Re: Reply to a Trotskyist on the party question

["Jose G. Perez" <jgperez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Some thoughts on Louis's comments on the party question.

    I think Louis correctly places as his first point what may SEEM like an
organizational detail, the level of activity demanded of the members, but I
think it is a very important question. If the party is to belong to the
class, and not a self-appointed, self-selected vanguard, then it MUST be
open to ordinary working people, including or perhaps especially parents
with children. It does no good to say X% of the party is Black or X%
Hispanic, or the auto fraction is of this size and the textile branch of
that size,
if when we look at the actual members, they are not representative of a
cross section of working people.

    The rules should be the SAME  as Lenin proposed in the early 1900s,
which is that if you're in basic agreement with the party's goals, agree to
contribute financially, are willing to be active in its local organization,
and agree to abide by majority rule in carrying out party campaigns, then
you are eligible for membership.

    As far as I can tell, groups like the SWP have retained to this day a
level of activity more appropriate to the student radicals of the 1960s and
early 70s. That's all well and good for those who can maintain such a level,
but it is decidedly no good for the party as a whole. It means the party is
out of touch with the problems and concerns of real workers; the party
members may work in the same factories, but do not at all lead the same
life.

    I do not, however, find myself fully in agreement with Louis's second
point -- that the central task of a marxist party would be propaganda,
socialist education and "regroupment" by which I assume he also means
recruitment. I think participation in actual movements as they exist should
be as high a priority as general propaganda and perhaps moreso. And during
periods of upsurge, mobilizations and fights, I would expect the party
members to devote more time to the mass movement than to "party building."

    With that amendment (which I'd be surprised if Louis didn't agree with)
I think Louis makes a very good point that the Marxist movement must take on
the bourgeoisie and its ideologists at all levels. The revolutionary workers
movement must define itself in relation to all other classes and currents in
society.

    At the same time, the actual programmatic basis of the party should be
"narrow." There should be no "party line" on philosophical, theoretical or
historical disputes, nor on what the correct tactics and strategy should be
in some other country.

    By and large, the party should conduct its discussions in the open, not
in private, members-only bulletins. Political Committee and National
Committe-type bodies should function in the same way in relation to the
party on all political questions. There will, of course, be exceptions, such
as decisions on when to launch certain actions whose success or impact
depends, in part, on achieving tactical surprise, as well as personnel or
financial
matters.

Jose

----- Original Message -----
From: "Louis Proyect" <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2000 10:01 AM
Subject: Reply to a Trotskyist on the party question


> James Paris, a young activist with a small Trotskyist group in Detroit
> called the Marxist Workers Group challenged me on the Trotsky newsgroup to
> spell out my ideas on the party question:
>
> "May I make a recommendation?  Perhaps you should take a little time and
> write out a comprehensive document on the issue of organization today.
> Forty-year-old articles from Hal Draper doesn't cut it, IMO.  I'm open to
> hearing what YOU have to say."
>
> My reply:
> Time does not permit me to prepare a comprehensive document, but I do have
> some ideas about how a revolutionary organization will emerge in the
United
> States and how will it be structured internally.
>
> 1. Since working class composition is an important criterion for you, let
> me say at the outset that working class members will have to be able to
> participate on a completely different basis than is expected in "vanguard"
> organizations today. When you are on an assembly line for 8 hours, and
have
> family obligations like most working people do, it is unrealistic to
expect
> that you will go to the headquarters after work and sit in a 2 hour
> meeting. This is one of the main reasons no working people have joined the
> American SWP in the 25 years following their "turn" toward industry. The
> Cochranite opposition, which was expelled in 1953, understood this
> instinctively. In correspondence with Christopher Phelps, who is writing a
> book on American Trotskyism and the black struggle, Erwin Baur states,
> "Attendance to SWP auto fraction meetings was always greater than branch
> meetings."
>
> 2. Until a pre-revolutionary situation emerges, any socialist current must
> concentrate on propaganda, socialist education and regroupment. The most
> pressing need in the US today is for Marxists to gain a hearing in trade
> unions and on the university campus. Nearly left group and individual is
> involved in this project, but some do it better than others. I have my own
> opinion on the matter, which is no secret. I believe that Marxist thought
> is underdeveloped today for two reasons. In the organized Marxist
> "vanguard" groups, there is a tendency for most of the thinking to take
> place at the top, while the rank-and-file sees its duty as one of worker
> bee, to go out and propagate the message. This approximates the
> intellectual-manual labor dichotomy which is at the heart of capitalism
and
> which must be abolished. One of the worst legacies of "Marxism-Leninism"
> has been its tendency to produce a dull and pliant party membership. This
> must change. The other challenge is to fight for hegemony in the academy
> against the trendy post-Marxist academic figures who dominate the scene
> there now. I have been doing this myself, largely through the Internet and
> obstreperous interventions at academic conferences, with some measure of
> success. This job is roughly analogous to the one carried out by Lenin in
> his fight with Bogdanov, or Trotsky's with James Burnham. But on the basis
> of farce rather than tragedy. Being a clown by nature, I am up to the
task.
>
> 3. Ecology must occupy a central role programmatically, which
unfortunately
> it does not now. Except for the Australian DSP, there is no organized
> Marxist grouping in the world that places a proper emphasis on these
> questions. The reason for this is that dogmatic interpretations of the
> technology-nature question have been accepted by Stalinists and
Trotskyists
> alike. Here I am not speaking solely about the weird evolution of the LM
> grouping, but about outfits like the Spartacist League as well, who
> champion nuclear power. It is absolutely mandatory for Marxism to engage
> with ecological thought on at least the same plane as Marx himself who
> regarded the soil chemist Liebeg as being much more important for
> understanding the contradictions of capitalism than any economist. Drawing
> upon Liebeg, Marx came to the conclusion that the town-country dichotomy
> must be abolished if humanity was to survive. The same thing is true
today.
>
> 4. Marxism must embrace the struggles of indigenous peoples, who are at
the
> cutting edge of capitalist contradictions today. Indian reservations are
> our concentration camps. Inside them, people are being systematically
> destroyed economically and culturally. The lack of interest in American
> Indian struggles in Marxist circles can only be explained by Social
> Darwinist deviations which have a long history. Kautsky read Charles
> Spencer before he read Marx.
>
> 5. Finally, the biggest problem facing revolutionaries in the United
States
> is the Democratic Party, which is an unfortunate legacy of Stalinism. When
> there was a massive radicalization in the US during the 1930s, the CP,
> which enjoyed hegemony in the labor movement, endeavored to corral labor
> militancy into support for the New Deal. Even after the CP lost influence,
> left radicals continued to play this role. During the late 60s, for
> example, people like Tom Hayden and Dave Dellinger were always trying to
> figure out ways to hitch the radical movement to the wagon of "peace"
> candidates. That is the reason I support all sorts of electoral
> alternatives even though they do not correspond to the ideal that Marxists
> have in their mind. I endorse Green Party campaigns and will contribute
> both money and time to the presidential campaign of Socialist Party leader
> David McReynolds. If the Labor Party managed to finally run a candidate, I
> would support him or her as well. Unfortunately, this party seems to be
> withering on the vine.
>
> 6. Finally, such a party will be distinguished by its heterogeneity. The
> programmatic parameters will be a lot wider than anything in the world of
> "vanguard" parties. I would expect that it might bear some resemblance to
> the Guardian Newspaper which unfortunately folded about 12 years ago. I am
> not sure you are old enough to remember, but the paper ran debates on
> Yugoslavia, not unlike those that appear on the Internet today. I
> remembered how valuable that was and what an example that was for Marxism.
> People are naturally attracted to organizations that have a lively
internal
> life. Although I am the last person in the world to appeal to authority,
it
> is useful to remind ourselves how open to public debate Lenin was in a
> context of fierce Czarist repression. What is our excuse for promoting
> ideological conformity when we enjoy nearly full political freedoms,
> including the use of the Internet, which will be as important to our
> revolution as the printing press was to earlier ones. From Paul Leblanc's
> "Lenin and the Revolutionary Party":
>
> ----
> Not long afterwards [after 1906], Lenin published some additional thoughts
> on the meaning of democratic centralism. The central committee of the
RSDLP
> had proposed "limits within which the decisions of Party congresses may be
> criticized." It assured "full freedom to express personal opinions and to
> advocate individual views" in the party press and at party meetings, but
> not at public meetings. Lenin complained that this was too restrictive. He
> wrote: "The principle of democratic centralism and autonomy for local
Party
> organizations implies universal and full freedom to criticize so long as
> this does not disturb the unity of a definite action; it rules out all
> criticism which disrupts or makes difficult the unity of an action decided
> on by the Party." Lenin argued that "the Central Committee has defined
> freedom to criticize inaccurately and too narrowly, and unity of action
> inaccurately and too broadly." He insisted that "criticism within the
> limits of the principles of the Party Program must be quite free . . . ,
> not only at Party meetings, but also at public meetings.
>
>
> Louis Proyect
> Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
>