Some background on the discussion taken for the NWBTCW email list follows.

Steve asked the following questions:

=========

Why do the working class needs a revolutionary political party?

What is a difference between a Revolutionary party and a Revolutionary organisation? To put it a bit differently, what are the qualitative/quantitative differences between an organisation and a party?

What is the nature of a revolutionary party? It’s structure, membership and so on

Would a new party be a hierarchical party? If yes why there is a need for hierarchy?

Would there be any fundamental differences between the future revolutionary party and that of the Bolsheviks type party?

How and what would be the relation between the party and the soviets (councils)?

Has a new technology provided a base that will affect the structure of the formation of the new party?

Why the formation of a new party should be only considered as part of the International party?

=========

Mike then replied with the following:

=========

There seems to be at least some interest in the proposal to have an organised discussion, and to judge from Steves comments the question of the party is high on the list for clarification. I propose to put forward some points (we might need to agree on some definitions to avoid confusion), in the hope that we can generate enough agreement to move on to having a more public discussion.

I would hope to be in a position to force a discussion by challenging other tendencies that claim to favour some sort of workers party. We are already several tendencies of course but I have in mind those who treat the matter rather passively as though waiting for someone else (eg Trade Unions) to start the process. One of the reasons I posed the "party" issue was that the anti-war movement had built up a certain amount of feeling against Blair and Labour but nowhere gave this an organised expression. There was no attempt to turn anyones mind towards a break with labour or relate the war issue to that of political leadership. What was needed was a concrete way of posing the class struggle. Perhaps even the SWP delude themselves that their role in the antiwar campaign was promoting the class struggle, and they got away with that because they are not being challenged over their relationship with labour.

I may have contributed to some confusion by referring to myself as a supporter of the Bolshevik type of party. Unfortunately this is widely seen, by those who have imbibed too much of the bourgeois histories and social sciences, as essentially Stalinist (centralised, top down, monolithic). In fact up to 1917 the leaders in exile had only fitful contacts with the party organisation in Russia, and very little control. Lenin railed a good deal against amateurism and compared the party work with primitive Russian handicraft production. I don't think the party could be described as monolithic or centralised etc in this period

The party had been part of the RSDLP and separated off following a disagreement over the definition of membership. The Bolshevik definition was stricter and in effect meant they self selected those who were most committed to the cause and generally more principled that those who remained with the Mensheviks. Lenin was regarded as a leader because of his theoretical and polemical writings. Following the April Theses he was able to win the party to the need for the October revolution.

The Bolsheviks had the advantage of emerging from a movement that already had real roots in the working class based on years of political education, and long experience of underground work. Party members "obeyed" because they were committed to the struggle and were willing to play their part and had built up confidence in the leaders.

The concept of democratic centralism is widely misunderstood as being "its party policy you have to do it", when in fact it should be seen as the leaders seeking to convince the members of the right course and building up a high level of political awareness and commitment. If leaders appeal to anything other than political consciousness the whole project fails; if you have political power you have created a monster- otherwise probably just a sect or a cult.

This struggle for political understanding is the reason for being of the party both within and without. Ideas crystallise as organisation; organisation is the "property" of the working class and determines its relationship to the means of production.

The interests of the working class whether immediate or historical, todays bread or the future of humanity require expression and organisation. This is necessary to separate the workers from their enemies and advance the struggle, and to prepare the class for the task of taking power and reorganising the world in the interests of humanity.

The party is the most conscious sector of the class and recalls and applies the lessons of past struggles and clarifies the tasks ahead. Again this is essentially a battle of ideas. The transformation of society cannot be forced; it must be the willing action of the great mass of the workers. Only when we are organised as a mass force can we challenge the way in which society is organised. So long as the workers do not have a party of its own they will be forced to choose between the lesser evil of capitalist parties, produce their wealth and fight their wars.

Fears about an entrenched hierarchy can be allayed by free and full discussion and by the principle of recalling elected delegates. On the other hand it should be clear that it is not a talking shop; conclusions should be reached and acted upon, members should fight to advance the party and its programme.

The programme is the heart of the party in that it lays down the conclusions of its discussion and is the basis of agreement on which the party is built. More importantly, however, the programme is not just a shopping list of slogans of the day but a series of measures aimed at taking the working class to power.

Steve raises a number of questions. I will not try to respond to them all at once but just take up a few points.

I agree that a new party should only be considered as part of the International party, but the one does not pre-supposed the other. I don't want a recipe for paralysis. The struggle starts here. We don't have to launch a ready made world party tomorrow but we can advance the discussion and promote the concept. If others in other towns and countries and from different traditions are doing the same so much the better. Of course there are several organisations in existence that seek the building of a world party. I would loosely associate myself with the Trotskyist tradition, but I am very much in favour of knocking down some factional walls.

We already have some very powerful tools (web) that were not available to the Bolsheviks. This will also impact on the structure of class struggle and the way future society is organised.

I am not clear why Steve asks about the distinction between party and organisation. Does this relate to some previous debates in the left communist tradition?

Finally, on the party, there are others who are debating the concept in a very different context. I refer to the quite large movements of radicals etc (anti globalisation/ European Social Forum/ Refounders of this and that). We have of course a lame brain equivalent in the shape of the Socialist Alliance. Its relationship with the SWP has prevented it from becoming anywhere near as significant as its counterparts elsewhere. Movements such as these will provide fertile ground for old reformists looking for a new base, or refurbished Stalinists not to mention endless protest groups single issue campaigns and lifestyle campaigns. It will be necessary to confront and fragment such movements if they are not to become serious distractions to the building of a working class Party.

=========

If you want to join in this discussion come to the meeting!