Manifesto of the Workers' Group of the Russian Communist Party (Part 2)

Here is a link to the text. This is a continuation of a discussion of a writing broken up into parts on the ICC's page.

This is the part talking about the Bolsheviks forming a united front with other socialists parties during the revolution.

Was the Bolsheviks’ tactic right at this time? We do not believe that among active combatants of the October revolution there are people disputing the correctness of this tactic...What does the Russian experience teach us?
1) In certain historical moments, a united front with the bourgeoisie should be formed in countries where the country or the situation is more or less similar to that which existed in Russia before 1905.

2) In countries where the situation is somewhat similar to that in Russia between 1906 and 1917, it is necessary to abandon the tactic of a united front with the bourgeoisie and follow the tactic of a “socialist united front”.

I agree with this to a good extent. I think most underdeveloped countries fall into category number 1 for sure.

In countries where there is a direct struggle for proletarian power, it is necessary to abandon the tactic of the “socialist united front” and warn the proletariat that “the bourgeois fractions with ambiguous socialist phraseology” – at the present time all parties of the Second International – will at the crucial moment march arms in hand for the defence of the capitalist system.

This is the situation in which the United States and other industrialized countries will probably find themselves in, mainly because of their material conditions.

This is the truth about the tactic of the socialist united front which, as backed up by the theses of the Executive of the CI, is supposed to be based on the experience of the Russian revolution, whereas, in reality, it is an opportunist tactic. Such a tactic of collaboration with the declared enemies of the working class who carry out armed oppression against the revolutionary proletariat in their own and other countries is in open contradiction to the experience of the Russian revolution. In order to remain under the banner of the social revolution, we must make a “united front” against the bourgeoisie and its socialist servants.

I completely agree with this and would like to add that the United Front tactic is extremely class collaborationist.

I think that I disagree with this next part.

Discipline in negotiations, and autonomy of judgment in the internal life of the party, are formally recognised by the statutes of the RCP (Bolshevik). One must do what the majority has decided and you can only exercise the right of criticism. Do what you are commanded, but if you’re really too outraged and convinced that one is involved in harming the world revolution, you can, before, during and after the action freely express your rage.

This part seems almost like a rejection of what I would basically consider correct organizational tactics. I agree with democratic centralism in the traditional Bolshevik sense and believe that organic centralism is an extension of correct tactics of democratic centralism at a time when the Bolsheviks were calling for a bureaucratic group to direct the party and the masses take action. I agree with Bordiga, who argued for organic centralism, who believed that all party members should be actively participating in the party, but feel this is a correct extension of democratic centralism as stated before. If the decision made is really that damaging, then I would hope that the criticisms of the decision within the party, along with the negative results of such a decision, the true proletariat party would be flexible enough to change such a decision. This doesn't mean a rejection of "freedom of discussion, unity of action" by any means.

The criticisms of advocating for a workers' government instead of a dictatorship of the proletariat is great.

On this next quoted part....can I get an "ahmen" because I love it!

The time when the working class could ameliorate its own material and juridical condition through strikes and parliament is definitively passed. This must be said openly. The struggle for the most immediate objectives is a struggle for power. We must show through our propaganda that, although on numerous occasions we have incited strikes, we haven’t really been able to ameliorate the condition of the workers, but you, workers, you have not yet gone beyond the old reformist illusion and are undertaking a struggle which weakens you. We can of course be in solidarity with you during strikes, but we will always come back to saying that these movements will not liberate you from slavery, from exploitation and the pangs of unabated need. The only way which will lead you to victory is the taking of power by your own calloused hands.

Again, the writing goes back to the united front tactic as it was in Russia.

Can one say that the Russian proletariat triumphed because it was united with the Mensheviks and the SRs? This is nonsense. The Russian proletariat defeated the bourgeoisie and landowners through its fierce fight against the Mensheviks and SRs.

I completely agree with this. History, of course, shows this.

I think there is something important to note in this next section.

In 1906 and the following years, it was the “three pillars”: the 8-hour working day, land requisition and the democratic republic. These three pillars included freedom of speech and the press, freedom of association, strikes and unions, etc.

In February 1917? “Down with the autocracy, long live the Constituent Assembly!” This was the cry of the Bolsheviks.

However, in April-May, everything moves in another direction: there is freedom of association, of press and speech, but land is not requisitioned, workers are not in power. They then launch the slogan “All power to the soviets!”

I may have made this claim in part one (I don't remember at the moment) but I think it is interesting to note something that E.H. Carr noted. Why didn't the Bolsheviks fall into the same old reformist tendencies of other social-democratic parties in 1906 when it mainly advocated it's minimum program? I believe that this is because, unlike many of the European countries, the minimum program of the Bolsheviks was highly revolutionary still because Russia still had not passed through the bourgeois- democratic stage of development yet.

I have a problem with this next part.

In view of our scarce resources, in view of the horrible devastation caused by imperialist and civil wars, the task is imposed on us of creating material goods to demonstrate in practice to the working class and allied groups among the population the attractive force of this socialist society created by the proletariat. To show that it is good not only because there are no longer bourgeois, police and other parasites, but also because the proletariat has become master and is free, certain that all value, all goods, each blow of the hammer serves to improve life: the lives of the poor, the oppressed and the humiliated under capitalism. To show that this is not the kingdom of hunger, but one of abundance never seen anywhere else. This is a task that remains to be done by the Russian proletariat, a task that surpasses those preceding.

I feel that this reliance on material incentives will stop the ability of the workers to achieve a communist consciousness. This isn't to deny that material incentives have their place but this seems that the quoted section above places to big of a reliance on them.

Democracy was not and never will be a fetish for the counter-revolution, the bourgeoisie, the landowners, the priests, the SRs, and the Mensheviks of all countries of the world. For them, it is only a means to achieve their class goals.

I would also argue that the same is true for revolutionaries as Bordiga argued.

The section on freedom of speech, etc. is interesting and good as well.

^Lol, I mixed up numbers 1 and 2 We are actually in agreement. (I think something like this also happened in the other thread).

I still think there would be productivity with uniting with them still, as long as they are not market socialists, Marxist-Leninists, etc. and are genuine socialists that we may just disagree with (some anarchists and Trotskyists individuals and organizations come to mind here).