Comments on the Active-Socialist Front

Add a subpage to this text

Read the help page for usage.

 

1. It is altogether unclear what is intended by the initiators of the Active-Socialist Front: a permanent bloc of the existing workers’ parties or a new party? Evidently it is not quite clear to the initiators themselves. If it is a matter of a new party, then what is its program, what are its strategic and tactical principles? If it is a matter of an agreement among existing parties, then which ones exactly and for what concrete tasks? From several passages in the statement, one may draw the conclusion that it is a matter of a permanent agreement of all existing workers’ organizations for the resolution of all tasks of the class struggle. But such a permanent bloc, inevitably depriving all participants of independence, essentially differs in no way from a party, even if it is “above all parties.” Again, the question arises: where is the program?

2. The statement sees the reason for the defeat of the German proletariat in worthless leadership. This in itself is undeniable, but the statement reduces worthlessness to insufficient “activity.” Every tendency is also defined by its direction. Of this, there is not a word in the statement. Activity — along what line, toward what end, with what methods?

The mass and apparatus — says the statement — were excellent in Germany, only the leadership proved to be bankrupt. This is an incorrect and thoroughly mechanical formulation of the question. An apparatus is a grouping of people on the basis of definite ideas and methods (program and tactics). How can an apparatus be “excellent” if the ideas and methods of the leadership have proved to be worthless? Between the mass and the apparatus, between the apparatus and the leadership, there is not a mechanical but a dialectical relationship: they influence each other and educate each other. With a worthless leadership an apparatus cannot be excellent; with a bad apparatus the mass cannot be prepared for revolutionary struggle.

3. The statement speaks of an “ill-fated split” in the workers’ movement. Here again, a lack of understanding of the importance of the program and tactics of the party is displayed. A split is the product of the irreconcilability of programs. Can there be any question of our unity with fascist workers’ organizations? The authors of the statement recognize, we hope, that there cannot. But the difference between Marxist and reformist politics is no less irreconcilable, although it exists on a different plane. All policies of the Social Democracy as a party are directed toward preserving, strengthening, treating, and curing the capitalist state. The policies of the revolutionary party are directed toward the overthrow of the capitalist state. How can these two parties unite?

Opposition between programs, however, does not exclude the possibility of a temporary united front, where it is a matter of defense against a common enemy directly threatening both parties. The tasks and methods of common actions must be completely, clearly, and precisely defined.

4. It is absolutely impossible to agree with the statement in regard to the decisive role assigned to psycho-technique, which is in essence substituted for politics. Russia has given us the sole example of a successful conquest of power by the proletariat. But the Bolshevik Party was guided, not by psycho-technique, but by Marxist political principles. The statement speaks much of courage, enthusiasm, and self-sacrifice, contrasting them to the economic interests of the proletariat. This contrast is completely unscientific. The enthusiasm of the masses is aroused not by psycho-technical devices, but by a clear formulation of revolutionary objectives. Where the correct policies exist, the technical methods and forms of agitation have, of course, their own importance. But even in regard to psycho-techniques, the statement gives no serious, new, or valuable instructions. Ultimately, everything is reduced to a few symbols. This is not enough for victories.

It is very curious that the statement proposes that the common front use the “three arrows” and the slogan “Freedom.” But you see, this Social Democratic symbolism did not prevent either the party or the Iron Front from revealing its complete internal rottenness. The three arrows are now a sign of political bankruptcy. It would be naive to think that the revolution will gather its battalions under these signs.

5. Instead of a political program of action, the statement proposes a “psychological truce” in the working class. Whoever breaks the truce, whoever indulges in insulting expressions toward other “socialists,” will be declared traitors. A remarkable solution to the problem! From now on, the only people who can be declared traitors are those who express themselves impolitely; if Hilferding serves as a capitalist minister of finance or Grzezinsky shoots workers down, they must be called, not traitors, but respected comrades.

6. The authors attempt to base their psycho-technique on the reflexology of Pavlov. That Pavlov is a brilliant psycho-physiologist is completely undeniable. But the attempt of Pavlov himself to mechanically transfer his conclusions to the field of politics lent itself to nothing but reactionary muddleheadedness. To replace the laws of mass struggle with the laws of individual reflexes and to put Pavlov in Marx’s place will not do at all. (Permit me to cite my polemic against Pavlov on this very question.)

7. It is the greatest mistake to think that the Social Democracy and the Communist Party will survive and remain at the head of the proletariat. Historical experience and the observations of the greatest teachers of the proletariat (Marx, Engels, Lenin) equally testify that a political catastrophe, the responsibility for which lies with a revolutionary party, kills the given party and forever removes it from the scene. No injections of psycho-technique can save the Social Democracy. What is needed is a new party based on the principles of Marx and Lenin, taking into account all the international experience of the last decade. What is needed is a new, Fourth International!