09.01.1997

Cutting digs

Around the left

One of the most interesting publications on the revolutionary left is the irregular Red Action. The group of the same name, which is committed to a form of ‘libertarian’ or anti-Leninist communism, usually manages to provoke controversy and stimulate debate - for whatever reason. So it is always well worth a read, and as an added bonus it can sometimes be quite amusing. Makes a pleasant change, it has to be said.

Red Action’s editorial reminds us, quite pertinently, that fascist parties, groups and movements are growing, particular in continental Europe. It points to the unfortunate fact that Le Pen’s Front National

“is now the largest working class party in France. In the 1995 presidential elections 27% of blue collar workers voted for Le Pen ... The same trend is applicable throughout Europe” (Spring 1997).

This brings RA to its fundamental point, which is a cutting dig at its bete noire, ‘orthodox’ Trotskyism:

“The long cherished belief that fascism’s constituency was exclusively drawn from petty bourgeois elements has been shattered. In fact the reverse has happened. It is not only primarily but exclusively from this strata that the conservative left [ie, the revolutionary left - DP] recruits.”

Now, while you do not necessarily have to agree with RA’s overall analysis or its terminology, it is still a point worth making. Certain schools of Trotskyism have rigidly maintained that fascism can only come from a movement of the ‘despairing’ petty bourgeois. In other words, any rightwing/reactionary movement which does not conform 100% to the analysis laid out by Leon Trotsky - primarily in his writings on Germany - cannot ‘on principle’ be fascist. From this dogmatic perspective, some organisations, most notably the Revolutionary Communist Party, steadfastly maintained during the Falklands/Malvinas War that the Argentinian junta could not possibly be classified as fascist because it was not drawn from, or composed of, the petty bourgeoisie. Such ideas need to be punctured.

In quite a good turn of phrase, Red Action concludes from all this that “this situation has arisen not because the conservative left have proved to be bad anti-fascists, but because they are bad revolutionaries” - an argument that has some power and force to it.

However, one of RA’s fatal flaws is its localism and complete inability to grasp the necessity of revolutionary organisation, in the all-round sense. Thus, in an otherwise cogent and insightful critique of the SWP’s Marxism ’96, it ends up telling us:

“In the struggle to create the conditions for socialist transcendence it is clearly better to have a much smaller organisation rooted in, and orientated toward, local working class communities, and which can earn the respect of the people it is attempting to attract.”

While it is hardly astonishing that an explicitly anti-Leninist group has no grasp of what we call ‘Partyism’, it is a tad regrettable that energetic and committed comrades like these have such an eyes-down attitude. Immersing yourself in ‘community’ politics is obviously not the answer.

Don Preston