Yes the conditions of capitalism could lead to the working class becoming a class-for-itself; it could indeed form a class-conscious, socialist party. That is what we’re working for after all. We both missed out a word, I note – I meant to write ‘today’, you chose not to write ‘disciplined’. As such, it may be that we are both arguing quite different points. If we are arguing the same point, then I don’t really see much point engaging with you because you are not combining your theory with praxis, or even making a show of it. If we are talking at cross purposes, fair enough. I suspect you may feel flattered; you can be like Lenin, upbraided by internal critics as a ‘bookish’ ‘armchair’ revolutionary…

I don’t think a discussion about the process of the Bolsheviks becoming a mass party (post-revolution) is particularly instructive to the debate at issue. While I concede by mentioning ‘What is to be done?’ I began this diversion, to compare what we are discussing with the actual circumstances of pre-revolutionary Russia does not get us very far, therefore, when discussing the concept of the vanguard party, I am looking at it as developed through the 20th century by Marxist-Leninist/Trotskyist organisation, rather than in terms of organising strictly secret democratic centralism predating an iminent putsch. I am reading it in Fourth International terms as assuming the leadership of working-class upsurges – which, of course, some argue is quite contrary to the essentail tenets of Leninism, but that’s a seperate point again (and a thing does not assume the leadership of itself).

The point about Liberalism was relevant insofar as your suggestion was that the Labour movement was formed by small socialist organisations; it was not – small socialist organisations played a part in a key development in the longer history of the British labour movement – the formation of a mass party of labour. Although socialism was not the unifying aspect of its original inception (I’m not going to bother discussing your supplementary points about that because we would just be engaging in Labour history trainspotting and – while I would defeat you terribly – it would be entirely pointless and self-indulgent) it became a self-consciously socialist party remarkably quickly (indeed, one could argue that it was only really a self-consciously socialist party up until about 1926, with a few other socialistic moments, though socialism always played a part and still does, even if often an oppositional part). Although you claim to quote the ‘entire trade union movement’ I never said it, so it is quite irrelevant. Socialism did indeed mean different things to different people then (I’m not sure what on earth you read in my comment that might imply otherwise) – it still does. As such, again, it would be absurd to paint the SDF and ILP (even the Fabians?) as some sort of vanguard – a model that the Socialist Party and the Convention of the Left might today copy. It ignores the enormous elephant in the room: the Labour Party. The only excuse for ignoring said elephant – that I could imagine – was the assumption that the Liberal Party represented a similar elephant in 1900. So I was merely pointing out that it did not.

We have a mass party of Labour today. A terribly imperfect one. And I’m quite happy for so-called ‘entryist’ groups to try and assume its leadership at moments of crisis and upsurge – at times I wish they’d make a better job of it – but all the theories surrounding a ‘new workers party’ had better take some account of the old one.

I’ll start with the most flippant and most inaccurate part. No, the idea that there could be a millions-strong Marxist party does not require the abandonment of historical materialism.

In fact historical materialism simply argues that, from the bedrock processes of our society, there will grow an oppositional movement to those processes, since they are inherently exploitative.

Marx himself discussed the transition of a “class-in-itself” to a “class-for-itself” (what Gramsci might have called the creation of socialist hegemony) but Marx simply assumed that the “class-for-itself” would be revolutionary, as a direct result of the forms opposition from the capitalist class would take, and as a consequence of his analysis of the State.

I find it hard to pay your argument much respect if you can’t at least support such ridiculously vague assertions with some argumentation.

Moving to the subject of what is and isn’t unmarxist: Lenin’s struggle within the RSDLP about what form membership should take was not an attempt to argue that the revolutionary party should be small, united or centralist or that it should protect the revolutionary ideology. Indeed, the very process of Lenin’s dispute over that issue showed that the Party could tolerate different factions and that it would decide democratically what ‘the revolutionary ideology’ should be. Said ideology was never considered to be a received truth.

The history of the Russian Revolution also demonstrated that the Bolsheviks were to become a mass party.

By this, I do not intend to argue that a mass party of labour (in a Western context) is the same as the Bolshevik Party / a revolutionary vanguard. I don’t have to, however, since your argument is simply predicated upon a misreading of Leninism as advocating a small sect – which it doesn’t.

Nor was my earlier argument an attempt to assert that the Labour Party won the working class away from Liberalism, so your entire second paragraph is essentially irrelevant to our discussion.

The “entire trade union movement” was not involved with the creation of the Labour Party. First of all, the original LRC involved barely a third of the TUC. Secondly, it’s as ridiculous to say that the people represented by the 129 delegates at the founding conference were motivated by the need for working class representation in parliament as to say they were motivated by socialism.

They were motivated by all different kinds of notions – and the ‘end result’ of working class parliamentarians was but one. Not to mention that ‘socialism’ back then meant all different kinds of things from guild socialism to fabian socialism to various Marxian strands. This is the sort of over-prescriptive history which maintains that in Germany, the overriding motivation for the SDP was Marxism.

As it turned out, in the course of decades of struggle, the Labour Party was ‘won’ to the cause of socialism by parliamentary means – but the struggle was far linear and far from inevitable. It may have been the case that from the outset this strand had the advantage of numbers, but to say that it was inevitable that this strand would win through is unmarxist, has nothing in common with historical materialism and, through your little narrative about how a mass defection from liberalism is a fiction, is exactly what you are suggesting.

While some – with little reference to the real history – suggest that small groups won the trade union movement away from Liberalism and therefore the same could be done today but by small leftist groups, away from Labourism – the truth is much more fascinating: the Trade Union movement went from having no coherent political identity to being the bedrock of the labour movement, based on the concept of working-class representation in parliament, rather than the concept of socialism – in the first istance. There was no mass defection, because there was no mass identification.

As for the revolutionary vanguard – of course the idea itself is Leninist/Trotskyist and we could have a big debate about whether it is, itself un-Marxist (but I don’t really want that debate!) – but as far as I recall from my ‘What is to be done?’ from years ago, the whole point of a revolutionary vanguard is to be small, united, centralist and protect the revolutionary ideology (as well as to disseminate it). The role of a mass party of labour is very different.

So while there might be a Marxist argument that there is a role for a revolutionary vanguard party to struggle for hegemony within the mass party of labour, the idea that the mass party of labour could have the features of a revolutionary vanguard party is illogical (and therefore un-Marxist). The idea that there could be a millions-strong, disciplined Marxist party in Britain requires many things, one of which is the abandonment of historical materialism.

Incidentally, why is the idea of a mass labour movement acting as a revolutionary vanguard unmarxist?

I agree with your thoughts on the Hobsbawm article, actually. It was very un-Marxist and not very good.

I despair when I get to points like ‘I’m much more hopeful about the potential of small groups under the banner of the Convention of the Left, or even allied to/part of the Socialist Party. We can’t continue to build links towards specific goals, whilst continually having to apologize for our leadership. Mass consciousness can be built – but it can’t sustain the contradiction of the Labour Party any longer, I think.’

I’m sympathetic of course. But ‘mass consciousness’ and ‘small groups’ do not go hand in hand. Of course we can make comparisons with other countries – were I Swedish I am sure I would vote for the Vansterpartiet and not the Social Democrats. But I consider us fortunate in Britain, in this small way, that our left is still in our mass party of labour. That that party is in a mess, is sadly too true. But the anti-socialist victory in Labour is pyrrhic. New Labour has eaten itself. The Labour Party is never going to be a revolutionary vanguard party: but that isn’t the role of a mass labour movement. To imagine it might be is as un-Marxist as our friend Hobsbawm. It isn’t going to remain an anti-socialist, pro-capital party either.

Anyway, on the less serious issue of the whether the Labour party can ever connect with labour again, yes, I fear you may be right, but the key issue is the most obvious one – we just don’t know. For myself, while I’m happy to do what I can in support of the CoL or whatever, I prefer for the moment at least to stay within the party as long as there is any hope of a move towards engagement with the interests of organised labour.

Assuming the Conservatives do come into power next year, there will be some scope for general move leftwards in the party, though I’ll acknowledge that this is unlikely to be anything other than a move towards an acceptance of wishy-washy Compassdom in the short term. It’s easy to forget (though I’m sure you don’t)that the last time Labour was dumped out of government, Benn very nearly did become deputy leader, and while I’m not suggesting for one moment that a similar leadership battle, this time won by Cruddas of whoever, would of itself move the Labour left closer to a goal of reuniting with organised Labour, it might be part of a broader and more welcome swing/change of mood in the Labour party at large. While there’s any hope of that, it’s worth some of as least hanging in there, because it would be a shame to toss away 100 years of party infrastructure and (often very local) traditions and institutions.

Of course, this waiting game can only go on so long, and I respect the people who have decided that enough is enough already’ as I’ve said, they (you) may well be right. I’ll have to trust myself to know when the right time for me to go is if that time does come, though of course there is the risk that as time goes on I’ll start to be part of the force for institutional sclerosis rather than change. But at local level, there are conversations I’m having with tired old activists/ex-activists that I simply wouldn’t have been able to have even five years ago when they would have been much more ‘pragmatic’ about Labour in power (and so was I, to an extent), and that does give me some hope.