a) defence and a consistent and proud acknowledgement of Marxism-Leninism

b) defence and a consistent upright acknowledgement of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin's thoughts and works

c) determined theoretical and practical struggle against revisionism and revisionists of Marxism-Leninism and its revolutionary political theory

d) upholding the revolutionary road to socialism, and not the so called "peaceful road"

e) recognition of the necessity of the dictatorship of the proletariat to first achieve and then to maintain socialism; and then to advance towards communism until its complete establishment

f) full support of the right of nations to self-determination including secession

g) upholding and spreading the philosophy of dialectic and historical materialism and the revolutionary policy inside the working people's movement; against the philosophy of idealism

h) abhorrence and complete rejection, and determined struggle against all forms of racism and sexism
 

2. It is important that the journal involve all groups who consider themselves Marxist-Leninist. For that reason the Editorial Board will try and contact all the Marxist-Leninist groups, organisations and parties who accept the Founding Principles of clause 1. The Editorial Board has the task to inform them about the journal and to encourage them to take part in its production and circulation, and to attend the next conference. This conference can be attended by more than one organisation from those countries where the Marxist-Leninist Party has not yet been re-constructed.
 

3. Until an open debate has achieved the clarity and the principled agreement that is required by the international Marxist-Leninist movement, no new, principled and meaningful Communist International can be formed. That is why a prominent section of "International Struggle" will be devoted to "Discussion and Reply".

The editors will be scrupulously fair to all points of view that conform to clause 1. That is to say, we guarantee ALL Marxist-Leninists will be able to have a written and printed reply, either on the basis of their own, or, on their party's, or group's behalf.

Moreover, the editors are mandated to ensure that a scientific, non-sectarian debate proceeds on MARXIST-LENINIST lines. That is, a debate that is conducted on principled and factual lines, and eschews personality attacks, or character assassination.

4. The editors are aware that the road towards the Marxist-Leninist International cannot be covered on the theoretical level only, so they want to emphasise the importance of the establishment of communist parties and groups in order to organise the class struggle against the bourgeoisie and reactionary forces. They want also to emphasise the importance of the exchange of political and organisational experiences between the world revolutionaries and communists.

5. The only views that will not be tolerated in the journal are those that are openly anti-Marxist-Leninist. They include openly racist, bourgeois, revisionist and Trotskyite views. Only one exception to this will be permitted: where the editors take a joint decision that such an article, carries a valuable lesson to the Marxist-Leninist movement, and needs exposing by printing. Such cases will always be appended with a covering Editorial.

6. The editors number 5, including a Chief Editor. The current Editorial Board has been decided by a democratic election. Their mandate is for 2 years, by which time a new Conference will be held. At this Conference all decisions, elections and functions can be re-discussed. All groups will carry one vote at the forthcoming conference (December 1999). Elections will be held for a new Editorial Board.

7. The language of "INTERNATIONAL STRUGGLE - Marxist-Leninist" is currently English. This is purely a practical consideration at this time. At this stage, participating parties will have their own responsibility to translate the journal into their own other, significant languages. With further consolidation of our strength, we will later be able to assist this translation process.

8. Donations are required for the journal; but these do not confer any editorial privilege.

9. We are fully agreed that a new Marxist-Leninist Communist International is urgently needed. As LINES OF DEMARCATION are drawn, we wish to assist at the right time, in the formation of such a single, truly united Marxist-Leninist Communist International.

We request Marxist-Leninists the world over to participate in this journal. We ask that views be forwarded to a member of the Editorial Board at the addresses below. We further ask, that these submissions be both in paper form, and if possible, computer disc form (IBM compatible). Of course, if the latter is impossible then we will accept articles in only a written form.
 

H Kumar, PO Box 8905 991, King Street West, Hamilton, Ontario 18S 5R5, Canada; e-mail: hari.kumar@sympatico.ca

Communist League, PO Box 24, Leeds LS8 1UU, UK

P Kessel, CEMOPI, 4 Rue d'Arcole, 72000, Le Mans, France; e-mail: cemopi@wanadoo.fr

Progressive Documentation and Information Centre for Turkey, PO Box 13068, Tottenham, London N15 4ZF, UK; tel: 0181-533-0377; Fax: 0181-525-1846; e-mail: Mlkptur@aol.com
 

The concept of social class as: " . . . a division or order of society according to status" (1) -
is a very ancient one, the English word 'class' being derived from the Latin 'classis', meaning each of the " . . . ancient divisions of the Roman people" (2).
Servius Tullius, king of Rome in the 6th century BC, organised a classification system:
" . . . which divided citizens into five classes according to wealth" (3).

The Marxist-Leninist Definition of Class

Marxist-Leninists accept the concept of social class put forward above, but hold that a person's social class is determined not by the amount of his wealth, but by the source of his income as determined by his relation to labour and to the means of production:

"Classes are large groups of people differing from each other by the place they occupy in a historically determined system of social production, by their relation . . . to the means of production, by their role in the social organisation of labour, and, consequently, by the dimensions of their share of social wealth of which they dispose and the mode of acquiring it. Classes are groups of people one of which can appropriate the labour of another owing to the different place they occupy in a definite system of social economy"(4)

"There are three great social groups, whose members . . . . live on wages, profit and ground rent respectively"(5).

The Landlord Class

Marxist-Leninists define the landlord class as that class which owns land and derives its income from rent on that land:

"Land becomes . . . personified . . . gets on its hind legs to demand . . . its share of the product created with its help . . . rent"(6).

1) the proletariat or working class;
2) the petty bourgeoisie; and
3) the bourgeoisie or capitalist class:

"Every capitalist country . . . is basically divided into three main forces: the bourgeoisie, the petty bourgeoisie and the proletariat" (7).

The English word ' bourgeoisie' is derived from the French word 'bourgeoisie', meaning:

" . . .the trading middle class" (8), as distinct from the landlord class. Marxist-Leninists define the bourgeoisie or capitalist class as " . . . the class of modern capitalist, owners of the means of social production and employers of wage labour"(9).

"The latter group contains sections of the population who belong to the big bourgeoisie, all the rentiers (living on income from capital and real estate . . . ), then part of the intelligentsia, the high military and civil officials, etc."(10).

The Proletariat

The English word 'proletariat' is derived from the Latin word 'proles', meaning 'offspring', since according to Roman law a proletarian served the state " . . .not with his property, but only with his offspring" (11). Marxist-Leninist define the proletariat as:

" . . . the class of modern wage labourers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labour power in order to live" (12),
as
" . . . That class in society which lives entirely from the sale of its labour and does not draw profit from any kind of capital . . . .The proletariat, or the class of proletarians, is, in a word, the working class" (13).

" . . .that class of the community which is dependent on daily labour for subsistence, and has no reserve of capital" (14).

" . . .the proletariat . . . .is in a word the working class"(15),

"The lumpenproletariat . . . form a mass strictly differentiated from the industrial proletariat, a recruiting ground for thieves and criminals of all kinds, living on the crumbs of society, people without a definite trade, vagabonds, gens sans feu et sans aveu (folk without fire and without faith, i.e., a rabble)" (16).

" . . . .the Paris proletariat was confronted with an army drawn from its own midst" (17).

". . .the proletariat is the only really revolutionary class" (18),

" . . . its own grave-diggers" (19)

"Quite a definite class, namely, the urban and industrial workers in general, is able to lead the whole mass of toilers and the exploited in the struggle for the overthrow of the yoke of capital" (20)

"The Party is the political leader of the working class" (21).

The term 'middle class' is used by Marxists -- including Marx and Engels themselves -- in two different ways. Firstly, in the historical sense:

" . . . .in the sense of . . . the French word 'bourgeoisie' . . .that possessing class which is differentiated from the so-called aristocracy" (22).

The Petty Bourgeoisie

Between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat stands the petty bourgeoisie:

"In countries where modern civilisation has become fully developed, a new class of petty bourgeoisie has been formed" (23).

"A petty bourgeois is the owner of small property" (24).

" . . .is cut up into two persons. As owner of the means of production he is a capitalist; as labourer, he is his own wage-labourer"(25),
and consequently petty bourgeois
" . . .are for ever vacillating between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie" (26).

"An industrial army of workers under the command of a capitalist requires, like a real army, officers (managers) and sergeants (foremen, over lookers) who, while the work is being done, command in the name of the capitalist" (27).

"The labour of supervision and management . . .has a double nature. On the one hand, all labour in which many individuals cooperate necessarily requires a commanding will to coordinate and unify the process . . . . On the other hand . . . . this supervision work necessarily arises in all modes of production based on the antithesis between the labourer . . .and the owner of the means of production" (28).

The Peasantry

The English word 'peasant' is derived from the Latin 'pagus', meaning a "country district" (29), and is defined as:

" . . .one who lives in the country and works on the land" (30).

"It is best to distinguish the rich, middle and the poor peasants" (31)

"One of the main features of the rich peasants is that they hire farm-hands and day labourers. Like the landlords, the rich peasants also live on the labour of others. . . . They try to squeeze as much work as they can out of their farm-hands, and pay them as little as possible" (32).

'kulaks', a word derived from the Russian 'kulak', originally meaning a " . . tight-fisted person" (33).

"Only in good years and under particularly favourable conditions is the independent husbandry of this type of peasant sufficient to maintain him and for that reason his position is a very unstable one. In the majority of cases the middle peasant cannot make ends meet without resorting to loans to be repaid by labour, etc., without seeking subsidiary earnings on the side, which partly also consist of selling labour power, etc." (34).

Thirdly, the poor peasants, who Marx called:

" . . .the rural proletariat"(36).
The poor peasant:
" . . .has become quite propertyless. He is a proletarian. He lives . . . not by the land, not by his farm, but by working for wages . . . " (37).

Revisionism is:

" . . .a trend hostile to Marxism within Marxism" (38).

"The revisionists spearheaded their struggle mainly against Marxism-Leninism . . . . and replaced this theory with an opportunist, counter-revolutionary theory in the service of the bourgeoisie and imperialism"(39).

In general, Neo-Marxists pay their loudest tributes to Marx's early writings, before he became a Marxist. Neo-Marxism is essentially a product of the worst kind of university lecturer, who equates obscurantism with intellectualism. Even sympathetic sociologists speak of:

". . . the extreme difficulty of language characteristic of much of Western Marxism of the twentieth century" (40).

Much Neo-Marxism is an eclectic hotchpotch of Marxism and idealist philosophy, giving it, it is claimed, a 'spiritual aspect' which was lacking in the original. A typical example of a Neo-Marxist is the French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, who writes:

"I believe in the general scheme provided by Marx" (41),
"but" -- and it is a big but -- it must be Marxism liberated from:
" . . .the old guard of mummified Stalinists" (42),

"Kierkegaard and Marx . . . institute themselves . . . .as our future" (43).

The Unemployed

Some Neo-Marxists exclude the unemployed from the proletariat on the grounds that people who are not working cannot be considered members of the working class! But on this absurd basis, a worker would cease to be a member of the working class when he finishes work each day. Marx explicitly characterises the unemployed, who he calls the:

" . . .industrial reserve army" (44),
as " . . . .a relative surplus-population among the working class' (45),
and speaks of:
" . . . .the working class (now actively reinforced by its entire reserve army)" (46).

Non-productive Workers

Other Neo-Marxists exclude from the proletariat all workers engaged in unproductive labour. Certainly, Marx differentiated productive from unproductive labour, defining the former as labour:

" . . .which creates a surplus value"(47).

". . . .not defined by wage-labour, . . . . but by productive labour" (48).

" . . .new petty bourgeoisie" (49).

" . . .wage earners in commerce, advertising, accounting, banking and insurance . . . do not form part of the working class" (50),
and " . . . .engineers and technicians do not belong to the working class" (51).

" . . . .the distinction between productive and unproductive labour has nothing to do . . . with the particular speciality of the labour" (52).

" . . .while it does not create surplus value, enables him (the employer - Ed.) to appropriate surplus value, which, in effect, amounts to the same thing with respect to his capital. It is, therefore, a source of profit for him. The unpaid labour of the commercial wage-worker secures a share of this surplus value for merchant's capital" (52).

" . . . are themselves exploited, and their wages correspond to the reproduction of their labour-power"(53).

"The wage worker in agriculture belongs to the same class as the wage-worker in a factory or in a commercial establishment" (54).

" . . .in the end the procedure Poulantzas adopts makes ideology itself the decisive criterion for class" (55).

In developed capitalist countries,

" . . . the bourgeoisie, by plundering the colonial and weak nations, has been able to bribe the upper stratum of the proletariat with crumbs from the super-profits" (56).

. . . obtained over and above the profits which capitalists squeeze out of the workers of their home country" (57).

" . . . the 'labour aristocracy'" (58),

" . . who have become quite petty-bourgeois in their mode of life, in their earnings and in their outlook" (59),

" . . .the principal social . . support of the bourgeoisie. They are the real agents of the bourgeoisie in the labour movement, the labour lieutenants of the capitalist class" (60).

" . . . .distinguishes between a small, privileged protected minority . . .on the one hand, and the great bulk of workers on the other" (61).

" . . . .skilled men who served an apprenticeship . . . who were union men" (62).
"The engineers, the carpenters and joiners, the bricklayers, . . . . .form an aristocracy among the working class" (63).
With the development of capitalism,
" . . . .the lines of demarcation between skilled and unskilled were becoming blurred in an increasing number of trades" (64),
so that:
" . . .the growth of skilled occupations which were not learned by apprenticeship reduced the importance of this method of training, previously one of the peculiar hallmarks of the labour aristocracy" (65),
and
" . . .the growth of non-apprenticed skilled work diluted the labour aristocracy" (66). Consequently, the labour aristocracy tends to shrink in size:
"The tendency of this stratum (the labour aristocracy -- Ed.) is to shrink" (67).

" . . .the proletariat consists of workers on subsistence wages or below" (68).

" . . .certain strata of the working class" (69),
as " . . .an insignificant minority of the proletariat" (70),
as " . . . .sections of the working class in oppressing nations" (71),
as " . . .the top strata of the proletariat" (72).

Because of the small size of the means of production under their control, petty bourgeois are in constant danger of sinking into the proletariat: "

The lower strata of the middle class . . .sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital . . .is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists, partly because their specialised skill is rendered worthless by new methods of production. Thus, the proletariat is recruited from all classes of the population" (73).
"The working class gains recruits from the higher strata of society. . . . .A mass of petty industrialists and small rentiers are hurled down into its ranks" (74)

"The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers" (75).

"Society as a whole is more and more splitting up . . .into two great classes directly facing each other -- bourgeoisie and proletariat" (76).
"Accumulation of wealth at one pole is, therefore, at the same time accumulation of misery, agony of toil, slavery, ignorance, brutality, moral degradation, at the opposite pole" (77). The proletariat is " . . .a class always increasing in numbers" (78).

On the theoretical basis delineated above, it is possible to calculate approximately the changing size of the British working class. The working class changes in size through -- among other things -- what is termed social mobility -- movement downwards into the working class from the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie, and (more rarely) movement upwards from the working class into the petty bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie. Marx points out that such upward mobility strengthens the capitalist system:

"The circumstance that a man without fortune but possessing energy, solidity, ability and business acumen may become a capitalist . . .is greatly admired by apologists of the capitalist system. Although this circumstance continually brings an unwelcome number of new soldiers of fortune . . . .into competition with the already existing individual capitalists, it also reinforces the supremacy of capital itself, expands its base and enables it to recruit ever new forces for itself out of the substratum of society. . . . The more a ruling class is able to assimilate the foremost minds of a ruled class, the more stable and dangerous becomes its rule" (79).

"The path to senior management via a technical career . . . is being increasingly eclipsed by the direct recruitment of graduates as management trainees" (80).

1951:

1. Population: 1951: 48,854 thousands (100%); (Annual Abstract of Statistics: 1956; London; 1956; p. 7).

2. Occupied population: 1951: 22,578 thousand (46.2%); (Annual Abstract of Statistics: 1956; London; 1956; p. 14).

3. Unoccupied population: 1951: 26,276 thousand (53.8%); (calculated from 1 & 2 above).

4. Employers and self-employed: 1951: 1,584 thousand (3.2%); (Annual Abstract of Statistics: 1956; London; 1956; p. 14).

5. Managers, etc.: 1951: 748 thousands (1.5%); (Annual Abstract of Statistics: 1956; London; 1956; p. 15).

6. Foremen, supervisors, etc.: 1951: 812 thousand (1.6%0; (Census 1951: England and Wales: Occupational Tables; London; 1953; p. 2-21); (Census 1951: Scotland: Volume 4: Occupations and Industries'; London; 1954; p. 2-16).

7. Armed Forces: 1951: 827 thousand (1.7%); (Annual Abstract of Statistics: 1956'; London; 1956; p. 103).

8. Police: 1951: 70 thousand (0.1%); (Annual Abstract of Statistics: 1956; London; 1956; p. 64).

1991:

1. Population: 1991: 56,207 thousand (100%); (Annual Abstract of Statistics: 1995; London; 1995; p. 4).

2. Occupied population: 1991; 27,815 thousand (49.5%); (Annual Abstract of Statistics: 1995, London; 1995; p. 102).

3. Unoccupied population: 1991: 28,392 thousand (50.5%); (calculated from 1 and 2 above).

4. Employers and self-employed: 1991: 3,078 thousand (5.5%); (1991 Census: Economic Activity: Great Britain', Volume 1; London; 1994; p. 190).

5. Managers, etc.: 1991: 3,031 thousand* (5.4%); ( 1991 Census Report for Great Britain (Part 2); London; 1993; p. 188).

6. Foremen, supervisors, etc.: 1991: 988 thousand* (1.8%); ( 1991 Census Report for Great Britain (Part 2); London; 1993; p. 36).

7. Armed Forces: 1991: 298 thousand (0.5%); ( Annual Abstract of Statistics: 1995; London; 1995; p. 128).

8. Police: 1991: 139 thousand (0.2%); ( Annual Abstract of Statistics: 1995'; London; 1995; p. 69).

*Converted from a 10% sample figure, by multiplying by a sampling factor of 10.16. ( 1991 Census Report: Great Britain: (Part 2); London; 1993; p. 337).
 

On the basis of the above figures and of the analysis made in previous sections of this paper, it is possible to calculate the size of the occupied proletariat in Britain in 1951 and 1991 respectively approximately as follows:

Occupied population                         22,578 thousand     27,815 thousand

less employers and self employed:     1,584 thousand         3,078 thousand

less managers etc.:                             748 thousand            3,038 thousand

less foremen, supervisors, etc.:             812 thousand             988 thousand

less armed forces:                                 827 thousand             298 thousand

less police:                                             70 thousand              139 thousand

This gives figures for the size of the occupied proletariat of 18,537 thousand (1951) and 20, 281 thousand (1991), figures which represent 82.5% and 72.9% (1991) of the occupied population.

If we assume that the proletarian portion of the unoccupied population is the same as in the occupied population, this gives us figures for the unoccupied proletariat of 21, 573 thousand (1951) and 20,698 thousand (1991).
Finally, this gives us figures for the total British proletariat of 40,110 thousand (1951) and 40,979 thousand (1991), which represent 82.1% (1951) and 72.1% (1991) of the total population.

References

1. Oxford English Dictionary, Volume 3; Oxford; 1989; p. 279.
2. Charles T. Onions (Ed.): The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology; Oxford; 1985; p. 1803.
3. New Encyclopaedia Britannica, Volume 10; Chicago; 1994; p. 455.
4. Vladimir I. Lenin: A Great Beginning, in: Collected Works, Volume 29; London; 1974; p. 421.
5. Karl Marx: Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume 3; Moscow; 1971; p. 886.
6. Karl Marx: Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume 3; Moscow; 1971; p. 824 -25.
7. Vladimir I. Lenin: Constitutional Illusions, in: Collected Works', Volume 6; Moscow; 1964; p. 202
8. Charles T. Onions (Ed.): op. Cit.; p. 110.
9. Friedrich Engels: Note to the 1888 English Edition of: Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels: Selected Works, Volume 1; London; 1943; p. 204.
10. Vladimir I. Lenin: The Development of Capitalism in Russia, in: Collected Works, Volume 3; Moscow; 1960; p. 504.
11. Charles T. Onions (Ed.): o. Cit.; p. 714.
12. Friedrich Engels: Note to the 1888 English Edition of: Manifesto of the Communist Party, in: Karl Marx: Selected Works, Volume 1; London; 1943; p. 204.
13. Friedrich Engels: Principles of Communism; London; 1971; p. 5.
14. Oxford English Dictionary, Volume 12; Oxford; 1989; p. 606.
15. Friedrich Engels: op. Cit.; p. 5.
16. Karl Marx: The Class Struggles in France: 1848-50, in: Selected Works, Volume 2; London; 1943; p. 211.
17. Karl Marx: The Class Struggles in France: 1848-50, in: Selected Works, Volume 2; London; 1943; p. 211.
18. Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels: Manifesto of the Communist Party, in: Karl Marx: Selected Works, Volume 1; London; 1943; p. 216.
19. Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels: ibid.; p. 218.
20. Vladimir I. Lenin: A Great Beginning, in: Selected Works, Volume 9; London; 1984; p. 432.
21. Josef V. Stalin: The Foundations of Leninism, in: Works, Volume 6; Moscow; 1953; p. 178.
22. Friedrich Engels: Preface to The Condition of the Working Class in England: From Personal Observation and Authentic Sources, in: Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels: Collected Works, Volume 4; Moscow; 1975; p. 304.
23. Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels: Manifesto of the Communist Party, in: Karl Marx: Selected Works, Volume 1; London; 1943; p. 321.
24. Vladimir I. Lenin: Note to: To the Rural Poor, in: Selected Works, Volume 2; London; 1944; p. 254.
25. Karl Marx: Theories of Surplus Value' Part 1; Moscow; n.d.; p. 396.
26. Josef V. Stalin: The Logic of Facts, in: Works, Volume 4; Moscow; 1953; p. 143.
27. Karl Marx: Capital: An Analysis of Capitalist Production, Volume 1; Moscow; 1959; p. 314.
28. Karl Marx: Capital: An Analysis of Capitalist Production, Volume 1; Moscow; 1959; p. 383-84.
29. Charles T. Onions (Ed.): op cit.; p. 66.
30. Oxford English Dictionary, Volume 11; Oxford; 1989. P. 420.
31. Vladimir I. Lenin: To the Rural Poor: An Explanation for the Peasants of what the Social-Democrats want (hereafter listed as Vladimir I. Lenin (1903) in: Selected Works, Volume 2; London 1944; p. 261.
32. Vladimir I. Lenin (1903): ibid.; p. 265.
33. Oxford English Dictionary, Volume 8; Oxford; 1989; p. 543
34. Vladimir I. Lenin: The Development of Capitalism un Russia, in: Selected Works, London 1; 1944; p. 235.
35. Vladimir I. Lenin (1903): op. cit.; p. 267.
36. Karl Marx: The Civil War in France; in: Selected Works, Volume 2; London; 1943; p. 507.

37. Vladimir I. Lenin (1903); op. cit.; p. 265.
38. Vladimir I. Lenin; Marxism and Revisionism, in: Selected Works Volume 11; London; 1943, p. 704.
39. Enver Hoxha: Report to the 5th Congress of the Party of Labour of Albania, in: Selected Works, Volume 4; Tirana; 1982; p. 190.
40. Perry Anderson: Considerations on Western Marxism; London; 1976; p. 54
41. Jean-Paul Sartre: Between Existentialism and Marxism; London; 1974; p. 53.
42. Jean-Paul Sartre: ibid.; p. 109.
43. Jean-Paul Sartre: ibid.; p. 169.
44. Karl Marx: Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume 1; Moscow; 11974; p. 592.
45. Karl Marx: Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume 1; Moscow; 1974; p. 518.
46. Karl Marx: Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume 1; Moscow; 1974; p. 414.
47. Karl Marx: Theories of Surplus Value, Part 1; Moscow; n.d.; p. 45.
48. Nicos Poulantzas: Classes in Contemporary Capitalism; London; 1979; p. 94.
49. Nicos Poulantzas: ibid.; p. 290.
50. Nicos Poulantzas: ibid.; p. 211 - 212.
52. Nicos Poulantzas: ibid.; p. 250.
53. Karl Marx: Theories of Surplus Value, Part 1; Moscow; n.d.; p. 160-61.
52. Karl Marx. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume 3; Moscow; 1974; p. 294.
53. Nicos Poulantzas: op. cit.; p. 212.
54. Vladimir I. Lenin; The Trudoviks and Worker Democrats, in: Collected Works, Volume 18; Moscow; 1965; p. 39
55. Erik O. Wright: Class, Crisis and the State; London; 1978; p. 59.
56. Vladimir I. Lenin: Draft Programme of the RCP(B) in: Collected Works, Volume 29; Moscow; 1965; p. 104.
57.Vladimir I Lenin: Preface to the French and German Editions of Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, in: Selected Works, Volume 5; London; 1935; p. 12.
58. Vladimir I. Lenin: ibid.; p. 12.
59. Vladimir I. Lenin; ibid.; p. 12.
60. Vladimir I. Lenin: ibid.; p. 12.
61. Martin Nicolaus: The Theory of the Labour Aristocracy, in: Monthly Review, Volume 21, No. 11 (April 1970); p. 92.
62. Aleksei M. Rumantsev (Ed.): The Structure of the Working Class; New Delhi; 1963. p. 81.
63. Friedrich Engels: Preface to the English Edition of: The Condition of the Working-Class in England; London; 1969; p. 31
64. Charles More: Skill and the English Working Class; London; 1980; p. 231.
65. Charles More: ibid.; p. 213.
66. Charles More: ibid.; p. 231.
67. Aleksei M. Rumyantsev: op. cit.; p. 104.
68. Finsbury Communist Association: Class and Party in Britain; London; 1966; p. 4.
69. Vladimir I. Lenin: Imperialism and the Split in Socialism, in: Selected Works, Volume 5; London; 1935; p. 134.
70. Vladimir I. Lenin: The Collapse of the Second International, in: Selected Works, Volume 5; London; 1935; p.183.
71. Vladimir I. Lenin: A Caricature of Marxism and "Imperialist Economism", in: Selected Works, Volume 5; London; 1935; p. 291.
72. Vladimir I. Lenin: How the Bourgeoisie utilises Renegades, in: Collected Works, Volume 30; Moscow; 1965; p. 34.
73. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels: Manifesto of the Communist Party, in: Karl Marx: Selected Works, Volume 1; London; 1943; p. 213.
74. Karl Marx: Wage-Labour and Capital, in: Selected Works, Volume 1; London; 1943; p. 280.
75. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels: Manifesto of the Communist Party, in: Karl Marx: Selected Works. Volume 1; London; 1943; p. 208.
76. Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels: Manifesto of the Communist Party. In: Karl Marx: Selected Works, Volume 1; London; 1943; p. 205-206.
77. Karl Marx: Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume 1; Moscow; 1959; p. 604.
78. Karl Marx: Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume 1; Moscow; 1959; p. 715.
79. Karl Marx: Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume 3; London; 1974; p. 600- 01.
80. Bob Carter: Capitalism, Class Conflicts and the New Middle Class; London 1985; p. 102-03.

In Hari Kumar's overview of the Second Conference of International Struggle/Marxist-Leninist, which was attended by Open Polemic in a non voting capacity, he claims that: "An attempt was made by Open Polemic of the UK, to avoid the formation of a platform such as ISML, founded on notions of democratic centralism. This was based on the argument that democratic centralism was the cloak under which revisionism triumphed and subverted the communist revolution. This argument is summarised in their paper - which we reprint here - and came under repeated fire throughout the conference, especially from a comrade from Partisan (UK) and by Alliance (Canada & USA). In addition the principle put to Open Polemic that the dividing line between Marxist-Leninists and revisionists is the support of Stalin, was rejected by Open Polemic. Since then, Open Polemic has re-printed some articles from the Conference".
 

Firstly, it is necessary to point out that you have not reprinted our three page paper, 'Prospect for the Future Multanimous Party', several copies of which were submitted prior to the Conference and which, in the absence of any arrangements on your part, was also distributed by OP delegates to the other delegates. You did however find space to print Open Polemic's very short critique of the voluntarist idealism contained in the ISML's Founding Editorial Principles. In fact, this was not a paper submitted to the conference. It was taken, presumably by Hari Kumar, from our publication, OP Prospect No.1, of October 97. In addition, this short critique does not, in any way, as claimed by Kumar, summarise Open Polemic's views on democratic centralism.
 

We are most concerned that, without any reason being given, the Editorial Board should take the decision not to reprint Open Polemic's paper, particularly as your founding principles state that: "Until an open debate has achieved the clarity and principled agreement that is required by the International Marxist-Leninist movement, no new, principled and meaningful Communist International can be formed. That is why a prominent section of "International Struggle" will be devoted to "Discussion and Reply". Our paper was used to develop the general thrust of our delegates arguments at the conference, and it included a summary of Open Polemic's particular, outright support for the party principle of democratic centralism. The first paragraph of this summary reads: "There can be no dispute that the communist party must be multanimous or many-minded in its democracy. Neither can there be any dispute that, to be unanimous or single-minded in its action, the membership must place itself under democratic centralist direction. The essence of the political and organisational principle of democratic centralism is multanimous democracy combined with unanimous action."
 

The assertion that Open Polemic argues that, "democratic centralism was the cloak under which revisionism triumphed and subverted the communist revolution" is a figment of Kumar's imagination. Nowhere in our paper, or indeed, in any of our published material does Open Polemic put forward such an argument, for it is a historical fact that revisionists essentially of the reformo-communist variety, were openly elected as majorities onto the central committees of several communist parties of the Third International'. They then utilised the normal practice of leader centralism to consolidate their position in the party. The 'anti-revisionist' minority became the new ' dissidents', with their views targeted for distortion and suppression by the new editors. They were divided among themselves and lacked any general perspective for dealing with the new objective situation, other than a hankering for the apparent certainties of the past. The 'revisionists' had no need for a cloak, they could do almost everything quite openly. So, what did come under repeated fire throughout the conference, from Open Polemic in fact, was the continuing support for the practice of leader centralism within the political and organisational structures of democratic centralism.
 

We fail to understand what Kumar means by Open Polemic attempting, "to avoid the formation of a platform such as ISML, founded on notions of democratic centralism". In particular, we haven't a clue as to what he means by "notions" of democratic centralism and we would further remind him, firstly, that the ISML is already formed as a platform and, secondly, that the ISML does not even list support for the Marxist-Leninist principle of democratic centralism as one of its founding principles. However, we regard democratic centralism as the political and organisational principle of the communist party and, therefore, not an appropriate political and organisational principle for any communist united front; as soon as a communist united front adopts the principle of democratic centralism, it effectively establishes itself as a communist party.
 

The "dividing line between Marxist-Leninists and revisionists" is not, as Hari Kumar contends, support for Stalin. Support for the thoughts and works' of any outstanding personality, from Marx to Mao, Hoxha and after, can only be in accordance with the past, present and future validity of their thoughts and works. The dividing line is theoretical and must be dealt with as such. As Open Polemic pointed out in its paper: "Revisionism is politically and organisationally manifested within the working class movement by the trends of anarcho-communism on the left and reformo-communism on the right and by the various conjunctions of both of these trends.
 

With their many varieties identifying as communist or revolutionary socialist, the general characteristic of these trends is that their support for Marxism is accompanied by opposition to Leninism on the crucial questions of party and state....
 

...Being the closest to scientific communism, there are those within these revisionist trends who not only uphold the component parts of scientific communism, they also support such defining, fundamental principles for communist parties as democratic centralism, proletarian internationalism and the struggle for the dictatorship of the proletariat.
 

However, the distinguishing feature of these protagonists is that they do not support the most defining, fundamental principle of scientific communism today, the principle of the leading role of the party prior to and within the dictatorship of the proletariat."
 

It would be interesting to know who would remain with ISML if this principle concerning the leading role of the party was included in Clause 1 of its Founding Editorial Principles. Perhaps Hari Kumar himself might also tell us just where he stands on this question.

(Open Polemic).

Elaborated by Marx and Engels and later by Lenin, the ideology of scientific communism in its continuing development has been denoted, for the greater part of this century, by the term Marxism-Leninism. Crucial to its even further development is the political and organisational struggle for the self-organisation of advanced workers into an international of communist parties, into the collective leadership that can enable the proletariat to realise its historic potential.
 

To meet the responsibilities of leadership, all communist parties based on the ideology of scientific communism have to conduct a struggle against their subversion by the ideology of anarchism, which is revolutionary in its opposition to the capitalist state, and by the ideology of reformism, which is reactionary in its support for the capitalist state. Both of these ideologies, standing together in opposition to the concept of the socialist state in transition from capitalism to the higher phase of communism, are the main source of revisionist influence within scientific communism.

Revisionism and Dogmatism

Revisionism is an expression of reactionary activity, dogmatism an expression of revolutionary idleness. Whereas revisionism rejects scientific communism in the guise of developing it under changed conditions, dogmatism undermines it by clinging to the past in the face of changed conditions. A twin source of ideological confusion and theoretical disorder in the communist movement, revisionism and dogmatism are bonded together by the constant response of the one to the other. Revisionism is politically and organisationally manifested within the working class movement by the trends of anarcho-communism on the left and reformo-communism on the right and by the various conjunctions of both these trends.
 

With their many varieties identifying as communist or revolutionary socialist, the general characteristic of these trends it that their support for Marxism is accompanied by opposition to Leninism on the crucial question of party and state. Consequently, their political postulations are developed primarily around opposition to the theory and practice of particular communist leaders in countries where the building of a nation state of socialism has been proclaimed and, correspondingly, around specific interpretations of past history.

Being the closest to scientific communism, there are those within these revisionist trends who not only uphold the component parts of scientific communism, they also support such defining, fundamental principles for communist parties as democratic centralism, proletarian internationalism, and the struggle for the dictatorship of the proletariat.

However, the distinguishing feature of these protagonists is that they do not support the most defining, fundamental principle of scientific communism today, the principle of the leading role of the party both prior to and within the dictatorship of the proletariat. Consequently, the upholding of this fundamental principle must underpin the struggle against revisionism.

In supporting Leninism on the question of party and state, dogmatism is manifested today by a variety of political postulations which are developed primarily around support for the theory and practice of communist leaders in countries where the building of a nation state of socialism has been proclaimed and, correspondingly, around specific interpretations of past history.

In their sectarian claims to be the sole upholders of 'Marxism-Leninism' and in their dismissive exclusion of others who do not conform to their particular, historically specific interpretations, the dogmatists objectively strengthen revisionism. They collectively form a major impediment to advancing open polemic and to rapprochement and unity around the ideology of scientific communism.

Without a determined and successful struggle against dogmatism within scientific communism revisionism will undoubtedly maintain its ascendancy in the working class movement. Overcoming the former is the condition for defeating the latter. To overcome dogmatism, it is firstly necessary for all those who adhere to the fundamentals of scientific communism to critically and creatively participate in open polemic.

Centralism and Democratic Centralism

There can be no dispute that the communist party must be multanimous or many minded in its democracy. Neither can there be any doubt that, to be unanimous or single-minded in its action, the membership must place itself under centralist direction. The essence of the political and organisational principle of democratic centralism is multanimous democracy combined with unanimous action.

Learning from the experience of Marx and Engels, democratic centralism was elaborated by Lenin and eventually agreed as a principle of party political organisation at the unity congress in 1906 of the old RSDLP composed of Bolsheviks and Mensheviks.

In July 1917, at the first congress of the RSDLP (Bolsheviks), it was agreed that the party should be built upon the principle of democratic centralism and subsequently this principle was incorporated as a condition of membership of the Third International at its founding in 1919.

Centralism is a political and organisational practice involving the voluntary subordination of the party membership to a party centre that is composed of a self-appointed leadership which formulates the party programme and leads the party into action. The multanimous democracy of the centralist party resides in the leadership.

Democratic centralism is a political and organisational principle in which the party centre is the congress of delegates which formulates the party programme by majority decisions and elects a central leadership to lead the party into action. The multanimous democracy of the democratic centralist party, contrary to the centralist party, resides in the membership.

Whereas the practice of centralism is necessary for communist parties operating under oppressive regimes and in emergency situations, the principle of democratic centralism is essential for communist parties operating in conditions of relative stability and legality.

The Practice of Leader Centralism

Following the October revolution, for over three years the multanimous democracy of the RSDLP (Bolsheviks) took the form of various factions, that is, of groups with the full right to their own political organisation and publications. However, the detrimental affect on conduct and discipline of this libertarian multanimity, in reality, the organisation of parties within the party, was such that by the 1921 Congress, on the insistence of Lenin, it was deemed necessary to ban factions

The banning of factions, however, was not carried through to its logical conclusion for Lenin's faction still maintained its dominance on the central committee which, being granted special rights in the elaboration and presentation of programme and having control of the party press, constituted a crucial vantage point for any faction.

Without any alternative multanimous form of democracy to that of libertarian factionalism and with the democratic formulations of the membership being confined to the basic, mobilising units, the membership in general became reliant upon the programme formulated by the dominant faction in the leadership and compliant to its demands, while opposition factions resorted to clandestine methods to try and gain the vantage point of the central committee. This was the essence of the practice of leader centralism, of centralism operating in the guise of democratic centralism.

With the RSDLP setting the precedent, leader centralism became the political and organisational practice of other communist parties, not only of those inside but also those outside the Third International.

Upheld to this day by both revisionists and dogmatists alike, the leader centralist party, despite its ideological class origins, inevitably reproduces the characteristics of bourgeois democracy. Its covert factionalism is compressed into a schema of ruling majority and opposition minority. The disciplined observance of majority decisions by all minority views is translated into the subordination of the minority to the majority and taking sides in certain conditions inevitably means choosing between revisionism and dogmatism.

Although it is historically redundant, leader centralism still remains the practice of innumerable, vanguardist parties and is still upheld by countless, vanguardist sects.

There is no leader centralist party in this qualitatively new period of ideological confusion and theoretical disorder which can act as the centre for communist unity and rapprochement around the ideology of scientific communism. Of even greater importance is that the leader centralist party cannot meet the future political and organisational needs of the advanced
workers.

The Multanimous Party

For the party of scientific communism democratic centralism is the political and organisational expression of the unity of theory and practice. This is realised in the multanimous elaboration of programme and its unanimous advancement. It is through this process that the party is able to develop its scientific yet partisan participation in the class struggle. Although, necessarily, it is politically organised through centralism, the communist party's unanimous action is essentially a measure of its democratic multanimity.

Multanimous means having a many sided mind. For the party of scientific communism this means having a multanimous democratic life which not only allows various collectives composed of the like-minded to formulate theoretical or programmatic postulations, it also ensures equality of opportunity between such collectives to present their postulations to the party.

Equality of opportunity conflicts with the practice of leader centralism in which the dominant, like-minded collective within the leadership has special opportunities in the formulation and presentation of its postulations to the party. It is due to this practice that the leader centralist party constantly suffers from factions locked in a struggle to gain special, vantage point of the leadership.

In denying the constitutional rights of members to form like-minded collectives, the leader centralist party not only stultifies the multanimous, scientific elaboration of theory and its associated, unanimous practice, it constantly instigates the formation of clandestine factions.

There is now no future for the parties that uphold the principle of democratic centralism while practising leader centralism. These parties must be superseded by a united party which is fully multanimous in its democracy, by a party which allows the formation of like-minded collectives, by a party which denies special opportunities to the dominant faction in the leadership to formulate and present its theory and programme. Yet, at the same time, such a party must stand opposed to any return to the libertarianism of factions with full rights to their own political organisation, that is, to the libertarianism of parties within the party.

Ideological Foundations for the Multanimous Communist Party

Communist unity and rapprochement around the ideology of scientific communism demands a critical and creative process of open polemic between comrades that merges, on the basis of a common theoretical programme, into the establishment of a multanimous, democratic centralist party that adopts:

• the outlook of dialectical and historical materialism

 
• the political and organisational principle of democratic centralism

 
• the principle of the leading role of the party prior to and within the dictatorship of the proletariat

 
• the principle of proletarian internationalism, recognising that the national states of the proletariat coalesce into the international state of socialism prior to the worldwide, higher phase of communism

The first constitutional requirement of the future party must be to define the political and organisational distinction between theory and practice, between the party's democratic and centralist functions. The second constitutional requirement must be the right to the formation of like-minded collectives. As distinct from the unanimous, leader-centralist party, the distinguishing constitutional features of the multanimous, democratic centralist party will be:

• a central committee elected by the congress as the highest body responsible for: mobilising the party into action and conduct, discipline and security

 
• a democracy committee elected by congress responsible for: equality of opportunity in the dissemination of different collective views and education across the party

 
• joint responsibility of the central committee and democracy committee for party publications

 
• decisions of higher, mobilising bodies obligatory on lower, mobilising bodies

 
• the right of all members to form and participate in declared forums for the purpose of formulating and presenting their different collective views across the party through the democracy committee and party publication

 

1. An Unreserved Apology to Open Polemic for Not Printing The Correct Document

Firstly, before any theoretical and historical matters are broached, I wish to apologise to "Open Polemic" unreservedly for omitting its submission to the December 1997 ISML London Conference from the published proceedings. This was not the error of ISML as a whole, but mine as Chief Editor alone.

Open Polemic commented as follows: "It is necessary to point out that you have not reprinted our three page paper, 'Prospect for the Future Multanimous Party', several copies of which were submitted prior to the Conference and which, in the absence of any arrangements on your part, was also distributed by OP delegates to the other delegates. You did however find space to print Open Polemic's very short critique of the voluntarist idealism contained in the ISML's Founding Editorial Principles. In fact, this was not a paper submitted to the conference. It was taken, presumably by Hari Kumar, from our publication, OP Prospect No.1, of October 97. In addition, this short critique does not, in any way, as claimed by Kumar, summarise Open Polemic's views on democratic centralism." (Letter From Open Polemic to ISML; November 1998).

This omitted document is published above in full, and ISML trusts that it now adequately summarises Open Polemic on democratic centralism. Perhaps "Open Polemic" will allow that this omission was in fact a genuine oversight as it most certainly was. Indeed none of the editorial members had a copy of this document after the conference. We feel obliged to point out that all conference delegates (including Open Polemic) were specifically invited to display printed materials on the tables provided and to talk to the groups present. Nevertheless, I offer an unreserved apology on the part of myself and ISML for this error.

2. On Other Objections Raised In The Letter from Open Polemic to ISML On Hari Kumar's Overview. On Democratic Centralism & Leader Centralism

Having dealt with this error we move to the substantive issues to hand. It can now bee seen that Open Polemic's views makes Hari Kumar's case quite cogently. Open Polemic took issue with the summary of the London Conference, written by Hari Kumar, as follows: "The assertion that Open Polemic argues that, 'democratic centralism was the cloak under which revisionism triumphed and subverted the communist revolution' is a figment of Kumar's imagination. Nowhere in our paper, or indeed, in any of our published material does Open Polemic put forward such an argument, for it is a historical fact that revisionists essentially of the reformo-communist variety, were openly elected as majorities onto the central committees of several communist parties of the Third International. They then utilised the normal practice of leader centralism to consolidate their position in the party". (Open Polemic, Letter to ISML).

Since Hari Kumar always regretted his complete lack of "imagination", he thanks Open Polemic for their generous attribution. However, his own recollection is that the verbal formulations offered to the floor of the London conference by Open Polemic stated that the success of revisionism stemmed from democratic centralism. Perhaps whether or not this was a flight of imagination might be tested by what is now published on behalf of Open Polemic? The following phrase confirms that Kumar did correctly interpret their intention, for Open Polemic argues that a perversion (sorry - Kumar's "unimaginative" paraphrase) of democratic centralism took place, into something Open Polemic calls "leader centralism". Open Polemic then asserts boldly that: "It is a historical fact that revisionists, essentially of the reformo-communist variety, were openly elected as majorities onto the central committees of several communist parties of the Third International. They then utilised the normal practice of leader centralism to consolidate their position in the party". (Open Polemic, Letter to ISML).

But of course! How "subtly different" that is from Kumar's paraphrase: "Open Polemic .. argue... that democratic centralism was the cloak under which revisionism triumphed and subverted the communist revolution...". Kumar mourns his recently bestowed but swiftly removed "imagination". Being un-subtle, Kumar stands by that paraphrase as an acceptable summary of Open Polemic's viewpoint. Perhaps Open Polemic will show Kumar his errors in identifying the two given phrases? Perhaps Kumar's error was in seeing the need for a "cloak", since Open Polemic go on to state: "The revisionists had no need for a cloak, they could do almost everything quite openly."

So "revisionists" had open sway within the CPSU(B) and were able to do almost anything "quite openly"? Let us "imaginatively" add the word "effortlessly"! Perhaps Open Polemic has not read of the fierce and protracted debates in the CPSU(B)? Where Marxists-Leninists led by Lenin and Stalin waged ideological class war against various brands of hidden revisionists upon any number of issues, from Chinese revolutionary strategy and tactics, through the means of collectivisation and the possibility of socialism etc . Alliance strongly rejects Open Polemic's view as nonsense. Of course if you choose to ignore great swathes of history, it is easy to dismiss the need for revisionists to use a "cloak". In fact we argue that Open Polemic are intent on donning a cloak - to lay siege to Leninist notions of party organisation and democratic centralism without actually saying that is what they intend! Their first step is to identify Lenin as a "Leader Centralist".

3. Open Polemic And "Leader Centralism" ? On Kronstadt And All That

Open Polemic argue in effect, that the party operated in the Soviet Union up till the death of Stalin - not under principles of "democratic centralism" - but under something they call "leader centralism". And who in fact instituted "leader centralism" - presumably one of the revisionists? Well actually, according to Open Polemic, it was no less than Lenin himself:

"Following the October revolution, for over three years the ... democracy of the SDLP (Bolsheviks) took the form of various factions, that is, of groups with the full right to their own political organisation and publications. However, the detrimental affect on conduct and discipline of this libertarian multanimity, in reality, the organisation of parties within the party, was such that by the 1921 Congress, on the insistence of Lenin, it was deemed necessary to ban factions. The banning of factions, however, was not carried through to its logical conclusion for Lenin's faction still maintained its dominance on the central committee which, being granted special rights in the elaboration and presentation of programme and having control of the party press, constituted a crucial vantage point for any faction... the membership in general became reliant upon the programme formulated by the dominant faction in the leadership and compliant to its demands, while opposition factions resorted to clandestine methods to try and gain the vantage point of the central committee. This was the essence of the practice of leader centralism, of centralism operating in the guise of democratic centralism." (See Open Polemic's Conference submission).

"Leadership = usurpation of power = power hungry = Bolsheviks = Lenin = Stalin = massacres etc".
QED - Bravo!

"However, we regard democratic centralism as the political and organisational principle of the communist party". (Open Polemic Letter to ISML).

"The vanguardist organisations today exhibit a discipline inherited from decades of democratic-centralist practice, so much so that each of them form part of what has became an insurmountable barrier to the formation of single vanguard party. The paradox is clear. The more insistent the vanguardist organisations are in upholding democratic centralism, the further we all stand from a democratic-centralist structured revolutionary vanguard. Thus, in order to dissipate the paradox, Open Polemic is forced to call for the relaxation of the democratic centralism in the vanguardist organisations as a prerequisite to its comprehensive implementation at a future date."
("End Vanguardism - Organise the Vanguard"; OP number 6; nd; London; p.4).

"It is ridiculous to plead different circumstances and a change of periods: the building of a fighting organisation and the conduct of political agitation are essential under any "drab, peaceful" circumstances, in any period, no matter how marked by a "declining revolutionary spirit"; moreover it is precisely in such periods and under such circumstances that work of this kind is particularly necessary, since it is too late to form the organisation in times of explosion and outbursts."
(Lenin; "Where to Begin?"; Volume 5; Collected Works; Moscow; p. 18).

"In the circumstances of today, "Vanguardism" is in reality a form of factionalism composed of a variety of factions, some with influence in the working class, some with some influence and some with even less. Each of these 'vanguards' has its own individual programmes and discipline and all of them are striving to be recognised by the working class in preference to the other factions. In essence: Vanguards with programmes are, factions with platforms".
(OP, Issue 4; nd; London; "Editorial, Platforms & Programmes"; p.2).

"As Marxists we seek to impose ourselves onto the stage of human affairs, acting to influence the class struggle to the limits of what the objective conditions will allow. Clearly though, if we are to act in the revolutionary interest, there has to be a subjective way of determining what actions best accord to that revolutionary interest. (History has pronounced clearly enough that the whim of this or that "great leader" is wholly insufficient.) Having acted in unity in the "revolutionary interest", there again needs to be a revolutionary method of modifying correcting and even jettisoning aspects of our programme in the harsh light of practice. Open Polemic contends that nothing .. equals or betters democratic centralism for this purpose."
(End Vanguardism - Organise the Vanguard; Open Polemic, number 6; nd; London; p.4).

"The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but is a practical question. Man must prove the truth ie. the reality and power, the this-worldliness of his thinking in practice. The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking which isolates itself from practice is a purely scholastic question".
(Marx , 'Theses On Feuerbach'; In "The German Ideology" by Marx & Engels; Moscow; 1976; p. 618).

We cannot discuss each event here in detail. Thus we will simply cite the special resolution on "party Unity" from Lenin that was adopted by the 10th Party Congress:

"Even before the discussion on the trade unions, certain signs of factionalism had been present in the Party, viz, the formation of groups with separate platforms, striving to a certain degree to segregate and create their own group discipline. All class conscious workers must clearly realize the perniciousness and impermissibility of factionalism of any kind, for in practice factionalism inevitably results in weakening team work. At the same time it inevitably leads to intensified and repeated attempts by the enemies of the Party , who have fastened onto it because it is the governing party to widen the cleavage (in the Party) and to use it for counter-revolutionary purposes... The way the enemies of the proletariat take advantage of every deviation from the thoroughly consistent Communist line was most strikingly shown in the case of the Kronstadt mutiny, when the bourgeoisie counter-revolutionaries and White guards in all countries of the world immediately expressed their readiness to accept even the slogans of the Soviet system, if only they might thereby secure the overthrow of the dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia, and when the Socialist Revolutionaries and the bourgeois counter-revolutionaries in general resorted in Kronstadt to slogans calling for an insurrection against the Soviet Government of Russia ostensibly in the interest of Soviet power. These facts show that the White guards strive , and are able to disguise themselves as Communists, and even as people "more left" than the Communists, solely for weakening and overthrowing the bulwark of the proletarian revolution."
(History of the CPSU(B); Moscow; 1939; p.252).

4. The Aim of Open Polemic Is To Delay The Start of Serious Party Building

It seems that objectively it cannot be denied that whatever the "subjective intent" - the "objective reality" is that the convolutions of Open Polemic simply serve to prevaricate and delay the start of serious work in party building. As if we have all the decades in the world! For Open Polemic constantly aims to put off to a tenuous later date the actual building of a party. For they can only offer a mechanical contrast between the first task and the later task of building the party:

"In a period of theoretical and organisational disorder, the first task, before the formation of a united party is to unite the most advanced elements of the class in theoretical and practical work."
("The Central Demarcation for Marxist-Leninists"; OP Issue 11; March 1995; ISSN 0969-4617.p.3).

5. Are There Dividing Lines In the Movement? Open Polemic Upon Stalin And Trotsky

Open Polemic claims it is anxious to obtain demarcation lines. But is that the case? Tail-ism, with which Open Polemic stands accused, results in a refusal to take a principled stand on an issue. At the conference, and in the overview Hari Kumar put it to Open Polemic that they should accept that a major dividing line today for those calling themselves Marxist-Leninist was the attitude to Stalin. At the conference, representatives of Open Polemic forthrightly rejected this, presenting this as a naive concept. Perhaps this could not have been purely Kumar's imagination as they write this also:

"The 'dividing line between Marxist-Leninists and revisionists' is not, as Hari Kumar contends, support for Stalin. Support for the thoughts and works of any outstanding personality, from Marx to Mao, Hoxha and after, can only be in accordance with the past, present and future validity of their thoughts and works. The dividing line is theoretical and must be dealt with as such." (see above letter).

"We the undersigned think that a productive discussion that takes place within the parameters of Marxism-Leninism is vitally important. By definition we place Trotskyism outside of the framework of ML. The only role that the Trotskyists can play in such a discussion is one of disruption".
(Ted Hankins' testament to "Open Polemic editorial Board; cited CL in OP Number 12 March 1996; p. 18.)

"We are surprised that Partisan (UK) should now .. demand (of OP) . that we .. declare 'Trotskyism' to be a utopian ideology and the enemy of ML.... it is .. a matter of historical fact that Trotsky did not theorise against the conception of the uneven economic and political development of capitalism and it is also a matter of historical fact that he participated in a particular 'Victory of socialism' , that is, in the initial overthrow of the ruling capitalist class in Russia."
(OP, "Letter to Partisan; p. 4; OP Issue 10; June 1994. ISSN 0969-4617).

"I am far from denying that Trotsky's undoubtedly important role in the uprising.... It cannot be denied that Trotsky fought well in the period of October... but Trotsky was not the only one who fought well in the period of October. Even people like the Left Social-Revolutionaries who then stood side by side with the Bolsheviks, also fought well." (J.V. Stalin: "Trotskyism or Leninism" In: "Works" Volume 6; Moscow; 1953; p. 342; 344).

Quotes from Open Polemic abundantly confirm their view of the Stalin-Lenin disputes with Trotsky as irrelevant. Perhaps Open Polemic incline to see Trotsky as an under-rated Marxist-Leninist. But even supporters of Open Polemic such as Pauline Rowe seem to agree. Rowe fully accepts and uses (we hope correctly) neologisms like "multanimity". She admits: "There is much in Open Polemic's proposals for a more "democratic" democratic centralism , which is reminiscent of Trotsky." Whether Rowe is a member or not of Open Polemic is not entirely clear to us, but irrespective of that, the sense of her following statement is precisely what is demanded by Open Polemic:

"Democratic centralism is one answer. Different viewpoints can be tolerated in a party on the understanding that when the democratic debate has finished and the vote is taken that all will support the result like disciplined comrades even if they are unhappy with it. Democratic centralism offers ways of choosing a position of endorsing one rather than another of the competing viewpoints. In contrast "multanimity" by relation to the historical divide works on the understanding that neither side of the third/fourth international split will be officially endorsed. A multanimous party will not declare itself Stalinist, Maoist or Trotskyite. There will be no requirement that all members should sell "The Revolution Betrayed" or attend the celebrations of Stalin's birthday."
("Splits & Multanimity" Rowe P, p.12; March 1996; number 12; ISSN 0969-4617)

6. On How Clarity Has Been Historically Reached In The International Movement

ISML has been quite unequivocal in the view that at this confusing juncture, there is a vital need for some ideological clearing of the decks. Unless one has a very naive view of how this can occur, there will definitely need to be some splits. As we stated at the outset:

"At a critical stage in the development of the Russian Communist movement, Comrade Lenin called for "LINES OF DEMARCATION"... "We declare that before we can unite and in order that we may unite we MUST first of all draw firm and definite lines of demarcation as Iskra demands," (Works Vol 5; Moscow 1977; p.367; cited by ISML  In "Statement To All Marxist-Leninists, and Comrades of the World").

"In the present historical period that has been opened, sectarianism is paradoxically being strengthened, both politically and organisationally in the form of sectarianism of competing vanguardist organisations across the revolutionary movement. Sectarian Vanguardism, our new infantile disorder is very simply, sectarianism organised into 'vanguards'.
(Open Polemic, "Sectarianism - The Main Enemy". p. 2-3; Issue 9; ISSN 0969 - 4617; nd).

"Accepting the basic principles of scientific socialism and actions in solidarity with international Social-Democracy we reject all attempts to introduce opportunism into the class struggle of the proletariat, attempts that find expression in so-called Economism, Bernsteinism, Milleradism etc".
(Lenin "The 'Unity' Conference" ; In Volume 5 Collected Works; Ibid; p. 226; See also "What is to be Done?" p.523 Ibid)'

7. The Purpose Of Open Polemic - Abstract Abstractionism

To finally convince us that they are real and concrete Marxists, not only do they ply us with paper diagrams of party organisation, they recite dialectics to us. Or is it dialectics? Open Polemic throws around a few casual, but characteristically high sounding references "abstractly":

"In philosophical terms, abstraction is central to the methodology of dialectical and historical materialism so when Open Polemic insist on the need for abstraction, it is not posing abstract knowledge against concrete knowledge.. Theoretical development proceeds from the sensual concrete as perceived by contemplation.. progresses to the abstract and then to the mental concrete as determined by scientific investigation..... In this process the mental concrete on becoming absorbed into our understanding becomes itself the new sensual concede from which we can again advance our understanding of the material world. For us today the sensual concept is the collective political understanding derived from decades of communist revolutionary struggle. Abstraction is therefore necessary if we are to move from this sensual concreteness to the mental concrete, the validity of which we must constantly prove in the process of practice, for practice is the criterion by which the true scientific nature of any abstraction is judged."
(Open Polemic, "The Central Demarcation for Marxist-Leninists" p.2; Issue 11; March 1995).

" Jacques le Bonhomme strives to "get rid as quickly as possible" of empirical history, stand facts on their heads, causes material history to be produced by ideal history.... Thus the history of Greece from the time of Pericles inclusively is reduced to a struggle of abstractions: reason, spirit, heart, worldliness etc. These are the Greek parties. In this ghostly world, which is presented as the Greek world, allegorical persons such as Madame Purity of Heart "machinate""
( "The German Ideology", Marx & Engels; Moscow; 1976; p. 149).

"For the idealist, the theoretical abstractions of real events, their ideal signs, are reality; real events are merely "signs that the old world is going to its doom".... the doctrine is in every sense sedative."
(Marx & Engels; "The German Ideology" Ibid; p. 568).
And finally they substitute for real history abstractions that bear no relation to the real world:
"Where speculation ends where real life starts, there consequently begins real life, positive science, the expounding of the practical activity, of the practical process of development of men. Empty phrases about consciousness and real knowledge has to take their place. When the reality is described, a self-sufficient philosophy loses its medium of existence. At the best its place can only be taken by a summing-up of the most general results, abstractions which are derived from the observation of the historical development of men. These abstractions in themselves, divorced from real history, have no value whatsoever. They can only serve to facilitate the arrangement of historical material,... but they by no means afford a recipe or schema... On the contrary the difficulties begin only when one sets about the examination and arrangement of the material...... The removal of these difficulties is governed by premises ... which only the study of the actual life-process and the activity of the individuals of each epoch will make evident."
("The German Ideology", Marx & Engels; Moscow; 1976; p.43).

"It is the Marxist method to abstract a thing from its wider context provided that abstraction does not become a substitute for the thing in its dialectical complexity... Lenin insisted that: 'The abstraction of matter of a law of nature, the abstraction of value etc in short all scientific (correct, serious not absurd) abstraction reflect nature more deeply, truly and completely'
(Cited Vol 38; p.171; Lenin Collected Works).

"Essentially Hegel is completely right as opposed to Kant. Thought proceeding from the concrete to the abstract provided it is correct (NB - and Kant, like all philosophers speaks of correct thought) does not get away from the truth but comes closer to it."
(Lenin: Conspectus of Hegel's Science of Logic; In Philosophical Notebooks Volume 38; Moscow; 1961; p.171).

"Primitive idealism: the universal concept, idea, is a particular being. This appears wild, monstrously (more accurately childishly) stupid. But is not modern idealism Kant, Hegel, the idea of God of the same nature (absolutely of the same nature)? Tables chairs and the ideas of table and chairs; the world and the idea of the world (God); the dichotomy of human knowledge and the possibility of idealism (= religion) are given already in the first elementary abstraction... The approach of the (human) mind to a particular thing the taking of a copy (= concept ) of it is not a simple immediate