File spoon-archives/marxism-international.archive/marxism-international_1997/97-02-14.064, message 59


Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 22:20:47 -0500 (EST)
From: Justin Schwartz <jschwart-AT-freenet.columbus.oh.us>
Subject: Re: M-I: Re: A real forum for Marxist dialogue



Hugh knows, or should know, better than what he says here. I don't
identify the idea of a worker's state with Stalinism. I advocate a
worker's state. But I think my conception of a worker's state is different
>from Hugh's. Mine would be a multiparty democracy in a social context
where the capitalist class had beena bolished by expropriation, so that
all would be workers. No one party would arrogate to itself a leading role
with a unilateral and unchalleangable right to speak for all the workers,
a recipe which is guaranteed to create just that huge gulf between workers
and the party which is supposedly theirs that Hugh fears. Hugh actually
hasn't said that he advocates a one-party state, and if he does I
apologize for attributing to him this view by implication, but if he does,
I don't apologize.

I can also imagine a fairly disciplined nonStalinist party organization of
revolutionaries under capitalism. In fact, I have been a member of such a
party (which, alas, no longer exists). But I don't think that a party
that operates along "democratic centralist" lines has a prayer of chance
in the real world. "Authoritative" determinations of the party line around
which all must unite under the leadership of a wise central
committee--this has indeed been repeatedly tried for a very long time and
in a variety of national contexts, and it always leads to the the results
that Hugh says he doesn't want. No doubt, an effective party will take
positions and require its active members not to undermine these in front
of the external world. No doubt it will be able to deploy its members in
some degree of unity of action. But there are a variety of forms that
realize these aims, and none of the ones with promise are democrtaic
centralist.

--Justin


On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, Hugh Rodwell wrote:

> What I proposed *hasn't* been tried before. That was one of the main points
> I was making.
> 
> Justin doesn't understand "authority" in relation to a workers' movement in
> any but a Stalinist sense of "decree backed by state compulsion". He should
> take a look at the way Marx and Engels related to the First and Second
> Internationals. And Lenin and Trotsky to the Third International.
> 
> "Imposing the party line" assumes a priori an enormous gulf between such a
> line and the will of the members and the working class. This again is a
> reflex that knows nothing of non-Stalinist, non-sectarian revolutionary
> parties.
> 
> The final bit about "what it determined authoritatively would
> be regarded as settled and no debate over these determinations would be
> permitted" ignores the relationship between determining a party line for
> action on the one hand (settled by vote with disciplined implementation
> required) and the discussion within a party leading to such a line and
> providing feedback on its efficacy (on-going and free within the party). In
> such a forum, non-party participants would naturally not be bound by any
> party discipline.
> 
> Justin is not frightened by what I wrote, but by his identification of any
> revolutionary party and any workers' state with Stalinism.
> 
> This abandons any struggle for real workers' democracy in the labour and
> socialist movement and cedes the victory in the struggle for leadership of
> the working class to Stalinism or its capitalist twin Social Democracy by a
> walkover.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Hugh
> 
> 
> 
> 
>      --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---





     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005