Some Aspects of the Norms of a Revolutionary Organisation

[page 11]

Some Aspects of the Norms of a Revolutionary Organisation

Resolution adopted by the 1978 national conference of the organisation. Re-affirmed at July 1985 national conference.

I. The Question of Organisation

The significance of organisation for the working class.

1. The class struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has gone on uninterruptedly from the very origins of capitalism. This struggle has laid bare the fundamental forces of contemporary society and the necessary means to overthrow the capitalist class and its allies. These conclusions are embodied in the programme of revolutionary Marxism. Although that programme needs constant updating and precision in the light of the continuous development of capitalist society and the class struggle nevertheless both theory and all experience show that without basing itself on a correct understanding of the fundamental forces of society no serious revolutionary struggle can be waged no matter what the social composition of an organisation and no matter how deeply implanted it is in the workers' movement. This is verified not merely by the historical experience of the counter-revolutionary Social-Democratic and Stalinist parties, but by the contemporary debacle of even large and socially proletarian centrist organisations such as those of Portugal, Spain and Italy.

The signficance of this organisation and the Fourth International therefore does not at present lie in its size, which is tiny in terms of the working class, or its ability to solve every concrete problem which arises in the course of the class struggle (from which it has an immense amount to learn) but exists in its understanding of the basic and underlying forces of society. This revolutionary programme is not an obstacle to, or a substitute for, learning from the actual concrete development of the class struggle but is the solid basis from which its fundamental dynamic can be understood and a coherent line developed.

2. Within the framework of its general revolutionary struggle a particular significance of the question of organisation exists for the working class. The bourgeoisie in its struggle against feudalism possessed great wealth and power built up within feudal society itself. The proletariat by its nature is systematically denied access to such bases of strength. In its struggle for power the proletariat has no other weapon but organisation. The proletariat can, and inevitably will, become an invincible force only through its ideological unification on the principles of marxism being reinforced by the material unity of organisation, which welds millions of toilers into an army of the working class. For this reason, and in ways determined by its general revolutionary programme, questions of organisation have a greater significance for the working class than for any other rising class in history.

3. It follows from this necessity of collective organisation of the proletariat why the issue of organisation has become an element of Marxist theory and politics and also the way in which this question must be approached. No issue of organisation can in itself guarantee the victory of the proletarian revolution. But issues of organisation directly affect politics. Theory and history shows that without drawing from its general programme the correct solution to organisational questions the proletariat cannot be victorious.

It flows from this collective character of the organisation of the proletariat also the way in which organisational questions must be approached. Organisation reflecting bourgeois and petty-bourgeois concepts bases itself on personalities, psychology, individual attributes, etc. Working class organisation bases itself on collective functioning, objectively defined norms, etc.

This question also determines how positions on organisation are drawn up. Various forces insist that precise formal rules on functioning are not necessary and that what is needed is a 'democratic style', 'democratic tradition', etc. These arguments in fact provide a starting point for anti-democratic degeneration. Psychology can change rapidly, and organisations going from apparent libertarianism to internal degeneration as they conceive of necessary changes in 'style' are only too frequent — the SWP in Britain being a recent example. Instead of 'style' and psychology formal rules, guarantees and criteria are necessary. Of course no formal guarantees in themselves can ensure the correct functioning of a revolutionary organisation. But the relevant point is not the search for unattainable absolute modes of functioning but the fact that different formal organisational positions make it more possible, or less possible, to maintain the revolutionary character of an organisation.

Organisation and politics.

4. In the struggle against the bourgeoisie and to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat the working class and oppressed require many different forms of organisation — for example Soviets, trade unions, movements of oppressed social layers, united front bodies, the revolutionary party. The different natures and roles of such organisations in the class struggle dictate their different organisational forms.

• Soviets constitute the basis of dual power and the proletarian state and must therefore include, on the basis of democratic election, representatives of all layers of the exploited and oppressed regardless of political positions, occupation, sex, nationality.

• Trade unions are organisation to wage the economic struggle against the capitalist class. This can only be achieved with the greatest effectiveness by uniting all workers regardless of political view, sex, nationality, etc.

• A movement of oppressed social force, such as the Women's Liberation Movement for greatest effectiveness has to seek to unite all women around the basic demands of women's liberation regardless of political position, membership or non-membership of unions, etc.

• United front bodies have to unite in action forces of different political views. They therefore have to be organisationally independent of any particular political party, organised on principles of workers democracy, and limited in their programmes.

• A political party is based on a political programme and includes all those agreeing with this and excludes all others.

All these different forms of organisation are required in the class struggle. To confuse their roles and therefore to confuse their different organisational forms, is however disastrously to weaken the class struggle. Thus to make membership of the trade unions conditional on support for political positions, or to be divided by sex, would be to greatly weaken the economic struggle; organisation of the Women's Liberation Movement including men in it would divide or weaken the struggle for women's liberation; to include in the revolutionary party those not agreeing with its political programme, or having different political parties of different sexes, or occupations, would weaken or render impossible the political role of the revolutionary party. The different roles of different organisations in the class struggle therefore give rise to and necessitate different organisational principles and forms.

[page 12]

5. Even within the more limited framework of political parties different political bases give rise to different organisational principles. To take common forms:

• the mass reformist Social Democratic and Stalinist parties in practice accept the domination and hegemony of the bourgeoisie. They do not wage a struggle against the fundamental bases of bourgeois power and therefore can accept fundamental tenets of bourgeois ideology, politics and organisation. As such these parties' 'mass' basis of membership, with few or no demands of activity, commitment, and so on which necessarily means incorporating wide layers who are under the hegemony of the bourgeoisie — flows logically from and is only possible by, the fact that these parties do not challenge capitalist rule.

• the economist character of various ultra-left and opportunist centrist formations, which governs their position that the key struggle is in the social sphere and not that of politics, defines their organisation form. The class struggle is seen as the social combination of movements of trade unionists, women, blacks, gays, students, etc. The role of the organisation is to co-ordinate these movements. Hence for such organisations the basic unit of organisation is the trade union organisation, or the women's organisation, or the black organisation, etc, and the party is chiefly a co-ordinating committee of these movements.

• for a revolutionary party the decisive struggle is in the sphere of politics; i.e. of the state power of the bourgeoisie of governments, of political parties, of the relation of all classes and layers to the state. This dictates its organisational forms. Only permanent militant activity can provide the basis for a break with bourgeois domination and the revolutionary organisation therefore cannot have a passive membership but demands activity as a criteria of membership, the revolutionary party has as its basic element its political line which is applied to the various sectors of social struggle and therefore its basic starting point is not the various sectors but the political character of the organisation as a whole.

6. It is from these basic points that the relation of organisation and politics derives. Politics and organisation are inseparably connected. Every major political position has organisational consequences. Each organisational form has implicit or explicit political premises. Organisational forms may therefore correctly express and aid, or contradict and obstruct, the carrying out of political line. The fundamental question of oragnisation is not administration but how far particular organisational forms express, or fail to express, political line.

It flows from this inseparable connection of politics and organisation that a revolutionary formation necessarily demands the right to collectively decide the organisational functioning of all its component parts. To abandon this would in reality to abandon the possibility to determine the political line. A revolutionary organisation therefore rejects any position whereby any group, or individual, claims that their functioning is determined by themselves and is not subject to collective decision by the organisation as a whole, i.e. it rejects any form of federalism. In this sense a revolutionary organisation is based on collective democracy i.e. every member of the organisation has the right to participate in determining all aspects of the policy of the organisation and each member is bound by all its collective decisions.

7. It is the framework of collective democracy that determines the framework of discussion and decision on organisational questions in the revolutionary formation and also the powers and rights of its constituent parts. Different organisational forms, and distributions of powers, rights, decisions etc between its different parts are needed at different times and in different concrete situations of political circumstances (e.g. conditions of severe repression or bourgeois democracy, direct revolutionary struggle or relative 'normal' conditions) different stages of development of the organisation (mass party with Parliamentarians and leadership of many unions, small propaganda group, etc) and in relation to different layers (e.g. concrete application of discipline on layers such as Parliamentarians, writers in bourgeois or non-party publications, cdes in positions in the trade union apparatus, full time workers of the party, must be such stricter than on rank and file workers, working class members of oppressed nationalisties and sexes, etc.) Differences will inevitably arise and are wholly legitimate, in relation to such questions. Any member has the right to propose and fight for changes in organisational forms, decisions, right, powers, etc. Every member and body is equally subject to the collective decision of the organisation on this regardless of whether they agree or disagree with the particular decision.

Party and Class

8. Every form of party in its own way attempts to lead the masses of a class. Every party puts forward proposals for activity or support by layers of the population. The distinction between different parties is not that some attempt to play a leading role and others do not, but solely lies in the type of leadership and the type of policies which they put forward. This in turn determines their organisation form. Those parties which attempt to impose alien policies not corresponding to its interests on a class by their very nature must impose themselves by bureaucracy and force. Stalinist and social democratic parties, not to speak of political organisations of the bourgeoisie which have support in the masses, by their very political nature cannot be democratic. Solely a party authentically expressing the interests of the working class can permit, and require, internal democratic organisation. The final sole safeguard for the democracy of an organisation is a correct political line and at the same time only internal democracy can create such a policy. The existence, or lack of it, of internal democracy is thus one of the surest guides as to whether a party is in fact expressing the interests of a class or whether it is deviating from them.

9. The organisational form of the revolutionary party flows from the nature of its programme and the relation this gives it to the working class and oppressed masses. The fundamental programme of the party is not, and cannot, be derived simply from the immediate experience of the masses. This programme is based on [sic] merely on immediate events but on the entire accumulated experience of the class struggle, and of human science and culture, and the knowledge this has given of the nature of society. These determine all developments of the class struggle and above all exert themselves in the greatest tests of the class struggle in revolutionary crises. The individual developments and struggles can finally only be understood, and the correct practical conclusions drawn, if they are grasped in terms of these fundamental forces.

At the same time as it asserts that there are fundamental driving forces of the class struggle Marxism however also asserts that these forces continually combine in new combinations and new developments occur on the basis of them. These particular developments and combinations cannot be derived solely from a revolutionary programme analysing fundamental elements. A revolutionary organisation has to learn from the living class struggle, what are the new combinations of basic forces and what new developments have taken place on their basis. Without integrating that knowledge Marxism remains useless for the class struggle. A political line develops through the continual dialectic of the abstraction of already existing Marxist positions and the concrete development of the class struggle. It is true BOTH that without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement AND that correct revolutionary theory itself assumes final shape only in close connection with the practical activity of a truly mass and truly revolutionary movement.

[page 13]

10. The conception of the relation between the programme of the revolutionary party and the class struggle, as with all political questions, has organisational consequences.

• if the politics of the organisation may be derived simply from the immediate appearance of the class struggle, and no underlying forces and processes exist, then also no principles of organisation exist — indeed in the most extreme conceptions no form of organisation whatever is necessary.

• if the revolutionary political line is something deriveable purely from a knowledge of existing theory and programme then a totally commandist, one way structure is all that is necessary in an organisation, as members are merely required to carry out policies which do not require any knowledge of the actual living class struggle.

The political concept of revolutionary Marxism of the class struggle therefore determines its form of organisation. It holds that there are basic and fundamental features and forces of the class struggle. The political form of organisation has to be designed to reinforce its understanding, grasp and domination by these fundamental aspects. Simultaneously, within the framework these create, the organisation learns from the class struggle, and its members, and it has to be organised in such a way as to continually provide ways to integrate that knowledge into its politics.

* * *

By its very nature all the precise combinations and developments of organisational forms and functioning cannot be dealt with in a basic document such as the present. They must be constantly reviewed and updated in the light of the concrete conditions of the class struggle and development of the organisation and must be dealt with in concrete and particular documents. The present document can only outline some of the most fundamental principles, reflecting fundamental forces, in terms of which such a concrete analysis must be constructed. It therefore constitutes a first approach to some of the basic questions or organisation.

II. Revolutionary political organisation, and revolutionary questions.

The Primacy of Politics

11. Marxism asserts the primacy of politics. Although the class struggle is waged in every sphere of the economy, of society, of culture, and all fields of life, its outcome is finally decided at the political level — at the level of the state. Marxism therefore holds that the most decisive criteria in assessing class position are not economic or social but position in the political struggle. A student or petty-bourgeois who opposes imperialist war or fights for gay rights is more proletarian in political class terms than a miner or docker who supports imperialist war and opposes gays; a male who supports the right of abortion and the right of people to define their own sexuality is a greater fighter against sexist oppression than a woman who supports the Tory Party, opposes abortion and oppresses homosexuals as 'perverts'.

12. The role of leading the political struggle determines the necessity to maintain the primacy of politics within the organisation itself. Organisational functioning by itself cannot maintain this primacy of politics against the hegemony of the bourgeoisie. Nevertheless organisational forms can either add or on the contrary gravely weaken, this political strength.

13. Marxism denies that any layer, group of class in capitalist society can spontaneously arrive at an understanding of capitalist society or the political consciousness necessary to defeat the bourgeoisie. This applies to the working class, to oppressed nations, to women and other victims of sexual oppression, to layers oppressed by racism, to intellectuals, etc. The sole arena from which political consciousness can come is the inter-relation of all classes and layers of capitalist society. As no class or layer spontaneously as such knowledge, no class or layer can spontaneously arrive at political consciousness. No deepening of the experience simply of the working class itself, or women, or oppressed nations or races alone, or petty-bourgeois layers can by itself create political consciousness. Only the knowledge and experience of the inter-relations of all layers and classes in society can create this.

14. In the external political work of the party the basis of the creation of political consciousness necessitates creating in the masses an understanding, not only of their own situation in society, but that of every other layer. Within the party/organisation itself, it means promoting all means and organisational forms which create the widest possible common experience of all layers, regarding as undesirable, even if sometimes unavoidable, means and organisational forms which restrict experience to merely one layer, sector, area, grouping, etc. Against the continual and immense pressure of bourgeois society to sectoralise the forces in society the revolutionary organisation has to wage the greatest possible struggle for collective and common experience. Only in this way can the primacy of politics be maintained within the organisation itself and its ability to politically lead the masses achieved. The creation of the greatest possible collective experience of all members of the organisation across sectoral, national, race, sex, class and other divisions is the essential organisational base of maintaining the firmness of the revolutionary political character of the organisation itself. Without such a basis all purely theoretical or practical grasp of the class struggle ultimately collapses.

It is from this angle that the question of all component elements and parts of the organisation must be approached.

Collectivity of experience

15. It is evidently impossible in practice for every member of a revolutionary organisation to directly experience all interrelations of all classes and layers in capitalist society. Furthermore that interrelation of classes in any case involves historical relations and forces necessarily analysible only by theory, and not directly 'visible'. Purely individual experience is not sufficient to develop political consciousness. There are necessary, irreducible elements of theory and history in the development of political consciousness. However, despite its inevitable incompleteness, a revolutionary organisation necessarily has to strive continuously to overcome to the greatest possible extent the limitations of purely partial or sectoral experiences.

(i) The greatest possible information has to be made available to all members on all aspects of the experience of the life of the organisation so that even where they cannot personally participate the greatest possible amount of experience can be gained directly by all other cdes of all aspects of the experience of the organisation. While evident technical, collective functioning, and other limitations sometimes restrict information it must be regarded as undesirable in itself and only justified if some other overwhelming necessity dictates it. As the organisation grows, and its technical resources become greater, this information supplying task of the party must be greatly developed with information bulletins, special journals, articles in the press, etc. On this front we have a considerable amount to learn from the Socialist Workers Party of the United States.

[page 14]

(ii) The irreducible historical and theoretical aspect of political work and struggle means the necessity to undertake increased educational and theoretical work involving all comrades. Such activity is not the field of 'intellectuals'. Strengthening of the theoretical journal of the organisation, maintaining the local schools, and, as soon as resources permit, establishing a full time education officer are indispensible in creating the collective experience of the organisation.

(iii) It is necessary to attempt to give individual cdes experience of the maximum possible number of fields of work. While there are evidently frequent practical limitations of this (e.g. male cdes and the women's movement, white cdes and black self-organisation, non-worker cdes and the trade union movement) nevertheless it is necessary to attempt to overcome these obstacles to the maximum possible extent. This particularly applies to cdes involved in mass fields of work, and worker, women and black cdes who have much less easy opportunities for such experience than students and similar layers.

iv) The basic units of the organisation should to the maximum possible extent give collective experience of different areas and fields of work. Necessities of intervention of course frequently dictate particular sectoral units of work (cells, fractions, etc) but in these cases it is necessary to attempt constantly to integrate these into basic units of a non-sectoral character. The greater the necessities of particular sectoral intervention the greater the necessity to find ways to combat the pressures involved.

The creation of a total common experience of the organisation can of course never be achieved fully in practice. It is however the goal to which we have to strive. The sectoralist fragmenting nature of capitalist society continuously bears down on the organisation. Finding ways to overcome and counter-act its effects is decisive in the creation of the revolutionary party and the maintenance of the primacy of politics.

16. Within the framework of creating the greatest possible collective experience of the organisation a decisive role is played by internal discussion and democracy of the organisation. Internal democracy is not a luxury or an encumbrance but is the single most powerful instrument for the creation of a correct political line and for achieving the collective experience and primacy of politics of the organisation. Immense unevenness exists within the working class and oppressed themselves, even those breaking or broken with bourgeois domination. The working class itself is divided by nationality, sex, race, age, between heavy and light industry, between productive and unproductive workers, by political experience and in innumerable other ways. Despite all attempts to create the greatest possible common experience of the organisation this can never fully be achieved in practice. The formation of a political line corresponding to the interests of the working class as a whole, that is the correct political line of revolutionary Marxists, will therefore never be achieved spontaneously or immediately but inevitably only via the active synthesising and interaction of the different experiences of the working class and of the organisation. This involves discussion, debate, and in various cases inner party struggle. It is only by these means that a correct political line can be arrived at. The suppression of internal democracy through expulsions, suppression of discussion and other means in organisations such as the SWP, WRP, etc is a death blow against the possibility of collective experience of the organisation and an insuperable barrier to their ever becoming truly mass revolutionary parties — parties of a class.

17. The strengthening of internal democracy as the most powerful weapon of creation of common experience of the organisation involves, in addition to the points given above on collective functioning:

(i) Internal democracy rests on the activity of every militant both in the class struggle and in a party organisation. Without activity in the class struggle, militants inevitably finally fall under the domination of the bourgeoisie. Without participation in a party organisation collective experience is not possible. Absence of activity by militants is therefore a fundamental attack on the collective democracy of the organisation as it means they influence the organisation without themselves being influenced by it.

(ii) The greatest possible discussion in the organisation. Whilst the form of organisation must be organised in such a way as to ensure collectivity, as opposed to purely local or sectoral experiences, or influence by cliques etc, nevertheless discussion strengthens and not weakens the political level of the organisation. The Leninist principle is not that discussion is confined to merely the 3 months of the pre-conference discussion period. The Leninist principle is simply that discussion is held not for its own sake but in order to decide on action. The only discussion which is ruled out is that which seeks to challenge or cancel decisions already taken by the appropriate body of the organisation and which the organisation is in the course of implementing. Discussion is closed following a conference on issues decided there not because of some fetish of pre-conference discussion periods but because, having decided, the organisation now acts upon these questions. New questions however should as a matter of course be discussed in the organisation as a whole. At the opening of the new pre-conference discussion all questions come up for discussion.

(iii) What applies to internal discussion applies equally to public discussion. As the organisation grows increasingly its discussion should be public within the party press — which is of course to be sharply distinguished from those having access to bourgeois or non-party journals using them to attack the organisation's line (as this latter is not an example of democracy but of bourgeois opportunism). Ideally a public journal of discussion would be needed but as this is at present technically impossible other means have to be utilised (letter pages of the paper, the theoretical journal, etc.)

The general principled guideline for public discussion is the same as for internal — although as Trotsky pointed out aspects of immaturity of the organisation, problems of space evidently apply. It is quite false, a Menshevik and not a Bolshevik position historically, that all discussion should be internal and a 'monolithic' front presented to the world. The principle of the party is unity in action not pretended unity in thought. Lenin provided the precise formula applying to both internal and public discussion.

"Criticism within the limits of the principles of the Party Programme must be quite free . . . not only at Party meetings, but also at public meetings. Such criticisms, or such 'agitation' (for criticism is inseperable from agitation) cannot be prohibited. The Party's political action must be united. No 'calls' that violate the unity of definite actions can be tolerated either at public meetings, or at Party meetings, or in the Party press . . . of course, the application of this principle in practice will sometimes give rise to disputes and misunderstandings, but only on the basis of this principle can all disputes and all misunderstandings be settled honourably for the party . . . The principle of democratic centralism and autonomy for local Party organisations implies universal and full freedom to criticise so long as this does not disrupt or make difficult the unity of an action decided upon by the party."

[page 15]

The tradition of Lenin, and the one we have to create, is not a presentation of monolithism by the party but on the contrary simultaneous free discussion and absolutely complete discipline and unity in action.

(iv) The question of internal democracy as the greatest weapon of creating collective experience of the organisation dictates the attitudes taken to minorities who remain within the framework of revolutionary Marxism. Such minorities do not constitute 'obstacles', but a particular experience of the class struggle. In many cases they will be right. In all cases they reflect the real aspects of the class struggle. While rejecting any wrong positions which the majority evidently must feel that the minority has, nevertheless it is the task of the organisation to consciously seek out what particular aspects of policy such a minority is correct on. It is a law of politics, of currents who remain within revolutionary Marxism, that new problems inevitably produce differences, that the organisation goes through a process of discussion and experience, and that a new synthesis is arrived at on a higher level. Democracy is not a diversion but the sole way the end result of a correct political line can be arrived at. Such democracy requires the organisational integration of minorities at every level of the organisation.

Discipline

18. It is this question of collective democracy which likewise determines the question of the discipline of the organisation. There is no special aspect of the organisation termed 'centralism'. The real counterposition is not democracy versus centralism, as bureaucrats and sectarians claim, but of collective democracy against arbitrary unvoted acts whether by individuals or any body of the organisation. If any individual violates decisions of the organisation for action that is a violation of the democratic right of membership to determine its line. Similarly, under particular conditions — severe repression, direct revolutionary struggle, civil war — extreme concentration of power in the hands of the central bodies may be necessary. This however must be democratically collectively decided upon and constitutes not a special principle of centralism but the exercise of demcracy.

19. It flows from this that it is quite false to counterpose — as do for example the classic CP, SWP, WRP, — democracy and discipline. In the struggle against the bourgeoisie the most extreme iron discipline will be necessary. Against an enemy prepared to murder, torture, rape, mutilate, starve to death millions of people — not merely revolutionaries themselves, but children, relatives, ordinary workers, Jews, blacks, homosexuals — any concept of making a revolution without absolutely iron discipline is impossible — but that discipline can only be gained through democracy. Lenin explained the point clearly:

"We have more than once already enunciated our theoretical views on the importance of discipline and on how this concept is to be understood in the party of the working class. We defined it as: unity of action, freedom of discussion and criticism. Only such discipline is worthy of the democratic party of the advanced class. The strength of the working class lies in organisation. Unless the masses are organised, the proletariat is nothing. Organised, it is everything. Organisation means unity of action, unity in practical operations. But every action is valuable, of course, only because and insofar as it serves to push things forward and not backward, insofar as it serves to unite the proletariat ideologically to elevate, and not degrade, corrupt or weaken. Organisation not based on principles is meaningless, and in practice converts the workers into a miserable appendage of the bourgeoisie in power. Therefore, the proletariat does not recognise unity of action without freedom to discuss and criticise."

This organisation seeks to create a party which on the basis of its decisions has the most extreme discipline in action — for no other type of functioning can defeat the bourgeoisie. The democracy of the organisation constitutes the sole organisational means whereby such discipline can be achieved and the growth and development of the organisation must be accompanied by the use of its steadily technical resources to achieve much greater bases of democracy in the organisation.

20. Flowing from this basis of collective democracy is the spirit in which the militants of the organisation must carry out activity and discussion.

• violation of the collective decisions of the organisation is a crime against the democracy of the organisation. No democracy can exist where individuals, groups, or bodies place themselves above collective decisions and instead carry out their own personally decided line. Such violations of collective decisions must correctly be seen by every member as an attack on their personal democratic right. The utmost hostility and discipline must be turned on those who violate in this way the democracy of the organisation.

• proposal and carrying through of discussion is the lifeblood of the organisation. Without it the organisation cannot develop its political line, cannot maintain its revolutionary character, and cannot even maintain its discipline. Discussion is not a diversion from the activity of the organisation but its basis. The unity in action of the organisation, and the discipline necessary for this, necessitates the utmost hostility to all attempts to curtail or cut off discussion.

III. Internal bodies of the Party

In the course of its development and activity a revolutionary formation has to develop many different forms of internal organisation — branches, cells, fractions, district structures, etc. Discussion on these has however been at an embryonic stage in this organisation. This bulletin therefore only deals with areas in which more particular general concrete experience has been gained — leadership bodies, tendencies, factions, and caucuses. (The caucuses section of the final document is contained in the documents produced seperately on this).

1. The nature of a political party, the fact that every party in fact attempts to put forward policies for the masses, determines a leading role for the political party. The nature of Marxism, the fact that it asserts the primacy of politics, means that it acknowledges that leading role openly. Any failure to attempt to play such a role openly in fact leaves political leadership directly in the hands of the bourgeoisie or in the hands of Social Democrats and Stalinists. This is confirmed not merely by Marxist theory but by historical experience such as that of anarchism in Spain.

The question of the role of the party has however been completely distorted by Social Democrats, Stalinists and sectarism. The task of the party is to attempt to lead the masses in the political struggle against the bourgeoisie. In no sense is it a substitute for the many other different forms of organisation required by the masses. In particular, it is not a substitute for the organisations formed to fight on fields such as culture and science or for mass organisations of struggle and liberation — workers' councils, trade unions, women's liberation movement, united front bodies, black self-organisation. All these organisations must maintain their full organisational independence from a revolutionary party.

[page 16]

From this relation to and independence of, other organisations from the revolutionary party flows important aspects of the type of role which the party plays in the class struggle. To authentically lead the masses, as opposed to ultimately ineffectual attempts to impose itself upon them, a revolutionary organisation must not be in a position to organisationally manipulate the masses. Any positions of playing important and leading roles by militants of the party must be earned through democratic decision of the masses themselves — whether this be in a particular struggle, a trade union, a workers' council, or the women's or other movements. This principle of workers' democracy flows from the nature of revolutionary struggle itself — whereas reformists can rely upon the pressure of bourgeois society to back up their attempts to manipulate the masses, revolutionary struggle is only possible on the basis of conscious decisions of the masses. Attempts to trick or manipulate the masses in struggle inevitably ends in disaster — as innumerable examples of the Social Democrats, Stalinists, and sectarians practioners of frontism shows.

The fact that revolutionary leadership cannot be imposed, but only earned, dictates the types of militants and organisation of a revolutionary party. The first, and fundamental, level of leadership is that of every militant in relation to the masses. Without all its militants in fact being able to earn a leading role in whatever part of the masses they are in contact with, the entire rest of the party is an empty shell. The whole significance of the party lies in the fact that ultimately it believes that its line will be shown in practice to be the one best able to meet the needs of the class struggle. It believes this will occur precisely because its continual developing and synthesising of the experience of the class struggle allows its militants to grasp both the fundamental forces at work and their new and particular forms and combinations. The entire process of creating the greatest possible collective experience of the organisation is therefore simultaneously the attempt to create the greatest possible leadership capacity at every level of the organisation.

2. The necessity to create the greatest possible leading role of militants at every level of the organisation helps determine the relation between centralisation of the political experience of the organisation and centralisation of its decision making. As already noted the necessity to create the greatest possible collective political life of the organisation dictates the necessity to achieve the greatest possible centralisation of its experience. The more that knowledge and experience of particular interventions, sectors, fields of work, branches, etc. is centralised, and by these means also given the widest possible diffusion, the more the political level of the organisation is raised.

But this same necessity to raise the political level of the organisation dictates the widest practical decentralisation of the taking of decisions. Individual militants, branch leaderships, fraction leaderships and every level of the organisation can only be formed by the greatest possible ability to take independent decisions — including inevitably sometimes the right to make mistakes. From the point of view of developing cadres and the leadership as a whole, the 'lower' the level at which decisions are taken, the better. Contrary to Stalinists, Social Democratic and sectarian myths and practices there is no virtue whatever in centralisation of decision making for its own sake. What any organisation prepared to carry on a serious struggle against the bourgeoisie cannot reject however is the readiness to take centralised decisions where it is necessary — to refuse this would in fact be to abandon any possibility of a successful revolutionary struggle. Where necessity a revolutionary organisation must take decisions for action at a national, or even international, level. Thus, for example, it is evident that decisions on international solidarity campaigns, participation in the EEC elections and similar questions can only be decided by international leading bodies and not national organisations; decisions of who to vote for in bourgeois elections, or which opposition currents to build in trade unions can only be taken at a national level and not locally; how to allocate forces to different fields of work in a town can only be taken at a branch level and not by comrades in a particular factory or field of work etc. While of course many practical difficulties will arise in relation to the level at which decisions are taken, particularly where major local or sectoral issues have more general ramificiations, and this must be revived in the light of concrete circumstances (e.g. civil war or bourgeois democracy) nevertheless the essential principle is that to the greatest degree practical decisions should be taken at the 'lowest' appropriate level in the organisation. This is the only way in which cadres and leaderships can be developed at every level from individual militants up through the cells, branches, districts, fractions, up to the National Committee. Higher bodies should only take decisions when they cannot be taken at a lower level — either because their ramifications affect wider layers of the organisation or because the normally appropriate bodies cannot arrive at a decision.

3. It is this attitude to the greatest possible centralisation of experience and at the same time the attempt to create the greatest practical capacity for decision at every level of the organisation that helps determine the attitude of a revolutionary party to the questions of its leadership from the branches up to the National Committee. Marxism does not accept demagogy to the effect that the leadership of an organisation is irrelevant, that the working class or a revolutionary organisation does not have, or should not have, a leadership etc. All organisation in fact have leaderships. This flows inevitably from the necessity to take decisions at the tempo of the struggle they are involved in and from unevenness in the organisation itself — reflecting unevenness in the masses. Different bodies, groups, individuals, etc. have in practice different weights and influences in any organisation. The sole differences lie in the type of leadership they have and their relation to the rest of the organisation.

(i) Anarchist organisations, without formal leading structures, necessarily have entirely non-democratic leaderships taking the forms of cliques or, in the case of larger anarchist formations, of secret socieities organised behind the backs of the membership and not subject to their control.

(ii) Parties imposing alien interests on the working class, for example Social Demcratic and Stalininst Parties, necessarily have a bureaucratic structure. Their structure is based on securing an individually atomised membership confronted with a bureaucratic apparatus. Hence even when these parties permit discussion the membership must be prevented from having the right of organised opposition — hence in contemporary CPs in many cases individual discussion takes place but the right to form tendencies and factions is totally banned.

(iii) Sects, currents defending particular interests within the working class and not those of the proletariat as a whole, by their nature cannot have a collective functioning. Leadership is maintained by eliminating from the organisation forces who remain within revolutionary Marxism but who have differences with the leadership on particular points. A sect in practice transforms the party into a faction

(iv) The leadership of an organisation which can become a revolutionary party of the working class bases itself in the same collective functioning as the organisation as a whole. This means both that the leadership, at every level, is only one part of the collective functioning of the organisation, and that the leadership must include within itself the reflections of the different currents, unevenness, experiences, etc. of the organisation as a whole.

[page 17]

4. It is from this character of a revolutionary organisation that the development, character and functioning of its leadership at every level flows. Under all conditions the question of the leadership of all levels of an organisation is important. Under certain conditions it is decisive. However a truly revolutionary leadership of an organisation can only be achieved on the basis of the methods which create the firmest revolutionary character of an organisation at every level. To take an example which is frequently abused, it is indeed the case that, as Trotsky rightly said, the October Revolution of 1917 could not have been victorious without the existence of a single individual — Lenin. Under these extreme conditions of revolution the outcome of the entire struggle of the Bolshevik Party became concentrated in, and determined by, the decisions of one single person. The Russian Revolution of 1917 was victorious because Lenin, rather than Stalin or Kamenev or some other person, stood at the head of the leadership of the Bolshevik Party.

But far from this, as sectarians and bureaucrats suppose, showing that the leadership of the party is all important, that the membership is a whole is merely fodder for carrying out decisions that democracy is unimportant, etc. the question which has to be answered is why did Lenin and his supporters, and not someone else, stand at the head of the Party. That question can only be answered by looking at the entire previous history of the Bolsheviks. Lenin had acquired the leadership of that Party because his positions had been shown in practice, in thousands of tests from the largest to the smallest events of the class struggle, to represent the most consistent revolutionary defence of the interests of the working class. Lenin himself had been formed in, and absorbed the lessons of these struggles only the conditions of the most extreme internal democracy had made possible that process of natural selection and testing whereby the most consistent revolutionary current had gained the leadership of the Party. Without such democracy all that would have led the Bolshevik Party in 1917 could have been petty bureaucrats. Internal democracy is not obstacle to creation of an effective leadership. Internal democracy is the sole means by which a leadership with truly collossal authority necessary to lead a revolution can be created.

It is this understanding of what is necessary to achieve a revolution which determines our attitude now — long before we reach the stage of the Bolsheviks. The idea that the present cadre or leadership of the IMG, or any other organisation in Britain, can lead the proletariat to state power — is ridiculous — a fantasy of infantile sectarians. The task of revolutionaries today is to create the type of organisation which can produce the militants and leadership capable of taking the working class in Britain to power. Solely conditions of internal democracy can allow the tremendous testing of positions and cadres which can create that kind of party and that kind of leadership.

5. The conditions and forms necessary to develop the revolutionary character and leadership of all levels of the organisation from branches to the national committee necessarily differ at different stages of the development of the organisation and in different conditions. Among the most important however are the following:

(i) All leadership bodies at every level of the organisation must be elected — this is an absolute principle of democratic centralism to which no exception is allowed except under such conditions of extreme repression that is application would physically endanger the existence of the organisation and its militants. It follows from this that only elected bodies have the power to take leadership decisions. All selected, appointed, etc. bodies and individuals (commissions, administrative bodies etc) are only advisory or executive. In practice of course the positions of such latter types of bodies will 99 per cent of the time be carried out but in the final analysis the authority must remain in the hands of those bodies which have been elected. Any other system destroys the democracy of the organisation.

(ii) For collective functioning the organisation as a whole must know not merely what decisions have been reached but why they were arrived at. This means that not only decisions taken but also other arrived at positions of minorities, the documentation of decisions, etc. must be available to the organisation as a whole. This does not of course mean that every single initial formulation half thought in the course of discussion, etc must be made circulated — on that basis no body could function — but it means that knowledge of the seriously arrived at positions must be available. Without this the membership of the organisation cannot evaluate the significance of decisions or their meaning and therefore arrive at positions on them.

(iii) It follows from this collective democracy that it is only leading bodies, and not individual members of the NC or a branch committee have no more authority than any other member of the organisation. Authority of particular individuals to take decisions exists solely insofar as it is given to them to them by elected bodies (e.g. National Secretary, Branch Organiser, Treasurer) or by decisions on particular issues (e.g. intervention in a particular demonstration, organising a particular field of work). In every case individuals exercise authority only by virtue of, and within the limits determined by, definite elected bodies of the organisation.

(iv) While the national leadership has the right to determine the national line the question of how to implement that line, how to organise internally etc is decided by the branches and on this question the national leadership does not have the right to reverse decisions. Only if the national line is overturned on national questions does the national leadership enjoy rights in this issue.

While all these functions of every level of leadership must be collectively carried out (e.g. it is the duty of the leadership bodies as a whole to give information not of individual members to give 'interpretations', 'inside information' of such decisions, etc.) the functioning of these and similar measures is crucial for the collective democracy of the organisation.

6. The internal functioning of the leadership of a revolutionary organisation at every level has to be established on the collective principle of the rest of the organisation. A leadership, whether of a branch or the National Committee, must therefore not be composed merely of one element of the organisation but reflects the different trends, currents, pressures and experiences within the organisation as a whole. The strength and significance of a leadership therefore does not lie in the abilities or attributes of its individual members but in its total collective functioning. Despite all efforts any individual, even great revolutionary leaders such as Lenin and Trotsky let alone the cadres of a normal revolutionary organisation can never fully overcome one sidedness and particular strengths, weaknesses and experiences. While attempting constantly to develop every cadre in the most rounded way possible nevertheless the fundamental method the organisation has to use to overcome this one-sidedness is the collectivity of its functioning — the integration, balancing, and combining of many different types of experiences and talents. This indicates both the selection and functioning of the leadership at any level.

(i) We reject the system of individual election by 'stars'. The significance and importance of a leadership lies in its collective character. This means that the election of the leadership is as a whole, not as a selection of individuals.

The best practical means to achieve this which has been developed is that of proceeding via a Conference Nominations Commission whether it be national conference or local or district conferences. This is a special sub-committee of Conference charged with the responsibility of preparing thought out proposals on the structure and composition of the leadership for consideration by conference of the organisation, and therefore should be both independent of the leadership and reflect broadly the different political, geographic and sectoral components of the Party. It should be open to all members and bodies of the organisation to make submissions to the Commission on the question of the leadership, and the Commission itself should solicit such views as widely as possible. On the basis of its deliberations it will make recommendations to Conference with which, of course, the final decision lies.

[page 18]

The Nominations Commission will attempt to present a proposal to Conference that reflects a rounded conception of how best to select a collective leadership for organisation. In general, therefore, procedure at Conference should be such a safeguard this collective conception of the leadership, and not in any way reduce it to a random selection of individuals.

(ii) A leadership is elected not as a collection of individuals but because it stands for a definitive political line — politics and not personal talent is the finally decisive criteria. It is therefore essential that the leadership is chosen on a clear political basis.

This means, on the one hand, that it must rest on a stable majority that supports the line endorsed by Conference (even when this line is supported by only a slender majority, or even only a plurality of Conference delegates), but at the same time it must reflect the political composition of the party as a whole, along with the diverse areas of political experience of the organisation. To this end the leadership should include militants drawn from the various political currents inside the organisation, broadly in line with their weight inside the organisation as a whole, as well as militants from different geographical regions and sectors of work. But it must be clear that minority militants on the leadership are not there to 'represent' their tendency, any more than others are there to 'represent' their area or sector, but rather to contribute from a particular standpoint and set of experiences to the functioning of a collective and authoritative leadership.

(iii) This aspect of the national leadership in relation to collective functioning applies at every level of the organisation. Different political views or nuances, whether formalised in tendency or factions, or merely expressing differences of experiences, represent not 'enemies' but part of the process of arriving at the collective line of the organisation. To exclude different views or minorities at any level of the organisation — whether it be at the level of membership, branch leadership, fractions, commissions, full time posts, national leadership bodies — is to break up the collectivity of the organisation and in a serious way weaken its political capacity. The practice of such organisations such as the SWP and WRP of exclusions of minorities from leading bodies and full time posts, or leadership of fields of work is an attack on the entire democracy and functioning of the revolutionary party. Similarly it is the duty of different views or minorities to participate at every level of the organisation. Positions of boycott, just as much as exclusions, are a deadly threat to the collective character of the organisation.

(iv) In order to function in a collective fashion the leadership must have clear norms of working which differentiate it from either a clique or a mere collection of individuals. It is distinguished from a collection of individuals in that when new questions or differences arise for its members these must be first discussed within the leadership as a whole before being taken into the organisation as a whole. If not it has not collectivity. It is distinguished from a clique by the fact that where differences do exist they must not be covered over but on the contrary presented to the membership for their judgement and decision — although even in this latter case the discussion in the leadership is important as clarifying the nature of the differences.

Tendencies and Factions

7. The origin of the question of tendencies and factions lies in the inevitable arising of differences within the revolutionary organisation and the role of these in developing its political line. Small differences, which continuously arise, may be dealt with simply through individually organised discussion of the type that exists constantly in a revolutionary organisation. However more serious, or more lasting, differences require more organised and structured forms of discussion. This gives rise to the right to form organised currents — leadership caucuses, tendencies and factions.

This right to organised currents and opposition is banned by Stalinism. Such bans however, which are also applied in practice by sectarian organisations, are a fundamental attack on internal democracy. The right of tendency and faction is in fact necessary for internal democracy because of the following considerations.

(i) By its nature a leadership has a collective power. Single individuals unorganised without discussion among themselves could never wage successful political struggle against a leadership. Banning tendencies and factions therefore in fact leaves contol in the hands of one permanent faction — the majority leadership.

(ii) Banning tendencies and factions does not in fact prevent different views from organising. On the contrary any revolutionary worth anything at all will, and has the duty to attempt to win the greatest possible number of people to the positions they consider correct. Banning tendencies and factions merely drives organisation over differences underground and leads to their assuming the forms of secret factions, clique groupings etc. It therefore gives the discussion within the organisation a malignant vicious form breaking up its collective character and assuming forms outside its control. Democratic open discussion through tendencies and factions, in the full view of the organisation as a whole, is the clearest form of debate. Little else however saps the vitality of a party on the organisational front as much as subteranean manoeuvres, cliques, secret currents and the like.

8. As with every organisational form, internal groupings of the party such as tendencies, factions and leadership caucuses have political premises and their organisational functioning must reflect these premises as accurately as possible. A failure of correspondence of political premises and organisational form creates not merely confusion and lack of clarity but almost invariably great heat and suspicion. It is therefore a major task of any internal grouping to carefullly consider its political premises and ensure its organisational functioning is in fact in line with these.

(i) Leadership Caucuses

A caucus formed by the leadership, at any level arises when a difference occurs in that leadership which is not resolved via normal individual contributions to the discussion. A leadership caucus is posed when it is still conceived as politically possible to resolve the issue within the leadership without it being necessary to polarise the organisation as a whole on the question. This political characterisation dictates the key organisational feature of a leadership caucus — it is composed solely of comrades in the leadership, whether that be local or national, its disucssions are confined to members of that leadership, and they are held only on the particular issue under discussion. As any really significant or long-lasting difference must however by its very nature be taken to the membership for discussion and resolution, leadership caucuses must be temporary in character, and confined in time to the issue under discussion. If this is not followed they in fact become transformed into cliques.

(ii) A tendency is formed when a section of the organisation, generally the leadership, is considered to be making one or several major mistakes which must be corrected to allow the organisation to best carry on the class struggle. However this section or leadership is conceived of as still being clearly revolutionary in character.

The organisational form of a tendency flows from this political characterisation. From the general revolutionary character of the current with whom the struggle is being waged the assumption for the organisation must be that on most and new questions that current will take a correct position it is considered clear that this current can be persuaded through discussion to take the correct course on even the issues under dispute etc. The organisational form of a tendency reflects this political characterisation. A tendency must be formed on a limited number of points — if not in practice it must be conceived that the other currents are in fact wrong on all issues and therefore their revolutionary character cannot be taken for granted; discussion in the tendency is confined to those issues on which it is constituted or which it is proposed to add to its platform — to act otherwise is in fact to assume that differences will exist on all points as otherwise collective discussion in the organisation as a whole is the best way to arrive at the correct conclusion; discussion on new questions is first taken in the leadership or organisation as a whole — to act otherwise would be to assume that the leadership or other forces will not take a correct position; a tendency cannot have a position on points other than it is constituted on, and on other questions its members are free to take whatever positions they wish — to act otherwise is in fact to assume differences on all questions. A tendency by its nature is limited in time to the particular issues on which it is formed — in general tendencies are dissolved following the decision on a particular issue (in particular following conferences). To adopt a different organisational form — for example to discuss within a tendency all issues, or discuss new questions within it before discussion in the leadership or the organisation as a whole, is in practice to give a different political characterisation of the other forces in the organisation than that on which the tendency is constituted.

[page 19]

(iii) A faction has as its political basis a qualitatively different characterisation of the other forces inside the organisation than that of a tendency. A faction flows from the situation where it is held that other currents inside the organisation, generally the leadership, are threatening the existence of the organisation as a revolutionary force through programmatic revisions, not merely errors but betrayals of the class struggle, destruction of internal democracy, creating unprincipled splits, or similar steps. From this it follows that the revolutionary character of the current against which this struggle is being waged is at least called into question.

The organisational character of a faction flows from this political premise. Given that the revolutionary character of other currents inside the organisation is called into question this may be expected to be reflected on all issues and a faction is entitled to take a position on every question facing the organisation, as it is no longer assumed that agreement can be reached on other points a faction discusses all questions within its ranks and discusses these questions before discussion in the leadership or organisation as a whole; as a faction considers it can no longer act on the assumption that the leadership can be persuaded to change its position the normal functioning of collective leadership, where issues are first discussed in the leadership before being taken to the ranks, no longer applies; the central aim of a faction, and no longer an incidental of its policy, must abe to remove the leadership; as a current waging a struggle on all questions a faction has the right to have discipline on all questions and members do not automatically have the right to put forward their own positions on issues which have not been decided by the faction as a whole.

These modes of functioning, the formation of a faction, are therefore only justified when political differences are such as in fact to threaten the revolutionary character of the organisation.

It is evident that the formation of a faction is an exceptionally serious step which must never be taken lightly. It means that a state of emergency and a life or death struggle is signalled for the organisation. However it also constitutes a last attempt to maintain the unity of the organisation by a final struggle to maintain its revolutionary character. Therefore while many faction struggles have in fact ended in splits there have also been occasions when the formation of a faction was the only way to avoid and fight a split.

The right both of tendency and faction is guaranteed within democratic centralism. Needless to say no decision of a tendency or faction, anymore than of the National Committee or branch, can transcend the collective decision, democracy, and discipline of the organisation as a whole.