What do you think?
Rate this book
Party and Class
Socialists aim to change the world and have always sought to organize themselves as effectively as possible in order to achieve this goal. But what sort of organization do we need? These essays show why we need something more than single-issue organizations, movement coalitions, or reformist organizations if we are to achieve real change.
- GenresPoliticsNonfictionLenin
112 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1971
5 people are currently reading
152 people want to read
About the author
Tony Cliff
72 books62 followersBorn in Palestine to Zionist parents in 1917, Ygael Gluckstein became a Trotskyist during the 1930s and played a leading role in the attempt to forge a movement uniting Arab and Jewish workers. At the end of of the Second World war, seeing that the victory of the Zionists was more and more inevitable, he moved to Britain and adopted the pseudonym Tony Cliff.
In the late 1940s he developed the theory that Russia wasn’t a workers’ state but a form of bureaucratic state capitalism, a theory which has characterised the tendency with which he was associated for the remaining five decades of his life. Although he broke from “orthodox Trotskyism” after being bureaucratically excluded from the Fourth International in 1950, he always considered himself to be a Trotskyist although he was also open to other influences within the Marxist tradition.
In the late 1940s he developed the theory that Russia wasn’t a workers’ state but a form of bureaucratic state capitalism, a theory which has characterised the tendency with which he was associated for the remaining five decades of his life. Although he broke from “orthodox Trotskyism” after being bureaucratically excluded from the Fourth International in 1950, he always considered himself to be a Trotskyist although he was also open to other influences within the Marxist tradition.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
October 20, 2024
The Hallas essay is unironically indispensable
July 7, 2025
To start with the last section of the book, Trotsky's article about the Spanish Revolution is the best one, an argument about the responsibilities of leadership which does not diminish the revolutionary urging of the masses by explaining reformism in terms of their general condition. He argues against the tautological truism of 'we needed a revolutionary party' which doesn't deal with the concrete facts, and instead settles for generalisations which effectively blame the masses for the problems of the revolution. It treats leadership not only as a communication of ideas but also as the presentation of force. It's in this context that Trotsky discusses the question of the maturity of the masses, posing revolutionary intervention in a revolutionary situation as being not only a matter of education but also a strategic task. Trotsky effectively argues that Stalinism was able to win mass support in Spain because it achieved a project for hegemony in the civil war, specifically bourgeois hegemony. The POUM's tailism left it unable to provide an alternative in this way, even with its variety of nominally radical principles about working-class power etc. Consciousness is not just about ideas, its about a strategy for power.
Though Trotsky diminishes too much the significance of the peasantry as an object of strategic orientation, portraying them as a mass that gets behind the workers simply by the latter acting decisively for its own ends.
Chris Harman's article lists the supposed features of the orthodox Social-Democratic outlook: political fatalism, parliamentarism, party as representing the whole class, bureaucratisation. The problem is that many of the positions cited to justify the analysis of Social Democracy were either not in-principle wrong, were more complicated than is presented, or at least Lenin did not disagree with them in principle. When they were wrong, they were wrong for the reason of when they were applied to what end, and for the logic behind those judgements. Lenin wished for a Russia where his party could do electoral work like the SPD. What made Lenin different was not a different conception of party form. In the membership definition debate at the 1903 Congress, it is Lenin who cites the SPD to support his definition; the Mensheviks appealed to the populist tradition. It is also not true that there was no concept of a vanguard or uneven consciousness in Social-Democratic orthodoxy. Lenin came to develop further divergent positions later, like the idea of smashing the state, but we can't anachronistically say that these later positions explain Lenin's thought in its continuity.
Another point: Harman argues that Luxemburg was not a spontaneist because she was for a party. But it's an error to see spontaneism as being about not needing a party. Like economism, spontaneism was a broader tendency for which seeing no need for a party is the logical conclusion. Understanding spontaneism narrowly leaves one blind to it as a broader tendency. As Harman briefly mentions, Luxemburg gave the spontaneous element responsibility for solving Social Democracy's problems, and the focus of Luxemburg and Trotsky on the problem of bureaucracy in the party, which was directed against Lenin, was actually part of this error. Harman doesn't quite fully articulate Lenin's understanding of spontaneity and consciousness, and his description of the relationship of the vanguard party to the class in this respect is ironically Kautskyan. It was the Mensheviks who conceived of the party's horizon as being about fostering working-class self-activity and self-consciousness, Harman is influenced by Lukacs in ascribing this conception to Lenin.
Duncan Hallas' article more concretely draws out the interrelations of political and organisational questions, and puts forward an outlook for the time. Though I'd say that centralism is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a Marxist movement. I would also say that there's a stronger argument to be made for centralism which doesn't just paint revolutionary Marxist centralism as an exception to a general rule about tendencies towards bureaucratisation (and we could question whether or not bureaucratisation is itself the problem of party organisation compared to a deeper political issue). Hallas does go a way in this with an argument about how left libertarianism folds over into its opposite. But there's more to be said about how important the concept of leadership is to Marxism, for which centralism is not only a necessity but is positively good.
Hallas' alternative to excessive sectarian vanguardism leaves something to be desired, though. He conflates the idea of problems of the movement being 'one-sidedly' about leadership with the idea of the solution being the presentation of a perfect program by a sect. Emphasising leadership doesn't write off having an analysis of the situation, and if we understand leadership in a materialist way, as about having real organisational force as well as convincing ideas, fighting for leadership has nothing to do with a sect throwing their programme around and expecting the masses to flock to their tiny group. Hallas emphasises against sectarianism how reformism is based in the political-economic condition of the worker, a Lukacian argument which is not of Lenin.
His arguments about what the party can do for the most advanced activists aren't bad, but have their tradition in the Second International and are incomplete. This while Hallas rejects the 'consciousness from without' idea and confuses the idea of a spontaneous workers' movement with an autonomous workers' movement. There's a workerist bent to the discussion of the issue, that Marxism is about workers rather than a strategic orientation to the working class leading the broader masses.
Cliff's article on Trotsky's anti-Lenin arguments about substitutionism is right to criticise the Trotsky of 1904 and of the early 1920s, but it doesn't present a satisfactory political account of bureaucratisation of the Soviet state from a perspective of what to do about it. Cliff argues that Lenin became substitutionist when he declared that the de-classed proletariat can still carry out its mission of holding onto power, but this reading presumes a sociological understanding of working class power rather than the issue being one of strategic orientation. Lenin is saying that responsibility lies with the party, or the party leadership, to fight against tendencies towards passivity and defeat. Cliff argues that Lenin's position leads to the destruction of inner-party democracy, but doesn't consider that this might have been necessary when the party was becoming bureaucratised. Cliff is wrong to argue that inner party democracy was always an organising principle in the Bolsheviks; it was certainly always seen as a good and desirable thing, but it was seen as something that conditions could not always permit. At the turn of the 20th century, trying to force the elective principle in the party was seen as foolish, and not actually democratic anyway; in the context of secrecy, how could members come to a clear sense of who they should vote for? Cliff's criticisms of the Russian state come off as being like those of Kautsky.
Saying that the revolution had to spread is fine, but leaving it there doesn't answer the question of what should happen in Russia in the meantime, which was necessary for fighting Stalin's call for socialism in one country. Lenin's key arguments in his final fight against bureaucratisation were to raise the political and cultural level of the workers so that they may know how to run and check the state, and to give power in the party to a small number of trusted individuals so as to limit the influence of the bureaucratising party mass. Trotsky's later positions of democratising the party and industrialising to reconstitute the proletariat both left the door open to Stalinism.
Cliff's final discussion about how the revolutionary party must have contact with the working class is a workerist error which can lead one to some pretty terrible conclusions. It's telling that he cites Luxemburg in her arguments directed against Lenin, which had a fundamentally Kautskyan conception of the party and class issue, that the party interprets the class struggle itself as the total historical process, rather than Marxism seeing itself as an object of the class struggle and understanding revolutionary consciousness to be reflexive in the concrete situation. All of this leads to a fixation on having 'contact with' workers rather than developing the political capabilities of the Marxist movement to bring its specific contribution 'from without'.
Though Trotsky diminishes too much the significance of the peasantry as an object of strategic orientation, portraying them as a mass that gets behind the workers simply by the latter acting decisively for its own ends.
Chris Harman's article lists the supposed features of the orthodox Social-Democratic outlook: political fatalism, parliamentarism, party as representing the whole class, bureaucratisation. The problem is that many of the positions cited to justify the analysis of Social Democracy were either not in-principle wrong, were more complicated than is presented, or at least Lenin did not disagree with them in principle. When they were wrong, they were wrong for the reason of when they were applied to what end, and for the logic behind those judgements. Lenin wished for a Russia where his party could do electoral work like the SPD. What made Lenin different was not a different conception of party form. In the membership definition debate at the 1903 Congress, it is Lenin who cites the SPD to support his definition; the Mensheviks appealed to the populist tradition. It is also not true that there was no concept of a vanguard or uneven consciousness in Social-Democratic orthodoxy. Lenin came to develop further divergent positions later, like the idea of smashing the state, but we can't anachronistically say that these later positions explain Lenin's thought in its continuity.
Another point: Harman argues that Luxemburg was not a spontaneist because she was for a party. But it's an error to see spontaneism as being about not needing a party. Like economism, spontaneism was a broader tendency for which seeing no need for a party is the logical conclusion. Understanding spontaneism narrowly leaves one blind to it as a broader tendency. As Harman briefly mentions, Luxemburg gave the spontaneous element responsibility for solving Social Democracy's problems, and the focus of Luxemburg and Trotsky on the problem of bureaucracy in the party, which was directed against Lenin, was actually part of this error. Harman doesn't quite fully articulate Lenin's understanding of spontaneity and consciousness, and his description of the relationship of the vanguard party to the class in this respect is ironically Kautskyan. It was the Mensheviks who conceived of the party's horizon as being about fostering working-class self-activity and self-consciousness, Harman is influenced by Lukacs in ascribing this conception to Lenin.
Duncan Hallas' article more concretely draws out the interrelations of political and organisational questions, and puts forward an outlook for the time. Though I'd say that centralism is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a Marxist movement. I would also say that there's a stronger argument to be made for centralism which doesn't just paint revolutionary Marxist centralism as an exception to a general rule about tendencies towards bureaucratisation (and we could question whether or not bureaucratisation is itself the problem of party organisation compared to a deeper political issue). Hallas does go a way in this with an argument about how left libertarianism folds over into its opposite. But there's more to be said about how important the concept of leadership is to Marxism, for which centralism is not only a necessity but is positively good.
Hallas' alternative to excessive sectarian vanguardism leaves something to be desired, though. He conflates the idea of problems of the movement being 'one-sidedly' about leadership with the idea of the solution being the presentation of a perfect program by a sect. Emphasising leadership doesn't write off having an analysis of the situation, and if we understand leadership in a materialist way, as about having real organisational force as well as convincing ideas, fighting for leadership has nothing to do with a sect throwing their programme around and expecting the masses to flock to their tiny group. Hallas emphasises against sectarianism how reformism is based in the political-economic condition of the worker, a Lukacian argument which is not of Lenin.
His arguments about what the party can do for the most advanced activists aren't bad, but have their tradition in the Second International and are incomplete. This while Hallas rejects the 'consciousness from without' idea and confuses the idea of a spontaneous workers' movement with an autonomous workers' movement. There's a workerist bent to the discussion of the issue, that Marxism is about workers rather than a strategic orientation to the working class leading the broader masses.
Cliff's article on Trotsky's anti-Lenin arguments about substitutionism is right to criticise the Trotsky of 1904 and of the early 1920s, but it doesn't present a satisfactory political account of bureaucratisation of the Soviet state from a perspective of what to do about it. Cliff argues that Lenin became substitutionist when he declared that the de-classed proletariat can still carry out its mission of holding onto power, but this reading presumes a sociological understanding of working class power rather than the issue being one of strategic orientation. Lenin is saying that responsibility lies with the party, or the party leadership, to fight against tendencies towards passivity and defeat. Cliff argues that Lenin's position leads to the destruction of inner-party democracy, but doesn't consider that this might have been necessary when the party was becoming bureaucratised. Cliff is wrong to argue that inner party democracy was always an organising principle in the Bolsheviks; it was certainly always seen as a good and desirable thing, but it was seen as something that conditions could not always permit. At the turn of the 20th century, trying to force the elective principle in the party was seen as foolish, and not actually democratic anyway; in the context of secrecy, how could members come to a clear sense of who they should vote for? Cliff's criticisms of the Russian state come off as being like those of Kautsky.
Saying that the revolution had to spread is fine, but leaving it there doesn't answer the question of what should happen in Russia in the meantime, which was necessary for fighting Stalin's call for socialism in one country. Lenin's key arguments in his final fight against bureaucratisation were to raise the political and cultural level of the workers so that they may know how to run and check the state, and to give power in the party to a small number of trusted individuals so as to limit the influence of the bureaucratising party mass. Trotsky's later positions of democratising the party and industrialising to reconstitute the proletariat both left the door open to Stalinism.
Cliff's final discussion about how the revolutionary party must have contact with the working class is a workerist error which can lead one to some pretty terrible conclusions. It's telling that he cites Luxemburg in her arguments directed against Lenin, which had a fundamentally Kautskyan conception of the party and class issue, that the party interprets the class struggle itself as the total historical process, rather than Marxism seeing itself as an object of the class struggle and understanding revolutionary consciousness to be reflexive in the concrete situation. All of this leads to a fixation on having 'contact with' workers rather than developing the political capabilities of the Marxist movement to bring its specific contribution 'from without'.
May 4, 2021
Found this book very useful to understand the current hecticness within DSA as it crosses the 100,000 member threshold. The Left seems to have an intergenerational problem of how to maintain the course once power is gained. For every day use, it drove home how the written material of socialism is meant to be a grounding as we go through our lives, most importantly our jobs, and make every effort we can to center the working class. Quick read that I highly recommend for any leftist or progressive.
February 10, 2021
A lot of the period writing and foreign politics jargon can be hard to follow, but of what I gathered from it was good. If you're able to apply some of its views for today and where you live, it can be quite worthwhile.
July 27, 2024
The Hallas essay is indispensable
March 31, 2016
A collection of 6 essays, it's about the differences between a socialist or socialist influenced party & that of a socialist & working class as a whole & how they should function in society in a manner that will give the working class the best possible chance at liberation.
The spectre of Stalinism is always near when it comes to criticism & opposition of socialism, so there is a bit of time explaining the difference between the two & why the criticism ultimately ignore the historical conditions that led to the rise of Stalinism.
While the party & class are ultimately two different things, at least in the beginning stages, the two may need to function & coexist together if there is to be any hope of change. It is not to be a top down approach, with the party being some separate or elitist group, rather the party is to be informed by the class. The fact that the class as a whole is not a monolith must be taken into account & the various ways each group within the working class is oppressed & the unique conditions in which they are faced must be taken into account, the party must be brought up to speed & agreement on how best to eradicate these issues & keep the party working toward the ultimate goal of freeing society from class oppression is imperative.
It is made clear the importance of the party not having discussions of or about goals, action, disagreements etc without the masses. The opposite of what is done in modern society, where a minority discusses what is to be done (to their own benefit) behind closed doors. Everything should be discussed in the open in order to be informed & built from the bottom up & move forward accordingly.
Trotsky's essay, through criticizing a popular paper at the time for it's ignorance in criticizing the workers during the Spanish Civil War & the Russian Revolution without taking class & historical factors into account, stresses the importance of the party in the beginning stages & up through the revolution as well as the importance of class analysis in any critique of movements overall & their shortcomings.
Caution is given against sectarianism as well as a clear explanation of what it is & what it isn't. The goal is to support workers & spur action, not strive for party purity or discussion for it's own sake.
The overall theme of the essays is the importance of the workers to the movement, even if not fully aware of all the ins & outs of socialism & how they are exploited by capital. It is enough for them to be aware that something is wrong, the party can help further inform them & they must come before the party. A short & great read!
The spectre of Stalinism is always near when it comes to criticism & opposition of socialism, so there is a bit of time explaining the difference between the two & why the criticism ultimately ignore the historical conditions that led to the rise of Stalinism.
While the party & class are ultimately two different things, at least in the beginning stages, the two may need to function & coexist together if there is to be any hope of change. It is not to be a top down approach, with the party being some separate or elitist group, rather the party is to be informed by the class. The fact that the class as a whole is not a monolith must be taken into account & the various ways each group within the working class is oppressed & the unique conditions in which they are faced must be taken into account, the party must be brought up to speed & agreement on how best to eradicate these issues & keep the party working toward the ultimate goal of freeing society from class oppression is imperative.
It is made clear the importance of the party not having discussions of or about goals, action, disagreements etc without the masses. The opposite of what is done in modern society, where a minority discusses what is to be done (to their own benefit) behind closed doors. Everything should be discussed in the open in order to be informed & built from the bottom up & move forward accordingly.
Trotsky's essay, through criticizing a popular paper at the time for it's ignorance in criticizing the workers during the Spanish Civil War & the Russian Revolution without taking class & historical factors into account, stresses the importance of the party in the beginning stages & up through the revolution as well as the importance of class analysis in any critique of movements overall & their shortcomings.
Caution is given against sectarianism as well as a clear explanation of what it is & what it isn't. The goal is to support workers & spur action, not strive for party purity or discussion for it's own sake.
The overall theme of the essays is the importance of the workers to the movement, even if not fully aware of all the ins & outs of socialism & how they are exploited by capital. It is enough for them to be aware that something is wrong, the party can help further inform them & they must come before the party. A short & great read!
June 6, 2008
book of short essays about the relation between the revolutionary party and the working class as a whole.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews