THE BATTLE OF POLITICAL IDEAS

Revolutionary action is unstoppable

by Andy Brooks


IT'S not easy being a communist in Britain. We come under constant
attack from the ruling class; from social-democracy in all its forms;
from the revisionists; the Trotskyites and the rest of the ultra-left
fringe. Though often disturbing to those who are new to our ranks we
should be glad that this is happening because to be attacked by the
enemy is a good thing and not a bad thing.

 Chinese communist leader Mao Zedong, writing in 1939 when the
communists were battling Chiang Kai Shek's war-lords and the Japanese
invaders, said: "I hold that it is bad as far as we are concerned if a
person, a political party, an army or a school is not attacked by the
enemy, for in that case it would definitely mean that we have sunk to
the level of the enemy.

 It is good if we are attacked by the enemy, since it proves that we
have drawn a clear line of demarcattion between the enemy and
ourselves. It is still better if the enemy attacks us wildly and
paints us as utterly black and without a single virtue; it
demonstrates that we have not only drawn a clear line of demarcation
between the enemy and ourselves but achieved a great deal in our
work".

 It would take an encyclopedia to sum up the entire historical
experience of Trotskyism and Anarchism, nor do we need to do it. But
we do need to occasionally focus on these two schools of thought which
cause so much diversion and harm within the labour movement
particularly as they masquerade as socialist movements. Indeed many
militant workers, who see that social-democracy is essentially
class-collaboration, assume these other trends are socialist in their
theory and practice simply because that is what they claim to be.

trotskyism and anarchism

 Most of us have experienced the disruptive and splittist results of
Trotskyite action at first hand in the labour and peace movement. 
 Trotskyite movements in Britain are distinct and organised even when
they work within the Labour Party as "entryists" -- a ploy favoured by
the old "Workers' Revolutionary Party" until they were expelled by
Wilson and continued today by other Trotskyite factions, or the "deep
entryism" of the old Militant Tendency until some of their leaders
were driven out during the Kinnock leadership.

 Anarchism and Anarcho-syndicalism is something different. There are a
handful of anarchist groups in this country which publish journals or
organise around the Industrial Workers of the World movement.

 But the trade unions never produced a syndicalist movement anything
like the one which grew during the pre-war Spanish republic or a trade
union leader like the American Joe Hill. Though it did found a
co-operative movement which continues to this day which also provided
a basis for syndicalist ideas.

 Though the old Independent Labour Party, which briefly flourished in
the Thirties, was a haven for a rag-bag of hair-baked syndicalists and
Trotskyites, it essentially was no more than a left social-democratic
movement -- much like Scargill's Socialist Labour Party today.

 But syndicalist ideas, which originated towards the end of the 19th
century, are deeply rooted within the left of the organised trade
union movement, amongst many who do not even realise the source of
these ideas, how old they are and why they will always fail.

 An old Soviet book defined Anarchism as "a social and political trend
which rejects the necessity of state authority (including working
people's power). Adherents of anarchism disapprove of organised
struggle of the working class and working people's political
activities", and it summarised Anarcho-Syndicalism as "a trend in the
working-class movement alien to Marxism-Leninism and ideologically
influenced by anarchism. Its supporters reject political struggle and
deny the need for an independent workers' party and for the conquest
of power by the working people. Anarcho-syndicalists erroneously
consider that only through "direct action" (boycott, sabotage,
economic strikes) is it possible to destroy capitalism and build a new
society in which the trade unions (without the conquest of state power
by the workers) will expropriate the means of production belonging to
the capitalists".

petty-bourgeois  opportunism

 The same book described Trotskyism as "a petty-bourgeois opportunist
movement hostile to Marxism-Leninism, which arose in the early 20th
century and was named after Trotsky, who engaged in revolutionary
phrasemongering while actually preaching capitulating views on all
basic questions of the revolutionary struggle.

 "Thus, Trotskyites opposed the creation of a Marxist party of the
working class and also the leading role of the proletariat in the
revolution. They denied the revolutionary possibilities of the
proletariat, regarding it as ideologically immature, and the need for
an alliance of the working class and the peasantry, considering the
latter to be an enemy who could betray the proletriat.

 "Characteristic of the Trotskyites were an adventuristic striving to
"spur on" the revolution through promoting revolutionary wars in other
countries, rejection of the possibility and necessity of peaceful
co-existence of states with different social systems and a negative
attitude to general democratic movements (they declare the struggle
for democracy to be a stage that had already been completed). In our
day Trotskyist ideas have been adopted in some countries by ultra-left
adventurist groups whose activities do harm to the international
working-class movement".

 Now lets look at these definitions -- which correspond to the reality
of the experience of the revolutionary movement over the past 150
years. In Britain we see with our own eyes that Trotskyite groups are
indeed drawn from the petty bourgeois -- the student movement,
intellectuals and the rest of the middle strata.

 On the other hand it is equally true that syndicalist ideas are
mainly found within the trade union movement and the working class.
But they have one thing in common -- they are all anti-communist and
though they would deny it -- they all elevate individualism and the
illusions of bourgeois democracy. And they all dismiss the
revolutionary experience of the Soviet Union, People's China and the
remaining socialist countries as at the best irrelevant, but mainly as
an obstacle to what they call socialism.

 The syndicalists like the rest in the social-democratic camp reject
socialist revolutions as "undemocratic" -- they call them "communist
dictatorships" and during the Cold War they flocked to side of
reactionaries and Western agents. like the leaders of the Polish
Solidarnosc union movement or the Afghan mujahadeen militia in the
80s. So did virtually all the Trotskyites.

 Trotsky's followers claim it is impossible to build socialism in one
state and that socialism can only occur when the working class take
power in several imperialist countries at the same time. It is based
on Trotsky's crackpot theories of "permament revolution" and "world
proletarian revolution". They claim that an alliance between workers
and peasants is impossible which means that socialist revolutions can
only succeed in the industrial heartlands of Western Europe and the
United States.

 It was an idea also upheld by mainstream European social-democracy
before the First World War to justify the vast colonial empires of the
imperialist states. It's an idea which lurks behind the babble of talk
about "globalisation" by so-called left-wingers who ignore the
continuing revolutionary upsurge in the Third World.

 For all of these people the struggle for national liberation is
completely futile. Like the leaders of international social-democracy,
Trotsky himself brushed aside the problems of the anti-imperialist
movement in the colonial empires of his day, regarding them as of no
consequence as long as capitalism remained entrenched in the developed
imperialist countries. When fascist Italy invaded Abyssinia (as
Ethiopia was then known) in 1935 Trotsky declared that "Socialists
have nothing to do there, as the defence of Abyssinia would amount to
defence of feudalism".

Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin attached immense importance to the
national liberation struggle. Trotsky's heirs usually dismissed
liberation movements as "petty bourgeois nationalism".

 For the Trotskyites the Soviet Union and the socialist countries are
at best "deformed workers' states" -- at worst they are "state
capitalist". Therefore the peace campaign is meaningless. They claim
to defend socialist revolutions when they come under attack from
imperialism -- in practice they normally side with imperialism.

 To deny the possibility of building socialism in one state or in any
non-industrialised country leads to the hidden conclusion that
socialism is simply unattainable today and can only be conceived in
the remote future when the Trotskyite movement of their dreams gets
mass support in the imperialist states.

 Lenin drew the opposite conclusion. In his study of capitalism at its
imperialist stage he concluded "Uneven economic and political
development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of
socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist
country alone".

 Lenin explained that the world socialist revolution would consist of
several stages separated by longer or shorter periods of time.
Revolutions in individual countries would emerge as relatively
independent links in a single world-wide socialist revolution which
embraces an entire epoch in history.

sectarianism

 Marx and Engels waged an uncompromising struggle in the First
International against sectarianism and anarchism in all its forms.

 The common theme of all these movements is the claim that the
structure of communist parties is undemocratic and that socialist
states are in essence dictatorships of the Party -- not the class. The
other thing they have in common is that they all fail.

Democratic Centralism

 Democratic Centralism is based on the trade union principle that a
majority decision is binding on all members, whether they voted for it
or not. It is the only way to organise effective industrial action.
It's a concrete expression of solidarity.

 Lenin made the decisive and historic break with the Mensheviks on
this cardinal principlewhose Soviet definition was "the guiding
principle of Marxist-Leninist communist and workers' parties ... means
that all leading Party bodies from top to bottom are elected and that
periodical reports are given by Party bodies to their Party
organisations and to higher bodies. It calls for creative initiative
by communists, strict Party discipline and the subordination of the
minority to the majority. It means that the decisions of higher bodies
are binding on lower bodies. It means inner-Party democracy, criticism
and self-criticism".

 It's amplified in the statement on Inner Party Democracy issued by
the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) in 1957 which provides the
basis for the New Communist Party's rules except where subsequent NCP
Congress's have changed them. It stresses the fact that the principle
of democratic centralism arose from the experience of the British
labour movement, as well as from the experience of the working class
in other countries, in the late 19th century when the class found
itself pitted against a ruling class which had established a highly
centralised direction of its forces.

 It is the guarantee of genuine class democracy within the Party. It
should not be confused with the parody of democratic centralism
practiced by sectarians in the communist movement.

 Marx and Engels warned that any organisation that relied exclusively
on centralism and rejected democratic leadership would suit only
secret societies and sectarian movements. Groups which work in this
way are doomed to a shadowy existence and they can never hope to win
the trust or confidence of the working class.

factionalism

Some Trotskyite groups claim to practice democratic centralism because
they want to pass off Trotskyism as Leninism. What they in theory and
practice elevate is the principle of factionalism.

 Now factionalism is not the invention of Leon Trotsky. It is simply
an expression of bourgeois and social democracy. Bourgeois Parties
find it quite normal to have open factions in their ranks -- the
Tories with their "Eurosceptics", Monday Clubs and Bow Groups and
Labour which has had all sorts include the Tribune Group, Manifesto
Group, Clause Four, Socialist Campaign and the Socialist Forum during
its long history.

 The bourgeois parliament elevates this with the concept of government
and opposition. The government rules and the opposition opposes. The
govemment's decisions are not binding on the opposition -- though they
are of course binding on the government. And this is how the
Trotskyites work in broad organisations. If they participate they only
accept the decisions they voted for -- and reserve the right to oppose
what they oppose regardless of any vote to the contrary.

 This has now been elevated to a fine art by some Trotskyite
theorists. Splitting working class organisations -- on the theory that
this isolates the right-wing -- is the rule of the day for some of
them. Others maintain extreme hostility to social-democracy, to the
extent that social-democratic parties are branded as the main enemy
rather than the capitalists' own parties, sowing further divisions
within the labour movement. At the same time most of them have no
difficulty in closing ranks with social-democracy when it comes to
anti-communist campaigns.

 Within their own organisations they recognise the right to faction
which leads to the inevitable splits and divisions which follow, the
multiplication of Trotskyite groups and their inherent instability.

 The root of it all is petty bourgeois individualism. During the
Chinese revolution Trotskyism wasn't a problem but "ultra-democracy"
in opposition to democratic centralism was attacked by Mao Zedong back
in 1929 who said: "In the sphere of theory, destroy the roots of
ultra-democracy. First, it should be pointed out that the danger of
ultra-democracy lies in the fact that it damages or even completely
wrecks the Party organisation and weakens or even completely
undermines the Party's fighting capacity, rendering the Party
incapable of fulfilling its fighting tasks and thereby causing the
defeat of the revolution.

 "Next, it should be pointed out that the source of ultra-democracy
consists in the petty bourgeoisies's individualistic aversion to
discipline. When this characteristic is brought into the Party, it
develops into ultra-democratic ideas politically and organisationally.
These ideas are utterly incompatible with the fighting tasks of the
proletariat".

 The Trotskyites claim that they are genuine "socialists", genuine
"democrats" opposed to dictatorship -- a position naturally shared by
the social-democrats and the bourgeoisie.

 But bourgeois democracy is not democracy for the working class and
fractionalism within a Party is not democracy for the majority of its
members -- it specifically denies the majority the right to carry out
any decision -- but the democracy of faction leaders and cliques.

 The basis of bourgeois democracy is the mobilisation of the maximum
number of votes by the smallest number of people. The basis of
democratic centralism is that the will of the masses is carried out.
It's no surprise to see that the first target of the revisionists --
be they Eurocommunists or bogus communists who pose as "left" but are
really rightist -- is democratic centralism. They all seek to
substitute it with bourgeois democracy -- sometimes in the form of
"platforms" -- a pseudo-Marxist term for a faction.

 Syndicalist views are something different. They are not the product
of tiny groups of intellectuals but the heritage of a century or more
of trade union militancy. These ideas are manifested in the concept
that trade union work is paramount and ultimately the only
revolutionary way and in the idea that mass industrial action can
bring down governments, and in the idea that the ruling class can be
overthrown through a General Strike.

 In the 70s these views were common throughout the left of the labour
movement and were upheld in part by the CPGB's Industrial Department
and the revisionist leadership.

 The experience of the working class movement throughout the world
confirms Lenin's thesis that to make a revolution you need a
revolutionary party. The failure of the Paris Commune, the experience
of the 1926 General Strike and the century plus experience of the
British trade union movement all show that trade unions can never play
the vanguard role. That's not their purpose, that's not what they were
set up to do, nor can they ever fulfill that role -- though it is in
the trade unions and particularly at the point of production that
communists must be most active, to encourage militancy, to give wise
and determined leadership, and to recruit from the best elements of
the class to build the revolutionary party.

 Only a revolutionary party can lead the class to overthrow the
bourgeoisie. It can't be done through bourgeois elections -- because
when the ruling class is threatened they abandon the trappings of
democracy -- which is after all only democracy amongst themselves --
and go into open dictatorship. It can't be done through General
Strikes because they in themselves can so easily be defeated or
diverted by our rulers -- though a general strike is part of the
arsenal of the revolutionary advance.

 A socialist revolution means the transfer of political power from the
capitalist class to the working class. It can only succeed with the
mobilisation of the masses. It can only succeed when the ruling class
are unable to rule in the old way and the working class are no longer
prepared to be ruled in the old way. There must be a leading
Marxist-Leninist Party around which the working class can close ranks.

 Finally we must always remember that it's not Parties that make
revolutions it's working people -- the overwhelming majority of the
population of this country -- who once they realise their strength are
unstoppable.