I have recently been meeting with a fledgling Marxist pre-party organization in my area. This org finds itself in the enviable position of being in an area that contains a wealth of young leftists who feel disaffected, for one reason or another, by the existing left orgs.
Amidst conversations on how to proceed immediately, I want to offer my sincere suggestions to the group. After writing a bit of this, I thought this would be worth generalizing to publish in the hopes that someone elsewhere might be inspired to adapt some ideas here.
I compiled a list of questions an aspiring Marxist organization must ask itself. This might not be entirely comprehensive. These questions can’t be answered completely nor permanently, but they can’t be avoided, so the earlier they’re formed and considered, the better:
1. What is our purpose? (And what does it mean to be a Marxist organization in the first place?)
2. Why should we exist as a distinct organization?
3. What do we do? (e.g. immediate activities to prioritize)
4. How do we grow and retain new members?
5. How do we materially sustain ourselves?
6. How are decisions made?
7. How do we earn legitimacy / develop organizational relationships?
8. Who can join and on what basis?
9. What does membership entail?
These are the questions that demand concrete answers before any formal group can be said to have flown its nest. I don’t plan on addressing all of them specifically (I can’t) but I do want to keep those questions in mind.
Many new socialist groups emerge from online political culture to varying degrees. There are aspects of that which bring clear advantages, but the disadvangates must also be addressed: a lack of shared theoretical foundation, disagreement on what the organization is trying to become, unclear hierarchy. From these conditions, it could be expected that praxis risks being reduced to the most immediately visible activity. Going to protests and running mutual aid projects creates a sense that politics is happening (which, to be clear, it is) but a group can become quite busy without gaining new members or deepening roots in workplaces/communities.
At the risk of stating the obvious, the “ultimate” goal for any Marxist party is socialist revolution. But today’s concern is building institutions toward that end. For that reason, the growth of the organization’s power, and therefore its regular membership and institutional relationships, should be a factor in all decision making. An organization’s political aspirations are limited by their ability to act. When activities are suggested, our questions should take the shape of “How would this advance the organization? What evidence suggests that it will? And what conditions make this timely?” Especially for a small group, these are of primary importance. The most politically impactful thing 10 people could do with their time is become 30 people. For me, this is a partial answer to question 1 from above. Our ultimate goal requires growth and institutional experience, so we need to consider each activity on the merit of how it could improve our capacity for greater activities after it.
We shouldn’t expect a Marxist organization to coordinate and behave like some especially eccentric non-Marxist organization whose members happen to wear red and discuss crisis theory over beers. There are definite political and strategic positions a group makes by virtue of calling themselves Marxist. Traditionally, this roughly meant having a developed analysis of capitalism informed by the mature method of Marx, gaining and retaining new members, educating the organization’s members, formulating a political program, embedding itself in real social struggles, and developing some long-term strategy.
When it comes to party activity, tactics must begin with analysis (e.g. What classes exist locally, where are workers already organized, what struggles are developing, what is the political consciousness of the people we’re trying to reach, where should we look to recruit from). This is because analyzing local politico-economic structures can illuminate certain avenues of action that we otherwise might not catch. Moral urgency and revolutionary aesthetics/enthusiasm should not be “reined in”, but they should be subordinated to analysis. Easier said than done but I think that’s a part of what it means to be a materialist.
All of that is to say that we should act not in moderation but in sequence. A Marxist party cannot be moderate. It should not have moderate demands or settle for only moderate gains. However, it needs to act in accordance with a sober ‘force analysis’ of its own capabilities. It should be cautious about expending its members’ energies towards activities which don’t expand its limits while it’s in its infancy.
Actually on this exact point, Lenin has direct wisdom to offer. One of the chief lessons of What is to be Done? is that an organization’s primary function should be to produce continuity and increase its own capacity for action through political training and developing relationships with other organizations (chs. 4 & 5).
Political education in a Marxist organization should have the aim of producing people who are able to analyze political situations in order to change them. Many leftist orgs have political education systems which tend to teach towards party platform conclusions. Not only does this environment create boring and routine situations that stifle new ideas, it sidesteps the premise of historical materialism altogether. Our responsibility as revolutionaries is to politically educate ourselves to the point of being capable of changing the world around us. Memorizing the correct party line or learning ammunition to win an argument is only useful to whatever degree it helps fulfill that responsibility.
“Capitalism is exploitative, imperialism is bad, the state serves dominant class interests, revolution is necessary”. Claims like these are more engaging to learn, and ultimately more useful to apply, if they are positions that are arrived at through a study of history, social science, and practice; that would be more useful than learning those facts as slogans justified through a corresponding snippet of theory from a Canon Revolutionary.
Having a regular study group has a high membership draw despite its low level of maintenance/commitment. Depending on the area, there might be no other socialist education groups at all. Even if there are any others, it is exceedingly rare to find study groups outside of major cities that read Marx beyond the Communist Manifesto. The task then is recruiting people who can teach and people who want to learn, which are separate issues.
To give an idea of what a progression might look like, here’s some kind of outline. This way, it would be possible to fill in things that might be more relevant or interesting to a group already.
Basic Marxist concepts and method
Wage labor, value, exploitation, class, etc.
Historical materialism
History of socialist/worker’s movements
Debates over strategy
Analysis of local conditions
Like any reading guide, it can’t be perfect. The downside might be difficulty retaining interest through the political economy sections. The advantage this progression has is that it demonstrates Marxism both as a tradition and as a replicable method that can be applied to new situations. With that being said, reading theory can’t become a university seminar. It shouldn’t be detached from the practicality of the questions it’s supposed to answer about the current situation or the organization’s role in it.
At some point it would also be beneficial to clearly define in a document what the decision making hierarchy looks like. At first, governanace by vibes might be completely workable (“vibes” really meaning governance by seniority, age, friendship, whomever talks the most confidently, etc.). Once the group reaches a certain size or demands answers to the previously mentioned questions, then a short provisional agreement should be implemented just to keep things running smoothly and give the members a sense of station and direction without writing an awkwardly aggrandizing or premature constitution. On that note, a party program should become necessary only when the organization seeks to become more than a propaganda circle, study group(s), or loose political association.
Here is my suggested list of priorities:
1. Build a stable and expanding core of members
2. Build a serious and cumulative political education program
3. Study local conditions
4. Participate selectively in public struggles
5. Define a provisional shared political basis
6. Write a minimal operational agreement
7. Reassess the group’s structure and priorities based on growth
I should note though that I don’t think this is completely strict. For example, participation in public struggle might be a sustainable strategy for attracting new members.
Leave a Reply