From: Ben Seattle
To: marxism-international
Subject: M-I: Communist unity (Jim Hillier, Ben Seattle) fwd from LeninList
Date: Sunday, April 05, 1998 6:00 PM
The following brief exchange took place
last week on LeninList. I believe it may
be of interest to some readers here.
It goes without saying, naturally, that everyone who
is serious will have to deal with these questions ...
... sooner or later.
Ben Seattle
----//-// 5.Apr.98
======
contents:
======
1. Jim Hillier -- communist unity -- 27.Mar.98
2. Ben Seattle -- on communist unity (reply to Jim Hillier) -- 30.Mar98
=================================================
1. Jim Hillier -- communist unity -- 27.Mar.98
=================================================
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 calls 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 would be very welcome.
In struggle
--
Jim
=================================================
2. Ben Seattle -- on communist unity (reply to Jim Hillier) --
31.Mar98
=================================================
Hi Jim (and everyone else),
I am glad to see you raise the question of
communist unity. All intelligent and sincere
communist activists would like to see the
development of greater unity amongst themselves.
The question that comes up, however, is:
=======================
How is this unity to come about?
=======================
What are the practical steps that will lead to
this unity?
Your post, which I very much liked, discussed
various revolutionary organizations in Turkey
and/or Kurdistan. You raised questions which,
in my mind, are central. What objective forces
make it difficult for these groups (all of which
command the loyalty of a section of class
conscious activists) from working together more
effectively?
My own focus is more on a similar question as it
relates to conditions in the more developed
countries of bourgeois democracy. The
circumstances in these countries is more favorable
in many respects and yet we see a similar
inability of various groups to effectively
coordinate their actions.
At present, there are numerous groups and
grouplets of activists who consider themselves
to be communists but who, for many reasons, are
hardly on speaking terms with one another. It
is one of the characteristics of the current
period that many of these groups combine features
of principled revolutionary organizations with
features of religious cults. The twin diseases
of our movement, reformism, and its close
partner-in-crime, sectarianism, are everywhere,
just as is the air we breathe.
The development of mailing lists like this one,
or the Spoon's lists, while primitive in many
respects, will help to point the way forward.
This is because such lists represent the
*earliest signs* of the immense impact which the
coming revolution in digital communications will
have on the development of a communist movement.
Communist activists from many different
backgrounds will learn, in the wake of the
communications revolution, how to cooperate
*without* giving up their principled opposition
to what they consider mistaken in one another's
viewpoints. This is not an overnight process.
But it is a process which has already begun.
What will be the result? Sectarianism will be
crushed and the influence of reformism will be
punctured.
I have identified, I believe, those tasks which
are decisive for the creation of a communist
movement which would be worthy of the name, fully
capable of capturing the imagination of millions
and, eventually, leading the working class for
the overthrow of bourgeois rule.
I discuss these tasks in my essay "1917 was the
Beta Version" which I wrote for the 80th
anniversary, last year, of the October Revolution.
This essay was originally written to be my
introduction to LeninList. LeninList was in
crisis at the time, however, principally due to
the failure of you (and others) to grasp a pivotal
tactical principle:
==========================
Incorrect views cannot be defeated
if one exercizes too heavy a hand
and attempts to force the discussion
to conform to what one considers
to be correct.
==========================
A heavy hand will kill a discussion. When you
took it upon yourself to dictate what Adolfo
would be allowed to say about Cuba--you killed
the discussion about Cuba and nearly killed
LeninList. But intelligent discussion is what
is needed at this time. Nothing else will kill
the incorrect ideas which stand as obstacles to
the creation of a powerful communist movment.
Only intelligent discussion can serve to drive
the stake thru the heart of the undead.
Since LeninList was in crisis, I posted my "Beta
Version" essay to the Spoon's Marxism-International
(with only a summary to LeninList). My essay,
unfortunately, drew only a single comment (by Mark
Jones, which I did not consider serious enough to
require a reply). But I am confident that this
discussion must take off, sooner or later.
Communist unity is necessary for the overthrow
of bourgeois rule and, as such, will inevitably
come about. But communist unity can only come
into existence as a result of taking up those
tasks which are decisive for the creation of a
powerful communist movement.
What are the tasks which I identified in my essay
as being decisive for the creation of a powerful
communist movement?
* * * *
The decisive task *in practice* is the development
of an electronic news service without copyright
and created such that readers could not be
*barred access* to any progressive political trend.
Readers themselves (thru a collaborative process)
and competing political trends will rate articles
and decide what will appear on various competing
"front pages" that will function as windows into
a single common database to which all trends will
contribute. Such a news service will eventually
provide millions of readers easy access to a
common indexed system of progressive articles,
commentary and opinion on all important topics
and will, furthermore, allow readers to add their
own public comments or questions to all articles
and, in this way, will serve as the launching
ground for a large number of forums.
I am currently at work on a very modest web-based
prototype of such a system. My prototype system
would be capable of being used by hundreds of
people, not millions. But it will help to
illustrate the concepts involved. My hope is that
it will both be of practical use (in a limited way)
and inspire further work.
Lenin unified the scattered, squabbling marxist
groups in Russia around a common newspaper that
linked the various organizations to one another
--and to the masses. The linkage of the scattered
groups thru a common information system (ie: Iskra)
facilated their unity in practice and created
conditions for the successful ideological struggle
against the immense influence of reformism
(ie: the reflection of the bourgeois ideology
within the marxist movement). A distributed
electronic news system, controlled by no single
trend with a heavy hand, will likely begin to
play a loosely analogous role in the first decade
of the next century.
Make no mistake. Such a news service,
representing a powerful beacon to millions and
embodying the hopes, dreams and aspirations of
all progressive mankind--will inevitably emerge.
The only question remaining is whether such a
news service will be created now by progressive
activists such as ourselves--or later by others
with deeper insight and a more powerful dedication
to the proletariat.
* * * *
The decisive task *in theory* is the development
of a living picture of how workers' rule will
function in a modern, stable society. From a
scientific standpoint, such has *never existed*.
In order for a communist movement to be viable,
much less capable of shaking the earth, the
present-day crisis of "communist" theory must
be overcome. Nowhere is the bankruptcy of this
theory more obvious and more critical--than in
its utter failure to realistically explain (or
even intelligently discuss) the *alternative*
to bourgeois rule. This is *the* central
question of communist theory. And until it
is answered, until the *discussion* of this
question succeeds in drawing in workers--a
genuinely communist movement will never be
able to outgrow its infancy.
=======================
How will a workers' state
suppress the newly overthrown
(but still immensely powerful)
bourgeoisie *without also*
suppressing workers ?
=======================
Against such a question, all the immense confusion,
self-deception and inbred charlatanism (which, at
present, dominate the present-day "communist"
movement) -- will have about as much chance as
a goldfish in a blender.
All that will be left will be pink, frothy water.
* * * *
My essay, "1917 was the Beta Version" can be
reached by clicking the prominent link to it
at www.communism.org. I invite all readers of
this list to check it out and either comment on
it here or write to me. I am committed to
linking, at the bottom of my essay, to all
serious and thoughtful responses.
Ben Seattle
----//-// 30.Mar.98 3am
www.Leninism.org
--- from list marxism-international@lists.village.virginia.edu ---