On November 4, 2006, in London, a conference was held to launch 'The Campaign for a New Marxist Party'. Those attending were Hillel Ticktin and supporters of Critique journal, the Communist Party of Great Britain, i.e., Weekly Worker, the Democratic Socialist Alliance, New Interventions, and the Republican Democratic Group. All the participants of this conference defend, to one degree or another, the Trotskyist tradition.^[1]

This conference of left-wing revisionists decided on a sixteen-point platform as the basis for their campaign for a new Marxist Party. The opportunist and sectarian nature of this essentially Ticktinite project is underlined on page 4 of the campaigns journal Marxist Voice, for March-April, 2007

'We are calling for the building of a party because we think that the time demands a party and because there are no left-wing parties at the present time'. (P.4)

While many people will agree, including us, that the times demand a party, they will dismiss the ultra-sectarian, Ticktinite view that there are no left-wing parties now. This position that there are no left-wing parties at the present time seems to be a central component of Ticktin's campaign because he further writes

'We are openly declaring that there are no Marxist parties or would-be Marxist parties or groups in existence'. (P. 4)

So according to Ticktin's campaign there are no left-wing parties in existence anywhere, further, there are no Marxist, or would-be Marxist parties or groups in existence. Since they don’t qualify this statement we have to assume they mean this internationally.

This is the position of a true academic - in the negative sense of the term - completely divorced from real, dialectical, concrete reality. Now that Ticktin, wallowing in subjectivity and with a stroke of a pen, so to speak, can declare that the left doesn't exist in the form of parties and groups, Marxist or otherwise, he can invent a left, in his own image, and even determine, on this basis, who belongs to the category of the left and who does not. Not surprisingly, the more politically sensible part of the left boycotted Ticktin's conference.

Ticktin's Trotskyite campaign for a new Marxist party is based on Ticktin's view, which went unchallenged at the conference, that there are no Marxist parties or would-be Marxist parties or groups in existence. However, the truth if it were told is diametrically the opposite. There are too many such groups in existence, particularly in the more advanced countries.

Point twelve of the sixteen principles contradicts Ticktin’s position about there being no left or Marxist parties or groups in existence when discussing the cult of the personality.

'We oppose the cult of the personalities of the permanent leaders which is commonplace in the existing organised left and has recently taken grotesque forms’ (P.4)

Having denied the existence of the left, principle twelve acknowledges an organised left. So it is necessary to ask Ticktin; do left-wing parties and groups exist or don’t they, and if not, when did they cease to exist?

Ticktin fails to explain what he means by left wing and Marxists. It will certainly come as a surprise to the many hundreds of thousands or even millions of people all over the world when they learn from Ticktin that they no longer exist, and this at the command of Ticktin and his fellow campaigners. Although Ticktin does not define what he means by left or Marxist, he nevertheless asserts that in his view

' …we ought not to include Stalinists or semi-Stalinists in the category of the left’. (p.4)

Although this left-revisionist fails to define the terms left and Marxist, he wants to exclude Stalinists from his category of the left, a term he also does not define.

According to Ticktin, in his address to the founding conference for this new left-revisionist, Trotskyist campaign

'The Soviet Union was ruled by an elite in its own interests and those who defended it and carried out its  instructions around the world were supporting an elitist, non-socialist, exploitative system’. (p.4)

It is clear from the above passage that Ticktinism is a continuation of Trotskyism which amplifies the ultra-leftism contained within the latter in a more absurd form. Unlike Ticktin, orthodox Trotskyism at least formally defended or claimed to defend the Soviet Union against bourgeois counter-revolution, even if objectively their ideology served the interest of the enemies of the former Soviet Union.

Ticktinism, or left-wing revisionism, fails to view the former Soviet Union correctly, which means, firstly, dialectically, and, secondly, concretely. For Marxist-Leninists, the former Soviet Union was, dialectically, a transitional socialist society between capitalism and communism. In the period of Stalin the principal, leading side of this contradictory society was socialism.

This is the correct dialectical approach to the former Soviet Union in the period of Lenin and Stalin. This approach is rejected by all, or most of the different shades of left-wing revisionism. Not surprisingly, most of these individuals all ended up, to one degree or another, in the enemy camp of imperialism.

Those who failed to view the former Soviet Union dialectically are in reality anti-Marxists. To view the former Soviet Union dialectically also means to view it concretely. The first thing here is that we cannot separate the internal development of this society from the external environment. The formation of a transitional, socialist society in the Soviet Union occurred in the most adverse conditions possible. However, within a few years a largely peasant society, suffering from mass illiteracy, was able to make the biggest contribution to the defeat of the most industrialised country in Europe, Germany, which had fallen into the clutches of fascism. (Trotsky admitted the gains of the Soviet Union in these years, but gave no convincing explanation of how this was possible if the USSR had been saddled with a counter-revolutionary leadership.)

Ticktin, because of his inability to view the former Soviet Union and the world revolutionary process dialectically, objectively belongs to the bourgeois camp of anti-communism, like the erstwhile Tony Cliff and other such individuals. Ticktin’s statement that the Soviet Union was ruled by an elite, in its own interest and that those who defended it and carried out its instructions around the world were supporting an elitist, non-socialist, exploitative system, is as far from dialectical understanding as anyone could possibly hope to get.

The first thing to say here is that those who defended the Soviet Union were not defending any of its negative features. Even Trotsky and his followers, who opposed the “Stalinist” leadership of the Soviet Union, were at least sensible enough to continue formally to defend the society against bourgeois counter-revolution. ^[2]

When Marxist-Leninists say that the former Soviet Union must be viewed dialectically as a transitional society, that is a society between capitalism and communism, or putting it in another way, a society which has started the transition from capitalism, what this entails is that the means of production have become public property and in the case of the Soviet Union, agriculture had been collectivised. Such a transitional society must be viewed as a struggle between opposite trends and forces, both materially and ideologically. Within this unity and conflict between opposite forces and tendencies, the main principal side in the contradiction will determine the general direction in which the society is moving. One of the big mistakes of Trotsky and his followers was to believe that counter-revolution had become the main, principal side of these contradictions in the Stalin period. Marxist-Leninists would argue that from 1924 to 1953 Stalin had held back the forces of counter-revolution in the Soviet Union.

In true imperialist fashion, Ticktin claims that the ‘end of the USSR was therefore a cause for rejoicing, even though many on the left mourn the loss of a Stalinist and Social Democratic ethos’. (Marxist Voice: April/May, 2007; P.4)

Of course, it is easy for left-wing revisionists in rich imperialist countries to rejoice at the end of the Soviet Union. We certainly don’t hear the working class in the former Soviet Union rejoicing with Ticktin, nor for that matter do we hear the working class rejoicing in the oppressed or advanced capitalist countries. All these working classes have to pay, to one degree or another, for the end of the Soviet Union. The only people we hear celebrating with Ticktin are the imperialists and those who have become multi-millionaires and billionaires through the looting of socialist property.

Mr Ticktin wants to play God with the rest of the left, determining who is “left” and who is not, but all this is based on anti-dialectics, the philosophical dress of the counter-revolution.

Referring to his Critique journal, Ticktin informs us that

'Unlike most of the left, the journal Critique developed a theory over time, which argued that Stalinism was an historically flawed form which would have to come to end in an  historically short period’. (Marxist Voice; April/May, 2007; p.4)

How dishonest can a person get? Ticktin steals Trotsky’s argument and pretends that he developed it himself within the Critique journal!

It was Trotsky who first argued that “Stalinism” was flawed and would have to come to an end in a short time historically. He thought that the Second World War would lead to the collapse of the Soviet Union. How could it survive under the leadership of Stalin he reasoned? However, not only did Stalin and the Soviet Union survive the war launched by German fascism in a bid for world domination, but also the eventual victory of the Soviet Union expanded the socialist camp and strengthened the anti-imperialist elements in the world.

Putting Ticktin’s dishonesty in stealing Trotsky’s views about “Stalinism” aside, we are more interested in the absurdity of his argument. Firstly, Ticktin makes the claim that “Stalinism” was a historically “flawed” form. Anyone who consults a Standard English dictionary will be told that to be flawed means to have a blemish, i.e., to be not perfect, or to be imperfect. Now, there is no such thing as a perfect revolutionary process, a perfect transition to socialism or a perfect party or individual. All these have to be flawed in some way, i.e., possess certain negative features and sides. Ticktin, like all left-wing revisionists, elevates the negative sides and features of the Soviet transition to socialism, and turns them into absolutes, and uses them to condemn the former Soviet Union. Ticktin argues that his theory predicted the end of “Stalinism” in a historically short period. But even before Trotsky and Ticktin, the Mensheviks, in another vein, had been predicting the collapse of the Soviet Union. Also Lenin argued, at first, that the Soviet Union would not survive for very long. Before the Bolsheviks took power in 1917, he warned

'We do not know whether our victory will be followed by temporary periods of reaction and the victory of the counter-revolution - there is nothing impossible in that…' (V.I. Lenin: CW. Vol.26; 171)

When the Soviet Union did come to end it wasn't supporters of Stalin who were responsible, but people who had spent years denouncing Stalin and revising Marxism-Leninism in economics and politics. We know that the revisionist grouping led by Khrushchev had purged supporters of Stalin from the party and state apparatus before Khrushchev felt confident enough to denounce Stalin at the 20^th Congress of the CPSU, in 1956.

Ticktin has the amazing ability to stand reality on its head. According to Ticktin Stalinism (he does not define this term) was non-Marxist and indeed, anti-Marxist, it prevented the development of the left (he means ultra-left).  However, it was not “Stalinism” which prevented the development of the ultra-left – this is in the nature of ultra-leftism itself; it prevents its own development. In any case Marxist-Leninists are right to prevent the development of ultra-leftism. Rather than preventing the development of the real left - the communist movement saw a massive growth in the period of Stalin.

Because the revisionist Ticktin holds the opposite, vacuous, undocumented view, he advises ‘We ought not to include Stalinist or semi-Stalinists in the category of the left’. This revisionist has a history of dishonesty. For instance in his book, The origins of the crisis in the USSR – Essays on the political economy of a disintegrating system, 1992, he falsely claimed that Bukharin was responsible for Lenin’s theory of ‘socialism in one country’. His actual words were ‘The logical founder of Stalinism is Bukharin, the inventor of the Stalinist doctrine of the possibility of building socialism in one country…’ (Origins of the crisis in the Soviet Union: p.9) Ticktin, as a revisionist, is not satisfied with misleading the less politically educated members of the Marxist intelligentsia, but he has also, to our knowledge, never retracted the above misrepresentation. Trotsky committed the same theoretical falsification as well, attributing Lenin’s theory to Stalin, a fact which served to expose his pretensions in the eyes of communists. As previously pointed out, Ticktin has also stolen Trotsky’s basic argument about the collapse of “Stalinism”, pretending that he originated it in his Critique journal.

It is the dishonest revisionist and opportunist who offers the suggestion to his audience of sympathisers that Stalinists and semi-Stalinists ought not to be included in the category of the left.

Here Ticktin falls into further anti-dialectical errors – because the concept left is not a one-sided abstract concept… it is also concrete. It is not enough to be left in an abstract sense, no doubt like Ticktin, but you must also engage in practical revolutionary activity on the basis of the recognition that humanity needs to abolish private ownership of the means of production. Those who engage in activity on this basis are on the “left”, thus supporters of Stalin are on the left, albeit without Ticktin's permission. For the revisionist Ticktin, being on the left is purely cerebral activity, in the manner of a university professor, who need not dirty his hand with the real revolutionary movement. It is the supporters of Stalin, to one degree or another, who have given their lives in the real anti-imperialist struggles. It is therefore a joke when an academic and a revisionist like Ticktin seek to remove them from the category of the left, if only in his head.

The revisionist Ticktin wants to play God and determine who is on the left only by regarding abstract political views, while ignoring concrete revolutionary practice. This leads to two related weaknesses: opportunism and sectarianism. Marxist-Leninists call for anti-imperialist and anti-fascist unity.  The basic principle here is that all those who oppose imperialism and fascism should put their differences aside on other issues and unite to fight imperialism and fascism. Only revolutionary practice can decide who is on the left and who is not.

Ticktin's political views are too immature for us to take seriously, it is only necessary to respond to them because people moving over to the revolutionary camp for the first time and those with little or no knowledge of Marxism-Leninism, can easily be diverted by his anti-communist ideas, which are deemed more acceptable to the liberal bourgeois intelligentsia.

We have said that the Ticktinite campaign for a Marxist party is a left-revisionist, Trotskyist campaign. This is not merely a churlish assertion on our part. We will examine the relevant points from the sixteen principles on which this campaign is based. Ticktin's campaign is an attempt to renew Trotskyism on a lower theoretical basis than traditional, orthodox Trotskyism.

The first relevant principles passed at the founding conference on November 4, 2006, which we will look at, is the following:

'We are in favour of a planned, democratic socialist society and against the market’ (P.6)

This principle appears uncontroversial. Anyone in favour of socialism can support it. However, since none of the other principles mention the role of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the transition to communism, it is easy to see that lurking behind this quite innocent sounding phrase is opportunism and the class interest of the bourgeoisie. To be in favour of a planned, democratic society run on socialist principles does not make anyone a Marxist. Even opportunist revisionists will concur with this definition of a socialist society in the same way that they can recognise the class struggle without the dictatorship of the proletariat, about which Lenin explained

'Those who recognise only the class struggle are not yet Marxists; they may be found to be still within the bounds of bourgeois thinking and politics. To confine Marxism to the theory of the class struggle means curtailing Marxism, distorting it, reducing it to something acceptable to the bourgeoisie. A Marxist is solely someone who extends the recognition of the class struggle to the recognition of the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is what constitutes the most profound distinction between the Marxist and the ordinary petty (as well as big) bourgeois. This is the touchstone on which the real understanding and recognition of Marxism should be tested'. (V.I. Lenin: CW. Vol. 25; p.411-12)

Similarly, we can say that those who are in favour of a planned, democratic society against the market, but do not extend this recognition to the dictatorship of the proletariat, are not yet Marxists, indeed, they are anti-Marxist, who are still within the bounds of bourgeois thinking.

At their founding conference, the Ticktinite revisionists failed to pass the most important test which decides who is Marxist and who is not, that is, who is still within the bounds of bourgeois thinking and politics, and who are not. The Ticktinite revisionist campaign for a new party is nothing but an attempt to create a new revisionist party under a Marxist flag. Yet these revisionists would like to exclude supporters of Stalin, who uphold the dictatorship of the proletariat from the category of the left, while they themselves don’t know that the most fundamental demarcation line between Marxists and non-Marxists is the dictatorship of the proletariat. From the standpoint of Lenin, Ticktin’s campaign can be excluded from the camp of Marxism.

The Ticktinite campaign for a new “Marxist” party is a revisionist campaign, or at least a campaign dominated by revisionists. The conference called in London on November 4, 2006, was a conference of revisionists. This conference of revisionists called for the exclusion of supporters of Stalin from the category of the left. There appeared to have been no dissenting voices, or at least none was recorded in the post conference report in the campaign's journal, Marxist Voice. We are not suggesting, of course, that genuine Marxist-Leninists had any desire to join this campaign; we only point this out to show the revisionist nature of the conference.

To underline the revisionist nature of this conference it is important to note that not only was no reference made in the sixteen principles to the "dictatorship of the proletariat" in the transitional period between capitalism and communism, but the very term "communism" was avoided, as can be seen by a reading of Ticktin's speech to the founding conference and studying the sixteen principles accepted by the conference. Those who do not yet know how to discern revisionism may conclude that this was an oversight by Mr Ticktin. However, since the term "communism" is also avoided in the sixteen principles on which the campaign is based, this simply goes to reinforce the revisionist character of the conference and the campaign.

Thus we have a situation where people who want to exclude anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist and anti-fascist elements from the category of the left on the sectarian grounds that they, to one degree or another, defend Stalin, have convened a founding conference to start a campaign for a “Marxist” party based on principles which do not mention the words dictatorship of the proletariat, the main demarcation line between Marxists and non-Marxists. Nor is the term “communism” used.

Naturally as opportunists, they may seek to rectify this situation, having been exposed as a nest of revisionists, but this will not change a thing. Ticktin is trying to start a new revisionist Marxist party. That is the real meaning of the London conference on November 4, 2006. What we are in fact dealing with here is the gestation of a new, anti-communist, revisionist tendency, emanating from a certain section of the liberal capitalist intelligentsia who like to use Marxist terminology to conceal from others and from themselves what they truly represent – the defence of bourgeois class interests inside the revolutionary movement.

The second of the first three founding principles relates to the world revolutionary process. It states that

'Socialism will be achieved in a single step when the working class seize power over society, there are no intermediate "democratic" or other stages. (P.6)… ^[4]

This principle is wrong both from a theoretical, economic and cultural standpoint. For a start, this principle does not make clear to what type of countries it refers. It is quite possible for the working class to seize state power without being  even able to achieve the economic side of socialism in a single step, as happened for instance in Russia 1917. A series of transitional stages were necessary in economic terms. The same applied to China. However, socialism is not only about economic transformation alone, it also requires a cultural transformation. So, from the cultural angle socialism cannot be achieved in a single step, as these revisionists would have us believe. Unlike revisionists, we do not believe that bourgeois ideology and culture can sustain a socialist economic base. The idea that socialism will be achieved in a single step when the working class seize power confuses economics, ideology and culture.

We cannot know for sure what this revisionist conference means by "a single step". The Ticktinites do not seem to realise that it is not so much theory which has the final say about how socialism will be achieved, but concrete conditions and practical experience. Here they have made a classical Trotskyist mistake.

In economic terms, socialism is direct production for social and individual need, unlike capitalism where production is determined by the search for profits. When the working class takes power and begins to run society on socialist principles, production for need, instead of profit, can begin immediately. To this extent socialism can be achieved in a "single" step, provided of course that we do not take this too dogmatically; for instance, certain circumstances may include the gradual expropriation of capital, as Marx indicated. A gradual socialisation of capital after the working class came to power would depend on circumstances.

So we see that the second principle of Ticktin's revisionist campaign is actually very misleading, has nothing in common with Marxism - like their previous avoidance of the terms dictatorship of the proletariat and communism. We are told that the campaign is against the destructive incubus of “Stalinism” and that 'we will seek to make clear the counter-revolutionary, anti-human nature of Stalinist regimes and parties. Stalinism was responsible for mass slaughter, brutal incarceration and atomisation of people and countries under its control, betrayal of revolution' and so on.

The Ticktinites seek to blame every negative on "Stalinism". Some petty-bourgeois lefties even go so far as to blame the Second World on Stalin, e.g. the Ex-Marxist, Robert Blick blames the war on the German-Soviet pact, instead of on the drive of imperialism. This is to sink to the lowest depths of anti-communism. It is to this lower level of anti-communism that the Ticktinite revisionists sink when they blame all that was negative on "Stalinism" but let the bourgeois counter-revolution off the hook, so to speak. The Ticktinites share the same historical approach of Trotskyism.

The Ticktinites claim that the Stalinists were responsible for the most cynical betrayals of the working class from Germany to South Africa. While we don't have the view that Stalin and the comintern never made mistakes, ^[3] we do insist that study of mistakes made by communists in the past must be based on the most concrete analysis possible and viewed from the standpoint of the class struggle as a whole.

When it comes to Germany, the Ticktinites place all the blame for the defeat of the working class on the communists, but fail to mention the pivotal role of Social Democracy. No honest person would deny that the Comintern's left sectarian policy of social-fascism, which lasted from 1928 to 1934, played a part in the defeat of the Left. This policy made it easier for the social democratic leadership to sell out the working class to fascism. However, the left-sectarian policy of social fascism did not divide an already divided working class, as the Trotskyists argue, but made it harder to expose the counter-revolutionary bourgeois leadership of the working class - social democracy.

As for South Africa, it is easy to accuse the Communist Party of betraying revolution if you do not believe that in certain cases the struggle for democracy is a necessary, important stage in the struggle for socialism. The struggle in Nepal is a good example.

In addition to the three preliminary principles on which Ticktin's revisionist campaign is based, a further thirteen principles were added. We will now examine the relevant ones, which reek of pure ultra-left stupidity. Principle three of the thirteen declares grandiloquently

'Workers of the world unite. Socialism is international or it is nothing. There is no national road to socialism. Stalinist attempts to consolidate revolutionary power in a single country resulted not in workers power but power over workers.'

The first sentence is uncontentious; the rest is a complete repudiation of Marxism-Leninism. The Trotskyist view that socialism is international or is "nothing" is the purist expression of ultra-leftism, contradicting everything Lenin ever wrote about the world revolution. ^[4] The idea that we either have international socialism or we have "nothing" exposes a total ignorance of the dialectical world revolutionary process, typical of the most theoretically benighted left-revisionist elements. As Trotskyism is not based on dialectical reasoning they do not understand the relationship between the national and international, form and content, and so they bleat on about there being no "national" road to socialism.

The Ticktinite revisionists believe that the transition to socialism in all countries will be identical, that is, without differences. For Marxist-Leninists, the transition to socialism may be different in different countries, but these differences also contain identity, i.e., whatever the national form of the transition to socialism, what they have in common, for instance, is the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Trotskyism/Ticktinism, uninformed by dialectical reasoning, i.e., 'socialism is international or it is nothing' has never viewed socialism in one, or several countries, as part of the developing world revolution.

They separate out socialism in one country and oppose it to the world revolutionary process.

They do not see how socialism in one country was a development out of the world revolution, and which, in turn, served to promote this revolution. In the Russian revolution, the Trotskyists joined with the bourgeois Mensheviks in distorting the Marxist line that the "final" victory of socialism was only possible on a world scale into a new theorem which said: the victory of socialism is only possible on a world scale.

This is the theoretical origin of the Menshevik/Trotskyite theory, which was used firstly against Lenin, and later against Stalin. The role and effects of this theory, a unity of right and left opportunism, directed against the Marxist-Leninists, was to promote defeatism within the communist party and the working class. Those in society who had vacillated in supporting the revolution would be the first to fall under the influence of these arguments and begin their trek back to the bourgeois camp. Opportunism used an “ultra-left revolutionary phrase” about socialism being international or nothing to oppose the struggle for power within individual countries.

After the Mensheviks were defeated in Russia, the Trotskyists took up the torch and carried on this struggle within the Bolshevik party. From within and from without these arguments assailed the party. This, of course, irritated Lenin because he knew where such arguments were leading. For Lenin, the bourgeois counter-revolution was hiding behind what appeared to be a principled Marxist position. The counter-revolution was using "Marxism" to oppose the socialist revolution. The Trotskyists were used as a transmission belt to promote these Menshevik ideas within Bolshevism. The stage was being set for one of the greatest debates within the communist movement, concerning the relation between socialism in one country and world revolution, i.e., that between the national and international.

Lenin's irritation was soon to boil over. As early as January 1918, in his report to the Third Congress of Soviets, Lenin was forced to defend his position.

' …when we are told that the victory of socialism is possible only on a world scale, we regard this merely as an attempt, a particularly hopeless attempt, on the part of the bourgeoisie and its voluntary and involuntary supporters to distort the irrefutable truth. The "final" victory of socialism in a single country is of course impossible'. (V.I. Lenin: CW. Vol.26; p.470)

In the above passage Lenin is opposing the 'socialism is international or is nothing' slogan. That the "final" victory of socialism was impossible in a single country was for Lenin an irrefutable Marxist truth. However, the bourgeois representatives in the working class movement distorted this teaching to mean that 'the victory of socialism is possible only on a world scale'. By adopting the erroneous ultra-left idea that socialism was either international or "nothing", the conscious enemies of the revolution, the Mensheviks, acting for the bourgeoisie, and their unconscious accomplices, the Trotskyists, and other ultra-leftists, were working to spread defeatism and bring down Soviet power, i.e., workers power, the only power that can lead to socialism. What the ultra-left confused was the victory of socialism in individual countries with the final victory on a world scale. They did not understand the relationship between the national and the international in the struggle for socialism.

While Ticktin preaches that supporters of Stalin, defenders of Marxism-Leninism, should be excluded from the category of the left, it is clear from the above passages that for Lenin those who defend the 'socialism is international or nothing' position represent the bourgeois counter-revolution, conscious and unconscious.

Principle four of the further thirteen principles states that

' 'Reformism and 'socialism in one country' are dead strategies that have wreaked enormous suffering upon the working class and humanity. It is ludicrous to suppose that Marxists can win support within the working class by pretending to be reformists or partisans of one or other national particularity. Marxists must be honest before our class and proudly and boldly put forward the ideas of Marxism. (P.6)

This passage conflates reformism and 'socialism in one country'; the latter being presented as something completely divorced from the world revolutionary process. While reformism is, indeed, a strategy, socialism in one country is not so much a strategy but a fact of the unfolding of the world revolution, at a certain stage of history. It was Trotsky who made it appear as if there were two strategies to choose from: either socialism in one country or world revolution. For Marxist-Leninists, world revolution began as socialism in one country, ending with socialism in all countries. Furthermore, Marxists-Leninists do not pretend to be reformists. Therefore this passage must be aimed at the revisionist right-wing within the communist movement.

In the above passage the Ticktinites say that Marxists must be honest, proud and bold. But they distort, in Trotskyist fashion, Lenin's teaching about the world revolutionary process. As for boldly putting forward the ideas of Marxism, we have already shown how they have in their principles studiously avoided any mention of the dictatorship of the proletariat - the most important idea of Marxism, or even the word communism. So much for being honest, proud and bold!

Principles six and ten of the further thirteen principles passed at the conference are to a certain extent related. Principle six declares

' 'We recognise that the continuation of capitalism threatens the future of humanity and the planet - for example wars, poverty, disease, ecological disaster and the exhaustion of resources'. (P.7)

The reference to 'ecological disaster' seems to have been thrown in as an afterthought. Yet the question of the ecological crisis and the inevitability of capitalism and the 'consumer society' leading to ecological collapse is the most important long term issue facing all peoples, regardless of where they live and to what class they belong. At the same time ending the system which is leading to ecological collapse is a class question.

It is clear, therefore, that ecological concerns and ecological thinking must be placed not on the sidelines, but at the centre of any attempt to develop a new Marxist party. The Ticktinite resolution seems to regard the ecological question on an equal level with all other issues. The truth is that the whole concept of socialism must be redefined in ecological terms. This relates to principle ten, which states that

' We reject the idea put forward by some apologists for Stalinism that increasing industrial output without political democracy will lead to socialism, and that human lives and human liberty are to be sacrificed to productive output through labour camps, unchecked pollution, political repression and state control of literature and art, this idea has been sufficiently disproved by the disastrous experience of the 20^th Century and should not be tried again. (P.7)

This is nothing but pure unadulterated anti-communist drivel, with no trace of class consciousness to be found in any of the lines above. According to the Ticktinite revisionists, apologists for "Stalinism" believe that increasing industrial output without political democracy will lead to socialism, that human lives and human liberty are to be sacrificed to productive output through labour camps, unchecked pollution, political repression and state control of literature and art. We will briefly examine these issues separately

INCREASING INDUSTRIAL OUTPUT

We have said that today socialism must be redefined in ecological terms. This means that increasing industrial production with or without political democracy will not automatically lead to socialism. What needs to be criticised now is not the apologists for "Stalinism" but the pre-ecological traditions of the left in general. Old-style socialism, that is, pre-ecological socialism must be superseded and replaced with a socialism which places ecological thinking and sustainable development at the centre of its concerns. This is possible because human societies are making a transition to the stage of ecological awareness. The ecological shortcoming of old style, pre-ecological socialism can in no way be blamed on Marxism, as some ecologists try to do. In fact, the seeds of ecological thinking can be found in the writings of Marx and Engels. To this, we must add that Soviet ecology, in the early years of the revolution, was far ahead of the capitalist countries. However, the pressures of imperialism, the need to develop industry as soon as possible, succeeded in removing ecology from the agenda. Unlike socialism, capitalism needs to constantly increase production for profit, while socialism is about planned production for need. This means that whereas capitalism is inherently anti-ecological, socialism, that is, production for need, is far more suited to ecological requirements. Socialism is a profoundly ecological idea, the practice of which was distorted by the pressures to compete with capitalism. Scientific ecological thinking must become integrated into the theory and practice of socialism and not simply be treated as something peripheral, in the way that it was treated at Ticktin’s revisionist conference.

LABOUR CAMPS AND POLITICAL REPRESSION

The Ticktinites treat the labour camps and political repression in a completely ahistorical, above class manner. The Russian revolution occurred not in an advanced capitalist society but in relatively backward conditions. Socialism could not immediately demonstrate its superiority over capitalism. This in turn strengthened the hand of feudal and bourgeois counter-revolution. The regime was faced with two alternatives: killing all the enemies of the revolution or sending them to labour camps. The Soviets chose the latter. To treat the question of labour camps and political repression outside of the struggle between revolution and counter-revolution is to replace Marxism with liberalism. It is also to ignore the fact that most of the negative aspects of the Soviet experience resulted from the pressures of imperialism on the first workers states, and the internal counter-revolution.

In bourgeois ideology classes do not exist, nevertheless, the bourgeoisie maintain a repressive state apparatus to supress its class enemies when the need arises. It is bourgeois ideology which informs the Ticktinite revisionists, who are unable to draw the real consequences of the Marxist theory of the class struggle leading to the dictatorship of the proletariat, which means political repression against counter-revolutionaries, to one degree or another, in the transitional period to communism, which alone can provide real freedom.  There can be no transition to socialism without the dictatorship of the proletariat under the leadership of a communist party.

It is obvious that the Ticktinite revisionists represent bourgeois liberalism masquerading as "Marxism". Unable to transcend eclecticism and think dialectically, they do not start from the idea that every revolution creates its opposite, counter-revolution, the essence of which is the class struggle, a struggle which they think can be conducted within the parameters of bourgeois liberal ideology. The struggle between the opposites of revolution and counter-revolution can manifest itself in different forms, but the essence remains the class struggle. The Ticktinite revisionists do not begin from this dialectical starting point, but from the forms of appearance through which the class struggle expresses itself in a given historically concrete situation. These forms of appearance are emptied of all class content, detached from the class struggle and served up as ideological weapons to attack "Stalinism".

STATE CONTROL OF LITERATURE AND ART

This is another issue which the revisionist conference treated in way which was ahistorical and above class. The Soviet Union had to increase its levels of industrialisation before it could begin its transition to socialism. With such a powerful base for counter-revolution and surrounded by powerful imperialist states, to argue that the dictatorship of the proletariat should not have exercised any control over literature and art, in a situation where non-proletarian classes formed the majority of the population, is simply to take the side of the bourgeoisie in the struggle between revolution and counter-revolution. Revisionists, by their nature, will tend to oppose the struggle against bourgeois ideology in a socialist country. The struggle against what came to be known as “cosmopolitanism” was a struggle against Western bourgeois ideological influences in the Soviet Union. This was an anti-revisionist struggle, a struggle which, according to Ticktinism, the party has no right to conduct and that instead counter-revolutionary ideology must be given free rein in a socialist country surrounded by counter-revolution.

We have shown that in their sixteen principles of the campaign for a new "Marxist" party, neither the term "dictatorship of the proletariat", the political essence of Marxism, or the term "communism" is mentioned. The avoidance of these terms reveals that this campaign is revisionist. In the revisionist view, the transition from capitalism to socialism can only be supported if it is a completely painless process. Marxist-Leninists want to make the transition to socialism as painless as possible, but they do not rule out a violent struggle against counter-revolutionaries. ^[5] Western revisionism always ends up concealing itself behind non-class ideas like "human liberty", "political repression". Ticktinism wants to conceal its bourgeois liberalism behind Marxist terminology, but only succeeds in using Marxism to fight the socialist revolution in the manner of Kautsky.

CONCLUSION

The Ticktinite conference, held in London on November 4, 2006, to launch a campaign for a new "Marxist" party, was a revisionist conference opposed to Marxism-Leninism. The meeting not only failed to uphold and defend the central idea of Marxism, the dictatorship of the proletariat, the most important demarcation line between Marxists and non-Marxists but viewed the whole experience of the communist movement in one-sidedly negative terms, and the events in the Soviet Union outside of the struggle between revolution and counter-revolution. The revisionist bourgeois and sectarian nature of the meeting was also expressed in the fact that they sought to exclude from the category of the left those anti-imperialist elements that, to one degree or another, defend Stalin. The Ticktinite revisionists have therefore put forward a completely subjectivist, anti-Marxist concept and understanding of the term "left" and “Marxists”.

On the other hand, it appears that those who do not place the dictatorship of the proletariat at the heart of the struggle for socialism can all be regarded as Marxists.

This revisionist jamboree also failed to recognise the centrality of ecological thinking in redefining socialism for today. The fact that human activity is bringing on an ecological crisis was regarded as peripheral. Developing a new, ecological concept of socialism was far from the thoughts of most, if not all, of those attending this conference. Ticktinism will lead to disintegration, as the supporters of this new "August Bloc" fall out with each other, or to the formation of a new revisionist party. ^[6]

Tony Clark

Notes. back

1.        The Trotskyist tradition puts forward an ultra-left critique of the mistakes of the old communist movement. Only on the question of the comintern’s left-sectarian line of social-fascism, implemented between 1928-1934,  do the Trotskyists attempt to go beyond ultra-leftism, but end up blaming the communists for the split in the working class, a split which pre-existed the line of social-fascism.

2.        The term "Stalinist" here simply refers to those communists who sided with Stalin in the post-Lenin period.

3.        Stalin's opposition to the concept of infallibility is well known by Marxist-Leninists. He opposed Trotsky's view that the party is never wrong. The latter argued during the factional struggles of the 1920s, that one could not be right against the party. Again, in 1926, in regard to the communist movement Stalin declared 'I have never regarded, and do not now regard the comintern as being infallible'. (Stalin:Vol. 10; p.18)

4.        Trotskyism always confuses Lenin's theory of the world revolutionary process with Lenin's perspectives of the world revolution in relation to Russia. This confusing theory with perspectives serves the interest of Trotskyist ultra-leftism.

5.        On the importance of a peaceful transition to socialism where possible, see Lenin: CW. Vol. 26; p.175

6.        The August bloc - a grouping of assorted opportunists and revisionists assembled by Trotsky in Vienna in 1912, to counter the Bolsheviks. The bloc collapsed within 18 months.