04.04.1996

Once again on liquidationism

Party notes

The report in this issue of the Weekly Worker on the Fourth International Supporters Caucus raises interesting questions. Of course, we will unconditionally defend the right of the members of the Fourth International Supporters Caucus to put forward their politics, to fight for influence and for the type of working class party they would like to see. There must be no censorship of the Fourth International Supporters Caucus ... or anyone else.

We have encouraged all comrades in the Socialist Labour Party to challenge any manifestations of bureaucratic intrigue or censorship. The SLP has no constitution, no elected leadership, no agreed policies - the situation is characterised by total fluidity. No one with this new political formation should be intimidated by challenges to their right to be a member or their right to advance any political viewpoint.

Interestingly, we have encountered opposition to this bold approach from revolutionary elements within the SLP. Essentially, these comrades seem to have adopted exactly the same ‘deep entry’ project as the Fourth International Supporters Caucus. We have been criticised because we have been open about our orientation towards the SLP and because - incredibly - we have not “dissolved” the Communist Party in order to join up! We have been told, “organisation doesn’t matter: what counts is politics”.

On one level, this may sound perfectly reasonable. After all, the Communist International underlined, there is no “immutable organisational form” for revolutionaries. Given that we have dubbed the SLP the most important political development in at least a generation, why should we let the formal structures of the ‘CPGB’ inhibit our ability to fully merge with an important new movement of the class?

The comrades arguing this are in fact agitating for liquidationism. The SLP has no doubt created real movement - both the left and the right. Sections of the revolutionary left have been seduced into treating the SLP as a short cut to the revolutionary party, rather than a bridgehead.

Creating the party the working class needs requires struggle, differentiation and very dear lines of demarcation. This cannot simply be a matter of contending ‘opinions’ gently tussling. Every theoretical or programmatic stance must develop an organisational arm if it is to rise above the level of pure theory or abstract belief. On this level, the most sharply divergent opinions can coexist more or less peacefully. As soon as they acquire organisational form they can be shown to be sharply opposed, even incompatible.

Yet they must develop this form. Organisation means that a theoretical trend is pointing the way to its own fulfilment in practice. If this is absent, it follows that this theoretical opinion cannot be fully Marxist. This is basic Leninism.

A paper, an open publication, is indispensable to this. A paper “has the task of collecting valuable experiences from the entirety of the work of party members and then of presenting these to party comrades as a guide for the continued review and improvement of communist methods of work”, as the Communist International put it.

Perhaps the comrades who are telling us to “dissolve” actually retain forms of organisation. Perhaps they would (quietly) contend that this disproves any charges of liquidationism. It does not.

The individual coordination of SLP members is no substitute for open political organisation. Also, while these comrades may have adopted the same clandestine methods as the Fourth International Supporters Caucus, they will not be as successful. Communist politics need the light of the day, the open fight for the correct principles.

The comrades who are “embarrassed” by the continued existence of the CPGB and the open fight of the Weekly Worker are welcome to defend their liquidationist perspectives in our pages. Will they take up the offer, or are they already too far underground?

Mark Fischer
national organiser