The Merger Formula: Ideology on Why Real Parties are Real Movements and Vice Versa The previous blog, Real Parties as Real Movements and Vice Versa, explained the institutional basis for the title. This unoriginal yet long-overdue blog provides the ideological basis. "It is evident that the worker movement is divided into two sections, the Chartists and the Socialists. The Chartists are the more backward, the less developed, but they are genuine proletarians all over, the representatives of their class. The Socialists are more far-seeing, propose radical remedies against distress, but, proceeding originally from the bourgeoisie, are for this reason unable to amalgamate completely with the working class. The merger of Socialism with Chartism, the reproduction of French Communism in the English style, will be the next step, and has already begun. Then only, when this has been achieved, will the worker class be the true leader of England." (Frederick Engels, The Condition of the Working Class in England) "Nothing is more calculated to impress upon a class a worthy and moral character, than the awareness that it is destined to become a ruling class, that it called upon to raise the principle of its class to the principle of the entire age, to convert its idea into the leading idea of the whole of society and thus to form this society by impressing upon it its own character." (Ferdinand Lassalle, The Worker Programme) “In order for the socialist and the worker movements to become reconciled and to become fused into a single movement, socialism had to break out of the utopian way of thinking. This was the world-historical deed of Marx and Engels. In the Communist Manifesto of [1848] they laid the scientific foundations of a new modern socialism, or, as we say today, of Social Democracy. By so doing, they gave socialism solidity and turned what had hitherto been a beautiful dream of well-meaning enthusiasts into an earnest object of struggle and [also] showed this to be the necessary consequence of economic development. To the fighting proletariat they gave a clear awareness of its historical task and they placed it on a condition to speed to its great goal as quickly and with as few sacrifices as possible. The socialists no longer have the task of freely inventing a new society but rather uncovering its elements in existing society. No more do they have to bring salvation from its misery to the proletariat from above, but rather they have to support its class struggle through increasing its insight and promoting its economic and political organizations, and in so doing bring about as quickly and as painlessly as possible the day when the proletariat will be able to save itself. The task of Social Democracy is to make the class struggle of the proletariat aware of its aim and capable of choosing the best means to attain this aim.” (Karl Kautsky, The Erfurt Program) "Social-Democracy is not confined to simple service to the working-class movement: it represents “the combination of socialism and the working-class movement” (to use Karl Kautsky’s definition which repeats the basic ideas of the Communist Manifesto); the task of Social-Democracy is to bring definite socialist ideals to the spontaneous working-class movement, to connect this movement with socialist convictions that should attain the level of contemporary science, to connect it with the regular political struggle for democracy as a means of achieving socialism—in a word, to fuse this spontaneous movement into one indestructible whole with the activity of the revolutionary party." (Vladimir Lenin, Our Immediate Task) "But this does not exhaust the significance of Lenin's What is To Be Done? The historic significance of this celebrated book lies in the fact that in it Lenin 1) For the first time in the history of Marxist thought, laid bare the ideological roots of opportunism, showing that they principally consisted in worshipping the spontaneous working-class movement and belittling the role of Socialist consciousness in the working-class movement; 2) Brought out the great importance of theory, of consciousness, and of the Party as a revolutionizing and guiding force of the spontaneous working-class movement; 3) Brilliantly substantiated the fundamental Marxist thesis that a Marxist party is a union of the working-class movement with Socialism; 4) Gave a brilliant exposition of the ideological foundations of a Marxist party." (Joseph Stalin, History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks): Short Course) "The important thing is that the socialist goal should be inseparable from democratic goals and that the programme adopted should be not bourgeois democratic, but, to use a phrase, social democratic in character. That also rules out involvement in any kind of deal with the United Opposition, who are our enemy and part of the preconditions for yet another disaster. It was these questions that produced the split in the Left Front. The section I belong to is now discussing the need to form a new left party in Russia. Firstly, we need to overcome the confusion on the left, which is why we need a debate. Secondly, the important thing is that this new formation follows the example of Lenin in the 1890s in organising the historic linkage between the labour movement and the Marxists, which is precisely the task of the Russian left today." (Boris Kagarlitsky, Fuse Workers Movement and Marxism) "During the Cold War, capitalism severed the link between the cause of labor and the fight for socialism. This link has never been rebuilt, and this explains the sorry state of the US labor movement today [...] Labor militants need the political support of a revolutionary socialist movement. Sadly, but inevitably, socialist organizations that built a base on campuses became dominated by middle-class academics and professionals who offer abstract, not real, leadership. And they continue to wait for the labor movement to revive [...] Our most urgent task is to reconnect the labor movement with the socialist tradition. For this to happen, labor activists need socialist politics and socialist organizations must reconstitute themselves to place those who lead in the workplace in the leadership of the organization [...] The working class must organize separately from other classes, especially from the middle-class union bureaucrats and the middle-class professionals who dominate the social movements. Only by organizing separately can the working class become strong enough to make tactical alliances with other classes. The working class needs its own independent political party, a revolutionary socialist organization that is dedicated to winning the class war against capital by bringing the working class to power." (Susan Rosenthal, Civil Wars Ignores the Political Lessons)
Brilliant. This is exactly what we've been missing; this is the missing link which explains the crisis of the socialist movement today in my opinion. Lenin was the last of the Orthodox Marxists.. after his death, the socialist movement has been consumed by opportunism, class collaboration, and reformism on its right wing(Stalinism); and the disease of Bakuninism which manifests in Economism on its left wing(some Trotskyist sects, Left Communists, anarchists).
Check out the comments by comrades MarxSchmarx and Q in my Blog on the subject: http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=6559
Those were interesting. It's also interesting that Stalin of all people would bring up the Merger Formula, though his modern day descendants seem to have taken a sharp turn to the left in terms of organizational strategy. I have even asked some Stalinists as to how they think the party of the working class will emerge. I have been told that they think local communist councils will spontaneously appear and that these will merge to form the party! It seems no one is free from Bakuninism these days. I have seen no reason to think that a real party of the working class will emerge from anything other than the conscious, deliberate actions of its vanguard; which means we have a lot of work to do. It seems that rediscovering the Merger Formula is only one step though; we still have to formulate an effective strategy for forging this party. I have given the matter some thought, and I am starting to think that the only way this is possible is by fighting for workers' immediate demands, in addition to pursuing a long term revolutionary reorganization of society and the economy. I don't think ultra-revolutionary posturing and sloganeering is going to bring about the merger of Marxism and the worker's movement, or else an existing party would have made significant progress by now. If I remember correctly, there have been Stalinist and Trotskyist parties that have been willing to participate in Parliament, but none have ever done sone without succumbing to coalitionism and reformism. At the same time, I think it would be a mistake to assume that this occurred simply because these parties participated in Parliament. It may have more to do with what strategies and tactics they've used from within Parliament. The KKE may be a good example of what not to do. It seems to me that it may be a mistake to discount entirely Parliament as an avenue of struggle; most Communist Parties do and it seems to stem more from a principled position which has its roots in Bakuninism, rather than a sober analysis of the material conditions.
Of course, define "workers' immediate demands." For too long this has been formed inside the box, so to speak, even those that are actually political. It's a shame that not much literature was written about the tactics used by socialists in parliaments (DeLeon only wrote about parliamentarians talking about nothing but socialism, which is a good start, but he forgot anti-capitalist polemics as well). There needs to be various guides on this at the federal level and the provincial level (perhaps including private-member bills for the broader parliament referring issues over to some smaller parliamentary organ or whatever). There's also the tricky question of participating at the local level (because of all the "municipal socialism" crap), since there I prefer having just enough candidates to form a durable opposition than some "socialist mayor." P.S. - You should double-post your comments in my blog!
Immediate demands I would say are reforms that are less than the overthrow of the political dictatorship of the bourgeoisie that are construed within the system as it exists, but might be considered as a positive advancement. I'm a bit hazy on this, but I think such demands may include things such as banning/limiting mandatory overtime, banning unpaid overtime, and in places like the United States, socialized healthcare. A key aspect is that I think there are certain reforms that should be avoided, but I have a difficult time thinking of specifics at the moment. Above all, reforms should be a tool to advance the political position of the proletariat in its struggle against the bourgeoisie, in my opinion. Reforms like the ones mentioned above, if proposed by the party, I think would go a long way in bringing the worker's movement in alignment with the revolutionary movement. Part of the problem with the former SLP and the SPGB seems to be that they rejected the idea of reforms entirely, even as a tool for advancing political struggle; which is a mistake in my opinion. Advocating a given reform isn't necessarily reformism, even if they protest to the contrary. The key thing is whether a reform is being proposed with the intent of gradually transforming capitalism, or to advance the political struggle further with the aim of establishing the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. The former can be construed as reformism, but when reform is simply used as a tool, then I don't think it can be.
Comrade, would you consider reading Chapter 6 of my work-in-progress at some point? Numerous left reforms were proposed there, but more importantly, the detailed framework forming the basis of their advocacy is there. Anyway, re. referring issues to parliamentary discussion (since Occupy likes being about "issues" and not "demands"), various issues to be discussed are: working hours per week, proportional representation, corporate personhood (as opposed to acceptable limited liability), urban gentrification, economic rent, real wages, labour bargaining power, and mass media. These issues are related to many of the left reforms proposed in Chapter 6.
I've started reading it actually; I have been very busy with University work the past few weeks, and will continue to be until this coming Thursday. So far I've been very impressed, but I'm only a few pages in. In conjunction with Revolutionary Strategy, it's allowed me to develop my views significantly. Economism and apocalyptic predestinationist thinking have dominated the left, and it's very difficult to see from unless pointed out from an outside perspective. In 1914, this sort of fatally flawed thinking was the domain of the anarchists; but by 1950, it seems as though every portion of the left had adopted it. It's interesting there seems to be a bit of a revival in the ideas of De Leon, but I have to wonder why the SLP was such a catastrophic failure; I'd have to assume that they never tried building the party as a movement, and succumbed to economism. De Leon's ideas are a huge improvement over left politics as they exist today, as would, as you pointed out, the Menshevik-internationalists, ironically. I believe that Lenin said, "There can be no revolutionary movement without revolutionary theory", but it seems that it would be more accurate to say, "There can be no revolutionary movement without revolutionary strategy". It takes more than good theory to build a party; if you have no strategy for building the party into a movement, then even the best theories are useless. Strangely, when I brought up the Merger Formula among the ultra-leftists in Rooster's group, someone commented that I "must have read Trotsky's Transitional Programme". In the United States, overcoming the two-party system will be a major hurdle, and should be a strong goal. It will take a major social movement in order to force the government to replace it with a proportional system, which I think is critical for our strategy.
Actually, what Lenin said should have been "Without a revolutionary program there can be no revolutionary movement." Political program was the immediate context of the first chapter of Lenin's pamphlet. It was also the broader context of much of Lenin's pre-1900 work, with references to emulating the Erfurt Program. "Theory" as interpreted by left sects these days is just a justification for sectarian "theory." You are right about strategy, though, such that I should modify my words to "Without a revolutionary program and strategy there can be no revolutionary movement."
