Membership in a Leninist Party

[A.R.Amistad]

What do you consider the responsibilities and requirements of membership in a Leninist party? I know that its not quite true to say that a Leninist party is supposed to be made up entirely of professional revolutionaries, but it is supposed to have an all activist membership. In places where there are active chapters, definition of membership must be easy: those who do their part. But I'm an at-large member at my party. I know two other party members in the area and I'm good friends with them, but they have health problems that prevents them from being as active as they would like. I do do as much activism as I possibly can, but activism where I am at is quite spontaneous, and there doesn't seem to be a continuous movement to be active in as a member of the revolutionary vanguard. I also write for the paper and keep in contact with FI members worldwide, but only through phone, email, FB, Revleft, etc. I would put this in chit chat since I have been feeling like I may be a burden on the party because of my situation, but I do want to clear up just what is the Leninist definition of party membership. I personally would like to become a professional revolutionary, but right now I am young.

My main question is, what are the expectations and duties of an average rank and file member of a revolutionary vanguard party? And what if they are in a similiar situation as me? Am I and others like me dead weight? I am a fervent supporter of the vanguard party idea, but I just feel inadequete. Should I?

[red cat]

Wouldn't it be better to ask this question to comrades within your party ? Because requirements might differ from party to party irrespective of similarity in ideology.

[A.R.Amistad]

Wouldn't it be better to ask this question to comrades within your party ? Because requirements might differ from party to party irrespective of similarity in ideology.


I already know the requirements. I just want to know what level of "activity" is considered acceptable. I actually am pretty active, as active as I can be. I just want to be able to gauge it.

[Communist]

.
I would imagine that you're doing well, or they'd let you know. Being At-Large does have it's drawbacks but it seems you're making the most of it. :)

To Practice & Propaganda, from Theory.

Moved.
.

[A.R.Amistad]

Still, I mean, I wan't to know. What minimum amount of level can be expected from a rank and file member, just as a guage to least to most active?

[Q]

I think the question is asked from a wrong perspective. The question shouldn't be "What can the member do for the organisation? How active should he/she be to be considered one?", but rather "What can the organisation mean for our members? How can we train them to become active in the movement as leading figures? Or if they already are in such a position, what kind of added value does it have to be a member of the organisation?".

In the first instance you're merely interested in sectarian values ("How can we build our organisation? How can we recruit more members? How can we sell more papers?" etc.), in the latter instance you're on your way to try and organise the class ("How can we reach out to all activists in the movement, no matter where they are active? How can we raise the political awareness of our class? How can we organise the class as a class in its own right?" etc).

It is a distinctively different way of thinking and I don't blame you for thinking along sectarian lines, like so many here do. Sectarian strategies of building your splinter by trying to recruit the "ones and twos" ad infinitum until you're suddenly a mass party are very common among the far left, but are based on a misunderstanding of how societies work, in other words, a myth.

[Wanted Man]

This is definitely a good point.

Another thing I would like to ask the OP: why exactly do you feel this way about some things? Why do you want to be a "professional revolutionary" (are they feasible or necessary?)? Who would consider you "dead weight" for not being able to be as active as others? Why do you think that your organisation is the "revolutionary vanguard"?

Etc.

[A.R.Amistad]

I think the question is asked from a wrong perspective. The question shouldn't be "What can the member do for the organisation? How active should he/she be to be considered one?", but rather "What can the organisation mean for our members? How can we train them to become active in the movement as leading figures? Or if they already are in such a position, what kind of added value does it have to be a member of the organisation?".

In the first instance you're merely interested in sectarian values ("How can we build our organisation? How can we recruit more members? How can we sell more papers?" etc.), in the latter instance you're on your way to try and organise the class ("How can we reach out to all activists in the movement, no matter where they are active? How can we raise the political awareness of our class? How can we organise the class as a class in its own right?" etc).

It is a distinctively different way of thinking and I don't blame you for thinking along sectarian lines, like so many here do. Sectarian strategies of building your splinter by trying to recruit the "ones and twos" ad infinitum until you're suddenly a mass party are very common among the far left, but are based on a misunderstanding of how societies work, in other words, a myth.


I'm not in disagreement here necesarily, although I'm confused on what you are saying. Are we supposed to just join mass parties or what? Either way, no one has answered my question.


Another thing I would like to ask the OP: why exactly do you feel this way about some things? Why do you want to be a "professional revolutionary" (are they feasible or necessary?)? Who would consider you "dead weight" for not being able to be as active as others? Why do you think that your organisation is the "revolutionary vanguard"?


Looking back at every successful revolution, professional revolutionaries seem to have been vital, so yes, I believe people who are fully dedicated to the cause are necessary. I'm not going to get into a sectarian party war, I'm speaking hypothetically about any revolutionary vanguard, whatever that is.

Still, no one has answered my questions.

[Q]

I'm not in disagreement here necesarily, although I'm confused on what you are saying. Are we supposed to just join mass parties or what?
Not at all. Another misconception, flowing from the sectarian mode of thinking by the way, is that all revolutionaries have to be active in this or that organisation, be independent or whatever. Like soldiers in some imaginary army fighting in some imaginary front.

Reality however is that the working class is active in many places, be they unions, "bourgeois workers parties", new left parties, student movements, independently, in small groups, etc. We should strive to reach out to all these activists. Not by dictating them to move where the leadership of some revolutionary organisation wants them to move, but in contrast to aid them in their struggle for socialist politics in the place where they are active already.


Still, no one has answered my questions.
Perhaps you're asking the wrong question?

Offtopic: Posts: 4,444
Huzzah!

[Communist]

.
Lenin made the revolutionary vanguard (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/index.htm) concept pretty clear. It's required of members of all Leninist parties (afaik) to dedicate themselves to building the mass revolutionary party with the goal of leading proletarian revolution. As far as how active an At-Large member should be in a Leninist organization, it depends on what your circumstances are, how much time, energy, funds and abilities you have, and probably which party you're with. I don't know much at all about Socialist Action so I cannot say what they expect; I can only really know about the party I belong to. Seriously, after reading Lenin, you need to discuss these matters with members and leaders of your party.
.

[Devrim]

In places where there are active chapters, definition of membership must be easy: those who do their part. But I'm an at-large member at my party.
...I would put this in chit chat since I have been feeling like I may be a burden on the party because of my situation,

Without commenting on any of the other issues here such as the one about being a professional revolutionary. I would just like to make a point on this one.

I am sure that nobody in your organisation feels like you are a burden. It is true sometimes you get a few people joining from somewhere at one time, but often, particularly if you are a small organisation, you get one new person in a place where you have nobody. From one person, you can do a lot more in an area than with nobody.

We have recently had someone who wrote to us from out of the blue from a city where we have no members in Turkey, and want to join. We don't at all see it as a possible 'burden', but as an opportunity to develop our activity.

Devrim

[flobdob]

Just be as active as you can. If you're being too inactive I'm sure your org will call you out on it (i.e. never attending meetings, not helping out at demos/paper sales etc, not defending your positions), but as it stands I'm sure they'll be happy enough with your contribution. It all depends on circumstances, and I don't doubt that you'll know when the time to be very very active is, and when the times when it's a bit less hectic are.

[A.R.Amistad]

Q

Reality however is that the working class is active in many places, be they unions, "bourgeois workers parties", new left parties, student movements, independently, in small groups, etc. We should strive to reach out to all these activists. Not by dictating them to move where the leadership of some revolutionary organisation wants them to move, but in contrast to aid them in their struggle for socialist politics in the place where they are active already.


So yes, you are promoting entryism. I think entryism is ok for some situations, but too many people raise it to a level of principle. I agree, the vanguards primary goals are to reach out to things like labor unions, progressive movements, progressive mass organizations, etc. etc. As for joining bourgeois socialist parties, thats a last resort. Its especially a last resort to join a "New" Left party. I'll work with them happily and willingly, and I'll discuss with them friendly and comradely, but I won't join their party, sorry. Call me sectarian, but I'm trying to build a party and a revolution.

[Q]

Q


So yes, you are promoting entryism.
I understand why you want to phrase concepts in known terms, but I'm talking about something distinctively different from entryism.

Entryism is a tactic to try and build your independent organisation through a broader organisation (typically a (semi-)mass party), this organisation then can split away from the bigger party at any given opportunity. Entryism also presupposes a focus of the revolutionary organisation's membership to be active inside the broader organisation.

What I'm talking about is having a revolutionary organisation that reaches out to all activists, wherever they may be active (so not just mainly in one organisation). To aid them in their struggle to fight for socialist politics and try and build leadership positions on a clear Marxist outlook.

An example to make my point more clear: It is distinctively a different approach to send in revolutionaries inside a broader organisation to try and recruit activists for your organisation (entryism) and to be a revolutionary organisation who gets interest from a leading member inside Labour (for example) who joins them and gets aided in his work inside that party by the revolutionary organisation.


I agree, the vanguards primary goals are to reach out to things like labor unions, progressive movements, progressive mass organizations, etc. etc. As for joining bourgeois socialist parties, thats a last resort. Its especially a last resort to join a "New" Left party. I'll work with them happily and willingly, and I'll discuss with them friendly and comradely, but I won't join their party, sorry. Call me sectarian, but I'm trying to build a party and a revolution.
It is of course your good right to spend your time as you see fit, and exactly this insight has lead me to my conclusions on this matter. You may think it is best to be active independently, other activists disagree and will be active in Labour, yet other ones are mainly trade unionists and a third group is in a new left party, like Die Linke. My point is to try and organise all these activists.

To explicitly clarify: It is not my point to say "we should join all kinds of organisations" as you seem to think, my point is to attract activists of all kinds of organisations under a revolutionary banner.

[which doctor]

I wouldn't worry too much about it. The level of activity you assume should be dependent on how much free time you have. If you are really busy, of course you can't be expected to take on too much activity, and as a member-at-large the range of activities you can participate in is limited. We don't live in anything near the revolutionary times Lenin did when he wrote WITBD?, so the extent one can (or even should) be a 'professional revolutionary' is limited. But don't feel yourself to be a burden, because you are actually a great asset. Socialist parties really struggle with recruitment, and I'm sure your organization is nothing less than thrilled to have some ambitious student out-of-the-blue want to become a member and start a new chapter.

[A.R.Amistad]

But Lenin refuted the idea that all the party members had to be professional revolutionaries in times of relative political freedom, correct? This seems to be what Hal Draper says about WITBD, and I think a revolutionary vanguard can exist in such a situation with the core being PR, not the entire membership. I think Lenin outlined this argument after 1905 when the Duma was established and the Bolsheviks could recruit members a little more freely.

[Q]

WITBD? should only be read really for historical purposes. It has zero value for todays revolutionaries, at least in any direct sense. In fact it has confused vast layers of revolutionaries due to mistranslations. Hal Draper tackles some of these issues, but if you want to study it in detail I recommend Lars Lih's Lenin rediscovered: "What is to be done?" in context, which is available online at Google Books.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I think the question is asked from a wrong perspective. The question shouldn't be "What can the member do for the organisation? How active should he/she be to be considered one?", but rather "What can the organisation mean for our members? How can we train them to become active in the movement as leading figures? Or if they already are in such a position, what kind of added value does it have to be a member of the organisation?"

Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country can do for you! [I just had to parody JFK's quote :D]

[A.R.Amistad]

WITBD? should only be read really for historical purposes. It has zero value for todays revolutionaries, at least in any direct sense. In fact it has confused vast layers of revolutionaries due to mistranslations. Hal Draper tackles some of these issues, but if you want to study it in detail I recommend Lars Lih's Lenin rediscovered: "What is to be done?" in context, which is available online at Google Books.


I agree. WITBD is outdated, even Lenin admitted that after the 1905 revolution. There re a lot of lessons to be learned, and there is a skeletal definition of a vanguard party in it. I wouldn't completely disregard WITBD, but it needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Read Lenin's later works on party organization after WITBD for a complete idea of revolutionary party under conditions of relative political freedom.

[BOZG]

Before I start, I'm going to point out that those who disagree with the revolutionary party idea as a whole aren't going to agree with me and I'm not particularly interested in a discussion with them on the matter. My points are directed towards those who actually agree with the concept of a revolutionary party.


I wouldn't worry too much about it. The level of activity you assume should be dependent on how much free time you have. If you are really busy, of course you can't be expected to take on too much activity, and as a member-at-large the range of activities you can participate in is limited.

Actually, I disagree with your first two sentences and I think it sums up a common misconception that some people have about the revolutionary party.

To really accept the necessity of the revolutionary party means actually grasping what the concrete tasks of a revolutionary party are - effectively becoming the leadership of a socialist revolution. That is not a small task, it is potentially one of the greatest tasks that mankind faces. But in order to that, it needs committed revolutionaries, it needs a cadre and cadres by their very nature must be self-sacrificial. Your level of activity shouldn't depend on how much free time you have, your level of activity should involve making sacrifices.

Now what a sacrifice is, is subjective. For some, giving up two evenings of their week is a sacrifice depending on their circumstances. For others, a sacrifice might mean giving up 2 or 3 days of their week. Being a member of a revolutionary party isn't and shouldn't be considered as a side-job or something you can offer your free time to. James Cannon made a point during the split in the SWP in 1940 that James Burnham (one of the leaders of the split) saw the revolutionary party as an avocation rather than a vocation. And that's how a revolutionary party should be seen - as a vocation and all that a vocation requires.

That doesn't mean that those who aren't in a position or who are unwilling to make sacrifice should be thrown to the wolves. I'm certainly not going to complain about having half-active members if the alternative means having no members and I don't see anyone as a burden. I'd say that even semi-active members see what they contribute as a sacrifice but if you see yourself as a cadre, as a revolutionary and really grasp the historic task that confronts us, it means making sacrifices beyond what is comfortable for you, not just offering a bit of your free time when you can.

Now obviously A.R. Amistad's question is a bit different considering they're a member-at-large and despite being willing and wanting to do things, they're restricted by the fact that there isn't much to devote their time to. I would take Devrim's points on board on this one and maybe it's worth contacting your "centre", "office" or whatever you call it and discussing whether there's something you can do that might assist in bringing in new members or even if it would be possible for them to offer you assistance.

On a side note, I'd recommend anyone who agrees with the concept of the revolutionary party to read Cannon's "The Struggle for a Proletarian Party", even those that aren't Trotskyists. I think it perfectly sums up what it means to be a member of a revolutionary party.