In this article, we discuss the challenges of being a communist today. We argue that existing the Trotskyist and Stalinist organisations have little to offer the communist movement. While both Trotskyist organisations and the traditional Communist Parties have contributed something to Marxist theory and the labour movement, they are not satisfactory for building a revolutionary movement. We call on communists to form small collectives, study Marxist theory, participate in actions together, and link themselves with others through the United Communists of Europe.
Being a communist today can be a challenge. The existing communist organisations have little to offer the communist movement. Some of them have decent people, but a problematic theoretical grounding for their political work. They might have serious activists and alot of history behind them, but will be very weak on Marxist theory and have problematic positions on some of the key questions of the day. While one might find friendship with people in these groups, it is unlikely that serious political comraderie will result from interacting with them.
The Limitations of the Trotskyist Left
The main Trotskyist organisations today have very little to offer the communist movement. A few examples: The International Socialists, the Fourth International, International Socialist Alternative, the Revolutionary Communist International, and Solidarity to name just a few. These groups all have really problematic positions–the Cliffite theory of state-capitalism, problematic views on the Russia-Ukraine War, and the third-camp views of Solidarity. They remain petty-bourgeois formations due to their incorrect position on key issues. Viewing the former Soviet Union as state-capitalist (as do the IS), for example, paralyses a revolutionary organisation from understanding what was unique about the USSR and uniting with revolutionary movements linked to it. Instead of opposing eastward NATO expansion and opposing imperialism, the Mandelites uncritically support the NATO-aligned 'Ukrainian resistance' and support the delivery of weapons to them via NATO. These organisations will never go beyond tailing existing movements, nor will their analysis produce serious programmatic consequences.
Besides having bad politics, these Trotskyist organisations devote very little to revolutionary Marxist theory. When they do actually do this, they do so by reading the literature produced by their own organisation. While some might organise a study of Trotsky, their reading of him is filtered through their organisational dogmas and traditions. The same is true of Marx, Lenin, and other Marxist writers: it is not the theorists of Marxism that are studied, but the organisation's own internal reading of them.
Generally, Marxist theory is only conducted if it is relevant to a contemporary issue, and not engaged with for a very long time. There is a tendency to rush through key texts, rather than taking the time to learn them, think about them, discuss them and integrate them into one's system of ideas and concepts. Besides this, participants are often unable to really express their views without being corrected by a comrade. Even in Mandelite groups, which tend to be a bit more open in their approach to Marxism, there is still a tendency to direct thought back to the group's own internal 'broad-left' line. The result is that the organisation reproduces itself by creating new militants of its own tradition, rather than independent, revolutionary communists who can form a serious Marxist opinion on any issue. Serious revolutionaries like Lenin and Trotsky are nowhere to be found in such a group. What one finds are opportunists, social-reformists disguised in Marxist language, or highly sectarian people who lack the ability to think independently. Neither Lenin or Trotsky would have taken them seriously, as they are not serious communist organisations.
Although the existing Trotskyist Left is highly limited, each of these organisations has an important history behind them. Some of the most important Marxist intellectuals came out of the Fourth International, with figures such as Ernest Mandel, Daniel Bensaid and Tariq Ali. Mandel's works on Marxist theory have inspired whole generations of communists, from Che Guevara, whose first exposure to Marxist theory was through Mandel, to figures like David Harvey. The International Socialist Tendency was for many years an important leftist group for those wanting to participate in Marxist activism. In the United States, the now defunct International Socialist Organization (ISO) included serious communist intellectuals such as John Riddell, and led huge demonstrations against war and imperialism. Although the political tradition beginning with Tony Cliff is not very helpful, those involved in Cliffite organizations certainly made a contribution to revolutionary socialist politics. Thus, although we reject the existing Trotskyist Left, we do not have any problem acknowledging the important contributions it has made to the revolutionary Left.
Stalinism and the Left
Outside of the Trotskyist milieu, there are the traditional Communist Parties. These organisations have just as little to offer as the anti-Stalinist Left. Most Communist Parties still adhere to some form of Stalinism even if they do not read Stalin or mention the Stalinist period of the USSR. Stalinism is the political current that emerged in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in the thirties, and had an influence on many Communist Parties even into the post-war period. It is characterised by a somewhat dogmatic attitude towards Marxist theory that is not particularly open to debates within Marxism. Stalinism tends to be bureaucratic and undemocratic in its approach to organisational questions, which Trotsky critiqued in his pamphlet the New Course. This results in a situation where those who wish to make criticisms of the party-leadership are bullied and intimidated.
Besides this, Stalinist parties place more importance on the construction of socialism in their own country than fighting for international socialist revolution. While a country like the USSR should certainly take socialist measures and introduce socialist relations of production, using Soviet power to help make revolution abroad is even more important. The policies of the Comintern under Stalin were geared towards creating friendly diplomatic relations, resulting in a policy of peaceful coexistence with imperialist countries at the expense of socialist revolution. This is not to say that the USSR did not support liberation movements or support socialist revolutions. In the seventies, most national liberation organisations in Southern Africa–Mozambique, Angola, and South Africa–were funded by the USSR and received special military training. However, because the USSR's primary aim was to gain close allies rather than advance socialist revolution, it often stopped supporting liberation movements that did not have the potential to win or those that became critical of this. It was only because Fidel Castro sent Cuban troops to aid the MPLA in Angola that the people of Angola were able to defeat Portuguese colonialism and build a socialist state. The Stalinist CPSU had already significantly reduced assistance to the MPLA in the early seventies, as they were unsure that the MPLA would win the war. Thus, Stalinism prioritises the national aims of a socialist country and its diplomatic foreign relations over international proletarian revolution.
Trotsky explains in the Revolution Betrayed that the origins of Stalinism lie in the increasing isolation of the USSR of the thirties and the emergence of a bureaucratic caste in the Communist Party. While still acknowledging that the USSR was a workers state with a progressive socialist economic base, Trotsky characterised the Stalinist USSR as a degenerated workers state. He thought that a political revolution, which retains the socialist economic base but removes the Stalinist leadership of the CPSU, was necessary to regenerate Soviet socialism. As a result of bureaucratic deformation, the working class had lost significant power under Stalinism, which Trotsky thought could be restored through the creation of workers councils across the USSR.
Unlike many Trotskyist groups, which find Stalinism everywhere that they look, the United Communists of Europe only identifies as Stalinist those communist parties that retain a historical continuity with the Stalinist period of the thirties. We reject the idea that Maoism was just a Chinese variant of Stalinism–as claimed by Chinese Trotskyism like Peng Shu Tse. Although Maoism carries some of its own problems, such as anti-Sovietism and a sectarian approach to Marxist theory, it was a unique rupture with Stalinism and had some positive elements. While we do not think it is helpful to repeat the experience of Maoism or the Chinese Cultural Revolution, we think that there are many positive lessons of the Cultural Revolution. Instead of just viewing it as a bureaucratic, top-down movement to mobilise the masses for nationalist and military aims (as Chinese Trotskyists claim), we think the Cultural Revolution was a genuine attempt to involve the Chinese workers and peasants in the construction of socialism. Through the experience of the Cultural Revolution, Mao was able to deduce that class struggle continues under socialism and that it is necessary to struggle against bourgeois elements in the Communist Party to prevent the restoration of capitalism. Dongping Han, in his book the Unknown Cultural Revolution, shows that the Cultural Revolution empowered peasants to take an active role in collectivising agriculture, improved worker participation in the factories, and drastically liberated the productive forces. Therefore, Maoism was not a form of Stalinism and has more in common with Trotsky's writings. In many ways, Mao solved problems of socialist construction that were unknowable to Trotsky, resulting in the creative further development of Marxist theory.
Maoists hung banners of Stalin, but were not Stalinists in doing so. They were able to identify the positive contributions of Stalin, while providing one of the most important critiques of Stalinism (which has influenced the thinking of the United Communists of Europe). As Mao shows, the Stalinists addressed contradictions among the people in a bureaucratic, administrative way. Instead of engaging the popular masses in ideological struggle through dialogue, discussion and debate, Stalinists used police terror and mass repression. The result was that the CPSU was bureaucratised and alienated from the popular masses. At the same time, Mao is able to appreciate the tremendous progress that was made in the Soviet Union in the thirties under Stalin, attributing this to socialist planning.
The United Communists of Europe rejects Stalinism. Our critique is built on the work of many communists: Trotsky, Mao, Fidel Castro and Poulantzas. We do not think that Marxism-Leninism and Stalinism are identical, as one can be a Marxist-Leninist without being a Stalinist. Mao Zedong, despite himself making some mistakes, was a Marxist-Leninist without being a Stalinist. Fidel Castro, who called himself a Marxist-Leninist from the late 60s, was very critical of Stalin, denouncing the repression he used against political opponents and his bureaucratic approach to Marxism. Although we prefer to present ourselves with the label 'revolutionary Marxism', the United Communists of Europe is a Marxist-Leninist organisation. While we reject the specific current of Stalinism that developed in the thirties, we do not think Stalin was entirely negative. Before becoming the leader of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, he was an important communist leader who played a hugely important role in the October Revolution. Lenin advised in his final testament that neither Trotsky or Stalin should succeed him as leader of the USSR, as they both had personality traits that would be objectively harmful. Thus, the specific problems with Stalin begin after the death of Lenin, which is important to recognise in order to avoid a blanket denunciation. We think the recent work of Dominic Losurdo on Stalin, as well as the biographies by Isaac Deutscher and Ian Grey, are valuable guides to Stalin. At the same time, we think that Stalinism far exceeds the specific figure of Stalin, and came to influence entire communist organisations from the forties onward.
Stalinism continues to influence the politics of the traditional communist parties in so far as it determines how they view contemporary issues and the particular forms of action that they engage in. For example, most traditional Communist Parties will view fascism through the lens of Georgi Dimitrov's writings, which are founded on the idea that social democrats are social fascists. Instead of thinking through the complex dynamics of fascism in multiple contexts–exploring the class character of fascism, its relationship with the state, its mass character, and the different forms of fascism–Stalinists will just blame social democrats and view fascism in a somewhat homogenous way. The result is that they neither understand fascism, nor are they capable of formulating a serious policy for combatting fascist movements. Serious Marxist theorists who did do this like Nicos Poulantzas, are almost never studied in the Stalinist Communist Parties, who they denounce as a 'Trotskyite petty-bourgeois intellectual'. The traditional Communist Parties tend to be a hostile environment, in which those who want to think critically are called names or intimidated. Although not quite the same thing as cults, they can often produce very similar practices that are found in cults. This can be devastating for someone new to communism, sometimes driving them away from the communist movement altogether.
The primary reason why both the Trotskyist and Stalinist Left have become this way is due to the absence of a serious communist movement. Trotskyist organisations and the traditional CP's were much more serious prior to the fall of the Soviet Union when there was still a large movement for communism. There was a real audience for Marxist ideas, and there were serious groups of people trying to build revolutionary Marxist organisations. While there were sectarians back then too, Trotskyism and Marxism-Leninism (as well as Maoism to an extent) was still a living movement rather than the skeleton that it has become. In most Stalinist parties–the French Communist Party, the Communist Party of India (Marxist), and the Communist Party of Great Britain–there was a left-wing who produced an internal critique of Stalinism and wanted to seriously engage with Marxism in an open manner. Even in the socialist countries such as the GDR, there were independent communist intellectuals who often produced serious works of Marxist theory. It was the end of socialism in the USSR and Eastern Europe that significantly weakened and destroyed many of the serious communist organisations. What remains of them today is largely a skeleton of their past history, often retaining very little continuity with their former selves. It is only in a few countries where communism still has a mass appeal–India, Brazil, Venezuela, Bangladesh–that serious communist organisations still exist (the Communist Party of India (Marxist) for example). This is not the case in Europe, in which monopoly capitalism and neoliberal ideology has won a hegemonic position, with a resulting decline in Marxism and communist politics. Liberalism rather than revolutionary Marxism is today the dominant ideology.
What Is to Be Done?
What should a serious communist do in such a situation? Since there are no communist organisations that are worth joining (at least in most places), how can one live out one's communist principles? The United Communists of Europe is trying to establish a foundation for serious communist political work for those who do not want to waste their time with Stalinist or Trotskyist organisations. Our ideology is revolutionary Marxism, which takes the best experiences of Trotskyism, Marxism-Leninism, Maoism and other currents and integrates it into our revolutionary politics.
Following Lenin's slogan, 'better fewer, but better', we want to create small communist collectives across Europe and link them on the basis of shared praxis and theoretical discussion. Our view is that there is a lot of value in a few people–sometimes even just two–getting together to study Marxist theory, learn about the history of revolutionary movements, and participate together in actions. We want to create high-quality discussions that centre the focus on debates within Marxist theory, considering different approaches and allowing each comrade to decide for themselves what is correct. At the same time, our hope is to draw some collective conclusions from our discussions, which we will publish in the form of a journal.
What unites us is our Unity Statement, which does take a position on some central issues, but is open enough to allow for many variations of opinion. For example, our organisation claims that the former Soviet Union was socialist until 1991, but we do specify exactly what this means in order to integrate many different perspectives into our analysis. By maintaining the socialist character of the USSR, we are able to explore its contradictions, examine how socialist planning worked, define its transitional nature, and appreciate the positive progress that was made there. Trotskyists will claim the USSR was a degenerated workers state that was neither socialist or capitalist, but a transitional social formation frozen by bureaucratic deformation. Although our organisation certainly engages with Trotsky's analyses and accepts aspects of them, we think it is more valuable to go beyond Trotsky to explore the former Soviet Union and other socialist countries.
By simply stating that the USSR was socialist, we can engage with Trotsky, Bettelheim, Sweezy, Szymanski, and writers from the former USSR, in order to discover the truth of what happened there. The same is true of the former Eastern Bloc countries (the German Democratic Republic, the Polish People's Republic, and Socialist Republic of Hungary), and contemporary Cuba, Vietnam and the DPRK. This does not mean that we necessarily uphold them as models of socialism, but only to defend them against imperialism and to examine how socialism works there. Unlike Stalinists, we are willing to acknowledge the many contradictions in Cuba, Vietnam and the DPRK, be very critical of their policies if necessary, and maintain honesty at all times. At the same time, we oppose all hostile propaganda, simplistic analyses, and one-sided critiques of them. If Cuba and Vietnam have significantly restored aspects of capitalism, we are unafraid to admit this and examine how this happened. We do not deny the extremely harmful character of the North Korean leadership and its approach to socialist construction (founded on Juche rather than revolutionary Marxism), nor do we wish to uphold the DPRK as a serious model of socialism. It is our shared commitment to the idea that socialism existed in the USSR, and continues to exist in Cuba, Vietnam and the DPRK that enables us to seriously explore these social formations and be critical allies of them. By doing this, we become serious communists who are open to looking problems in the face, confronting even the worst contradictions, and produce a more serious revolutionary communist politics.
In addition to having a favourable orientation towards the former socialist countries, our unity statement aligns us with anti-imperialist movements in the global South. Following Samir Amin, we think that the principle contradiction in today's capitalist world system is between the peoples of the periphery and the bourgeoisies of the imperialist centre. Every movement that genuinely breaks with imperialism and embarks on a socialist project puts the working class in a better position internationally.
That said, we do not uncritically support a movement just because it is against imperialism. For example, the Iranian regime claims to be against imperialism, but it has a highly reactionary ruling government which is an expression of the Iranian national bourgeoisie. While we would oppose imperialist assaults on Iran, we unite with revolutionary Iranian communists who are fighting for socialist revolution in Iran and the Middle East. Thus, our anti-imperialism is qualified by a class analysis, which examines the process by which the working class in peripheral nations is struggling to break from imperialism and make socialist revolution. Additionally, our anti-imperialist orientation allows us to view movements in the global South favourably while retaining a critical Marxist lens through which we view them. As we say in our Unity Statement, we view the working class of the Global South as the vanguard of the international proletarian revolution and the leader in the worldwide fight against imperialism. This does not mean that we reject revolutionary struggles in the imperialist centres, as some Third Worldists do. If a revolutionary uprising breaks out in Germany, the United States or Japan, we will unite with it and examine it critically. Our anti-imperialist orientation can help us to highlight certain limitations of the class struggle, both within the imperialist centres and peripheral nations of the South. It is a guide to action, not a dogma to be followed blindly.
Just like our attitude towards the former USSR and Eastern Bloc, which we state were socialist while being open to multiple interpretations of what this means, our analysis of imperialism is also open. Most Trotskyist and Stalinist groups base their understanding of imperialism entirely on Lenin's Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism. While we think this is a foundational text, there are a number of important studies published by Monthly Review Press that have expanded our understanding of imperialism. These include John Smith's seminal study, Imperialism in the Twenty-First Century as well as the writings of Samir Amin, Ruy Mauro Marini, Walter Rodney, Fidel Castro and Amilcar Cabral. Our open approach to the theory of imperialism enables us to examine issues arising from complex causes instead of just reducing it to Lenin's formulations (i.e. 'the domination by finance capital', the 'export of capital', and the division of the world into 'oppressor and oppressed nations'). Lenin is certainly the foundation for the theory of imperialism, but we think it is helpful to engage in theoretical praxis to elaborate on Lenin and adjust his formulations if needed.
A Marxist theorist who has had an important influence on the United Communists of Europe is the Greek Marxist, Nicos Poulantzas. Elaborating on Mao Tse-Tung's dialectical theory, Poulantzas is very sensitive to the contradictions that characterise a social formation. Instead of viewing the bourgeoisie as a united class, Poulantzas explores its fractions and tries to define which fraction is dominant. Furthermore, instead of just defining class in terms of one's 'relation to the means of production', Poulantzas examines the influence of ideological and political factors on class formation. Our group wishes to take what is useful in Poulantzas, integrate it into our programme, and leave behind elements of his writings that are unhelpful (such as his later eurocommunist turn).
Besides theoretical discussions, our group thinks that small collectives of communists can and should attend actions together. This can take the form of participating in a debate at a Marxism conference, attending a picket-line at a strike, going to a march for Palestine or participating in a mass rally around some issue. After attending an action together, we meet to discuss what we learned, share interactions we had with people, and formulate slogans that could advance revolutionary consciousness. On the basis of this, we then return to the masses, put out our slogans, and then assess collectively how these slogans were received. It might be that we were entirely wrong, with the result that our slogan isolated us from the masses or was received with hostility. If this is the case, then we need to meet and discuss how we can reformulate our demands so that they resonate with the people. We see failure as a necessary stage through which a revolutionary movement is able to progress to a higher stage, for it can reveal the principle contradiction within the social formation and the multiple ways that this is expressed. Additionally, attending actions strengthens the solidarity of the group, enabling us to act collectively rather than just as individuals. This approach to politics is heavily influenced by Mao's theory of the mass-line, which we do not blindly follow but find helpful for contemporary interventions into the class struggle.
We think that there is nothing wrong with having a small group. The Bolsheviks in Tsarist Russia began as small collectives, which were only later unified through the Second Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party. These collectives met in factories to build solidarity between the workers, translate and study Marxist theory, and build resistance to Tsarist absolutism. Because they were small, they were easy to organise and a high level of trust developed between the comrades. As Lenin points out, an organisation of professional revolutionaries gains a kind of internal cohesiveness through the trust and discipline of the comrades. Such trust and discipline takes time to build, but it is far more effective than large groups with many members.
In fact, this was a major division in the early communist movement, which split into Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. In a way similar to many Trotskyist and Stalinist groups today, the Mensheviks believed that a communist organisation should be broad in membership and have low barriers to joining. Menshevism advocated the kind of loosely organised communist groups that devote very little time to education and are not prepared to face the political repression of the state. The Bolsheviks thought that the party should establish strict membership policies, set high standards for political education, and only admit those who are ready to commit to conspiratorial revolutionary politics. At the same time, Lenin called for the creation of a mass workers party through which the Bolshevik centre would communicate with the working class. There would thus be a kind of dual structure divided into a party of professional revolutionaries and a mass workers party. Trotsky originally sided with the Mensheviks, as his practice had not yet convinced him of the necessity of forming a disciplined Bolshevik party with strict membership policies. Through his praxis, which involved many years in prison resulting from political repression, he came to side with the Bolsheviks and produced his own critique of his former Menshevik views.
Our organisation has high standards for those wishing to join. For us, joining the United Communists of Europe is not a question of filling out a membership form and paying a monthly subscription, as is the practice in groups like the Scottish Socialist Party and the International Socialist Tendency. Rather, an interested person will be invited to join our work by participating in discussions, attending actions together, and producing new literature together. Our Unity Statement, which is open, flexible and enables many interpretations on some key questions, is the ideological basis for joining our organisation. If a comrade agrees with the basic principles in the Unity Statement, has had discussions with us for an extended period and attended actions with us, then they can apply for membership. All members of the United Communists of Europe have to agree to approve the new member. Once a person is a member of the United Communists of Europe, then they can represent our organisation publicly, will be invited to all internal meetings and have full voting rights in the organisation.
As we are a small organisation, we make our Marxist study groups accessible to the public. While we do not make the location of our meetings public, we invite all those who are interested to participate in our discussions and reading groups. If someone has not yet fully accepted communism, they can attend our discussions in order to learn more. We will treat them with the same respect and maintain the same level of honesty as we do with our comrades. Furthermore, we will take their contributions to discussions seriously, including them in our documents and texts when helpful. We do not think we have all the answers, nor are any of our comrades above criticism. Those who are not members are welcome to march with us at demonstrations, give feedback on slogans, and make suggestions to our group. It may happen that such a person is a close friend of our group, but does not join because they are unable to fully unite behind the Unity Statement. We see no problem with this, as such a person could continue to make valuable contributions to our group even if they are not members.
In this way, our organisational approach is very much influenced by Mao's theory of the mass-line, which tries to integrate advanced sections of the masses into our organisation. We think that on organisational questions, Mao is much more helpful than Trotsky, as he was very sensitive to how communists should conduct themselves within mass organisations and among broad sections of the people. Trotsky uses the transitional approach and often advocated pushing very advanced transitional demands even if workers were not yet ready. In Trotskyist groups, it is often difficult to really participate if one is not yet a full member. This has led to huge membership drives, especially in the recently formed Revolutionary Communist International (RCI), formerly known as the International Marxist Tendency. Instead of going to the masses, engaging in discussions and listening to what people have to say, the RCI only recruits students and those in the activist milieu. Because they are only interested in expanding their membership, they will denounce those outside of their group as 'academic Marxists' (notably David Harvey) and take a sectarian attitude towards discussions. While some might join the RCI for a short period, there has been a trend for people to be driven away by their Trotskyist approach.
Our approach of the mass-line enables us to allow for free, open discussions on Marxism without the hostile, policing behaviour found in many Trotskyist groups. Even if a worker is a liberal or social democrat, they may have an observation or comment that brings clarity to a situation. In a discussion with such a person, we will share our perspective, which itself is an opportunity to assess how our politics are received. As shown by the experience of the Chinese Revolution, Mao's approach to organisational questions tends to advance revolutionary praxis much more than a Trotskyist transitional approach. We are not thereby Maoists, for we only integrate the mass-line into our organisational thinking without accepting the totality of Maoist theory (the theory of the three worlds for example). This is an example of how our organisation takes the best experiences of Trotskyism, Maoism, and Marxism-Leninism in order to produce a revolutionary Marxist politics that is inclusive, honest, and revolutionary.
Conclusion
The United Communists of Europe calls upon communists to find others who are interested in Marxism and revolutionary politics, and to create small communist collectives. While it might not result in an immediate revolutionary uprising, this approach will result in serious communist politics and the creation of revolutionary organisations. It is time to leave behind the circus of existing Trotskyist and Stalinist parties, and get serious about revolutionary theory in order to create the foundation for revolutionary praxis. Although Trotsky was a great revolutionary who contributed a lot to the communist movement, there is not a single serious Trotskyist organisation on the planet that is worth joining. Because of their often sectarian approach and bad politics, they tend to bring more frustration and despair than actual revolutionary praxis. The time has come for communists to restore their faith in the international proletariat, form revolutionary communist collectives, and start rebuilding the communist movement on a serious, revolutionary basis.
–For small, communist collectives that produce high-quality, independently minded communist militants committed to international socialist revolution
–Integrate the best experiences of the Trotskyist, Maoist, and Marxist-Leninist movement in order to further elaborate on revolutionary Marxism
–Study the socialist countries from a variety of different perspectives and through the lens of multiple types of media
–Leave behind the Trotskyist and Stalinist organisations, which are not helpful for making socialist revolution and will only bring frustration to serious communists
–Unite communists into a network led by the United Communists of Europe in order to lay the foundation for new communist parties across the European continent
Comments
Post a Comment