Theses on the Role of the Communist Party in the Proletariat Revolution

  1. Brosa Luxemburg
    Brosa Luxemburg
  2. Brosa Luxemburg
    Brosa Luxemburg
    The Communist Party is differentiated from the working class as a whole by the fact that it has a clear view of the entire historical path of the working class in its totality and endeavours, at every bend in this road, to defend the interests not of separate groups or trades, but of the working class as a whole.
    I agree with this statement for sure. The party is an important organ of proletariat power due to the fact it acts in the interests of the class as a whole rather than other organs.

    Only after the proletarian dictatorship has deprived the bourgeoisie of such powerful means of exerting influence as the press, the schools, parliament, the church, the administrative machine, etc., only after the final defeat of the bourgeois order has become clear to everybody, only then will all or practically all the workers begin to enter the ranks of the Communist Party.
    I would have to disagree with this statement. The party should become a mass party when the majority of the proletariat has attained a class consciousness, which can take place before exerting the bourgeois control over the schools, etc.

    Political power cannot be seized, organised, and operated except through a political party.
    I wouldn't say that political power can be seized only thorough the party but it is probably the most effective organization to do so.

    The propaganda conducted by the revolutionary syndicalists and adherents of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) against the necessity for an independent workers' party therefore objectively helped and helps only to support the bourgeoisie and the counterrevolutionary "social-democrats". In their propaganda against a communist party, which they want to replace by trade unions alone or by shapeless "general" workers' unions, the syndicalists and IWW come close to the avowed opportunists.
    I agree with that statement above. One of Bordiga's biggest strengths is his critique of syndicalism and anarcho-syndicalism

    The most important task of a genuine communist party is to keep always in closest touch with the broadest masses of the proletariat. In order to do that, communists can and should also be active in associations which, though they are not party organisations, have large proletarian groups among their members...The Russian example of the so-called "non- parties" workers' and peasants' conferences is particularly important...Communists consider it their most important task to carry on the work of organisation and instruction in a systematic fashion within these wider workers' organisations. But in order to do this successfully, in order to prevent the enemies of the revolutionary proletariat from taking possession of these broad workers' organisations, the advanced communist workers must have their own independent tightly-knit communist party, which acts always in an organised way and which is able, at every turn of events and whatever form the movement takes, to look after the general interests of communism.
    All I can say is, agree!

    The rise of soviets as the historical basic form of the dictatorship of the proletariat does not in any way diminish the leading role of the Communist Party in the proletarian revolution.
    I agree. The party is an important centralized force for the proletariat.

    I agree with Bordiga when he says that the party should not "adapt" to the soviets but must exert influence over the soviets and make sure the soviets do not "adapt" to counter-revolutionary demands and goals.

    Point 11 is great, but I am not sure that one type of workers' organization will dominate.

    11. The need for a political party of the proletariat disappears only with the complete abolition of classes. On the road to this final victory of communism it is possible that the historical importance of the three basic forms of proletarian organisation today (party, soviet, producers' union) will change, and that gradually a single type of workers' organisation will crystallise out. But the Communist Party will only merge completely in the working class when communism ceases to be a goal to be fought for and the entire working class has become communist.
    I think in point 14 it needs to place more emphasis on the freedom of discussion and, while party members must follow the decisions agreed upon and accept them, have the right to openly disagree with such decisions.

    14. The Communist Party must be built on the basis of democratic centralism. The basic principles of democratic centralism are that the higher party bodies shall be elected by the lower, that all instructions of the higher bodies are categorically and necessarily binding on the lower; and that there shall be a strong party centre whose authority is universally and unquestioningly recognised for all leading party comrades in the period between congresses.
    I agree that in a time when the communist party is deemed illegal that the democratic form of decision making cannot be always observed and that in such a situation the center should be able to make decisions observable to all members. This should certainly change when conditions change though.

    I agree with the 6 points at the end.

    Interesting read, but nothing real new here if you have already read some of Bordiga's other works.
  3. Caj
    Caj
    Until the proletariat has seized state power and consolidated its rule once for all, and made it secure against a bourgeois restoration, the Communist Party will have in its organised ranks only a minority of the workers.
    I don't think this is necessarily the case. The RCB(B), for example, was a mass party prior to the seizure of power.

    I don't, however, have any objection to the Party seizing power without mass support.

    In certain historical circumstances it is quite possible for the working class to include very numerous reactionary elements. It is the task of communism not to adapt itself to these backward sections of the working class but to raise the entire working class to the level of the communist vanguard. . . . [I]t must be the task of the proletarian party in such a state of affairs to come out against the sentiments of the majority of the workers and to defend the historical interests of the proletariat[.]
    I think this is very important. It reveals the problem of striving for a mass party in all historical situations. In most historical situations, the majority of the working class will be composed of reactionary elements. For this reason, the Party will usually be composed of only an advanced minority of the class as a whole. Mass partyism, as Bordiga says in the Lyons Theses, inevitably leads to opportunism.

    The same class struggle likewise demands the centralisation and unified direction of the most varied forms of the proletarian movement (trade unions, co-operatives, factory councils, educational work, elections, etc.). Only a political party can be such a co-ordinating and guiding centre. The refusal to create and to strengthen such a party and to subordinate oneself to it implies the rejection of unity in the direction of the different fighting forces of the proletariat acting on the various fields of battle. The class struggle of the proletariat needs concentrated agitation which illuminates the various stages of the struggle from a single standpoint and directs the attention of the proletariat at each given moment to the definite tasks to be accomplished by the whole class. This cannot be done without a centralised political apparatus, i.e. without a political party.
    This, too, is important. I think the most important function of the Party is to transcend the often conflicting sectional and trade interests of the workers and pursue the general interests of the class as a whole.

    Communists do not by any means shun mass workers' organisations which have a non-party character, even when these are of an outright reactionary character (yellow or Christian unions, etc.); they do not shrink from taking part in them and using them.
    I disagree that the Party should take part in and use overtly reactionary organizations, regardless of how many workers are in them.

    The new division, which we are approaching everywhere, is: 1. party, 2. workers' councils (soviets), 3. producers' associations (trade unions).
    I think factory councils should also be added to this.

    But both the councils and the revolutionary unions must be constantly and systematically guided by the party of the proletariat, that is, by the Communist Party. The organised vanguard of the working class, the Communist Party, which must direct the struggles of the entire working class in the economic and the political field, as well as in the sphere of education, must be the animating spirit within the unions and the workers' councils, as well as in every other kind of proletarian organisation.
    Indeed. There is nothing inherently revolutionary about trade unions and soviets. They can easily become organs of reaction. For this reason, they must be subordinated to and animated by the Party.

    In order that the soviets may be able to achieve their historical tasks, a strong Communist Party is essential, a party which does not simply "adapt" itself to the soviets, but is able to ensure that the soviets do not "adapt" themselves to the bourgeoisie and to white-guard social-democracy, a party which through its fractions in the soviets is able to make them follow it.
    Completely agree with this.

    the Communist Party will only merge completely in the working class when communism ceases to be a goal to be fought for and the entire working class has become communist.
    This seems to contradict what Adam Buick said regarding Bordiga's view on the role of the Party after the withering away of the state. Buick said that according to Bordiga, the Party would become an administrative organ still composed of a minority of the class. Here, Bordiga seems to say that the Party will include the entirety of the class under communism.

    The Communist Party must be built on the basis of democratic centralism. The basic principles of democratic centralism are that the higher party bodies shall be elected by the lower, that all instructions of the higher bodies are categorically and necessarily binding on the lower; and that there shall be a strong party centre whose authority is universally and unquestioningly recognised for all leading party comrades in the period between congresses.
    I think democratic centralism is appropriate in certain situations, but we shouldn't elevate the democratic decision-making mechanism to an absolute principle, as it isn't always the most practical decision-making mechanism.

    A number of communist parties in Europe and America have been compelled, as a result of the "state of siege" decreed by the bourgeoisie against communists, to lead an illegal life. It must be borne in mind that in such a state of affairs the principle of election cannot be strictly observed and the leading party bodies must be given the right of co-opting members, as was done at one time in Russia. Under a "state of siege" the Communist Party is unable to make use of a democratic referendum about every serious question (as was proposed by a group of American Communists); instead it must give its central body the right in emergencies to take important decisions for all party members.
    This being the perfect example of how democracy is not always practical.

    At the present time the advocacy of broad "autonomy" for the local party organisations only weakens the ranks of the Communist Party, undermines its capacity for action, and favours petty-bourgeois, anarchist and disruptive tendencies.
    I completely agree. One of the most important (if not the most important) functions of the Party is to transcend sectional interests. If the local organs of the Party are granted autonomy or semi-autonomy, the Party becomes incapable of fulfilling this function.

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

    Overall, I'd agree with Brosa that, although an interesting read, there's nothing really new here for those familiar with Bordiga.
  4. campesino
    campesino
    The most important task of a genuine communist party is to keep always in closest touch with the broadest masses of the proletariat. In order to do that, communists can and should also be active in associations which, though they are not party organisations, have large proletarian groups among their members, such as the associations of war invalids in various countries, the "Hands off Russia" committees in England, proletarian tenants' leagues, etc. The Russian example of the so-called "non- parties" workers' and peasants' conferences is particularly important. These conferences are organised in practically every town, in every working-class district, and also in the countryside. The broadest masses of even the backward workers take part in the elections to these conferences. The most pressing questions are placed on the agenda -- food supplies, housing, the military situation, schools, the current political tasks, etc. The communists exercise a most active influence on these "non-party" conferences, and with the greatest success for the party.

    Communists consider it their most important task to carry on the work of organisation and instruction in a systematic fashion within these wider workers' organisations. But in order to do this successfully, in order to prevent the enemies of the revolutionary proletariat from taking possession of these broad workers' organisations, the advanced communist workers must have their own independent tightly-knit communist party, which acts always in an organised way and which is able, at every turn of events and whatever form the movement takes, to look after the general interests of communism.
    I consider this a little out-dated, I don't know of many proletarian organizations nowadays. Also, if the organisation want to take reactionary steps(due to lack of class consciousness of the majority of the members of the organisation,) what can party member's effectively do to stop it. I interpret this paragraph as, it is good(not important) to have party member in all manners of proletarian organisations, and important that we not reject party member's being active in the organisation.
  5. Brosa Luxemburg
    Brosa Luxemburg
    I don't think this is necessarily the case. The RCB(B), for example, was a mass party prior to the seizure of power.

    I don't, however, have any objection to the Party seizing power without mass support.
    Yeah, I agree. I mean, because of the subject of the writing I can understand why it sounds the way it does but in this Bordiga really sounds very absolutist.

    I think this is very important. It reveals the problem of striving for a mass party in all historical situations. In most historical situations, the majority of the working class will be composed of reactionary elements. For this reason, the Party will usually be composed of only an advanced minority of the class as a whole. Mass partyism, as Bordiga says in the Lyons Theses, inevitably leads to opportunism.
    I don't really think too many would disagree with this

    This, too, is important. I think the most important function of the Party is to transcend the often conflicting sectional and trade interests of the workers and pursue the general interests of the class as a whole.
    While I agree, the organization of the most revolutionary and class conscious workers also is a huge reason for the party's existence.

    I disagree that the Party should take part in and use overtly reactionary organizations, regardless of how many workers are in them.
    I agree, the party should not, of course, have any role in religious, racist, etc. organizations. I think that Bordiga wasn't really arguing this though (possibly the religious part). I think he was saying the party should have influence in organizations and struggles that do not necessarily have a radical or revolutionary nature so long as it does not substitute that struggle for the struggle to demolish capitalism. This would include things like identity politics. For example, it wouldn't be wrong, and might be strategically right, for the party to participate in the gay rights struggle as long as it puts it in a revolutionary framework. I hope I am not being vague here?

    I think factory councils should also be added to this.
    Possibly. I think that the Soviets are much more important organs than the factory councils and may negate the need for them. Of course, the factory councils are also important institutions ans should not be overlooked.

    Indeed. There is nothing inherently revolutionary about trade unions and soviets. They can easily become organs of reaction. For this reason, they must be subordinated to and animated by the Party.
    I agree.

    This seems to contradict what Adam Buick said regarding Bordiga's view on the role of the Party after the withering away of the state. Buick said that according to Bordiga, the Party would become an administrative organ still composed of a minority of the class. Here, Bordiga seems to say that the Party will include the entirety of the class under communism.
    Yeah, Buick's article is good but there are some problems with it to be sure.

    I think democratic centralism is appropriate in certain situations, but we shouldn't elevate the democratic decision-making mechanism to an absolute principle, as it isn't always the most practical decision-making mechanism.
    *cough* Organic Centralism *cough*

    This being the perfect example of how democracy is not always practical.
    Yep.

    I completely agree. One of the most important (if not the most important) functions of the Party is to transcend sectional interests. If the local organs of the Party are granted autonomy or semi-autonomy, the Party becomes incapable of fulfilling this function.
    Yes, I agree.
  6. Caj
    Caj
    I don't really think too many would disagree with this
    I think a significant portion of this site would. Don't a lot of the self-described "Orthodox Marxists" and "Revolutionary Marxists" (as in the usergroup) on this site advocate a mass party?

    I think he was saying the party should have influence in organizations and struggles that do not necessarily have a radical or revolutionary nature so long as it does not substitute that struggle for the struggle to demolish capitalism. This would include things like identity politics. For example, it wouldn't be wrong, and might be strategically right, for the party to participate in the gay rights struggle as long as it puts it in a revolutionary framework. I hope I am not being vague here?
    That makes sense. If that's what Bordiga meant, then I agree with him.

    Possibly. I think that the Soviets are much more important organs than the factory councils and may negate the need for them. Of course, the factory councils are also important institutions ans should not be overlooked.
    Yes, I agree that the soviets are far more important than the factory councils. However, I wouldn't say the factory councils are any less important than the trade unions.
  7. Brosa Luxemburg
    Brosa Luxemburg
    I think a significant portion of this site would. Don't a lot of the self-described "Orthodox Marxists" and "Revolutionary Marxists" (as in the usergroup) on this site advocate a mass party?
    I meant us Bordigists

    Yes, I agree that the soviets are far more important than the factory councils. However, I wouldn't say the factory councils are any less important than the trade unions.
    Good point.
  8. Caj
    Caj
    I meant us Bordigists
    So you mean just us two lol
  9. Welshy
    So you mean just us two lol
    You mean three
  10. Caj
    Caj
    I knew you were influenced by Bordiga, but I wasn't aware that you identified as a Bordigist.
  11. Brosa Luxemburg
    Brosa Luxemburg
    You mean three
  12. Welshy
    I knew you were influenced by Bordiga, but I wasn't aware that you identified as a Bordigist.
    I can't say I'm at the moment the most rigid bordigist, but I have been finding that my positions I have had (depsite my short council communist stint) have been more in line with bordiga than anyone else lately and can't really find myself disagreeing with him. So I decided to give in and start identifying myself as a bordigist. Plus it makes the impossiblists and anarchist mad, so that's an added benefit