ISML ISSUE 5

International Struggle Marxist-Leninist

ISML WEB VERSION: ISSUE NUMBER 5: 1999

Letter from Open Polemic to ISML

(The submission by Open Polemic to the December 1997 Conference of ISML was omitted in error from ISML 4 , Conference Report, and is duly reprinted below, with apologies - Ed.)

In Hari Kumar's overview of the Second Conference of International Struggle/Marxist-Leninist, which was attended by Open Polemic in a non voting capacity, he claims that: "An attempt was made by Open Polemic of the UK, to avoid the formation of a platform such as ISML, founded on notions of democratic centralism. This was based on the argument that democratic centralism was the cloak under which revisionism triumphed and subverted the communist revolution. This argument is summarised in their paper - which we reprint here - and came under repeated fire throughout the conference, especially from a comrade from Partisan (UK) and by Alliance (Canada & USA). In addition the principle put to Open Polemic that the dividing line between Marxist-Leninists and revisionists is the support of Stalin, was rejected by Open Polemic. Since then, Open Polemic has re-printed some articles from the Conference".

Firstly, it is necessary to point out that you have not reprinted our three page paper, 'Prospect for the Future Multanimous Party', several copies of which were submitted prior to the Conference and which, in the absence of any arrangements on your part, was also distributed by OP delegates to the other delegates. You did however find space to print Open Polemic's very short critique of the voluntarist idealism contained in the ISML's Founding Editorial Principles. In fact, this was not a paper submitted to the conference. It was taken, presumably by Hari Kumar, from our publication, OP Prospect No.1, of October 97. In addition, this short critique does not, in any way, as claimed by Kumar, summarise Open Polemic's views on democratic centralism.

We are most concerned that, without any reason being given, the Editorial Board should take the decision not to reprint Open Polemic's paper, particularly as your founding principles state that: "Until an open debate has achieved the clarity and principled agreement that is required by the International Marxist-Leninist movement, no new, principled and meaningful Communist International can be formed. That is why a prominent section of "International Struggle" will be devoted to "Discussion and Reply". Our paper was used to develop the general thrust of our delegates arguments at the conference, and it included a summary of Open Polemic's particular, outright support for the party principle of democratic centralism. The first paragraph of this summary reads: "There can be no dispute that the communist party must be multanimous or many-minded in its democracy. Neither can there be any dispute that, to be unanimous or single-minded in its action, the membership must place itself under democratic centralist direction. The essence of the political and organisational principle of democratic centralism is multanimous democracy combined with unanimous action."

The assertion that Open Polemic argues that, "democratic centralism was the cloak under which revisionism triumphed and subverted the communist revolution" is a figment of Kumar's imagination. Nowhere in our paper, or indeed, in any of our published material does Open Polemic put forward such an argument, for it is a historical fact that revisionists essentially of the reformo-communist variety, were openly elected as majorities onto the central committees of several communist parties of the Third International'. They then utilised the normal practice of leader centralism to consolidate their position in the party. The 'anti-revisionist' minority became the new ' dissidents', with their views targeted for distortion and suppression by the new editors. They were divided among themselves and lacked any general perspective for dealing with the new objective situation, other than a hankering for the apparent certainties of the past. The 'revisionists' had no need for a cloak, they could do almost everything quite openly. So, what did come under repeated fire throughout the conference, from Open Polemic in fact, was the continuing support for the practice of leader centralism within the political and organisational structures of democratic centralism.

We fail to understand what Kumar means by Open Polemic attempting, "to avoid the formation of a platform such as ISML, founded on notions of democratic centralism". In particular, we haven't a clue as to what he means by "notions" of democratic centralism and we would further remind him, firstly, that the ISML is already formed as a platform and, secondly, that the ISML does not even list support for the Marxist-Leninist principle of democratic centralism as one of its founding principles. However, we regard democratic centralism as the political and organisational principle of the communist party and, therefore, not an appropriate political and organisational principle for any communist united front; as soon as a communist united front adopts the principle of democratic centralism, it effectively establishes itself as a communist party.

The "dividing line between Marxist-Leninists and revisionists" is not, as Hari Kumar contends, support for Stalin. Support for the thoughts and works' of any outstanding personality, from Marx to Mao, Hoxha and after, can only be in accordance with the past, present and future validity of their thoughts and works. The dividing line is theoretical and must be dealt with as such. As Open Polemic pointed out in its paper: "Revisionism is politically and organisationally manifested within the working class movement by the trends of anarcho-communism on the left and reformo-communism on the right and by the various conjunctions of both of these trends.

With their many varieties identifying as communist or revolutionary socialist, the general characteristic of these trends is that their support for Marxism is accompanied by opposition to Leninism on the crucial questions of party and state....

...Being the closest to scientific communism, there are those within these revisionist trends who not only uphold the component parts of scientific communism, they also support such defining, fundamental principles for communist parties as democratic centralism, proletarian internationalism and the struggle for the dictatorship of the proletariat.

However, the distinguishing feature of these protagonists is that they do not support the most defining, fundamental principle of scientific communism today, the principle of the leading role of the party prior to and within the dictatorship of the proletariat."

It would be interesting to know who would remain with ISML if this principle concerning the leading role of the party was included in Clause 1 of its Founding Editorial Principles. Perhaps Hari Kumar himself might also tell us just where he stands on this question.

(Open Polemic).

Prospect for the Future Multanimous Party By Open Polemic, UK

Scientific communism was founded on the philosophy of dialectical and historical materialism. This philosophy was crucially instrumental in revealing the appropriation of surplus value in the political economy of capitalism and the struggle of classes in history. In this knowledge, the proletariat is recognised objectively as the emancipatory, revolutionary class carrying the historic potential for settling accounts with the various, national bourgeoisie. By establishing its own revolutionary, international dictatorship as the means to dispossess the entire, international capitalist class, the proletariat, through its own self-emancipation under socialism will open the way for the emancipation of all humanity in the future society of communism.

Elaborated by Marx and Engels and later by Lenin, the ideology of scientific communism in its continuing development has been denoted, for the greater part of this century, by the term Marxism-Leninism. Crucial to its even further development is the political and organisational struggle for the self-organisation of advanced workers into an international of communist parties, into the collective leadership that can enable the proletariat to realise its historic potential.

To meet the responsibilities of leadership, all communist parties based on the ideology of scientific communism have to conduct a struggle against their subversion by the ideology of anarchism, which is revolutionary in its opposition to the capitalist state, and by the ideology of reformism, which is reactionary in its support for the capitalist state. Both of these ideologies, standing together in opposition to the concept of the socialist state in transition from capitalism to the higher phase of communism, are the main source of revisionist influence within scientific communism.

Revisionism and Dogmatism

Revisionism is an expression of reactionary activity, dogmatism an expression of revolutionary idleness. Whereas revisionism rejects scientific communism in the guise of developing it under changed conditions, dogmatism undermines it by clinging to the past in the face of changed conditions. A twin source of ideological confusion and theoretical disorder in the communist movement, revisionism and dogmatism are bonded together by the constant response of the one to the other. Revisionism is politically and organisationally manifested within the working class movement by the trends of anarcho-communism on the left and reformo-communism on the right and by the various conjunctions of both these trends.

With their many varieties identifying as communist or revolutionary socialist, the general characteristic of these trends it that their support for Marxism is accompanied by opposition to Leninism on the crucial question of party and state. Consequently, their political postulations are developed primarily around opposition to the theory and practice of particular communist leaders in countries where the building of a nation state of socialism has been proclaimed and, correspondingly, around specific interpretations of past history.

Being the closest to scientific communism, there are those within these revisionist trends who not only uphold the component parts of scientific communism, they also support such defining, fundamental principles for communist parties as democratic centralism, proletarian internationalism, and the struggle for the dictatorship of the proletariat.

However, the distinguishing feature of these protagonists is that they do not support the most defining, fundamental principle of scientific communism today, the principle of the leading role of the party both prior to and within the dictatorship of the proletariat. Consequently, the upholding of this fundamental principle must underpin the struggle against revisionism.

In supporting Leninism on the question of party and state, dogmatism is manifested today by a variety of political postulations which are developed primarily around support for the theory and practice of communist leaders in countries where the building of a nation state of socialism has been proclaimed and, correspondingly, around specific interpretations of past history.

In their sectarian claims to be the sole upholders of 'Marxism-Leninism' and in their dismissive exclusion of others who do not conform to their particular, historically specific interpretations, the dogmatists objectively strengthen revisionism. They collectively form a major impediment to advancing open polemic and to rapprochement and unity around the ideology of scientific communism.

Without a determined and successful struggle against dogmatism within scientific communism revisionism will undoubtedly maintain its ascendancy in the working class movement. Overcoming the former is the condition for defeating the latter. To overcome dogmatism, it is firstly necessary for all those who adhere to the fundamentals of scientific communism to critically and creatively participate in open polemic.

Centralism and Democratic Centralism

There can be no dispute that the communist party must be multanimous or many minded in its democracy. Neither can there be any doubt that, to be unanimous or single-minded in its action, the membership must place itself under centralist direction. The essence of the political and organisational principle of democratic centralism is multanimous democracy combined with unanimous action.

Learning from the experience of Marx and Engels, democratic centralism was elaborated by Lenin and eventually agreed as a principle of party political organisation at the unity congress in 1906 of the old RSDLP composed of Bolsheviks and Mensheviks.

In July 1917, at the first congress of the RSDLP (Bolsheviks), it was agreed that the party should be built upon the principle of democratic centralism and subsequently this principle was incorporated as a condition of membership of the Third International at its founding in 1919.

Centralism is a political and organisational practice involving the voluntary subordination of the party membership to a party centre that is composed of a self-appointed leadership which formulates the party programme and leads the party into action. The multanimous democracy of the centralist party resides in the leadership.

Democratic centralism is a political and organisational principle in which the party centre is the congress of delegates which formulates the party programme by majority decisions and elects a central leadership to lead the party into action. The multanimous democracy of the democratic centralist party, contrary to the centralist party, resides in the membership.

Whereas the practice of centralism is necessary for communist parties operating under oppressive regimes and in emergency situations, the principle of democratic centralism is essential for communist parties operating in conditions of relative stability and legality.

The Practice of Leader Centralism

Following the October revolution, for over three years the multanimous democracy of the RSDLP (Bolsheviks) took the form of various factions, that is, of groups with the full right to their own political organisation and publications. However, the detrimental affect on conduct and discipline of this libertarian multanimity, in reality, the organisation of parties within the party, was such that by the 1921 Congress, on the insistence of Lenin, it was deemed necessary to ban factions

The banning of factions, however, was not carried through to its logical conclusion for Lenin's faction still maintained its dominance on the central committee which, being granted special rights in the elaboration and presentation of programme and having control of the party press, constituted a crucial vantage point for any faction.

Without any alternative multanimous form of democracy to that of libertarian factionalism and with the democratic formulations of the membership being confined to the basic, mobilising units, the membership in general became reliant upon the programme formulated by the dominant faction in the leadership and compliant to its demands, while opposition factions resorted to clandestine methods to try and gain the vantage point of the central committee. This was the essence of the practice of leader centralism, of centralism operating in the guise of democratic centralism.

With the RSDLP setting the precedent, leader centralism became the political and organisational practice of other communist parties, not only of those inside but also those outside the Third International.

Upheld to this day by both revisionists and dogmatists alike, the leader centralist party, despite its ideological class origins, inevitably reproduces the characteristics of bourgeois democracy. Its covert factionalism is compressed into a schema of ruling majority and opposition minority. The disciplined observance of majority decisions by all minority views is translated into the subordination of the minority to the majority and taking sides in certain conditions inevitably means choosing between revisionism and dogmatism.

Although it is historically redundant, leader centralism still remains the practice of innumerable, vanguardist parties and is still upheld by countless, vanguardist sects.

There is no leader centralist party in this qualitatively new period of ideological confusion and theoretical disorder which can act as the centre for communist unity and rapprochement around the ideology of scientific communism. Of even greater importance is that the leader centralist party cannot meet the future political and organisational needs of the advanced
workers.

The Multanimous Party

For the party of scientific communism democratic centralism is the political and organisational expression of the unity of theory and practice. This is realised in the multanimous elaboration of programme and its unanimous advancement. It is through this process that the party is able to develop its scientific yet partisan participation in the class struggle. Although, necessarily, it is politically organised through centralism, the communist party's unanimous action is essentially a measure of its democratic multanimity.

Multanimous means having a many sided mind. For the party of scientific communism this means having a multanimous democratic life which not only allows various collectives composed of the like-minded to formulate theoretical or programmatic postulations, it also ensures equality of opportunity between such collectives to present their postulations to the party.

Equality of opportunity conflicts with the practice of leader centralism in which the dominant, like-minded collective within the leadership has special opportunities in the formulation and presentation of its postulations to the party. It is due to this practice that the leader centralist party constantly suffers from factions locked in a struggle to gain special, vantage point of the leadership.

In denying the constitutional rights of members to form like-minded collectives, the leader centralist party not only stultifies the multanimous, scientific elaboration of theory and its associated, unanimous practice, it constantly instigates the formation of clandestine factions.

There is now no future for the parties that uphold the principle of democratic centralism while practising leader centralism. These parties must be superseded by a united party which is fully multanimous in its democracy, by a party which allows the formation of like-minded collectives, by a party which denies special opportunities to the dominant faction in the leadership to formulate and present its theory and programme. Yet, at the same time, such a party must stand opposed to any return to the libertarianism of factions with full rights to their own political organisation, that is, to the libertarianism of parties within the party.

Ideological Foundations for the Multanimous Communist Party

Communist unity and rapprochement around the ideology of scientific communism demands a critical and creative process of open polemic between comrades that merges, on the basis of a common theoretical programme, into the establishment of a multanimous, democratic centralist party that adopts:

the outlook of dialectical and historical materialism

the political and organisational principle of democratic centralism

the principle of the leading role of the party prior to and within the dictatorship of the proletariat

the principle of proletarian internationalism, recognising that the national states of the proletariat coalesce into the international state of socialism prior to the worldwide, higher phase of communism

Proposed Constitutional Requirements of the Multanimous Communist Party

The first constitutional requirement of the future party must be to define the political and organisational distinction between theory and practice, between the party's democratic and centralist functions. The second constitutional requirement must be the right to the formation of like-minded collectives. As distinct from the unanimous, leader-centralist party, the distinguishing constitutional features of the multanimous, democratic centralist party will be:

a central committee elected by the congress as the highest body responsible for: mobilising the party into action and conduct, discipline and security

a democracy committee elected by congress responsible for: equality of opportunity in the dissemination of different collective views and education across the party

joint responsibility of the central committee and democracy committee for party publications

decisions of higher, mobilising bodies obligatory on lower, mobilising bodies

the right of all members to form and participate in declared forums for the purpose of formulating and presenting their different collective views across the party through the democracy committee and party publication

From the above, it follows that no constitutional, elected body will have the right to formulate and present a collective view to the party other than that connected with its constitutional responsibilities.
(Open Polemic).

Hari Kumar Replies to Open Polemic

At this juncture, Hari Kumar would like to apologise to the readers of ISML for taking so many pages to deal with an organisation openly stating that Trotskyism is not outside the bounds of a principled debate. There are, however, several general matters discussed by Open Polemic that have in practice confused the way forward to a single Marxist-Leninist Party in Britain. On this basis it may be worthwhile following the events around Open Polemic for the moment.

1. An Unreserved Apology to Open Polemic for Not Printing The Correct Document

Firstly, before any theoretical and historical matters are broached, I wish to apologise to "Open Polemic" unreservedly for omitting its submission to the December 1997 ISML London Conference from the published proceedings. This was not the error of ISML as a whole, but mine as Chief Editor alone.

Open Polemic commented as follows: "It is necessary to point out that you have not reprinted our three page paper, 'Prospect for the Future Multanimous Party', several copies of which were submitted prior to the Conference and which, in the absence of any arrangements on your part, was also distributed by OP delegates to the other delegates. You did however find space to print Open Polemic's very short critique of the voluntarist idealism contained in the ISML's Founding Editorial Principles. In fact, this was not a paper submitted to the conference. It was taken, presumably by Hari Kumar, from our publication, OP Prospect No.1, of October 97. In addition, this short critique does not, in any way, as claimed by Kumar, summarise Open Polemic's views on democratic centralism." (Letter From Open Polemic to ISML; November 1998).

This omitted document is published above in full, and ISML trusts that it now adequately summarises Open Polemic on democratic centralism. Perhaps "Open Polemic" will allow that this omission was in fact a genuine oversight as it most certainly was. Indeed none of the editorial members had a copy of this document after the conference. We feel obliged to point out that all conference delegates (including Open Polemic) were specifically invited to display printed materials on the tables provided and to talk to the groups present. Nevertheless, I offer an unreserved apology on the part of myself and ISML for this error.

2. On Other Objections Raised In The Letter from Open Polemic to ISML On Hari Kumar's Overview. On Democratic Centralism & Leader Centralism

Having dealt with this error we move to the substantive issues to hand. It can now bee seen that Open Polemic's views makes Hari Kumar's case quite cogently. Open Polemic took issue with the summary of the London Conference, written by Hari Kumar, as follows: "The assertion that Open Polemic argues that, 'democratic centralism was the cloak under which revisionism triumphed and subverted the communist revolution' is a figment of Kumar's imagination. Nowhere in our paper, or indeed, in any of our published material does Open Polemic put forward such an argument, for it is a historical fact that revisionists essentially of the reformo-communist variety, were openly elected as majorities onto the central committees of several communist parties of the Third International. They then utilised the normal practice of leader centralism to consolidate their position in the party". (Open Polemic, Letter to ISML).

Since Hari Kumar always regretted his complete lack of "imagination", he thanks Open Polemic for their generous attribution. However, his own recollection is that the verbal formulations offered to the floor of the London conference by Open Polemic stated that the success of revisionism stemmed from democratic centralism. Perhaps whether or not this was a flight of imagination might be tested by what is now published on behalf of Open Polemic? The following phrase confirms that Kumar did correctly interpret their intention, for Open Polemic argues that a perversion (sorry - Kumar's "unimaginative" paraphrase) of democratic centralism took place, into something Open Polemic calls "leader centralism". Open Polemic then asserts boldly that: "It is a historical fact that revisionists, essentially of the reformo-communist variety, were openly elected as majorities onto the central committees of several communist parties of the Third International. They then utilised the normal practice of leader centralism to consolidate their position in the party". (Open Polemic, Letter to ISML).

But of course! How "subtly different" that is from Kumar's paraphrase: "Open Polemic .. argue... that democratic centralism was the cloak under which revisionism triumphed and subverted the communist revolution...". Kumar mourns his recently bestowed but swiftly removed "imagination". Being un-subtle, Kumar stands by that paraphrase as an acceptable summary of Open Polemic's viewpoint. Perhaps Open Polemic will show Kumar his errors in identifying the two given phrases? Perhaps Kumar's error was in seeing the need for a "cloak", since Open Polemic go on to state: "The revisionists had no need for a cloak, they could do almost everything quite openly."

So "revisionists" had open sway within the CPSU(B) and were able to do almost anything "quite openly"? Let us "imaginatively" add the word "effortlessly"! Perhaps Open Polemic has not read of the fierce and protracted debates in the CPSU(B)? Where Marxists-Leninists led by Lenin and Stalin waged ideological class war against various brands of hidden revisionists upon any number of issues, from Chinese revolutionary strategy and tactics, through the means of collectivisation and the possibility of socialism etc . Alliance strongly rejects Open Polemic's view as nonsense. Of course if you choose to ignore great swathes of history, it is easy to dismiss the need for revisionists to use a "cloak". In fact we argue that Open Polemic are intent on donning a cloak - to lay siege to Leninist notions of party organisation and democratic centralism without actually saying that is what they intend! Their first step is to identify Lenin as a "Leader Centralist".

3. Open Polemic And "Leader Centralism" ? On Kronstadt And All That

Open Polemic argue in effect, that the party operated in the Soviet Union up till the death of Stalin - not under principles of "democratic centralism" - but under something they call "leader centralism". And who in fact instituted "leader centralism" - presumably one of the revisionists? Well actually, according to Open Polemic, it was no less than Lenin himself:

"Following the October revolution, for over three years the ... democracy of the SDLP (Bolsheviks) took the form of various factions, that is, of groups with the full right to their own political organisation and publications. However, the detrimental affect on conduct and discipline of this libertarian multanimity, in reality, the organisation of parties within the party, was such that by the 1921 Congress, on the insistence of Lenin, it was deemed necessary to ban factions. The banning of factions, however, was not carried through to its logical conclusion for Lenin's faction still maintained its dominance on the central committee which, being granted special rights in the elaboration and presentation of programme and having control of the party press, constituted a crucial vantage point for any faction... the membership in general became reliant upon the programme formulated by the dominant faction in the leadership and compliant to its demands, while opposition factions resorted to clandestine methods to try and gain the vantage point of the central committee. This was the essence of the practice of leader centralism, of centralism operating in the guise of democratic centralism." (See Open Polemic's Conference submission).

It is absolutely clear, therefore, that Open Polemic regard Lenin as having been a "Leader Centralist". In this sort of statement and analysis Open Polemic do not differ one whit from those like Robert Conquest, Richard Pipes etc . The set of simultaneous equations being set before us are:

"Leadership = usurpation of power = power hungry = Bolsheviks = Lenin = Stalin = massacres etc".

QED - Bravo!

Again we are forced to conclude that Kumar simply lacks imagination. It is true that Open Polemic professes (continually!) to uphold democratic centralism:

"However, we regard democratic centralism as the political and organisational principle of the communist party". (Open Polemic Letter to ISML).

In reality though, we argue that the logic of their entire argument, is to disembowel the Leninist understanding of democratic centralism in favour of some vaporous "multanimity". So Open Polemic argues against the adherence to the idea of democratic centralism amongst the present day Marxist-Leninist remnants. They try to claim the "moral high ground" by pompously and "dialectically" calling for the relaxation of the democratic centralism:

"The vanguardist organisations today exhibit a discipline inherited from decades of democratic-centralist practice, so much so that each of them form part of what has became an insurmountable barrier to the formation of single vanguard party. The paradox is clear. The more insistent the vanguardist organisations are in upholding democratic centralism, the further we all stand from a democratic-centralist structured revolutionary vanguard. Thus, in order to dissipate the paradox, Open Polemic is forced to call for the relaxation of the democratic centralism in the vanguardist organisations as a prerequisite to its comprehensive implementation at a future date."

("End Vanguardism - Organise the Vanguard"; OP number 6; nd; London; p.4).

As to the matter of whether such extraordinary times as "today", "demand" suspension of democratic centralist norms of party building, Lenin was quite pungent:

"It is ridiculous to plead different circumstances and a change of periods: the building of a fighting organisation and the conduct of political agitation are essential under any "drab, peaceful" circumstances, in any period, no matter how marked by a "declining revolutionary spirit"; moreover it is precisely in such periods and under such circumstances that work of this kind is particularly necessary, since it is too late to form the organisation in times of explosion and outbursts."

(Lenin; "Where to Begin?"; Volume 5; Collected Works; Moscow; p. 18).

In addressing the need for a "release from democratic centralism" - Open Polemic equates vanguardism with factionalism. Thus the equation goes well beyond the philosophy of vanguards and simply means that any platform is essentially a form of "vanguard".

"In the circumstances of today, "Vanguardism" is in reality a form of factionalism composed of a variety of factions, some with influence in the working class, some with some influence and some with even less. Each of these 'vanguards' has its own individual programmes and discipline and all of them are striving to be recognised by the working class in preference to the other factions. In essence: Vanguards with programmes are, factions with platforms".

(OP, Issue 4; nd; London; "Editorial, Platforms & Programmes"; p.2).

It is clear that the whole notion of leadership of the Open Polemic is to deny the role of leaderships - to in effect become "tail-ist". To endorse their rejection of Leninist norms of organisational practice in groups today, Open Polemic foist an extraordinary straw man upon us - pretending that Leninist practice entails the following caricature:

"As Marxists we seek to impose ourselves onto the stage of human affairs, acting to influence the class struggle to the limits of what the objective conditions will allow. Clearly though, if we are to act in the revolutionary interest, there has to be a subjective way of determining what actions best accord to that revolutionary interest. (History has pronounced clearly enough that the whim of this or that "great leader" is wholly insufficient.) Having acted in unity in the "revolutionary interest", there again needs to be a revolutionary method of modifying correcting and even jettisoning aspects of our programme in the harsh light of practice. Open Polemic contends that nothing .. equals or betters democratic centralism for this purpose."

(End Vanguardism - Organise the Vanguard; Open Polemic, number 6; nd; London; p.4).

A lot of such high-falutin "stuff" is crammed into the erudite articles by Open Polemic. But there is a lot that is plainly wrong with just this one single arrogant paragraph. Since when did Marxists say that there "has to be a subjective way of determining what actions best accord to that revolutionary interest."? Surely that is the test of "practice"? As Marx put it in his 'Theses On Feuerbach':

"The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but is a practical question. Man must prove the truth ie. the reality and power, the this-worldliness of his thinking in practice. The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking which isolates itself from practice is a purely scholastic question".

(Marx , 'Theses On Feuerbach'; In "The German Ideology" by Marx & Engels; Moscow; 1976; p. 618).

And since when did Marxists profess to believe that: "the whim of this or that "great leader" is wholly sufficient" ? Is Open Polemic perhaps confusing Lenin and Stalin with Hitler and Mussolini? All this erudition ends with a pious declaration on behalf of democratic centralism. Then what exactly makes the Open Polemic repudiate its functioning in 1921? Why are they unable to accept that the "test of practice" showed that the factionalism had threatened the viability of the party and indeed had been partially responsible for the attempted Kronstadt mutiny? of Lenin? Because ultimately Open polemic support the Kronstadt Rebellion; ultimately they support the attempts by Trotsky to split the party just before the Tenth Party Congress of March 8th 1921. Trotsky was "proposing methods of sheer compulsion, of dictation" to deal with the Fifth All-Russian Trade Union Conference of November 1920 using the "dubious slogans of "tightening the screws" and "shaking up the trade unions" instead of "methods of persuasion". (History of the CPSU(B); Moscow; 1939; p.252).

We cannot discuss each event here in detail. Thus we will simply cite the special resolution on "party Unity" from Lenin that was adopted by the 10th Party Congress:

"Even before the discussion on the trade unions, certain signs of factionalism had been present in the Party, viz, the formation of groups with separate platforms, striving to a certain degree to segregate and create their own group discipline. All class conscious workers must clearly realize the perniciousness and impermissibility of factionalism of any kind, for in practice factionalism inevitably results in weakening team work. At the same time it inevitably leads to intensified and repeated attempts by the enemies of the Party , who have fastened onto it because it is the governing party to widen the cleavage (in the Party) and to use it for counter-revolutionary purposes... The way the enemies of the proletariat take advantage of every deviation from the thoroughly consistent Communist line was most strikingly shown in the case of the Kronstadt mutiny, when the bourgeoisie counter-revolutionaries and White guards in all countries of the world immediately expressed their readiness to accept even the slogans of the Soviet system, if only they might thereby secure the overthrow of the dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia, and when the Socialist Revolutionaries and the bourgeois counter-revolutionaries in general resorted in Kronstadt to slogans calling for an insurrection against the Soviet Government of Russia ostensibly in the interest of Soviet power. These facts show that the White guards strive , and are able to disguise themselves as Communists, and even as people "more left" than the Communists, solely for weakening and overthrowing the bulwark of the proletarian revolution."

(History of the CPSU(B); Moscow; 1939; p.252).

This hidden belief of Open Polemic (ie. that the Kronstadt mutiny was correct) is quite consistent with their refusal to come out against Trotskyism.

4. The Aim of Open Polemic Is To Delay The Start of Serious Party Building

It seems that objectively it cannot be denied that whatever the "subjective intent" - the "objective reality" is that the convolutions of Open Polemic simply serve to prevaricate and delay the start of serious work in party building. As if we have all the decades in the world! For Open Polemic constantly aims to put off to a tenuous later date the actual building of a party. For they can only offer a mechanical contrast between the first task and the later task of building the party:

"In a period of theoretical and organisational disorder, the first task, before the formation of a united party is to unite the most advanced elements of the class in theoretical and practical work."

("The Central Demarcation for Marxist-Leninists"; OP Issue 11; March 1995; ISSN 0969-4617.p.3).

But all this is an artificial separation, as can be seen if the history of Iskra is seriously examined. Constantly Open Polemic insists that it is not tyring to set up a party. And indeed we believe that. We argue that they are inhibiting the formation of a party by confusing the most advanced sections of the class about the need for democratic centralism. They build (at a time when ideological clarity upon major dividing lines are needed) - paper mountains with "constitutional Principles for Democratic Centralism"; and pretty looking and complex flow diagrams that include such nonsense as "limited elected tenure on all directing bodies"(see "Against Leader Centralism For Democratic Centralism"; nd; supplement to OP issue 3). The "abstract" formula of Open Polemic is to proclaim: "The Leading role of the Party - but no leaders please!" And certainly not for more than one term!" This general strategy of delaying the party formation - is flanked by that from yet other revisionists like Harpal Brar, who argue that in fact there is a party already - simply join en mass the social-democratic formation of Mr. Arthur Scargill and voilà - we have party!

5. Are There Dividing Lines In the Movement? Open Polemic Upon Stalin And Trotsky

Open Polemic claims it is anxious to obtain demarcation lines. But is that the case? Tail-ism, with which Open Polemic stands accused, results in a refusal to take a principled stand on an issue. At the conference, and in the overview Hari Kumar put it to Open Polemic that they should accept that a major dividing line today for those calling themselves Marxist-Leninist was the attitude to Stalin. At the conference, representatives of Open Polemic forthrightly rejected this, presenting this as a naive concept. Perhaps this could not have been purely Kumar's imagination as they write this also:

"The 'dividing line between Marxist-Leninists and revisionists' is not, as Hari Kumar contends, support for Stalin. Support for the thoughts and works of any outstanding personality, from Marx to Mao, Hoxha and after, can only be in accordance with the past, present and future validity of their thoughts and works. The dividing line is theoretical and must be dealt with as such." (see above letter).

Well, I am not entirely sure what "in accordance with the past, present and future validity of their thoughts and works" actually means, but it certainly sounds profound! And it certainly does reject Stalin as a dividing line. No doubt that puts into some perspective the refusal by Open Polemic to credit Trotsky with being a counter-revolutionary. As the article "Open Polemic and Democratic Centralism" (Communist League, OP number 12, March 1996; ISSN 0969-4617) makes clear, the Open Polemic refused to accept the view expressed by Ted Hankin and others that Trotskyism was "disruptive":

"We the undersigned think that a productive discussion that takes place within the parameters of Marxism-Leninism is vitally important. By definition we place Trotskyism outside of the framework of ML. The only role that the Trotskyists can play in such a discussion is one of disruption".

(Ted Hankins' testament to "Open Polemic editorial Board; cited CL in OP Number 12 March 1996; p. 18.)

Elsewhere Open Polemic vigorously defend Trotsky's role, offering against "Partisan" another grouping - the hoary line of Trotsky's participation in the Bolshevik revolution in 1917:

"We are surprised that Partisan (UK) should now .. demand (of OP) . that we .. declare 'Trotskyism' to be a utopian ideology and the enemy of ML.... it is .. a matter of historical fact that Trotsky did not theorise against the conception of the uneven economic and political development of capitalism and it is also a matter of historical fact that he participated in a particular 'Victory of socialism' , that is, in the initial overthrow of the ruling capitalist class in Russia."

(OP, "Letter to Partisan; p. 4; OP Issue 10; June 1994. ISSN 0969-4617).

Lest Open Polemic attempt to mis-cite us, we do not deny the "historical fact" that Trotsky "participated" in the Bolshevik Revolution. Of course, neither did Stalin try to deny Trotsky's importance as the President of the Petrograd Soviet of the Revolutionary Military Committee:

"I am far from denying that Trotsky's undoubtedly important role in the uprising.... It cannot be denied that Trotsky fought well in the period of October... but Trotsky was not the only one who fought well in the period of October. Even people like the Left Social-Revolutionaries who then stood side by side with the Bolsheviks, also fought well." (J.V. Stalin: "Trotskyism or Leninism" In: "Works" Volume 6; Moscow; 1953; p. 342; 344).

But the total view of Trotsky's career has to take into account his opposition to Lenin and the Bolsheviks on just about every major policy and struggle, and then the struggle against the construction of socialism in the USSR and the launching of a factional secret struggle against the Russian state. A full reckoning must take into account events such as Trotsky's vicious anti-Bolshevik behaviour early on; his support for the "peace slogan" of Nashe Slovo (as Lenin said: "Phrase lovers ... like Trotsky (see no.105 of the "Nashe Slovo") defend in opposition to us, the peace slogan" (Lenin: "The 'Peace' Slogan Appraised"; Collected Works; Volume 18: London; nd; p.262); Trotsky's watering down of the Zimmerwald rejection of the inter- imperialist First World War and Trotsky's attacks upon the "revolutionary defeatism" line of Lenin; Trotsky's centrist position upon the rights of nations to self determination (described by Lenin as: "The Kautskyists hypocritically recognise self-determination - in Russia this is the road taken by Trotsky and Martov. In words, both declare that they are in favour of self-determination as Kautsky does.. but in practice? Trotsky emerges in his customary eclecticism.... The prevailing hypocrisy remains unexposed . . namely the attitude to be adopted towards the nation that is oppressed by "my" nation... A Russian Social-Democrat who "recognises self determination of nations.... without fighting for freedom of secession for the nations oppressed by tsarism is really an imperialist and lackey of tsarism," (Lenin, "The Discussion on Self Determination Summed Up"; In 'Collected Works'; Volume 19; 1942; p.305); Trotsky's conciliationism with social-chauvinism ("Trotsky ...as always entirely disagrees with the social chauvinists in principle, but agrees with them in everything in practice."..(Lenin: "State of Affairs Within Russian Social Democracy"; ibid; p.205-6); Trotsky's disagreement with the strategy of the April Theses of Lenin and his later vain-glorious and false claim that the Bolsheviks had "come round to his theory of the Permanent Revolution"; Trotsky on the eve of the revolution, obstructed fusion of elements outside the Bolsheviks such as the "Inter-Regional Organisation" (Mezhrayopntsi): Lenin's notes: "Trotsky who took the floor out of turn immediately after me:... I cannot call myself a Bolshevik.. We cannot be asked to recognise Bolshevism... the old factional name is undesirable.. "Lenin Miscellany; Volume 4; Moscow; 1925; p.303); Trotsky organised a demand that in July 1917, Lenin allow himself to be arrested instead of going into hiding; Trotsky insisted upon assisting the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionary Deputies in the Petrograd Soviet, who were in a marked minority as the masses had gone to the Bolsheviks, into leading presidium positions against Lenin's viewpoint; Trotsky insisted upon trying to delay the insurrection on grounds of "Soviet constitutionalism" arguing that insurrection should not be proclaimed by the Party; Lenin saw Trotsky's line as either - and he left the question open - "absolute idiocy" or "complete betrayal", and he attacked it up to the moment of insurrection itself; Trotsky's false insistence upon the theory of permanent revolution as being correct and substantiated by the failure of the Chinese Revolution which he blamed on Stalin, who had in fact been trying to get the Communist Party of China into the correct position; Trotsky's attacks upon the actual construction of socialism in the USSR on the false premise that "socialism in One Country" was impossible; Trotsky's attempts to create secret factions and organise disruption of the USSR - both while he was still in the USSR and after from outside when he was in exile (See "Trotsky Against The Bolsheviks"in 2 Parts; Communist League; 1975). (Note from 2000 edition: See this on Web pages Alliance).

Quotes from Open Polemic abundantly confirm their view of the Stalin-Lenin disputes with Trotsky as irrelevant. Perhaps Open Polemic incline to see Trotsky as an under-rated Marxist-Leninist. But even supporters of Open Polemic such as Pauline Rowe seem to agree. Rowe fully accepts and uses (we hope correctly) neologisms like "multanimity". She admits: "There is much in Open Polemic's proposals for a more "democratic" democratic centralism , which is reminiscent of Trotsky." Whether Rowe is a member or not of Open Polemic is not entirely clear to us, but irrespective of that, the sense of her following statement is precisely what is demanded by Open Polemic:

"Democratic centralism is one answer. Different viewpoints can be tolerated in a party on the understanding that when the democratic debate has finished and the vote is taken that all will support the result like disciplined comrades even if they are unhappy with it. Democratic centralism offers ways of choosing a position of endorsing one rather than another of the competing viewpoints. In contrast "multanimity" by relation to the historical divide works on the understanding that neither side of the third/fourth international split will be officially endorsed. A multanimous party will not declare itself Stalinist, Maoist or Trotskyite. There will be no requirement that all members should sell "The Revolution Betrayed" or attend the celebrations of Stalin's birthday."

("Splits & Multanimity" Rowe P, p.12; March 1996; number 12; ISSN 0969-4617)

Is it necessary to point out how this completely throws away the theory and weapons of the workers all for a cheap line about "Stalin's birthday"! Instead of cheap lines, we will 'unimaginatively' show that the matter of demarcation lines is not either trivial, nor is it in any sort of mechanical opposition to the building of a party.

6. On How Clarity Has Been Historically Reached In The International Movement

ISML has been quite unequivocal in the view that at this confusing juncture, there is a vital need for some ideological clearing of the decks. Unless one has a very naive view of how this can occur, there will definitely need to be some splits. As we stated at the outset:

"At a critical stage in the development of the Russian Communist movement, Comrade Lenin called for "LINES OF DEMARCATION"... "We declare that before we can unite and in order that we may unite we MUST first of all draw firm and definite lines of demarcation as Iskra demands," (Works Vol 5; Moscow 1977; p.367; cited by ISML In "Statement To All Marxist-Leninists, and Comrades of the World").

Of course this process will require clear and firm debates that have at least a short term end-point. Not the interminable vacillations of those like Open Polemic who refuse to take any position on any historical matter (such as the roles of Lenin and Trotsky for instance) whatsoever. The agenda of those who agree with ISML, will require the distinction between sectarianism and a clean and clear demarcation to be recognised and not obfuscated as the Open Polemic does:

"In the present historical period that has been opened, sectarianism is paradoxically being strengthened, both politically and organisationally in the form of sectarianism of competing vanguardist organisations across the revolutionary movement. Sectarian Vanguardism, our new infantile disorder is very simply, sectarianism organised into 'vanguards'.

(Open Polemic, "Sectarianism - The Main Enemy". p. 2-3; Issue 9; ISSN 0969 - 4617; nd).

Under the guise of rejecting "sectarianism" Open Polemic un-principledly wishes to wash "whiter than white" and "remove all stains" from all brands of opportunists. In fact the proposal of Open Polemic is that all previous lines of demarcation have become somehow irrelevant because they are part and parcel of what they call "sectarianism". And it is further pretended that this is exactly the agenda that Lenin and Iskra-ites followed in the Russian period of organisational confusion and theoretical disorder. Of course, Open Polemic is a trifle strained in various footnotes, as they praise Iskra "giving space in the columns .. to a polemic between comrades in and around that party", while they also have to note "the advancement of Iskra's own particular position" and Iskra's "centralised control of a self-appointed editorial team led by Lenin"; (Ibid; p. 3). Open Polemic offers only a distorted account of what the period was really undergoing in terms of the Bolshevik party formation and demarcation. Can it be true that Open Polemic is unaware that prior to the writing of "What is To Be Done", that for a proposed Unity meeting, Iskra put forward stringent criteria as a basis for any "unity":

"Accepting the basic principles of scientific socialism and actions in solidarity with international Social-Democracy we reject all attempts to introduce opportunism into the class struggle of the proletariat, attempts that find expression in so-called Economism, Bernsteinism, Milleradism etc".

(Lenin "The 'Unity' Conference" ; In Volume 5 Collected Works; Ibid; p. 226; See also "What is to be Done?" p.523 Ibid)'

Of course it is not surprising that "What is To Be Done" is prefaced by Lenin's quotation of Lassalle to Marx: "Party struggles lend a party strength and vitality; the greatest proof a party's weakness is its diffuseness and the blurring of a clear demarcation; a party becomes stronger by purging itself" (Letter Lassalle to Marx of June 24th, 1852; cited in Lenin, "What is To be Done?" Volume 5; Ibid; p. 347). All these facts are not only ignored by Open Polemic and its adherents such as P. Rowe, they are distorted. So Rowe for instance claims that nothing is revealed about the split in the Russian party, by the later degeneration of the Mensheviks (Rowe p.12; Issue 12 March 1996). Open Polemic distorts the history of Trotsky and of Lenin's view of Iskra's party building role.

7. The Purpose Of Open Polemic - Abstract Abstractionism

To finally convince us that they are real and concrete Marxists, not only do they ply us with paper diagrams of party organisation, they recite dialectics to us. Or is it dialectics? Open Polemic throws around a few casual, but characteristically high sounding references "abstractly":

"In philosophical terms, abstraction is central to the methodology of dialectical and historical materialism so when Open Polemic insist on the need for abstraction, it is not posing abstract knowledge against concrete knowledge.. Theoretical development proceeds from the sensual concrete as perceived by contemplation.. progresses to the abstract and then to the mental concrete as determined by scientific investigation..... In this process the mental concrete on becoming absorbed into our understanding becomes itself the new sensual concede from which we can again advance our understanding of the material world. For us today the sensual concept is the collective political understanding derived from decades of communist revolutionary struggle. Abstraction is therefore necessary if we are to move from this sensual concreteness to the mental concrete, the validity of which we must constantly prove in the process of practice, for practice is the criterion by which the true scientific nature of any abstraction is judged."

(Open Polemic, "The Central Demarcation for Marxist-Leninists" p.2; Issue 11; March 1995).

Wow! Real Marxist talk here, eh? Perhaps they have come across 'Theses on Feuerbach' after all. But hold on... is Open Polemic really saying that "For us today the sensual concept is the collective political understanding derived from decades of communist revolutionary struggle."? What music! Then they surely must admit that the battle between Lenin and Stalin on the one hand and Trotsky on the other are not mere Sound and Light shows! Surely that battle must have been part of the "the collective political understanding derived from decades of communist revolutionary struggle." ?? But no, that is not what Open Polemic means. It seems that the Open Polemic's paean of praise to an obscure abstraction is similar to that of previous obscurantists:

" Jacques le Bonhomme strives to "get rid as quickly as possible" of empirical history, stand facts on their heads, causes material history to be produced by ideal history.... Thus the history of Greece from the time of Pericles inclusively is reduced to a struggle of abstractions: reason, spirit, heart, worldliness etc. These are the Greek parties. In this ghostly world, which is presented as the Greek world, allegorical persons such as Madame Purity of Heart "machinate""

( "The German Ideology", Marx & Engels; Moscow; 1976; p. 149).

For the abstractions of 'reason, spirit etc' - merely substitute 'leader centrism' and the unfathomable 'multanimity' - and you have Open Polemic. They try to avoid reality - just as the idealists do:

"For the idealist, the theoretical abstractions of real events, their ideal signs, are reality; real events are merely "signs that the old world is going to its doom".... the doctrine is in every sense sedative."

(Marx & Engels; "The German Ideology" Ibid; p. 568).

And finally they substitute for real history abstractions that bear no relation to the real world:

"Where speculation ends where real life starts, there consequently begins real life, positive science, the expounding of the practical activity, of the practical process of development of men. Empty phrases about consciousness and real knowledge has to take their place. When the reality is described, a self-sufficient philosophy loses its medium of existence. At the best its place can only be taken by a summing-up of the most general results, abstractions which are derived from the observation of the historical development of men. These abstractions in themselves, divorced from real history, have no value whatsoever. They can only serve to facilitate the arrangement of historical material,... but they by no means afford a recipe or schema... On the contrary the difficulties begin only when one sets about the examination and arrangement of the material...... The removal of these difficulties is governed by premises ... which only the study of the actual life-process and the activity of the individuals of each epoch will make evident."

("The German Ideology", Marx & Engels; Moscow; 1976; p.43).

But are we too harsh? What about this quotation they cite from Lenin? They obviously really know what they are talking about if they can quote Lenin on this matter, and a quote from an obscure work and not at all one of the more common quotes. Anyway Lenin says:

"It is the Marxist method to abstract a thing from its wider context provided that abstraction does not become a substitute for the thing in its dialectical complexity... Lenin insisted that: 'The abstraction of matter of a law of nature, the abstraction of value etc in short all scientific (correct, serious not absurd) abstraction reflect nature more deeply, truly and completely'

(Cited Vol 38; p.171; Lenin Collected Works).

The only reason that we will not let Open Polemic get away with this "wizardry", is not for the sake of nit-picking. Although we have already shown on the main grounds (at least we think so) that their arguments on party building are errant nonsense, this philosophical cream-topping is very illustrative of their pseudo-intellectual approach. This all tends to further confuse and disarm opposition. Thus we must notice (it is most unfortunate!) that the quote from Lenin cited above simply omits the first sentence, which goes:

"Essentially Hegel is completely right as opposed to Kant. Thought proceeding from the concrete to the abstract provided it is correct (NB - and Kant, like all philosophers speaks of correct thought) does not get away from the truth but comes closer to it."

(Lenin: Conspectus of Hegel's Science of Logic; In Philosophical Notebooks Volume 38; Moscow; 1961; p.171).

We argue that this greatly changes the entire flavour of the quotation. For according to Lenin, if the first step is not "correct" (Lenin's emphasis above), then all else in the transition from concrete to abstract is lost, is it not? So, if the first step is that lines of demarcation are either irrelevant or inapplicable (or what, Open Polemic?) between Trotskyism and Leninism, then any subsequent abstract steps in party building are likely to be somewhat bewildering.
As Lenin says on Aristotle's criticisms of Pythagoras and Plato's Idealism:

"Primitive idealism: the universal concept, idea, is a particular being. This appears wild, monstrously (more accurately childishly) stupid. But is not modern idealism Kant, Hegel, the idea of God of the same nature (absolutely of the same nature)? Tables chairs and the ideas of table and chairs; the world and the idea of the world (God); the dichotomy of human knowledge and the possibility of idealism (= religion) are given already in the first elementary abstraction... The approach of the (human) mind to a particular thing the taking of a copy (= concept ) of it is not a simple immediate act, a dead mirroring, but one which is complex, split into two, zig-zag-like, which includes in it the possibility of flight from life; more than that: the possibility of the transformation (moreover an unnoticeable transformation, of which man is unaware) of the abstract concept idea, into a fantasy (in the final analysis = God). For even in the simplest generalisation, in the most elementary general idea ("table" in general) there is a certain bit of fantasy." (Lenin's emphasises)

(Lenin: Conspectus of Aristotle's Metaphysics; Volume 38 Collected Works; Ibid; p. 370).

What is all this from Lenin other than a warning about the dangers of "abstract abstractionism", of making a fetish of the "abstract"? Open Polemic are too clever by half ; they think that if they throw a bit of "dialectic" sand in the air, we will disavow the need to distinguish between Trotsky and Lenin. Do they need to be reminded of the fairy story of the king's new clothes? Unimaginative people see only the waving hand and the dust, while the dialectic fails to cloak their nakedness.

8. Open Polemic's Challenge to ISML

Having shown that the line of Open Polemic upon both democratic centralism and the history of the Bolshevik Party under Lenin and Stalin is somewhat 'revisionist', I should now assess the Challenge of Open Polemic to ISML. They state in their letter:

"We fail to understand what Kumar means by Open Polemic attempting "to avoid the formation of a platform such as ISML, founded on notions of democratic centralism". In particular, we haven't a clue as to what he means by "notions" of democratic centralism and we would further remind him, firstly, that the ISML is already formed as a platform and, secondly, that the ISML does not even list support for the Marxist-Leninist principle of democratic centralism as one of its founding principles. ...However, the distinguishing feature of these protagonists is that they do not support the most defining, fundamental principle of scientific communism today, the principle of the leading role of the party prior to and within the dictatorship of the proletariat.... It would be interesting to know who would remain with ISML if this principle concerning the leading role of the party was included in Clause 1 of its Founding Editorial Principles. Perhaps Hari Kumar himself might also tell us just where he stands on this question."

Unfortunately this is all sophistry, with the exception that ISML is indeed already formed as a platform. Perhaps Open Polemic thought that Hari Kumar had forgotten this point. Open Polemic does know Kumar's views on "democratic centralism". Along with many others, Open Polemic heard at the Conference Kumar argue for the leading role of the Party based upon the principle of a full and open discussion till the point of a decision, and then unbending external unanimity on the matter until and when there might have been an internal change in the line, following principled debate within the party.

Furthermore, upon the ISML Founding Principles:
Firstly it is true that "the leading role of the party" is not listed as such.
Secondly under point (e) we do write:"recognition of the necessity of the dictatorship of the proletariat to first achieve and then to maintain socialism.." This might be thought by many to encompass the leading role of the party. Indeed it seems that even Open Polemic makes such a connection since it states them to be jointly as one:

"OPEN POLEMIC CRITERIA: OP supports the fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism as applied to revolutionary parties. It defines these fundamentals as the political and organisational principle of democratic centralism, the principal of the leading role of the party and the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the principles of proletarian internationalism. However it recognises the need for these fundamentals to be subject to assessment and elaboration".

(Cited OP, page 9. Issue 4; nd.).

Furthermore, if Open Polemic wish to join with ISML in its programme and formally ask that this point on "the leading role of the party" be considered as a crucial additional component, then surely the next conference would do so.

In Conclusion

Lest we be continually told we do not take Open Polemic's views seriously, we have tried to address their most central concerns. We in fact do take them seriously, as very confusing and dangerously eloquent and subtle champions of obfuscation. Open Polemic says that:

"Revisionism is politically and organisationally manifested within the working class movement by the trends of anarcho-communism on the left and reformo-communism on the right and by the various conjunctions of both of these trends. With their many varieties identifying as communist or revolutionary socialist, the general characteristic of these trends is that their support for Marxism is accompanied by opposition to Leninism on the crucial questions of party and state.."

We believe than that Open Polemic describes itself very well above. The whole of the corpus of Open Polemic strikes us a very clever ploy.

Deny democratic centralism by calling for it - and then equate it in the same breath with "leader centralism".
Deny a stand for a party as the leading organiser by calling for it - but then reject any platforms and principles by which any such party can be recognised.
Deny dialectical materialism by calling for it - yet then insist on turning it on its head and equating it with abstraction.

The most dangerous forms of revisionism and disorganising tendencies are those that are clever enough to take in honest people. Revisionism continually finds new ways to confuse the best and potentially most convinced of its enemies, and to distract them into fruitless by-ways. Open Polemic is another such fruitless byway. To its credit, Open Polemic did not engage in any of the voting at the Second London Conference, having clearly seen that the floor would not accept its rather peculiar view of party organisation. Remembering this, they will no doubt realise that they must be prepared to face further questioning from the ISML component parties and groups if they wish to re-join the programme of ISML. But again, perhaps they might wish to ponder the meaning of the Fundamental Principles where it states that:

"We proudly uphold the following points of Marxist-Leninist principles, and believe that they form the minimum, agreed basis to unite ALL who call themselves Marxist-Leninists for the purpose of bringing out an international theoretical journal: 1) Defence of K. Marx, F. Engels, V.I. Lenin; and especially J.V. Stalin."

We do not mention Trotsky quite deliberately! As our principles points out, our editorial policy encourages debate - but considers this unhelpful with proven enemies of Marxism-Leninism:

"5. The only views than that will not be tolerated in the journal are those that are openly anti-Marxist-Leninist. They include openly racist, bourgeois, revisionist and Trotskyite views..".

No doubt this insistence of ISML's will prove difficult for Open Polemic to swallow. We wish Open Polemic strength in their further deliberations, in distinguishing between "leader centralism" and a refusal to take a committed, principled viewpoint.

(Hari Kumar).