Class consciousness is inherent in the class, though that doesn't mean that everyone's got it now. Just that they have the potential for it. The ability to think is inherent: but not everyone does it (lol). If class consciousness wasn't inherent in the class then where did Marx get it from, or the ICT?

This is an important discussion but it’s one where we need to avoid false disagreements.

Re Stevein7’s original comment I agree with Charlie that class consciousness – ie. the tendency for the class to become conscious of itself as a class and of its historic interests - must be inherent within the class as a whole, otherwise there would be no revolutionary minorities in the first place. Marx and Engels may or may not have been ‘extraordinary geniuses’ but if it wasn’t for the struggles of the working class and the emergence of its first political minorities they would have been unable to relate their theories to a practical movement. Presumably as Marxists we all agree that history is not made by brilliant individuals?

Cleishbotham then makes some interesting distinctions about class consciousness but again I think there is a danger of false disagreements.

For a start I don’t think the ICC would deny that the party has a “special purpose” or that it is absolutely indispensable to the success of the proletarian revolution. In fact on the back of every ICC publication you find the following:

“Our activity…The regroupment of revolutionaries with the aim of constituting a real world communist party, which is indispensable to the working class for the overthrow of capitalism and the creation of a communist society.” (my bold).

This doesn’t sound very different from the ICT’s own statement that:

“We are for the party, but we are not the party or its only embryo. Our task is to participate in its construction, intervening in all the struggles of the class, trying to link its immediate demands to the historical programme; communism.”

Nor do I think there is a substantive disagreement with Cleishbotham’s view that:

“the key role of the party is that it is the historic consciousness of the class and as such it is the bearer of the communist programme which has to be put into the debate in order for capitalism to be finally overcome. Where it is not present then other capitalist agendas will certainly take over.”

I’m not trying to pretend that there are no differences between the two groups of the Communist Left on this or other questions. But it must be hard for the wider milieu to know exactly what the disagreements are, especially on the party, since the ICT replaced the IBRP.

So I think at the very least, if ICT comrades want to demonstrate that the ICC is wrong, and that the ICT has a correct position on the party, they are going to have to try a bit harder to clarify their differences.

Thank you, this is constructive and clarifies where the ICT thinks some of the differences are on this issue. I may well raise this on the icc forum because I think there is interest among sympathisers of both organisations in understanding and trying to clarify where real differences lie. ICT comrades of course are very welcome to participate. PS 33 years ago? That's sobering!

Steve I should make it clear I am a sympathiser of the ICC so don’t speak for them.

I’m glad you think there is a convergence here over “the ability of the majority of the class to achieve a clear perspective of their real situation.” The original quote from the ICC text on the party is, I think, making the fundamental point that class consciousness does not solely or exclusively reside in the party – which we also appear to agree on?

Class consciousness is inherently uneven in capitalism: even at the highest moments of struggle like Russia 1917 when we see a mass communist party and the class organised in mass organs of struggle, we still only see a tendency for the whole class to become conscious of itself, and certainly outside of revolutionary situations I agree with you that the working class is not “generally aware of its position in capitalist society and the implications of being an exploited class.” Otherwise there would be little need for revolutionary minorities.

You also state that: “We reject any model whereby a ''Party'' representing a largely unaware working class comes to power representing the interests of said class.” Can I take that as a confirmation that the CWO/ICT rejects any idea of the future party organising the revolution or taking power on behalf of the class, or is there an implication that it could do so if the class is sufficiently 'aware'?

Greetings comrades, long-time reader, first-time poster.

Cleishbotham, I think this extract from your last post is very interesting:

...the class party is one of the weapons forged by the class in its struggle for emancipation which takes the lead in organising and leading the initial onslaught on capitalism. In a movement towards overthrowing the old order communists (who else?) make communist revolutions. The party in itself, however clear, cannot complete the process since the very nature of communist society demands that in the course of the revolution the rest of the class rises to the task posed by the revolutionary situation. If communists fail to convince/arouse the rest of the class in this process of coming to class consciousness the revolution will be stillborn....

I agree with everything in it, except the implication contained in the question, buried in a statement, "...communists (who else?) make communist revolutions...".

I think the working class makes communist revolutions; and furthermore I think revolutions (or at least, heightened periods of class conflict) make communists. It seems to me that what you are proposing here is that the communists have one task - making a revolution - and the proletariat has another task - building communist society.

I find it hard to think that's it more than a misunderstanding, in part because it seems to be contradicted by your later assertion that the role of the revolutionary organisation is to work within the working class to make known the lessons of previous struggles (which would I think be a pointless task if it's 'communists' rather than 'workers' who will make the next revolution). But I would appreciate it if you could try to clarify that point.

Thanks for getting back so quickly on this.

I'd like to respond to your first question witha question. Do you suppose 'the working class make a revolution with a significant commuunist minority' is the same as 'the communists make the revolution'? If you don't think they're the same thing then I don't understand what your question is for.

I agree that communists are necessary in the entire process of the revolution, from the pre-revolutionary 'opposition to capitalism' right through to the revolutionary seizure of power by the working class and after into the dictatorship of the proletariat. Without a communist minority constantly advocating the extension of struggle, trying to generalise the lessons of struggles and point out where the best interests of the working class lie, organising in workplaces and communities to bring workers together, there will be no revolution. I think we agree on that. But that's not the same as 'communists make the revolution'. a spark plug is necessary for an internal combustion engine, but it doesn't 'make the car go'.

But, I also think that there will be a great many workers who would now think of themselves as Tories (or supporters of any of the capitalist parties) who will be taken the most audacious revolutionary decisions in the course of working out those processes. As you say, the revolution allows the working class to rid itself of the muck of the past; my point exactly. But why you should think that by stressing this point I somehow think that communists need do nothing, I'm not sure. We're not blind watchmakers, winding up the working class and setting it in motion.

I certainly agree wholeheartedly with your summing up - "...without a communist minority working for a communist programme (part of which is the recognition that only the mass of the class can "make" socialism) in there, the whole process ends up in reaction". the role of communists in the revolution is absolutely vital, in that without them there would be no revolution, but it's not sufficient to have a communist minority who will somehow remove agency from the working class as a whole. I think the revolution is the act of the class organised in the councils, rather than of self-proclaimed revolutionaries, even if they do succesfully organise in workplaces (which of course we don't so much at the moment).

I think we're closer to an understanding and indeed agreement than it first appeared. The only thing in you last post that I don't agree with is right at the end, where you say "Our revolution cannot be made by accident but by conscious decision, by those who openly recognise that they are "communists", which in the end has to mean the vast majority of the class whatever their formal affilition."

It seems to me there's a contradiction here, between "...those who openly recognise that they are "communists"..." and "... whatever their formal affilition."

I think my problem is that I don't it's necessary to be recognised as, or to recognise onesself as, a communist in order to be one. The idea of a 'formal affiliation' other than 'being a communist' would I think negate the notion of 'openly' recognising that they are communists. I think that the revolution will be made by the working class, whether or not individual workers recognise themselves, or are recognised by others, as communists. Being a communist is an awful lot more than claiming to be a communist. But between someone acting as a communist without claiming to be a communist, or claiming to be a communist without acting as a communist, I'd take the former as a 'better communist'. In that sense, the revolution will be made by communists - people who act as communists - rather than by 'communists' - people who identify as communists.

Perhaps this is the cause of the misunderstanding in the first place. Where you perhaps intended the former, I may have understood the latter?

I would agree and I think if you take the whole of "What is to be Done?" minus this wretched quote cribbed from Kautsky then Lenin was also aware of it too. He makes several references to the party being "behind the masses" in WITBD (I think I once counted 7) but no-one has really read it all and content themselves with the quote above. I have no wish to defend Lenin but I also don't like caricatures (usually by those who spring fromWITBD to the decline of the Russian Revoltuion and claim the one caused the other). I am not accusing you of this! Hope the discussion went well at the MDF and we'll hear about it from Slothjabber. In reply to whom (above) I did not say that "communists" would be formally inscribed into an organisation but the revolution will not succeed unconsciously but consciously when the conditions are right. In such a situation the communist programme (which is important) that is defended by a minority today has to become the hegemonic framework of debate to such an extent that people accept it as the necessary way forward from the impasse created by the social decay of capitalism. They may not formally call themselves communists but they will be advocating its cardinal ideas when those ideas become more than the concern of the revolutionay minority who have developed them up to that time. But it won't just be a spontaneous process even though the struggle will be impelled along at many points by spontaneous actions.

So far the discussion has been about the relationship of the working class and the revolutionary minority (ies?) it creates. When you talk of models are you raising the issue of how they function internally? We have had to learn much from the experience of the Russian Revolution (some examples like the question of revolution just being about party rule have been mentioned above) but other lessons have been learned in different ways. WITBD focuses a lot on the amateurish nature of revolutionaries in Russia up to that point (and some were a downright liability in a police state) because WITBD was written for a police state and not for a more democratic society (Lenin points this out when saying that WITBD is out of date as early as 1907). However we have taken on board other lessons such as the fight of the Italian Left against Stalinisation/bolshevisation in the 1920s when the Russian model and policies were forced on all CPs. In the course of that we saw that "professional revolutionaries" i.e paid party officials who depended on it salary for their livelihood voted against their principles otherwise they would lose their jobs. This is one reasons why we argue against the notion of professional revolutionaries (the other being that taking people from the workplace to make them officials also makes their clas perceptions change and not for the good). Today our model is an organisation of volunteers. Similarly too we have always argued for democratic centralism (understood that all higher bodies are elected and can be recalled) but that their decisions should be respected externally whilst they can be fought internally. In practice though we work in a much more consensual way (easy in smaller groups) and everyone can have a direct voice so decisions tend to emerge rather than be the outcome of some dramatic vote (in fact given our current size the very need to have a vote would suggest a potential split). We do occasionally put things to a vote but usually because we are not sure of a course to take and use the vote as a mechanism to arrive at a policy. These are all parts of the problem and our way of dealing with it has not only to be based on past (bad) experience but also on the concrete current circumstances that we are faced with. We are for the Party which we assume will be coordinated at an international level but we don't think that this coordination will take the form of just one centre dictating policy.

I recognised your position on minorities as opposed to minority by using that term. I think you are right there will always be different minorities but the differences that communist have are about perspectives for revolution and how we get there. In the course of a real historical revolutionary movement it will become clear that the options are more limited and this will tend to funnel people in one direction. This will lead to a greater tendency for practical work together. The future world party will still have tendencies within it even if is does achieve a degree of greater cohesion.As the class movement moves forward the issues behind the tendencies will diminish but if the movement stagnates or declines then the tendencies will become more acute differences. The latter has happened often enough in the past for us to know that will certainly happen in those circumstances. We can be less sure about exactly what positive form the future organisation(s) will be.

Fractions of the class? I think there are many examples since Lenin wrote WITBD but just to quote Engels on the 20th anniversary of the Paris Commune in 1891

“Of late, the Social-Democratic philistine has once more been filled with wholesome terror at the words: Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Well and good, gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.”

The above doesn’t take away the need for international communist organisation, in fact it strengthens the need, however I do believe that any future organisation has to be part of the class and not a separate entity, somehow outside of the class.

With regards the WITBD quote, I would say that it was wretched, back in 1902 when it was written and from a historical perspective still is today.

Now I’ve been sat reading the latest issue of RP at work and in the “Life of the Organisation” and I really have no real disagreement.

A couple of quick points I don't think the Commune was a government as such and I'm not even sure Engels was right to call it the DOP, even though it was a clear expression of class power. From what I remember Marx never used the term in his writings on the Commune, (though feel free to correct me) but anyway that is a different discussion.

With regards WTBD I do feel it needs to be put in some historical context. It was written in 1902 at a time most of the leadership of the RSDLP were in exile, the working class in russia was very small and often poorly educated. Those that were in Russia had all the problems of being an illegal organisation. This is in stark contrast to the situation we have today in most countries and we as communists need/have to adapt to the situations we have around us, without losing sight of our internationalist perspective.

Which I think you was suggesting when you said “I wonder if there is a better way, or if modern technology could provide a means for ''equality in decision making'' which was a visible commune slogan and one many of us would find attractive.” earlier in the thread.

I am very tempted to say that we have a different emphasis, though I’m not sure and I am in a way testing out my own ideas in these discussions and to get a better understanding of CWO/ICT view.

However I do think taking Engels quote “Bourgeois society stands at the crossroads, either transition to Socialism or regression into Barbarism” and turning it into the Party or Barbarism is problematic and I feel that this can lead to a pessimistic evaluation of the role of the masses (which I do feel is the case with regards the article “Street Protests and Class Power”), as well as an elitist outlook, which I should say is different from talking about a vanguard section of the class, ie the most class consciousness which i have no problems with.

I will leave it there for the time being, as I need to finish off my paper over the next few days, but i’m sure I will come back to the issue.

“Where is the evidence for the working class spontaneously coming to revolutionary class consciousness?”

I never suggested that the working class would spontaneously come to communist consciousness and have stated as much, along with stating the need for political organisation. My difference being more a question of emphasise and the need to see such documents in a historical context, as well as recognising the composition of the working class has changed.

Theft is right to say that WITBD has to be put in historical context. In fact in 1907 Lenin said it was already outdated (although for reasons not directly connected to our discussion). The problem with the Kautsky quote in WITBD is that it puts the issue in an idealist way. The class war between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat is a permanent feature of capitalist society. It is a war which is often hidden (camouflaged too by bourgeois ideology and propaganda) and occassionally open. In the daily economic struggle the class war is one of limited guerrilla actions but without these there would be no material for the political critique of capitalism and the formulation of its antithesis. The relation between the economic and politcal aspects of the class struggle is not always direct but it is a relationship. Without the economic struggle the political basis for communism woud not be formulated. The kautsky quote though does not focus on this but on the question of "who" formulates socialist ideology. His answer being the educated representatives of the bourgeoisie who have gone ove to the proletariat. But it is irrelevant WHO formulates the political ideas since it is the class struggle as a whole which produces them. The political ideas tend to develop in the great confrontations of open struggle (but often the reflection comes afterwards) and they always tend to develop collectively (despite the huge contributions of some individuals). The Soviets did not arise sponataneously in 1905 but as a result of a real need - to link up all the strike committees of St Petersburg. The realisation of what the soviets had become was only really appreciated as it went down to reaction but its undying legacy was to provide an organisational framework suggestive of a society without a state and capable of responding to the needs of the masses. Where WITBD remains valid is that the rise of a revolutiuonary class consciousness, a communist consciousness, has to give birth to a political organisation which encapsulates the reflection of the lessons of the class struggle (like 1905) in its own programme and practice but we don't need to refer to a 111 year old text to tell us that today.

The future party will not formed simply because a few revolutionaries call/demand it (that’s not to say that communists shouldn’t make that call). It will come out of the realities of struggle and the needs of the class for political organisation, though this will be only one part of the course. This is where I think you are wrong on both “socialism from above” and “Party or Barbarism”.

Lets clear up a few myths though, I am not opposed to the idea of a class based party/organisation, I recognise the need for political organisation and without that revolutionary input, yes you are correct in saying that the revolution will fail, but as you yourself have already pointed out, it is no guarantee of success either and that party/organisation can be wrong. So in reality your “Party or Barbarism” is actually Party or Barbarism, but we may still end up with Barbarism anyway? Which is very different from what Engels and then Luxemburg meant when they used the term Socialism or Barbarism.

As for “socialism from above” I can only ask who will create Socialism, the party? the “workers’ state”? No it will be be class aided by it’s own organisations, workers councils which will include political organisation, but what is key is that the party won’t sit above the class directing it from above. As rightly a number of CWO articles point out.

“This will be a necessary instrument for the working class to be able to build a new world. We are not talking here about a party of government but a party of the working class, in the working class, whose task is to fight for the spread of international communism.”

“Do you want a revolution for establishing the dictatorship of the communist party?

No. Only the proletariat has the duty of realizing the revolution and acquiring all power in its own hands; it’s up to the whole working class. “All power to the soviets”, to workers’ assemblies: this is our program and this is true democracy, proletarian democracy”

As I said before I think the issue here is one of emphasis and maybe even a different use of termanology?

I found this on marxists.org that is of interest to the discussion on WITBD, as it raises some of the issues in this debate. marxists.org

Interesting. Do you have a link by any chance to the full exchange between Bordiga and Damen, i know it's mentioned in Class Consciousness and Revolutionary Organisation.