THE STRUGGLE FOR MARXIST-LENINIST UNITY

INTRODUCTION.

IN 1998 WE INITIATED A CAMPAIGN that called on all those who profess to be anti-revisionist and Marxist-Leninist to form a 'joint committee' to overcome the petty-bourgeois, sectarian deviation that characterizes the Communist movement at the present time.

Below, we argue that a joint committee of Marxist-Leninists is the only non-sectarian path for those who reject the reformist (or left-reformist) movement. It is a path that can lead eventually to the formation of a single, Marxist-Leninist party.

Because of the inability of the Marxist-Leninist, anti-revisionist elements in Britain to mount an effective struggle against the forces of revisionism and sectarianism for communist unity on the foundation of Marxism-Leninism, several Communists from the Stalin Society decided that the time had now come to begin a new campaign to promote Communist unity and the formation of a single Marxist-Leninist Party.

This campaign was initially started by Partisan and supported by the Communist Action Group together with the Communist League. On January 11^th, 1998, twelve people attended a meeting held at Conway Hall, Red Lion Square, to formally establish a pre-party committee, on the basis of a statement which was previously circulated to all those anti-revisionist elements claiming to uphold Marxism-Leninism. The meeting was also attended by Turkish and Kurdish Communists and received messages of support.

Thus the ‘Committee For the Marxist-Leninist Party’ was formally established and was known by its original initials of CMLP, and later changed to NCMLU. A step towards Marxist-Leninist unity had been taken. (This organisation was superseded by the Communist Party Alliance in 2003 - Ed.)

OUR AIMS.

The first aim of the committee was to combat the sectarian behaviour of all those who claimed to be Marxist-Leninists, and to lead the Communist movement from this infantile stage of political development. This behaviour has its class basis in the petty-bourgeois class, many of whom are trained in the individualistic style of working, or follow individualistic occupations, which undermines their understanding and ability to work collectively to promote projects. This is something which comes more naturally to those engaged in collective endeavours, mostly the working class.

With the knowledge that the class force behind sectarian behaviour was the petty-bourgeois class, or individuals with a petty-bourgeois training, we knew that the first stages of the committee would be its most vulnerable. Unreasonable demands would be made, walk-outs would be staged, pressure would be made to exclude this or that individual by other participating members, thus the whole object of the committee would be defeated if the committee gave in to such demands.

In order to counter petty-bourgeois sectarianism, which is one of the main reasons behind a divided Marxist-Leninist movement, the purpose of the committee had to be made clear. For instance, we made it clear that the committee was needed not because communists were united, but because they were divided. In short we argued that it was the divisions in the movement which made a Committee for Marxist-Leninist Unity necessary.

It was necessary to make this point clear, although it is arguable if we made it clear enough at the time, because petty-bourgeois sectarianism always sees differences, due to a non-dialectical approach, as obstacles to any collective work. In fact, petty-bourgeois opportunists, and sectarianism is a form of opportunism, will employ any differences as a reason not to engage in collective endeavour.

Obviously our knowledge of the nature of petty-bourgeois sectarianism, untrained in collective endeavour and thus a real obstacle to the formation of a single Marxist-Leninist Party, has been enriched since the formation of the committee. Today we realise that there are two sides to the question of bringing about the formation of a single Marxist-Leninist Party. Objectively speaking, it is not the historical role of the petty-bourgeois class, or those who lack the experience of collective endeavour, to bring about Marxist-Leninist unity, although, subjectively, these sectarian elements are useful in the propagation of Marxist ideas, which is one of their real, historical function.

The second aim of the committee was to determine the nature of the differences between those claiming to be Marxist-Leninists, so that these differences could be discussed at a serious scientific level, for as Lenin had admonished, ‘Before we can unite, and in order that we may unite, lines of demarcation must be drawn’. But, in any case, there can be no party without party differences, so that the existence of differences between those claiming to be Marxist-Leninists should, in no case, rule out the formation of a single Marxist-Leninist Party.

THE CLASS BEHIND SECTARIANISM.

However, as long as petty-bourgeois sectarianism is the only vehicle for the propagation of Marxist-Leninist ideas, unity will remain out of reach. This follows from the understanding of the committee that the class force behind the continued divisions, splits and fragmentation of the Marxist-Leninist community is the petty-bourgeois class. What was formerly a main feature of Trotskyism, which grew out of and was largely restricted to the petty-bourgeois strata, has now become a defining feature of Marxism-Leninism. In other words, disunity as well as unity has a class base behind it. There is a spontaneous tendency of the petty-bourgeois class towards disunity, and, alternatively, there is a spontaneous tendency of the working class towards unity. Putting the question of unity and its opposite, disunity, on an objective, scientific basis, is central to the question of forming a single Marxist-Leninist Party.

What Marxist-Leninists need to realise is that the petty-bourgeois class, even against their will, struggle against the unity of the communist movement.

THE CLASS FORCE BEHIND THE STRUGGLE FOR UNITY.

The role, objectively speaking, of the working class is to promote unity. On the level of Marxist-Leninist theory, the task of Communist Party Alliance is to consciously give expression to the struggle of the proletariat for unity, to expose and defeat those who are standing in the way of the working class historical need for unity. This, in the first place, requires proletarian class struggle against petty-bourgeois sectarians, whose class or occupational background transforms them into obstacles to the struggle for communist unity.

In short, the real class force, objectively speaking, behind the struggle for unity and a single Marxist-Leninist Party is the working class. This is why we can say that the ‘Communist Party Alliance’ and its insistence on the need for a single party is the ideological expression of this objective need and striving of the working class for unity. Our struggle for this unity is not the result of the wish of well-meaning Marxist-Leninists. Seen in this context, the betrayal of this objective striving of the working class actually represents a desertion to the petty-bourgeois sectarian camp.

This is necessarily so because it is the aims of the committee which, in the first place, makes it objectively important. It is a committee for a single Marxist-Leninist Party, and is duty bound to seek to unite those who claim to be Marxist-Leninists. Like all genuine Marxist-Leninists, the committee does not stand for several Marxist-Leninist Parties in a country. It is bourgeois elements who stand for this. This is realised through the petty-bourgeois sectarians, who, unable to find the road and will for unity, due to class or occupational background, tolerate the disunity of the Marxist-Leninist movement.

Because of the objective need and subjective striving for unity of the working class, in struggle with capitalism, the working class will come to support only those who stand for unity, and who give expression to this need for unity, for the simple reason that divided we fall, united we are able to stand.

A divided working class is a working class heading for defeat. An ‘army’ cannot hope for victory if it is led by several different ‘general staffs’ all leading it in different directions. And no army has ever won a victory while being led in this way. For this very reason Marxism-Leninism teaches the need for a ‘single leadership centre’. Consequently, those who oppose the theory of the single leadership centre are not only opponents of Marxism-Leninism, regardless of whatever other views of Marxism-Leninism they may hang on to, they are also opponents of the working class struggle for unity and the single Marxist-Leninist Party.

Opposition, in practice or theory, to the Marxist-Leninist teaching concerning the need for a single leadership centre is also a necessary objective tendency of petty-bourgeois sectarianism. The first task in respect to the Marxist theory of the single leadership centre is to distinguish the real Marxist-Leninists from the pseudo-Marxist-Leninists. Today it is not possible to distinguish real Marxist-Leninist from Pseudo-Marxist-Leninists on the basis of who is episodically right or wrong on a particular concrete issue of the class struggle, but rather on the basis of who is working for Marxist-Leninist unity and the formation of a single party, because, in the first place, it is impossible to defeat capitalism, and lead the struggle for socialism, without the unity of the working class led by a Marxist-Leninist Party, and a single leadership centre.

Consequently, it is where a person, who claims to be Marxist-Leninist, stands on this question which enables us to determine their Marxist-Leninist credentials, that is to say, whether such a person is in fact Marxist-Leninist.

And, of course, the second question is what is such a person doing to promote the formation of a single Marxist-Leninist party in the working class?

This follows from what has already been said, i.e., that this struggle for unity is not only a one-sided, abstract affair, but actually gives expression to the objective need of the working class, so that this class will eventually come to support and promote those Marxist-Leninists who are able to express its historical need for unity. This need comes into conflict with the forces of petty-bourgeois sectarianism. These forces, because of their opportunism are not able to give expression to this fundamental interest of the working class.

In these terms it can be clearly seen that the struggle against the forces of petty-bourgeois sectarianism is one of the most important struggles of Marxism-Leninism at the present time. Those who claim to be Marxist-Leninists, but are not doing anything in practice to promote the struggle for a single Marxist-Leninist party, are in fact rejecting the Marxist-Leninists teaching of the single leadership centre. Such elements are in reality in the petty-bourgeois camp.

The struggle for a single Marxist-Leninist Party is the struggle for the ‘single leadership centre’. In the absence of a single Marxist-Leninist Party, how we proceed towards unity is itself is a true touchstone of who actually express the interest of the working class. In other words on the question of unity there is a class polarisation between those forces that objectively represent the working class and those who objectively represent the forces of the petty-bourgeoisie. For instance, in the absence of a single-Marxist-Leninist Party we stand for a national joint committee of all those claiming to be Marxist-Leninists, such a committee is able to conduct the theoretical struggle on the appropriate level, while engaged in action in common on practical issues. But petty-bourgeois sectarianism pursues the policy of forming multiple ‘Marxist-Leninist’ parties, or more correctly, groups. Any honest person, will admit, and cannot help but admitting, that those who are calling for a national committee of Marxist-Leninists are the true representatives of the working class in contradistinction to those who accept the situation of multiple Marxist-Leninist groups.

Marxism-Leninism is, in the first place, a science of revolution. This means the idea of different schools of revolution all claiming to be ‘Marxist-Leninist’, is itself incompatible with the idea of science. The existence of different schools of thought claiming to be Marxist-Leninist simply serves to demonstrate that Marxism-Leninism has been negated as a science and has become the vehicle for petty-bourgeois sectarianism. In this context, it should be absolutely clear that those who have called for a ‘national committee’ of Marxist-Leninists are striving to re-establish Marxism-Leninism as a tool of scientific analysis.

The point here is that those who claim that Marxism-Leninism is the highest form of social analysis, or the highest stage reached in the social sciences, must surely agree that those claiming to be Marxist-Leninists should be able to exist in the same communist party. Of course, at this stage we have not called for a party, but rather a united front between those claiming to be Marxist-Leninists.

Because those in the petty-bourgeois camp, in practice, oppose the struggle for a single Marxist-Leninist party and a single leadership centre, it is clear that the treatment of Marxism-Leninism as a science, and the need for those claiming to be Marxist-Leninists to unite and exist in the same party is beyond their comprehension.

Petty-bourgeois sectarianism denies the need for scientific debate, or rather fails to comprehend its necessity. So we see that the ‘go it alone’ mentality is a characteristic feature of the petty-bourgeois sectarianism. However, for Marxist-Leninists, who endeavour to treat Marxism as a science, scientific debate requires openness between the most qualified disputants, which alone can generate the necessary scientific rigour, thus opening a path to objective truth. Such a debate is impossible in an atmosphere of sectarianism and a dispersed Marxist-Leninist movement.

Only on the basis of unity, in the form of a joint committee, which will inevitably contain differences, can a genuine scientific debate develop between Marxist-Leninists. It was for this reason that we called for the formation of a preparatory committee, aimed at those who consider themselves to be Marxist-Leninists, to take forward the struggle for communist unity against revisionism and the petty-bourgeois sectarian deviation.

The struggle for Marxist-Leninist unity being waged by CP Alliance is not only undermined by the sectarians. Marxist-Leninists must also reckon with another factor: this is the agents of the capitalist intelligence services who keep a close watch on the activities of the communist movement. Wearing the mask of Marxist-Leninists, the brief of these spies is to disrupt and undermine any move towards unity of the Marxist-Leninist movement. These spies, in carrying out their ideological sabotage will betray themselves by their role in the struggle for communist unity.

In this respect, when it comes to the question of Marxist-Leninist unity, the role of petty-bourgeois sectarianism dovetails with the aims of the bourgeois intelligence services, whose agents, wearing the mask of communism, seek to keep the communist movement divided against itself. This is their old tested policy of ‘divide and rule’.

In this paper we have attempted to show that the issues of communist, anti-revisionist unity are not insignificant questions facing those who call themselves Marxist-Leninists. We view the struggle for unity from a class point of view. We recognise the objective class forces behind the disunity of the Marxist-Leninist movement as those of the petty-bourgeois classes, which objectively oppose the struggle for a single Marxist-Leninist Party and a single leadership centre. Without this centre the working class cannot defeat the supporters of exploitative capitalism, and move society towards socialism. On the other hand we have indicated that the class force behind the struggle for Marxist-Leninist unity is the working class.

We have argued that it is not only upholding the call for Marxist-Leninist unity which is of vital importance, but also finding a non-sectarian path which can lead to this unity. We have shown that, from the standpoint of opposing petty-bourgeois sectarian mentality, the most appropriate form of fighting for unity at the present stage is support for a national committee of those claiming to be Marxist-Leninists.

We have argued that the struggle for Marxist-Leninist unity follows, not only from the objective need of the working class for unity, but also from the need to develop Marxism-Leninism as the science of proletarian revolution by means of theoretical contention between the most qualified disputants, without which the truth cannot be arrived at.

We also warned that in the struggle for Marxist-Leninist unity, the interest of the intelligence services of the supporters of capitalism coincide with the forces of petty-bourgeois sectarian deviation, in contributing to the continual fragmentation of the Marxist-Leninist movement. This implies that unity will not be achieved without taking this factor into account.

In the view of ‘Communist Party Alliance ’ the need for unity, and how to achieve it, are fundamentally important class questions, which in fact serve to polarise the genuine Marxist-Leninists from those who represent the forces of petty-bourgeois sectarianism, that is those who are not fighting for the single Marxist-Leninist party and single leadership centre on the basis of a non-sectarian policy. Though this sectarianism is able to conceal itself behind Marxist-Leninist terminology, genuine Marxist-Leninists should guard against deception.

The polarisation between the genuine forces of Marxism-Leninism and the forces of petty-bourgeois sectarianism, is an inevitable process connected to the struggle for a single Marxist-Leninist Party and leadership centre. Those who recognise that the working class can never defeat the supporters of capitalism, and lead the socialist revolution, if they are led by a divided general staff, will support the struggle to unify the Marxist-Leninist general staff in one party.

London, 21 March, 2000