💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › geoff-foote-building-the-revolutionary-party.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 10:31:46. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Building the Revolutionary Party?
Author: Geoff Foote
Date: 1974
Language: en
Topics: vanguard, Leninism, critique of leftism, Libertarian Communist Review, political parties
Source: Retrieved on 8th August 2021 from http://struggle.ws/ora/rev_party.html
Notes: Originally published in Libertarian Communist Review No. 1 by the Organisation of Revolutionary Anarchists.

Geoff Foote

Building the Revolutionary Party?

Since the 1917 Russian Revolution, it has been generally accepted on the

left that a revolutionary party, in the sense of a ‘van-guard’, is

necessary for a successful revolution. Anarchist criticism has been

shrugged off as coming from a numerically insignificant group of

purists, who, unlike the Leninists, have never carried out a successful

revolution. However, the denunciation of Stalin by Khruschev, and the

crushing of the Hungarian revolt in 1956 (among other things) has made

it manifestly clear to all but the most blinkered that the revolution in

Russia has been a failure. It might have been thought that Leninism

would have been completely discredited, but myths about Stalin have been

replaced by myths about Mao or Castro, or in the case of the Trotskyists

the myth that the revolution could have been successful, if it had the

‘correct’ leadership. Leninism, in its Stalinist or Trotskyist forms,

remains the dominant ideology of the revolutionary left, partly because

the emphasis on authority and leadership is more comprehensible to

people raised in an authoritarian society than is the Anarchist

rejection of authoritarianism. Anarchism has often gained ground after a

revolution, when people resent attempts to reimpose authority on them.

But though in the present situation in Britain, the Anarchists are

numerically even more insignificant than the Trotskyists, our ideas

remain important since they not only raise the question of the nature of

post revolutionary society, but also the related problem of how to

launch a successful revolution. This is seen above all in the Anarchist

rejection of the revolutionary party in its Leninist sense.

The main argument of this article is that the party is the reflection of

the society it seeks to create. In looking at the major left groupings —

social democratic, Stalinist, Leninist, Trotskyist — there is obviously

a certain simplification. For instance, I ignore theories put forward by

Gramsci and Luxembourg as well as groupings like the left of the Labour

Party (a peculiar amalgam of Methodism, Social Democracy and Stalinism).

A lack of space does not allow as complete a discussion of the problem

as I would like, and certainly people like Gramsci should not be

ignored. However, at this time it is necessary to concentrate on the

main party groupings.

I. Social democracy

In bourgeois democratic society the structure of these political parties

which support the existing social order — conservative or reformist —

are mirrors of a hierarchical authoritarian society. In the same way it

can be said that those organisations which seek to transform society in

the interests of the working class reflect within their structure the

type of society they wish to create. The social democratic party, for

example, derives its structure from its attitude towards bourgeois

authority. Social democrats seek to create a socialist society on behalf

of the working class, but fail to challenge the institutions of

bourgeois democracy. Since social democrats accept the authority of the

bourgeois state and law, they become agents of that authority. They make

the mistake of assuming that the state stands above the class conflict,

to be captured at elections by the representatives of the bourgeoisie or

the proletariat. In fact the State is in the midst of the class

struggle, operating as the armed wing of the ruling class. This can be

seen not only in this country, but also in other European Social

Democratic parties (e.g.. the French socialists under Mollet sent troops

on an imperialist expedition to Suez in 1956 — and justified it in

Marxist terms. The German social democrats have a long history of acting

as instruments of bourgeois authority, from their suppression of the

Spartakist revolt to their support for the West German emergency laws).

The contradictions of social democracy — a result of its attitude to

authority — resolve themselves into the position of undermining the

revolutionary potential of the working class.

The social democratic vision of a new society — essentially same as the

old one in all respects but with the exception that the people are ruled

with a beneficial paternalism which will end inequalities — is mirrored

in its organisational structure. The leadership is a small bureaucracy

running a mass party. The most important section of the leadership — the

parliamentary party — is completely out of control of the mass

organisation. Nominations for parliamentary candidature must be approved

by the leadership. In Britain, the Labour Party group which draws up

policies for the next election (the National Executive Committee) is

elected by non mandated conference delegates, and is thus out of control

of the membership. When left wing policies are forward they are ignored

(e.g.. Gaitskell over CND in 1960 and Wilson during and after government

office). The mass membership of the party has all the abstract freedoms

of bourgeois society — freedom of speech, freedom to hold radically

different ideas etc., — so that Trotskyist ‘entrist’ groups like the

Revolutionary Socialist League can co-exist with rightists like Woodrow

Wyatt (and millionaire capitalists like Robert Maxwell) without

upsetting the party. The parallels with bourgeois society are made

complete by the fact that as soon as ‘subversive’ groups begin to pose a

serious threat, as did the Communist Party in the 20’s or the SLL in the

60’; they are expelled en masse. Of course this does not mean that

social democratic parties are any more free of mass pressures than are

the ruling class. They need to win elections, and are often driven to

absurd promises, like calling for a price freeze in a capitalist society

caught in the throes of international inflation — a policy made more

absurd and phoney by the fact that it is proposed by Wilson and

Callaghan, instigators of the 1966 wage freeze. We can see from this

that the institutionalised formal democracy of social democratic parties

— a form without any substance — is a mirror of the social democrat’s

vision of socialism as a bourgeois society without the bourgeoisie.

2. The Stalinist parties

Unlike the social democrats the Stalinists (and I do not count the

British CP as Stalinist but as left social democrat) seek to challenge

bourgeois authority. However, they do not do so in the interests of

democratic liberty, but in the interests of an opposing authority which

claims to be more efficient than the bourgeoisie. Capitalist ‘anarchy’

will be replaced by bureaucratic planning which will end bourgeois

exploitation and inequality of distribution. The Stalinist view of a

socialist society — a bureaucratic State on the model of the USSR, with

a monolithic ideology, where a small leadership dictates policy to the

masses, — is reflected in the structure of the Stalinist parties.

Because of its historic origins in Leninism, the party is committed to

democratic centralism but real democracy is absent, because of the

banning of factions, and the demand that the membership must submit

completely to the policies worked out in the Central Committee. The

Stalinists’ subjection to the need to defend Russia often leads to a

situation where it can be revolutionary (eg. the big strike called by

the Communists in France and Italy in 1947/48) or, more usually,

counter-revolutionary (eg. Stalinist opposition to the Spanish

revolution of 1936, their attitude to the May revolt in France in 1968).

The contradictions of Stalinism attempting to change society are no less

great than those of social democracy.

3. Lenin’s concept of the party

Unlike social democracy and Stalinism, Leninism seeks to challenge

bourgeois authority in the name of revolutionary freedom. Lenin in

‘State and Revolution’ called for a society where the State — defined as

an instrument of class oppression — would eventually disappear. The

paradox emerges when a Leninist government suppressed freedom and

smashed the attempt of the Russian working class to free itself from

rulers. This paradox is made clear only if we keep in mind that the

revolutionary party is a reflection of the social order it seeks to

create. It is significant that Chris Harman should write that: “It is

important to note that for Lenin the party is not the embryo of the

workers’ state.” [1], while at the same time attributing the failure of

the Russian revolution to the fact that it took place in a

non-industrialised country racked by Civil War and international

bourgeois intervention, While nobody can underestimate the tremendous

consequences of such ‘external’ factors it would be completely

misleading to ignore ‘internal’ factors such as the Leninist theory of

the Party and the relationship between the party and the working class.

Lenin’s theory of the party is derived from his view of the nature of

revolution and the role of revolutionaries. Revolution, Lenin correctly

saw, is of necessity authoritarian. As Engels wrote: “A revolution is

certainly the most authoritarian thing there is: it is an act whereby

one part of the population imposes its will on the other by means of

rifles, bayonets and cannon all of which are highly authoritarian means.

“[2] (This does not mean of course that a revolution cannot be the most

liberating thing there is). From this arises the idea that a

transitional regime — the dictatorship of the proletariat — is needed to

smash any attempt by the bourgeoisie to destroy the revolution. The role

of the revolutionary party in this situation is the role of political

leadership of the working class. “There could not have been social

democratic consciousness among the workers. It would have to be brought

to them from without...the working class exclusively by its own efforts

is able to develop only trade union consciousness” [3]. Lenin later

modified this position to take account of the undeniable spontaneity of

the class. (“The economists have gone to one extreme. To straighten

matters out one had to pull in the other direction, and this is what I

have done” [4]. Lenin often pointed out that the proletariat was

sometimes more revolutionary than the party. But the primary role of

creating consciousness lies in the party: “The working class is

instinctively, spontaneously social democratic, and more than ten years

of work put in by social democracy has done a great deal to transform

this spontaneity into consciousness.” [5] Leadership is absolutely

necessary for revolutionary success because of the fragmentation of

consciousness and the organisation of the ruling class. But the nature

of this leadership is more than mere persuasion and raising of

consciousness. Such leadership is inevitable in any situation where many

people are confused because they have never thought about the issues and

listen to someone who has — who is in that sense a leader. An

organisation which seeks to link local struggles and explain a future

course is, whether we like it or not, necessary. But the Leninist party

is not only concerned with ideological leadership. It seeks political

leadership of the State, since the proletariat, unlike a democratic

centralist party, does not necessarily have the ‘concrete view’ even

after a revolution. Even in his most ‘libertarian ‘ text Lenin writes:

“By educating the workers’ party, Marxism educates the vanguard of the

proletariat, capable of assuming power and leading the whole people to

socialism” [6] Lenin later explains the reason for this vanguard of the

proletariat: “We are not Utopians, we do not dream of disposing at once

with all administration, with all subordination.... No, we want the

socialist revolution with subordination, control and foremen and

accountants. “ [7]. Any notion of self emancipation and self education

is missing in Lenin. Realising the strength of the authoritarian culture

he attacks and underestimates the speed with which many people overthrow

authoritarian ideology in a revolutionary situation. He fails to see

that “.. if the proletariat itself does not know how to create the

necessary prerequisites for the socialist organisation of labour, no one

can do this for it and no one can compel it to do this.. Socialism and

socialist organisation will be set up by the proletariat itself, or they

will not be set up at all. Something else will be set up — State

capitalism” [8].

4. Leninist substitutionism

Just as in the transitional regime of ‘proletarian’ dictatorship the

hierarchy of authority and subordination remains, so in the party there

is in the Central Committee and its policies. There is a hierarchy of

authority. District and factory circles, local and territorial

committees are elected and their decisions are then communicated from

the top down. Opposition from the subordinates is quashed, or at best

tolerated. In Russia the Left Communists were hounded out of existence

in 1918. From the Democratic Centralists and the Workers’ Opposition

were frowned upon, and eventually, in 1921, after a party Congress which

oppositionists claimed had rigged delegations, all factions were banned

within the party (like most permanent bans, this was ‘temporary’). The

Cheka was then used against the oppositionists forced to illegally

[operate underground?]. Trotsky summed up Leninist ideas vividly in 1924

when he said: “...the Party in the last analysis is always right,

because the Party is the single historical instrument given to the

proletariat for the solution of its basic problems... I know that one

must not be right against the party. One can be right only with the

Party, and through the Party for history has no other road for being in

the right.” [9] Ironically it was Trotsky himself who, in 1904 had

pointed out the danger of such ideas. Before he became a Leninist he

[said?] in a polemic against Leninist views of the Party: “ The

organisation of the party substitutes itself for the party as a whole,

when the central committee itself for the organisation, and finally the

dictator substitutes himself for the central committee.” [10]

This substitutionism in the party was reflected in the society the

Bolsheviks — created. The rule of the party (or rather, its Central

Committee) was substituted for the rule of the proletariat. The workers’

committees running industry were castrated in 1917–1918 (before the

civil war, the devastating effects of which are the constant excuse for

Trotskyist and Stalinist apologists) in preparation for one man

management. By the summer of 1918 elections to the Soviets had become a

farce. In 1918 the Red Army, originally a democratic militia, was

transformed by Trotsky into a non-democratic army on the bourgeois

model, with saluting, different living quarters for officers, the death

penalty for desertion etc.. In 1920 Trotsky (supported at first by

Lenin) called for the militarisaton of labour — labour armies to be used

as scabs — and the substitution of Party controlled production unions

for genuine Trade Unions. The nature of the Party after 1914 (when it

was broadened by many who agreed with Lenin only on the need to turn the

imperialist war into a civil war) meant that these proposals came under

fire from a significant minority (and in the case of the militarisation

of labour possibly a majority). But as we have seen this opposition, and

even the right to organise opposition, was effectively ended with the

1921 Party Congress.

Thus the original paradox, that Leninism, a doctrine calling for

revolutionary freedom destroyed that freedom, can be seen not to be a

paradox at all. Lenin’s talk of proletarian democracy, and freedom from

authority in ‘State and Revolution’ remained just that — talk. By

removing such notions to a vague future, Lenin banished them to the

realm of abstraction. What remained was the immediate task of

overthrowing capitalism and establishing a transitional regime.

Bourgeois authority was not challenged by the authority of a

revolutionary proletariat (which alone would have laid the real

preconditions for the abolition of authoritarianism) but by the

authority of a political party — self proclaimed ‘vanguard of the

proletariat’. Precisely because, as one prominent Left Communist

proclaimed “socialism and socialist organisation will be set up by the

proletariat itself, or they will not he set up at all’, the

‘transitional’ regime of 1917/18 remains with us today, more powerful

than ever.

5. The Trotskyist attitude

The Trotskyist never learned anything from failure of the Russian

revolution. Trotsky himself was never to make more than a partial break

with the USSR., and was led into the contradictory position of defining

Russia as a degenerated workers’ state. Leninist organisation with its

hierarchies, its authoritarianism and its notions of leadership and

subordination remained. “The leading cadre plays the same decisive role

in relation to party that the party plays in relation to the class “

[10] write Cannon, leader of the largest of the American Trotskyist

groups, the Socialist Workers’ party. There is the same intolerance to

opposition: “Those who try to break up the historically created cadre of

the Trotskyist parties are in reality aiming to break up the parties and

to Iiquidate the Trotskyist movement. They will not succeed. The

Trotskyist parties will liquidate the liquidators, and the SWP has the

high historic privilege of setting the example” [11] These are the

madmen that claim to be our leaders! The authoritarian structure of the

parties is a reflection of the society they seek to create.

Another Trotskyist leader, Ernest Mandel, writes: “Anyone who believes

that the mass of the imperialist countries are ready today to take over

the running of the economy at once, without first passing through the

school of workers ‘ control is deceiving himself and others with

dangerous illusions.” [12] More explicitly he writes: “The production

relations are not changed so long as the private employer has merely

been replaced by the employer state, embodied in some all power manager,

technocrat or bureaucrat.... The classical solution is the succession of

phases: workers’ control (i.e.. supervision of the management by the

workers), workers participation in the management; and workers self —

management.” [13]. Like Lenin. the Trotskyists wish democracy and

freedom away to a vague future ‘when the workers are ready for it’. They

also reduce it to an abstraction.

6. Lenism — the I.S. variant

The one revolutionary group in Britain which seemed to many to have

learned the lessons of the failure of the Russian revolution, and

attempted to be both Leninist and libertarian, was the International

Socialists.[WM note — This group is now the Socialist Workers Party]

Their emphasis on democracy within the party is shown in a book by three

of their most prominent members — Party and Class. Here Duncan Hallas

writes that a revolutionary party cannot possibly be created except on a

thoroughly democratic basis, that unless in its internal life vigorous

tendencies and shades of opinion are represented, a socialist party

cannot rise above the level of a sect. “Internal democracy is not an

optional extra. It is fundamental to the relationship between party

members and those amongst whom they work.”[14] In the same book Tony

Cliff writes: “because the working class is far from being monolithic,

and because the path to socialism is uncharted, wide differences of

strategy and tactics can and should exist in the revolutionary party.

The alternative is the bureacratised party or the sect with its

leader... Scientific socialism must live and thrive on controversy” [15]

It seems odd that such democratic sentiments should co-exist with a

total support for the Bolshevik practice during the Russian revolution.

Even those members of I.S. who, like Peter Sedgewick argued that the

degeneration of the revolution had occurred by 1918, attribute the decay

to the “military depredation and economic ruin which wrought havoc in an

already enfeebled Russia.” [16] No mention of the Leninist view of the

Party. Libertarian socialism and Leninism are incompatible — and the

I.S. group has remained Leninist, and we have recently begun to see the

results.

The stress on democracy within the group has been exposed as hollow. As

early as 1971, the I.S. leadership reversed a national conference

decision that the group should take a principled abstentionist position

on Britain’s entry into the E.E.C. Instead, they adopted a position of

opposition to entry. The way in which the opposition groups like Workers

Fight and the “Right Opposition” were expelled is startling in view of

the groups previous emphasis on faction rights. Tony Cliff has abandoned

his earlier position in “Party and Class” that “wide differences in

strategy and tactics can and should exist in the revolutionary party”

[17], and now holds that “I.S, is a voluntary organisation of people who

disagree or agree within narrow limits” (l9).

The libertarian rhetoric of a society based on workers’ councils

remains, but it is nothing more than a rhetoric. Certain questions are

never raised, let alone answered. Will the factories be under workers’

self-management during the ‘transitional period”? Will the Workers’

State be a federation of workers’ councils, under the direct control of

the working class (a libertarian idea) or will it be a centralised

bureaucracy co-existing with workers councils on the Yugoslav model (a

Leninist idea)? What happens if there is a conflict between the

centralised authority and the workers’ councils? (When such a conflict

occurred in Russia in 1917/18 and in Spain 1936/37 it was the councils

who lost out). Above- all, what will be the relationships of the

vanguard party to the State, the Workers’ Councils, and the working

class? How will it avoid substitutionism? Cliffs argument in ‘Party and

Class’ that substitutionism can be stopped by a diligent leadership is

completely inadequate.

7. The Libertarian position

Nobody denies that the condition for revolution in Britain will be

different from those that prevailed in Russia. However, the idea of a

vanguard party remains, as does the danger that the “transitional

period” will prove far from transitional. The idea that the working

class can be liberated by a party — no matter how correct its line — is

an abstraction. All that would happen would be the creation of a new

ruling class, as has been seen in Russia and other “socialist”

countries. The working class must liberate itself, as called for by

Marx, and in doing so it will create the preconditions for the

liberation of all oppressed groups from authority.

Our relationship to Leninist theory must be made clear. Leninism has its

strengths as well as its weaknesses. Its recognition that working class

consciousness is fragmented and generally under the hold of bourgeois

ideology is essentially correct. While he underestimates how quickly

workers can free themselves from authoritarian ideology, Lenin did

recognise the importance of leadership. Anarchists must overcome their

fear of the idea of leadership, and recognise that in any situation

where people are confused, an anarchist will provide leadership where he

or she advocates libertarian solutions. The difference is that whereas

anarchist leadership consists of persuasion and agitation, the Leninist

vanguard party seeks to go beyond agitation to actual political

leadership through its control of the state. For the purpose of

agitation on a national scale some type of organisation is necessary,

and here also Leninism should be looked at more carefully. Lenin saw

that the organisation of the party was determined by the authoritarian

society in which it existed (though he did not see that the structure of

a vanguard party determined the society which it created), and tried to

solve the problem by adopting democratic centralism. Democratic

centralism is suited for a vanguard party, but libertarianism must

reject such a form of organisation which usually turns out to be more

centralised than democratic. What is needed is an organisation with a

high degree of theoretical clarity and a fully developed sense of

responsibility towards other comrades, while at the same time

maintaining a maximum of political discussion within the organisation. A

central co-ordinating body is vital, though there must be complete and

absolute control over it by the membership and its task should be

minimal and clearly defined. Some anarchists have criticised Lenin for

his ruthlessness, but I believe that such a criticism should be

rejected. Any successful revolution will be faced with the possibility

of civil war and tremendous economic difficulties which it will be

forced to meet ruthlessly if the revolution is to survive. In doing this

it may be necessary to do some horrifying things such as killing

ordinary workers who are fighting for the counter-revolution. But there

will be qualitative differences between the libertarian and the Leninist

attitudes. We are fighting for different aims, and so must reject

policies like creating a secret police, prison camps and “red terror”.

Such policies would destroy revolutionary freedom. We must be prepared

to accept defeat rather than engage in such actions.

Finally, we must recognise with Lenin that authority can only be

defeated by authority. Lenin recognised that the State is an instrument

of coercion by one class against another, and pointed out that a

Workers’ State will be necessary in the turmoil of revolution in order

to coerce the bourgeoisie. Nevertheless, we must differentiate ourselves

from Lenin’s view of the State. To Lenin the state was a centralised

republic co-existing with workers’ councils, with the vanguard party

controlling the centre. To libertarians, it is a decentralised

federation of workers’ councils under the direct and absolute control of

the working class. Such a state is one that begins to cease being a

state almost immediately. It is not the institutionalisation of class

oppression like the Leninist state, but the foundations of liberation.

Since the concept of a workers’ state is now fully associated with

Leninism, and it is thereby simplified to become merely class oppression

rather than being simultaneously the institutions of liberation, which

necessitates the dissolution of the state anarchists reject the [idea

that?] revolutionary society will have a state in its initial phase.

One thing we must reject clearly is the notion of a centralised vanguard

party. The division of labour between those who rule and those who are

ruled has lasted too long, and can only be ended by the

self-emancipation of the working class. It is absolutely necessary that

anarchists clarify their relationship to this self-emancipation, and the

debate on organisation within the libertarian movement must develop in a

clear and realistic direction.

by Geoff Foote

Notes

(1O) Trotsky — Our Political Tasks.

[1] Chris Harmon — Party and Class.

[2] Engels — On Authority.

[3] Lenin — What is to be done

[4] Lenin — Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P.

[5] Lenin — The Re — organisation of the Party.

[6] Lenin — The State and Revolution.

[7] ibid.

[8] Osinsky — On the building of Socialism in Kommunist

[9] Trotsky — Thirteenth Party Congress.

[10] James Cannon — Factional Struggle and Party Leadership, in S.W.P.

pamphlet In defence of the Revolutionary Party.

[11] Ibid

[12] Mandel — Workers Control and Workers Councils.

[13] Mandel — Marxist Economic Theory. Vol. 2

[14] Duncan Hallas Towards a Revolutionary Socialist Party in Party and

Class

[15] Tony Cliff — Trotsky on Substitutionism in Party and Class.

[16] Peter Sedgwick — Victor Serge on Party and Class in International

Socialism 50.

[17] Tony Cliff — Party and Class.