<HTML><HTML> From: "Todd Archer" M&E are talking about communists, not a party, nor even party members.  Did you forget this little extra: "In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole? The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties. They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole. They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mold the proletarian movement. The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: (1) In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. (2) In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole." ^^^^ CB: No I didn't forget it. I almost threw all that in ,but it would have been long. I would counter that you forgot the name of the thing is _The Manifesto of THE Communist PARTY_.  And in practice M&E formed The International, which was a party. M and E don't say don't form a party. They say the Communist part of the movement should not differentiate itself in a sectarian manner from other authentically working class parties. By the way, another part of the Manifesto discusses a lot of groups that are "communist" in name , but not authentically working class parties,and Marx and Engels do imply that Communists would not be in the same group with these. The issue here in response to Ted is not party vs individual activists, as you pose it. For Marx and Engels your individual activists would be  "the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the lines of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement. " In other words, contra Ted's claim, it is Marx and Engels,not Lenin,  who initiate the idea that Communists are a vanguard. There's nothing in what I say fetishizing parties. I would say you are wrong that Marx and Engels are not proposing a party, given the name of the document, and their overall approach  ^^^^ Parties are good, but shouldn't be fetishised.  And don't forget that thesis about reflexivity . . . . ^^^^^ CB: You'll have to remind me about the thesis about reflexivity. Does it have anything to do with Ian's reflexivity alert ? ^^^^^ >But praxis is also >trial and error, and the whole history of the SU and socialist countries >must be considered in the sense that ideas are also tested and corrected by >practice, i.e. erroroneous ideas are refuted in practice, as well as valid >ideas proven true. We hope . . . . >This is a rational and self-conscious method, science. Not sure I'd call trial and error at instituting a revolutionary new way of life a science, but <shrug> close enough for a mulligan. Todd ^^^^ CB: Science proceeds by trial and error;  theories are tested through experimentation and industry, i.e. practice, as opposed to the methods of religion or the like.  Marx and Engels initiate social or historical science, and advocate that revolutionary social change be based on that science. </HTML>