Re: Bordiga and stalinism

[Adam Rose <adam@xxxxxxxx>]

>
> At 14.43 06/12/95 GMT+10, Marcus wrote:
>
>
> >And yet I disagree with the below. If the party is the 'free
> >association of militants', then any member should be able to fight in
> >the party for a position shouldn't they.
>
> Mauro jr:
> free association means that the action of associate to it is free, not 
> obliged.
> >It is practice which will
> >sort people out, not a bureaucratic rule. Any opportunist can agree
> >with anything to their hearts content - as long as it gets them where
> >they want to go. The difference in a communist party is that if they
> >aren't being communists in practice, then they will stick out like
> >sore thumbs.
> >Some people who want to leave politics find the big difference to
> >debate out to leave. We should not give them the excuse.
>
>                         Agreed
> >Rule 21 gives them the excuse. They should be excluded on their political
> >practice, not their bureaucratic adherence to some rule.
>

I think this discussion has become completely ahistorical.

The 21 conditions were specifically designed for a situation when the Russian
Revolution had enourmous prestige. Mass centrist parties were queing up to join
the third international. Under these circumstances, the main danger was that
the revolutionary members of these parties would bring their centrist leaders
with them.

The 21 conditions were a historically specific mechanism to try to keep them 
out,
not some revolutionary catechism valid for all time.

There is a debate to be had about democratic centralism, ( although ultimately
these questions are decided in practise not in discussion ) but it shouldn't be
based on "for or against the 21st condition" !

Adam.


Adam Rose
SWP
Manchester
UK.










     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

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