Re: Lenin, Gramsci and problems of party form

[Adam Rose <adam@xxxxxxxx>]

Wolfgang writes :

>
> Scott gives me  an important argument for the difference since the
> time of Lenin and today: the cultural development of the masses (not
> only the workers), we think of the condition of life in Russia (time
> of daily work, illiterate...). An other argument for the difference to
> German-Party is the illegality (most time). And - what we call
> "Zivilgesellschaft" - civil-society.
> For me is the problem, that Lenin is good for Russian in his time. He
> is not so good, to make a model out of this form and put it over the
> European parties how does it happened ("Bolschewisierung"). Think of
> the "Fraktionsverbot", to make no group in the party (1923).  That
> was perhaps OK in a crisis situation, but Stalin and the others
> make a model until 1989(?). But our situation is  very different.
>

Thanks for the translation !

I think Lenin's idea of a party is a good model for us today.

There were two other models of a party on offer at the time :
mass reformist parties and revolutionary propandist parties.

The obvious example of a mass reformist party is the pre 1914
German SDP.

The example of a propagandist sect which comes to my mind is naturally
the Marxist British Socialist Party or the more syndicalist orientated
Socialist Labour Party. Perhaps Bordiga in Italy is a more European
example, or even Rosa Luxembourg's party in Poland ( RSKPDiL , or
something ) , although I hesitate to put the BSP in the same league
as Rosa Luxembourg !

The reformist parties aspired to, and often did, represent the working
class as a whole. In a non revolutionary situation, the ideas of most
workers cannot be revolutionary. So the reformist parties, despite their
Marxist rhetoric, did not actually want to overthrow capitalism.

The propagandist parties, even if they were actually allied to
syndicalist unions, didn't as organisations dirty themselves with
the day to day struggles of workers. This in effect left reformist
politics in control.

Lenin's idea of a vanguard party was different to both of these
second international models , although it was often defended in
orthodox 2nd international language. His idea was a party which
grouped together the most class conscious workers. This party
was a part of the class and played a leading role in the everyday
struggles of workers, but also argued for revolutionary politics.
It was a combat party - in other words, when the crunch came, it
would be able to lead an insuurection. Also, it would be able
to lead the struggle of all the oppressed, not just the working
class.

I think this was an important step forward, and is as neccessary
today as it ever was.

The theory of democratic centralism is one part of the theory of this
sort of party. It is describes the internal workings of a party which
has this type of relationship with the working class.

The problem, certainly by 1923, is that the civil war had destroyed
the working class as a class. So anything done in that period was
a temporary measure which would be lifted as soon as revolution
occurred elsewhere. It was a DEPARTURE from the theory of
democratic centralism forced upon the Bolsheviks by events, not
a consequence of it. All the Bolsheviks recognised this at the
time.

Adam Rose
SWP
Manchester
UK



     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

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