The Party

[StoneFrog]

I was wondering for those here, how do you see the party form of organization? At foremost what is the party in your eyes, what needs does it fill, and how do you see it in modern socialist movements?

I have been doubting the party mode of organization for awhile, but i would like to see how others see the party as a form of organization and development of socialist ideas.

[thefinalmarch]

Because I don't want to quote a quote quoting a quote quoting a quote quoting yet another quote, I'll just link you to a post explaining my view of the party and the vanguard: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2190676&postcount=5

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2219376&postcount=12

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ As a pro-party counter:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1217

[NeoSigurd]

I was wondering for those here, how do you see the party form of organization? At foremost what is the party in your eyes, what needs does it fill, and how do you see it in modern socialist movements?

I have been doubting the party mode of organization for awhile, but i would like to see how others see the party as a form of organization and development of socialist ideas.

I see the party as the beginning. A peaceful political movement to start the ball rolling. And if we can in fact get things done that way, then so be it. However we won't be that lucky and the part itself will mostly serve as the last straw to our capitalist oppressors they will see the writing on the wall and react, violently, at which point we will have to protect ourselves.

[Book O'Dead]

Personally, I favor the Deleonist view of the party. That is, that the party's role must be "suicidal" at the service of the socialist industrial union, whose principal objective must be to take over the political state and dismantle it while the revolutionary industrial union takes, holds and operates the industries and organizes itself as the new government based at the workplace.

[Desperado]

Personally, I favor the Deleonist view of the party. That is, that the party's role must be "suicidal" at the service of the socialist industrial union, whose principal objective must be to take over the political state and dismantle it while the revolutionary industrial union takes, holds and operates the industries and organizes itself as the new government based at the workplace.

Does the dismantling occur immediately (once the party has grasped the power of the state)? Does it finish doing so equally quickly?

[Chris]

I see the party as an organising force beyond that of a trade union or interest organisation, as an arena for education and the furthering of actions to advance class conscioussness among the rest of the working class and it's allies.

[StoneFrog]

So, beyond the concept of the party, how do you see parties in our time now?

[StarCityPartisan]

I live in America... the state of our "revolutionary" parties is abysmal.

[black magick hustla]

i see the true party as emerging organically from all tendencies within the class struggle as a form of coalescing theory and clarification in periods of social rupture. the Party is not a party in the sense a lot of leftists understand it, i.e. an organization decreed by a few ideologues with the term of inflating it. there is the party in the broad historical sense and the party in the formal form. i believe it is meaningful to talk about the party in historical sense today as those elements that more or less, due to objective conditions and the putrefaction of all socio economic relationships, have been inertially thrown against capital and the state, and unconsciously or consciously, objectivity has made them pull their daggers out, so to speak. but there is also the "formal" party, which does not exist yet which is the formalization of those inertial impulses into a clear program, and the manifestation a clear declaration of war till death against capital, and for the creation of a world human community. The Party in this sense is different from the classical talk of the party as decreed by a few ideologues in non-revolutionary periods. It is the logical culmination of the accumulation of skirmishes done by all the commandos of the class.

[StarCityPartisan]

i see the true party as emerging organically from all tendencies within the class struggle as a form of coalescing theory and clarification in periods of social rupture. the Party is not a party in the sense a lot of leftists understand it, i.e. an organization decreed by a few ideologues with the term of inflating it. there is the party in the broad historical sense and the party in the formal form. i believe it is meaningful to talk about the party in historical sense today as those elements that more or less, due to objective conditions and the putrefaction of all socio economic relationships, have been inertially thrown against capital and the state, and unconsciously or consciously, objectivity has made them pull their daggers out, so to speak. but there is also the "formal" party, which does not exist yet which is the formalization of those inertial impulses into a clear program, and the manifestation a clear declaration of war till death against capital, and for the creation of a world human community. The Party in this sense is different from the classical talk of the party as decreed by a few ideologues in non-revolutionary periods. It is the logical culmination of the accumulation of skirmishes done by all the commandos of the class.

Pretty much my thoughts, but it is near impossible convincing majority of the left that this is the case. Everyone feels the need to adhere to a party line, of a tendency or party that does not naturally arise from the collective working class consciousness due to the historical factors in a given time.

[The Idler]

The party is a tool for the working-class to use to hasten the end of capitalism. Not the other way round.

[blake 3:17]

The party is a tool for the working-class to use to hasten the end of capitalism. Not the other way round.

Which parties do you see doing that?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The party, if it is well-educated, well-involved, well-organised and devoid of bourgeois opportunism that has characterised previous 'parties', is certainly superior to unions as a tool for enhancing the revolutionary consciousness of the working class.

However, the party mode of organisation, due to its well historical-documented tendency to turn from 'leader' to 'ruler' (quite a subtle shift if you think about it) via bureaucratic and under-hand, intellectually and democratically dis-honest means, is not one that should be used at the head of the movement; in other words, the party should not be the 'vanguard' of the revolution. That must only be the domain of the actual, self-organised working class, spontaneously arising as a conscious force in the midst of revolutionary struggle.

The party taking its place in the middle, rather than at the vanguard, of the revolutionary mass, also makes it far easier to distance the party from the state, the state from the working class, makes it easier for the working class to thus dismantle the state and ultimately provides a workable platform for the famous 'withering away' towards communism, as opposed to the Leninist conception of the vanguard party, which actually makes no qualitative framework for the destruction of the state, merely paying lip service to it.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The party, if it is well-educated, well-involved, well-organised and devoid of bourgeois opportunism that has characterised previous 'parties', is certainly superior to unions... is not one that should be used at the head of the movement... must only be the domain of the actual, self-organised working class, spontaneously arising...

The pre-war SPD and inter-war USPD were the German working class for itself, though. Real parties are not merely at the "head of the movement"; they are the actual movement, the actual, self-organized working class (though not "spontaneously arising").


However, the party mode of organisation, due to its well historical-documented tendency to turn from 'leader' to 'ruler' (quite a subtle shift if you think about it)

It is subtle, but it is derived from Marx's dictum on the relationship between organizing as a class and organizing as a political party (http://www.revleft.com/vb/workers-power-rule-t160796/index.html).


The party taking its place in the middle, rather than at the vanguard, of the revolutionary mass, also makes it far easier to distance the party from the state, the state from the working class, makes it easier for the working class to thus dismantle the state and ultimately provides a workable platform for the famous 'withering away' towards communism, as opposed to the Leninist conception of the vanguard party, which actually makes no qualitative framework for the destruction of the state, merely paying lip service to it.

First off, a party-movement isn't "the vanguard of the revolutionary mass"; it is the "revolutionary mass" itself. However, such body is itself at the vanguard of the rest of the class.

Second, there are ways to distance the genuine political party from the state or societal polity while accommodating some necessary form of "ruling" role, as I explained.

[FuzzypegX]

...as opposed to the Leninist conception of the vanguard party, which actually makes no qualitative framework for the destruction of the state, merely paying lip service to it.

What would constitute a "qualitative framework for the destruction of the state"? Clearly you consider this to be a practical question so what would be a practical solution? Also, isn't the notion of "destroying" the state fundamentally un-Marxian? Engels used the phrase "wither away" for a specific reason.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

What would constitute a "qualitative framework for the destruction of the state"? Clearly you consider this to be a practical question so what would be a practical solution? Also, isn't the notion of "destroying" the state fundamentally un-Marxian? Engels used the phrase "wither away" for a specific reason.

Engels used the phrase 'wither away', because neither he nor Marx had any practical formulation for ending the existence of the state. The state won't simply wither away on a whim or a hope, and that is a massive hole in Marx and Engels' theories on the communist end-point.

The state needs to be destroyed, not strengthened in the immediate period of class warfare. It has become apparent from historical Socialist regimes (And from studying the nature of the state under all sorts of governments and political & economic systems) that the state cannot be used by a large number of people. That is, it is inevitable that state power (in terms of its repressive security apparatus, and in the case of nationalisation the tools of economic power) can be exercised by a limited number of people, whose interests then become divergent from the working class, even if (as we saw in the 20th century), those who exercise power claim to represent the working class, or even involve the working class in government!

Thus, in the immediate aftermath of the expropriation of the bourgeoisie from economic power (out of the factories, out of the boardrooms and the offices) and political power (out of bourgeois national parliaments, executive offices and judicial office), the working class must refrain from taking hold of the instruments of the pre-existing state, but set up alternative, localised (anti-national, anti-'state') economic councils, political councils, workers' militias (only recently have I become convinced on this last point) and other tools of direct, local democracy. The state will then become redundant, in its political and economic form. The last task will be to fight the remaining repressive apparatus of the state; that is, the police, military etc. I have become convinced, through the study of popular revolutions past and present, that in a genuinely revolutionary period, the military take the side of the most revolutionary, offensive class (that would be, the working class). Especially in the 'liberal democracies' of the west, where the armies are not treated as 'part of the regime' and treated well as such (as they are in dictatorships which rely on state military/police power to survive), it is highly likely that the proletarian members of the military, in a genuine moment of the highest revolutionary consciousness, will join the side of their class, since that is the most logical conclusion in class warfare: that they will take the side of their class above their nationality or previous endowment to their country.

I hope i've not been too vague, here.:confused:

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The pre-war SPD and inter-war USPD were the German working class for itself, though. Real parties are not merely at the "head of the movement"; they are the actual movement, the actual, self-organized working class (though not "spontaneously arising").

First off, a party-movement isn't "the vanguard of the revolutionary mass"; it is the "revolutionary mass" itself. However, such body is itself at the vanguard of the rest of the class.

Second, there are ways to distance the genuine political party from the state or societal polity while accommodating some necessary form of "ruling" role, as I explained.

1. I don't really care what the SPD did.

2. I wasn't talking about party-movements.

3. No, there are not. Parties fight elections, in the long run. Elections to participate in/be the government, which is tied to the state. When the state is destroyed, the bureaucratic/administrative tasks and political/economic tasks can be carried out at a mainly local level, directly by the working class themselves. There is a correlation between the existence of parties and the states. Indeed, one could go further to explore a causal relationship: the state can only exist using the legitimacy of election-fighting parties (since the former is a naturally repressive object), and the parties need the state, as fighting elections has, hitherto, been the main role of the political party. What i'm arguing for is a medium-term party whose role is not to fight elections nor assume power for itself on behalf of a people/class/whatever, but to exist as a 'group' or several 'groups' that can educate and agitate within a movement, not at its head nor as its whole.

[Homo Songun]

Thanks for the thoughtful post.


The last task will be to fight the remaining repressive apparatus of the state; that is, the police, military etc. I have become convinced, through the study of popular revolutions past and present, that in a genuinely revolutionary period, the military take the side of the most revolutionary, offensive class (that would be, the working class).

If we agree with the generic sociological definition of the state as an armed body that has a monopoly on legitimate violence, and we agree with the Marxist principle that all class societies are dictatorships of one class or another, then we must agree that it is vanishingly unlikely that the "last task" of the class will be a reckoning with the "repressive apparatus of the state." I mean, if its *is* a dictatorship, then how the hell can it be that we won't encounter the exercise of that dictatorship until *after* we expropriate the means by which said dictatorship is exercised? This is one reason why a Leninist vanguard is essential.


Especially in the 'liberal democracies' of the west, where the armies are not treated as 'part of the regime' and treated well as such (as they are in dictatorships which rely on state military/police power to survive),
Frankly, this distinction you make between 'liberal democracies' and the rest of the bourgeois dictatorships is a totally false dichotomy. Forms differ, but essences do not, and this is proven by history.

[ericksolvi]

From what I see of the remaining American Communist Party, and I don't know of any other party to which you may be referring, it exists as an umbrella for the organization on protesters, and the dissemination of ideas. It's weak and ineffectual, probably because many of it's members have such an ingrained loathing for authority, that would tend to be an impediment when trying to organise people into a united front. A move toward center, and an abandonment of certain Anarchist ideals, might give the party a better chance of having a significant political impact.
I'm opposed to political parties in general as they exist now, at least in the US. The Democratic and Republican parties exist to get candidates elected. They pervert the idea of democracy, giving you a choice between two undemocratically chosen candidates. Ideally a system could be created that could run without parties. But I think I'll start my own thread were I detail how I think that could work.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

1. The state is a neutral arbiter of power; it contains elements of the definition you use, but it is not only an armed body but a bureaucratic one as well. However, it should be noted (in opposition to your view of the tasks of the class in their relationship to the state), that the state is not the ONLY arbiter of power, if we are talking about ANY class society.
The Dictatorship of the Proletariat (as opposed to the Dictatorship of the Party that we have historically seen) will be best carried out without the machinations of formal state power. Rather, the DotP will be best carried out by economic and political councils (a form of more direct democracy, with full working class involvement), and supplemented by workers' militias (incorporating deserting army elements, a likely possibility as I explained in my previous post).
Historical situations such as the Russian Revolution were unique in that they had to carry through a bourgeois revolution first, and thus the original Provisional Government took centre stage as a genuine beacon of new democracy (post-feudal times). It was thus not in the interests of the Socialists to completely dissolve the new bourgeois state that had formed, hence the absolution of the workers' Soviets post-revolution.

2. I make a distinction not as a pro-western point, but because there is a distinction between the loyalty that the army will have. The Arab-world Revolutions show that many armies belonging to the absolute dictators are particularly loyal, because they are well taken care of. The armies of the west, however, have been subjugated to the imperial demands of their masters for so long, and are paid poorly, equipped poorly and sent as lambs to the slaughter (as opposed to the absolute dictators who often use the army to crush domestic opposition, rather than for imperial means). Thus, it is likely that, in a genuinely revolutionary moment (As opposed to a coup d'etat, I cannot stress enough!) we could count on many proletarians within the armies of the west changing sides, rather than firing on their own people.

[FuzzypegX]

Engels used the phrase 'wither away', because neither he nor Marx had any practical formulation for ending the existence of the state. The state won't simply wither away on a whim or a hope, and that is a massive hole in Marx and Engels' theories on the communist end-point.

The state needs to be destroyed, not strengthened in the immediate period of class warfare. It has become apparent from historical Socialist regimes (And from studying the nature of the state under all sorts of governments and political & economic systems) that the state cannot be used by a large number of people. That is, it is inevitable that state power (in terms of its repressive security apparatus, and in the case of nationalisation the tools of economic power) can be exercised by a limited number of people, whose interests then become divergent from the working class, even if (as we saw in the 20th century), those who exercise power claim to represent the working class, or even involve the working class in government!

Thus, in the immediate aftermath of the expropriation of the bourgeoisie from economic power (out of the factories, out of the boardrooms and the offices) and political power (out of bourgeois national parliaments, executive offices and judicial office), the working class must refrain from taking hold of the instruments of the pre-existing state, but set up alternative, localised (anti-national, anti-'state') economic councils, political councils, workers' militias (only recently have I become convinced on this last point) and other tools of direct, local democracy. The state will then become redundant, in its political and economic form. The last task will be to fight the remaining repressive apparatus of the state; that is, the police, military etc. I have become convinced, through the study of popular revolutions past and present, that in a genuinely revolutionary period, the military take the side of the most revolutionary, offensive class (that would be, the working class). Especially in the 'liberal democracies' of the west, where the armies are not treated as 'part of the regime' and treated well as such (as they are in dictatorships which rely on state military/police power to survive), it is highly likely that the proletarian members of the military, in a genuine moment of the highest revolutionary consciousness, will join the side of their class, since that is the most logical conclusion in class warfare: that they will take the side of their class above their nationality or previous endowment to their country.

I hope i've not been too vague, here.:confused:

Thanks for a thought-out response.

I think in essence you disagree with Marx, Engels and Lenin on the subject of the state - although your definition and discussion of the state is clearly bounded by the framework established by Lenin in his "State & Revolution". Those aren't criticisms, merely observations.

Your position seems to be one which favours decentralisation and autonomous action. I used to be of a similar conviction myself, but I am convinced that the practical necessities of the revolutionary period make such an arrangement impossible. Of these practical necessities, two are crucial:

A.) Defence. In the period of revolution, the forces of imperialism will remain well armed and well organised, as will, to a lesser extent, the forces of reaction within the countries experiencing revolution. Historically, decentralised and autonomous communities have fared extremely badly in military encounters with well-organised and disciplined opponents (e.g. the Spanish Civil War). You already present a potential counter-argument to this, that the military will come over to the side of ascendant class and this is, in many instances, a possibility but far from a certainty - and creates a framework for revolution which is entirely dependant on winning over one narrow section of the population (the military), it is, in essence, a coup d'etat albeit a highly unusual one.

Equally, this argument fails to take into account the RMA (Revolutionary in Military Affairs) which has been one of the most important transformations in modern bourgeois military tactics and technology. With the RMA, bourgeois military actions are focused on manpower-light, technology-intensive, low-trauma (for the imperialist combatants only) approaches, which are specifically aimed at a-symmetric threats emanating from guerilla-style insurgency groups that are embedded in civilian populations.

The "drone-attack" is the best example of this new approach. The drone is a precision weapon that requires very little expertise to operate and, crucially, can (and is) operated from domestic soil, even for overseas operations. In part it has been developed in recognition of the problems of previous supposedly "strategic" operations (e.g. precision bombing etc.) which have a high collateral damage rate. The current generation of drones, such as have been used to deadly effect in Pakistan, are really only the tip of the ice-berg and, in particular, the new assassination drones (which can target individuals, even in their homes) currently in R&D will fundamentally change the face of modern warfare.

These new technologies do not require large standing armies, they merely require a staff of ideologically-driven individuals, most of whom will never need to see real combat ("it's like a video game" is the familiar refrain of many drone-operators).

B.) Economic Organisation. The problem of how a decentralised and autonomous society can operate a planned economy is not one that, in my opinion, have received a satisfactory answer. Of the economists that have approached this topic, only one (of which I am aware) has reached the point of actually presenting a full model: Michael Albert's participatory economics. This is really not the time or place to go into a fully critique of "Parecon", but in my opinion it is a model which is largely utopian and has a large number of insurmountable practical difficulties. You talk about localised economic councils but the problem is that in the modern world local self-sufficiency has become an impossibility and therefore these councils will require a high-level of interdependence and interconnection - at least for a relatively long-period after the revolution, until such time as local self-sufficiency can be reestablished, which is a large part of why many Marxist-Leninists foresee the necessity of maintaing a state power, as both a coercive but equally an organisational tool.

The idea that the bottom-up approach to economic planning has any fewer difficulties and contradictions than the top-down approach is, frankly, erroneous.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

You are basing the issue of defence on historical precedent, which is the logical thing to do, but is actually mis-guided in this context. I assume that you will be thinking of the Russian Revolution and the civil war that preceded it. What is clear from the 20th century Socialisms is that, whilst certainly they comprised a revolutionary process, they were far from the revolutionary 'moment' that I am thinking of. The Bolsheviks commanded power at the head of the revolutionary movement, largely on behalf of the working class (who, through the power of revolution and the workers' soviets had, over a period of 15-20 years, fought a valiant class struggle against the Tsarist regime). Thus, it was then difficult for the Bolsheviks to call on the active involvement of already-organised workers' militias to defend the revolution. In short, though Trotsky commandeered the Red Army strictly and centrally, the civil war was still a bitter one, even though (in theory) the overwhelming majority of the Russian population should have (owing to the poverty-stricken nature of much of the Russian population) been defending the side of revolution, not white army reaction.

What I am saying is, is that it is not good enough (and this relates back to my opposition to Vanguardism) to use the historical problems of 'counter-revolution' to justify vanguardism and all that is associated with it. Defenders of vanguardism often say that a strong leading organisation is necessary to defend against counter-revolution; what i'm saying is that the very existence of a vanguard at the head of the movement actually weakens the revolution's defence against reactionary forces. A communist society, classless, stateless and peaceful, cannot be borne out of intense warfare, state power and attrition.

The only way a revolution can survive is through being able to call upon the active support of an overwhelming mass of the population: the working class in [as close to as possible] its entirety.

On the question of Economic Organisation i'm probably not the person to speak to. I'm far better versed in History and Politics than I am in Economics, despite the latter being (half of) my degree major!
All I would say on the question of economic organisation is that:

1) there will not be one mode of organisation across the world (in the event of world revolution). Different systems will suit different countries due to contradictions of geography, climate, development, natural resources and culture.

2) The economic organisation of a country will be intrinsically linked to its political organisation. As an advocate of bottom-up council-delegation systems of politics, where executive power is vested at the district, local and regional levels and mere administrative and oversight power invested at the national level, I am of the opinion (unfortunately, it is just opining and not sound theory!) that the economy of the country will be run along similar lines, notwithstanding issues of importing/exporting/currency etc. But I suspect we will have a fundamental disagreement on this issue!

[Q]

^^^ As a pro-party counter:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1217

And an extension on that subject regarding vanguardism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=6435).

[S.Artesian]

What is ironic here, and what we need to keep in mind, is that if there were an ongoing working class movement, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

What is ironic here, and what we need to keep in mind, is that if there were an ongoing working class movement, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

We would, we just would look back on it later and see one side of the debate as silly/wrong.;)

I mean, look at Russia in 1903, let us say. Nobody could have anticipated 1917 then, but you look at the political and economic struggles/labour disputes at the turn of the 20th century in Russia and they were absolutely pivotal in building a class consciousness and a spirit amongst the Russian working class.

[ericksolvi]

I agree with you that if a revolution started the American military would probably have mass defection, but only when the revolution reaches a point were it appears to have a good chance of winning on it's own.

[The Idler]

Which parties do you see doing that?
Well there's no point starting a flamewar by naming names, so use your imagination. But most parties (whether consciously or not if you're feeling generous) seek to use the working-class for partyist ends and ride the movement with promises that the party will bring socialism/the revolution to workers. Its completely the wrong way round.

Also, I've heard Engels "wither away" can also be translated as "die off" which suggests in English something altogether more immediate.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Parties fight elections, in the long run.

You have only the modern and crude "understanding" of the term "political party."

[FuzzypegX]

Also, I've heard Engels "wither away" can also be translated as "die off" which suggests in English something altogether more immediate.

I think the whole debate about "how quickly did Engels think the state would disappear" is pointless:

"State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies down of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not 'abolished'. It withers away [dies off]. This gives the measure of the value of the phrase 'a free people's state', both as to its justifiable use for a long time from an agitational point of view, and as to its ultimate scientific insufficiency; and also of the so-called anarchists' demand that the state be abolished overnight."

Engels' point is that the state cannot be merely abolished and has to resolve itself as it becomes unnecessary. There's no way to infer from anything he says the notion that it should be 'faster' or 'slower' than some arbitrary measure of time. Practical necessity based on distinct material circumstances determine how quickly the state withers away/dies off. I'd also like to point out:

"As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection, as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon the present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from this struggle, are removed, nothing more remains to be held in subjection — nothing necessitating a special coercive force, a state. The first act by which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — is also its last independent act as a state."

Engels clearly states that both the class struggle and private ownership of the means of production will have to be abolished by the workers state before it can begin to wither away. History clearly shows that neither of these can be achieved in a short period of time.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


You are basing the issue of defence on historical precedent, which is the logical thing to do, but is actually mis-guided in this context. I assume that you will be thinking of the Russian Revolution and the civil war that preceded it. What is clear from the 20th century Socialisms is that, whilst certainly they comprised a revolutionary process, they were far from the revolutionary 'moment' that I am thinking of. The Bolsheviks commanded power at the head of the revolutionary movement, largely on behalf of the working class (who, through the power of revolution and the workers' soviets had, over a period of 15-20 years, fought a valiant class struggle against the Tsarist regime). Thus, it was then difficult for the Bolsheviks to call on the active involvement of already-organised workers' militias to defend the revolution. In short, though Trotsky commandeered the Red Army strictly and centrally, the civil war was still a bitter one, even though (in theory) the overwhelming majority of the Russian population should have (owing to the poverty-stricken nature of much of the Russian population) been defending the side of revolution, not white army reaction.

What I am saying is, is that it is not good enough (and this relates back to my opposition to Vanguardism) to use the historical problems of 'counter-revolution' to justify vanguardism and all that is associated with it. Defenders of vanguardism often say that a strong leading organisation is necessary to defend against counter-revolution; what i'm saying is that the very existence of a vanguard at the head of the movement actually weakens the revolution's defence against reactionary forces. A communist society, classless, stateless and peaceful, cannot be borne out of intense warfare, state power and attrition.

The only way a revolution can survive is through being able to call upon the active support of an overwhelming mass of the population: the working class in [as close to as possible] its entirety.

Opponents of the Bolsheviks are forever talking about them "leading on behalf of" the working class and giving the impression that it was just the Bolshevik party that stormed the Winter Palace - how would this be possible? The Bolsheviks enjoyed the broad support of the working class and sizeable sections of the peasantry. Furthermore, they operated an active recruitment policy which positively-discriminated in favour of working class members. They were a party of the working class as well as for the working class.

This is neither here nor there, however.

Workers' militias are useful in certain periods but broadly speaking they inevitably have to be absorbed into a large-scale, highly-organised fighting force (e.g. the Red Army). The reason for this is that small-scaled workers' militias are easily crushed by the highly-organised forces of imperialism. The best example of what I'm talking about is not the Russian Revolution but the Spanish Civil War. The Trotskyist group (the POUM) and the Anarchists both advocated and organised groups of the kind you are talking about, while the Marxist-Leninists advocated and organised a highly-disciplined and unified armed force. Now, leaving aside the debates about who betrayed who and why the M-L's and the Trots/Anarchists ended up fighting each other... before any of that happened, the workers' militias were handed resounding defeats by the unified and disciplined forces of fascism (Germany/Italy/Franco etc.) while the better-equipped and better-organised forces of the M-L's had a great deal of success.

The only way I can foresee the need for a formal army and state power being avoidable is if the revolution breaks out at great speed and sweeps across the world incredibly quickly - i.e. in the Trotskyite 'permanent revolution' fashion. But this, in my opinion, is utopian and not something we should plan for.

You say, "A communist society, classless, stateless and peaceful, cannot be borne out of intense warfare, state power and attrition."

From my perspective, you are therefore saying: "A communist society [...] cannot be."

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I should clarify that comment about communist society. I was more talking about from the moment of post-expropriation, i.e. when the working class have 'seized power', so to speak. We need to avoid the temptation to seize state power and 'finish off the bourgeoisie', so to speak. It is imperative that, in this respect, we do not repeat history's failures. We have to set up a new society as quickly as possible; I am infinitely sure that the working class (just as in any other revolution!) will not accept another bout of war communism for an extended period of time.

If the revolution is genuinely popular, then the bourgeoisie will have to kill workers on a scale never seen before to defeat the revolution's ideas in practice. And if they did that, it would still probably be counter-productive for obvious reasons!

So yeah, as much as you are a particularly cordial and informed Leninist, it looks like we'll have to agree to disagree before we go round in circles!