The Class Party and Professional Revolutionaries

[subcp]

Lately I've been quite taken with the Situationists description of what the activity of militants means in a revolutionary organization, combined with the absence of a Party bureaucracy and democratic fetishism of the PCI. I'm curious what other 'pro-Party' Marxists conceive as the 'duties' or activities of a Party militant, and the internal structure of the Party, in our era, in these times we're living through right now. Same with related aspects such as what size should the party be (I read some people on calling for new mass parties), if historical examples of the class party have been overcome by new innovations and activities.

Examples:

There is no other way to be faithful to, or even simply to understand, the actions of our comrades of the past than to profoundly reconceive the problem of revolution, which has been increasingly deprived of thought as it has become posed more intensely in concrete reality. . .

It is thus necessary to leave the terrain of specialized revolutionary activity- the terrain of the self-mystification of 'serious politics'- because it has long been seen that such specialization encourages even the best people to demonstrate stupidity regarding all other questions, with the result that they end up failing even in their merely political struggles. . .

Specialization and pseudo-seriousness are among the primary defensive outposts that the organization of the old world occupies everyone's mind. A revolutionary association of a new type will also break with the old world by permitting and demanding of its members an authentic and creative participation, instead of expecting a participation of militants measurable in attendance time, which amounts to recreating the sole control possible in the dominant society: the quantitative criterion of hours of labor. A genuine enthusiastic participation on the part of everyone is necessitated by the fact that the classical political militant, who 'devotes himself' to his radical duties, is everywhere disappearing along with classical politics itself; and even more by the fact that devotion and sacrifice always engender authority (even if only purely moral authority). Boredom is counterrevolutionary. In every way.

-Internationale Situationniste #7, 1962

Just as the Communist party, from its very beginnings, has always tended to have its own kind of natural and voluntary unicity of movement, confirmed in the seperation of the First international from federalism and from anarchist individualism, so the party reborn during the Second World War learnt the lesson of the degeneration of Third International through Stalinism, which destroyed the world communist party by tearing the organisation apart through its systematic use of fractionism from above, hidden behind the conventions of internal democracy.



This is demonstrated in the way we go about our work, a style which wasn’t invented or revealed by some great leader but which just arose spontanously, embodying the natural attitude of generations of militants without the need for any rules or internal regulations to prescribe it or to punish their infraction. Further proof is the quality of our studies, which even though very complex, are all inter-connected within a coherent whole; and all of it carried out unostentatiously, and without engaging in all the unhealthy infighting and petty intrigues that characterise petty bourgeois and opportunist circles.

-Meeting Report of the PCI (Il Partito), June 2009

Opportunism, when it accuses the ruling class of betraying its own principles, has constantly called on the proletariat to devote itself not to the overthrowing of the capitalist regime but to the reinstatement of neglected democratic rules, whose values, considered eternal, are held to be indispensable if social equality is to be obtained in the future. Communist revolutionaries instead perceive democracy, especially in its ideal, “theoretical” manifestation rather than in its practical “realisation”, as the enemy to be overthrown; as the false myth from which the proletariat needs to be freed.



If it is true that revolutionary Marxists accepted the participation of the Communist Party in bourgeois elections, even when capitalist power was not in danger (think of the revolutionary parliamentarism advocated by Lenin), they participated only in order to use the space conceded by democracy for class agitation and their aim was to destroy democratic institutions.



Following the victory of the Stalinian counter-revolution the exact opposite of what Lenin wanted would happen: having once adhered to the rules of the democratic game, of which the electoral “battle” is the maximum expression, all revolutionary communist positions, and even classist ones, were progressively abandoned so that a political platform could be adopted that shared planks with bourgeois parties.



Even regarding internal matters, the party has never maintained that pronouncements of the majority are necessarily the best. As far back as 1922 the Italian Left was proposing that the formula of democratic centralism should be replaced with organic centralism.



Today, in our party, a party based on a unity of theory, principles, final aims and tactics, in which we exclude the practice of mergers with, or infiltrations of, other political organisations, and where we only allow people to join as individuals, there is not only no longer a role for the democratic principle – i.e. the struggle of currents and fractions with a view to establishing the orientation of the party by selecting from a list of illustrious comrades – but no role either for the banal and rudimentary democratic mechanism.

-Meeting Report of the PCI, January 2010


This is just a sample of work by communists in favor of a minority organization encompassing only the most advanced and communist workers- taking on Lenin's conception of the party as a starting point to understand the role and form of communist organization. I also agree with the opposition to creating democratic mechanisms within a communist organization (which is the bureaucracy; creating the form and practice of vote counting, faction and slate forming, top-down heirarchy).


Many have expressed disbelief in opposition to democracy in a communist organization/Party, or minoritarian conceptions of the revolutionary organization/class party (the next International). It'd be helpful if some of these points could be drawn out to greater depth (and hopefully inform some of us a little better about our own ideas and those of others with whom we disagree). So-


Thoughts on a strictly minoritarian, internationally centralized Party/revolutionary organization? Democracy and whether it has a place in a communist organization? The size of the class party, who it should have as members, and what they do?

[tuwix]

Democracy has its place in Marxism. Lenin has “modified” it and it led to very uncontrolled ramifications.

Now there are technological abilities to make a direct democracy as world ruling system. We can vote through mobile phones, websites, etc. I think there is no need to have elitist party group who always know “better”. And Marx with Lenin would have only dreamed about such possibilities.

If we give power to decide to people, they will introduce socialism. Maybe not in exactly Marxist way, but if there was a referendum wit a question: “Should the richness be got from the richest ones and given to poor ones?”, I would be sure what answer would be.

[black magick hustla]

i do think the SI criticism has it's merit and it deeply influenced my view on activism in general. however, i do think there is a difference between a real political organization and a sect. most militants today in the west belong to sects, not "the party". i imagine that in a scenario of elevated social war where a real party form that has the loyalty of broad segments of the class, fulltime militants are necessary. however, today in most activist circles "fulltimers" are shitty cadre involved in sect patriotism and therefore it's kinda silly they take themselves that seriously.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I'm still not exactly sure what "organic centralism" is, in all honesty. I don't really know how one can make decisions involving hundreds of millions of people without some sort of democratic input, either. Can someone explain to me in practical terms how this would work? Or scratch that, how'd it work in a communist party with only around a million members? How would "organic centralism" work without sidelining minoritarian views within the party (which is also what democracy does)?

Or am I just missing the point spectacularly?

[subcp]

i imagine that in a scenario of elevated social war where a real party form that has the loyalty of broad segments of the class, fulltime militants are necessary. however, today in most activist circles "fulltimers" are shitty cadre involved in sect patriotism and therefore it's kinda silly they take themselves that seriously.

I agree; however, what do we base that idea of loyalty on? Looking back, the CP's had that kind of loyalty, but it was also at a time when 'revolutionary parliamentarism', boring from within the trade unions, etc. were practiced. Is that a different kind of loyalty than say, the influence (that was far outpacing the actual size) of the SI in '68?

How would "organic centralism" work without sidelining minoritarian views within the party (which is also what democracy does)?

I think the way the SI describe how a revolutionary organization should function is close to how organic centralism sounds to me- every militant having the same common basic agreement and level of political maturity, with agreed upon tactics and aims, but free to organize and intervene fluidly, without dictates from an internally elected 'higher authority' via democratic centralism. If there is no 'Party Center' issuing decrees about the Party Line, no higher authorities (Lenin's "twelve wise men" of WITBD), who is going to sideline minority views in the party?

Today, in our party, a party based on a unity of theory, principles, final aims and tactics, there is not only no longer a role for the democratic principle – i.e. the struggle of currents and fractions with a view to establishing the orientation of the party by selecting from a list of illustrious comrades – but no role either for the banal and rudimentary democratic mechanism.

You're right that it's hard to imagine how it works in practice (the ramifications) without 'doing it'.

Or scratch that, how'd it work in a communist party with only around a million members?

That seems like a lot of members. How large do you think the communist party will or should be in the future?

[Os Cangaceiros]

That seems like a lot of members. How large do you think the communist party will or should be in the future?

I just shot that number out there randomly. It's a big number but I don't think it's unreasonable, as ostensibly working class orgs in the past (both Marxist and revolutionary syndicalist/anarchist) have had at least a million or somewhat close to a million members, like the SPD in Germany or the USI in Italy.

Granted times have changed, but my impression was that Bordigists want one single, centralized international communist party? So out of a world of seven billion people and counting, I'd figure that'd have at least a million members...

[subcp]

Fair enough. But I mean in terms of other tendencies and legacies, it's hard to imagine how to get from here and now to what some groups are proposing. A highly minoritarian organization, present in dozens of countries and mostly located in major cities seems plausible. When looking at a lot of discussions about mass organizations/mass parties (with very high numbers attached), it's kind of a temporal disconnect- it's more difficult to square that circle, how that series of events actually unfolds from where we are now to a critical mass sized organization (like those who bring up a pre-war SPD as model).

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ It's not a temporal disconnect, nor is it squaring the circle. It's about what the present situation is and how and especially when to get to a particular future situation.

This is just a sample of work by communists in favor of a minority organization encompassing only the most advanced and communist workers

Even if there's no sectarianism, the key problem with a permanent emphasis on minority organization is that it inevitably fails to "encompass the most advanced" workers. At best it encompasses certain numbers of them. This is particularly evident when the minority organization emphasizes improperly defined versions of "activism."

[vanukar]

Even if there's no sectarianism, the key problem with a permanent emphasis on minority organization is that it inevitably fails to "encompass the most advanced" workers. At best it encompasses certain numbers of them. This is particularly evident when the minority organization emphasizes improperly defined versions of "activism."

So then the party is still a "minority" organization because you're trying to integrate the "most advanced" workers into it. Then the party still only contains a minority of the working class in your view - so it's really not much different from the left-comm position. Mass party fetishism really doesn't make sense.

[Art Vandelay]

So then the party is still a "minority" organization because you're trying to integrate the "most advanced" workers into it. Then the party still only contains a minority of the working class in your view - so it's really not much different from the left-comm position. Mass party fetishism really doesn't make sense.

This isn't what he was saying at all.

[subcp]

Outside of groups which envision gradually larger 'chunks' of the working-class joining the party until it encompasses the whole or almost all of the class (I think the Progressive Labor Party calls for this for ex.), we all seem to be talking about a minority party, it's just how big that minority is (mass or not).

Even if there's no sectarianism, the key problem with a permanent emphasis on minority organization is that it inevitably fails to "encompass the most advanced" workers. At best it encompasses certain numbers of them. This is particularly evident when the minority organization emphasizes improperly defined versions of "activism."

You're right- 'minoritarian' is probably a better description than 'minority vs mass'- a small organization that recognizes itself as only a very [very] small section of the working-class, and defines itself with very high standards for membership (which reinforce this 'minoritarianism'). Even a world communist party with a million members is a heavily minority party; I guess what I'm trying to get at more specifically is to further microscope the minority party to include only active, creative participants rather than communists who understand (even a very thorough understanding) of the positions and activity of the party and support it- something like the size of the SI, composed of such active militants, operating in most countries as 1 international organization. Though this is off the reservation of left communism (who envision a larger minority party generally).

It's not a temporal disconnect, nor is it squaring the circle. It's about what the present situation is and how and especially when to get to a particular future situation.

Sure, but in the current climate internationally, it seems much harder to envision a path that leads to a large minority party along the lines of the classical workers movement; whereas a smaller, politically mature international organization of 'creative participants/militants' seems within the realm of possibility in the here and now, and in the future. Examples like the IWW member in the Central Labor Council meeting in Wisconsin in 2011 (that put the general strike into the discourse), the red sailor that sent the Constituent Assembly home, the influence of people like Parsons in the Great Upheaval, the SI in 1968, seem like good examples of a pro-revolutionary minority having an effect in the class struggle or revolutionary crises that outweighs their size dramatically; and something we could realistically be doing.

It just seems that a large amount of faith is necessary to believe what is being done now by small groups leads to directly organizing the working-class to become very large; I guess the crux of it is:

Do we need to have a large amount of workers who are not-communists now, sign up to revolutionary organizations in the future; or is the influence of communists what matters instead of directly organizing sizeable sections of the working-class?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Outside of groups which envision gradually larger 'chunks' of the working-class joining the party until it encompasses the whole or almost all of the class (I think the Progressive Labor Party calls for this for ex.), we all seem to be talking about a minority party, it's just how big that minority is (mass or not).

What you're saying is an inadvertent but interesting twist on Lars Lih's declaration of the SPD being a vanguard party.

I did mention the PLP before, and I've actually been very sympathetic to their mass membership approach, but if the worker-class-for-itself is at least 50%+1 of the entire working class, I might settle for calling the period revolutionary.

Sure, but in the current climate internationally, it seems much harder to envision a path that leads to a large minority party along the lines of the classical workers movement; whereas a smaller, politically mature international organization of 'creative participants/militants' seems within the realm of possibility in the here and now, and in the future.

All I'll say on the matter is that milestones shouldn't be confused with end goals, and that earlier milestones shouldn't be confused with later ones. Your mention of the woefully small Situationist International (assuming you referred to this and not the original Socialist International) is something I'll have to disagree with.

[subcp]

I hadn't much interest in the SI (yes, the situ's) until relatively recently. A re-examination of their actual practice and the theory they came out with post-May 1968 based on that experience deserves a careful review. When the occupations movements spread around the world (Arab Spring, Wisconsin 2011, OWS, Indignados, the general assembly's in Greece, etc.) the activity of communists seems to have been wrong-footed, late, and absentee- like 1968/69. Parts of the communisation milieu are doing such a re-reading of the German left from during and after the failed revolution 1918-1923, and the theory based on that experience- I think the 'art' of being a minoritarian, small organization in a general ferment is more realistic than recruitment/organizing, but requires diligence and careful consideration to pull it off- and have that influence that far outpaces membership numbers.

If we're supposed to have a 50%+1 type situation, I don't understand why the German revolution failed- they were there, and had it, in a generalized revolutionary ferment. Is there anything that points to a realistic way for this kind of mass organization in contemporary times? I'm genuinely interested in that side of the debate.