The majority characterises party—building as identical with building the Vanguard party of thx proletariat. Fusion, as the majority understands it, is the political strategy for accomplishing this, This characterization is buttressed with the argument that M-L’s view political parties as being the vehicles or organisations through which definite social classes express their interests. There is therefore an integral relationship between the class and the party which represents it. The party contains within it the most conscious, far-seeing representatives of the class in question. This gives the party the means to lead the entire class in the pursuance of its own interests. For the proletariat, this relationship is termed the vanguard relation, and the party the vanguard party. Hence, for the majority, the Question of party-building is the same as building the vanguard party as such, and thereby synonymous with building the vanguard relation.
What is, in fact, the vanguard relation? Correspondingly, what is the vanguard party? In general, all classes, in the course of their historical development, produce a “vanguard” party. That is, a political organisation capable of expressing the interest, aspirations, ideology, culture, etc., in a word, the socially conscious will of a particular class aspiring to social hegemony. Of course, these “parties” do not necessarily correspond to what we mean by a political party in the modern sense. For example, the feudal class in Western Europe, in the course of its initial rise to power, did not do so through the vehicle of a political party in the modern sense; what corresponded, organisationally, to a political party were bands of military retainers centered around particular war lords, who eventually succeeded in keeping the direct agricultural producers tied to the soil in a relationship of tribute to them, through the medium of extra-economic military force, following the break-up of the western half of the Roman Empire, Gramsci refers to such parties, including modern parties, as “organic parties,” that is, parties which articulate and personify this social “will,”(The vanguard party of the proletariat, of course, is such an organic party). In this sense, then, an organic or vanguard party (and its corresponding organic or vanguard relation to a class) is most properly understood as a socio-historical category describing a qualitatively distinct level of consciousness within a given class. The question of political organisation and the vanguard stature of such an organisation is quite distinct. Further, as Gramsci notes: “It is observable that in the modern world, in many countries, the organic (parties) have been compelled by the exigencies of the struggle or for other reasons to split into fractions – each one of which calls itself a party and even an independent party.” Later, he goes on to characterize this movement of interrelated parties as being “fractions of one and the same organic party.”[1] In this sense, an organic or vanguard party constitutes the focal point (socio-historical category) for the socially conscious will of a particular class as it develops historically. It may have more than one organisational form. However, it is a vanguard party only to the extent that it is the focus of this will. As such, it represents a relationship between an organization or organisations and the class at a certain level of its development. In the absence of such a “will,” the task of the conscious elements is to forge the conditions whereby this “will” may be constituted. The organisational question becomes the question of what organisational form may best accomplish this. Of course Gramsci, in this quote, is speaking primarily of parties holding state power, and in particular bourgeois parties. But he is also speaking of the left in his own time, as well as parties in general. For the U.S. proletariat, the “other reasons” mentioned above correspond to the low level and uneven development of political and class consciousness in the working class. Hence, the multiplicity of organisational forms. The key is to create this “social will” to revolution that makes such an organic party possible. The question is not the identification of this will (or class consciousness) with a specific organisation, but how organisation can facilitate the development of class consciousness, and hence the socio-historical stage of development wherein the organic party of the proletariat is situated.
Of course, in the long run, there is a considerable homogeneity of interests within the working class as compared to say, the bourgeoisie. That is why it is possible for the vanguard, or organic party of the proletariat to correspond to a single organisation. Our task, today, is to get from here to there.
Another fundamental question, therefore, is the relationship between organisation and our political tasks. Our general political task is to establish the vanguard relation, as well as the conditions whereby that may be constituted. Our general political goal is to create the vanguard party. Both the minority and the majority would agree that the strategy for the former (at least initially) is the fusion of the communist movement with the spontaneous working class movement. What, therefore, is the organizational form that this is to assume? The minority asserts that the best way to facilitate the general task of fusion (and thereby the vanguard relation) is to form a party of the Leninist type. (Of course, this would presuppose a significant degree of M-L unity around an advanced theory and general line). The majority asserts that the best way to do this is to create a significant (though incomplete) vanguard, relation prior to the formation of a party of the Leninist type, Neither party, of course, will be the vanguard party, that is, the organic party of the working class discussed earlier. Why, then, doesn’t the majority assert a full vanguard relation prior to party formation? Could it be, just possibly, that they perceive a role for Leninist organization in creating the vanguard relation? To put it another way, would not the creation of a party of the Leninist type, armed with advanced, critical theory, national organization, a wealth of practical experience, and a good general line, actually advance the task of fusion and the creation of the vanguard relation? Looking at the majority position, one might conclude that such a form of political organization would actually hinder this process! Of course, the majority might reply that such a party could not actually exist (that it would be a mere assertion of the M-L’s within it) without a significant degree of fusion prior to its formation. However, this reply only belittles the role of Leninist organisation (and its corollary, advanced theory) in relation to our political tasks. It, and the majority’s entire position, results from a confusion in its understanding of the vanguard party, the vanguard relation, and the means by which these are established.
In essence, doesn’t the majority position manifest an idealist view of Leninism? On the one hand, the building of a party is confused with the creation of the vanguard relation, and therefore equated with the building of the vanguard party. On the other hand, the Leninist form of organisation is seen not as a means for advancing our practical and political tasks, but as a transcendent goal to be reached, a kind of sign by which we gauge our (the communists) relationship with the working class. This is nothing less than an idealist view of party—building. Cur ability, as communists, to transform social reality will depend in the most fundamental way upon our creating organisational forms capable of advancing the goals we set for them, which in turn will depend upon the theory and political line we develop to guide and articulate our practice.
“The” vanguard party therefore, is simply a Leninist party which, through a process of historical development, places itself into a specific relationship with the working class. That is, it becomes in fact, an organic party in Gramsci’s sense, Party-building is something quite different, party-building is the creation of conditions whereby a political organization is formed which has a reasonable chance of aspiring toward the status of an organic party. This organisation1s ability to reach that goal will depend upon the correctness of its theory and political line. The party form facilitates the development of correct theory and line (though it by no means guarantees it), and therefore the party1s decree of fusion with the class (the extent of its vanguard character) and not vice-versa. To think otherwise is to objectively downplay the role of organisation in comumnist theory and practice.
[1] All quotes in this section are taken from “The Modern Prince,” Selections From the Prison Notebooks, by Antonio Gramsci, p.l48-150, International Publishers, 1975.