Re: [Marxism] The DSP's fresh approach to applyingdemocraticcentralism

["Richard Fidler" <rfidler_8@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Joaquín Bustelo writes:

"I have what I consider to be an even MORE relevant question, which is, at
this time, under these kinds of conditions, should revolutionaries construe
their work as being centrally about building a revolutionary party, and
tailor it to that end?" 

I ask for two related reasons: 

First, I don't believe revolutionary parties or vanguards are "built." They
EMERGE from the actual social and political motion in society. ..."

Comment: Well, I talked about "how limited the objective possibilities are
at this time for building a revolutionary party." I did not mean that the
DSP, by itself or even in conjunction with others in the Socialist Alliance,
should be "building a revolutionary party", which is apparently what Joaquín
means by reformulating it as the _DSP's_ "work... being _centrally_ about
building," etc. The plain fact is, the conditions -- objective, subjective,
whatever -- simply don't exist at this time for a revolutionary party to be
built, in the U.S., Canada or Australia or many other countries for that
matter. So I don't think Joaquín is stating anything novel here, once we
take away the references to the DSP and "centrally". I know the DSP comrades
sometimes talk about building a revolutionary party -- a task they see as
objectively, historically posed before the working class, as do we -- but in
practice their activities are of a much more mundane, propagandistic nature,
taking advantage of whatever opportunities there are for agitation among and
joint work with union militants, solidarity activists, environmentalists, in
the women's movement, etc., etc.

Joaquín continues:

"...  I would say that the situation in the U.S. calls instead for building
a viable, visible left pole in U.S. politics, pushing forward social
movements, and propaganda."

Comment: Isn't that what the DSP comrades, to all appearances, are
attempting to do in Australia, both in their own DSP activities and through
the Socialist Alliance?

Joaquín:

"Second, your work building "the" revolutionary party may not be "in the
way" of other currents who could do a better job of that, but it could be
"in the way" of a different kind of left political organization emerging
that could make a real difference in a way that "Leninist" groups seem to
have been unable to. 

Perhaps, to begin with, it is no more than something like the Socialist
Alliance. ..."

Comment: Joaquín raises a hypothetical problem -- the DSP, by its existence,
might be "in the way" of something better and broader. But he has no
evidence that this is so, and he concedes that "perhaps... it is no more
than something like the Socialist Alliance." So where's the problem?

Joaquín continues:

"... But perhaps the group that is wanted is the larger yet "weaker" group,
the one less tightly organized, less demanding of its members, less
homogeneous in its tactics and activities, even if it can't maintain all
that functioning and all those institutions. 

We have to ask, in terms of spreading socialist ideas and presenting an
alternative to society as a whole, wouldn't the larger but less tightly
wound group be better? Because such a group could draw together both the
large party of "exes" out there and the other existing socialist
organizations (assuming you could somehow talk them out of their Leninist
Messiah complexes...)."

Comment: I'm not sure this settles the problem. The Australian comrades have
made it pretty clear that they don't see realistic opportunities at this
time for building a large broad party to the left of Labor and the Greens.
As I noted, the Socialist Alliance drew in a small layer of several hundred
members (some of them ex-DSPers) who preferred the "weaker", less demanding
organization. If some have since left, it is probably because their hopes
that something bigger would develop have not materialized. Is that the fault
of the DSP? I doubt it.

As to the other existing socialist organizations, most of those prepared to
join in the Alliance at some point or other were pretty small and
ineffectual, and the only group comparable in size to the DSP, the ISO
group, was unprepared to live with the larger DSP in a common organization
that was more than an electoral front.

Joaquín:

"A single or predominant voice of the left would be much better, I believe,
than the current cacophony ... especially in the United States, but I
suspect/assume also in the other English-speaking "advanced" countries."

Comment: Sure, but you also have to ask yourself why this has not happened,
or why the few attempts to form a "one big tent" party have been
unsuccessful. Among the reasons, I would suggest, are inability to agree
politically on even a few central tasks or demands, sectarianism on the part
of small factional groupings within the broader formation, bureaucratism on
the part of larger forces (unions, other mass organizations), etc. and above
all the low level of political consciousness in almost all the major
imperialist countries, as you yourself have repeatedly stated.

U.S. progressives couldn't even agree on Nader's candidacy. Why was that?
And by the way, I doubt that "left regroupment" of existing sects or
factions is likely to be the key to building effective mass parties. No "new
party" initiative can be successful if it fails to draw in, and be the
product of, from the outset, major new forces within those layers of the
population that are actually engaged in struggles against their own
oppression and exploitation.

Joaquín:

"Almost certainly, the creation of such a group would involve relying on
Marx's advice in the Critique of the Gotha Programme of making the points of
unity an agreement for action against the enemy rather than a full-blown
"program," but people would still be free to write about the popular front
in Spain and commemorate July 26 through other efforts even if the common
group didn't have agreement on those issues. 

It calls for a different style and mind set of leadership and organization,
one that is much less hierarchical, that seeks to coordinate rather than
direct, that sets only a very few national priorities or campaigns and
leaves plenty of room for regional, sectoral, local and individual
initiatives, that generalizes political experiences rather than centralizing
them, that can look for points of unity among different trends rather than
emphasizing differences in the name of "political clarity," and many other
things."

Comment: I don't disagree. But perhaps it would be worth looking at how the
DSP comrades actually function, for example, in collaboration with a
relatively narrow layer of trade-union militants who have been attracted to
working with the Socialist Alliance. My impression, from afar, is that they
do strive for unity in action, and not to emphasize differences with their
SA comrades and other militants. As for the DSP itself, I think it is
understandable that small groups like this will likely focus in their
activities on a few key issues and campaigns. How could it be otherwise?
This does not necessarily mean that they will be indifferent to initiatives
and activities by other left and progressive forces, let alone oppose them. 

The real question is whether there is any role for "the DSP itself". I
suspect that is where our differences lie. I see a positive function for a
small propaganda group that can publish, discuss collectively as well as
with others, and attempt to apply the theories and concepts developed
historically by the Marxist movement to the reality of today. It should do
this as openly and inclusively as possible. But even in a large "big-tent"
party, there would be a need for some sort of organized Marxist tendency --
just as, within the RSDLP, the Bolsheviks constituted themselves. (This is
not to say I embrace all the things some DSPers present as "Leninism". We
should abandon the idea of some universal "Leninist" model of
party-building, I agree.)

Joaquín:

"...

"I think one starting point to start overcoming this crisis is to look at
the political tasks -- not from the standpoint of a group of 5, 50, or 500,
but from the standpoint of the social movements and the working class, and
the next major steps forward for the class and the movements on the road
toward a socialist reconstruction of society. From my viewpoint, that next
major step forward of necessity must be reconstitution of a political
alternative at a large enough level that it is readily accessible to the
masses. That is what needs to be built at this moment -- a "left pole"
rather than a "vanguard party" as that concept is usually understood."

Comment: Why the "either/or" approach? "Left pole" vs. "vanguard party"? The
DSP's history, as I understand it, is replete with attempts to break out of
the "small propaganda group" setting and constitute a broader "left pole".
They have tried it in a variety of ways over the last 25 years or so -- with
the CP, the Nuclear Disarmament Party, the Greens, the Socialist Alliance,
and perhaps a few that I fail to recall. And they do it within the
perspective of looking to the "next major steps forward for the class and
the movements...." That's what a real vanguard does. But you can't jump over
objective conditions and limitations. That's been the limiting factor, not
the sectarian action of a self-proclaimed "vanguard party".

Richard



________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism