Hello Donald Parkinson!
It was with great interest that I read your 2018 article at Cosmonaut “From Workers’ Party to Workers’ Republic”, https://cosmonaut.blog/2018/
I decided not to go over all of your essays, but to give you, and myself, a feedback on the above article, as we now have a possibility of a quick two-way discussion, rather than academic essays, which was the way in XX century.
First, I must say that you have the right idea: by examining the history of the communist movement, you attempt to provide an idea of how communists should behave in the present. I have tried to start writing on the same road, with my collection of essays called “The International Communist Movement”, https://tommyjoad2017.
What was lacking in my essay is the Concept-map approach, i.e. top-down development of the program. Hence, I got involved in historical details, such as the German revolution of 1918, forgetting the overall objective.
I believe that you have also not carried your line all the way to the end. For example, such question as whether or not become involved in the DSA, which you discuss in the YouTube video mentioned above, should have been answered by reference to one of the many experiences which communists have had. For example, the reason that the Bolsheviks were able to carry out the 1917 revolution was that they have separated from the Mensheviks quite early, since 1903 Congress. On the other hand, many argue that the German revolution failed because the Luxembourg wing did not separate from the main body of SPD in the years before World War I, when the opportunist notes were already well visible (see my essay here: https://tommyjoad2017.
So, on what historical basis do you argue that communists should work within DSA, for now? The Social Revolutionaries were quite a large party in Russia, with all shades of opinion. And they formed well before the Social Democrats. Their history goes back to the terrorist organization that eventually eliminated one of the tsars. But the Russian Social Democrats didn’t get involved in the Social Revolutionary party. So, yes, please, state your historical backing for your 2021 argument at the Communist University.
Now, let me address your essay, point by point.
“From the Communist League to the Comintern”
1) You write that the objective is “question of the party and revolutionary strategy, particularly in the US”. I may ask: is “revolutionary strategy” possible in a separate country, in the modern day and age? Imagine, I start talking about “revolutionary strategy” in Ukraine, or Ireland, or any other separate region of the world. Does that make sense in XXI century? Shouldn’t a modern organization begin where the Third and Fourth Internationals left off, i.e. as a “world party”?
2) I share with you an idea that a party is needed, with people uniting around a common program. This is in opposition to the more common vision of spontaneous organizations of protests, as for example the “Occupy” movement of 2011.
3) You write that the First International was “the party was united around a founding program, and its centralism was based on the party program”. Can you please name the “program” of the First International? And was it a “centralist” organization? I thought it was centralism that was lacking in the organization and which Marx was fighting for. My take on the First International is here: https://tommyjoad2017.
4) It seems obvious that every other international tried to preclude the mistakes made by the former Internationals. For the Second International, this was not accepting Anarchists. For the Third International, this was not accepting the Social Democrats of the Ebert – Noske type. For the Fourth International, it was a struggle against Stalinism. Why don’t you include the struggle against all modern forms of Stalinism in your program? And isn’t modern U.S. style “Leninism” a kind of Stalinism?
5) The following assertion seems questionable: “While the Second International primarily made rightist political errors, the Third International primarily made ‘ultra-left’ political errors. From this observation, we can come to a sort of center…” I think the Third International was disorganized through onset of Stalinism in the USSR. And that is a rightist tendency. To make conclusion that hence a “center” is necessary is illogical.
6) You advocate building a Center in the sense of “a strategy that would mean patiently building up the forces of the revolutionary proletariat into democratically organized institutions, rather than trying to build a small “vanguard” or “militant minority” that will either intervene in a spontaneous movement or spark a revolution through armed struggle”. But is there “revolutionary proletariat” today? Please, show this animal to all of us. I think one could talk of revolutionary proletariat in France in 1848, in Russia in 1905, 1917. But productive forces have developed since then. I think that class is revolutionary which leads in the development of productive forces of its times. And what are these people today? I think these are people who combine characteristics, skills, knowledge of several classes or professions. For example, these are engineers who are also able to make things with their own hands.
“Beyond Leninism”
7) You criticize “mainstream Leninism” in the USA for their “embrace of the single monolithic party-state as a model for the dictatorship of the proletariat, the belief in a “party of the new type” that transcends the mass party through selective elitism, centralization around a specific theoretical line, and a militaristic chain of command that is not actually ‘democratic’ or ‘centralist’ but rather bureaucratic and autocratic”.
Also you write: “The organizations themselves proclaim democratic centralism, but in reality, there is no public debate about party positions allowed between congresses. At the congresses debate, takes place as little as possible and is usually led by an unelected central committee that composed of full-time staffer careerists.”
I think this is a good beginning as a criticism. But, a greater analysis, more information on how these “mainstream Leninist” parties work would be very useful for the international audience.
8) You call Bernie Sanders a “national reformist”. More on the issue would be useful as well.
9) Most obvious is that while you advocate joining the DSA, you offer no criticism of this party. How does the party actually function? Is it really that “democratic” as to be on the opposite side of “Leninist” parties? What are the factions within the DSA? What issues divide them?
But maybe I am ahead of your essay.
What kind of a party
10) You ask “What does it mean for a party to be a “class independent workers party”? Should the “class party” be a vanguard party or mass party?” It seems to me that these questions were already answered by the 2nd Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party in 1903. Mensheviks stood for a “mass party”. Bolsheviks stood for a “party of professional revolutionaries”. And we know who actually made the revolution in Russia.
However, the DSA takes the same stand as the Mensheviks. Why you don’t offer a criticism of this?
11) You write about “the proletariat, which grows as small proprietors are knocked out of business and specialized labor becomes de-skilled”. This is a mistake taken over from classical Marxism of XIX century. In reality, we see that modern labor requires a constant development of new skills. For example, as a teacher of 3D modeling, I constantly need to work on learning new software for modeling things, and learn about programming and other aspects of robotics.
12) You write: “The workers’ party itself should be a prefiguration of the workers’ republic, in the sense of its internal governance.” Essentially, this means democracy greater than that under capitalism: “This means experimentation, investigating new forms of collective decision making and seeing what works. The party should be economically organized (as all parties are firms) on a cooperative basis with no salaries that allow for careerism.” But is this to be a Communist party? If yes, what parts of communism are to be present in the party? For example, what part of property is communal? How are personal relations affected by communist mode of functioning? These are not Utopian questions, as for example in the circles of the Narodnik movement in Russia in XIX century a kind of communism was practiced (see https://tommyjoad2017.
13) Finally, I am for a clear language. You write: “The minimum program should be a set of measures that if enacted, will bring the proletariat to power. This should include the creation of a commune state, the arming of the proletariat, dissolution of the police and military”. A word like “dissolution” is not strong enough: should be “smashing”, destroying, defeating, routing. A recent example of this we have seen in Afghanistan in August 2021, when the Taliban destroyed the army set up by the Americans. Two different factions of the capitalist class, yet the differences between them are so strong that Taliban needed to smash the army of the previous regime.
I hope this will start a discussion.
