The Necessity of a Revolutionary Party

These are not new or original ideas, just part of my endeavors to defend the "Old Guard" from the "New Left," and to protect the notion of a vanguard party from the ironic cynicism, optimism, and in some ways, intellectually cheating ways of Postmodernism, multiculturalism and other blights and malaises of the Left caused by well meaning Liberals with degrees, sweaters and Fair Trade coffee lattes. Perhaps, if I am so blessed as to be inspired by that lovely Muse Marx, I can prove, or reprove for those greater writers before me, that too great a confidence placed in the hands of an inexperienced and reactionary working class is both insulting to the working class and counterproductive, with that mentality's propensity to collapse into "prolier than thou" thinking. A Fascist! He is doubting the abilities of the Proletariat! Not the Muse of Marx but rather the Muse of Mussolini visited him! I feel that I should continue. I shan't use the examples of history in this endeavor, even when history is of grand importance, as reliance on historical "fact" is an aged crutch relying on the interpretation of biased historians; either of the Right and seeking to meddle our shared history, or of the Left seeking to prove their practical superiority to all other tendencies. In no other study than political history and the history of movements, will the works be so subjective and in no other study will the works hide so cleverly in the veneer of objectivism. And now that my psuedo-intellectual quota is filled for the day, I shall continue.

The politics of the day are the politics of reaction and nationalism and proto-fascism. The popular support for Arizona and her immigration policies, and the popular opposition towards the Park 51 community center and the racism towards Muslims in general, hell even the sheer number of blue collar workers who vote Republican at every opportunity (yes I understand and agree that Democrats are no better than Republicans, but at least they try to continue the rhetoric of the middle class party) attests to this nature. Is this the kind of class consciousness that would lead a revolutionary movement? Would it even be safe to allow it? Paradoxically, I believe that Americans and the Third World have the same dismal levels of class consciousness; Americans because of the lack of struggle due to the lack of need to struggle as imperialism has (apparently) been good for us, obviously at the expense of the Third World, of which is lacking in class consciousness due to the lack of the economic and political basis in which the seeds of socialism are sowed. Europeans I believe, as a whole, are in a slightly better position with some countries more advanced than others. Perhaps it has been the more recent struggles of the European working class to defend their welfare states after the collapse of Actually Existing Socialism, and thus after the loss of the bloody example of which every European worker pointing towards when the bosses attempted to cut wages and increase hours. The US working class struggled throughout the labour movements of the turn of the century up till the prosperity of the post-war world and gradually declined from there. It is also to note however, that though Greece is a fine example of class consciousness and the ability of workers to be revolutionary without, or in some cases opposed to, the 'revolutionary' parties; France, England and Switzerland have some reactionary tendencies, as is made apparent by their nationalism and recent attacks on Muslims. Of course, their nationalism stem from our cultural hegemony; the large states of Europe fear becoming no more important than the small states of Europe. How then to build class consciousness? Through education of the past, and the struggles of the present. And how to educate? With those great schools of a revolutionary party. Perhaps not a party that leads from without and above, but a party that organizes from within.

I think everyone agrees that revolutionary movement and class consciousness are not only intertwined, but are also symbiotic (perhaps like some vine on a tree?), if not the same things. But we may disagree on how a revolutionary movement will combat the entrenched enemy and I contend that those disagreements stem from two opposing views of dialectics. Those that believe that parties are counter revolutionary, believe that the only way to combat our shared foe is by using completely different strategies and weapons than our enemies. And that by using their weapons, we are merely achieving a coup d'etat when we were striving for a revolution; and we replace one oppressor with another. That is a very real possibility... but I think this entire tactic is impractical. Our struggle, I believe, will always be based on our enemy's terms. We may have the numbers, but they have the state apparatus. We will be forced in fighting them, to fight like them. We must then have centralized and organized power to defend the flanks and not be isolated. Every precaution must be made as to ensure that the anti-statists fears are not realized, but it, I feel, is the only way to victory. There is a thin line between the Party and a party, and we must tread dangerously close.

Those opposed to a revolutionary party have two dominant beliefs: spontaneity and/or lifestyle Leftism. The former creates machines from workers and the latter creates monks. The idea of spontaneous revolutionary movement from nothing more than disintegrating economic conditions likens workers to springs that snap under the pressure of conditions outside their control. Coincidentally, this is the Marx of Capital, this is scientific Marxism; the very form of Marxism that Paul Cardan and Maurice Brinton and their paper Solidarity spoke so fervantly against! Lifestyle Leftism reminds me of a monastery of one. Oh, how great one feels breaking free from the System! But, I believe that breaking from the system maybe also breaking from the struggle. What if those communities of individuals being built in the cracks of capitalism never meet? Or worse still, what if they meet and lose impetus because of their distance from the oppressive system, and thus loses all its potency? I am not sure. Perhaps one person can make a difference by not partaking in capitalism, but I feel that staying in the coop and building mass action organized by a party is more revolutionary.

I have purposely left the organization of a revolutionary party vague. I do not know how it should be organized, and how to best protect it from itself in becoming counterrevolutionary. Please comrades... tear this to shreds. It is 1:20 AM. I am going to bed.

Why am I a Communist?

Because I believe in democracy and freedom. I also believe that democracy requires democratic institutions. That should be redundant, but if one glances at the nations and governments of the West, the developed and democratic, civilized nations, one notices the lack of democratic institutions for the majority of the citizens, those citizens that produce the wealth. I mean of course the lack of democracy in the workplace. Yes, we may have political democracy in this country, if you consider two-party "representative democracy" a democracy, but we continue to have feudal-like corporations that really hold the power. Political democracy requires economic democracy, as democracy and freedom are interconnected and all encompassing; if one segment of society is non-democratic or not free, than all society is non-democratic and not free.
"The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said "This is mine," and found people naive enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody." - Jean Jacques Rousseau.
This demonstrates, I feel, my beliefs that democracy is both political and economic, in that it demonstrates the connection between politics and economics. The first man owns the first mean of production for profit, an economic metaphor, creates a civil society in his image and ideals, a political metaphor of course. This "civil" society then leads to "crimes, wars, and murders." We change the man and his barbaric system and we change society and politics.

Here I will add a quick syllogism to further illustrate my point eloquently and to feed my healthy pretentiousness.
If money is power
And if few members of society have great amounts of money
Then, few members of society have great amounts of power.
That was called oligarchy centuries ago; government by the few, for the few.
Now it is called Capitalism; complete ownership by the few, for the few and dominion of all.
My goal is for a society governed by all, for all.
Optimistic, yes. Impossible, no.
I believe further that only Communism can create this society. I am not the most well-read in Socialist literature, nor do I understand every nook and cranny of a Socialist system, but I do understand democracy and I do love freedom, thus I am a Communist.