[Marxism] Re: Fallujah and marxmail
ilyenkova at netzero.com
ilyenkova at netzero.com
Thu Dec 23 15:29:35 MST 2004
>In other words, the kind of party we favor will look a lot more like the
original Bolshevik party than anything that exists today. We favor such a
party because it is necessary for a socialist victory.<
Louis and others have been clear in the past re the structure of the
_original_ Bolshevik Party (i.e) The right to form factions and to
publish newspapers and documents and to contest for a multiplicity of
viewpoints within the Party free from fear of expulsion and intimidation.
What I'd like to hear more discussion of is how such a party would
orient to the mass movement. The deformed Zinoviest Leninism that Louis
rejects, led directly to a reified concept of the United Front. In this
tactical concept the united front was a means for the Party to discredit
its opponents in action, recruite the best militants (since they would
have been exposed to the correctness of the party's line and the
opportunism of its opponents in the united front) and ultimately become
hegemonic and realize its deserved vanguard status in the workers
movement and lead the workers to victory.
Wasn't there an incipient alternative notion of the united front in Rosa
Luxemburg's political pamphlets (like the Mass Strike) as a strategic
rather than tactical orientation where the united class front was a mass
struggle organ that had as its goal the unification of fractions of the
working class in action that were fragmented and aliented from each
other in daily life under capitalism. The program of the united front
would bring the employed and the unemployed; the organized and the
unorganized; skilled and unskilled workers together in common struggle.
It wasn't simply a call for political action around a specific defensive
demand nor simply a tactic to be trotted out at specific times to suit
Party-building needs. It would be rather a means for increasing
theconcentration of socialist oppositional consciousness among the
working class and its social allies.
It seems that this concept of the united class front as strategy would
require a party quite different from the model we're familiar with by
default after the destruction of the Luxemburgist strain in the German
movement. In his best writings in the 1930s Trotsky seemed to be hitting
on the same concept. But his foundational commitments to the party as a
priestly vanguard blocked, in my own view, his own ability to realize
that the united front tactics proposed in his writings on Germany and
France weren't compatible with his concept of the party.
These remarks are best construed as musings and for that I apologize.
But I want to throw this raw idea out before re-reading Luxemburg and
Trotsky's material in the '30s.
[ Printable Version ]
More information about the Marxism