The first step in building a new mass workers' party

(this might be an easy question to pose, yet harder to answer)

I wonder what will cause the formation of a new mass workers' party. I have some outlines of how the RSDLP [and the BWP/POB (Belgian Party of Workmen)] started, but I don't now what caused Bebel and Liebknecht to form an effective mass party of the proletariat.

Both parties (SPD and RSDLP) where founded in an era of class struggle (right?), yet today there is almost no real class struggle. There is only issolated struggle of workers of different sectors; and within each sector there are all sorts of possible divisions that play a role in the spontaneous struggles of the workers. And I didn't even mention the destructive role of the yellow trade unions and so called socialist parties! Those facts make it almost impossible to organize real class struggle.
If class struggle is a necaissity for building a new mass workers party then it might take a long time before the first steps are taken, right?

Comrade, in my United Social Labour chapter-section, I said that "the initial basis for the creation of one mass 'United Social Labour' (USL) organization by the working class, of the working class, and for the working class (to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln), and ultimately the revolutionary Marxist mass party itself" is the formation of "a singular revolutionary news service encompassing news coverage, analysis, and both bulletin and video discussions."

http://www.revleft.com/vb/united-soc...056/index.html

The back-and-forth debate in that thread between three posters (including myself) revolved around the word "singular," even though I said that the word "singular" didn't exclude the notion of having a huge diversity of opinions.

This key information centrality is a modern take on the second of Lenin's proposals in WITBD.

but I don't now what caused Bebel and Liebknecht to form an effective mass party of the proletariat

I'm not sure if there was any real class struggle during the formation of the SPD, given the drive towards German unification.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/sozialdemo...754/index.html

[Comrades should note the History thread discussion on the SPD in the link above.]

There is growing class struggle, but this is channeled to the wrong avenues (case in point: BNP votes). Circle-ism between 1989 and 2001 was OK; circle-ism today is NOT.

Since most Marxists have the wrong, rigid impression of DC, and because even the real DC has flexibility problems in terms of gagging post-decision PUBLIC criticisms, my "Circumstantial Discussive Unity" section suggests finding a new organizational model that guarantees the right to criticize, at any time, decisions that have already been made.

(this might be an easy question to pose, yet harder to answer)
If class struggle is a necessity for building a new mass workers party then it might take a long time before the first steps are taken, right?

No. It could be just around the corner. The decades of prosperity for Global Capitalism might soon be over as the chill wind of financial crisis blows, even now, across the landscape. Things can change extremely quickly. Remember that only a few months before the February revolution, Lenin - more astute than most - was pessimistic about living to see revolution break out in Russia.

Class consciousness doesn't increase incrementally but can erupt suddenly under the pressure of events. History shows us this uneven character. Decades of relative social peace can be succeeded by decades of social strife. It's the nature of capitalist development.

My big concern is whether or not we could really encourage the workers to fight our imperialist states. I think that the militancy of our imperial states is the most dire concern at the present.

Zimmerwaldism rather than outright revolutionary defeatism for the interim. You all realize we are on verge of war with Iran; conditions change quickly in wartime.

Zimmerwaldism

What in god's name is this?

Sorry, I usually try to avoid zingers like that, but I was pressd for time and used "shorthand." The "Zimmerwald Left" were those Socialist Parties, or (more often)fractions of them, who opposed "their" countries' war not just before it started, but more importantly, after (we're talking WWI here). Revolutionary Defeatism is a more advanced position taken by the bolsheviks, that defeat of one's "own" government is preferable to their victory. I've been reading too much Jacob, I guesswill try to be clearer.

My big concern is whether or not we could really encourage the workers to fight our imperialist states. I think that the militancy of our imperial states is the most dire concern at the present.

They'll be our greatest asset in radicalising workers. When imperialist states run into trouble, it usually helps revolutionaries. Recall that the most radical period of American history post-WWII was the period of Vietnam, when the empire took a beating.

After the question of information centrality, I think it is important for us comrades to revisit the subject of "membership":

http://www.revleft.com/vb/little-len...41/index3.html

First of all this is not just a question of future bureaucrats and careerists, but it is more generally a question of infiltration, most commonly ideological infiltration of course but also a possible case material infiltration. So the first question is, how can an organization prevent such people from entering as much as possible. I think the solution to this problem is clear: I see a massive problem with this never questioned sacred need to "recruit new people" all the time, and the whole mentality that comes with it. Obviously any serious organization would want new militants and would want to grow.

Led Zeppelin replied, and then Comrade Rakunin himself and I jumped in.



As we all know, most mainstream political parties today measure membership purely on the basis of regular financial support (since there's no way they can "measure" acceptance or rejection of party programs). Most "members" vote only during big party conventions set by the party functionaries. Back in the day, the RSDLP (specifically the Bolsheviks) had to resort to armed robberies to finance their activities - in addition to selling newspapers and regular financial support from the membership.



Now, it's a little bit of a oddity that the party had "candidate"/alternate members in addition to full members, and yet these particular members, most of the time, rendered what Martov the Menshevik called "regular personal assistance under the direction of one of the party's organizations" (the Menshevik definition of membership), and did not really participate.

I gave my thoughts in post #57 of the thread above, giving four criteria instead of Lenin's and Martov's three, but I'm sorta wondering if a more detailed definition of "member" - in regards to participation - is needed. A lot of revolutionary-minded folks just don't have the time to commit towards personal participation in party organizations, yet wish for some sort of carrot to be laid out there in exchange for regular financial support (they simply just don't want to be labelled mere "sympathizers"). Especially in this day and age, when armed robberies and the electronic equivalent simply aren't an option for additional money...

Any ideas? Could "alternate membership" be based on the Menshevik definition? What about the criteria of membership for the then-Marxist SPD (whatever they were)? Could they be applicable today?

[FONT=Verdana]

Any ideas? Could "alternate membership" be based on the Menshevik definition? What about the criteria of membership for the then-Marxist SPD (whatever they were)? Could they be applicable today?

[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana]What were the alternate Menshevik criteria? [/FONT]

What were the criteria of the SPD anyway? Does anyone know?

With permission from gilhyle (I simply don't know why he/she wants to remain out of this group ):

--------------------
While I dont really understand the use of the term 'criteria' in your question, the question posed in the REVMarx link is whether there was class struggle in the process of the formation of the SPD.

Given the low level of development of industry in Germany in the 1860s and 1870s the kind of class struggle there was was limited. There were certain groups that fought for trade union representation but some of those were actually the slowest to join the SPD. The party itself was very much a product of the weakness of the German liberal bourgeoisie in the face of the aggresive progress of Prussia, outflanking them and establishing the Reichstag as a key institution of the new Empire, but one surrounded by caveats.

Thus the context for the priority of the political party over the Unions (as was the case in Germany) was the low level of development of industry, the aggresive and arbitrary approach of the State to the institutions of bourgeois democracy, the willingness of the state to buy off workers to separate them from the bourgeoisie via state socialism and the absence of freedome of speech and basic democratic rights.

Is this any use...can go into more detail if you like.
--------------------

Why should this party be a marxist party from the beginning, even when we know that keynesian-reformist ideas dominate the working class and those who seek a new party of the workers?

Actually, comrade, it's more complex than that. For example, as you've noted on RevLeft, there are such folks as "anarcho-Marxists" (who are "Marxist" in everything except on the question of the state, who MATURELY argue that a "transitional state" isn't necessary anymore). Also, I've mentioned "democratic socialists" (centrists in the classical sense, but now armed with the "referendum road to socialism"), "French-socialist" pareconists, and "market socialists" (like David Schweickart and NOT late Bukharin or Deng Xiaoping) as being members of the organization.

Key to this unity is "senatorial" organization for the organization's media:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/senatorial...582/index.html

Given my very vocal stance in recent weeks regarding the need for socialists in advanced countries to organize SPD-style (ie, revolutionaries and real, post-welfarist reformists), would a good start for unity revolve around "senatorial" organization for online and/or print newspapers?

For example, the editorial board would have one pareconist along the lines of Michael Albert, one "market socialist" along the lines of David Schweickart, one generic "democratic socialist" (but one who opposes mere "social democracy"), one liberation-theologist, one Trotskyist, one ortho-Marxist, one "maximalist" (revolutionary demands only, no minimums), one generic Marxist (preferrably a small-r revolutionary Marxist), and maybe even one anarcho-Marxist.

It's kinda like the "job-slot" system that developed in the CPSU ("by which various state and party jobs had ex officio membership - slots - on the Central Committee"), only based on ideological positions and not bureaucratic jobs.

Ideally, there would be a "revolutionary" majority (as opposed to everyone being "revolutionary"), but real-reformists / "democratic socialists" and their "referendum road to socialism" would be more than welcome.

So is this party a "Marxist" party? Well, "full worker ownership and control over the economy as a means to end the exploitation of labour ASAP" is something that even dem-socs desire.

On the other hand, most French-socialist pareconists today think "Marxism" is a "coordinator's ideology," and we in the "revolutionary" tradition don't consider either dem-socs or market-socs to be "Marxists." Some will have problems with having syndicalists like DeLeonists (I don't, given the excellent position of Comrade mikelepore on labour-time vouchers). Then there's the question of liberation-theologists like Comrade Edric O who adopt a thoroughly Marxist class analysis. Unfortunately, the [immature] "militant atheists" would surely not consider comrades like him to be "Marxist."



As for "social-democrats" (social-fascists who aren't even dem-soc / real-reformist centrists in our revolutionary history), given my remarks in my USL article about the need for organized mass spoilage and not parliamentary participation, I have problems. If it's a "social-democratic" NGO (non-government organization), then I'd be fine with entryism on the part of some USL/SLD members. [In any event, the non-parliamentary USL/SLD should have its own organization, free from "social-democrats."]

"The teaching of Marx and Engels gave to the class-struggle of the proletariat an entirely new character. So long as socialist production is not kept consciously in view as its object, so long as the efforts of the militant proletariat do not extend beyond the framework of the existing method of production, the class-struggle seems to move forever in a circle. For the oppressive tendencies of the capitalist method of production are not done away with; at most they are only checked." (Karl Kautsky)



So if USL/SLD is "Marxist," it is only so because it excludes those whom all of the intra-organization tendencies consider not to adhere to the basic position of "full worker ownership and control over the economy as a means to end the exploitation of labour ASAP."

From there, we can then agree to merely accept the organization's programme, and not necessarily agree with it (maximalists like Comrade mikelepore don't like the minimum programme).