Subject: LL Jim Hillier: communist unity
Date:    Friday, March 27, 1998 3:56 PM


Comrades,

I have not replied to cde Klo McKinsey's questions about the NCP both
for lack of time and a desire to move on. I agree with cde Richard Bos
when he cals for a discussion, on constructive lines, of party policies,
rather than harping on about organisation criticisms I may have which
are contentious and not very helpful in terms of the development of this
list.

He and I are not going to agree on this matter, not at present any way. 
If we did, then we would probably be in the same party anyway, as we
once were.

I would like to state clearly that I believe that there are many good
working class militants who are seriously committed to the struggle for
socialism in the NCP at every level. I regard these people as comrades
despite our differences.

That there are such people in the NCP does not however prove that all is
well there. There are similar such people in the CPB. And the SLP. And
the RCPB(M-L). And the CPB(M-L). And so on. There are absolutely no
unserious people in the Communist Action Group, but that does not prove
that we are either right ideologically or properly organised along
genuine democratic centralist lines. Our members believe we *are*, but
that does not prove anything either. 

I think it is an important question why genuine revolutionaries remain
committed to different organisations, despite the weaknesses that others
see in those parties.

In Turkey, during the hunger strike in 1996, five comrades from the
DHKP-C starved themselves to death, showing the utmost committed and
utmost conviction in the rectitude of their party's line. Seven other
communists - from the MLKP, TKP/ML and TIKB - did exactly the same -
never wavering for a second from their loyalty to their organisation and
their leaders and traditions. Their sacrifice is humbling, and we dip
our red banners in salute to all these fallen comrades. Nonetheless, it
is clearly the case that not all could be right. If we accept that
marxism is a science, and that the working class needs its own party,
which must be as strong and as united as possible, it is clear that the
existence of a whole number of communist parties or groups is a sign of
grave weakness. These comrades were heroes, but it remains true that
objectively they should have been in a single party, and that single
party remains to be built. Some if not all of these parties by
definition must have incorrect lines. How, then, can the divisions be
overcome?

These comrades were committed up to death to their respective
organisations, but not because these organisations were necessarily
right.

I do not pretend to have a ready made answer. My general view is that
the Communist Party must be able to attract to its ranks all the genuine
class militants. If there were a Communist Party of Turkey in the sense
that Lenin talks about, it would have room for the comrades of the DHKP-
C, MLKP, TIKB, TKP/ML and others besides them. Through genuine
democratic centralism, the comrades from these different trends would
all lend their own weight to discussions, and contribute accordingly to
the line which would emerge. Each has relative strengths, and in the
correct form of party organisation, these can contribute to the
strengthening of the party, to making it a rounded, balanced
revolutionary party.

I think the divisions between such comrades are not like the divisions
between the mensehviks and the bolsheviks, but like those between
different trends within the bolshevik party.

I would say the same, in essence, applies across the globe.

Each M-L party that exists - actually it would be better to say each
organisation, since Lenin used the word party to apply to something
beyond what most parties are at present - has something to contribute,
something genuinely positive in its history. 

Keeping with Turkey/Kurdistan as the example, the MLKP and TIKB stress
the iron discipline of the party. Absolute unity of will. The party in
control. Everything organised down to the last detail. The clear focus
on the aremed uprising of the industrial working class as the key to the
revolution. This is what they take from the old pro-Albanian tradition.
The TKP/ML, from the Maoist tradition, focus clearly on the
revolutionary potential of the peasantry, and the need to base a
political-military strategy on this. Also, from the cultural revolution
and from the actual dynamics of the Chinese revolution, they stress the
creative role of the masses, not reducible to the party as such. The
DHKP-C, from the guevarist tradition, stress the role of armed struggle
in strengthening the people's struggle, and for the need to press on
with the armed struggle under all conditions. Now, it is this group
above all which focusses on the slum people's committees as soviet-type
bodies which hold the key to the revolution.

What I want to see is a party which can combine ALL these strengths. 

We need a form of unity that builds on all of our strengths.

I personally think that the Latin American revolutionaries of the late
1970s and 1980s achieved this better than anyone. The Sandinistas split
into three trends, but it was their unification, brokered by the Cubans,
which paved the way to victory. It is significant that their unity did
not dissolve the different stretegic tendencies so much as direct them
at the common enemy. The same with the FMLN and the UNRG. That this left
subsequently capitulated does not in my view invalidate their approach
to unity at that time. Rather, the capitulation itself was the product
of the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the subsequent shift in the
balance of class forces on a world scale.

In 1917, the problem was that the revolutionaries were in the same mass
organisations as the reformists. Now, the problem is different: it is
that the M-L revolutionaries are divided into sometimes scores of
different organisations, often each too weak to make much of a
difference to the class struggle.

I get the impression that most M-L leaders think that their group is 100
per cent right, and that sooner or later all the others will come round
and join them, or else will show their true colours by betraying.
Similarly, most seem to think that the masses will in the end flock to
the party, rather than seeing that the party must, always, go to the
masses.

Apologies if this is not very coherent. I am trying to think my way
through a real problem. Comrades criticisms wouldbe very welcome.

In struggle

-- 
Jim