The Party

[RedKobra]

At what point does the working class' failure to coalesce into a single party falsify the theory of 'The Party'? Genuine question, I ask without having any sort of agenda.


::: The evidence of the time since the fall of the europe wide Stalinist hegemony is that fracture and atomization is the direction of traffic of the working class. :::

[Q]

What "theory of the party" are you referring to specifically?

[Thirsty Crow]

What "theory of the party" are you referring to specifically?
Yeah, this is the crucial sub-question. In fact, I don't think that the original one makes sense, and that this is the right one to ask.

I'll briefly explain my own position on this. The party of the class can only come together - not as a group of communists or even as communist organization - in a period of intense and escalating class struggle, also in terms of international scope. So, the answer to your question would be simple - if those conditions obtain and the hypothesis comes to nothing, then it is falsified.

Though, if you are searching for something akin to a scientific falsification, this picture would have to be much more specific so that "escape routes" of ad hoc justification are closed off.

[RedKobra]

The Marxist idea that the working class forming into a single revolutionary party was a prerequisite for revolution. Its something many of us take for granted as a truism but I just wondered at what point the evidence would be "in" so to speak. In, in the sense, that there has been little sign of a united revolutionary vanguard in a very long time, let alone the a party of the majority of the working class.

I suppose in essense, I'm asking whether we shouldn't have seen some evidence of a "mass party" by now? Certainly we've had no such thing in an industrialised, Capitalist society which is exactly where the real catalytic blow must be struck. Only a crisis of capitalist power in one of the leading economic centres will sufficiently embolden the working class and undermine the transnational capitalist class.

[RedKobra]

Thats a very interesting answer LinksRadikal (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=26240). I suppose it feels like the chicken and the egg, though. How can we aggitate to move the struggle to the point of 'Escelating class struggle' as you put it without some kind of mass coordinated movement if the 'Escelating class struggle' is the very thing that will mobilise the mass coordinated movement.

[Thirsty Crow]

I suppose in essense, I'm asking whether we shouldn't have seen some evidence of a "mass party" by now? Certainly we've had no such thing in an industrialised, Capitalist society which is exactly where the real catalytic blow must be struck. Only a crisis of capitalist power in one of the leading economic centres will sufficiently embolden the working class and undermine the transnational capitalist class.
Well, no. I don't think such an expectation, to see "evidence of the mass party" makes sense.

For one, not all Marxists argue for a mass party; secondly, and more importantly, of course we don't see evidence of anything like it, and that's because the global working class is for the time being defeated. From region to region, there are differences in the severity and particular "modes of defeat", so to speak, but it is possible and reasonable to generalize and state that the capitalists are winning out.

A more general point is that the formation of the party is a secondary effect of class struggle - not a cause of it, but initially a product, and later a catalyst at best. Catalyst, in the sense of communist militants inability, as communist militants*, to make class struggle happen and take off.

*At the same time, communist militants may be workers' themselves, and as workers' we indeed can and do participate in making class struggle happen. But as propagandists and communists, we don't and can't.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Those central economies have been experiencing a pretty extreme crisis for 5+ years now and nothing resembling even an embryo of a mass party has come into existence. Marxists have historically underestimated Capital's ability not only to cope and survive crisis but it's ability to thrive under crisis. Relying on crisis to jump start the masses seems to me like a very discredited idea at this point. Class struggle has certainly increased as has consciousness to some extent I would argue but on the whole we still see the same forms of organization that have been consistently present and more importantly have consistently failed over the last century. If the possibility of a mass revolutionary party still exists, the Marxists are as unsure of how to reach it as any small town quilting circle.

[RedKobra]

Those central economies have been experiencing a pretty extreme crisis for 5+ years now and nothing resembling even an embryo of a mass party has come into existence. Marxists have historically underestimated Capital's ability not only to cope and survive crisis but it's ability to thrive under crisis. Relying on crisis to jump start the masses seems to me like a very discredited idea at this point. Class struggle has certainly increased as has consciousness to some extent I would argue but on the whole we still see the same forms of organization that have been consistently present and more importantly have consistently failed over the last century. If the possibility of a mass revolutionary party still exists, the Marxists are as unsure of how to reach it as any small town quilting circle.

Depressingly, it does seem that way. I look back over the last 40 odd years looking for evidence of where there may have been traction but its a pretty bleak and featureless desert. Time and time again Capitalism falls flat on its face and it still manages to come up smelling of money & power whilst the working class are still stumbling about, disorientated, wittering on about the causes of the crises.

And that in a nutshell is the issue. Capitalist crisis seems to disorientate the workers far more than the Capitalists. Within a very short time the capitalist class had closed ranks (2008) and had the governments of the world by the throat. Its six years since the crash and there isn't the faintest sign of the advanced members of the working class closing ranks, let alone holding capital by the throat.

[The Idler]

Communism does not predict that workers should organise into a united mass party in some sort of teleological clairvoyant fashion. It merely urges workers to organise into a united mass party, it is a calling.

[RedKobra]

Communism does not predict that workers should organise into a united mass party in some sort of teleological clairvoyant fashion. It merely urges workers to organise into a united mass party, it is a calling.

I get that. But Marx doesn't describe any other way of the working class coming to power, so in a way, "The Party" seems our only hope. Organisation or defeat, to put it bluntly. And what is very worrying is that since Stalin died (who had to some extent, despite his counter-revolutionary nature and odious abuse of power, given the left throughout Europe & Asia a point of orientation & ideological ballast) there hasn't been a shred of evidence that the working class is a class capable of forging a party of the class.

The whole point to this thread is not to rubbish the idea of "The Party", it's actually a compelling and inspiring idea, but to raise the question of, as scientific socialists, at what point do we admit that a particular idea is actually falsified and that trying to persist in forming said party is to the detriment of the revolution, which ultimately is what we all agitate for.

If "The Party" were falsified, I haven't a clue what would fill the theoretical void.

[Blake's Baby]

What is 'the Party' though?

To my mind, what Marx talked about was the working class becoming more conscious of itself as a worldwide class with common interests, recognising what those common interests were and are, and working together to further those interests. Marx also talks about those who are 'first' - as in, those who realise before the generality of the working class what those interests are, and try to organise to work towards them.

So, in a fragmentary and currently-stultified way, the political minorities of the working class are 'the embryos of the party'. Though I think probably lots of people who think they're communists will recoil in horror from what the working class actually does.

I don't see an alternative. Either you believe that 'people who call themselves communists (on the basis that they see that the working class needs to rise up and overthrow capitalism) will attempt to work together' - and then you are 'pro-Party', or you think 'people who call themselves communists (on the basis that they see that the working class needs to rise up and overthrow capitalism) should not attempt to work together' in which case... is there any reason to be a communist?

[Thirsty Crow]

... and then you are 'pro-Party', or you think 'people who call themselves communists (on the basis that they see that the working class needs to rise up and overthrow capitalism) should not attempt to work together' in which case... is there any reason to be a communist?
I think there is.
Not that such an argument would state simply communists should not attempt to work together. In fact, it would state it is almost inevitable they will - but that it is highly probable their activity will turn out to be detrimental. Up til now, what I'm talking about is an aspect of so called nihilist communism (exclusively related to the argument in Monsieur Dupont's book).

So, presumably, one course of activity left for those other communists is to criticize and disrupt this detrimental activity.

[RedWorker]

I think there is.
Not that such an argument would state simply communists should not attempt to work together. In fact, it would state it is almost inevitable they will - but that it is highly probable their activity will turn out to be detrimental. Up til now, what I'm talking about is an aspect of so called nihilist communism (exclusively related to the argument in Monsieur Dupont's book).

So, presumably, one course of activity left for those other communists is to criticize and disrupt this detrimental activity.

Lifestylist and pseudointellectualistic bullcrap.

[Thirsty Crow]

Lifestylist and pseudointellectualistic bullcrap.
Not really. Far from it, actually. If anything, their point is decidedly anti-intellectualist in the sense of opposing any project of raising counsciousness on behalf of communists. It is also decidedly anti-lifestylist as good portions of the book lambast the way communists turn their political activity into a moral virtue/duty and an activist way of life.

It could be argued that this is a peculiar reiteration of spontaneism as it could be found in councilism for instance, albeit in a more sharp and polemical way. And observing the history of the self-proclaimed revolutionary left - there are good reasons for such an attitude, even though the argument itself is highly problematic when it comes to crucial points.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The chicken and egg problem is something that left-coms prefer to avoid. The Eisenachers and Lassalleans of the 19th century were, by left-com definition, "volunteers" who engaged in "voluntarism," since their actions spurred the growth of the worker-class movement before a revolutionary period.

[The Idler]

I get that. But Marx doesn't describe any other way of the working class coming to power, so in a way, "The Party" seems our only hope. Organisation or defeat, to put it bluntly. And what is very worrying is that since Stalin died (who had to some extent, despite his counter-revolutionary nature and odious abuse of power, given the left throughout Europe & Asia a point of orientation & ideological ballast) there hasn't been a shred of evidence that the working class is a class capable of forging a party of the class.

The whole point to this thread is not to rubbish the idea of "The Party", it's actually a compelling and inspiring idea, but to raise the question of, as scientific socialists, at what point do we admit that a particular idea is actually falsified and that trying to persist in forming said party is to the detriment of the revolution, which ultimately is what we all agitate for.

If "The Party" were falsified, I haven't a clue what would fill the theoretical void.
When the party wins a significant majority of support and fails to advance the case for socialism, then you look for another party or start syndicalism in the workplaces. As yet we're still waiting for a socialist party to win a majority of support.

[Blake's Baby]

Self-defeating logic though - ('No True Scotsman Fallacy' I think). 'No socialist party has won majority support among the working class... therefore any party that has won majority support is not socialist'.

You need to define what 'socialist' means here first.

[Thirsty Crow]

The chicken and egg problem is something that left-coms prefer to avoid. The Eisenachers and Lassalleans of the 19th century were, by left-com definition, "volunteers" who engaged in "voluntarism," since their actions spurred the growth of the worker-class movement before a revolutionary period.
"Volunteers"? :laugh:

Yeah, no. The thing is that the usual left communist suspects do not argue on those lines; that would be particularly incoherent for us who're trying to find a way today through organizing. But in general as well since the idea is that voluntarism is a potential and serious pitfall in counter-revolutionary periods. Actions that "spur the growth of the class movement" aren't at all synonymous with it as well.

[The Idler]

Self-defeating logic though - ('No True Scotsman Fallacy' I think). 'No socialist party has won majority support among the working class... therefore any party that has won majority support is not socialist'.

You need to define what 'socialist' means here first.
No party that stands for common ownership of the means of production has won majority support among the working-class and demonstrated the support of workers for that goal.

When a party with such an object wins majority support and the class fails to bring about socialism, then you can rule out political parties as a way of helping it most.