
The discussion that follows was prompted by the article: The conception of the party held by Cervetto and Lotta Comunista (part one). The discussion was initiated by mhou.
Below is the discussion so far. Feel free to add your own comments!
english | français | deutsch | italiano | svenska | español | türkçe | nederlands | português | Ελληνικά |
русский | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
filipino | ![]() |
![]() |
magyar | suomi |
The discussion that follows was prompted by the article: The conception of the party held by Cervetto and Lotta Comunista (part one). The discussion was initiated by mhou.
Below is the discussion so far. Feel free to add your own comments!
The series of articles on LC are very interesting. Cervetto's conception of the Party is spelled out in his 1964 "Class Struggles and the Revolutionary Party":
Chapter 1, Cervetto
The ICC's part one of the article on LC and Cervetto asks the question 'why is the party only formed in Italy?'- Cervetto seems to seek continuity with Lenin and the Bolsheviks methods of forming the faction (1903) and party (1912) in one country, before being the vanguard of the next International in 1919; like the German party was for the Second International.
Isn't this one of the lessons of the Bolsheviks which is valid today; that the advanced sections of the communist minority move forward in organizing themselves to be in an advanced position when the class party is necessary? While the organization of the Party (democratic centralism, organic centralism) may be discussed and debated, we do mostly seem to be agree that the Party is necessary at a specific moment in generalized class struggle turned pre-revolutionary situation; is it voluntarism to begin forming the national sections, which may be in advance of other sections of the communist minority of the working-class in different regions/countries? Were the Bolsheviks being voluntarist by forming the RSDLP(b) as a separate party from the Mensheviks in 1912 and becoming the RCP(b) after October and before the formation of the Third International?
In certain circles this part of communist history is being revised by Lars T Lih in his book on What Is To Be Done?- some nominal/self-described communists are putting forward his version of events that the Bolsheviks did not form a separate party in 1912 from the Mensheviks, that there was no split in 1903, 1912, or any time until the revolutions of 1917. I have not read the book, but the number of people who have been defending this line is troubling.
mhou, you are right in saying it's necessary that "the advanced sections of the communist minority move forward in organizing themselves to be in an advanced position when the class party is necessary?"
Easier said than done of course, but the next question, by referring to the example of the Russian party before the first world war or before the formation of the Third International seems not to take into account some important developments that have taken place since then. So when you ask "is it voluntarism to begin forming the national sections, which may be in advance of other sections of the communist minority of the working-class in different regions/countries?", we have to remember that in the phase of the Third International's degeneration Bordiga argued that henceforward it would be necessary to see the party as by definition a world party (although subsequently, in 1943-45 the Italian left, declaring the 'Internationalist Communist Party' in Italy alone, lost sight of this acquisition).
This is certainly one of the main reasons why the ICC has always seen itself as an international organisation from the beginning. Not because we are the party but because the future party will be based on a prior experience of organising on an international level, not through a federation of autonomous groups, but as a centralised organisation.
Of course, none of the existing communist groups in any one country are currently in a position to declare themselves as the 'communist party' of this or that country, at least not without falling into total delusion. So the key questions remain: what kind of communist organisation are we trying to construct today? What is the best way to prepare the ground for the world party of tomorrow?
Thanks for the response Alf.
I think that's one of the stumbling blocks of this question- whether or not the change in material conditions (from the time of Bilan to the formation of the ICC, and from then to today) and the class struggle have met the kinds of preconditions for forming the Party that the Italian Left in Exile originally outlined.
The arguments back and forth between the ICC and the International Communist Party are similar to those in the above article (when it comes to forming the party).
The PCI's article mentioned in an old issue of IR ('The Powerful and Compact Party of Tomorrow', Programme Communiste #76; which was a pain to find a decent English translation) admonishes Revolution Internationale/ICC for carrying on the logic of the fraction at a time when the preconditions for forming the party, set by Bilan issue #1, had been met; and that continuing the work of a fraction instead of the party puts the breaks on organizational and theoretical development of communists (for the tasks of the future revolution).
http://sinistra.net/lib/upt/kompro/cipo/cipoffobid.html
https://en.internationalism.org/node/2647
Here's the part of the Programme article (rough translation; it's a German translation of the original French, run through Google Translate to English, so it is a bit difficult to follow at times):
I think the example of groups like RI taking initiative in gathering like minded communists and communist groups into a centralized international organization [i]sounds like[/i] the kind of 'Party Work' the Bordigists admonished RI/ICC for in the 1970's for not doing- so it's a bit confusing.
If we accept that regional or national organizations will by nature of conditions and consciousness be in advance of even other communist groups elsewhere (and thus take the lead in setting out the path toward organizational and theoretical unity), it seems like the next question is:
Have the conditions for the formation of the next International (defined by the Italian Left in Exile) been met since that time (1930's-today)? This is a point that has stuck with me lately (which manifested in the long difficulties of struggle thread months ago here and there).
It looks like all 3 groups starting out from the idea that some local organizations of communists will be in advance of others, and must act first to be the 'vangaurd' of the communist organization (PCI, ICC, LC)- but the 3 part series on LC shows that they never made it out of the rut of being a national organization, so the big question for me is whether or not Bordiga and the PCI (and before them communists like Damen and the PCInt) were right that the preconditions for forming the party had been met after WWII.