Organisation and Politics (in reply to the IMG 'Faction and Party' series)

GE

ORGANISATION

AND

POLITICS

rom the t e he wrote What is To Be Done? 1902 Lenin fought to build a disci ned party of trained revolutionaries in the Russian working class. The Bolshevik Party was able to take and retain state power in 1917 only because of Lenin's struggle against every tendency which was in any way hostile to the independence of the working class and its party.

Between 1903 and 1912, as Len tells us in Left Wing Communism: Thare were periods of savaral years in which we were formally united with the Mensheviks in ana Social Democratic Party." (p. 69). It was here, in the main workers party, part of the mass forces of the Second International, that the Bolsheviks were able to place the central political questions before the advanced sections of workers. In the fight to test out the programme agreed in 1903 it was necessary to struggle for proletarian discipline against the antics of the Mensheviks.

This raised again and again the question of the nature of the revol utionary party and the independence of the working class. On this basis alone was it possible to expose Menshevism as a bourgeois i fluence in the working class. *We naver stopped our ideological and political struggle against tham as oppor tunists and vehicles of bourgeois influance upon the proletariat" (Left Wing was the pol im Com itica I basis for Hyde and Bolshevik fight for the unity of the RSDLP. It has nothing in common with the sham unity of unprincipled blocs and compromise pursued by the so-called United Secretariat of the Fourth International' and its British offshoot, the nternational Marxist Group. Throughout 1976 the IMG's paper, the now dissolved Red Weekly carried several attacks on the "sectar- ianism' of the Workers Socialist League They centred these attacks on the WL's refusal to unite with the IMG on a "merge now, pay later" basis. In producing arguments to support their line the IMG twisted and distorted Lenin's struggle for the Bolshevik Party in a series of articles entitled 'Faction and Party. The purpose of this exercise was to present Lenin as a practitioner of a-political unity along the lines of he IMG today. In Socialist Press 76 the WSL replied: "In essence the IMG leadarship seem to be saying "if Lenin and the Mensheviks could be members of the same party for a decade, shouldn't the WSL and tha IMG combine today?-though they diplomstic- ally stear clear of who corrasponds to whom!" Sadly, but not unpredictably, the Red Weekly did not change course.

The November issue of its 'theoretical' supplement Battle of ideas carried a long and extravagant- ly foot-noted piece entitled The Bolshevik Faction and the Struggle or the Party. se authors, John Marshall and Adrian Yeeles, revealed more starply than ever the anti- Marxist approach which constitutes a stumbling block to a clarification of the political differences which separate the WL from the IMG.

These differences are rooted in the political positions, and, more deeply, in the method of approach to political questions and orientation towards the working class that the IMG has acquired in the course of the history of the post-war Trotsky- ist movement. Particular mportant this respect are the issues th were central to the 1953 split in the Fourth International, issues which have yet to be objectively discussed by any of the international groupings now claiming to be Trotskyist.

The IMG in the "Faction and Party' eries approached the 1953 split as an organisational question- brushing aside the enormous political crisis which brought it about. And in the Marshall-Yeeles article they use a similar method in order to examine Lenin's fight in the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party. ly in at The authors tell us the WS has failed to understand Lenin's "organ- isational principles" But, for Marxists. organisational must flow From political Vice princ iples rsa. And scarce questions rinciples- olitical mention

PAGE

rom start to fini Indeed mucl Yeeles' argume notion that Ler opposed to any sheviks on what grounds. Lenin through a split questions, they the differences the Mensheviks sh of their article. 1 of Marshall and nt centres on the iin was at all times split with the Men- they call "political" vould only carry n "organisational" tell us, and sum up between Lenin and as the Mensheviks' refusal to submit to party discipline.

From this starting point the IMG authors conclude that the split in 1912 between the Bolsheviks on the one hand and the Mensheviks who proposed winding up the RSDLP on the other, was an 'organisational" split. Up to that time, they tell us, Bolshevik Party existed. There was noting more than the Bolshevik faction of the RSDLP. Socialist Press has already spoken on the question of whether a split with a group that actively calls for the liquidation of the movement can be termed an 'organisational step: "One member publicly Davocatus winding up the party the other members are propared to die to dafond it. By what stretch of the imagination can this be described as an organisational question?

Have not the different political assess- ments of the liquidator placed him organ: isationally outside tho party in all but the most formal, literal interpretation?

More tangibly. IMG members produced a newspaper, or wrote in The Guardian that the IMG was "dead", and othors began advocating winding up your indepandant apparatus would content to brand thom as "in breach of disciplina"-and not soak the political motivation of such action?"

(March 24, 1976) But there is an even harder problem Marshall and Yeeles blindly run into. We all know there are many quotes from Lenin which refer to the Bolsheviks as a faction of the RSDLP. But unfortunately for the IMG and the USFI there are also many from Lenin and other Marxists which make it clear that Lenin considered the Bolshevik Party to have been in existence since 1903.

For the formal thinkers like Marshall and Yeeles, who see to it that all developments are placed into neat categories, the answer to this is simple. One set of quotes must be right, and used accordingly. The other set must be wrong; and either ignored or explained away. They proceed throughout in this manner, mechanically separating the organisa- tional from the political questions involved, and the Bolsheviks' activities as a faction in the RSDLP from the struggle to build a homo- geneous revolutionary party.

Of course, the 'contradictory statements of Lenin about factions and parties arise from the real contra dictions of tre development of Bolshevism the fact that, while a party in al but name during certa n periods, it operated as a faction of the RSDLP. This necessary process can not be subjected to the crude formula 'either a faction or a party'.

Such a method owes everything to Aristotle's Law of the Excluded Middle, and nothing to Marxism.

As Trotsky wrote: "A Marxist party should, of course, strive to full independence and to the highest homogeneity. But in tha process of its formation, a Marxist party often has to act as a faction of a centrist and even a reformist party. Thus the Bolsheviks achered for a number of years to the same party as tha Manshaviks."

Unable to see the development of the Bolshevik Party in anything but a completely one-sided way Marshall and Yeeles have to make a contemp- tuous dismissal of Lenin's reference to a pre-1912 Bolshevik Party in Left Wing Communism-An Infantile Disorder. We are told to ignore half a sentence' of Lenin's writings on this question. If we are generous we can assume that this flows out of complete ignorance rather conscious distortion. Left Wing Communism was distributed to every delegate at the Second Congress of the Com- munist International. Its importance.

lay in the fact, among other things, that it contained Lenin's assessment.

of the development of Bolshevism in.

Russia._ Anyone who takes trouble 10 read it will see that it contains not "half a sentence' but an entire analysis of the development of the Bolshevik Party since 1903.

will do here to assemble a few quotations (some of which were used in the earlier articles in Socialist Press). "As a current of political thought and as a political party, Bolshevism has existod history of since 1903. Only Bolshevism during its entire period of existence can satisfactorily explain why it has been able to build up and maintain, under most difficult conditions, the iron discipline neoded for the victory of the proletariat." (p.6). "Of all the defeated opposition and rovolutionary parties, the Bolsheviks effected the most orderly retreat, with the least loss to their "army", with its core best presarved, with the least tin respect to profundity and irremediability) splits, with the least demoralisation, and in tho best condition to resume the work on the broadest scale and in the most correct and energetic manner."

Lenin goes on in this passage to explain the necessary role of expul sions in the development of the movement, dealing a heavy kick in the teeth to the IMG peddlers of easy-going "unity": *The Bolsheviks achieved this only because they ruthlassly exposed and expelled the ravolutionary phrasa-mongers who rafused to understand that one had to retreat, that one had to know how to retreat, and that one had absolutely to learn how to vark legally in the most reactionary parliaments, in the most reactionary trade unions, cooperative societies, insurance sociaties and similar YI. organisations." (pp 11-1 "Overcoming unprecedented difficulties, the Bolshoviks thrust back the Mensheviks, whose role as bourgeois agents in the working class movement was clearly recognised by the entire bourgeois.

¡e after 1905." Ip. 12. Emphasis added).

It is not clear whether the IMG want us to believe Lenin was for seven years in favour of unity with these "bourgeois agents in the working class movement" or whether they feel that Lenin was less aware of the Mensheviks role after 1905 than was the Russian bourgeoisie. *the struggle that Bolshevism waged egainst "left' deviations within its party assumed particularly large propor tions (..) In 1908, tha left' Bolsheviks were expelled from our Party for stubbornly retusing to understand the necessity of participating in a most reac- tionary "parliament" ". (emphasis added).

So ultra-left elements were expelled by Lenin for the political offence of "refusing to understand" a policy! So much for the IMG's line of "unity" on any level, and splits only on "organisational" questions. We should compare this passage in Left Wing Communism to Lenin's contradictory statement at the time of these expulsions, when he wrote: *Wa do not hava a split in tha Party.

but in the faction." Lenin was not suffering bad memory when he wro Wing Communism. But he considered that the Bolshevi existed in 1908 as a faction the RSD LP. But perhaps the most telling passage in showing the way Lenin approached the question of 'unity' with the Mensheviks occurs in the section entitled "No Compromises?".

Lenin, in challenging the ultra leftism of the inexperienced Comintern parties, catalogues some of the temporary compromises and manoeuvres made during the history of Bolshevism. And the question of unity with the Mensheviks comes.

without comment, in the middle of a list of temporary blocs with bourgeois and petty bourgeois parties: "The Bolsheviks have always adhered to this policy. Beginning with 1905, they systematically advocatad an alliance between the working class and the peasantry against the liberal bourgeoisie and Tsardom, never, however rafusing to support the bourgeoisie ageinst Tsardom (for instance during second rounds alections, or during sacond ballots) and never ceasing their rolentless ideological and political struggle against the bourgeois revolutionary peasant party, the "Socialist Revolutionaries", exposing them as petty: bourgeois democrats who falsely described themsalvas as socialists. During the Duma elections in 1907, the Bolsheviks not the RDLP!) for a brief period entered into a formal political bloc with the *Socialist Ravolutionaries. Batwaen 1903 and 1912 ware periods of several years in which we were formally united with the from a te Left clearly k Party within

TRO TSK ISM

Mensheviks in one Social Democratic Party: but we never coasad our ideological and political struggle against them opportunists and vehiclos of bourgeois influence among the proletariat. During the war WB concluded certain Compro mises _with. the "Kautskvites" with the Loft Mensheviks (Martov) and with sect not the Socialist Revolutiona " (P.69) "Unity" with the more a fixed princ any of these othe tie ments. At certain po ts objectively necessary-at hacame a nolitical liability Mens iple 1 г pol evik ries nel in can the IMG feel int sight into the poli hial solits and into the p tackground cations: and splits and which they slitical basis place. Such a view is avoided etely by the IMG. It is worth examining the early years after to stow how th icture can sified if the polit q restions tored comp while 1903 ical inifi on

PAGE 11

and sovere to continu 'Minority' has been a tactics have committees TOs! (Tuna quite impossibla onas working in one party Now that the Third bstructed and the d baon diracted against all hope of achievi in arde. with the Congress isruptive the local g this is Ha emphas added) In letter Kes "The split have exhausted Congress against Committee and them. Complate emphasis added). Bogdanov nore firmly now complete: for wa if means. It is the Third the will of the Contral the Council and without rupture with the Contral Commi have An own open statement that we Burosu. The complate remova Iskraist Mensheviks and now i evorywhere." anuarv 10. 1905. Lenin's emphasist statements ongress were tand after he subsequen unite around adopted at prior the confi d by the gress t call unity the programme this Bolshevik nasd thas nell fra rme Lenin itself. was to and rules Congress. unity in Menshevik the Party. led part "The party crisis solved itself by the mare fact that the Congress was convened The root cause of the crisis, as everyone knows was tho stubbom rafusal of the minority at the Second Congress to submit to the majority. The agonising and protracted nature of the crisis was conditioned by the delay convening the Third Congress, by the fact there was virtually a split in tha Party, a split that was kept hidden and secret beneath a hypocritical show of unity, while the Majority was making desperate offorts 10 find a quick and diract way out of the impossible situation. The Congress provided this way out by bluntly asking the Minority whether it accepted the decisions of the Majority, ie whether Party unity was to be restored or to be formally and completely broken. The Minority chose tha latter course. It preferrod a split.. Cor to Congress. And Lenin out this call for arms , now rega to rejoin

10L4H3 COE

inviting the rded as outside the (Bolshevik of them will probebly be brought to by the decisions of the Congress, and more by its procoedings, how naive sundry tales about mechanical supress etc, are; they will come to seo that rights of the Minority in genoral are !

guaranted by the now Rules, that Minority wital: and this section of (The Third Congress, Coll, Works pp442-3). (Emphasis odded).

Under these cond ...to an than The Minar has sput awa accomplished r from the fact. Samo ›posal of unity to the tha basis of itions Mens evolutio Men ped i the riks nary sheviks n petty indisci concili st form the tron was stee individualism was anything bu ry move. It was the ! struggle against them. When - 1906 Lenil owart unification the tical startin 1 Third Co tha cipline, ole pos urgeois ne. Nasis when reunification, it was lin solitical starting point of Pr . it wa ig poin ngresse 1 ac 'an participa gotically the necossity for the Pr practically and most ha armed uprising and B88E=0=a 1903 actior hand' ind M Mensi Lenir factions: the Bolsheviks on the the SD : t Bol an the ov, on the ott iks succee ed proposal for f the responsi of the Party Lenin's suppor on the editorial all three oface mmitter he questi means najority t there w or Lenin e split with gle against opened up- persue art heviks, While defeat a strict silities of inder the s took ard of n the in nitic mber ty Rule a majority iskra and Central Co While 1 was by Bolshev meant necessity mmediat The true ism had nile be

SDL.P.

Bu dit. Dule shi arty Rules. Lenin's supporte : the question of no means a mino ik majority in the that there was n the e lead no po call Mensh i opp ould the 1 *58= 1488=8 But the Mensheviks forced the ith sprit. work on the E would onlo 1 the Mens Martov took only work if three 1 to-opted nov, who up Lenin, sw The Mens majority decision om the tight withi 1904 ne if local part con ipported the B shes of Majority Committi suping then launched per. Vperyod. ‹now Menshe to cal its ss of the RSD LP IMG, as British 1 Secretariat' lational" in mon for there tional section each producir ent newspapi probably 1904.5 ne he ial isheviks and id sided Martov's his way • of the n with Board, arnative In ed that ditor Board were Plekha with to dr ta leaders Decem art. the ress ing heviks in del and Edito up hip be- grouping hat SL Bureau his gre tewspa lor th abl ished amittees riks -the tes. And own irect and ind vent Cong Is wn 1905. 10 . is part which it re to be f the of an not two or my one npeting, this tate ctly that ill a the bed ates ned 18 < Eg 55958 ormal. enin's the porters wi independe wing, and ; RSDLP co i was to f question im Congi Mensl •his a that SS vil that Lenin was tar trom concer with the question of "unity" at point of time. s the Leri the of th example We have made for example, Lenin writes: dition of Vpery: in writes: *We have made all possible concessions to dismiss Wina Come dis. of th even t vanism le whole of as an unfort eft ate exception to the point out that explicitly adopted Committee of the national in. 1921. of the pen" by Lenin or an e pen rule this vy the 'omm 'Di Lenin or we snoura view was Executive nist Inter stives on ine Untu following. 18. The emind all br United Front' we ECCI considers it usaful to other parties of the expar: lances of the Russian party which up to now is the only one that has succeeded in winning victory over the bourgeoisie and taking power into its hands. During the fifteen years (1903-171 which elapsed between the birth Bolshevism and its triumph over the bourgeoisie it did not cease to wage a tiraless struggle against reformism, or.

what is the same thing. Manshavism. But at the same time the Bolsheviks often came to an understending with the Men- shoviks during those filtean years. The formal break with the Mensheviks took place in the spring of 1905, but at the and 1905, influencod by the stormy davelopments in the workers' movement, the Bolsheviks formed a common front with the Menshavis... and these unific.

ations and semi-unifications happaned not only in accordance with changes in the fractional struggle, but also under the direct pressure of the warking masses who ware awakening to active political life and damanded the opportunity of testing by their own experionce whether the Menshevik path really deviated in funda mantals from the road of revolution..

The Russian Bolsheviks did not reply to the desire of the workers for unity with a renunciation of the united frant. On the contrary. As a counterweight to the diplo.

matic game of the Manshavik leaders the Russian Bolshavils put forward the slogan of 'unity from below. that is, unity of the working masses in the practical struggle for the rovolutionery demands of the workers against the capitalists. Events chnund that this was the anly correct answor. And as a result o which changed according and circumstance, a large bast Menshevik workers Communism' (Commun Degras, Vol 1 The exp cations and I those tactics, to time, pince number of the wire won for ernatic 4, empl referen cations and semi-unifications" in this Int IS

BEE

tions" in this lici Docume sadded? "uni " in ti passage is resumony 10 and partial nature of t arrange- ments themselves. And ti reference to Bolshevik Menshevik sity as a ted front" is a clear statement two independent parties existed.

ut much more is contained in quotation. It actually gives an his 1e

PAGE 12

leadership; and o re of a provisional ant." The hich: "the vast majority of Social Demo.

cratic workers are exceedingly dissatisfied with the split and are demanding unity."

Under these conditions Lenin was supremely confident that the Bolsheviks would win the support of these workers in a united RSDLP. He advised Bolshevik supporters: "thesa elemants can be influencad, and they will submit to the influence of the steadfast and solid care of Social Demo- crats." (Emphasis added: note that tha 1 the Party ravolutione sarspec poli tuation was "care of sheviks.) None slightest They ig demandi political demandi complex Instead device o Sociel Democrats" is the Bol.

of these influence nore the ng unity. platform d unity. ities of they offer f a censored factors have the on Red Weekiy. nflux of workers They ignore the on which Lenin They ignore the split itself. us the shabby quotation, with torn out. The Lenin said the the political heart authors tell us that wish for unity is: "Surely logitimato, hi sary and psychologically comprehensible . Let us then unite to maio this reval- But i indicate In real conclude: "We hava atready written a very good and comprehensive programme for the democratic revolution. Let us, then, unite storically necas. comprehensible maka this reval t is those a section ity the tell-tale dots which has been omitted. quotation should ravolution. added). There can be little do omission by the IMG is a attempt to avoid political ment, a deliberate falsifice quotation to force it into s their own case. The Unity Congress found the Bolsheviks in t that this conscious embarass tion of a upporting of 1906 minority on both Central Committee and Editorial Board. The response from Lenin was to stress and insist upon the autonomy of local committees in carrying out the general line adopted at the Congress. Lenin was convinced that in this way the class conscious worker members would be brought rapidly to reject the cluding an Menshevik line electoral alliance e bourgeois Cadet party. This is where stating bluntly that: "The Bolsheviks plainly stated, in the committee appointed by tha [Unity] Congress to draft the Party Rules, that any attempt to curtail the autonomy of the local organisations and the rights of tho formulated by factional Third Congress will inevitably load to a split." (On the Questi p. 406.) And s figl of wil of this fight in the local organisations od a in groundwa cal organis rk ati for

SUO

had also been Unity Congress laid itseli "Any infatuation with quasi-consti- tutionalism, any exaggeration of the "positive" role of the Duma by anybody any appeals of the axtreme Right Social Democrats for moderation and sobriety- wo have in our possession a most power- ful weapon against them. Tha weapon Clause 1 of tha Congress resolution on insurrection. The Unity Congress of the RSDLP has recognised that the immediate task of the movemant is to wrest power from the autocratic government. Whoever forgets about attampts to pl idinto the background will infringe the will of the Congross: and we shall fight all who are guilty of this in the sternest fashion." (Rapart on the Unity 10, p. 381). This last report was published in the Bolshevik daily paper Voina: the Bolsheviks maintained their own daily papers throughout the spring and summer of 1906. And they set up a secret Bolshevik organising centre even during Unity Canaras itcal at Chand 1001 concept of unity" wit Mensheviks was clearly one placed primary emphasis integrity and development Bolshevik cadres. We have shown complexity of this, most contradictory pe the halm on of some possil iod of 88983 DUneVIK organised as a party within a party. But they also argued as a tendency within a sinole nartv.

In Lenin's retrospective, cor analysis, the Bolsheviks were throughout this period The conclusion must be t fight for the political cor of Bolshevism, for the prest of the revolutionary core el from the 1903 divisions, was primary objective for which moves and manoeuvres towa dered party hat the stinuity irvation nerging Lenin's tactical rds the Mensheviks were a means end in themselves. It is not accidental that during t 1905 revolution and after 1912 when the Russian working class resumed its forward movement, the split in the RSDLP was absolutely in the open.

That in the period in between it was possible to preserve formal unity.

Lenin's light to direct revolutionary agitation and the ideas of Marxism towards the Russian workers in the struggle for a revolutionary party was consistent throughout, but the particular form it assumed differed from period to period During the periods of the rising struggle of the working class the priority was given to the open mass work of which the Bolsheviks could take advantage; during the periods of retreat to consolidation of the gains made; to the preparation of the core of the party inside the RSDLP for the coming upsurge During the

YISM

stormy periods ti working class wa mobilised on the Soviets, during il area of work was stormy periods the vanguard of the ; to be streps se lulls the fact iard fou and the ion s of the id and in the central truggle in the RSDLP. Far from la period in which utely open split 'disunity' Lenin period in which parties we attack. was menting the 1905 there was an absol. as a period of party described it as the "The revolutionary re learning how to the "dress rehearsal TOr Ine 131 revolution. Ine rise of the revolution itself could not have permitted unity between Bolshevism and Menshevik opportunism.

Marshall and Yeeles set aside historical context to the splits unifications conducted b the attempt ag historiar ian account f Ler mysteric y desc If the reader Pearce's account, complete opposite Pearce shows how fight for revolut sheviks. loing Br hei rce, tactics "excell Ily loo reveals le IMG vi in used unity supp wh OT LenIn s TactIcS u sly describe as "excellen reader actually looks ponucer leaders Bolshevi •a de against agitation Congress to ba o sm 10л.

HAIM

irker Menshevik for enve n was taken (7909) a sonarate Bolshavik rad at anco, as advo cated by some dogenoration of ationism'. The aroused misgivin anshevik rank omracos inaignant at tne Menshovism into liquid latter devolopmont had is among many of the and He who though uny win BOISHeVIKS On some important political points, shared with them the conviction that the workers must retain an independent party of their own, organised for illegal as wall as legal activity. If the Bolshaviks played their cards properly they could win over substantial section of this Menshevik rank and file; at this stage it would be wrong to take the initiative in splitting the party, though a split was inevitable in tha not too distant future. A fight must be waged under the slogan of "presarvation and consolidation of the RSDLP'• In fact this period provides an excellent example of how the struggle for unity on a revolutionary basis can be used to split off revol.

utionary from non-revolut lary elements. The p Zvesda y the Bolsheviks and pro-party' Mensheviks between 1910 and 1912 set out to organise the revolutionary forces in the RSDLP on a 'definite party line'. The fact that the pro party Menshevik faction soon dis appeared after 1912 was the vindi cation of Lenin's fight for regroup ment and unity on a firm ideologica basis. Marst Weekly merised isational questio aper Zvesda run b obscur by the unity f the II, Yeel es and the obscure these points. Mes- rospect of organ they ignore the ruggle for political

TRO YISM TSK

unity. Instead we are told that the "size of the differences" between the WSL and the IMG are not as great as those between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks, Trotsky and Stalin.

This is simply ahistorical nonsense. The question of the 'size' of differences is not a fixed immutable thing; a question arithmetic, which can be determ by formal agreement on this or question at any particulart Centrism and revisionism today not take as their point of depar for activity the writings f Axe or Martov. of time. While it true that the content of revisionism (its turning away from the question of revolutionary leader- ship and the independence of the working class from the bureaucracy and the bourgeoisie) remains the same, the form grows out of a struggle against Marxism. At each stage in history revolutionary tradition is used as a cover for anti- Marxist theory and practice.

Lenin's bitter struggle against the Mensheviks began on apparently 'minor' questions. It was successful, as Socialist Press has shown in its articles dealing with the subject, because he understood from the start that these 'minor questions were a pale reflection of a very deep opportunism; he organised his supporters for struggle on the basis of that understanding. *If you must unite, Marx wrote to the Party leaders, then enter into agreements to satisfy the practical aims of the move- ment, but do not allow any bargaining over principles, do not make 'concessions' in questions of theory.. Without a revolutionary theory there can be no rovolutionary movement. This though cannot be insisted too strongly at a time when the fashionable preaching of opportunism goes hand in hand with an infatuation for the narrowest forms of practical activity. Yet, for Russian Social Democrats the importance of theory is enhanced by throe circumstances, which are often forgotten: firstly by the fact that our Party is only in the process of formation, he restures are only just becoming outlined, and it is yet far from having settled accounts with other trends of revolutionary thought which threaten to divert the movement from the correct path . Under these circumstances what at first sight appears to be an "unimportant" mistake may lead to most deplorablo consaquences, and only shortsighted peoplo can consider differen- factional disputes tiation between shades inopportune or superfluous. The fate of Russian Social Democracy for many, many years to come may depend on the strengthening of one or another "shade"." (What Is To Be Don p.28). Today the minor differences with the IMG reflect themselves in a completely different orientation towards the working class and the tasks which face it; we have no doubt (and the experience so far has con [Poking, 1973] med this that these fferences Il widen unless the IMG is able, as a result of the fight of the WL, to radically break with its past, absorb new lessons and undergo a trans- formation on all levels. To speak of the 'size' of differences has no mean- ing in this context. In their time Lenin and Trotsky always faced towards the advanced workers that could be won to Marxism. It is this that makes a comparison between the IMG and the WS with the Mensheviks and Lenin or the Stalintern and Trotsky a futile axercice The RSDIP and the Second fir wil International as a whole, despite bourgeois opportunism of leaders, contained the cream of working class the most serious advanced workers who had com understand the need for a wor class party to struggle for social The Comintern likewise was party of those workers who developed on the strengths of early Second International and come to recognise fully the need revolu ship. It is laughable the "United" Secre movements like prefers, after Len turn away from towards the wor advanced sections. We disagree with those like the IMG who claim that to win the advanced workers it is helpful to seek "unity" on a "lowest common denominator basis between groups pue to put tariat o these. in and circle king he IMG or a par with The WSL Trotsky, to politics, and class and its claiming to be position is only the absolutely li politics of the Party today-for need only be ge socialism, again not racialists-or Workers Revoluti Trotskyist. Such a one step away from quidationist "mass" Socialist Workers whom new recruits serally in favour of st capitalism, and of the "Trotsk ist" onary Party.

PAGE 13

We st Trotsky fusion Mezhray he was Bolshevik published in Pravda: "Thera are in my opinion at the present time differences either in principle or tactics between the inter- and the Bolshevik organisations.

Accordingly there are no motives which justify tha separate existence of these arganisations." (History of the Russian Revolution 2, Page 296). Trotsky, in other words, has closely scrutinised the principles upheld by Lenin's party, and their tactical methods of translating those principles into practice. And he has found complete agreement, on which political basis he proposes fusion.

low different from the IMG's call to "unite" and "fuse". The IMG seek out no discussion on political principles. They pursue no discussion on the brazenly obvious tactical differences that place an enormous question mark over the possibility of a unified movement. They make no attempt to prove either to their own members or to the WL that any political basis for fusion actually exists. Instead they attempt to assure all and sundry tha political differences are secondary so-called "organisational principles For the IMG to play any role in the fight to reconstr Fourth International this grading of political principle, striving to adapt at each point to latest forces on the scene, must consciously ended. And the political led its leadership to must be examined, roots, which are to post war crisis and the Fourth Internati ould recall instead the way approached the issue of between the inter-district ontsi organisation (of which then a member) with the Party in July 1917. He the following statement serious uct the this the be method that such a posit together with be found in disorientation onal

BOOKS

HE BATTLE FOR

TROTSKYISM

Documents of the 1974 exp in the Workers Revolutionar which led to the formation Work rs Socialist E1 League. .00 plus

TE TRANSITIONA

PROGRAMME

founding programme ourth International, ith an introduction hornett, nd glossary 30 pl Par f the the nted Alan

TOOL ROOM STRIKE

THE FIGHT TO END

WAGE CONTROL

mphlet Number 1, tracing ulent struggles that brought Lab coalition to power and the end of wage control. 25p, plus 10p p&

WSL

the tu the Li fo to PI Available from Folrose Books 31, Dartmoutt Londor NW5

PAGE 14

TROTSKYISM TODAY