Given that the number of characters in the visitor messages is limited to 1000, I'll reply here:
Hi there and thanks for reading my blog.
As for your question, there are several underlying theses in my position:
1. The working class has to liberate itself
if it wants to transcend capital. This is done through the fight to reach communism.
2. This implies majoritarian
politics, or, in other words, organising the working class as a class for its own
. This as opposed to minoritarian politics of tiny grouplets trying to radicalise the working class and "con it into power" via the general strike. I've written here
on that subject.
3. Since organising the working class as a class for its own isn't going to happen "spontaniously" or in a short amount of time, this implies long term
political education and organising work. Therefore we need a partyist
project of trying to unite the class movement on a communist programme.
4. This inevitably means uniting diverse traditions in which the Marxist tradition may be a minority if we (the left) aren't the initiators of such party-movement. The underlying point here is that unity can only happen if it is voluntary
, which implies freedom of expression be it that there is a democratic vote on concrete decisions. Likewise, the Marxist left can use this political freedom to campaign for a communist programme.
4a. If the rightwing is powerful enough to use bureaucratic measures against the left, this means that the communists have to explicitly organise in a communist party. It however does not mean that we should stop to engage with the existing workers movement and fight for political freedoms within that movement.
4b. On the other hand, the Marxist left can
be an initiator of a unity project around a communist program. It can do this by overcoming its own sectarian shadow and unite itself, thereby gaining a serious social weight and becoming a serious option for workers to organise around.
5. The point of radical democracy within our movement runs deeper however. In the first place is it the only way to politicise workers and get them to think and engage
about politics themselves, as opposed to leaving politics to "the professionals". This is a necessary step if the working class is to ever seize political power and become a ruling class.
6. Furthermore still, given that all states
, in the last analysis, are party states
, the democratic republican nature of our party will also be a reflection of our future state. That is, a radical democratic regime in which the people are genuinely sovereign and where there is therefore a genuine democracy given the vast majority of the working class within society. Therefore the dictatorship of the proletariat can only be
a democratic republic, as Engels already pointed out in 1891
I think Mark Fischer of the Weekly Worker
put it quite well in a recent article about their 30 years of existence
The second aspect of the method of TL which still holds today is that we are about uniting the revolutionary left under a genuine regime of democratic centralism - not as a set of organisational norms, but as an open process of winning and continually consolidating communist unity around a revolutionary programme.
In other words, proletarian
unity can only be seen as a dynamic process, via democracy and therefore a "unity in disagreement". The alternative, unity enforced through bureaucracy, is always in the interests of the capitalist regime (or, as history turned out, of the Stalinist regimes) never in the interests of workers self-emancipation, and for that reason reactionary and a prime target of communists.
I hope this explains