30.10.1997

Rapprochement: for

Dave Craig defends the joint ‘Thesis on rapprochement’, agreed by the CPGB (PCC) and the Revolutionary Democratic Group (faction of the SWP) against the attack by Open polemic (see 'Rapprochement: against')

Our joint thesis identifies rapprochement as an ongoing process. In order to understand this process we have divided it into three stages - 1, 2 and 3, or “initial”, “higher” and “highest”. The first stage involves independent communist organisations beginning discussions, debates, and moving onto, for example, joint work, joint platforms and joint documents. Fusions are not necessary, but are not ruled out. It proceeds by what OP calls “consensus democracy”. The RDG and CPGB have existed in this stage for over two years. We have also related to OP, the RWT and the ISG on a similar, although less extensive, basis.

A higher stage is the creation of a multi-faction, pro-rapprochement tendency. This is not the same as a ‘Trotskyist Tendency’ or a ‘State Capitalist Tendency’ or a ‘Stalinist Tendency’. It does not replace these other tendencies, but co-exists with them. It is definitely not a party. It is a tendency within the communist movement, which emerges out of the rapprochement process, and is committed to continuing to struggle for this, up to the foundation of a Party.

The highest stage is the formation of the Party. This is not on the cards at present. How we should make the transition to this stage is an interesting, but as yet academic, question. Differences on this should not be allowed to get in the way of either stage 1 or the transition to a multi-faction tendency. Life is of course more complex than any thesis. Things may turn out differently, and unless we are dogmatists, we will need to reassess our thesis in the light of future experience. At present this conception of stages is useful in helping to clarify the steps and tasks that communists must carry out. If of course you have a better conception of ‘stages in the process’, then of course we should consider that.

Next we must consider the ideological conception of this multi-faction tendency. We have many options. But I would start by breaking them up into two possible types. First we have names like ‘Marxist Tendency’, ‘Leninist Tendency’, ‘Stalinist Tendency’, ‘Trotskyist Tendency’, plus every type of combination. If anybody’s favourite leaders and heroes are missing we could add them too!

A second type includes terms such as ‘communist tendency’, ‘revolutionary social democratic tendency’, ‘Bolshevik tendency’. These terms express aims and methods. They are not personalised around some particular historic great leader. Marx stated that he was not a Marxist. He was correct to say this. If he was not a Marxist, then strictly speaking neither am I, and neither should our tendency be.

It was my understanding that OP had accepted this point, that in general the second type of categories are superior. I assume that when OP says they are prepared to participate in a communist tendency it is in that spirit. The thesis makes it clear that whilst the tendency will describe itself by a political-ideological label, rather than a personalised label, internal factions, within the tendency, will not be so restricted. There is no barrier to comrades forming a Stalinist or Trotskyist faction of the tendency.

If OP can at least come this far with the argument, then at least we have some sort of agreement. The real point of difference seems to boil down to a choice between ‘communist tendency’ and ‘revolutionary democratic communist tendency’. I want to deal with this argument.

I would begin with the history of our movement up until 1921, prior to the banning of factions and the split between Stalinism and Trotskyism. This was the period of Bolshevism. The Bolsheviks saw themselves as revolutionary social (or socialist) democrats. This is not to be confused with reformist social democracy. What is to be done?, Two tactics of social democracy in the democratic revolution, The right of nations to self-determination and State and revolution are all major works of revolutionary social democracy. When the Bolsheviks changed their name to Communist Party (Bolsheviks) they did not make a political break with revolutionary social democracy.

A revolutionary social democrat or Bolshevik was a communist. Lenin like Marx was a revolutionary. He was a socialist, communist and a democrat. Obviously this meant that Lenin was a working class democrat, not a bourgeois democrat.

At the level of pure formal logic there is nothing to choose between ‘revolutionary social democrat’ and ‘communist’. However, communism is our aim, and socialism is merely a transitional stage on the road to communism. Therefore ‘revolutionary communist democrat’ is superior, in a scientific sense, to ‘revolutionary social democrat’. Hence we arrive at the term ‘revolutionary democratic communist’. For comrades who can accept that logic, the term ‘communist’ is merely a shortened version of ‘revolutionary democratic communist’.

History has not been as clear as this. In reality a distinction can be made. Not everybody agrees that ‘revolutionary democratic communist’ is simply more descriptive of the essence of genuine communist politics. First not every revolutionary democrat is a communist. For example, Sinn Fein/IRA are revolutionary (bourgeois) democrats, not communists. At the same time not everybody calling themselves communists are revolutionary working class democrats. For example, it would to difficult to sustain the view that Stalin was a revolutionary democrat. We also know that OP recognise the existence of communists who can be called ‘reformo-communists’ and others who are ‘anarcho-communists’.

In this sense a distinction can be drawn. We have to know in the context of today which term is superior because it makes the tasks clearer. OP argue that the term ‘revolutionary democratic communist’ is inferior and the RDG and the CPGB (PCC) argues that it is politically more advanced.

Let us examine OP’s argument. First they say that the term ‘revolutionary democrat’, when separated from ‘communism’, means ‘bourgeois democrat’. Hence they say that “revolutionary democracy is composed of all anti-feudal and anti-imperialist forces who struggle for self-determination”. Consequently combining revolutionary bourgeois democrats and communists into a single organisation is to create ‘bourgeois communism’. Therefore the choice is between a communist tendency advocated by OP and a bourgeois communist tendency advocated by the RDG and the CPGB. On this basis the RDG and CPGB, in accepting the concept of revolutionary democratic communism, have made an opportunist ideological concession to the bourgeoisie.

So whilst OP admits Marx and Engels first made this fusion of revolutionary democracy and communism, they add - significantly - that Marx and Engels “did not attempt the combining of revolutionary democrats and communists in the same party”. This is a side swipe at our supposed attempt to combine bourgeois democrats and communists in this new tendency.

The fundamental problem in the OP thesis is its failure to recognise that there are bourgeois democrats and working class democrats. To equate democracy with the bourgeoisie is a major political and ideological error. It is to make a major concession to the bourgeoisie.

Working class democrats are more concerned than bourgeois democrats about “anti-feudal and anti-imperialist forces”, and the national question or women’s rights, etc. But working class democrats are also centrally concerned about the democratic self-organisation of the class into trade unions, soviets of workers’ councils, democratic workers’ parties and the transfer of political power to the only genuinely democratic class. This is something which bourgeois democrats are positively hostile to. It is in the class interests of the bourgeoisie that ‘democracy’ should be defined purely in their terms. It is not in the interests of the working class, who must win the battle for democracy, rather than concede it to the enemy.

Therefore the term ‘revolutionary democrat’ is an ambiguous term. However, when it is combined with communism, there is no such ambiguity. There was no such ambiguity for Marx or Engels. It is quite clear that revolutionary democrats who are fighting for communism serve the interests of the working class. We are speaking only of working class democrats.

The separation of revolutionary democracy from communism and the assignment of the component parts to different classes was not invented by OP. It can be found in the theories of Menshevism and Stalinism. Stalin made this separation. In Spain, Stalin’s forces were ‘revolutionary democrats’ - that is, revolutionary bourgeois democrats - in their attitude to the Spanish Republic. Meanwhile in Russia, Stalin was a ‘communist’ but by no stretch of the imagination was this ‘revolutionary working class democracy’. Thousands of murdered communists could tell you about ‘workers’ democracy’ in the USSR.

The argument for revolutionary democratic communism has its historical roots in pre-1921 Bolshevism. However, we live in 1997, in post-USSR society. We need to apply our arguments to the concrete circumstances of today.

We are the products of a historical epoch in which Stalinism (and reformist social democracy) has dominated the world working class movement. The vast majority of working class socialists accept that Stalinism committed mass murder on a huge scale, including the murder of many communists such as Trotsky. In the minds of millions of people the word ‘communism’ is equated with ‘Stalinism’.

As a result of the domination of Stalinism, communists are forced to qualify what type of communist they are. Words (eg, ‘real’, ‘genuine’ or ‘revolutionary’) have to be attached to communism because we are in the process of re-educating the working class about what real communism is all about.

It is about confronting bureaucratic communism and anarcho-communism, which are hiding behind the communist name. The term ‘revolutionary democratic’ is like a political litmus test. The bureaucrats and anarchists do not mind at all being called communists or even revolutionary, but the word ‘democrat’ is like Dracula exposed to the full light of day. Let us not hide this democratic light under a bushel. Let the working class see who is attracted by the idea of working class democracy and who is repelled by it and wants it deleted.

It is our argument that the best and most scientific qualification we can make to the word ‘communist’ is ‘revolutionary democratic communist’. Not only does this term have its origins in pre-1921 Bolshevism and in the original politics of Marx and Engels, but it is also a most appropriate term for post-Stalinist, post-Trotskyist communism.