Re: [Marxism] Party as permanent faction [was Re: The DSP's freshapproach ...]

["Richard Fidler" <rfidler_8@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Joaquín raises some important concerns about how an organized socialist or
revolutionary socialist tendency might operate inside a broader
organization. And, as we know, his hypothetical examples are actually based
on some bad experiences many of us have had or heard about -- or been
protagonists in! -- in the past.

It is certainly necessary to be aware of the potential difficulty he
highlights, and look for ways to avoid it. It is a more acute problem when
the "disciplined cadre group" is a major component of the broader formation
and thus in a position to decisively influence the latter's decisions. It is
less of a problem when internal tendencies are acknowledged, given formal
status, and certain rules of conduct are laid down for the functioning of
organized groupings within the larger formation. 

The broad left party Québec solidaire, which has three organized tendencies
or "collectives" within in, has done this quite recently. The recognized
tendencies comprise the QS members who are in the Fourth International group
(Gauche socialiste), the IS group (Socialisme internationale) and the CP
(Parti Communiste du Québec). (The three groups, together, make up only a
small minority of the total 5,500 QS membership on paper -- probably no more
than 100 or so altogether.) QS has laid down rules of engagement to govern
their activities within the party. At some point, when I have more
information on how this operates in practice, I'll write it up, since it may
well be of interest to comrades outside Quebec.

There are other examples, I'm sure. It may not be the best example now, in
view of recent events, but the Scottish Socialist Party had formal
provisions for internal tendency formations, if I'm not mistaken. Obviously,
that didn't forestall a serious breakdown in leadership functioning over the
Sheridan affair -- or was it a cause? I don't know. Can anyone enlighten us
on this? Also worth looking at: the LCR in France, which has always had a
number of organized tendencies, including a permanent faction, Socialisme
d'En Bas, which represents the IS members in France who fused with the LCR a
few years ago. And the Left Bloc in Portugal, etc., etc. 

I think the key consideration for any internal organized tendency is that it
clearly recognize the sovereignty of the broader membership in any decision
that is binding on the broader party. And certainly any attempt at tendency
micro-management or heavy-handed "intervention" in the broad formation's
decision-making process is to be avoided. Not easy to define in the
abstract.

However, isn't it natural that in any broadly representative political
formation members will be inclined to align themselves with varying currents
of thought and opinion? That being so, far better to structure such currents
rather than be confronted with the problem of undeclared factions, which is
a major source of the problems to which Joaquín alludes. And of course,
members of tendency(ies) need to be able to operate in a certain
give-and-take manner respectful of the opinions of non-tendency members,
willing to listen to others and learn from them -- and even be convinced by
them on some questions on which the tendency may have had a previous
position! No democratic political formation can function collectively within
a fair measure of goodwill and solidarity among the members as a whole.

I'm not sure the RSDLP is a useful precedent on this. My impression is that
Bolsheviks and Mensheviks operated most of the time, in practice, as
virtually separate parties, meeting together (occasionally, prior to the
definitive split in 1912) at party congresses. However, they may have
functioned differently at the local level, under the Czarist oppression.
Does anyone know?

Richard


-----Original Message-----
From: marxism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:marxism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Joaquin Bustelo
Sent: December 30, 2007 2:47 PM
To: 'Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition'
Subject: [Marxism] Party as permanent faction [was Re: The DSP's
freshapproach ...]

Richard Fidler argues that my idea that the mere existence of groups like
the ISO, DSP, etc., could be an obstacle to the emergence of a broader
Socialist Alliance-type group is purely speculative and so on.

In a sense it is, because I have no concrete knowledge of HOW the DSP
functions in the SA. And in a way it may seem like almost Leninist-Canonist
hair splitting, because at least the DSP IS TRYING to contribute to the
emergence of a broader formation.

But my experience has been, and this is not an isolated one but something
that's been widely discussed, that the relations between members of a
disciplined cadre formation functioning as such and the unaffiliated within
the context of a broader/looser structure is a hierarchical one that tends
to be destructive of the broader grouping.

[clip]


________________________________________________
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