Recently we were challenged by a comrade from Brazil,
as to why we had suggested that it was correct to support Lula in the Brazilian
elections. He argued that we were sowing illusions in Lula, and the parliamentary
process. In response however, we would argue that the best way to
expose Lula is to place him in power, where he cannot simply posture –
Lula is then faced with a “test”:
Either Lula WILL support the workers – or he WILL NOT!
Indeed within a short period of time, Lula is clearly exposing his true colours. People like Lula, are to be found in every country. They are reformists, who believe in slow reforms, through the parliamentary process.
We argue that Marxism-Leninism, does not advocate either:
Frederick Engels, watched the growth of reformism in the English
working class movement, and he expressed his view of reformists in a letter
to Friedrich Sorge in January 1893:
"The Fabians are an ambitious group here in London who have understood
enough to realise the inevitability of the social revolution, but who could
not possibly entrust this gigantic task to the rough proletariat alone
and are therefore kind enough to set themselves at the head. Fear of the
revolution is their fundamental principle. They are educated par excellence.
Their socialism is municipal socialism; not the nation but the municipality
is to become the owner of the means of production". This socialism of theirs
is then represented as an extreme but inevitable consequence of bourgeois
Liberalism, and hence follow their tactics of not decisively opposing the
Liberals as adversaries but of intriguing with them, of permeating Liberalism
with Socialism. …..Hence too their fanatical hatred of Marx and all of
us -- because of the class struggle."
“Friedrich Engels: Letter to Friedrich Sorge, 18 January 1893; in:
Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels: 'Selected Correspondence: 1846-1895;
London; 1943; p. 505.
Lenin viewed these reformists equally bluntly, especially given their
attitude to the First World War (See V.I.Lenin, Imperialism & The Split
In Socialism"; 1916 ; Collected Works, Moscow, 1964, Vol. 23, pp. 105-20.
OR at: http://gate.cruzio.com/~marx2mao/Lenin/ISS16.html
Lenin also talks of how even reformists "recognise the class
struggle" , this still does not make them real Marxists:
"It is often said and written that the main point in Marx's teachings
is the class struggle; but this is not true. And from this untruth very
often springs the opportunist distortion of Marxism, its falsification
in such a way as to make it acceptable to the bourgeoisie. For the doctrine
of the class struggle was created not by Marx, but by the bourgeoisie before
Marx, and generally speaking it is acceptable to the bourgeoisie. Those
who recognize only the class struggle are not yet Marxists; they may be
found to be still within the boundaries of bourgeois thinking and bourgeois
politics. To confine Marxism to the doctrine of the class struggle means
curtailing Marxism, distorting it, reducing
it to something which is acceptable to the bourgeoisie. Only he is a Marxist
who extends the recognition of the class struggle to the recognition of
the dictatorship of the proletariat. ……not only all the opportunists and
reformists, but all the "Kautskyites" (people who vacillate between reformism
and Marxism) proved to be miserable philistines and petty-bourgeois
democrats who repudiate the dictatorship of the proletariat." V. I. Lenin,
The State & Revolution'; Moscow; 1980; Volume 25;
Continued on page twenty.)
; pp. 381492; Or at:
http://gate.cruzio.com/~marx2mao/Lenin/SR17.html#c3
2. If Reformism is opposed to Marxism-Leninism, How do we View
Parliament and Bourgeois Elections?
Adopting either Parliamentarism or anti-parliamentarism is not a principle.
Marxists like Lenin advises it as a tactic for when it is necessary to
further expose bourgeois social democrats and the inability of the parliament
to effect change. By waging enhanced propaganda during elections,
"parliamentary cretinism" can be exposed. Lenin wrote on this when the
British movement, was following Russian events. No party in Britain called
itself "Communist", but four revolutionary groups tried to form one Communist
Party. For Sylvia Pankhurst of the Workers Socialist Federation, parliamentarism
was an obstruction to unity. Another anti-Parliamentarians, Willie Gallagher
of the Scottish Workers Council, argued that the labour party and its leaders
(like Henderson, Clynes) were totally corrupt, likening them to German
reformists who had shot German workers (Scheidemann and Noske). The anti-Parliamentarians
said that the strategy of Parliament was opportunist:
"W.Gallagher: "Any support given to parliamentarism is simply
assisting to put power into the hands of our British Scheidemanns and Noskes.
Henderson, Clynes and Co. are hopelessly reactionary . . . Any support
to the parliamentary opportunists is simply playing into the hands of the
(reactionaries). . . . What is wanted here is a sound revolutionary industrial
organization, and a Communist Party working along clear, well-defined,
scientific lines.". V. I. Lenin: "Left-Wing" Communism, An Infantile Disorder";
IX "Left-Wing" Communism In Great Britain"; Collected Works; Moscow
1980; 17-117; Volume 31;
http://www.cruzio.com/~marx2mao/Lenin/LWC20.html#c9
Lenin replied that Willie Gallacher, was honest, but politically
immature, and “just coming to communism”- that he and others were relying
only on “temper” and were “damaging” the cause:
“This letter, in my opinion, excellently expresses the temper
and point of view of the young Communists, or of rank-and file workers
who are only just coming to Communism. … without it, it would be hopeless
to expect the victory of the proletarian revolution in Great Britain. .
And at the same time we must openly and frankly tell them that temper alone
is not enough to lead the masses in a great revolutionary struggle, and
that such and such mistakes that very loyal adherents of the cause of the
revolution are about to commit, or are committing, may damage the cause
of the revolution. Comrade Gallacher's letter undoubtedly betrays the germs
of all the mistakes that
are being committed by the German "Left" Communists and that were committed
by the Russian "Left" Bolsheviks in 1908 and 1918." V. I. Lenin: "Left-Wing"
Communism, An Infantile Disorder";
Ibid.
Of course Lenin agreed that the leaders of the labour Party were
"hopelessly reactionary" (such as Arthur Henderson, J.R.Clynes, Ramsay
MacDonald, Philip Snowden). But - it was because of this that they needed
to be exposed. Lenin argued against Sylvia Pankhurst’s and Wille Gallachers’
"non-compromising" stance, saying that the masses had to learn from their
own experience how the bourgeoisie operated; seeing that parliamentarism
would not deliver the revolution would only help workers:
"The Left Communists believe that the transfer of power to the
Labour Party is inevitable and admit that at present it has the support
of the majority of the workers. From this they draw the strange conclusion
which Comrade Sylvia Pankhurst formulates as follows:
"The Communist Party must not compromise. . . . The Communist Party
must keep its doctrine pure, and its independence of reformism inviolate;
its mission is to lead the way, without stopping or turning, by the direct
road to the communist revolution."
On the contrary, from the fact that the majority of the workers in
Great Britain still follow the lead of the British Kerenskys or Scheidemanns
and have not yet had the experience of a government composed of these people,
which experience was required in Russia and Germany to secure the mass
passage of the workers to Communism, it un-doubtedly follows that the British
Communists should participate in parliamentary action, that they should,
from within parliament, help the masses of the workers to see the results
of a Henderson and Snowden government in practice, that they should help
the Hendersons and Snowdens to defeat the united forces of Lloyd George
and Churchill. To act otherwise would mean placing difficulties in the
way of the revolution; for revolution is impossible without a change in
the views of the majority of the working class, and this change is brought
about by the political experience of the masses, and never by propaganda
alone. "
V. I. Lenin: "Left-Wing" Communism, An Infantile Disorder"; Ibid.
Lenin saw that the British masses had not yet seen the state of affairs
and were not yet willing nor ready to undertake the hazards of revolution:
(continued on page twenty-one.)
"The fundamental law of revolution… is as follows: it is not enough
for revolution that the exploited and oppressed masses should
understand the impossibility of living in the old way and demand changes;
it is essential for revolution that the exploiters should not be able to
live and rule in the old way. Only when the "lower classes " do not want
the old way, and when the "upper classes" cannot carry on in the old
way -- only then can revolution triumph. This truth may be expressed
in other words: revolution is impossible without a nation-wide crisis (affecting
both the exploited and the exploiters). It follows that for revolution
it is essential, first, that a majority of the workers (or at least a majority
of the class-conscious, thinking, politically active workers) should fully
understand that revolution is necessary and be ready to sacrifice their
lives for it; secondly, that the ruling classes should be passing through
a governmental crisis, which draws even the
most backward masses into politics (a symptom of every real revolution
is a rapid, tenfold and even hundredfold increase in the number of members
of the toiling and oppressed masses -- hitherto apathetic -- who are capable
of waging the political struggle), weakens the government and makes it
possible for the revolutionaries to overthrow it rapidly. "
V. I. Lenin: "Left-Wing" Communism, An Infantile
Disorder"; Ibid.
It was precisely because conditions were rapidly maturing that
Lenin insisted that the best strategy to expose British social-democracy
was to join forces and combine into one Communist Party, which should then
offer the Labour Party an electoral and practical block:
"If we are the party of the revolutionary class, and not a revolutionary
group, if we want the masses to follow us (and unless we do, we stand the
risk of remaining mere windbags), we must, firstly, help Henderson or Snowden
to beat Lloyd George and Churchill (or, rather, compel the former to beat
the latter, because the former are afraid of their victory !); secondly,
we must help the majority of the working class to convince themselves by
their own experience that we are right, that is, that the Hendersons and
Snowdens are absolutely unsuitable, that they are
petty bourgeois and treacherous by nature, and that their bankruptcy is
inevitable; thirdly, we must bring nearer the moment when, on the basis
of the disappointment of the majority of the workers in the Hendersons,
it will be possible with serious chances of success to overthrow the government
of the Hendersons at once. . . . . . In my opinion, the British Communists
should unite their four (all very weak, and some very, very weak) parties
and groups into a single Communist Party on the basis of the principles
of the Third International and of obligatory participation in parliament.
The Communist Party should propose a "compromise"
to the Hendersons and Snowdens, an election agreement: let us together
fight the alliance of Lloyd George and the Conservatives, let us divide
the parliamentary seats in proportion to the number of votes cast by the
workers for the Labour Party and for the Communist Party (not at the elections,
but in a special vote)," V. I. Lenin: "Left-Wing" Communism, An Infantile
Disorder"; Ibid.
But Lenin insisted that it was essential for this tactic – that "the
Communist Party .. retain complete liberty of agitation, propaganda and
political activity. Without this latter condition, of course, we cannot
agree to a bloc, for it would be treachery" :
"The Communist Party should propose a "compromise" to the Hendersons
and Snowdens, an election agreement: let us together fight the alliance
of Lloyd George and the Conservatives, let us divide the parliamentary
seats in proportion to the number of votes cast by the workers for the
Labour Party
and for the Communist Party (not at the elections, but in a special
vote), and let us retain complete liberty of agitation, propaganda and
political activity. Without this latter condition, of course, we cannot
agree to a bloc, for it would be treachery; the British Communists must
absolutely insist on and secure complete liberty to expose the Hendersons
and the Snowdens in the same way as (for fifteen years, 1903-17) the Russian
Bolsheviks insisted on and secured it in relation to the Russian Hendersons
and Snowdens, i.e., the Mensheviks." V. I.
Lenin: "Left-Wing" Communism, An Infantile Disorder"; Ibid.
Under these circumstances, the Communist Party could not lose
whether or not the Social-Democrats accepted:
"If the Hendersons and the Snowdens accept a bloc on these terms, we
shall be the gainers, because the number of parliamentary seats is of no
importance to us; we are not out for seats…….. we shall carry our agitation
among the masses .. . . . . . . If the Hendersons and the Snowdens reject
a bloc with the Communists, the Communists will gain immediately
as regards winning the sympathy of the masses and discrediting the Hendersons
and Snowdens; and if as a result we do lose a few parliamentary seats,
it is a matter of no
importance to us. …… Comrades Sylvia Pankhurst and Gallacher are mistaken
in thinking that this is a betrayal of Communism, or a renunciation of
the struggle against the social traitors. On the contrary, the cause of
communist
(continued on page twenty-two.)
revolution would undoubtedly gain by it. "
V. I. Lenin: "Left-Wing" Communism, An Infantile Disorder"; Ibid.
2) Is this Just of Relevance to Britain?
Lenin stressed that this was of international significance and not
just of British relevance, as shown from his advice to the American party,
where a similar discussion took place regarding the USA:
"But the leftism of the Workers Party had to be overcome. Lenin
had been urging the British CP to join the Labour Party at the Comintern
Second Congress. Lenin discussed this with Louis C Fraina (USA), who argued
against him. This was consistent with the American Party's view. But at
the Third Comintern Congress, Lenin again raised the issue, this time meeting
with the entire American delegation.
(Draper; T; "American Communism and Soviet Russia"; New York; 1986;
p. 32).
Lenin's advice applied to the USA The Farmers and Labourers’ Party
(FLP) had called for the nationalisation of all public utilities, basic
industries, natural resources, and banking and credit systems, and for
workers participation in industry. In the climate of intense victimisation
of workers, the call by the FLP to a Conference for the Progressive Political
Action for February 1922 acquired major significance. But the Communists
were not invited, partly because the CP first program had made clear to
even their own sympathisers, a reluctance to get involved. They proclaimed
:
"There can be
no compromise either with Labourism or reactionary Socialism". (See Draper;
Ibid; p. 31).
End.