Re: party-building (Questions for Melvin)

["Shane Hopkinson" <s.hopkinson@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Melvin P wrote:

>What Lenin fought to form and was successful at is creating an
>insurrectionary force. 

You mean a vanguard party - the force would be the working
class wouldn't it? which is not created by the party.

>Lenin grasped that a new era was opening and
>the party structures of the Second International were inadequate. 

I thought you mean in 'What is to be done?' which was 1903
so when did he realise the new era and new party was in order?

An
insurrectionary force means a group of revolutionaries capable of
seizing political authority or carrying out what is called a coup. To
form such a group what is required is an understanding of the need to
seize power and when such conditions open up.

>Here is the meaning of "the party of a new type."  

A insurrectionary group able to carry out a coup wouldn't
be a a new type of party would it?

>The revolutionaries that attempt to build an insurrectionary party
>when the working class movement has ebbed - is not in motion as a
>political force, quickly find themselves on the sidelines of
>history. Those who call for party building in America today
>misunderstand the phase of the struggle.

I am inclined to agree with the conclusion but the premisses
seems wrong. Didn't Lenin call for party building in the ebbs
and flows? Why would party-building necessarily lead to being
sidelined by history?


Cheers

Shane







~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.