Arguments and Rebuttals

Add a subpage to this text

Read the help page for usage.

 

"The Unity of the Party”

Cachin and Thorez accuse Doriot of breaking the united front inside the Communist Party. Similarly, Blum and Paul Faure have demanded that the left wing of their party put the unity of the Socialist Party above the united front of the proletariat The analogy is striking. Both bureaucracies are defending themselves against the historical necessities that threaten them. In defending themselves, Paul Faure and Thorez are juggling with the idea of united front like circus clowns tossing balls to one another with their noses. To speak of a united front in the party is absurd. The party is not a transient coalition of divergent groups, and the united front can only mean an alliance of different and even divergent organizations for a precise purpose that is common to them. If urgent necessity produces a division in the party, and if this division becomes more and more profound and irreconcilable, it serves no purpose to appeal to a united front within the party. It is necessary to take a close look at the party's politics itself, its material content If the party’s strategy proves to be in opposition to the historical necessities of the class, the split becomes not only a right but also a duty. Liebknecht took a stand against a powerful party without worrying about a united front within the party, and it is he who was right.

How Not to Reach a Goal

The falseness of the politics of the French Stalinists has now found almost a mathematical expression and demonstration. Let us look at it more closely. The supreme goal of the Stalinists is to undermine the Social Democracy. The latter is in a historic impasse. It is split and torn by the pressure of events and by its internal contradictions. One faction has formed in support of rapprochement with Moscow.

But the Stalinist leadership has succeeded in provoking the split in the so-called Communist Party and in driving back the left wing of the SP toward Blum and Paul Faure! It is the Socialist Party, which for years was terribly afraid — and with good reason — of a united front, that now seizes hold of this catchword and transforms it successfully into a cry to rout the Stalinist party! It is in the name of the united front that the Doriot group broke with the party, and it's the Doriot experience that pushes the left elements of the Socialist Party to hesitate over their proposition to go to Moscow: in their eyes this cannot basically serve much purpose.

Thus, by putting the struggle against the "social fascists" (rather imaginary, despite its intransigence) above the historical reality of the class struggle, the Stalinist party arrives at a result diametrically opposed to the goal it had set itself.

Sectarian Policy?

This policy of the so-called Communist Party is often described, even by our friends, as sectarian. The word is wrongly used. Sectarianism presupposes a narrow, homogeneous group, bound internally by deep and unshakable conviction, despite the contradictions between this conviction and historical development The Stalinist bureaucracy in France does not have any conviction. It is neither disposed towards nor capable of defending its "ideas" against anyone or anything. On the contrary, it is prepared at every turn to prostrate itself before the order received from Moscow, where policy is governed by the preoccupations of the powerful national bureaucracy. This is not sectarianism — it is pure and unadulterated bureaucratism.

Necessity for a Party

Saint-Denis does not bow before the criminal bureaucracy. We certainly could not disapprove of such an attitude. But what meaning will this new split take on in the eyes of the masses influenced by Saint-Denis? One cannot march with the Stalinists; their party is incapable of leading the working class. If we stop there, we support, at least indirectly, the authority of the Socialist Party. But if we declare the latter bankrupt, the worker will conclude that one could well do without a party, which would mean reviving the most sterile syndicalist prejudices.

The world of politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum. It needs continuity of thought and political action. If we take the struggle with the Stalinists to the point of a split without weakening the willingness to combat the reformists and the centrists, we cannot escape this conclusion: the creation of a new revolutionary party is urgently placed on the agenda.

"Anything you want, but not that," cry the quavering spirits. "This is not the right time. We are realists, not builders of parties and Internationals. It's only the march of events, the pressure of the masses and their own experience that can bring about a new party!"

What wisdom! What profound thought! But what does this "march" of events mean? Are we excluded from it? And how does the experience of the masses come about? Are we there for nothing? Are we incapable of intervening in the march of events and of fertilizing the experience of the masses?

"The masses don't want a new party; they want unity, and we must build on that basis," objects the wise tactician. Ifs the idea of a united front, a workers' alliance, embryo of the soviets, that corresponds to this desire of the masses for unity. But if we stop here, we only worsen the confusion. It is not sufficient to want unity; you must know how to realize it Only the party can point the correct road for the masses. Precisely because the class as a whole has only vague, incomplete and confused ideas, the selection of the vanguard is necessary. For a Marxist the political formula expresses not the consciousness of the masses today but the dynamic of this consciousness, how it is determined and how it must be determined for the class struggle.

It is precisely from the experience of the masses that we have come to the unshakable conclusion that the two Internationals are bankrupt Are we prophets who guard their knowledge for some secret use? No, we are revolutionaries obliged to explain to the masses their own experience. There is the beginning of Marxist realism.

The "march of events" can facilitate or retard the development of the new party. But the most favorable situation will pass without advantage if the vanguard elements do not do their duty towards the masses, even in the most unfavorable situation.

The allusion to the "march of events" is a completely hollow abstraction. With the same semblance of wisdom, one could say, this is not the "right time" for the split with Thorez. The march of events must bring about such a split One could go further and say, this is not the "right time" for the Marxist doctrine, for the communist program. It is only the experience of the masses that can lead them to liberation.

But to counterpose Marxism or the communist program to the experience of the masses means to trample underfoot all the historical experience of the working class in the name of the "experience" of this or that bureaucratic grouping.

The Marxist doctrine and the communist program can neither soar above the chaos, like the Holy Ghost, nor roost in the brain of some prophets. They must have a body, that is, the organization of the workers' vanguard. Its development may depend on many factors and historical circumstances of which we are far from being the masters. But in proclaiming the bankruptcy of the two Internationals, we appeal at the same time to the most conscious, most determined, most devoted workers, inviting them to group around the new party and the new International.