Factions, tendencies, and platforms: organizational issues

[Die Neue Zeit]

"Indeed, the struggle of trends, platforms and factions is a normal and essential means by which its differences are collectivised and a unity created out of them. It must be a unity in diversity." (Mike Macnair, Unity in Diversity)



I've been meaning to pose this issue for some time.

I've read somewhere that Eurocommunists had a two-faced approach to internal organization. They didn't like factions either, but unofficially there were tendencies and platforms within each Eurocommunist party.

Just before the dissolution of the International Workingmen's Association, Bakunin and his followers were expelled for forming some sort of secret faction.

The word "factionalism" is seen throughout the political spectrum as being generally a bad thing. So, should there be an official sanction of platforms and tendencies, with a stern hand against factions and factionalism?

"Platform" could refer both to the Class-strugglist anarchist concept of Platformism as well as generally having a political program that subscribes to the basic principles of the larger organization but adds perspectives missing in the larger organization's program (i.e., lengthened section on rejecting coalitionism and mass strike-ism, lengthened cooperative program, identity politics if missing from the main program, etc.).

"Tendency" is a euphemism for open factions, with separate press and organizational matters, but overall the ability to organize is conditional upon tendency meetings and correspondence being fully disclosed (hence "open").

"Factionalism" refers to secret factions or minority factions bullying the larger organization by threatening to split unless their view is adopted by the larger organization (some Trotskyists use this age-old Menshevik tactic).

[Benjamin Hill]

The word "factionalism" is seen throughout the political spectrum as being generally a bad thing. So, should there be an official sanction of platforms and tendencies, with a stern hand against factions and factionalism?
No, I'm with Mike on this one. That said, I do think "faction" has too strong a negative connotation with it and would use different words. But this is dependent on definition. I think that a faction is a tendency which strives for a majority and had deeper differences than a tendency, which is more limited in scope to a specific tactic for example. "Platform" doesn't appear in the CWI or IMT vocabulary. Neither is there a specific difference being made on "open" versus "closed". A faction or tendency furthermore can only be declared after "serious discussion" with the leadership of the organisation, pretty much defeating the whole point of forming one, which is to discuss differences openly and among the membership.

In effect tendencies, factions and more generally any kind of constructive criticism which differs in line from the leadership is seen as a "problem". Often, at the slightest sign of "differences" leading comrades will come down to you, explaining you the "correct" line, asking (pushing) you to withdraw an amendment, etc. In this way factions and tendencies never form and tensions can boil up until a split is created.

For example, in Belgium the Walloon (French) name of the CWI section recently changed. The leadership proposed one name to the general membership to vote on: Parti Socialiste de Lutte. Some members argued for another name, but even the mere thought of such a proposition was a problem. These group of comrades, situated around Liege, recently walked out, a group of about 15. While the walkout wasn't directly linked to the name issue, it was closely related.

So yeah, unity in diversity is a very important issue, without it the organisation degenerates into a sect with an infallible leadership (effectively its only allowed faction).

[jmlima]

...I've read somewhere that Eurocommunists had a two-faced approach to internal organization. They didn't like factions either, but unofficially there were tendencies and platforms within each Eurocommunist party.
...

Speaking of what I know and not generalizing, the Portuguese one was indeed dominated by a seriously Stalinist faction, which dominated it's policies, and still does in large effect, but it is a quite 'cumbersome' old fashioned block type entity, where the sound of 'faction' is indeed looked at sideways and with scorn. I wouldn't call it tendency or platform though as the behaviour of said groups was indeed more akin to 'factions'.

Back to your question, not sure about the spirit of it, specialy and quoting , when you ask '...So, should there be an official sanction of platforms and tendencies, with a stern hand against factions and factionalism?...', what do you mean by a stern hand?

[Tower of Bebel]

Factions strive to become the leading current, which means that the difference is fundamental, while tendencies dont because the difference is minor. That's how I see it. The fact that factionalism has a negative connotation doesn't mean that factions are wrong, it simply means that most Marxist parties are bureaucratic and don't allow democratic debate. A bureaucracy simply cannot allow any serious opposition.

For example, in Belgium the Walloon (French) name of the CWI section recently changed. The leadership proposed one name to the general membership to vote on: Parti Socialiste de Lutte. Some members argued for another name, but even the mere thought of such a proposition was a problem. These group of comrades, situated around Liege, recently walked out, a group of about 15. While the walkout wasn't directly linked to the name issue, it was closely related.I wonder, could you explain the bolded part?

[Benjamin Hill]

I wonder, could you explain the bolded part?
I'm not sure I understand the question, what do you want explained?

[Die Neue Zeit]

No, I'm with Mike on this one. That said, I do think "faction" has too strong a negative connotation with it and would use different words. But this is dependent on definition. I think that a faction is a tendency which strives for a majority and had deeper differences than a tendency, which is more limited in scope to a specific tactic for example. "Platform" doesn't appear in the CWI or IMT vocabulary.

So what about the reformists in the pre-war SPD? Sometimes Lenin described them as a faction, other times a tendency. However, it should be noted that there were fundamental differences between Bernstein and Haase on the one hand and Ebert on the other.

Re. "platform": I also had in mind the Communist Platform within Die Linke.


For example, in Belgium the Walloon (French) name of the CWI section recently changed. The leadership proposed one name to the general membership to vote on: Parti Socialiste de Lutte. Some members argued for another name, but even the mere thought of such a proposition was a problem. These group of comrades, situated around Liege, recently walked out, a group of about 15. While the walkout wasn't directly linked to the name issue, it was closely related.

A split over a labelling issue?


Back to your question, not sure about the spirit of it, specially and quoting , when you ask '...So, should there be an official sanction of platforms and tendencies, with a stern hand against factions and factionalism?...', what do you mean by a stern hand?

It's a euphemism for "disciplinary measures up to and including expulsions." But again, the very words "faction" and "factionalism" are the subject of debate here.

[Benjamin Hill]

A split over a labelling issue?
On the surface, yes. Deeper though was the more universal issue of leaderships forcing their hand and memberships not feeling to be taken seriously, which was my point with the example.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Forum -> Current -> Platform -> Tendency

[Tower of Bebel]

I haven't reflected much over the recent split in the organization, even though 3 bulletins were published covering the issue. Nor have I discussed this with anyone due to work.

Apparently, the Liège split occured because the group of 9 that left didn't want to discuss the issue any further and/or form a tendency. They didn't want to because they shared the opinion that the party wasn't democratic enough to allow any effective opposition within its ranks.

A comrade who challenged the leadership's proposal almost two years ago with a totally different name also left a few months ago. A similar reason was given.

Both cases saw some discussion over different issues (collaboration with the USFI, the name of the paper, ground work, etc.), but similarities can be found in the reasons given for leaving the organization, the fact that both supported a different proposal at the latest congres (2008), and their past: all were former members of the Belgian section of the IST (liquidated itself and merged with the CWI in the '90s).

The "documents" related to both cases are not yet published (online).

[Die Neue Zeit]

All were former members of the Belgian section of the IST (liquidated itself and merged with the CWI in the '90s).

Maybe this thread can afford to go slightly off-topic for a short bit, but I don't see how their past IST background is relevant.

Perhaps the split is intended to revive the IST in Belgium? Or perhaps IST types don't like the historical connotations behind the word "Militant" (upper-case M)?

[Tower of Bebel]

The split favored a method of decission making habitual to small groups. Socialisme International, the Walloon IST, was probably organized as a group, a "tendency", not a party. When important decissions need(ed) to be made the answer was: get your membership together and vote. A party, however, presupposes a different method: the formation of an authorized leadership inbetween congresses that can take those decissions within the limits defined by the congress. What the split proposed breached the centralism in democratic centralism. I understood why they proposed it, but I could not agree.

[Devrim]

That said, I do think "faction" has too strong a negative connotation with it and would use different words. But this is dependent on definition.

I think 'factionalism' has those connotations. For the communist left though 'faction' doesn't. In some ways we see the struggle of the left as one of factions fighting against degeneration.

A well know example would be the Communist Abstentionist faction in the PSI, which went on to form the Communist Party of Italy.

I think that Trotskyism from its birth was stuck in an idealist error. The Fourth International was formed in a period of working class defeat. For us the party represents a real historical thing. It is an expression of what Marx talked about as 'the class uniting as a party'. It is not something that a handful or even a few hundreds of militant can set up through voluntarism. So the Trotskyists in the new 4th International calle dtheir organisations parties. Those in the Italian left refereed to themselves as factions or fractions.


I think that a faction is a tendency which strives for a majority and had deeper differences than a tendency, which is more limited in scope to a specific tactic for example.... A faction or tendency furthermore can only be declared after "serious discussion" with the leadership of the organisation, pretty much defeating the whole point of forming one, which is to discuss differences openly and among the membership.

This is a clear and to the point explanation.

Devrim

[Die Neue Zeit]

Tendencies should have the ability to form more than one platform.

Also, scrap congresses in favour of broader party plebiscites and a recallable but otherwise more autonomous central party council/committee/secretariat.

[Crux]

So just out of curiosity, jacob, have you ever been involved in any party work yourself?

[Die Neue Zeit]

This response is more appropriate:


Reality however is that the working class is active in many places, be they unions, "bourgeois workers parties", new left parties, student movements, independently, in small groups, etc. We should strive to reach out to all these activists. Not by dictating them to move where the leadership of some revolutionary organisation wants them to move, but in contrast to aid them in their struggle for socialist politics in the place where they are active already.

[Crux]

Which doesn't answer my question at all.