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