Marx, Engels and the party

"Since 1852, then, I have known nothing of ‘party’ in the sense implied in your letter. Whereas you are a poet, I am a critic and for me the experiences of 1849-52 were quite enough. The ‘League’, like the société des saisons in Paris and a hundred other societies, was simply an episode in the history of a party that is everywhere springing up naturally out of the soil of modern society.
/.../
I have frankly stated my views, with which I trust you are largely in agreement. Moreover, I have tried to dispel the misunderstanding arising out of the impression that by ‘party’ I meant a ‘League’ that expired eight years ago, or an editorial board that was disbanded twelve years ago. By party, I meant the party in the broad historical sense."
Karl Marx. Link.



"Today the German proletariat no longer needs any official organization, either public or secret. The simple self-evident interconnection of like-minded class comrades suffices, without any rules, boards, resolutions or other tangible forms, to shake the whole German Empire to its foundations.
/.../
The international movement of the European and American proletariat has become so much strengthened that not merely its first narrow form — the secret League — but even its second, infinitely wider form — the open International Working Men’s Association — has become a fetter for it, and that the simple feeling of solidarity based on the understanding of the identity of class position suffices to create and to hold together one and the same great party of the proletariat among the workers of all countries and tongues"
Friedrich Engels. Link.





We can also ask Pannekoek:
"The old labour movement is organized in parties. The belief in parties is the main reason for the impotence of the working class; therefore we avoid forming a new party - not because we are too few, but because a party is an organization that aims to lead and control the working class./.../Essentially the party is a grouping according to views, conceptions; the classes are groupings according to economic interests. Class membership is determined by one's part in the process of production; party membership is the joining of persons who agree in their conceptions of the social problems."


...or Bordigas clear division in a "formal" and a "material/historical" party:
"Therefore the concept of class must not suggest to us a static image, but instead a dynamic one. When we detect a social tendency, or a movement oriented towards a given end, then we can recognise the existence of a class in the true sense of the word. But then the class party exists in a material if not yet in a formal way. A party lives when there is the existence of a doctrine and a method of action."
Link.


"This distinction is in Marx and Engels and they were right to deduce from it that, being through their work in the line of the historical party, they disdained to be members of any formal party.
/.../
Marx says: party in its historical meaning, in the historical sense, and formal, or ephemeral, party. In the first concept lies the continuity, and from it we have derived our characteristic thesis of the invariance of doctrine since its formulation by Marx; not as the invention of a genius, but as the discovery of a result of human evolution. But the two concepts are not metaphysically opposite, and it would be silly to express them by the poor doctrine : I turn my back on the formal party, as I go towards the historical one."
Link.

Interesting quotes...especially the one from Engels. :)

Insofar as communists "need" an organizational form, I favor a loose "movement-style" organization.

The quasi-military "disciplined party" accomplished nothing for us in the end...and the futility of electoral parties was amply demonstrated in 1914.

When the revolutionary proletariat organizes itself...then I will be in favor of whatever forms it chooses.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

I can say you twisted the quotes again and missed entirely the points of Marx and Engels.

Never did Marx or Engels wanted a loose organization of the proletariat.

I think he says 'loose' to differentiate the organization he has in mind from the militant Leninist parties with 'democratic centralism'. In this sense, the organization certainly would be 'loose'.

Actually, it's worse than that. The Marx quote, for example, is a defense against the slanderous accusation that he was part of a secret communist society, and that his lectures and writings were part of a secret conspiracy. The Engels quote was part of a longer statement about how there was no longer a need in Germany for a secret propaganda society that has to educate working people about the fact they are exploited. Neither of these quotes have anything to do with Marx or Engels rejecting the need for a political organization of working people -- a party.

As for Pannekoek and Bordiga, comrades are welcome to draw their own conclusions about these two useless petty bourgeois.

Miles

How are either "useless" or "petty-bourgeois"? ....I assume you mean that their theories were petty-bourgeois in nature?

Well, you can argue that their theories were differing trends of petty-bourgeois socialism (I would). But, they also were petty bourgeois in their class backgrounds. I have no use for such "theoreticians".

Miles

I don't know much about Bordiga, but as far as I'm aware, Pannekoek merely advocated workers control of the means of production, i.e. Council Communism and rejection of traditional Social-Democracy and "Vanguardist" Parties.

I don't see quite how that qualifies one to be part of a trend of "petty-bourgeois socialism".

Quote:

---

CommunistLeague

---

So were most 19th and 20th century Communist theoreticians. Doesn't necessarily mean they all had nothing of interest to say.

The Marx quote was in defense of a proletarian party.

In this Marx says, "By party, I meant the party in the broad historical sense."

It is not the Communist League or a typical bourgeois sense of a party. But a proletarian political party aimed at seizing political power and establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. And Engels and Lenin went on to provide clear explanation of this.

As for Pannekoek, I don't care what he says. My apologies to his followers, but I really don't think he is a good source regarding the issue of a proletarian party.

Pannekoek - Council Communist

Council Communists - Anarcho Syndicalists/Anarcho-Communists

In the words of Morpheus,

"Far-left Council Communism is a form of anarcho-communism but they don't call themselves anarchists because they usually (a) don't understand anarchism very well, (b) harbor various prejudices & stereotypes about anarchism, © are extremely steeped in the writings of Marx & those who want to interpret Marx as an ultra-leftist while reading relatively little of anarcho-communism, and/or (d) have been calling themselves Marxists for so long they find it difficult to be anything else."

I could not have put it better myself.

But Pannekoek is mos def not a "good source regarding the ... party". In fact, he has numerous articles against the idea of the vanguard and "linking" Bolshevism to the crimes of Stalinism.

I don't believe this idiocy. :lol:

I can only imagine red_che's attempt to "preach communism" to the working class: "You need structure, boy! You need discipline!" "Godamnit! You lazy proletarians need to do what yur told!"

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CommunistLeague+--> (CommunistLeague)Well, you can argue that their theories were differing trends of petty-bourgeois socialism (I would).[/b]

---

Care to explain? (both of you)

Or you're all just one-liners? You write a one-line comment on something or someone and you think it's good enough. It's not.

Miles, since you're quoting Sartre (and the book I have in mind), you might find yourself in one of his sentences I'll paraphrase for you: and our abstract 'Marxist' reduced analysis to a mere ceremony.

In this case, it fits you two perfectly. :lol:

Quote:

---

red_che

---

Quote:

---

@
The Marx quote was in defense of a proletarian party.

---

No, it's not. It's quite simple because for Marx and the revolutionary proletariat there is no such thing. There's only a...

Quote:

---

Marx

---

Which means, on the one side, proletariat organizing itself for the means of political and economical struggle, and on the other, the whole "broad historical" tendency toward social transformation and revolution.

I never portrayed my comments as analysis. If you'd like an analysis, however, here's a short one:

Much of what Pannekoek wrote about the role and importance of workers' councils was unoriginal. Apart from the fact that he had the experiences of the insurrections of 1917-1919 to draw on, what he wrote could have been penned by DeLeon, Connolly and even Lenin (pre-1917 Lenin, that is). Where Pannekoek separates himself from communism is on both the question of political organization and the question of tactics in the struggle for revolution.

In terms of political organization, his views were fundamentally shaped by his own class background. For example, in "Party and Working Class", he writes: "The whole question pivots, in short, on the following distinction: a party is a group based on certain ideas held in common, whereas a class is a group united on the basis of common interests. Membership in a class is determined by function in the production process, a function that creates definite interests. Membership in a party means being one of a group having identical views about the major social questions.

"In recent times, it was supposed for theoretical and practical reasons that this fundamental difference would disappear within a class party, the 'workers' party.' During the period when Social Democracy was in full growth, the current impression was that this party would gradually unite all the workers, some as militants, others as sympathizers. And since the theory was that identical interests would necessarily engender identical ideas and aims, the distinction between class and party was bound, it was believed, to disappear."

Not for one moment can he conceive of political organization that is based exclusively within the proletariat. That is the crux of the second paragraph, quoted above. In other words, he could only conceive of political organization in either bourgeois or Social-Democratic terms -- an all-encompassing "party" that allows non-proletarians into all levels of organization and leadership, and ultimately reproduces in microcosm the class-based division of labor that exists in society. This is because, as someone from the petty bourgeoisie, he cannot "think outside the box" and conceive of another kind of political party. In other words, he is hemmed in by his own origins in an exploiting class, and can really only view things from that perspective.

Now, in another thread on a similar topic, I wrote what I see as the role and mission of a proletarian political party:

Compare this view of a proletarian party to that of Pannekoek's, and you can see why I consider his view to be that of a useless petty bourgeois. Men like Pannekoek, Gorter and Bordiga lived through the experiences of these revolutions. They saw them up close and had the ability to follow events closely, taking in every facet of their development and dynamic. And yet, in spite of all of that rich experience, the best we get from them is a reactionary (i.e., a position formulated in reaction to something) viewpoint on the question of political organization.

(These views also betray an indisputable fact: Pannekoek's inability to break from bourgeois consciousness and ideology in his view of political organization betrays the fact that he was unwilling to break from his petty-bourgeois class origins. If he had integrated himself into the proletariat, I suspect his views on organization would be fundamentally different.)

In terms of his views on tactics in the struggle toward revolution, we see a similar methodological problem in a rejection of fighting for immediate demands -- "reforms" as they are sometimes called. For Pannekoek, just as a proletarian political organization can only be a "bourgeois party", so the struggle for immediate demands can only be "reformism". We also see it in his rejection of utilizing the tactic of running in elections; Pannekoek can only conceive of this tactic as "reformism" and "parliamentary cretinism". There is no other way it can go, as far as Pannekoek is concerned -- even though concrete historical experience has shown this is not the case.

This "either-or" method of seeing the world is little more than a crude mechanical materialism that actually abstracts the concepts of "party", "reforms" and "elections" from their specific material conditions and turns them into unchanging, universal institutions. In this sense, Pannekoek's vulgar materialism becomes its antipode: idealism. It's what's in Pannekoek's head that is the reality, not reality itself (with all of its contradictions and dynamics). In the end, his views convey the same message as the reformists: Don't bother fighting in the here and now, wait until the glorious revolution is upon us and then -- and only then -- stand up.

There is an old saying, DJ-TC: Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.

Miles

I don't see it that way. I can't tell why would you assume that he fetishises "party", "reforms" and "elections" as something "universal". That's not the point.

Party, reforms and elections are a part of a bourgeois structure, because they "came along" with it. The whole political mechanism of bourgeois society is projected upon those institutions, creating the inner logic which can only complement that same system and structure.

Parties are essentialy structuralistic and hierarchical, reforms do actually channel revolutonary potential, elections really serve only one purpose: state power.

The same class which must liberate itself from alienation is asked to come into alienating forms of struggle.


I have to say I'm pretty dissapointed. I expected much more.

I can understand your position on "the role and mission of a proletarian political party", but I can't escape from how you remind me of Lukacs: you are describing the "party" in every way which is not actually real, and which was never materializad.

It's about time we stop using false names for things and taking false views about them.

What "historical experience" are you referring to?

I am no expert on the history of 20th century communism...but I'm not aware of a single case where anything constructive was ever achieved by revolutionaries in either campaigns or actually gaining seats in a bourgeois parliament.

The "material conditions" are those of "developed capitalism"...in which it is assumed that things are "more or less" the same in all countries at that level of development.

Certainly not different enough to warrant the term "abstraction" that's true "for all time" and "in all places".

Lenin's "highest stage" of capitalism did include the assumption that reforms were "no longer possible"...and that was clearly wrong as the "golden age of reformism" was about to begin.

Reformists could form parties, run for office, win elections, and deliver substantive reforms. During that period (which I think ended in the "old" capitalist countries around 1975 or thereabouts), the parties that claimed to be "revolutionary" did the same things as the reformists did...and were, on occasion, likewise "successful" in the same ways.

But none of that stuff ever "led" to revolution or anything even close to that.

Your hypothesis is that a "proletarian-only" party can do all those things that reformist parties have done with a different outcome.

That is, your "new kind" of party won't become corrupted, trivialized, co-opted, etc., "because" you'll be excluding all along the sorts of people (petty bourgeois) who have a class interest in being corrupted, trivialized, co-opted, etc.

Well, who can say? We know from experience that workers can be corrupted, trivialized, co-opted, etc.

The objection to your perspective is not based on "mechanical materialism" or "universal abstractions" but on observed historical experience...that "party formations" failed to deliver the revolutionary "goods".

It's all well and good to claim that you've "found the problem" and "fixed it"...but until there's a visible "track record", your claim is speculative.

Myself, I offer the perspective of a "movement structure" that attacks reformism, parties, and elections as bourgeois instruments of coercion.

I don't think it's "our job" as revolutionaries to either "fix" capitalism or "take over" capitalist political organs.

My view, at this point, is just as speculative as anyone else's...we have little choice but to wait and see what working people conclude is "the best option".

And they may well invent something entirely new and completely unanticipated.

It's happened before.

This is unfair to the reformists...who are always talking about "fighting in the here and now". It's what they fight for that revolutionaries find unsatisfactory.

And, worse, counter-productive. A "substantive reform" that's actually achieved can spread as a consequence the illusion that "the system works" or can be "made to work" in our favor.

Completely overlooking the demonstrated fact that pro-working class reforms under capitalism are always transient.

I can't see this as doing anything but delaying the emergence of revolutionary class consciousness.

I have a different view of what it means to "fight here and now". I think it means raising the communist option in a public way...so that working people at least have some idea of what we're about.

In this era, "taking part" in an actual struggle only makes sense if the "communist option" can be raised publicly.

That's a "very short list" because we live in a period of reaction. The list will get longer when people give up on the reformist perspective and "take it to the streets".

Since we want people to be revolutionary, we must begin by encouraging rebellion.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

A revolution cannot succed without an iron discipline that is put forth in a party capable of taking the revolution forward. To demand not having a party is tantamount to desiring to disarm the proletariat in favor of the Bourgeoisie. More people should read Lenin's "Left Wing" Communism: An Infantile Disorder.

I hope no-one minds I do some arguing aschwe? You could always take it up sometimes, if you don't mind...well, I couldn't just let it go, eh?



Oh, I don't know. The exercise of reformist "powers", maybe? 'Big event' ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by "RedStar2000"+--> ("RedStar2000")
I am no expert on the history of 20th century communism...but I'm not aware of a single case where anything constructive was ever achieved by revolutionaries in either campaigns or actually gaining seats in a bourgeois parliament.
[/b]

---

Eh? Well, I thought you were - being the infamous owner of a self-proclaimed site mastering that subject, and more... Anyways, if you're really not after-all, then it's a bit disappointing, but why not do some research and find out? It can't hurt.

Quote:

---

"RedStar

---

Quote:

---

@
The "material conditions" are those of "developed capitalism"...in which it is assumed that things are "more or less" the same in all countries at that level of development.

---

Is that so? Very well then, perhaps someone is ignoring invidual material conditions from country to country. It's called geology..one country might have good natural resources, other's not...and some get them no matter what (Imperialism). Like oil. Heheh. But the society structure it says nothing about that the material conditions are almost equal everywhere, just because they share the same 'governing style' and is therefore so alike, that you could just sweep them all over generally. And, in development...alot of strange things can happen...both failure, and succsess.

Quote:

---

"RedStar2000"

---

Nope...but that wouldn't be possible anyways, unless, of course, you believe in absolute truth's...like God. Sith's are the only one's whole believe in that shyte. But it's clearly a diversion for "almost" infinitively, and "nearly" everywhere. That's enough in most books to warrant a black mark, even if it's not a total abstraction! Don't be so picky :lol:

I leave the rest o' the reply to ye, "Communist League". Hey, you're a whole league in yourself? Lucky one....

Do Leninists secretly frequent "bondage & discipline" clubs? :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/evil/teu42.gif

I didn't expect you to.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DJ-[email protected] 3 2006, 08:47 PM
I can't tell why would you assume that he fetishises "party", "reforms" and "elections" as something "universal". That's not the point.

Party, reforms and elections are a part of a bourgeois structure, because they "came along" with it. The whole political mechanism of bourgeois society is projected upon those institutions, creating the inner logic which can only complement that same system and structure.

Parties are essentialy structuralistic and hierarchical, reforms do actually channel revolutonary potential, elections really serve only one purpose: state power.

The same class which must liberate itself from alienation is asked to come into alienating forms of struggle.

---

All of this is only true if you accept that only the bourgeois conception of doing things is universal -- that is, the only way to do things. What you do is accept in advance that the bourgeoisie sets the terms and defines the boundaries. And if they decide to "move the goal posts", that's fine too. In other words, you agree in advance to "fight capitalism" while abiding by the capitalists' ideological terms, which means you don't "fight capitalism" at all.

You make a lot of noise about rejecting "alienating forms of struggle", but you do so while accepting alienating principles and ideology.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DJ-[email protected] 3 2006, 08:47 PM
I have to say I'm pretty dissapointed. I expected much more.

---

The feeling is quite mutual.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DJ-[email protected] 3 2006, 08:47 PM
I can understand your position on "the role and mission of a proletarian political party", but I can't escape from how you remind me of Lukacs: you are describing the "party" in every way which is not actually real, and which was never materializad.

---

Two points on this:

1) There is two very real, and very related, reasons why this has happened in the past: first, most of these organizations were jam packed with non-proletarian elements at all levels, which meant that the class-based division of labor that exists under capitalism was reproduced within these parties; and, second, these non-proletarian elements, like you and Pannekoek, never fully broke from bourgeois ideology and accepted the enemy class defining the conditions of struggle. Pannekoek's rejection of "party", "reform" and "elections" is a mechancial rejection -- the placement of a negative where his fellow petty-bourgeois radical leftists put a positive.

2) I would argue that the League is working toward building precisely the kind of proletarian political party I described. We do not call ourselves a party yet because we have do not have the numbers. However, in terms of our work, we already do these things (in fact, this description is based on the work the League has done since its foundation). So, you're welcome to quote Lucacs until the proverbial cows come home; it doesn't change the facts one bit. All it does is show how all your radical critique of capitalism is only that: radical critique. It is the political posture of an r-r-r-revolutionary dilettante.

Quote:

---

DJ-TC

---

Again, the feeling is quite mutual.

Miles

Nope, not a League in myself. In fact, if you look around, you will find a number of other League members here. They usually link to the League in their signatures.

Miles

If we are to enter the realm of Bourgoeis politics, we have to make our representatives accountable and revocable; something which is illegal until there are amendments. I doubt the bourgoeis parties will make such accomodations.

Our representatives can't compromise to the state.

Will we be able to make any reforms if our illegal repressentatives aren't allowed in the government buildings?

If the "legal" representative doesn't act on our own behalf, we have lost the prolitarian character of our organization until the splinter dislodges from our flesh at the next "legal" bourgoeis election.