It is not unusual to come across people who are politically on the left and revolutionaries who frequently attack the anti-war movement because of its opportunist leadership.

While criticism of the present anti-war leadership is often correct, when unrelated to Marxism-Leninism such criticism often leads to sectarianism.

What should be the communist, Marxist-Leninist attitude to these sectarian tendencies?

Firstly, it is important to explain the political role of sectarianism in the revolutionary movement and in the class struggle in general.

This is not too hard to do. No serious Marxist-Leninists and communists, or in fact no one who participates in left politics in an intelligent way would disagree with us when we say that

The political role of sectarianism in the class struggle and in the revolutionary movement is to divert people away from participating in the mass movement into sectarian activities.

Left-sectarianism really has no other function. Let’s look at the three main criticisms of the present anti-war movement.

The first sectarian criticism of the anti-war movement is that because its leadership is opportunist or dominated by opportunists, revolutionaries should not participate in this movement. This leads to sectarian attempts to set up some other “pure” anti-imperialist movement.

The second criticism by sectarians claims that this movement is middle class. This claim is absurd, but even if it was true this would not be a case for revolutionaries not to participate in it. One of the strategic goals of the working class is to attract to its side the intermediate strata, without which, for instance, the socialist revolution would either be very difficult or impossible.

The third sectarian criticism is that the anti-war movement failed to stop the war against Iraq. However, not all anti-war movements succeed in stopping a particular war. In some cases this failure may have nothing to do with the character of the leadership of such a movement.

The methodology of the sectarian requires that everything should be “pure”, and this reasoning is applied to the anti-war movement and every other political process that the sectarians come across.

Many of those who base themselves on the non-Marxist methodology that the revolutionary process must be pure inevitably end up in the camp of imperialism, attacking every revolution and those countries which started the transition to socialism. This was the essential role of Trotskyism, or pseudo-leftism on the margins of the communist movement.

Marxist-Leninists start from the opposite line of reasoning.

Indeed, for Marxist-Leninists, it is precisely because various movements are ideologically impure, and, in some cases, in the leadership of opportunists, that communists must make a point in intervening in them.

The sectarians who don’t want to participate in mass movements because such movements are deemed to be ideologically impure and in the hands of opportunists, should not stop here. Why not be logically consistent and abandon the class struggle altogether.

Marxist-Leninists must lay down the rule that the ideological impurity of any progressive mass movement is no reason for not participating in them.

If the sectarians were politically consistent they would refuse to participate and intervene in all working class and political struggles. They should turn their backs on every strike or protest which is ideologically tainted and are not led by ‘pure’ revolutionaries.

Every revolutionary knows that the leadership of the working class and the labour movement at present is in the firm grip of the right-wing of social democracy who are a thousand times to the right of the leadership of the anti-war movement.

Consistent sectarians should argue that since the leadership of the working class is, presently, in the clutches of social democracy, with a right-wing which is openly loyal to imperialism and the bourgeoisie, communists should turn their backs on the working class.

Is not this their attitude in relation to the anti-war movement?

In a situation where the leadership of social democracy is stronger and more influential than the leadership of revolutionaries it would be unlikely for an anti-war movement to prevent a particular war.

In other words, as long as right-wing social democracy controls the labour movement and the working class, the imperialists can always get away with starting wars.

In particular, we must be aware that more often than not, Trotskyite purists are past-masters at corrupting politically immature people with sectarian politics, especially with their notion that the working class can go it alone without seeking out allies.

The only mass movements which communists would not give any support are ones aimed at propping up imperialist rule.

Conclusion.

Pseudo-left sectarianism seeks to divert people away from participating in mass movements. In particular they seek to divert revolutionaries towards sectarian activities of various types.

This is in order to form some ideologically pure movement, which would be to the satisfaction on the sectarian.

It is the duty of communists to expose the diversionary antics of the sectarians when they come across them. The activities of sectarians cannot serve the interests of the working class. All communists and all those who support the working class should guard against being diverted away from the mass movement into sectarian activities.

Tony Clark