Don’t Like Divisions on the Left? — -Blame History!
People in and out of the socialist left often decry the infighting on the left. “Why don’t all the socialists get together? “is a common question.
There could be many answers to this question, but one stands out: necessary responses to history.
Early Socialist Divisions
“Those who look back with nostalgia at a supposed period of more socialist unity are mistaken”
When Marx and Engels were alive there were already definite divisions among socialists. He and Engels cut their teeth on their rejection of Utopian Socialist solutions. Instead of relying on the largesse of rich donors, they said socialism could only come through class struggle and the “self-emancipation of the working class”. They disagreed with anarchists who rejected the need for political parties and a workers’ state after the revolution. They opposed the La Salleans who thought socialism could come through workers’ coops aided by the Prussian state. Marx’s essay, “Critique of the Gotha Program” lays this out clearly. In Britain Engels firmly opposed the pro-Monarchist/pro-Imperialist Social-Democratic Federation led by Hyndman. Late in life, Engels waged a campaign against reformism developing in the German Social Democratic Party.
Just look at the Communist Manifesto for lists of the types of socialists that Marx and Engels disagreed with. Many of these have passed into history.
Those who look back with nostalgia at a supposed period of more socialist unity are mistaken. The quest for clarity of theory and practice has been a constant and has led to arguments, divisions and organizational splits. Great historical events and great historical figures create great political conflicts. That is inevitable. To simply decry this process is to reject a serious approach to clarifying the strategy to win a new world. As Lenin said “without revolutionary theory, there is no revolutionary movement.”
History Intervenes!
“Different analyzes of historical figures and processes can only arise after they enter history but are inevitable after”
Each major event and process has added new grist to the mill. Analyses of each has been necessary to develop the way forward. These analyses have been different and sometimes conflicting. On the positive side, responding to new developments has allowed further clarification of what the original ideas mean in practice.
Examples of this abound. The difference between reform and revolution was unclear to many on the left. It took the experience of Social Democracy betraying internationalism in WWI and killing revolutionaries to clarify the fundamental division between reformists and revolutionaries. Even Lenin didn’t understand the need to smash the state until shortly before he wrote the indispensable State and Revolution. The same is true of Rosa Luxemburg even after she wrote the brilliant Reform or Revolution.
In 1917, there obviously could be no “Stalinists” or “Trotskyists”. It took the degeneration of the Russian Revolution and the rise of state capitalism to make that division even possible and just as importantly made those tendencies necessary. There could be no Maoism before Mao or Castroism before Castro. Nor could there be critiques of either. Different analyzes of historical figures and processes can only arise after they enter history but are inevitable after.
The more history there is, the more splits there will be ( though some of those splits become less relevant over time). This is not the fault of rancorous leftists. This is caused by the constant search for the best theory as a guide to the best practice. It is the result of the continuous attempt to reach stronger and clearer understanding of fundamental principles as applied to new events. This process is two-sided. On the one hand, it can cause divisions that weaken the movement. On the other as with all scientific endeavors it can bring us closer and closer to an adequate theory that can inform the most effective practice.
This process of continuing clarification in response to history cannot be wished away! “Sectarianism” cannot be banished by refusing to take a stand on new and pressing issues. To attempt to wish away leftist debate is to refuse needed clarification. It is to leave theory muddy and practice ineffective.
Marxist Practice
“This process of continuing clarification in response to history cannot be wished away.”
If we can’t bypass clarification of politics flowing from historical developments, what should Marxists do? We should use the United Front method to work together with all who agree on a particular issue. Having different socialist organizations is only a problem if those organizations refuse to work together on issues they agree on.
Organizationally, socialists should fuse with other socialists who agree on the key issues of the day and have common fundamental politics. What those key issues are will take further debate. Without enough political unity, a group cannot put forward clear direction and coherent politics.
There will be disagreements on how much unity around which issues and analyses are necessary to fuse in an effective manner. It does no good to decry this debate and just denounce sectarianism. Such an attitude is unserious and dismissive of our real tasks.
The first thing that Marxists must do is to form clear organization that can educate, recruit and build cadre and engage in action in the class and social struggle. In the course of that, it can become clearer what fusions will advance Marxism and which will hold it back.
As the class struggle intensifies, as revolutionary situations arise, effective theory and practice become more, not less important. Marxism is the extension, intensification and completion of class struggle. There is good reason to expect that authentic Marxist politics and organization will rise to the fore as class struggle rises, but only if Marxists organize.
As the great IWW leader and song-writer Joe Hill put it,
“Don’t Mourn, Organize !!”
https://medium.com/@sleigh1917/should-socialist-groups-unite-0e0ca34d0c37
