On the amorphous meanderings of the RCPB(ML)
Lenin said in One Step
Forward Two Steps Back (Selected Works, Vol. 2, page 433); “When
speaking of fighting opportunism, there is a characteristic feature of present
day opportunism in every sphere that must never be overlooked: this is its
vagueness, its diffuseness, its elusiveness.” And this observation still
holds true today. Many fine examples of this opportunist “vagueness”
can be found in The Line of March, monthly publication of the
Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain Marxist-Leninist (RCPBML).
One of the problems of exposing opportunism (and
expose it we must if we are to go on and create the necessary unity and
political understanding to overthrow the present system and replace it with
socialism) in these articles is that you have to include so much of the
original article to explain your argument and protect yourself from the
accusations of taking quotes out of context. This being the case, we apologise
to the reader in advance for dragging him/her through most of two articles in
the April 2011 edition of Line of March. The first appears on page four
of that journal and is entitled “RCPB(ML) Call to the Workers’ Movement”.
The article begins; “On March 26, over half a
million people demonstrated under the banner, ‘March for the Alternative’. The
question on everyone’s minds is how to build on this magnificent manifestation
of the mass unity in action of the working class.
“The major striking feature of the demonstration
was that very consciousness that there is an alternative, and that it is the
broad working class and its allies who represent this alternative. It was their
voice that was heard on March 26, a voice that affirms that there is a
different way of running society, and that it is not just a question of dealing
with tax dodgers and fat cats. The March for the Alternative was a
manifestation in its own right, a demonstration of the pro-social, pro-human,
spirit of the working class, half-a-million who represent the majority of
society taking a stand against the ruling elite.”
So, what do the above two paragraphs mean? The
march/rally “for the alternative” on 26 March to oppose Government
spending cuts in services etc. was called by a less than enthusiastic TUC who
certainly do not oppose all the cuts and who would welcome any genuine struggle
for socialism with the same zeal as any vampire would face a plate of garlic bread and a steak! As for the march
being a “magnificent manifestation of the mass unity in action of the
working class”, there were many different views, slogans and agendas on
display on the day, all of which proved that there was indeed “that very
consciousness that there is an alternative” but certainly not on what that
“alternative” is? The only real alternative, and the one that is
implied in the slogan ‘March for the Alternative’, is socialism. Socialism is
the only ‘alternative’ to the capitalism which is spreading all the misery that
the demonstration sought to oppose. But how many of those on the march were
promoting that alternative? Even the Rrrrevolutionary Communist Party of
Britain (ML) were not making it at all clear what the alternative needed to
be. Predominantly, the “alternatives” remained within the confines of
capitalism and these basically came down to two groups, those who opposed all
cuts and those who only thought the cuts were ‘too fast and too deep (the
Labour Party/TUC position). The CPB and the SWP, while being a little too
embarrassed to openly and clearly profess support for the second position, have
by their ‘cheer-leading’ for the Labour Party put themselves into that group.
Of those who took the correct position of
opposition to all cuts there were those who saw this as an end in itself,
something that could be achieved within capitalism while others saw it as a
major step on the road to educating our class on the need for socialism and how
that is best achieved.
To praise the demonstration as something it clearly
was not is not very helpful to the struggle for socialism. It is one thing to
struggle for a high level of proletarian unity, recognising that this is
essential for achieving anything in the struggle against capitalism, it is
quite another to claim that this unity has already been achieved, or indeed
that in Britain we are anywhere near achieving it. To deny the reality, to
subscribe to the RCPBML’s pretty picture of a class already united around an
understood and thought out socialist alternative, is to duck the real tasks of
the moment, to avoid the necessary battle of ideas within the working class
movement that is needed to win it for socialism – a battle which is still
largely unfought.
Compare the above uncritical assertion of “this
magnificent manifestation of the mass unity” with these two short quotes
from the editorial written in Proletarian (CPGB-ML) issue 41, April
2011; “Despite the class treachery of the union leaderships, those who
marched on the 26th will have learnt important lessons. The sheer size of the
march (which took four hours just to enter the park) will have confirmed in the
minds and hearts of those in attendance that a genuine
fight-back is possible. The material conditions exist for resistance,
as does the will to oppose the cuts; all that is lacking is the necessary
leadership.”
And further “If we really want to build a
movement that can fight the cuts, we have to understand that capitalist
overproduction crisis lies at the heart of the recurring economic meltdowns. To
bury this outmoded system once and for all will require a bitter struggle against
capitalism, and against the influence of capital in the labour movement, and
this begins with a struggle to break organised labour from the vice-like grip
of the Labour party and all those who wish to organise an ‘alternative’
programme of cuts, privatisations, lay-offs and wars!” This position is
both honest and positive; recognising that class unity will not be achieved
without addressing the very real differences that divide us.
Before moving on we ask the reader to ponder the
meaning of the words “a demonstration of the pro-social, pro-human, spirit
of the working class”!!! All classes are human and humans are social
animals which makes the above assertion as meaningless as it is true. It is
like saying ‘all workers on the march had a head on their shoulders and the
ability to think’! Of course, whether or not they choose to use their head for
that purpose or just as a place to leave their hat is another matter but this
assertion of the RCPBML is meaningless and applies to the vast majority of people
of all classes.
“It is this voice of the working class and its
allies fighting for the alternative which is being excluded from government.” As
the article drones it goes from bad to worse. Again we have “this voice”
suggesting a unity which does not yet exist, being “excluded from government”
when in fact, the voice of the trade union and labour leaders, and their
hangers on, is not only not excluded from government but has just
spent 15 years acting as the official state mouthpiece of the ruling class.
This poisonous voice was wooing the gathered workers at the rally that followed
the march and which was head-lined by Ed Miliband, and this voice is whispering
from many opportunist quarters, some of which we have already mentioned,
telling us that we must vote Labour back into office. If this isn’t going to
be challenged, if those who are spreading this poison are not going to be named
and battled against in the public arena and instead the fairy-tale of “magnificent”
unblemished “unity” is to be lauded to the skies, then just what exactly
are the RCPBML calling on workers to do in this article?
They continue, huffing and puffing themselves up
into a full-blown zephyr: “Just imagine if the half-a-million who marched
for the alternative were to put into effect their thinking on the direction of
the economy, apply their collective wisdom to the social and political problems
of society. Just imagine if they were able to bring into being some new
mechanism whereby the organised workers’ movement were able to decide on the
direction of society. Their viewpoints would be brought to bear, they would be
able to sum up their experience, and resolve the affairs of society in their
favour. They would be the decision makers. The cuts to social programmes and public
services are a manifestation of the ideology of the rich in practice. This much
is common knowledge. It follows that to oppose this antisocial programme of the
rich effectively, the workers must have their own independent programme which
reflects their interests and ideology. This is what is meant by the
alternative.”
In the entirety of this article calling for “the
alternative” these communists, nay revolutionary communists, have managed
to avoid the use of the words socialism and revolution totally. They have
totally avoided the very concepts of socialism and revolution., In fact reading
the last quote reminds us of the old vaudeville fan dancers who always promised
to reveal themselves to their audience only to move a feather fan into position
at the last minute. Every sentence takes you nearly there only to be hidden in
a flurry of meaninglessness. The point seems to be to appear as all things to
all men; many reading this quote who themselves understand the necessity for
socialism and that it can only be achieved through revolution may find little
that they can disagree with, just as most social-democratic renegades would
find little to disagree with, it leaves itself open to almost any
interpretation. This avoidance of disagreement, this fear of taking a side in
the battle of ideas within our class does not build unity in our ranks, it
merely allows the pro-imperialist clique, the labour lieutenants of capitalism,
to continue misleading our class without question or fear of being removed from
their comfy lifestyle.
But wait! What is this?: “It is this debate as
to what is this alternative that must be engaged in by working people in the
course of their developing practical politics to defend the rights of all, to
defend public services, to defend pensions, to safeguard the future of the
health service and the education system, to ensure peace and security for all.”
Didn’t the quote before this purport to tell us
what they thought the alternative was? Now we are to have a debate as to what
it is! So are the RCPBML going to step into the battle of ideas, take a
position and fight for it? They may be of some use to working-class education
after all, let us see:
“Fight the cuts, yes! Defend public services of
course! But release the initiative of the workers throughout society to
consciously participate in summing up their experience, to discuss what the
rich do not want them to discuss, to dare to envision the alternative. This is
what the times are calling for!” Right, we need to release our initiative,
consciously participate in summing up our experiences, discuss whatever the
rich don’t want us to discuss and envision the alternative but what was the
alternative? That feather fan is in the way again! As we recall Lenin held
the view that the class would be led by a vanguard party that served its
interests, listened to it but which would also disseminate the necessary
ideology into it and explain and give a lead on questions of the day. These
revolutionary communists, however, seem to have the idea that they only need to
tell us to discuss things, while they stand aloof presumably, and somehow we
will then have a programme and things will change. After a little more of the
above drivel they wind the article up with these stirring words:
“The working class and people are fed up with
the establishment saying that there is no alternative. There is an alternative!
It is the very opposite of what the establishment is doing. Let us discuss how
to change the situation and turn things around, let us unite not just to fight
the cuts but to make the voice of the working class and its allies heard. This
voice is demanding the pro-social alternative. Let us discuss this alternative
and the solutions it proposes.”
Again no attempt to explain that it is the
capitalist system itself which is the cause of the problems facing the working
class and oppressed people not only in this country but all over the world. It
is essential for the working class to understand that if it is going to act to
remedy the situation effectively in the only way possible, i.e., by proletarian
revolution. What stands between the working class and the necessary class
consciousness are a thousand and one purveyors of class collaborationist
ideology in the working-class movement. These are the ones responsible for the
lack of unity in the movement. How about we fight the wrong ideas within our
class to better arm it for revolution? This includes explaining and defending
historical figures, the ideology of Marxism-Leninism, the need for social
revolution and a party steeled in that science and experienced in struggle to
lead it? How about explaining the need for the proletarian dictatorship and
how the revolution would be doomed to failure without it? How about, as a very
necessary first step, exposing the Labour Party as enemies of socialist
revolution and unmasking all those so-called socialists/communists who support
the Labour Party as traitors to the class?
But, some readers may assert, the RCPBML does
attack the Labour Party if not its supporters. To look at this we go to
another article in the featured edition of Line of March. This one is
to be found on page 9 and is entitled “The Need is for a Real Alternative
Based on No Election without Selection.”
This article deals with the recent referendum on
the voting system which asked the electorate to decide between AV and first
past the post. Typically RCPB-ML do not commit themselves to asking people to
vote either in favour or against, their reason being that it makes no difference
“because the need is for all-sided democratic renewal of the political
process”. CPGB-ML, on the other hand, advocated a vote in favour of AV,
but only because it would have given progressive parties a better chance of
securing votes and given a slightly more accurate picture of the state of mind
of the electorate. But that is not our main concern here, we have chosen to
refer to this article because it goes beyond exposing the “vagueness,
diffuseness”, and “elusiveness” of the RCPB-ML to give some insight
into the policies they really stand for – which turn out to be rotten
revisionist policies for which all that elusiveness was a typical
smokescreen. But let our revolutionary communists speak for themselves:
“That the party-dominated political system is in
a profound crisis of legitimacy has become increasingly apparent over recent
years. Political parties provide the link between the electorate and the
government, so says the theory of representative democracy. However, the
situation has become so dysfunctional, practice so out of line with theory,
that political parties no longer express the political will of the people at
election time. In reality, the big three Westminster parties no longer even
hold that theory in practice. The conversion of the big parties into a
political cartel, which has grown like a cancer in the heart of the political
system, means that even the arrangement of party-in-power versus
party-in-opposition no longer carries any meaning”.
In other words, what is wrong in politics today, is
not that it is set up to defend capitalism for the benefit of a tiny minority
of billionaires, but that its electoral system is flawed. The unavoidable
conclusion is that it is possible and desirable to set up, within capitalism,
an electoral system that allows the electorate to have real and direct
influence on government policy. The reason that the present electoral system is
“dysfunctional” is not that it is designed to serve the interests of the
minority bourgeoisie, oh no, it is because large parties have hijacked it. It
follows that if small parties (including the BNP?) were to dominate the
electoral system then it would cease to be “dysfunctional” and would perhaps
even start to serve the interests of the masses rather than the minority
bourgeoisie. Furthermore, there is not even a word from the RCPBML to explain
why the parties do not express the will of the people at election time (or
indeed at any other time). The only idea that emerges is that they are “dysfunctional”
because they are big and monopolistic. What needs to be said is that these
parties do not “express the will of the people” because they represent
the interests of the bourgeois class. What needs to be said is that the system
is not at all “dysfunctional” because bourgeois democracy is set up to
serve the interests of the bourgeois class, and the system is in fact doing
this very well. Rather than explaining that bourgeois democracy is a system
that is not designed to serve the interests of the working class, but exclusively
the interests of the exploiting class, the RCPBML implies that there is nothing
wrong with bourgeois democracy that would not be put right if small parties
rather than large parties were returned to parliament. Curiously enough, if
this is what they really believe, they should have been supporting the AV
system – but then ordinary logic is not their strong suit.
Such political ineptitude leaves us practically
speechless. It is hard to believe that people who call themselves not only
Marxist-Leninists, but even Revolutionary Marxist-Leninists, would even for a
moment contemplate allowing such an anti-Leninist concoction to go out in their
name.
To remind comrades of the ABC of Marxism Leninism
on the question of the state, and in particular the role of bourgeois
democracy, we will now offer some quotations from Lenin’s pamphlet The
Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky which readers are invited
to compare to the offerings of our ‘Revolutionaries’.
Criticising Kautsky for his treacherous blurring
and distortion of the questions of state power and class dictatorship Lenin
wrote:
“Take the bourgeois parliament. Can it be that
the learned Kautsky has never heard that the more highly democracy is
developed, the more the bourgeois parliaments are subjected by the
stock exchange and the bankers? This does not mean that we must not make use of
bourgeois parliament (the Bolsheviks made better use of it than probably any
other party in the world, for in 1912-15 we won the entire workers’ curia in
the Fourth Duma). But it does mean that only a liberal can forget
the historical limitations and conventional nature of the bourgeois
parliamentary system as Kautsky does. Even in the most democratic bourgeois
state the oppressed people at every step encounter the crying contradiction
between the formal equality proclaimed by the ‘democracy’ of the
capitalists and the thousands of real limitations and subterfuges which
turn the proletarians into wage-slaves. It is precisely this contradiction
that is opening the eyes of the people to the rottenness, mendacity and
hypocrisy of capitalism. It is this contradiction that the agitators and
propagandists of socialism are constantly exposing to the people, in order
to prepare them for revolution! And now that the era of
revolution has begun, Kautsky turns his back upon it and begins to
extol the charms of moribund bourgeois democracy.
“Bourgeois democracy, although a great
historical advance in comparison with medievalism, always remains, and under
capitalism is bound to remain, restricted, truncated, false and hypocritical, a
paradise for the rich and a snare and deception for the exploited, for the poor.”
“Take the fundamental laws of modern states,
take their administration, take freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, or
‘equality of all citizens before the law’, and you will see at every turn
evidence of the hypocrisy of bourgeois democracy with which every honest and
class-conscious worker is familiar. There is not a single state, however
democratic, which has no loopholes or reservations in its constitution
guaranteeing the bourgeoisie the possibility of dispatching troops against the
workers, of proclaiming martial law, and so forth, in case of a ‘violation of
public order’, and actually in case the exploited class ‘violates’ its position
of slavery and tries to behave in a non-slavish manner. Kautsky shamelessly
embellishes bourgeois democracy and omits to mention, for instance, how the
most democratic and republican bourgeoisie in America or Switzerland deal with workers on strike.”
“There can be no equality between the exploiters
– who for many generations have enjoyed education and the advantages and habits
of wealth – and the exploited, the majority of whom even in the most advanced
and most democratic bourgeois republics are downtrodden, backward, ignorant,
intimidated and disunited.”
“Hence, so long as there are exploiters who rule
the majority, the exploited, the democratic state must inevitably be a
democracy for the exploiters”.
The quotes from this pamphlet should not need to be
explained but we would recommend that the pamphlet, or, equally as good on the
subject and also by Lenin, State and Revolution should be studied by all
wishing to understand the nature of the bourgeois state, its ‘democracy’ and
what it would take to overthrow it. Clearly these works are avoided and
ignored by our heroes of the RCPBML, who, from the first sentence onward are
trying to convince us that the political problem that exists is one created by
political parties becoming a self-serving “political cartel,” but the
nature of class society means that political parties in Britain do not
represent or “express the political will of the people at election time” nor
have they ever. The ‘people’ are divided along economic lines into classes and
political parties represent a class within society. The three main parties do
all represent the same (ruling) class and that is no recent development. The
Labour Party, despite early claims to represent the working class has since its
birth been a fully-fledged party of imperialism. This means of course that the
‘theory’ of political representation in bourgeois society was never anything
but a subterfuge, an elaborate hoax to cloak the dictatorship of the
bourgeoisie from workers and this is the truth that needs exposing – not
setting up and knocking down an ‘Aunt Sally’ about how the main three political
parties are no longer fulfilling their electoral duty to “the people”!
Before finishing this article we would just like to
point out one quote from an article that the RRRevolutionary comrades of the
RCPBML printed in the following (May) edition of Line of March. On page
three, titled “The Need for an Anti-War Government” the article contains
the following sentence; “The call for an Anti-War Government and its
consolidation can focus the energy and spirit of the anti-war movement towards
establishing a government that opposes war and refuses to participate in wars
of aggression, upholds the principle of the sovereignty and independence of all
states and nations, withdraws from warmongering alliances such as NATO and
defends and adheres to the principle of non-interference in the internal
affairs of other countries and absolutely rejects the use of force in settling
political disputes within and between nations, states and
countries.” (our emphasis)
What is this except a rejection of revolution? If
you are against the use of force “within” nations how are
revolutionaries to take power?
As far as we are concerned the role of communist
parties is to both teach and learn from the working class, helping it to
understand the necessary ideology of Marxism-Leninism, to act as the general
staff of our class and lead it into revolution and on through to the building
and protection of socialist society which would be guaranteed by a strong Party
enjoying the support of the masses, an end to private ownership of the means of
production and the dictatorship of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie.
At the moment the RCPBML seems
sadly lacking in all departments.