Die Neue Zeit
1st November 2008, 06:51
[A post similar to this was posted in the "anarchist obsession" thread, but I want to cover more here.]
One key problem in regards to left unity is the question of elections. Like national liberation, everybody in a particular group has to be for or against "the ballot" as a tactic, even though everybody acknowledges beforehand that it cannot "conquer the state" (a lesson lost here is that the anti-liberation Rosa Luxemburg and the pro-liberation Karl Kautsky were in the same party). Most groups don't bother with, say, referendum drives for at least key elements of their respective minimum programs. Then there are groups that are just for "direct action."
I have re-read my own article on "Unity in Action, Freedom of Discussion and Criticism" (http://www.revleft.com/vb/unity-action-freedom-t74836/index.html), but in addition to this I have read a rather interesting article by Lenin in 1906:
Freedom to Criticise and Unity of Action (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1906/may/20c.htm)
This work is interesting in that the SPD-inspired (http://www.revleft.com/vb/sozialdemokratische-partei-deutschlands-t79754/index.html) organizational concept of democratic centralism was popularized in the RSDLP (even by the Mensheviks). In fact, in this article Lenin quoted the party's Central Committee:
that at public political meetings members of the Party should refrain from conducting agitation that runs counter to congress decisions
As I noted before, and as Lenin himself commented in this work, this is be a bit too strict, and is typical Trotskyist "democratic" centralism. Now:
Criticism within the limits of the principles of the Party Programme must be quite free (we remind the reader of what Plekhanov said on this subject at the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P.), not only at Party meetings, but also at public meetings. Such criticism, or such “agitation” (for criticism is inseparable from agitation) cannot be prohibited [...] Obviously, the Central Committee has defined freedom to criticise inaccurately and too narrowly, and unity of action inaccurately and too broadly.
To be sure, though, there's a certain level of professionalism that should be exercised when deciding to conduct "agitation that runs counter to congress decisions" (nothing in this 1906 work talks about opposition to the decisions of the Central Committee, whose historic insurrectionary decision was opposed publicly by Zinoviev and Kamenev).
This work is also interesting due to its commentary on elections:
Let us take an example. The Congress decided that the Party should take part in the Duma elections. Taking part in elections is a very definite action. During the elections (as in Baku today, for example), no member of the Party anywhere has any right ’whatever to call upon the people to abstain from voting; nor can “criticism” of the decision to take part in the elections be tolerated during this period, for it would in fact jeopardise success in the election campaign. Before elections have been announced, however, Party members everywhere have a perfect right to criticise the decision to take part in elections. Of course, the application of this principle in practice will sometimes give rise to disputes and misunderstandings; but only on the basis of this principle can all disputes and all misunderstandings be settled honourably for the Party. The resolution of the Central Committee, however, creates an impossible situation.
The Central Committee’s resolution is essentially wrong and runs counter to the Party Rules. The principle of democratic centralism and autonomy for local Party organisations implies universal and full freedom to criticise, so long as this does not disturb the unity of a definite action; it rules out all criticism which disrupts or makes difficult the unity of an action decided on by the Party.
Even considering my own personal stance against electoralism as a tactic (http://www.revleft.com/vb/united-social-labour-t75056/index.html?t=75056), I myself am willing to be dynamic on this subject, and specifically flexible on the term "definite action."
The mass class-strugglist organization should by default be ANTI-electoral except on referendum questions posed by the state (read: spoilage, refusal of ballots, but NOT abstention), but whenever elections come up the Party should decide, as a "definite action," to set up a UNITED "electoral platform" (i.e., based on the Party's minimum program and precluding the transformation of intra-party squabbles into multiple "electoral platforms") for Party activists who wish to stand in elections or promote such candidates.
This is not the same as the usually opportunist frontism, in which the front group has liberal-leaning individuals who aren't members of the Party.
Party members outside this "platform" should continue to advocate anti-electoralism (the question of anti-electoralism in places where "platform" members are running depends precisely on how many are running and their chances of getting into the legislature), while party members inside this "platform" should follow Lenin's suggestion. Once the elections are complete, the "platform" dissolves. Those who happen to be elected are under the direct control of the Party. This dissolution is an acknowledgement that "the ballot" cannot "conquer the state."
However, the regular Party members could combine non-abstention spoilage, refusal of ballots, etc. for elections with referendum drives (gathering the required signatures) for key elements of the Party's minimum program or, in the case of maximalists such as the DeLeonists, with constitutional referendum drives for the socialist program.
Thoughts?
One key problem in regards to left unity is the question of elections. Like national liberation, everybody in a particular group has to be for or against "the ballot" as a tactic, even though everybody acknowledges beforehand that it cannot "conquer the state" (a lesson lost here is that the anti-liberation Rosa Luxemburg and the pro-liberation Karl Kautsky were in the same party). Most groups don't bother with, say, referendum drives for at least key elements of their respective minimum programs. Then there are groups that are just for "direct action."
I have re-read my own article on "Unity in Action, Freedom of Discussion and Criticism" (http://www.revleft.com/vb/unity-action-freedom-t74836/index.html), but in addition to this I have read a rather interesting article by Lenin in 1906:
Freedom to Criticise and Unity of Action (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1906/may/20c.htm)
This work is interesting in that the SPD-inspired (http://www.revleft.com/vb/sozialdemokratische-partei-deutschlands-t79754/index.html) organizational concept of democratic centralism was popularized in the RSDLP (even by the Mensheviks). In fact, in this article Lenin quoted the party's Central Committee:
that at public political meetings members of the Party should refrain from conducting agitation that runs counter to congress decisions
As I noted before, and as Lenin himself commented in this work, this is be a bit too strict, and is typical Trotskyist "democratic" centralism. Now:
Criticism within the limits of the principles of the Party Programme must be quite free (we remind the reader of what Plekhanov said on this subject at the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P.), not only at Party meetings, but also at public meetings. Such criticism, or such “agitation” (for criticism is inseparable from agitation) cannot be prohibited [...] Obviously, the Central Committee has defined freedom to criticise inaccurately and too narrowly, and unity of action inaccurately and too broadly.
To be sure, though, there's a certain level of professionalism that should be exercised when deciding to conduct "agitation that runs counter to congress decisions" (nothing in this 1906 work talks about opposition to the decisions of the Central Committee, whose historic insurrectionary decision was opposed publicly by Zinoviev and Kamenev).
This work is also interesting due to its commentary on elections:
Let us take an example. The Congress decided that the Party should take part in the Duma elections. Taking part in elections is a very definite action. During the elections (as in Baku today, for example), no member of the Party anywhere has any right ’whatever to call upon the people to abstain from voting; nor can “criticism” of the decision to take part in the elections be tolerated during this period, for it would in fact jeopardise success in the election campaign. Before elections have been announced, however, Party members everywhere have a perfect right to criticise the decision to take part in elections. Of course, the application of this principle in practice will sometimes give rise to disputes and misunderstandings; but only on the basis of this principle can all disputes and all misunderstandings be settled honourably for the Party. The resolution of the Central Committee, however, creates an impossible situation.
The Central Committee’s resolution is essentially wrong and runs counter to the Party Rules. The principle of democratic centralism and autonomy for local Party organisations implies universal and full freedom to criticise, so long as this does not disturb the unity of a definite action; it rules out all criticism which disrupts or makes difficult the unity of an action decided on by the Party.
Even considering my own personal stance against electoralism as a tactic (http://www.revleft.com/vb/united-social-labour-t75056/index.html?t=75056), I myself am willing to be dynamic on this subject, and specifically flexible on the term "definite action."
The mass class-strugglist organization should by default be ANTI-electoral except on referendum questions posed by the state (read: spoilage, refusal of ballots, but NOT abstention), but whenever elections come up the Party should decide, as a "definite action," to set up a UNITED "electoral platform" (i.e., based on the Party's minimum program and precluding the transformation of intra-party squabbles into multiple "electoral platforms") for Party activists who wish to stand in elections or promote such candidates.
This is not the same as the usually opportunist frontism, in which the front group has liberal-leaning individuals who aren't members of the Party.
Party members outside this "platform" should continue to advocate anti-electoralism (the question of anti-electoralism in places where "platform" members are running depends precisely on how many are running and their chances of getting into the legislature), while party members inside this "platform" should follow Lenin's suggestion. Once the elections are complete, the "platform" dissolves. Those who happen to be elected are under the direct control of the Party. This dissolution is an acknowledgement that "the ballot" cannot "conquer the state."
However, the regular Party members could combine non-abstention spoilage, refusal of ballots, etc. for elections with referendum drives (gathering the required signatures) for key elements of the Party's minimum program or, in the case of maximalists such as the DeLeonists, with constitutional referendum drives for the socialist program.
Thoughts?