Best structure for a revolutionary party?

[RedFlag32]

Does anyone have any opinions on the best structure for a revolutionary party?

In my opinion the structure should be a system that enables a strong ideological foundation but also encourages and allows free debate and expression of ideas.

The party of the proletariat should be just that. If the members want to take it in a certain direction i feel they should be allowed. The problem is when this direction is not concerned with tactics but with a totally different ideological position to that of the working class struggle.

How then does the revolutionary party ensure that there is enough room for debate from within the party and that there is room for movement of tactics if the membership want it,but that there is also safeguards against infiltration?

[soldieroflife]

redflag posted this on the IRSP site so i'll copy my responce:

The party you speak of seems unfortuantely almost an impossibility. What if the debates produced a reactionary result to a certain situation that totally contradicted the basis of the programme of the party.

On the otherside, a party leadership being too authoritarian can often alienate many members or potential members who disagree with them even on a minor issue!This would be a perfect example of left sectarianism i feel within ones own party.

The idea you propose is spot on, no doubt about it, it is just how to implement it successfully. Should one allow most left thinkers of slightly varying ideology into the party? I have to say i think that should be the case. However within these debates the programme of the party should not come into question and the best efforts of all members who adhere to the programme should be made to convince there other left thinker that the party line as it is is the correct line to take.

If a party is marxist-leninist then that is the way it must stay imo no matter what debate takes place. debating should be allowed but the purpose should not really be the devaluement of the party's line but on polishing it or adapting it with regard to individual situations which may have resulted from the history of a particular nation.

I totally agree with the sentiments though, debate is very healthy and will attract new members alot quicker than a closed political party where you must 'shut up and listen'. But allowing these debates perhaps should be nothing more than a tool that once these left thinkers are within the party that they are convinced the party line is the right one.I feel it is extremely important members considered for a party are of the right calibre not just politcally but on a personal level as well,this is very important imo.There is no need to be extremely dogmatic of other left ideology, but the debates should not be able to change teh principals on which the party was founded

I totally agree redflag that with regard to party strategy at certain moments it is quite healthy for debate to occur and the wishes of the membership should really be respected and implemmented.this does not contradict party line, it is simply adopting a different strategy in a certain situation along the same theory but what the members feel may be more beneficial action in the current climate

[Hugo Urbahns]

I'm interested, what a "slightly varying ideology" would be. Of course, in a political organization, there are always fractions and wings. The stalinists tried to make the people believe, that a leninist party, can not have fractions, which is, of course, absolutely ridiculous.

But I think, a revolutionary party must be genuinely revolutionary marxist. I support the idea of a well lined up cadre party, organised in democratic centralism, which does not mean, that there would be an authoritarian leadership, but that everything is discussed freely and decisions are made in a democratic way. But when a decision has been made, especially concerning organisatoric problems or political actions, the whole party must act as one and realise the solutions.

A revolution is in need of a revolutionary organisation, which is strong enough to take on the modern ruling class, which reached a much higher level of organisation, than the other ruling classes before, in the feudalist and the slavery systems. The party do not need, to be a mass organisation, especially with lots of just nominal and inactive members. It must consist of active and capable members to play the role of a class avantgarde. The Bolsheviks after the February Revolution in Russia were also a very small group, even until July 1917! But they made it, to always kept themselves in the peoples minds as the first of all revolutionary alternatives to the bourgeois "socialists" and their lines were filled with women and men who were well lined up enough, to handle with the tasks of a revolutionary party and to wait for the right moment of mass mobilisation. That means: Even during the revolution there must be no mass party but a revolutionary party who is able to win the support of the masses and fights in alliances with other revolutionary and working class organisations, such as revolutionary unions, youth leagues or paramilitaries.

[Papa C.]

I think a truly revolutionary party must function on a flat structure democratic basis with no "leadership". All decisions should be made by the entire membership of the party democratically with no one person or no minority group given a veto as vetoes make majority democratic decisions redundant. Is this what is meant by 'democratic centralism'?

If Ireland was to become a socialist republic democracy would need to be administered in a very technologically advanced way. For instance, when a decision needs to be made, citizens should be able to vote via phone, internet or basically anything that is connected to the telecommunications infrastructure. Citizens could vote using a PIN (personal identification number) that would be given to everyone on their 16th or 18th birthday (the electoral 'registration' should be done away with as it keeps a lot of people out of the democratic process) and this PIN would be used to identify and separate each voter. The votes could then be processed by a large computer (which would no doubt cost less than those e-voting machines the Gov bought and still have!) and the results could be made public the following day. This type of democratic decision making would probably even be quicker than today’s minority decision making and would be more democratic.

This may be a slightly contraversial view but I would like to hear opinions on this.

[Hugo Urbahns]

Aug 26, 2008 21:50:19 GMT Papa C. said:

Is this what is meant by 'democratic centralism'?

Yes, of course, there can be no party organ, which has the power to nullify decisions, made by the entire membership and of course, as much as possible decisions must be made by the entire membership.

Party functionaries (like secretaries, chairpersons etc.) can only be persons, who are entrusted with special tasks(organisation, administration etc.) and should hold an imperative mandate, so they are always bound to the directives of the party membership base and can be displaced by grass-roots decisions, if they act against the will of the party majority.

This is what "Democratic Centralism" means.




I share your ideas about the opportunities that telecommunication holds for what you call "democratic" socialism. I, however, don't like the term "democracy" because "people's rule" in fact eliminates itself by an inner antagonism, but that's a philosophical question and it has no effect on the practical discussion here. I fact however: When the term "people", means the sum of all individuals in a society, then there can be no "rule" because that describes a concrete relation between a ruler and a beruled. When no one beruled is there, there can be no such a relation. That's why I tend to use the term of people's "self-management", which I regard to be a more exactly description .

[Papa C.]

Comrade, I don't think I used the term 'democratic' socialism, just 'democracy' which I believe to be a socialist ideal, but I take your point. To me that's just socialism and it is democratic by nature. I'm not a 'democratic' socialist. I'm a communist and proud of it!

I take your point on "people's rule" eliminating itself but please understand that I use the term 'democracy' or 'democratic' as it is something that today's working class would associate with working for them or majority decision-making. I would rather use the word 'socialism' than 'people's self-management' but people often have a problem with this as they don't understand what socialism actually is. But I believe that is our job, to make/ help people understand what socialism is and how it can liberate them.

Thanks for your post though, as it helps us understand your ideas on socialism. I think you would fit in very well here as you seem to have the same ideas and beliefs as most who frequent this board.

Saoirse go deo!

[Hugo Urbahns]

Oh, I never thought you to be a "democratic socialist", in the way the social democrats or the so called "new left" would use the term. I just wanted to say, that socialism means self-management and not democracy, just because democracy is a philosophical antagonism, within itself. But of course, I know exactly what you mean when you speak of "democracy" and I am sure, it helps people, espacially the ones, who are not into the whole socialism thing, to understand what we fight for.


By the way:

Aug 26, 2008 22:59:32 GMT Papa C. said:

Saoirse go deo!

What does that mean? ;D

[Papa C.]

Saoirse go deo means 'Freedom forever' in the Irish language.

[Hugo Urbahns]

Ah I see. I just knew the word "saoirse". I just know some phrases and words from several battle cries or sayings written on walls and flags and so on.

[Papa C.]

Only around 1million people in Ireland can speak fluent Irish. I'd say there are more Irish speakers in the US although I don't know the exact numbers off hand.

[Stallit 2 de Halfo]

Welcome Rivera, glad you signed up ;D