fractal-vortex
22nd October 2013, 08:42
A. Crisis of Marxism
In the last third of XIX century we have in Russia an argument between narodniks (populists) and Marxists about which class shall be the main force of the coming revolution. Similarly today: there is an argument between Marxists and ?
The problem of a leading class boils down to our understanding of what is a revolution. Revolution is a multidimensional process, specifically it takes place in the sphere of production, and in the social relations. The class of people which leads the revolution in the sphere of production also leads it in the sphere of social relations. Sometimes the two aspects of revolutions coincide in the same individual, as for example we have in the case of Benjamin Franklin, in the course of the American revolution of XVIII century, and Nikolai Kibalchich, in the course of the Russian revolution of XIX-XX centuries.
The people leading the revolution in the sphere of production are those similar to Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of WWW; Eric Drexler, one of the founders of nanotechnology; Michael Hart, a founder of The Gutenberg Project, providing free electronic books; Adrian Bowyer, the founder of the RepRap project, whose goal is to produce a self-replicating 3-D printer.
But, which class of people do they represent? I would say an information proletariat, i.e. those layers of the global population, which are involved in the information revolution, but are destined to be repressed due to the economic relations of capitalism, and by the bureaucracy in the transitional states. For example, the programmers in Ukraine work much more than 40 hours/week, overwork themselves, as they compete with similar programmers from China, India, Russia, etc.
As the struggle of the industrial proletariat was measured by the growth of strike movement, the struggle of the information proletariat can be measured by the strike in reverse, i.e. not abstaining from work as such, but growth of sites such as Wikipedia and Librivox (free audio books), i.e. creating and organizing information useful for all, creation of serious games, modeling different life situations, massive on-line open courses (MOOCs), different sites and forums for information exchange, torrent sites, free operational systems (Linux) and free software (freeware, shareware), etc.
It is this group of people which is most prone to organize on a global scale, and not in the boundaries of one industry (as were the workers trade unions), or in the national boundaries (as is typical for parties).
And so, the first aspect of the crisis of Marxism is that with the development of the productive forces, the industrial revolution becomes the information revolution, which tends to become a knowledge revolution. Other modern aspects of the industrial revolution is high-technology, for example in the air-space industry, and creativity in general. Here, the leading role is played by scientists and engineers who do not follow a well-beaten path, but are iconoclasts. These intellectuals has also a tendency to acquire knowledge and skills in the sphere of immediate material production. For example, the father of Norbert Weiner was a Harvard professor who loved to dig in his garden.
It is not the industrial workers, but heretics among the highly educated who play the revolutionary role in the modern society.
An addition: in a conversation with a Marxist, I heard the following objection: that class is revolutionary which is oppressed in the framework of capitalism. And this is the working class, read industrial proletariat. To which I answer: in the framework of capitalism not only the industrial workers are oppressed, but also the landless peasants, and poor peasants with very small tracts of land, as is the case in the modern Brazil; in addition to them, there are other classes, such as the women, who are oppressed. The oppressed position does not make a class a leading class in a revolution. That class is a leading class which does the most for development of production, leads this development, but as a result of the given social relations, it is doomed.
The second aspect of the crisis of Marxism is that the experience of revolutions of XX century has revealed that the party is a more important factor for a socialist revolution than the objective preconditions, such as the development of the economy. Less developed in the economic sense Russia was able to start a socialist revolution in 1917, while the more advanced in the economic sense Germany was not able to. The cause of this lies in the differences between the Russian Communist Party of Bolsheviks, RCP(b), and the Social-Democratic Party of Germany, SPD.
Socialist revolutions in XX century were started in less developed in the economic sense countries, such as China, Yugoslavia, Cuba, Vietnam, but there were more militant, more disciplined and better organized revolutionary parties.
L. Trotsky gives the following explanation for the start of a socialist revolution in backward Russia: in the conditions of capitalist decline, the backward countries are denied the possibility of achieving the level which was achieved by the old centers of capital Socialization of property on the means of production has become a necessary condition first of all to lead a country out of barbarism: such is the law of combined development for backward countries. What does the law of combined development mean? It seems the idea that a backward country combines in its development the characteristics of capitalist and socialist societies. Hence, there is nothing amazing in the fact that the present republics of the former USSR show us in their present development many aspects of a capitalist society. What is amazing is that traits of socialist and transitional societies which are present in the former republics of the USSR, as well as in China, and other such countries, are not noticed point-blank by those who call themselves Marxists.
The presence of a revolutionary party does not mean that a revolution will start in a country. Such a view, which ignores the objective conditions and makes an accent on a small number of conspirators, is called Blanquism, and experience has several times revealed the failure of such a position. For a social revolution, a crisis is necessary, which, in the words of Lenin, consists in the idea that the ruling classes cannot live in the old way, while the oppressed classes do not want to live in the old way. Crisis like these, however, happen relatively often in the recent times. For example, in the fall of 2013 the government of the United States has stopped payments to the government employees, as the President-democrat and the Congress, controlled by the Republicans, were not able to come to a compromise regarding the plan of medical insurance, which favors the poor at the expense of the rich, and the state debt, which always favors the rich.
To sum up: the main role in the start of a socialist revolution is played by the subjective factor a revolutionary organization, and not the objective preconditions. A Russia bard, Yuri Vizbor, sings in one of his songs: The weather on the sea is probably created by us.
The third aspect of the crisis of Marxism deals with the idea that in classical Marxism the main cause of a social revolution lies in the collision between the development of the productive forces and the productive relations. However, in the era of socialist revolutions we see that between a social crisis, as it is described in Marxism, and a revolution, most often there is a war. The cases when social-economic crisis lead directly to revolution go back to the era of bourgeois revolutions, such as for example the French revolution of 1789. The era of socialist revolutions has begun in the last third of XIX century, and here we see that between a crisis and a revolution there is a war, most often lost by the regime in power, which serves to worsen the internal crisis, leads to the break-down of the economy, decay of the army and the whole repressive apparatus. Such was the case since the Paris Commune of 1871, which was formed as a result of a war lost by the regime of Napoleon III.
In practice, this aspect of a revolution calls for the necessity of studying the global politics, and especially the wars, which the imperialism is so prone to cause.
And so we have at least 3 aspects of the crisis of Marxism, or at least additions which need to be made:
1) the development of modern science and technology has negated the revolutionary role of industrial proletariat;
2) the science of a revolutionary party, about methods of its creation, is perhaps more important than the study of the development of the productive forces;
3) a pre-condition for a modern social revolution is a war.
These 3 additions to the Marxism of XIX century do not touch the fact that almost all modern Marxists in practical politics ignore the classical teaching of Marxist theory of state, according to which a state, in its essence, is a machine of repression for the ruling class, i.e. its army and the internal forces. Destruction of a state, change of one social order by another means, first of all, destruction of the army and the internal troops, an example of which weve seen in Afghanistan in 1992. However, nothing of the kind happened in China in 1989, or in the USSR, in 1991. Yet, those who call themselves Marxists think that in China in 1989, after the defeat of the students on the Tiannamen Square, there is bureaucratic capitalism (such is the point of view of Au Loong-Yu). The same Marxists think that after the defeat of the August 1991 putsch in the (former) USSR there is capitalism in that country. Here, we see various adjectives used, depending on the scientific character of an author from terms like wild capitalism, used by the vulgar opinion, to superetatism, used by Alexander Tarasov.
And so we see that those who call themselves Marxists do not adhere to the Marxist theory of a state, in practice; rather, they adhere to an impressionist point of view, dictated to them by capitalism. In a word, their Marxism is fake. They repeat ad infinitum their very stale truths.
This fourth aspect of the crisis of Marxism I call hypocrisy, for those who are not Marxists call themselves Marxists, while those who follow Marxs methodology reject such a title.
B. Revolutionary organization
1. First a class appears. Then, after a greater or lesser period of time, its movement starts. And this is not yet a revolutionary movement, in the proper sense of the word, but only the beginning of such a movement, which will go through a variety of forms, as for example in England, for the working class, we have: luddism, Chartism, trade unions, workers parties.
Lets notice that some old forms of struggle, which have already shown their inability to achieve the stated aim, or the very bankruptcy of their aim, are being revived again and again, in the socialist movement. For example, luddism, which has appeared in England in the beginning of XIX century and in the course of a few dozen years has outlived itself, has started to reappear in the modern society as neo-luddism, in the form of despise for technology, an attempt to limit oneself to primitive methods of production. The struggle of the Western left against nuclear energy appears as one of the forms of this phenomenon.
2. First period in the development of a movement is development of its theory, creation of a program. When a substantial amount of theoretical work has accumulated, it is published. For example, the creator of the science of cybernetics, Norbert Weiner, writes: The scientific investigation group of our department has accumulated a substantial amount of work which deserved to be published; as a result we got a desire to publish own journal, and we have undertaken the realization of this project. The left proceed in the opposite manner: first, they create another site, a la Lenin, after which they start thinking about its content. At best, they get a glittering mix of opposite, sometimes contradictory, points of view. Lenin has come to the idea of publishing The Spark when the Russian revolutionary movement has already defined itself theoretically, i.e. it has made a very difficult break with narodniks, in favor of Marxism.
An addition: this is the stage we are in. We need to define ourselves theoretically, anew, for the old theory is no longer adequate, in light of the new fact.
3. The new theory is spread internationally in the form of books, articles, manifestos. For example, the manifesto of the Communist Party, written by Marx and Engels in 1848, proposes a novel philosophy of history, for its times. It doesnt matter that we live in the electronic age, as there are still electronic books, fundamental scientific works in electronic format. A new theory does not spread in the form of colorful sites, bright posters, and other electronic trinkets (although a beautifully designed site can only be a plus).
4. When ideas of an author attract the attention of international public, groups of people start to appear around these works, in support of them, for example, clubs or informal study groups. One example of this phenomenon in the modern times we see in the formation of groups of fans of J.R. Tolkien.
5. A party is being formed from a union of different groups with similar political aim. Internet forums can accelerate the clarification of this aim.
6. A party is a militant organization of a class, according to the definition of Gregory Zinoviev (see his Lectures on the History of the RCP(b), 1923). In addition, a party is also a center of struggle for the right theory. Thus, we can define the party of as the most conscientious and militant part of a class.
7. Such theoretical-practical organization is not formed as a foco, i.e. as a partisan group immediately engaged in an armed struggle against a hostile regime (as we have seen with Che Guevara), but through creation and development of a central theoretical and organizational apparatus. This, in Lenins times, was an all-Russian newspaper; in our times, this would be an international site.
8. Goals of this site should be similar to the goals of The Spark (Lenins newspaper). This means:
A) a struggle with ideological deviations, and first of all on the Russian question, i.e. the attitude to the nature of states in which the socialist revolution began in XX century. From this question follows our attitude to the problem of the coming Third World War. And war is the most serious trial for any revolutionary party. B) The site needs to cover the political situation globally from the point of view of information proletariat. C) The site needs to work for unification of information proletariat, preparing the grounds for creation of a new, revolutionary International.
The site, as a newspaper, should be not only a collective propaganda apparatus, but also a collective organizational tool. People will get organized through a common work on this site. Information proletariat should feel itself at home in this kind of work.
9. Formation of an organization passes through a struggle with adjacent theoretical and political currents, such as, in the times of Lenin, were the narodniks, the legal Marxism, economism, Menshevism, and later left communism. The struggle is carried first of all on the ideological arena, i.e. through polemics. Armed conflict between opposing socialist parties has appeared only in the course of a civil war.
10. In order to form an international party, an international congress is necessary. The Spark organized The Organizational Committee for convocation of the II congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Workers Party (RSDWP). Its members have traveled to all locations where there was a party committee and checked their work. They have invited 2 representatives from each active committee to the Congress. Similar work needs to be done on the global scale.
11. The structure of an organization is defined by its principal goal. Organizational differences between the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks, at the Second Congress of the RSDWP these were essentially different understandings of the principal goal of the party. Is it to be in the opposition, in the course of a bourgeois revolution, or to take power themselves? Hence, there were different ideas on the structure of the party. The Menshevik vision saw a large, loose structure, while the Bolsheviks have argued for a smaller, but more disciplined group of professional revolutionaries.
12. Stages in development of a revolutionary organization are, in essence, stages in development of a revolution. A party is just a subjective moment of a revolution. Take a look at the contents of The Short Course in the History of the All-Union Communist Party (of Bolsheviks), 1938. Through this course we can trace the main anatomy of the Russian Revolution, with the exception, of course, of bureaucratization of the Soviet state apparatus.
13. The principal forms of organization of the working class, so far, have been: 1) the trade unions, 2) workers parties, 3) Internationals. Due to the global character of modern production, we can talk only about a world, global revolution, and hence the International is the desired form of organization.
C. A program
1. A program involves: 1) a statement of a goal, or a number of goals, 2) means for achieving this goal.
2. Goals are formulated in the course of analysis of the existing situation.
3. Such analysis presupposes a theory, a crisis of which weve discussed in the first part of this essay.
D. Conclusions
1. In the given epoch were dealing with the crisis of the principal revolutionary ideology: Marxism. This crisis is due to the development from basic industries, such as coal and steel, to high technologies, such as information technologies, air and space technologies, etc. Hence, the revolutionary subject changes. To define clearly the physiognomy of this subject is perhaps the main theoretical task.
2. After a revolutionary theory, one of the most important pre-conditions for revolution is the existence of a party. Stages in development of an international party are the stages in development of the international revolution, its subjective moment. Hence, for understanding the formation of international party we should follow the development of the international revolution, i.e. geopolitics, and the struggle of different directions of revolutionary thought, in connection with that.
P.S. my e-mail: [email protected]
Hope to hear your response, on pages of "RevLeft", or in my private e-mail:)
In the last third of XIX century we have in Russia an argument between narodniks (populists) and Marxists about which class shall be the main force of the coming revolution. Similarly today: there is an argument between Marxists and ?
The problem of a leading class boils down to our understanding of what is a revolution. Revolution is a multidimensional process, specifically it takes place in the sphere of production, and in the social relations. The class of people which leads the revolution in the sphere of production also leads it in the sphere of social relations. Sometimes the two aspects of revolutions coincide in the same individual, as for example we have in the case of Benjamin Franklin, in the course of the American revolution of XVIII century, and Nikolai Kibalchich, in the course of the Russian revolution of XIX-XX centuries.
The people leading the revolution in the sphere of production are those similar to Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of WWW; Eric Drexler, one of the founders of nanotechnology; Michael Hart, a founder of The Gutenberg Project, providing free electronic books; Adrian Bowyer, the founder of the RepRap project, whose goal is to produce a self-replicating 3-D printer.
But, which class of people do they represent? I would say an information proletariat, i.e. those layers of the global population, which are involved in the information revolution, but are destined to be repressed due to the economic relations of capitalism, and by the bureaucracy in the transitional states. For example, the programmers in Ukraine work much more than 40 hours/week, overwork themselves, as they compete with similar programmers from China, India, Russia, etc.
As the struggle of the industrial proletariat was measured by the growth of strike movement, the struggle of the information proletariat can be measured by the strike in reverse, i.e. not abstaining from work as such, but growth of sites such as Wikipedia and Librivox (free audio books), i.e. creating and organizing information useful for all, creation of serious games, modeling different life situations, massive on-line open courses (MOOCs), different sites and forums for information exchange, torrent sites, free operational systems (Linux) and free software (freeware, shareware), etc.
It is this group of people which is most prone to organize on a global scale, and not in the boundaries of one industry (as were the workers trade unions), or in the national boundaries (as is typical for parties).
And so, the first aspect of the crisis of Marxism is that with the development of the productive forces, the industrial revolution becomes the information revolution, which tends to become a knowledge revolution. Other modern aspects of the industrial revolution is high-technology, for example in the air-space industry, and creativity in general. Here, the leading role is played by scientists and engineers who do not follow a well-beaten path, but are iconoclasts. These intellectuals has also a tendency to acquire knowledge and skills in the sphere of immediate material production. For example, the father of Norbert Weiner was a Harvard professor who loved to dig in his garden.
It is not the industrial workers, but heretics among the highly educated who play the revolutionary role in the modern society.
An addition: in a conversation with a Marxist, I heard the following objection: that class is revolutionary which is oppressed in the framework of capitalism. And this is the working class, read industrial proletariat. To which I answer: in the framework of capitalism not only the industrial workers are oppressed, but also the landless peasants, and poor peasants with very small tracts of land, as is the case in the modern Brazil; in addition to them, there are other classes, such as the women, who are oppressed. The oppressed position does not make a class a leading class in a revolution. That class is a leading class which does the most for development of production, leads this development, but as a result of the given social relations, it is doomed.
The second aspect of the crisis of Marxism is that the experience of revolutions of XX century has revealed that the party is a more important factor for a socialist revolution than the objective preconditions, such as the development of the economy. Less developed in the economic sense Russia was able to start a socialist revolution in 1917, while the more advanced in the economic sense Germany was not able to. The cause of this lies in the differences between the Russian Communist Party of Bolsheviks, RCP(b), and the Social-Democratic Party of Germany, SPD.
Socialist revolutions in XX century were started in less developed in the economic sense countries, such as China, Yugoslavia, Cuba, Vietnam, but there were more militant, more disciplined and better organized revolutionary parties.
L. Trotsky gives the following explanation for the start of a socialist revolution in backward Russia: in the conditions of capitalist decline, the backward countries are denied the possibility of achieving the level which was achieved by the old centers of capital Socialization of property on the means of production has become a necessary condition first of all to lead a country out of barbarism: such is the law of combined development for backward countries. What does the law of combined development mean? It seems the idea that a backward country combines in its development the characteristics of capitalist and socialist societies. Hence, there is nothing amazing in the fact that the present republics of the former USSR show us in their present development many aspects of a capitalist society. What is amazing is that traits of socialist and transitional societies which are present in the former republics of the USSR, as well as in China, and other such countries, are not noticed point-blank by those who call themselves Marxists.
The presence of a revolutionary party does not mean that a revolution will start in a country. Such a view, which ignores the objective conditions and makes an accent on a small number of conspirators, is called Blanquism, and experience has several times revealed the failure of such a position. For a social revolution, a crisis is necessary, which, in the words of Lenin, consists in the idea that the ruling classes cannot live in the old way, while the oppressed classes do not want to live in the old way. Crisis like these, however, happen relatively often in the recent times. For example, in the fall of 2013 the government of the United States has stopped payments to the government employees, as the President-democrat and the Congress, controlled by the Republicans, were not able to come to a compromise regarding the plan of medical insurance, which favors the poor at the expense of the rich, and the state debt, which always favors the rich.
To sum up: the main role in the start of a socialist revolution is played by the subjective factor a revolutionary organization, and not the objective preconditions. A Russia bard, Yuri Vizbor, sings in one of his songs: The weather on the sea is probably created by us.
The third aspect of the crisis of Marxism deals with the idea that in classical Marxism the main cause of a social revolution lies in the collision between the development of the productive forces and the productive relations. However, in the era of socialist revolutions we see that between a social crisis, as it is described in Marxism, and a revolution, most often there is a war. The cases when social-economic crisis lead directly to revolution go back to the era of bourgeois revolutions, such as for example the French revolution of 1789. The era of socialist revolutions has begun in the last third of XIX century, and here we see that between a crisis and a revolution there is a war, most often lost by the regime in power, which serves to worsen the internal crisis, leads to the break-down of the economy, decay of the army and the whole repressive apparatus. Such was the case since the Paris Commune of 1871, which was formed as a result of a war lost by the regime of Napoleon III.
In practice, this aspect of a revolution calls for the necessity of studying the global politics, and especially the wars, which the imperialism is so prone to cause.
And so we have at least 3 aspects of the crisis of Marxism, or at least additions which need to be made:
1) the development of modern science and technology has negated the revolutionary role of industrial proletariat;
2) the science of a revolutionary party, about methods of its creation, is perhaps more important than the study of the development of the productive forces;
3) a pre-condition for a modern social revolution is a war.
These 3 additions to the Marxism of XIX century do not touch the fact that almost all modern Marxists in practical politics ignore the classical teaching of Marxist theory of state, according to which a state, in its essence, is a machine of repression for the ruling class, i.e. its army and the internal forces. Destruction of a state, change of one social order by another means, first of all, destruction of the army and the internal troops, an example of which weve seen in Afghanistan in 1992. However, nothing of the kind happened in China in 1989, or in the USSR, in 1991. Yet, those who call themselves Marxists think that in China in 1989, after the defeat of the students on the Tiannamen Square, there is bureaucratic capitalism (such is the point of view of Au Loong-Yu). The same Marxists think that after the defeat of the August 1991 putsch in the (former) USSR there is capitalism in that country. Here, we see various adjectives used, depending on the scientific character of an author from terms like wild capitalism, used by the vulgar opinion, to superetatism, used by Alexander Tarasov.
And so we see that those who call themselves Marxists do not adhere to the Marxist theory of a state, in practice; rather, they adhere to an impressionist point of view, dictated to them by capitalism. In a word, their Marxism is fake. They repeat ad infinitum their very stale truths.
This fourth aspect of the crisis of Marxism I call hypocrisy, for those who are not Marxists call themselves Marxists, while those who follow Marxs methodology reject such a title.
B. Revolutionary organization
1. First a class appears. Then, after a greater or lesser period of time, its movement starts. And this is not yet a revolutionary movement, in the proper sense of the word, but only the beginning of such a movement, which will go through a variety of forms, as for example in England, for the working class, we have: luddism, Chartism, trade unions, workers parties.
Lets notice that some old forms of struggle, which have already shown their inability to achieve the stated aim, or the very bankruptcy of their aim, are being revived again and again, in the socialist movement. For example, luddism, which has appeared in England in the beginning of XIX century and in the course of a few dozen years has outlived itself, has started to reappear in the modern society as neo-luddism, in the form of despise for technology, an attempt to limit oneself to primitive methods of production. The struggle of the Western left against nuclear energy appears as one of the forms of this phenomenon.
2. First period in the development of a movement is development of its theory, creation of a program. When a substantial amount of theoretical work has accumulated, it is published. For example, the creator of the science of cybernetics, Norbert Weiner, writes: The scientific investigation group of our department has accumulated a substantial amount of work which deserved to be published; as a result we got a desire to publish own journal, and we have undertaken the realization of this project. The left proceed in the opposite manner: first, they create another site, a la Lenin, after which they start thinking about its content. At best, they get a glittering mix of opposite, sometimes contradictory, points of view. Lenin has come to the idea of publishing The Spark when the Russian revolutionary movement has already defined itself theoretically, i.e. it has made a very difficult break with narodniks, in favor of Marxism.
An addition: this is the stage we are in. We need to define ourselves theoretically, anew, for the old theory is no longer adequate, in light of the new fact.
3. The new theory is spread internationally in the form of books, articles, manifestos. For example, the manifesto of the Communist Party, written by Marx and Engels in 1848, proposes a novel philosophy of history, for its times. It doesnt matter that we live in the electronic age, as there are still electronic books, fundamental scientific works in electronic format. A new theory does not spread in the form of colorful sites, bright posters, and other electronic trinkets (although a beautifully designed site can only be a plus).
4. When ideas of an author attract the attention of international public, groups of people start to appear around these works, in support of them, for example, clubs or informal study groups. One example of this phenomenon in the modern times we see in the formation of groups of fans of J.R. Tolkien.
5. A party is being formed from a union of different groups with similar political aim. Internet forums can accelerate the clarification of this aim.
6. A party is a militant organization of a class, according to the definition of Gregory Zinoviev (see his Lectures on the History of the RCP(b), 1923). In addition, a party is also a center of struggle for the right theory. Thus, we can define the party of as the most conscientious and militant part of a class.
7. Such theoretical-practical organization is not formed as a foco, i.e. as a partisan group immediately engaged in an armed struggle against a hostile regime (as we have seen with Che Guevara), but through creation and development of a central theoretical and organizational apparatus. This, in Lenins times, was an all-Russian newspaper; in our times, this would be an international site.
8. Goals of this site should be similar to the goals of The Spark (Lenins newspaper). This means:
A) a struggle with ideological deviations, and first of all on the Russian question, i.e. the attitude to the nature of states in which the socialist revolution began in XX century. From this question follows our attitude to the problem of the coming Third World War. And war is the most serious trial for any revolutionary party. B) The site needs to cover the political situation globally from the point of view of information proletariat. C) The site needs to work for unification of information proletariat, preparing the grounds for creation of a new, revolutionary International.
The site, as a newspaper, should be not only a collective propaganda apparatus, but also a collective organizational tool. People will get organized through a common work on this site. Information proletariat should feel itself at home in this kind of work.
9. Formation of an organization passes through a struggle with adjacent theoretical and political currents, such as, in the times of Lenin, were the narodniks, the legal Marxism, economism, Menshevism, and later left communism. The struggle is carried first of all on the ideological arena, i.e. through polemics. Armed conflict between opposing socialist parties has appeared only in the course of a civil war.
10. In order to form an international party, an international congress is necessary. The Spark organized The Organizational Committee for convocation of the II congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Workers Party (RSDWP). Its members have traveled to all locations where there was a party committee and checked their work. They have invited 2 representatives from each active committee to the Congress. Similar work needs to be done on the global scale.
11. The structure of an organization is defined by its principal goal. Organizational differences between the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks, at the Second Congress of the RSDWP these were essentially different understandings of the principal goal of the party. Is it to be in the opposition, in the course of a bourgeois revolution, or to take power themselves? Hence, there were different ideas on the structure of the party. The Menshevik vision saw a large, loose structure, while the Bolsheviks have argued for a smaller, but more disciplined group of professional revolutionaries.
12. Stages in development of a revolutionary organization are, in essence, stages in development of a revolution. A party is just a subjective moment of a revolution. Take a look at the contents of The Short Course in the History of the All-Union Communist Party (of Bolsheviks), 1938. Through this course we can trace the main anatomy of the Russian Revolution, with the exception, of course, of bureaucratization of the Soviet state apparatus.
13. The principal forms of organization of the working class, so far, have been: 1) the trade unions, 2) workers parties, 3) Internationals. Due to the global character of modern production, we can talk only about a world, global revolution, and hence the International is the desired form of organization.
C. A program
1. A program involves: 1) a statement of a goal, or a number of goals, 2) means for achieving this goal.
2. Goals are formulated in the course of analysis of the existing situation.
3. Such analysis presupposes a theory, a crisis of which weve discussed in the first part of this essay.
D. Conclusions
1. In the given epoch were dealing with the crisis of the principal revolutionary ideology: Marxism. This crisis is due to the development from basic industries, such as coal and steel, to high technologies, such as information technologies, air and space technologies, etc. Hence, the revolutionary subject changes. To define clearly the physiognomy of this subject is perhaps the main theoretical task.
2. After a revolutionary theory, one of the most important pre-conditions for revolution is the existence of a party. Stages in development of an international party are the stages in development of the international revolution, its subjective moment. Hence, for understanding the formation of international party we should follow the development of the international revolution, i.e. geopolitics, and the struggle of different directions of revolutionary thought, in connection with that.
P.S. my e-mail: [email protected]
Hope to hear your response, on pages of "RevLeft", or in my private e-mail:)