the lack of success the movement is facing?

I agree with you. Especially in the UK there are loads of leftist parties the only thing separating them are minor disagreements. As if they can actually afford to be so fussy, its pathetic. Mean whilst once again I'm using the example of the UK political climate the right stands firm in the form of the BNP.

Now as we face grim days and the center ground begins to crumble voters here are shifting to the right because there is no reasonable and strong alternative on the left.

[Martin Blank]

Sorry for not being on for awhile.

That's not a problem. We all have commitments.


Well let look back to the Communist Manifesto, which in the section "Proletarians and Communist", states,...

That's fine, but let's look at the whole of what Marx and Engels were writing (this is going to be long, so hang on to your hat):...


In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole?

The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.

They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.

They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.

The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.

The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.

The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.

The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer.

They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes. The abolition of existing property relations is not at all a distinctive feature of communism.

If we start from the assumption that Marx and Engels are giving a principled definition of what a communist party is in this section, then we already find where you are at variance with what they wrote.

For example, at three points in the above passage, Marx and Engels refer to "other working-class (or proletarian) parties", and defines them as having the same aims: "formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat". This goes to the first of the statements from what you originally quoted as your definition of a party: "The Party is the vanguard of the working class."

In fact, what Marx and Engels are defining here, in speaking of the "other working-class parties" is what they saw as being that "vanguard". And it is within that broader vanguard -- the most organized, forward-thinking and active sections of the working class -- that communists should exist as a distinct tendency. It was only later, with the rise (and fall) of the First International, and later of the mass social-democratic parties, that it was possible to speak of that "vanguard" having a singular organizational expression.

However, both Marx and Engels recognized that this was not a "natural state" of the "vanguard", so to speak, and that at times it would find itself divided into several organizations and movements. In those times, communists would be one of those tendencies, seeking unity of the class based on those principles and concepts that distinguish them from the "other working-class parties".

To that end, its role as "the highest form of class organization" -- or, as Marx and Engels put it, as "the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties" -- is relative to others, not a universal absolute. The same can be said of its position as "political leader". The communist party maintains these positions, not because it is entitled to them, but because it has earned them through its work in the class struggle, and through the confidence and trust it has ultimately gained within the working class itself.

(I'll continue with this below, after the next exchange.)


If you read what I posted above, you would see that Marx thought the importance of a vanguard party while Lenin formulated it.

The problem with your position begins with seeing the party as a substitute for the state -- or, more to the point, as the two being interchangeable. This was never contained in Marx's writings, nor in Lenin's (prior to the October Revolution in 1917, at least). Throughout his entire life, when Marx spoke or wrote about proletarian revolution, he spoke of the "proletariat as a whole" and of "the proletariat organized as the ruling class". He also understood that different parties represented not only different classes, but different strata and beliefs within classes. Hence the basis for what has since become known as the "vanguard party" concept.

And yet, Marx continued to speak of the "proletariat as a whole" when it came to the question of who constituted the revolutionary republic of the working class. He re-emphasized this point in reviewing the events that led to the rise of the Paris Commune in 1871 (after all, few "Marxists" actually participated in the Commune; it was dominated politically by Blanquists and Proudhonists).

In Lenin (at least, before October 1917), we too see a clear rejection of the conflating of party and state. Besides the fact that one of the central slogans of the Bolsheviks during most of the 1917 period was "All Power to the Soviets" (the soviets being later described as the "highest form of the united front"), even when he wrote of the Bolsheviks "assuming state power", it was never coupled with the belief that it would be the party substituting itself for the state. On the contrary, he wrote:


There is no apparatus? There is an apparatus — the Soviets and the democratic organisations.

After 1917, these positions were codified by the Communist International in various Congress resolutions, in spite of the fact that the reality of what the Bolsheviks carried out in the Soviet Republic was itself at variance (the suppression and forcible dissolution of the factory-shop committees, the basis of the 1917 soviets; the closing down of independent pro-soviet agencies and organizations; the liquidation of the soviets themselves into "Soviets" that had a bourgeois-democratic character; etc.).


That is where you're wrong. Marxism is a science as it has theorized class struggle, outlined the exploitative nature of Capitalism, and it's philosophies (Dialectic Materialism, Historical Materialism, etc.) are brilliant in understanding the world around us, not to mention other examples. If Science is the way of attaining knowledge, then I don't see how Marxism-Leninism can't be considered a science.

Throughout his life, Marx attempted to explain that what he developed was not a "science", but rather a scientific method for understanding the world. He and Engels made that clear from the beginning in the Manifesto:


The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer.

They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes. The abolition of existing property relations is not at all a distinctive feature of communism.

The point these two are trying to make here answers your question above: If Science is the way of attaining knowledge, then I don't see how Marxism-Leninism can't be considered a science?

The class struggle exists as a necessary and inevitable part of class society. It was neither invented nor discovered ... nor theorized. The class struggle is not a theory like Einstein's relativity any more than it is a theory that we as humans breathe. The same is true about capitalism's exploitative character. They are integral parts of capitalism as a mode of production; capitalism is not capitalism without them. To assume otherwise is to allow for a non-exploitative, class-peace variety of capitalism ... a capitalism that simply cannot exist, except in the minds of petty utopians and bourgeois socialists.

The science behind these elements within a mode of production is political economy. If there is a "science" that is central to the ideas and principles elaborated by Marx, this is it. And Marx himself repeatedly referred to this "science" by its right name, including in several works. Related to this is the science behind social relations -- sociology -- of which Marx is regarded as a pioneer.

What separates Marx from other political economists and sociologists is the method he utilized for understanding the dynamics and development of elements within these sciences.

Political economy and sociology demonstrate the exploitative character of capitalism, the development of the class struggle and social relations, and how they interrelate. What we as communists bring to these sciences is our method of materialist dialectics, which we use to understand not only how things have developed in the past (this is the subset referred to as "historical materialism"), but also how they are developing now ... and how they will develop into the future. By understanding how the contradictions within a particular thing give it motion, we can understand how it has moved and continues to move in society. And if you're good enough at it, you can extrapolate and anticipate future movement.


That's why Marxism is a science, not a religion. Look at Engels and Lenin. They weren't Marx but they used Marxist principles to make new discoveries on the status quo. Lenin even tried to applied it in age of Imperialism and it led to the first Socialist nation. You must realized that Scientific methods must follow a science.

You have just undermined your own argument. Yes, you're right when you say they applied similar or the same methods as Marx and were able to build on what he started. But to say that also implies that what Marx used was a method, which he applied to other a science that was external to him. This is why "Marxism" is a method, not a science, because it is something we use to build on existing understanding of real processes in society -- much as scientists use the classical "scientific method" to test and analyze their own hypotheses. Those scientists are not creating a "new science" with each experiment, but are building upon a proven methodology.


As Marxists, we must fight against the two evils of Dogmatism and Revisionism.

On this, we agree. Hence my arguing with you about seeing "Marxism" as a science. That is rendering it a dogma, in my opinion.


Revisionism is embedded in different forms. From Trotskyism to Maoism to Eurocommunism. Revisionists don't say "I'm not a believer in Marxism". But Revisionists are basically those who wish to distort Marxist principles. But as we're humans, we accuse each other of the same thing so its natural for it, but since it's a science, if a person doesn't follow the principles of Marxism and tries to distort it, then that person is a revisionist.

Here is the crux of the problem you have created by casting "Marxism" as a science: You end up creating absolutes out of developments. Let me give you an example.

In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels wrote:


In countries where modern civilization has become fully developed, a new class of petty bourgeois has been formed, positioning itself between proletariat and bourgeoisie, and ever renewing itself as a supplementary part of bourgeois society. The individual members of this class, however, are being constantly hurled down into the proletariat by the action of competition, and, as modern industry develops, they even see the moment approaching when they will completely disappear as an independent section of modern society, to be replaced in manufactures, agriculture and commerce, by overlookers, bailiffs and shopmen.

Those who would see "Marxism" as a science would be inclined to see this as a universal concept, without a beginning or ending. Indeed, throughout the history of the 20th century, it has been taken as such, and has been the basis for virtually every "proletarian party" accepting non-proletarians into its ranks.

However, the statement itself makes clear there is a beginning to the process ("In countries where modern civilization has become fully developed,...") and an ending to the process ("they even see the moment approaching when they will completely disappear as an independent section of modern society").

Now, if an analysis of the current system of class relations was to reveal that this process has passed a point of transformation of quantity into quality, what does it mean for this particular element of "Marxism"? If "Marxism" (by which we mean the theories of Marx) is a science, and not a scientific method, then such an analysis would be at variance with that "science", and thus considered a kind of "revisionism" -- this in spite of the fact that it matches material reality.

So, which comes first: The theory or the material reality?

This is why it is problematic to define "Marxism" as a science. You cannot build on what Marx analyzed if it finds itself at variance, lest you be considered "revisionist" -- even if the material conditions have fundamentally changed.

Lenin did understand this, which is why he was able to begin an analysis on the development of capitalism in the 20th century, leading to his theories on imperialism. Many of Lenin's conclusions on imperialism were at variance with elements of what Marx had written about the capitalist mode of production in his time, but they were consistent with the method that Marx used to analyze capitalist political economy ... and, more importantly, they were consistent with the material conditions of capitalism in his time.


Well thank you for this as I won't have to waste time on lessons.

Well, let the discussion continue, then.