A communist without the party is not a communist?

[Lokomotive293]

I've heard this notion quite a lot in the last time. It makes sense to me, but I was wondering what your opinion is. Do you have to be a member of an organization to be a communist, and, if yes, does it have to be the Communist Party?

[Brutus]

I Think that this is bollocks. That's like saying every liberal should be a member of the liberal party. And as for having to join 'the' communist party, that is also false. In Britain we have many parties claiming to be 'the' communist party. 'The' communist party may have policies you disagree with, or ones that are completely idiotic. If this were the case, all real communists would follow stupid policies.

[soso17]

As far as the US, the last place a communist should be is the Communist Party, USA. They are beyond reformist at this point.

Personally, I'm a member of the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL). We're a very active party and have ongoing Marxism classes and talks.

[Lokomotive293]

'The' communist party may have policies you disagree with, or ones that are completely idiotic. If this were the case, all real communists would follow stupid policies.

The policies of a party are decided by its members, though. Also, a party doesn't become "the Communist Party" by calling itself that...

Maybe, to phrase the question a little differently: Do we need a Communist Party?

[ZenTaoist]

The only thing you need to be a communist is to agree and adhere to the ideology "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Joining a party has nothing to do with it, there's a million different ones anyway.

[Ocean Seal]

I try avoiding the large overarching if you're not x you're not a communist.

[Igor]

there really isnt the kind of party i agree with where i live

i guess it's geographically impossible for me to be a communist, unless joining an email list or something cuts it

[TheIrrationalist]

This is the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard. How many communist are there on this site if we agree that this is true? If I join, for example, The Communist Party of Finland which is entirely reformist, am I a communist?

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

Paraphrasing Marx might explain things more clearly.

- Communism is the real movement which abolishes the present state of things.

It is not mandatory for a communist to be a member of the CP or SWP or SPGB etc in order to be labelled a 'communist'. If it was, why would various tendencies that use the word communist without reference to a party exist? I'm sure as hell not going to accept the idea that the Communist Party is the real movement which abolishes the present state of things.

[Igor]

This is the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard. How many communist are there on this site if we agree that this is true? If I join, for example, The Communist Party of Finland which is entirely reformist, am I a communist?

SKP is such a complete and utter joke it doesn't even make any sense

right before the may day they actually met with committee representing the communist party of china for fucks sake

[Per Levy]

if that notion was true, marx and engels couldnt be commies since they only spent only a short time of their lives in communist/socialists groups. besides, you're a commie when you want a classless society free of exploitation and opression. you dont need a party to uphold these views, you're probally even better off without a party anyway. since most communist partys suck and are little else than social democratic.

[The Idler]

Marx was in favour of capturing political power. This was his distinction from utopian socialists that represented socialism before him. It was also suggested the fall of the Paris Commune had to do with the lack of political power. Workers using a party to capture political power doesn't imply statism, hierarchical organisation, a new ruling-class, workers serving the party (rather than the other way round), party loyalty or anything. Capitalists have lots of parties to represent their interests so why not socialists.

[Fionnagáin]

Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.

Fuck all about parties in there.

[Questionable]

I agree with the sentiment of it.

If one believes that the Party is the highest organ of the working-class, as I do, then it follows that if you're not in the Party, you must not be exercising the leadership role that the proletariat needs.

I feel like a lot of people here are missing the point. If you say "All I do is sit at home and don't talk to other leftists IRL but I'm still a communist!" then you're really just proving the point that communists should organize themselves into a political party to achieve the most impact. There cannot be separation between theory and practice; if all you do is read Das Kapital while not actually trying to spread consciousness among the workers in any way, then objectively you are doing nothing.

I can see how people would reject this though, because it's true that individuals can impact things to a certain degree. However, only a well-organized Party can rise to the position of leadership amongst the entire class, as proven by history.

I'm sure anti-Party tendencies will disagree with everything I've said strongly, but that's my view on it. I wouldn't be so harsh to say that you're not a communist without a party, but I would say that communists should participate in party activities as the best vehicle for accomplishing their goals. Because of this, I'm kind of surprised that Marx's quote about communism being a "REAL movement" is being used as defense against this notion, because being an isolated intellectual with no connections to the working class can hardly be called "real" in the sense of creating a mass movement to change society.

[The Jay]

I've heard this notion quite a lot in the last time. It makes sense to me, but I was wondering what your opinion is. Do you have to be a member of an organization to be a communist, and, if yes, does it have to be the Communist Party?

No, I would say that for a communist to do the most possible for their goals that they must have organization, but that is about efficacy and not about the classification of one's politics.

I wouldn't feel pressured into any party if I were you though. What I do is talk to some non-communists and try to convince them in a genuine manner. It may not be doing as much as if I were organized but I need more communists around for that lol.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

It's not always necessary to form a party if social change is the objective. Saying that party is the highest working class organ is like saying that the CNT-FAI relationship achieved nothing in Spain or that the wildcat strikes during the May '68 protests were incapable of affecting any meaningful change.

[ind_com]

I've heard this notion quite a lot in the last time. It makes sense to me, but I was wondering what your opinion is. Do you have to be a member of an organization to be a communist, and, if yes, does it have to be the Communist Party?

A communist is someone who remains loyal to the cause of communism, has some knowledge of communist theory, takes mostly correct positions on the communist struggles worldwide as far as knowledge permits, and tries to advance that cause as far his surroundings and abilities permit. There might be no real communist party at all in his area, but that does not stop him from being a communist.


The policies of a party are decided by its members, though. Also, a party doesn't become "the Communist Party" by calling itself that...

Maybe, to phrase the question a little differently: Do we need a Communist Party?

We definitely need communist parties at least till socialist revolutions triumph all over the world.

[Questionable]

It's not always necessary to form a party if social change is the objective. Saying that party is the highest working class organ is like saying that the CNT-FAI relationship achieved nothing in Spain or that the wildcat strikes during the May '68 protests were incapable of affecting any meaningful change.

You're correct, comrade; a party is not necessarily needed for social change, however, history has shown it to be the most effective form of organization for social revolution.

[Fionnagáin]

Not soviets?

[Skyhilist]

This is really just an attempt to dismiss people who don't support vanguard parties having a central authority; basically "if your tendency isn't similar to mine your not a REAL communist." It should be pretty obvious that this is sectarian bullshit. How will the left ever be able to work together if everyone is accusing everyone not exactly like them as being "not real communists"? Shit like this only breeds division.

[Starship Stormtrooper]

This is really just an attempt to dismiss people who don't support vanguard parties having a central authority; basically "if your tendency isn't similar to mine your not a REAL communist." It should be pretty obvious that this is sectarian bullshit. How will the left ever be able to work together if everyone is accusing everyone not exactly like them as being "not real communists"? Shit like this only breeds division.

Implying that left unity is possible or desirable... But I agree with you that its more of a "holier than thou" sentiment than anything else.

But, to the topic at hand. While I feel that greater organization is certainly something to work towards, you can most definitely be a communist and participate in struggles without one (otherwise I would also have to disqualify myself from being a leftist due to the lack of any sort of progressive groups in my area).

[Geiseric]

As far as the US, the last place a communist should be is the Communist Party, USA. They are beyond reformist at this point.

Personally, I'm a member of the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL). We're a very active party and have ongoing Marxism classes and talks.

PSL is part of the problem, you guys support Ghadaffi and Assad. I mean seriously WTF. If you claim to be socialist but hold ridiculous policies such as supporting bourgeois dictators you shouldn't call yourself socialists, you should say plainly that you support a bourgeois dictator against the working class. It's kind of like how KKE, at the height of their support, started a battle royale in Athens' central square, at one of the last memorandum sessions of parliament, in the name of "communism."

There can't be any unity until revolutionaries get their heads out of their asses and actually re evaluate where the proletariat is at now in its struggle for democracy.

[Geiseric]

This is really just an attempt to dismiss people who don't support vanguard parties having a central authority; basically "if your tendency isn't similar to mine your not a REAL communist." It should be pretty obvious that this is sectarian bullshit. How will the left ever be able to work together if everyone is accusing everyone not exactly like them as being "not real communists"? Shit like this only breeds division.

Not unless the supposed "not real communists" are acting like mensheviks. In which case calling them not real communists is appropriate. For example joining a popular front with bourgeois parties, on the eve of a revolution, is not something a communist would do. The SP and CP USA are both in this category, due to their continued history of betraying the working class and siding with the bourgeoisie. These parties are led by bureaucracies who have their position and salary in mind.
On the other side abandoning any semblance of organizing the working class, sitting on the sidelines, and calling other people trying to campaign for transitional demands "reformist" is also not befit of real communists. Nor guilt tripping working class people about "being content with the system YOU DAMN CAPITALIST!!!"
Real communists work to campaign for the class interests of the working class, which the rest of the working class already realizes are in their interests. Socialists simply are the independent, conscious builders of the workers movement, which aims to benefit the great majority.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

*Shrug* What does a/the proletarian/revolutionary/communist party look like at this point?
Is it a formal organization? Multiple organizations? An informal network of revolutionary communist proletarians? Something or some things that are none of the aforementioned?

If there is a "The Communist Party" as it was once conceived, I've never encountered it.

[ZenTaoist]

Activism and beliefs are two different things. As I pointed out earlier, if you believe in "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need", you're a communist. Does that mean you're fighting for communism? Not necessarily. But that doesn't make you less of a communist or something.

[Geiseric]

Activism and beliefs are two different things. As I pointed out earlier, if you believe in "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need", you're a communist. Does that mean you're fighting for communism? Not necessarily. But that doesn't make you less of a communist or something.

You're nothing but a windbag unless you do something about it though. Coffee shop revolutionaries aren't communists; they're self masturbatory douchebags whom are usually involved in cliques of similarly self masturbatory "leftists" who preach about how reformism is ruining the workers movement.

[Leftsolidarity]

Maybe, to phrase the question a little differently: Do we need a Communist Party?

Yes, we need a communist party. A revolutionary working class party is needed to overthrow capitalism and establish socialism. (if you ask a Leninist)

But no, you don't personally need to be in a party to be a communist. I think that anyone would identifies as a communist should eventually join a party, though.

[Fionnagáin]

You're nothing but a windbag unless you do something about it though. Coffee shop revolutionaries aren't communists; they're self masturbatory douchebags whom are usually involved in cliques of similarly self masturbatory "leftists" who preach about how reformism is ruining the workers movement.
That also applies to most left-wing "activism", though. The validity of political activity is a question of its contribution to the class struggle, not of how much of a sweat you work up. Selling some rag on a street corner is every bit as onanistic as "coffee shop revolutionism", it's just happens to be in public.

[Tim Cornelis]

Activism and beliefs are two different things. As I pointed out earlier, if you believe in "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need", you're a communist. Does that mean you're fighting for communism? Not necessarily. But that doesn't make you less of a communist or something.

So if you advocate the establishment of a classless, stateless society based on common ownership of productive resources, free association of equal producers and citizens, combined with distribution according to needs of housing, food, education, and clothes, but with rationing of cars, TVs, according to labour points, are you a communist then? I'd say so, but it isn't "abilities to needs" mantra.

[Luís Henrique]

To be a communist you need to be actually fighting for communism. This usually means joining political organisations, which may or may not label themselves "Communist Party" (I have been a member of three different organisations, none of which was called "Communist Party"). There is no single organisation that can be considered "the Party", and there are plenty of organisations that label themselves communist but are actually very far from being such. But you cannot be an actual communist in isolation, just by adhering to some empty slogan.

Luís Henrique

[Igor]

To be a communist you need to be actually fighting for communism. This usually means joining political organisations, which may or may not label themselves "Communist Party" (I have been a member of three different organisations, none of which was called "Communist Party"). There is no single organisation that can be considered "the Party", and there are plenty of organisations that label themselves communist but are actually very far from being such. But you cannot be an actual communist in isolation, just by adhering to some empty slogan.

Luís Henrique

so what about those who live in such geographic isolation that there's no actual revolutionary action around?

[Luís Henrique]

so what about those who live in such geographic isolation that there's no actual revolutionary action around?

Well, it is impossible to be a communist in such circumstances. Unless you can start such actions, which requires starting some kind of organisation.

Luís Henrique

[Fionnagáin]

If communism is implicit in the class struggle, then the primary engine of communism is working class self-organisation. What, in that, implies that formal left-wing organisations are ever, let alone usually, necessary for a communist movement to exist? That's not to say that we should consider any armchair-theorists a "communist" in the very fullest sense. But it does mean that getting a few dozen, hundred or even thousand armchair-theorists together doesn't make for a communist movement. (And I say that as an unapologetic armchair-theorist!) A communist movement consists and can only consist in the autonomously organised working class, it does not simply appear when you reach a certain critical mass of Marx-reading malcontents.

[thriller]

One only has to agree that the goal of historical change should be (and can only be) the development of a classless, stateless, society where the means of production are held in common by all to be a communist. One doesn't have to join an "official" Communist Party. As many others have pointed out, most have become reformist since the fall of the USSR (if not before). I think worker self-organization is the goal, and a party can really help with that, but I don't know if there really is a causal link between the two in the majority of history. I would encourage people to join a party they like. You meet new awesome comrades, build relationships with other people and organizations, learn new things about theory, organization, and practice. But it is most certainly not mandatory to join a party to be a 'legit' communist.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Ah yes. A rose by any other name. . . . We are quibbling, comrades. I strongly believe that in order to overthrow capitalism it is required to have a vanguard party like the Bolsheviks. I am not currently in one. Does that make me not a communist? I don't know. It does mean I am not a cadre or behaving like a good Leninist. Do I support communism? You bet.

So maybe there are two different questions. The great quote from Marx that goes something like, "Up to now philosophers have merely interpreted the world. The point is to change it," is significant. But party membership is not a moral category.

[PhoenixAsh]

Strictly speaking a communist needs an organisational platform. Depending on the tendency this could be anything ranging from parties to syndicats....IF possible

If you are not in an organisation then you adher to communist philosophy/thought/politics...you are a sympathiser or activist

Broadly speaking a communist is anybody who advocates communism or adhers to communist ideology.

Personally...I don't give a s*.

[hashem]

A communist without the party is not a communist?

a person without a party can be a communist but a person who is not striving for creation of a communist party cant be a communist.