KAPD's Theses on the Role of the Party (1921)

Beltov "Internationalist"
Posts: 241 Joined: 10-05-05
Submitted by Beltov on 5 February, 2008 - 21:57.

There seems to have been quite a bit of discussion recently about how revolutionaries should organise themselves and what relationship they should have to the class. Rather than polarise a discussion around the positions of the ICC I thought it would be better to discuss the KAPD's Theses on the Role of the Party in the Proletarian Revolution. The ICC published them in its International Review in 1985, along with a presentation. I have submitted the Theses themselves to the Libcom library here:
http://libcom.org/library/theses-role-party-proletarian-revolution-kapd-1921

The full article (presentation + Theses) is on our site here:
http://en.internationalism.org/ir/041/KAPD-Theses-Party-1921

From a quick Google it seems that this is the first time the KAPD's Theses on the Party have been published on the web in English...

To get the discussion going I hope it's OK to summarise the main points of the presentation we made...

a) The nature of the proletarian revolution
Against the anarchistic elements of the German left, the KAPD affirmed that the question of the political power of the proletariat was not posed locally, in each factory seen as the ‘bastion of the revolution’, but on a world scale. It meant the destruction of the state and thus the concentrated violence of the proletariat. Against the factoryism of Ruhle and the AAUD—E, who saw the proletarian revolution simply as an economic question of the management of the factories, the KAPD underlined the unitary aspect of the proletarian revolution, as a process both political (the seizure of power) and economic.

b) The role and function of the party
It is striking to see the same definition of the party as in Bordiga: a programmatic body (consciousness) and a will to action. Similarly, the party is not identical to the class: it is its most conscious, most selected part. The party is not in the service of the class because, in defending the overall interests of the revolutionary class, it might be “momentarily apparently in opposition to the masses”. The party does not tail—end the class — it is the avant—garde of the class…

c) Structure and function of the party
In underlining the necessity for a “solid communist nucleus”, the KAPD clearly understood the impossibility of mass revolutionary parties. In the epoch of wars and revolutions, the party can only regroup a small minority of the class, those who are most determined and most conscious of the need for revolution. It was no longer, as in the 19th century, a party of reforms regrouping and organising broad layers of the class but a party forged in the heat of the revolution. The conditions of decadence (state totalitarianism, semi—legality and illegality) demanded a rigorous selection of communist militants.

d) Intervention in economic struggles
The question of intervention was clearly posed by the KAPD… It goes without saying that a revolutionary party participates politically in the defensive struggle. What distinguishes it from the modernists is the affirmation that the proletariat forges itself as a class through partial struggles, this being a precondition for the movement towards the global political struggle for power.

We also highlighted what we consider to be some of the weaknesses of the Theses.

a) Dual organisation
The fact that the Unions (AAUD) emerged before the KAPD was formed, and that they had close political positions, explains why the KAPD saw itself both as the product of and ‘spiritual leadership’ of the AAU. The Theses contain a pyramidal conception in which the party creates and directs the Unions, ‘and the latter create the workers’ councils. This substitutionist conception coexisted in a confused way with an ‘educationist’ theory (“revolutionary education of the widest numbers”)….

b) Fraction and opposition
In contrast to the Italian Fraction later on, the KAPD saw itself as an ‘opposition’ in the International and not as an organised body having an organic continuity with the old party. Its expulsion from the CI in September 1921 did not allow it to link up with the most significant lefts, like that of Bordiga. The existence of groups in Holland, Bulgaria and Britain on the KAPD’s positions gave rise to illusions amongst a minority and, under Gorter’s influence, to the artificial proclamation of a Communist Workers’ International(KAI). This led to a split in the KAPD in March 1922 and hastened the numerical disintegration of the party.

smile

B.

RedHughs
Posts: 208 Joined: 25-11-06
14 February, 2008 - 22:55
Beltov wrote:
In underlining the necessity for a “solid communist nucleus”, the KAPD clearly understood the impossibility of mass revolutionary parties.

I would note that this understanding is a product of an understanding of the era in which the KAPD operated. This understanding involved the belief that this era was fundamentally different from the era in which the Second International operated.

I view the "new position" to something like "minimalist decadence" as opposed to any "maximalist" decadence theories that might give some more detailed descriptions of what the era after 1917 ushered in.

As I've said, I've yet to see those who focus on decadence as only a position of the ICC deal with this question. Were mass parties always a mistake? Should we be aiming for such thing now? For those who apparently wish to remove the Hegelian influence from Marxian currents, how do we talk about the different eras of capitalism or how do we operate without such discussion.

Red

Spikymike
Posts: 204 Joined: 06-01-07
17 February, 2008 - 18:41

Beltov,

It's difficult to see how this cannot be about the ICC's position on the issue given the way it's been presented.

A surface reading inclines me to be sympathetic to the critical update of the KAPD's thesis presented by the ICC but this doesn't really advance the ICC in a particularly positive direction.

Lurking behind the continual repetition of 'the party is' or the 'party is not' phrase (with the emphasis on the 'is') is it seems to me a particularly arrogant ideological formulation.

The author hasn't even the decency to camouflage ther intention with a 'from the ICC perspective' or 'in our view of the party' it is, etc.

We are left with the clear understanding then that this 'party' has a preordained structure and role, and is indeed one unified whole distinct from, and superior to, all other potentially competing pro revolutionary 'parties'.

And their must be at least a suspician that the ICC see's itself very much as this party in miniature, or at least it's most important constituent, despite it's insignificance (along with the rest of us) in it's influence in the class struggle.

Were the 'party ' to be viewed as made up of a variety of organised pro revolutionary minorities broadly representing the most consciously advanced sections of our class, it would seem both more realistic and less ideologicall bound, but the ICC endorses the view that such a 'party' could be 'apparently in opposition' 'to the most advanced fractions of the class'. Well history suggests that in pre revolutionary situations long standing pro revolutionary minorities might well be 'actually' in opposition to the most advanced sections of the class. This is surely a more genuine danger than that such advanced minorities could loose their way without the one self proclaimed vanguard of the class.

I am not suggesting here that pro revolutionary minorities should not strive to reach theoretical and practical unity, but simply that any assumption that this process can ever be fully concluded and reach a situation of a single all encompasing pro revolutionary party is both simplitistic and potentially dangerous.

It seems to bear no relation to how the class struggle actually develops, including it's many ebbs and flows and variations geographicly and culturally.

The ICC has many good ideas and the potential to play a positive role in the class struggle but it's own striving to be 'the party' in miniature prematurely shuts off the kind of vigorous practically based debate and innovation in struggle that might come from a less sectarian and dogmatic approach.

On Red Hughes point I would only comment that it seems to me that pro revolutionaries have always been in the minority, but that there were periods when mass based working class parties and unions had benefits for workers and provided a situation where such minorites might organise within them. However one explains the reasons for the integration of those organisation they clearly are now integrated into the mechanisms for the running of capitaism and by that have closed off both reason and opportunitiy for their recreation in any more radical form..

Alf "Fraternisation across all boundaries"
Posts: 1411 Joined: 06-07-05
17 February, 2008 - 21:42

I don't understand some of your objections, Spikey. We have hardly hidden the fact that we are presenting our view of the KAPD and its position on the party. But as Red Hughes points out with regard to the question of decadence, the problem is that many of our positions are criticised as though they were our invention, when in fact they have a much longer history.

One of your objections is actually based on a misquote. You argue against the notion that the party may momentarily be in opposition to the 'advanced fractions of the class', when the actual terms used by the KAPD are:

Through its entire activity the communist party must develop the class consciousness of the proletariat, even at the cost of being momentarily apparently in opposition to the masses. Only thus will the party, in the course of the revolutionary struggle, win the trust of the masses, and accomplish a revolutionary education of the widest numbers.

In other words, the revolutionary minority, precisely because it is 'an advanced fraction' , has to be prepared to defend class principles even when the mass of the class is under the influence of the dominant ideology. I don't really see how anyone who is involved in revolutionary politics can seriously object to this. The consciousness of the working class is not homogeneous and even in a revolution this will still be true. This is why revolutionaries are a minority. What's 'arrogant' about that?

Your main objection seems to be either:
- that the ICC (KAPD?) view is that there can only be one party. In fact we do accept that there can be more than one proletarian party in a revolutionary situation. Even if we don't think this is desireable, it's certainly not something that can be legislated against
- or that the party should be something a bit more centralised and unified than a vague amalgam of 'pro-revolutionary' forces. But since I am unclear whether or not this is what you are saying, I leave it to you to clarify.

RedHughs
Posts: 208 Joined: 25-11-06
17 February, 2008 - 22:13
Spikeymikde wrote:
On Red Hughes point I would only comment that it seems to me that pro revolutionaries have always been in the minority, but that there were periods when mass based working class parties and unions had benefits for workers and provided a situation where such minorites might organise within them. However one explains the reasons for the integration of those organisation they clearly are now integrated into the mechanisms for the running of capitaism and by that have closed off both reason and opportunitiy for their recreation in any more radical form..

"...However one explains the reasons for the integration of those organisations..."

Hmm, I may be extrapolating too much but my hunch is that this kind of statement represents an attitude, an "informal tendency", a common impulse of quite a few individuals on this board. This is the attitude that we need only read Capital and not think about or explain specifically modern conditions, especially the integration of unions and working class parties into capital. I associate this informal tendency with the phrase "back to Marx", meaning just Marx and nothing else. The denizens of each city's Capital Reading Group feel confident with the explanations which Marx offered but are annoyed thinking out for themselves what an evolving capital with its new historical tendencies involves.

I mean, Marx's political economy was an effort unravel the reasons and mechanisms behind capitalism's apparent tendencies as a tool for revolutionaries (as opposed to simply a noble intellectual endeavour or as an example excellent science). And in general, a "Marxian" approach is an analytical approach for understanding capital's nature and dynamics as they unfold in front of us. So... abandoning the question of the integration of unions into the mechanisms of capital seems entirely at odds with this position.

Thus, while I certainly am not a member of the ICC or similar organization, I can see that we modern communists should be tackling the question of why unions are now integrated into capital, rather than simply dismissing it like Heraclitus, saying "everything is in a state of flux" and nothing can be understood.

Red

baboon
Posts: 520 Joined: 29-07-05
18 February, 2008 - 13:44

Spikey on another thread argues against the ambigous nature of "democracy" in the class struggle, quite rightly seeing it in the sense of belonging to the bourgeoisie. And we've seen some elements of anarchism on here talking about "organising" workers in the most "leninist" of terms.
But Spikey is wrong to see the ICC as "sectarian and dogmatic" in relation to "practical based debate and innovation" in the struggle. I think that there are many "minorities" of the working class in existence (even the anarchists that feel the need to "organise" the working class), but the dynamic has to be, for a successful revolution, for these elements to tend to come together. Particular on this question of organisation, and the practical organisation of such, the ICC has fought hard against the dangers of sectarianism.

Spikymike
Posts: 204 Joined: 06-01-07
1 March, 2008 - 16:34

Alf and Baboon,

Apologies if I misquoted anything but I think the general drift of my argument in relation to the ICC is still valid ie that the ICC acts as though it were THE revolutionary party in miniature, failing to inderstand the need in the current historical situation to have a more open and fluid relationship with the many pro revolutionary minorities struggling to find their way both theoretically and practically in relation to the class struggle.

An yes I do see 'the party' , if this phrase can be usefully used at all, as never in practice being more than an amalgam of many minorities, however hard such minorities may strive for theoretical and practical unity.

I have attempted on other threads to explain my views on this in relation to the ICC and other tendencies and don't wish to harp on any more about it really.

Red,

No, I don't dismiss everything as in a state of flux and I am interested in explanations of how capitalism has changed and continues to change. But my own views probably are, to some extent at least, in a state of flux.

I have alluded elswhere to my being influenced to some extent by 'Internationalist Perspectives' take on the periodisation of capitalism and the affect of the change from the formal to the real subsumption of labour (and from the absolute to the relative extraction of surplus value) as the primary basis of modern capitalism, as being one of the more important factors influencing also the changing role of mass workers organisations. They are worth reading on this subject (including on the trade unions) but don't have the last word.

I also referred on another thread to a much earlier article by Ron Rothbart on 'The limits of Matticks Economics' which compares and contasts Mattick with theories from Zerowork and others. I'm not sure if all that is still valid, but the search in that article for a theory which combines an objective marxist analysis of the historical parameters of class struggle with an understanding of the potential of class struggle as an active factor in history at both a macro and micro level, is, I think, a search still worth pursuing.

(I can post links to these again if needed.)

I have found some of the discussions around the various themes of decadence, economic crisis, workers autonomy etc on Lib Com both interesting and helpful, but unfortunately I am still searching and still a bit confused by the contradictions which abound.

Still you should not either dismiss good old common sense experience when it comes to recognising the changed role of workers organisation this century and in previous ones.

I appreciate that my postings can sometimes be a bit annoying, as I am clear on some of the things that are wrong in my opinion, but a bit short on clear explanations of what I think is right. Still I don't intend to let that deter me from posting my pennyworth from time to time.

Yours, Confused but occassionally right!