March 13, 2005
To the LRP
Dear Comrades,
Thank you for your correspondence of Jan 16. We believe that reaching a common understanding between our two groups will require dedicated work on both sides. You have expressed concerns regarding the level of our theoretical understanding, and you are quite right to insist that revolutionaries be guided by an advanced theoretical understanding. On our part, we have endeavoured to express some of our theoretical understanding in our correspondence with you, as well as to raise criticisms of what we believe to be weaknesses in your own understanding. We believe that there needs to be dedicated work on both sides, and that is why we are disappointed that your recent email referred to “advanced theory” in the abstract, but did not address the specific theoretical issues raised in our correspondence with you.
A revolutionary party, (or even an organization that aspires to be the nucleus of a party), constitutes a qualitatively higher organizational form than a study group. If a study group is to play a truly revolutionary role, it must work to raise the consciousness of its members so that they understand the need for building a revolutionary party, are qualified to participate in building a party, and become desirous to build such a party.
Your recent email addresses this question. However, there are two points where we disagree with your presentation. First, you argue that << "public work" such as issuing leaflets in the name of the group at mass events would not even be on the table >> for a study group. We think that whether or not public work such as issuing leaflets is on the table depends upon a number of factors, such as the content of the leaflets, and whether such public work is appropriate for the revolutionary movement considered as an integral whole. We would hope that if the LRP were organizing a demonstration in NYC, and a study group in another city engaged in agitation to support the demonstration, to encourage militants to attend it, then you would welcome such public activity. If the content of the agitation was objectionable, that would be another matter. Also, if the agitation were not appropriate for a revolutionary party or pre-party nucleus to engage in, then it would similarly not be appropriate for a study group. But that is the crux of a significant difference between us. We believe that a revolutionary party, or pre-party nucleus should be combating the opportunist agitation within the anti-war rallies, with its own anti-opportunist agitation.
The second issue we have is that you seem to present the argument as if starting with a well-elaborated program as a universal principle.
<< Lenin, Trotsky or Cannon would never have even considered the thought of attempting to do mass agitational work as a revolutionary organization without having a well-elaborated program and propaganda to base it on. ... to attempt to do agitational mass work without having the program and propaganda in place at all is a step beyond this -- it is pushing the cart without even having the horse. >>
Lenin, Trotsky and Cannon were founding new parties. For this, agreement over a wide range of programmatic issues is necessary. In Lenin’s time study circles were (at first) the highest, most advanced stage of organization of the revolutionary movement. It was therefore the task of these study circles to play the role of pre-party organizations. In the current situation in the US, there already exist many organizations of the higher form. It is the task of study groups not to act as if they were this higher form, but to prepare its members to join an organization of this higher form. There are, however, many organizations which claim to be *the* nucleus for a revolutionary party. To sort out these claims is a necessary task for would-be revolutionaries. For these reason, we think it is generally wrong to require wide ranging political agreement as a condition of membership in a study group.
The LRP pamphlet “Propaganda and Agitation in the Building of the Revolutionary Party" makes what we think is an absolutely correct observation.
"The propaganda stage does *not* mean not working among the masses. On the contrary, agitation is crucial to the success of propaganda. Ideas developed in the course of theoretical study must be confirmed by the experience of the class struggle. Moreover, vanguard workers will in general pay no attention to revolutionaries who cannot address their current struggles and prove in action that Marxism can make sense to broader masses of workers".
Both propaganda and agitation are, in this paragraph, deemed to be crucial to winning vanguard workers. We think the LRP has here expressed a correct theory and a profound truth. However, we fear that in practice the LRP tends to forget this theory, to slide into counterposed theories.
In the mass anti-war rallies, you refrained from agitation. We questioned your comrades regarding this, and were given as a reason, the “middle-class nature” of those rallies. We pointed out that, in addition to middle class individuals at these rallies, there were also workers, and that these workers, by attending the rallies, demonstrated a generally above average level of political consciousness. At the Million Worker March, where we distributed a leaflet promoting the idea of hot-cargoing military goods, we were again unable to observe the LRP distributing leaflets of any kind. We do not know what rationale you may have for not leafleting the MWM. Although your pamphlet (above) says that agitation is crucial to winning vanguard workers, and gives very good reasons for why crucial, your practice seems to suggest that you believe that agitation is not really that crucial after all, at least not for winning the advanced workers that might be present at anti-war rallies or the Million Worker March. Your practice suggests that you believe that propaganda (in the form of Proletarian Revolution magazine) is sufficient.
Note: When we argue that agitation is “crucial” we are not saying that agitation ought to be the “primary” activity of a revolutionary organization in this period. We hope that there is no misunderstanding on this point, but just to make it clear we offer the following analogy. In the process of manufacturing precision machined products, it is “crucial” that the parts being machined are measured, so that adjustments can be made to machine settings etc. However, the “primary” activity of a machine shop is to manufacture parts, not to measure them.
The issue of revolutionary regroupment is, in the US, central to the issue of building a revolutionary party worthy of the name, that is a revolutionary organization which is capable of leading the working class to victory. We have already commented on the organizational fragmentation amongst those with a subjective desire to be revolutionary. We have also expressed our belief that no organization capable of leading the working class to victory can emerge from this fragmentation without a revolutionary regroupment. We commented that revolutionary regroupment would require political struggle to overcome differences, and not merely a (temporary) smoothing-over of those differences. We would now like to expand on this issue.
On what basis might various groups be united? Without posing the question quite that way, the 2003 Political Resolution of the COFI gives an answer.
<< “COFI’’s reason for independent existence is not tactical but fundamental. Our differences with the various pseudo-Marxist tendencies are those of class. While we welcome into our ranks dissidents from other strata who have proven themselves loyal to the interests of the proletariat, the vanguard party acts to zealously preserve its working-class composition and political character.
<< We stress two principles that distinguish COFI from other organizations claiming to be socialist or communist. One, our efforts are devoted to exposing, not hiding, the vacillations, capitulations and betrayals of the reformists who presently lead the mass organizations of the workers and the oppressed. That is, we act at all times for the advance of revolutionary proletarian consciousness.
<< Two, only the proletariat can make the socialist revolution. The notion that non-working- class forces could carry out the socialist revolution -- that is, create workers’ states -- became the view not just of Stalinists; it signaled the material degeneration of the Fourth International (FI) in the post-World War II years. Under the leadership of Michel Pablo and Ernest Mandel, the FI came to reflect the views of the vast new bureaucratic middle class and labor aristocracy which arose in the imperialist countries during the prosperity boom of the late ’40’s and the ’50’s. Whereas Trotsky had considered the Stalinist and social-democratic purveyors of class collaborationism to be counterrevolutionary, the Pabloites (the defenders of “deformed workers states” ) saw them as too-limited progressives who could create workers’’ states if prodded by the mass struggle and the urgings of “Trotskyists.”>>
The resolution describes two principles which give COFI its reason for independent existence, and these are described as fundamental. We therefore presume that in the LRP’s view, regroupment must be based upon these political principles.
The first principle is that of exposing the vacillations, capitulations and betrayals of reformists. We agree with that principle entirely. More importantly, we believe it to be a necessary point of unity for any revolutionary regroupment.
The second principle, we believe, contains distortions severe enough to make it unworkable as a principle upon which revolutionary regroupment could be based leading to the emergence of an organization capable of leading the working class to victory.
The Fourth International split in 1953 into two competing organizations, with two competing international bodies -- the International Secretariat (IS) and the International Committee (IC). The IS was led by Pablo, and the IC referred to the IS as Pabloist and themselves as anti-Pabloists. However, when the LRP/COFI refers to “Pabloite” in its resolution, it does not mean only the IS (and later the USec which included the former IS as well as the US SWP), but the IC as well. All groups who hold a theory of “deformed workers states” are considered by the LRP/COFI to be Pabloite.
The LRP/COFI has specifically referred to such organizations as the Spartacist League (SL), Bolshevik Tendency (BT) and Internationalist Group (IG) as “Pabloists” or “Pabloites”, and it is necessary to read the principle under discussion in that light.
The first part of the principle equates creating “workers states” with carrying out the socialist revolution. The tail part of the principle equates Pabloism with the belief that “workers states” could be created by Stalinists. But the meaning of “workers states” in the first part cannot be the same as the meaning of “workers states” in the second part without a GROSS DISTORTION OF FACT.
True enough, the holders of the deformed workers states theory believe that Stalinists may head overturns which create *deformed* workers states. However, it is utterly false to ascribe to the SL, BT, IG, RWL and others the view that creating a *deformed* workers state is in any way a “socialist revolution”. The Chinese, Cuban and Vietnamese revolutions were “social” revolutions, in that they overturned existing property relations -- at the very least, these revolutions overthrew landlordism which oppressed the great mass of peasants. But “social” revolution does not equal “socialist” revolution, nor does it equal “proletarian” revolution.
We believe this distortion makes the second principle unworkable as a basis for a revolutionary regroupment. That is, we do not believe that regroupment based upon agreement with this principle could lead to the emergence of a revolutionary organization able to lead the working class to victory. To make ourselves clear on the point, we do not mean merely that such a principle precludes the possibility of a regroupment between the LRP and the SL or the LRP and the BT. We mean that *any* regroupment on the basis of such a distortion will necessarily be limited to those who are able to swallow this distortion, and turn their eyes from the facts. Such a regroupment would not lead to the revolutionary organization that is needed.
If this principle were a sound basis for revolutionary regroupment, then splits and divisions in the workers movement based upon this principle would be entirely justified. However, if this principle is not a sound basis for revolutionary regroupment, and yet is put forth as grounds for divisions within the workers movement, then this principle plays a harmful role of encouraging, of justifying, the wrong divisions. We believe the latter is the case, and that it is our duty to combat this principle, to criticize it in no uncertain terms, and to win militants away from it.
Since we believe that this principle is not a sound basis for revolutionary regroupment, we believe that the *only* way that the militants of the LRP can be play a role in a regroupment from which a revolutionary organization able to lead the working class emerges, is for them to abandon this false principle. Since we value the comrades in the LRP, and hope you will be able to play a role in the revolutionary party which we see emerging from a revolutionary regroupment, we offer you this criticism.
Despite the strong criticisms we have expressed here, we believe the LRP does some very positive work. We are more than willing to work with the LRP in areas where we can find common agreement. In particular, we would like to make the following offer to the LRP.
There will no doubt be mass demonstrations against the war in the coming months led by opportunist organizations such as ANSWER, IAC, NION, UFPJ. We believe that the political line put forward by the opportunists ought to be combatted in front of the masses. We therefore offer the LRP assistance in preparing such a leaflet for mass distribution with the aim of politically challenging the opportunist leadership.
We offer that:
1. The LRP have full veto rights over any content in the leaflet.
2. The AL Collective will pay for the printing of 2000 leaflets (and/or copy them ourselves).
3. If the AL Collective is unsatisfied with the content of the leaflet, it will have the right to
not distribute the leaflet, and to issue another leaflet with its own content.
4. Both groups agree to devote 2 persons each to work one weekend (16 hrs total) in NYC discussing the content of the leaflet and drawing it up.
We believe that joint work of this sort would allow us to gain a closer acquaintance with the militants in your organization, as well as advance the struggle against the opportunist leadership of the anti-war movement.
For the AL Collective,
Peter