This post is the fifth part of a biweekly series posting chapters of Frank Cunningham’s Understanding Marxism: A Canadian Introduction (Toronto: Progress Books, 1981). Through these excerpts, readers will come to understand the basics of Marxist theory through a Canadian lens in a digestible, accessible, and easy-to-understand way. As 2021 marks 100 years of the communist movement in Canada, and as more young workers and students become interested in Marxism, we hope that this educational series will benefit our readers.
The following chapter (Ch. 6 of Understanding Marxism) deals with the role of the revolutionary party in relation to the working class. It discusses Marxist conceptions of the leadership of a revolutionary party, as well as some popularly-proposed alternatives (social democracy, reformism, and anarchism).
The original text is available to borrow through Archive.org. It has been amended minimally to include links to relevant texts, to update vital information, and to remove notes relevant only to the physical book.
Socialism will not come into existence automatically. People must organize themselves for the purpose of taking control of the means of production and orienting society to the needs of working people. This reorientation requires that the political power of the state be taken out of the hands of capitalists. The natural questions that arise are which people will take the lead in doing these things and how will they do it.
The Working Class
Various pro-socialists have given different answers to the first question. The Utopian socialists thought that present-day capitalists and political leaders themselves could take the lead if only they would read the right books. Others have seen intellectuals taking the lead, or students. The important role of peasants in earlier revolutions has led some to think of them as the leading force. It has even been suggested that the lumpenproletariat is the key to socialist revolution.
The Marxist view is that the working class, and most importantly, the industrial portion of it, can and will lead revolutionary struggle. The Marxist reasons for this have already been outlined in chapter three, as have some Marxist responses to criticisms of this view. In that chapter it was argued that capitalism itself creates in the working class a force with both the incentive and the means to end the system of capitalism. To this argument I will just add two more considerations.
In the first place, the interests of the working class coincide with those of almost every other group in society. Modern productive forces are controlled by capitalists who cannot use them in a way beneficial to everyone, and what is more they have little desire to do so. The only solution is for the working class itself to take charge of the means of production. Since the working class has no interest in living off the labour of others, this initial act will be decisive for ending the division of society into classes altogether. The proletariat’s purpose is to control the conditions and the fruits of its own work so that the means of production are used rationally. Almost every other group in society (like farmers, the petty-bourgeoisie and students) has an interest in the means of production being rationally employed by the people who actually work, since this would eliminate the main source of problems they confront. The anarchy of capitalist production and the capitalist drive for private profit affect everyone. Because the working class is the largest and strongest class in society that stands opposed to the capitalist class, it is obviously in the interests of other groups to ally with it. At the same time it is in the interests of the working class to join with as many other groups and classes in society as possible, because capitalism is not easily toppled.
Another reason the working class will play the leading role is that its interests go beyond those of other groups. At a certain point in the history of a society the contradiction between social work and private ownership becomes intolerable to the working class. At that stage the capitalist class can do nothing to meet working-class demands, and the working class is left with no option but to take over the state and take control of the means of production themselves. This is not the case with other groups in industrial society. Due to their small size or to the special and restricted nature of their demands, it is possible for patchwork measures within the system of capitalism to hold off revolutionary efforts indefinitely. Thus, the working class is more reliably revolutionary than other groups.
It is true that the working class does not always express revolutionary ideas or intentions. For instance, during periods of relative prosperity (such as that purchased by capitalists through imperialism) the working class does not see socialist revolution as in its interests. But a scientific analysis of society looks beyond temporary appearances. If you survey the world today and see who is in the leadership of revolutionary struggles in countries that are very close to socialism, you will see that it is the working class. A study of the history of the Canadian working class will show that it has always included segments that favoured socialism and that these segments are on the increase.
The Revolutionary Party
Social revolutions do not come about easily. A ruling class does not give up its position willingly, but uses the power of the state to protect it. For a socialist revolution to succeed it is necessary for the working class and its allies to have an organization that can take the power of the state from capitalists and rebuild the state to serve working people’s needs. An organization formed for any other purpose will not do, even if it is a working-class organization. A trade union, for example, is geared toward making gains within the capitalist system, not [toward] toppling the system. What the working class needs is its own revolutionary political party. It needs an organization that will gather together the most politically conscious and capable members of the working class and others who see the need for socialist transformation of society (what Marxists call the “vanguard” of the proletariat).
An organization is needed that can bring careful scientific analysis based on Marxist theory to bear on concrete political practice. This organization must combine the ability to make correct decisions about a course of action with the ability to carry them out. For the former such an organization requires democratic decision-making procedures so that political experience and knowledge can be shared and discussed to the fullest. To be effective, the organization must have the resolution to act in a united way once a decision has been made. That is, the organization requires what Marxists call “democratic centralism.” The working class needs a political party with these specific features as a weapon against capitalists, who have proven that they will do everything in their power to prevent socialism.
Marx and Engels helped to build one such party, the Communist League. Lenin, of course, was instrumental in building the first revolutionary party to win a socialist revolution. He also wrote a good deal about the need for revolutionary parties and the practical problems involved in building them. Since the time of Marx and Engels working people have formed Communist Parties in nearly every country of the world (the Communist Party of Canada was formed in 1921), and these parties have provided the key leadership in the many movements to gain and construct socialism so far.
In calling working-class revolutionary parties “political” Marxists do not mean that they exist primarily to run socialist candidates in political elections. When the working class is strong enough important gains can be made through elections, but this is not all that a revolutionary party exists to do. They are political in the broader sense that they aim, alone or in coalition with other socialist political organizations, to take state power from capitalism and to reconstruct the state in accord with new relations of production. To achieve this goal a revolutionary party of the working class is needed to link up and coordinate the many struggles working people are engaged in. On the economic front, working people are engaged in fights against different bosses and in different industries. There are community struggles against landlords and around municipal matters. Many workers become involved in national struggles for self-determination and freedom from imperialism. There are battles waged for the rights of those discriminated against because of their race or sex. All these issues need to be coordinated. But to achieve the necessary level of coordination the working class requires a political party that can gain an overview of working people’s problems and act in the best long-range interests of everybody who suffers from the effects of the capitalist system.
In addition to forging the broadest possible alliances within a country, a revolutionary working-class party must look beyond its borders to help build international working-class unity — to defend what Marxists call “proletarian internationalism”. When working classes that have already achieved socialism find their societies under political, economic or even threatened military attack from capitalist-dominated countries, workers’ parties in the capitalist countries must defend socialism. When working people in other countries are striving to free themselves from capitalism or imperialism they require international support from other working people. Vietnam is an example of one place where international support was most important in preventing an imperialist victory. In their efforts to combat Canadian and U.S. imperialism, the people of the Caribbean (among others) now required well-organized Canadian support. Already the socialist working-class movements in Western Europe are coming under increased attack and will need organized working-class support from around the world. Again, to organize this support, a revolutionary party of the working class is needed.
A party is needed to raise revolutionary consciousness, because it is necessary for people to understand the underlying class nature of struggles they are engaged in. For instance, in striving to reverse cutbacks in social services such as welfare or child care, it is important to see that these cutbacks are being carried out in the interests of capitalism and can be reversed if the government is forced to tax capitalist profits. In bringing class analyses and subsequent tactics to people’s struggles, a revolutionary party helps in winning those struggles and also educates people about the nature of class society and the need to change it. To accomplish this task a party is needed to expose capitalist lies and bring much-needed information about what actually goes on in the world, through its own publications.
The need for a revolutionary political party has been challenged by some who otherwise favour some kind of social change. I will conclude this chapter by listing some alternative approaches.
Reformism
One view, called “reformism”, is that things will change gradually through greater and greater reforms. Hence, revolutionary struggle is considered unnecessary, and if a working-class party is required at all, it should not be a revolutionary one. Failing to see how the state serves ruling-class interests, reformists suggest that governments as they are constituted under capitalism can be trusted to carry out reforms once public opinion has been mobilized. “Economism” is one version of reformism that Lenin took special pains to combat. Its advocates think that the workers’ economic — mainly trade union — struggles alone will eventually lead to socialism by forcing more and more economic reforms on the capitalist system.
Full critiques of alternatives to a revolutionary party proposed by otherwise progressively-minded people are not possible in an introductory book. But I will indicate the main lines along which Marxists react to them. Reformists assume that human aspirations can be realized within the present system or else they assume that reform measures will lead gradually and automatically to socialism. Marxists disagree with both of these assumptions, and they do not think the capitalist state can be trusted to carry out the most important reforms that working people need.
As long as the major sources of wealth and power in society are privately owned and controlled, only minimal reforms can be won or kept. This does not mean that gains like unemployment insurance and universal medical coverage are insignificant. But these reforms do not alter the main anti-working class orientation of the capitalist system. Moreover, all it takes is a threatened cut in profits for capitalists to take back reforms people have won. Reforms can make capitalists cut into profits a little for limited periods of time if they have no other choice. But they can never force them to give up the whole show and allow a reorientation of industry and government to serve working people’s needs. At some point people have to organize to take the means of production away from the capitalists. It is to be hoped that working people will be so well organized and determined that this can be done peacefully, thus preventing the capitalists from protecting their interests through violence. But however socialism comes about, it will have to be very deliberately carried out with full knowledge of the powerful opposition to socialism on the part of capitalists.
Anarchism
Anarchists hold that revolutionary parties of the kind Marx and Engels had in mind would be elitist, authoritarian institutions which would stifle revolution. Many anarchists confine themselves to criticizing Marxists. Others propose that revolutions should be the product of many relatively small collectives, each striving for worker or community control in its own area of work or residence.
While the underlying assumption of reformism is that social transformations will take place automatically, anarchists assume that transformations will take place spontaneously. To Marxists it would be a most astonishing accident if scattered collectives of people not only took control of their factories or communities, but also carried out a social revolution. Surely their various efforts would have to be coordinated and given common direction. How can this be done without a disciplined political party? Anarchists give different answers to this question, but, Marxists claim, all their plans either do not allow for enough coordination and discipline to be effective, or they introduce the concept of a revolutionary party under a different name.
Social Democracy
Social democracy is an approach that does not deny the need for a political party, but denies that it should be revolutionary. Along with reformists, social democrats share the view that socialism (though many social democrats do not like to use this word) will evolve by gradual reforms. But unlike other reformists, they think there should be a political party to lead this evolution. Marxists also challenge the assumption of social democracy that the government is neutral. Social-democratic political parties typically confine themselves to electoral work. Their aim is to gain a larger and larger voice in basically pro-capitalist governments and thereby effect reforms without rocking the boat and being labelled “revolutionaries”.
This strategy overlooks the fact that there are limits beyond which capitalists are not prepared to go. Moreover, capitalists do not have to allow certain reforms, since they have a great deal of control over who is elected to public office and what decisions are made by governments. They also have ways of getting around governmental measures if they don’t like them, and they are prepared to work outside the government if they have to. When the pro-capitalist Liberal Party formed a government in 1974 with a clear popular mandate to oppose wage controls, that did not stop it from introducing those very controls.
As for “keep respectable” strategy, anybody who confines himself to pressing only for demands considered respectable within a capitalist-controlled government (and with a capitalist-controlled press) will never be able to advance demands that seriously challenge the capitalist system.
Anarchists and others charge that the Marxist theory leads to an elitist party standing above the working class and to anti-democratic organizations. By this charge they mean that inside the party democracy is sacrificed to centralism and that after socialism has been achieved the party acts in an anti-democratic way toward the people. Social democrats and other reformists often add that a revolutionary party runs the risk of being discredited, harassed and made illegal by the state.
The criticism about elitism comes from confusion about the theory as well as the practice of revolutionary parties. It was the view of Marx and Engels that these parties grow out of the working class. They are made up of working-class people and their allies from other classes whose experience in people’s organizations (such as trade unions, the women’s movement, and so on) has taught them the need for such a party. Sometimes this is said to be contradicted by the fact that the best-known theoreticians and spokesmen for revolutionary political parties have not themselves been from working-class origins. This is true. Marx, Engels, Lenin and Castro are examples; however, there have always been working-class revolutionary leaders as well. In the early days of working-class revolutionary organization it would have been surprising if some important leaders were not from other classes, since these were the people who were able to acquire the education necessary to research and develop the theories of revolutionary struggle. Moreover, Marx, Engels, Lenin and others were participants in much larger movements, so it is an example of the “great man” theory of history to think of their parties as mere extensions of a few personalities.
Are anti-democratic tendencies possible in revolutionary political parties? Of course they are. Any time an organization with chains of command, committee structures and so on is formed there will be the possibility that the democratic side of “democratic centralism” will become weakened. The serious problems and the pressures that confront a revolutionary party in the early stages of socialism make possible policies that work against democracy as well as ones that work for it. Are there dangers of police harassment? Of course. Any party in a capitalist society that openly works for an end to capitalism will be subject to harassment of various forms.
But if the Marxist theory is correct that capitalism must go and that a revolutionary party of the working class is necessary to win socialism, then there seem to be just two alternatives. One is to sit on the sidelines and moan about real and imagined problems and dangers. The other is to join the struggle and work to solve the problems and confront the dangers.
Readings for Chapter Six
K. Marx & F. Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party, Parts II, III, IV.
F. Engels, On the History of the Communist League.
V.I. Lenin, Left Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder (Collected Works, vol. 31). A treatment of parliamentary and extra-parliamentary roles of a revolutionary party.
Chapter Seven of Understanding Marxism will be posted on Tuesday, July 13th. Please visit our “Marxism” section for previous chapters.