Lenin on Sectarianism
1)
Lenin insists on anti-"dogmatism and
sectarianism":
"Studieren, Propagandieren, Organisieren.
You cannot be an ideological leader without the above mentioned
theoretical
work, just as you cannot be one without directing this work to meet the
needs of the cause, and without spreading the results of this theory
among
the workers and helping them to organise. Such a presentation
of
the task guards Social-Democracy against the defects from which
socialist
groups so often suffer, namely, dogmatism and sectarianism.
There can be no dogmatism where the supreme and sole criterion of a
doctrine is its conformity to the actual process of social and economic
development; there can be no sectarianism when the task is that of
promoting
the organisation of the proletariat, and when, therefore, the role of
the
"intelligentsia" is to make special leaders from among the
intelligentsia
unnecessary.
Hence, despite the existence of differences among
Marxists on various theoretical questions, the methods of their
political
activity have remained unchanged ever since the group arose."
http://marx2mao.phpwebhosting.com/Lenin/FP94iii.html
2) Lenin equates sectarian politics with
Trotskyism:
"The subject indicated by the above title is dealt with in
articles
by Trotsky and Martov in Nos. 50 and 51 of Neue Zeit. Martov expounds
Menshevik
views. Trotsky follows in the wake of the Mensheviks, taking cover
behind
particularly sonorous phrases. Martov sums up the "Russian experience"
by saying: "Blanquist and anarchist lack of culture triumphed over
Marxist
culture" (read: Bolshevism over Menshevism). "Russian Social-Democracy
spoke too zealously in Russian ", in contrast to the "general European
" methods of tactics. Trotsky's "philosophy of history" is the same.
The
cause of the struggle is the "adaptation of the Marxist intelligentsia
to the class movement of the proletariat". "Sectarianism,
intellectualist
individualism, ideological fetishism" are placed in the forefront. "The
struggle for influence over the politically immature proletariat " --
that
is the essence of the matter. " http://marx2mao.phpwebhosting.com/Lenin/HMPS10.html
V. I. Lenin; THE HISTORICAL MEANING OF THE INNER-PARTY STRUGGLE IN
RUSSIA. Written after September-November 1910 Published April 29 (May
12),
1911, in Diskussionny Listok No. 3
"The roots of the divergence between the Mensheviks and the
Bolsheviks
lie, not in the "depths of the proletariat", but in the economic
content
of the Russian revolution. By ignoring this content, Martov and Trotsky
have deprived themselves of the possibility of understanding the
historical
meaning of the inner-Party struggle in Russia. The crux of the matter
is
not whether the theoretical formulations of the differences have
penetrated
"deeply" into this or that stratum of the proletariat, but the fact
that
the economic conditions of the Revolution of 1905 brought the
proletariat
into hostile relations with the liberal bourgeoisie -- not only over
the
question of improving the conditions of daily life of the workers, but
also over the agrarian question, over all the political questions of
the
revolution, etc. To speak of the struggle of trends in the Russian
revolution,
distributing labels such as "sectarianism", "lack of culture", etc.,
and
not to say a word about the fundamental economic interests of the
proletariat,
of the liberal bourgeoisie and of the democratic peasantry, means
stooping
to the level of cheap journalists."
http://marx2mao.phpwebhosting.com/Lenin/HMPS10.html
3) Lenin identifies sectarianism as a
consequence
of "isolation form the masses":
"Quelch was in the front ranks of those who fought
steadfastly and
with conviction against opportunism and a liberal-labour policy in the
British working-class movement. True, isolation from the masses
sometimes
infected the British Social-Democrats with a certain sectarianism.
Hyndman,
the leader and founder of Social-Democracy in Britain, has even slipped
into jingoism. But the party of the Social-Democrats has fought him on
this, and over the whole of Britain the Social-Democrats, and they
alone,
have for decades been carrying on systematic propaganda and agitation
in
the Marxist spirit. This is the great historical service rendered by
Quelch
and his comrades. The fruits of the activities of the Marxist Quelch
will
be reaped in full measure by the British working-class movement in the
next few years."
V. I. Lenin; LETTER TO
ISKRA November 25, 1903. Collected
Works, Moscow, 1965,
Vol. 7, pp. 115-18.
http://marx2mao.phpwebhosting.com/Lenin/LI03.html
"Indeed, it is high time to make a clean sweep of the
traditions of
circle sectarianism and -- in a party which rests on the masses --
resolutely
advance the slogan: More light! -- let the Party know everything, let
it
have all, absolutely all the material required for a judgement of all
and
sundry differences, reversions to revisionism, departures from
discipline,
etc. More confidence in the independent judgement of the whole body of
Party workers! -- they, and they alone, will be able to curb the
excessive
hotheadedness of grouplets inclined to splits, will be able, by their
slow,
imperceptible but persistent influence, to imbue them with the "good
will"
to observe Party discipline, will be able to cool the ardour of
anarchistic
individualism and, by the very fact of their indifference, document,
prove
and demonstrate the triviality of differences exaggerated by the
elements
tending towards a split"
(4) At the same time Lenin insisted that
splits
on principle were essential, that in other words "anti-sectarianism" is
not the same as "unprincipled unity".
V. I. Lenin; AN OPEN LETTER TO BORIS SOUVARINE; 1916.
Collected Works,
Moscow, 1964; Vol. 23, pp. 195-204.
http://marx2mao.phpwebhosting.com/Lenin/OLBS17.html
"Numerical weakness? But since when have revolutionaries made their
policies dependent on whether they are in a majority or minority? In
November
1914, when our Party called for a split with the opportunists,
declaring
that the split was the only correct and fitting reply to their betrayal
in August 1914, to many that seemed to be a piece of insensate
sectarianism
coming from men who had completely lost all contact with real life. Two
years have passed, and what is happening? In England, the split is an
accomplished
fact. The social-chauvinist Hyndman has been forced to leave the party.
In Germany, a split is developing before everyone's eyes. The Berlin,
Bremen
and Stuttgart organisations have even been accorded the honour of being
expelled from the party . . . from the party of the Kaiser's lackeys,
the
party of the German Renaudels, Sembats, Thomases, Guesdes and Co. And
in
France? On the one hand, the party of these gentlemen states that it
remains
true to "fatherland defence". On the other, the Zimmerwaldists state,
in
their pamphlet The Zimmerwald Socialists and the War, that "defence of
the fatherland" is unsocialist. Isn't this a split? "
(5) Lenin insisted that both M and E had
behaved
impeccably in an anti-sectarian manner: "Marx and Engels taught the
socialists
to rid themselves at all cost of narrow sectarianism, and to join with
the working-class movement so as to shake up the proletariat
politically".
"But whoever would escape Engels's accusation of reducing
Marxism
to a "dogma", "orthodoxy", "sectarianism", etc., must conclude from it
that a joint election campaign with radical "social-reactionaries" is
sometimes
permissible. But what is more interesting, of course, is to dwell not
so
much on these American-Russian parallels (we had to refer to them so as
to reply to our opponents), as on the fundamental features of the
British
and American working-class movements. These features are: the absence
of
any big, nation-wide, democratic tasks facing the proletariat; the
proletariat's
complete subordination to bourgeois politics; the sectarian isolation
of
groups, of mere handfuls of socialists, from the proletariat; not the
slightest
socialist success among the working masses at the elections, etc.
Whoever
forgets these fundamental conditions and sets out to draw broad
conclusions
from "American-Russian parallels", displays the greatest
superficiality."
"In countries where there are no Social-Democratic workers'
parties,
no Social-Democratic members of parliament, and no systematic and
steadfast
Social-Democratic policy either at elections or in the press, etc. --
in
such countries, Marx and Engels taught the socialists to rid themselves
at all cost of narrow sectarianism, and to join
with the working-class
movement so as to shake up the proletariat politically. For
in the
last thirty years of the nineteenth century the proletariat displayed
almost
no political independence either in Britain or America. In these
countries
-- where bourgeois democratic historical tasks were almost entirely
non-existent
-- the political arena was completely held by a triumphant and
self-satisfied
bourgeoisie, unequalled anywhere in the world in the art of deceiving,
corrupting and bribing the workers."
"And now we very clearly perceive the two lines of Engels's
(and Marx's)
recommendations, directions, corrections, threats and exhortations. The
most insistent of their appeals to the British and American socialists
was to merge with the working-class movement and eradicate the narrow
and
hidebound sectarian spirit from their organisations. They were most
insistent
in teaching the German Social-Democrats to beware of succumbing to
philistinism,
"parliamentary idiocy" (Marx's expression in the letter of September
19,
1879), and petty-bourgeois intellectualist opportunism."
V. I. Lenin; PREFACE TO THE RUSSIAN TRANSLATION OF LETTERS BY
JOHANNES BECKER,
JOSEPH DIETZGEN, FREDERICK ENGELS, KARL MARX, AND OTHERS TO FRIEDRICH
SORGE AND OTHERS. Written April 6, 1907; Collected Works,
Moscow, 1972.
http://marx2mao.phpwebhosting.com/Lenin/PRTL07.html
(6) Lenin insisted that sectarianism could
exist within the party – and that differences of opinion must
be settled
"calmly:
V. I. Lenin; SESSION OF THE
COUNCIL OF THE R.S.D.L.P.
January 15-17, 1904. "Draft resolutions published according to the
manuscripts
Speeches and the draft resolution on convening the Third Party Congress
published
according to the text of the Council Minutes"; Collected Works,
Moscow,
1965, Vol. 7, pp. 145-87; http://marx2mao.phpwebhosting.com/Lenin/SC04i.html
"Individual differences over
all manner of questions have always arisen
and inevitably will arise in a party which rests on a vast popular
movement
and sets out to be the conscious spokesman of that movement,
emphatically
rejecting all circle spirit and narrow sectarian views. But if our
Party
members are to be worthy representatives of the class-conscious
militant
proletariat, worthy participants in the world working-class movement,
they
must do their utmost to ensure that no individual differences over the
interpretation and methods of realising the principles of our
Party
programme shall interfere, or be capable of interfering, with
harmonious
joint work under the direction of our central institutions. The deeper
and broader our understanding of our programme and of the tasks of the
international proletariat, the more we value positive work in
developing
propaganda, agitation, and organisation, and the farther removed we are
from sectarianism, the petty circle spirit, and considerations of place
and position, the more must we strive to have differences among Party
members
discussed calmly and on their merits and not to let these differences
interfere
with our work, disrupt our activities, impede the proper functioning of
our central institutions. "
(6) Lenin insisted that differences of
opinion
must be openly proclaiimed, not to ihde them for fear of upsetting the
UF:
V. I. Lenin; THE FIRST STEP.
October 11, 1915. Collected
Works, Moscow,
1964;
Vol. 21, pp. 383-88.
http://marx2mao.phpwebhosting.com/Lenin/TFS15.html
"Was our Central Committee
right in signing this manifesto, with
all its inconsistency and timidity? We think it was. Our non-agreement,
the non-agreement, not only of our Central Committee but of the entire
international Left-wing section of the Conference, which stands by the
principles of revolutionary Marxism, is openly expressed both in a
special
resolution, a separate draft manifesto, and a separate declaration on
the
vote for a compromise manifesto.
We did not conceal a jot of
our views, slogans, or tactics. A German
edition of our pamphlet, Socialism and War, was handed out at the
Conference.
We have spread, are spreading, and shall continue to spread our views
with
no less energy than the manifesto will. It is a fact that this
manifesto
is a step forward towards a real struggle against opportunism, towards
a rupture with it. It would be sectarianism to refuse to take this step
forward together with the minority of German, French, Swedish,
Norwegian,
and Swiss socialists, when we retain full freedom and full opportunity
to criticise inconsistency and to work for greater things. It would be
poor war tactics to refuse to adhere to the mounting international
protest
movement against social-chauvinism just because this movement is slow,
because it takes "only" a single step forward and because it is ready
and
willing to take a step backward tomorrow".
(7) Lenin insisted that
‘flexibility’ was part
of the UF tactics that needed to be mastered:
V.I. Lenin; WHAT IS TO BE DONE? Ibid; p.362; or at
http://www.marx2mao.com//Lenin/WD02NB.html
"Are not the revolutionary Social-Democrats who entered into the
alliance
with the future "Critics" mainly responsible for the subsequent
"confusion"?
This question, together with a reply in the affirmative, is sometimes
heard
from people with too rigid a view. But such people are entirely in the
wrong. Only those who are not sure of themselves can fear to enter into
temporary alliances even with unreliable people; not a single political
party could exist without such alliances. The combination with the
legal
Marxists was in its way the first really political alliance entered
into
by Russian Social -Democrats. Thanks to this alliance, an astonishingly
rapid victory was obtained over Narodism, and Marxist ideas (even
though
in a vulgarised form) became very widespread."
V.I. Lenin; WHAT IS TO BE DONE? Ibid; p.362-3; or at http://www.marx2mao.com//Lenin/WD02NB.html
But as always, an
essential condition of any alliance
for principled Marxists, was to demand the full rights of open
criticism
and exposure of the temporary ally. But unfortunately, this had not
been
taken up, as the Bernsteinians had temporarily "demoralised" the
socialists.
The working class movement had been taken over by the liberals,
assisted
by the State who naturally saw Bernsteinism as an ideology in its own
interests.
So the movement was then faced with the penetration of its own ranks by
"Economists":
"An essential condition for such an alliance must be the full
opportunity
for the socialists to reveal to the working class that its interests
are
diametrically opposed to the interests of the bourgeoisie. However, the
Bernsteinian and "critical" trend, to which the majority of the legal
Marxists
turned, deprived the socialists of this opportunity and demoralised the
socialist consciousness by vulgarising Marxism, ...in practice it meant
a striving to convert the nascent working-class movement into an
appendage
of the liberals. … the rupture was necessary. But the
"peculiar" feature
of Russia manifested itself in the fact that this rupture simply meant
the elimination of the Social-Democrats from the most accessible and
widespread
"legal" literature. The "ex-Marxists".. entrenched themselves in this
literature.
Catchwords like "Against orthodoxy" and "Long live freedom of
criticism"
…. became the vogue, and the fact that neither the censor
nor the gendarmes
could resist this vogue is apparent from the publication of three
Russian
editions of the work of the celebrated Bernstein … and from
the fact that
the works of Bernstein, Mr. Prokopovich, and others were recommended by
Zubatov. A task now devolved upon the Social Democrats that was
difficult
in itself and was made incredibly more difficult by purely external
obstacles
-- the task of combating the new trend. This trend did not confine
itself
to the sphere of literature. The turn towards "criticism" was
accompanied
by an infatuation for Economism among Social-Democratic practical
workers."