There is no need for me to go over all the points in my previous reply to Phil Sharpe in OP, Prospect No.14. I will outline the main points on which I disagree with Phil in this reply. These are the following.

DEGENERATION OF THE WORKERS STATE.

Phil defends the Trotskyist theory of the degenerated workers’ state, but Lenin argued that from its inception the Soviet State suffered from bureaucratic ‘distortions’. Trotsky’s term ‘degenerated Workers State’ suggest that there was some previous level of excellence from which there was degeneration. My dictionary defines the term degeneration as

‘Having lost the qualities that are normal and desirable or proper to its kind, fallen from former excellence; having reverted to a lower type’.

Or, ‘…the act or process of degenerating…’ (The Chambers Dictionary, New Edition; p.426)

Alternatively, ‘…To decrease, relapse, deteriorate’. (The Original Thesaurus of English Words and Phrases; New Edition: Longman; p.778

‘…The process or act of degenerating’. (Chambers 21^st Century Dictionary: The Living Language; p.352)

Marxism, unlike the type of utopianism represented by Phil, teaches that socialism comes into the world stamped with the birthmarks of the old society. Phil breaks with Marxism on this most basic level.

Phil’s view that the Bolshevik’s domination of the Soviets was not based upon accountability to the working class because the Soviets carried out the policy of the Bolsheviks, which in turn was Lenin’s instructions, is quite ridiculous and betrays his Anarchist proclivities. Unlike Anarchists, who don’t believe in leaders, Marxism-Leninism teaches that political parties today usually lead classes, and these parties have leaders who carry out a definite policy.

DEFENDING THE SOVIET STATE.

Phil’s statement that Lenin, in upholding and defending the Soviet State as the centre of world revolution, objectively defended the perspective of socialism in one country and so undermined the development of world revolution, is a one-sided view and is nowhere supported by facts. Most reasonable people would agree that firstly, Lenin’s upholding the Soviet State as the centre of world revolution was conditional until revolutions took place in at least one of the more advanced countries and, secondly, that defending the Soviet State contributed to the development of the world revolution by weakening imperialism through the justified national liberation movements and the spread of socialism. Thus both Lenin and Stalin served the interest of world revolution.

Phil, like his former mentor, Trotsky, and Trotskyists generally, would like to prove that this was not the case, but they fail every time. This is a very serious matter because Lenin’s and Stalin’s defence of socialism in one country, either served the interest of the international revolution against imperialism, or it did not. All the facts show that Lenin and Stalin was right and Trotsky was wrong. Those who say that Lenin and Stalin was right on this particular question must also say Trotsky’s opposition was therefore counterrevolutionary, and served the interest of imperialism.

THE CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY.

Phil opposes Lenin and the Bolsheviks for closing down the Constituent Assembly, i.e., the bourgeois parliament. This means that Phil is incapable of choosing between the Soviets and the Bourgeois parliament, the instrument of counterrevolution. Phil is incapable of seeing that this parliament served the interest of the counterrevolution. Those who opposed the Bolsheviks on this matter, are the petty-bourgeois political servants of the bourgeoisie. Phil therefore sides with counterrevolution against the Bolsheviks, no matter how ‘left’ he claims to be.

Phil’s argument that my position is ‘moralistic’ in supporting the ban on the Mensheviks simply shows that Phil doesn’t think in class terms. The dictatorship of the proletariat should close down parties, which serves the interest of the bourgeoisie and exploitation of the working class for private profit. In fact to oppose this conclusion is truly to take a moralistic position. Phil argues that the Mensheviks and social revolutionaries still enjoyed support, but the question still remains: Soviets or bourgeois parliament, the dictatorship of the working class or the bourgeoisie.

BUREAUCRACY.

Marxist-Leninists agree that a contradiction existed between the working class and Soviet bureaucracy,

But the question is, as is the case with all contradictions, was this contradiction of an antagonistic or non-antagonistic type. The nature of the contradiction is decisive in deciding the best way to resolve it. For Lenin and Stalin this would require time. Trotsky ended up calling for political revolution as the means of ‘resolving’ the contradiction, but in reality as a means of regaining the power he had lost.

Phil writes that Tony considers the bureaucracy to have had a progressive role in developing the productive forces and creating the material basis for socialism. But what Tony actually wrote was that

‘…without the bureaucracy the gains of the revolution could not have been defended’. (OP Prospect, No. 14.

Now, this is not the same as saying the bureaucracy defended the gains of the revolution. The bureaucracy is only a tool. For instance, a man can defend himself with a tool if he is attacked, but the tool by itself cannot defend him. The tool has to be wielded by some force. The man may not be able to defend himself without the tool, but it would be ridiculous to argue that the tool defended him. However, it is quite proper to argue that without the tool the man would not have been able to defend himself.

THE UNITED-FRONT.

The ideological essence of pseudo-leftism (sometimes referred to as ultra-leftism) is that it views the class struggle and revolution in terms of one continuous offensive, or forward movement. Trotsky gives the clearest ideological expression to this one-sided view of the class struggle and revolutionary process in his Permanent Revolution theory.

But Marxism-Leninism teaches, on the other hand, that the revolution may need to manoeuvre, retreat, and prepare for further advances. The revolution often zigzag its way to victory. Phil, who represents the more extreme version of pseudo-leftism, denounces the United-Front, because he is unable to relate to the real process of the class struggle, replacing this with an abstract ideal, without manoeuvres, zigzagging, retreats and detours. So basically for Phil there is no offensive and defensive phases of the struggle, only a continuous offensive. And because in his pseudo-left view the class struggle is only an offensive, he now rejects the tactic of the United-Front with non-communist forces. In his view, it is the maximum programme or nothing. There is no need, according to Phil, to form fronts on the basis of minimum demands, or single issues, in defensive phases of the struggle. In such periods Phil’s pseudo-leftist, or ulra-leftist approach serves to isolates the working class, weakening it in the face of its enemies.

Nominally, the Trotskyist type of pseudo-leftism recognises the United-Front tactic, but goes on to denounce the People’s Front against Fascism, precisely because they fail to grasp the relation between minimum and maximum demands and their corresponding relation to the defensive and offensive stages of the class struggle. In the Spanish Civil war, 1936-1939, the various forms of pseudo leftism was one of the factors contributing to Franco’s victory. Of course, one cannot blame the revisionist distortion of the people’s front on Stalin and the genuine Marxist-Leninist elements that formed a minority in the ECCI of the Comintern.

Tony, Communist Party Alliance

March, 24^th 2001