Re: Lenin, Gramsci and problems of party form

[Adam Rose <adam@xxxxxxxx>]

>
> On Fri, 1 Dec 1995, Adam Rose wrote:
>
> > 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.

>
> Louis:
>
> It was not Lenin's intention to form a new type of party.

Adam:

Possibly not. I don't see that it matters particularly.
The point is, that he ended up with a different sort of party.

Adam:
> > 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.

This is a different sort of party to ALL the others built during the
period of the 2nd international, including those which did not
capitulate to nationalism in 1914.

Louis:
> He used 2nd
> International type language at the time "What is to be Done", because he
> wanted to build a unit of the 2nd International in Russia. It is that
> simple. It was the betrayal of the reformists in Parliament who voted for
> World War One that caused Lenin to consider the need for a 3rd
> International.

Hmm. Well I don't see what other language he could have used, since
pre 1914 Marxism was the 2nd international. The point is, that he
applied and developed 2nd international theory in a way which
enabled the Bolsheviks to pass the test posed by 1914, in contrast
to nearly all the other parties in the 2nd international.

> Even then he wasn't thinking in terms of "vanguards" and
> "democratic-centralism" or the role of party newspapers any differently
> than he did in the earlier period.

He probably didn't change the terms in which he was thinking.
The point is that these were different terms to the one in which
the leaders of the second international thought, whether or not
it was expressed in similar language.

The extent of these differences only became clear in 1914.
Probably people like Trotsky + Luxembourg were more aware
of these differences than Lenin before 1914, although they
both relied on the revolutionary process itself to reform
the party : Trotsky thought that the unfolding of the
permanent revolution would bring the Bolsheviks + Mensheviks
together; Luxembourg thought that the pre revolutionary
mass strike would rejuvinate the sclerotic German SDP.
With hindsight, it is clear that they were wrong.

All three of them ( Lenin, Trotsky, Luxembourg ) may have said things
which sounded similar to what other people in the 2nd international said.
The whole point is that they meant different things by them. Not to
understand this is to miss the point about pre 1914 reformism - it used
Marxist phraseology to cover reformist practise.

On one level, Louis, it seems you understand this, when you slag off
reformists. Yet on an organisational level, you don't. Sooner or later
one or other position will have to give. I hope that it's the latter :-) .

Adam.


Adam Rose
SWP
Manchester
UK





















     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

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