In the first article in our occasional series on Social Democracy, Red Weekly explained why Marx, Lenin and Trotsky concluded that social democratic parties were 'bourgeois labour parties' - bourgeois parties in that their programme and role was to defend the capitalist order, but parties of the working class in that they were based not merely on individual working class supporters but on the mass organisations of the proletariat, such as the trade unions, co-operatives etc. From this working class base derived one of the particular features of these parties: while they were tied to the historic interests of capitalism, the defence of the capitalist state and the capitalist economy, they were not tied to the day-to-day immediate interests of the ruling class. In the second article in our series, ALAN JONES looks at Trotsky's analysis of how the specific features of the reformist parties can be used by revolutionary Marxists to pursue the policy of the united front.
The fundamental basis of the policy of the united front is very simple. From c act mal lnc telormis natics ate ted to the historic interests of capitalism, revolutionary Marxists draw the conclusion that there is a need for an independent revolutionary narty of the working class. As Trotsky put it:
*The task of the Communist Party is to lead the proletarian revolution.....
The party can achieve this only by remaining an absolutely independent organisation with a clear programme and strict internal discioline. That is the reason why the party was bound to break ideologically and organisationally with the reformists and centrists who do not strive for the proletanan revoluaon, who possess neitner the capacity nor the desire to prepare the masses for revolution, and who by their entire conduct thwart this work.'l but wille une working class needs a separate revolutionary party, it also requires the greatest possible unity in accon une suruggie azainst capitalisin. something absolutely vital in a society where all the material power of the economy and the state is in the hands of the capitanst class, and wnere une indispen sable weapons of the working class are numbers and organisation. As Trotsky put it in the case of Germany in the 1930s, for example:
unity in its ranks. This holds true for partial economic conflicts, within the walls of a single factory, as well as for such "national' political battles as the one to repel fascism.... The words in the Communist Manifesto which state that the Communists are not to be opposed to the proletarial, that wey have no interests separate and apart from the proletariat as a whole, carry with them the meaning that the struggle of the party to win over the majority of the class must in no instance come into opposition with the need of the workers to keep unity within their fighting ranks. *2 The problem of the united front is precisely how to fuse the simultaneous need of the working class for an independent revolutionary party with the need for unity in action in the struggle. The quesaon or te united front is not mere ly a question of the relation between varlous parties of the working class. but a TONK OR unty or mie workina cass decoite the differences on political line and organisations which divide it. Thus:
*The class is not homogeneous. Its different sections arrive at class consciousness by different paths and at different times. The bourgeoisie participates actively in this process.
Within the working class it creates its own institutions, or utilises those already existing, in order to oppose certain strata of workers to others. Within the proletariat several parties are active at the same time.
for the greater part of its historical journey it remains split politically.
The problem of the united front ororiginates therein.*3 BASIC NEED It is trom this basic need for unity in action, and not as is sometimes thought merely to expose reformist leaders or merely from relations between organisations, that the necessity of the united front policy flows. As Trotsky put it:
"The question of the united front is not at all, either in point of origin or in substance, a question of the recip rocal racions derween the commun ist Party parliamentary fraction and that of the Socialists, or between the Central Committees or the two parties, or between L Humanite and Le PopThe problem of the united front - despite the fact that a split is inevitable in this epoch between the various political organisations basing themselves on the working class -grows out of the urgent need to secure for the working class the possibility of a united front in the struggle against capitalism. '4 NOT ARTIFICIAL Consequently:
*The tactic of the united front is not someuning accidental and artilicial -a cunning manoeuvre - not at all; it originates, entirely and wholly, in the objective conditions governing the development of the proletariat....the struggle of the party to win over the majority of the class must in no instance come into opposition with the need of the workers to keep unity within their fighting ranks.'5 Despite the simplicity of the basic concept of the united front, there is no doubt that a whole series of errors on this ques. to other organisations as carried out by Stalin and still practised by the CP today. For example, Trotsky notes:
was wrecked precisely because the line."6 inererore.
Leon Trotsky But is is also true that - particularly in britain - a whole series of sectariar conceptions exist on the question of the united front. The most typical, shown by the Workers Revolutionary Party, is that the united front is not a weapon of struggle but a method of 'exposing' people. For this reason the proposals of the united front are not practical and related to the immediate burning issues of the day, but are merely abstract calls for the workers to "take power", 'nationalise the monopoles. etc. approach also, however:
*In most cases the leading organs of the Communist Party approached the reformists with an offer to join in a common struggle for radical slogans which were alien to the situation and which found no response in the masses. These proposals had the character augurated.
Out.
*The Chinese Revolution of 1925-27 Comintern, under the leadership of Stalin and Bukharin, forced the Chinese Communist Party to enter into the party or the Chinese bourgeoisie, the Kuomintang, and to obey its discippointed out:
Trotsky commented on this terpreted these proposals of the Communists as a trick to destroy the socia Democracy. In each of these instances only a purely formal, declamatory application of the united front was in As opposed to this, Trotsky pointed "By its very nature it [the united front] can prove fruitful only on the basis or a earsue appraisa or the situato and of the condition of the masses."
Certainly the united front can expose the reformists, and their refusal and inab¡lity to fight for the needs of the working class, but this will only occur, and the needs of the working class be taken forward, if the proposals for action are geared to the central problems facing the workers at eacn point in time. Thus in Germany in the early 1930s:
"It 1s necessary, without any delay, to elaborate a practical system of meas ures - not with the aim of merely 'exposing' the Social Democracy (before the Communists) but with the aim of actual struggle against fascism.
....The programme of action must be strictly practical, strictly objective, to the point, without any artificial claims, without any reservations This sectarian concept of the united front is not merely fatal for the working class. It is also useless in actually expos ing the reformists and building a revolutonary party. Ine reason ior inis 1s clear - the objective need for unity in action is deeply reflected in the consciousness of the working class. As Trotsky *It is perfectly self-evident that the class life of the proletariat is not suspended during the period preparatory to the revolution. Clashes with industrialists, with the bourgeoisie, with the state power, on the initiative of one side or the other, run their due course. In unese clasnes - insotar at they involve the vital interests of the entire working class, or its majority, or this or that section - the working masses sense the need of unity in action, of unity in resisting the onslaught or capiransm or unity in taking the offensive against it. Any party which mechanically counterposes itself to this need of the working class for unity in action will unfailingly be co demned in the minds of the workers. '1 Instead of this sectarianism: "The party of social revolution is obliged to learn in action how to fuse together the majority of the working class, utilis ing to this end every opportunity for masss action that opens up. The outlived groupings and factions are interested in preserving intact and immut- NOTES aure all ure barners aviding the work I cass mto secmens we. on the other hand, have a vital stake in pulling down these barriers of conservatism and in teaching the working class to follow our example. Herein lies Another sectarian concept of the un ited front which Trotsky also had to fight against is the view that while it is correct to form united fronts with rank and file reformist workers, it is impermissible to do so with the reformist leaders. This in practice usually rules out the possibility or me united mont arogowel.. As IToE sky pointed out:
"Does the united front extend only to the working masses or does it include the opportunist leaders? The very pos mig or mas queston is a product or misunderstanding. If we were able simply to unite the working masses around our own banner or around our practical immediate slogans, and skip over reformist organisations, that would of course be the best thing in the world. But then the very question of the united front would not exist in its present form."12 PERMISSIBLE It is perfectly permissible to make agrcoments on united tront actions witt reformist leaders when these are forced under the pressure of the workers to break with the day-to-day interests of cap italism. The only point is that it must be remembered that such 'allies' are unreItable allies. When they moved from hesitating reformist opposition to outright betrayal then it is necessary to break immediately with them:
The influence of the radicalisation of the masses on the reformists is quite similar to the influence that the development of a bourgeois revolution • has on the liberals. In the first stages of the mass movement the reformists move leftwards, hoping in this way to retain the leadership in their hands.
But when the movement surpasses the limits of reform and demands from the leaders a clear beak with the bour geoisie, the majority of the reformists quickly change their tune. From cowardly fellow travellors of the masses they turn into strike breakers, enemies, open betrayers....
An episodic alliance with the reformists, at the moment they happen to be compelled by circumstances to make a step or half a step forward, may be unavoidable. But it must be understood beforehand that the communists are ready to break mercilessly with the reformists the moment they jump back. 13 Within these limits, however, it is possible to pursue a policy of united fronts with the reformists. In our next article we will consider how Trotsky applied such a policy to the 'left' reformists in particineses on we united front? what Mert 3. What Next?; 4. Theses on the United Front 5. What Next?; 6. What Next?; 7, What Next?: 8. What Next?; 9. For A Workers United Front Against rascism, 70. Theses on the United Fron 11. A letter to the Convention of the French
. red weekly 13 november 1975
----- pull-quotes -----
UNITED RANKS *To fight, the proletariat must have
MAINTENANCE EDUCATE AFT ATE ORGANISE