2005-02-25,+Paper+for+Rosa+Luxemburg+Seminar

=Draft Paper for Rosa Luxemburg Foundation Seminar at Workers' Library, March 5th 2005=


 * Dominic Tweedie, Secretary, SACP Johannesburg Central Branch**

Viva the 50th Anniversary of SACTU, Viva!
Rosa Luxemburg first wrote "Reform and Revolution?" in 1900, in response to articles written in 1897 and 1898 and a book (known in English as "Evolutionary Socialism") written by Eduard Bernstein.

Bernstein was an old Social Democrat of the 2nd International and a friend of Engels, who had died only a few years earlier, but of course we know that he was a reformist and also what Lenin called an "economist".

Luxemburg's denunciation of Bernstein is unequivocal, but when Lenin came to write his own blast against Bernstein, called "What is to Be Done" (1902), he went further, effectively defining the role of the proletarian vanguard party and its relationship to the mass movements and especially to the trade unions.

Lenin and his colleagues pressed this understanding of the nature of the party at the Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic and Labour Party in 1903, to the point of rupture between what became known as the Mensheviks, or minority, and the majority Bolsheviks.

Lenin wrote a book about the 1903 Congress called "One Step Forward, Two Steps Back", published in 1904. Rosa Luxemburg thought he had gone too far, and criticised Lenin for “intransigent centralism” in a pamphlet that has become known as "Leninism or Marxism". Lenin defended his position in a reply to Luxemburg, also published in 1904.

In these exchanges can be found the basis upon which the Bolshevik Party and the Parties formed under the wing of the 3rd or Communist International (the Comintern), including the Communist Party of South Africa (now the SACP) were founded.

Lenin wrote "Left Wing Communism, an Infantile Disorder" in 1920 to guide the new communist parties along the lines of the Bolsheviks. Let me quote a little from that work:

"In Russia today, the connection between leaders, party, class and masses, as well as the attitude of the dictatorship of the proletariat and its party to the trade unions, are concretely as follows: the dictatorship is exercised by the proletariat organised in the Soviets; the proletariat is guided by the Communist Party of Bolsheviks, which, according to the figures of the latest Party Congress (April 1920), has a membership of 611,000."

"Left-Wing Communism, an Infantile Disorder", 1920, Ch. 6 (re Work in Reactionary TUs).

"We Bolsheviks participated in the most counterrevolutionary parliaments, and experience has shown that this participation was not only useful but indispensable to the party of the revolutionary proletariat, after the first bourgeois revolution in Russia (1905), so as to pave the way for the second bourgeois revolution (February 1917), and then for the socialist revolution (October 1917)… If a parliament becomes an organ and a "centre" (in reality it never has been and never can be a "centre", but that is by the way) of counter-revolution, while the workers are building up the instruments of their power in the form of the Soviets, then it follows that the workers must prepare—ideologically, politically and technically—for the struggle of the Soviets against parliament, for the dispersal of parliament by the Soviets. But it does not at all follow that this dispersal is hindered, or is not facilitated, by the presence of a Soviet opposition within the counter-revolutionary parliament."

"Left-Wing Communism, an Infantile Disorder", 1920, Ch. 7 (re Bourgeois Parliaments).

You may also have the "Theses on the Communist Parties and Parliamentarism" from the Second Congress of the Comintern (2CCI), also in 1920. It seeks to set down the basic strategic and tactical principals governing communist participation in bourgeois parliaments, which are referred to all together as "Revolutionary Parliamentarism". I have redacted that document from 3,600 to 600 words and given it at the end as a supplement. Here I give my own even briefer summary of the theses:


 * Summary of the 2CCI Theses on Parliamentarism**

The number of seats held by the communists is not critical. The presence of communists in parliament is tactical. In some circumstances there might even be a boycott of elections or of parliament. But as a rule the communists have good reasons for wanting to be in parliament.

Parliament is one among other "legal positions" which are to be treated as "auxiliary bases" during the mass struggle for state power. It is a relatively minor site of struggle and views on parliamentary tactics should therefore never be allowed to divide or split the revolutionary forces.

Parliament is part of the enemy camp and party members go there as agitators to carry out party decisions under the command and control of the party leadership outside parliament. Parliament is to be destroyed and replaced by a soviet republic.

To finish with quotes for now, let me give you Clause 6.4 from the current Constitution of the SACP, adopted in 2002.

"6.4 Members active in fraternal organisations or in any sector of the mass movement have a duty to set an example of loyalty, hard work and zeal in the performance of their duties and shall be bound by the discipline and decisions of such organisations and movement. They shall not create or participate in SACP caucuses within such organisations and movements designed to influence either elections or policies. The advocacy of SACP policy on any question relating to the internal affairs of any such organisations or movements shall be by open public statements or at joint meetings between representatives of the SACP and such organisations or movements."

Remarks on Theses on Communist Parties and Parliamentarism, 2CCI, Aug. 2, 1920 First, the tactical nature of parliamentary struggle must be acknowledged. We know that the bourgeois class will never yield power in consequence of a parliamentary vote or election. It has never happened and we do not expect it to happen. We particularly remember September 11th, 1973, in Chile, when the elected Popular Unity Government was overthrown by the bloody Pinochet coup d'etat.

Therefore:
 * The main revolutionary struggle will be outside parliament
 * The number of seats held by communists is not crucial
 * The question of parliamentary representation is not worth a risk of a split in our ranks
 * In particular, the ANC/SACP/COSATU Alliance must not be broken

It is not necessary to negate completely the Theses of the 2CCI. But clearly, the first impression given by the theses and by Lenin in "What is to be Done?" is very different from our practice today, especially as expressed in Rule 6.4 of the SACP constitution.

The insistence on direct control of parliamentarians and the leadership of mass movements (including Trade Unions) by the central organs of the Communist party is no longer maintained.

On the contrary, it is a point of Party discipline (see rule 6.4) that no such thing must be allowed to happen. Nor can there be private caucuses of SACP members in mass organisations. Party members must advocate their positions openly, and then must accept the majority decision of the mass organisation. This is a correct and practical rule, and it should not be changed, but should rather be extended to cover parliament.

Parliament should be treated as a mass organisation. Party members in parliament will be bound by its decisions for as long as they are members, that is to say, unless they resign. Of course party members are ultimately under the central discipline of the Party. If they are required to resign, they must do so. In the mean time and for as long as they are elected, they must follow the discipline of the mass organisations in which they work, in this case parliament.

It is more than half a century since the Comintern was disbanded. Communists are no longer of the view that the instrument of working class power following the overthrow of the bourgeoisie will only be a soviet republic. It may take a different form.

The proletarian revolution will be made by the masses and must result in the rule of the working class. The action of the masses in the present time is through mass organisations which are guided by the vanguard party only to the extent that party leadership is accepted. This principle is enshrined in rule 6.4.

The mass organisations of today will become the instruments of tomorrow's revolution, and the revolutionary institutions will then form the basis of socialist organisation after the revolution. Parliament will be one among many such organisations feeding into the revolutionary crucible. The 2CCI Theses are correct that parliamentary power as conceived in a bourgeois constitution must come to an end. Parliament cannot give us revolution. Revolution will not preserve the bourgeois constitution, and therefore parliament's special status will disappear.

The communists should be present in parliament to give leadership as they would be present in any other formation of society. They do not seek a majority. They are in an alliance and wish to remain in that alliance, with the ANC and COSATU. Therefore the SACP will not be able to stand candidates unilaterally. They will have to persuade the ANC that having SACP members in parliament is in the best interest of the country, of parliament, of the /alliance as a whole, and therefore of the ANC itself.

I have synthesised the question of the mass organisations in general and of parliament treated as a mass organisation. I now intend to further synthesise these questions with the question of the vanguard and the mass.


 * Mass and Vanguard**

I asked Dr Arndt Hopfmann why he was keen to recommend Rosa Luxemburg's "Reform and Revolution?" as preparatory reading for this seminar. I pointed out that there is nothing in this book about parliament, and isn't the seminar about "revolutionary parliamentarism", I asked?

He said, no, the title is: "The Left - Participation & Engagement with Bourgeois Institutions", and the question of trade unions, co-operatives, and all sorts of institutions characteristic of bourgeois rule, including parliament, are to be considered together.

I said o.k., and went away to think about the matter. What are asked to do, then, is to conceive of the revolutionary vanguard function, the character of the mass organisations of the working class, and electoral and parliamentary struggles, as one concrete whole.

We may also take into account the special circumstances of South Africa now, both objective and subjective, including the mass nature of the ANC and the various interpretations of the "National Democratic Revolution", or NDR.

I hope you can begin to do all this in your own minds, because I need your help. Perhaps the quotations I have already given may help you to synthesise these several strands into a unity. By all means use them in your contributions to discussion and not forgetting the Theses on Revolutionary Parliamentarism from the 2CCI, the 2nd Congress of the Communist International.

In my opinion the matter lays like this. The mass organisations of the working class are not puppets to be manipulated. "The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims." is how the last paragraph in the 1848 Communist Manifesto begins. I hope you know the rest of the paragraph.

The mass organisations are so called, not because of their size, which may be large or small, but because they grow within the masses and belong entirely to the masses.

We enter all the organisations of the working class, and also parliament, openly. We advocate our positions openly. We follow rule number 6.4., which obliges the communists to win their positions openly.

At the same time, we do not hold out the possibility of the working class taking power by electing representatives to parliament. That has never happened and it will not happen in South Africa. There must be no illusion or deception about this. The revolutionaries are not seeking a parliamentary majority, they are seeking a different kind of democracy altogether. They are seeking the direct power of the working class acting together as a class, having learned to do so in its mass organisations.

We stand at a crossroads not unlike that faced by the two comrades, Luxemburg and Lenin, when Lenin wrote “What is to be Done?” and Rosa wrote “Reform or Revolution?”.

As we are gathered here, we constitute a potential revolutionary vanguard of and for the working class, comrades, even if a temporary one. Let us then be clear that it is the class that must rule, and not any substitute for the class, whether parliamentarian or bureaucratic centralist. There is a vanguard role to be played, but who will play it on the crucial day is not yet known. Nobody can claim the title of vanguard as a right - not the communist party, nor anybody else. It will be a matter of fact as to who gives the proper leadership in the historical, revolutionary moment, just as it is a matter of fact that Lenin and the Bolsheviks siezed the initiative in 1917 and changed the world forever.


 * The SACP and Parliament now**

The South African Communist Party is going to have a Special Congress from 8th to 10th April, 2005. Among other matters before the Congress, sits the question of whether or not the SACP should stand candidates for parliament.

One of the resolutions up for the congress says the following (in its third, "resolves"section):

Therefore Resolves:-

1. To actively campaign within the Party for the Party to stand independently in elections beyond the 2 005 Local Government Elections 2. To ensure that through its own independent candidates the SACP would pursue and entrench revolutionary parliamentarism as conceptualised in the first four Congresses of the then Communist International (a summation of revolutionary parliamentary work and experiences of many countries and a redefinition of such work towards replacing capitalism with socialism) 3. To champion this Resolution before, at and beyond, the Special Congress of the Party in July 2 005 as one of the most urgent questions of the day demanding utmost attention by all Party members and structures

I don't want to say a lot more than that. I hope there will be widespread discussion of this question, within and outside the SACP, and especially in the ANC. I would like us to come out of this period with the SACP having a good number, say 20, or 50, of MPs who are SACP, and not first and foremost ANC. I would like the ANC/SACP/COSATU alliance and the NDR to remain intact. It must remain intact. Its history is South Africa's history for the last century. But the present situation where the SACP does not raise its head at all in parliament should come to an end, by negotiation with and with the full agreement of the ANC. The ANC must be brought to see the wisdom of this.

The "Social Movements" need to discriminate between what is mass and what is vanguard, something they have been reluctant to do up to now. And then their vanguard must perhaps also contest seats in parliament. Or better still they should return to the fold of the alliance and combine to make the SACP a better vanguard party.


 * Redaction of Theses on Communist Parties and Parliamentarism, 2CCI, Aug. 2, 1920**

“At present, parliament, for communists, can in no way become the arena for the struggle for reforms, for the amelioration of the position of the working class, as was the case at certain times in the previous period.”

“It is the historical task of the working class to wrest this apparatus from the hands of the ruling class, to smash it, to destroy it, and replace it with new proletarian organs of power. At the same time, however, the revolutionary general staff of the class has a strong interest in having its scouts in the parliamentary institutions of the bourgeoisie in order to make this task of destruction easier.”

“Parliament is a definite form of state order; therefore it cannot at all be the form of communist society, which knows neither classes nor class struggle nor any state power.

The proletariat does not need any parliamentary sharing of power, it is harmful to it.

The form of the proletarian dictatorship is the soviet republic. The task of the proletariat consists in breaking up the bourgeois state machine, destroying it, and with it the parliamentary institutions, be they republican or a constitutional monarchy. The question of political power is not at all identical with the question of the attitude towards parliamentarism.”

“The most important method of struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie, i.e. against its state power, is above all mass action. In this mass struggle, which develops into civil war, the leading party of the proletariat must as a rule consolidate all its legal positions by making them into auxiliary bases of its revolutionary activity and subordinating these positions to the plan of the main campaign, the campaign of the mass struggle.”

“The rostrum of the bourgeois parliament is such an auxiliary base. The argument that parliament is a bourgeois state institution cannot at all be used against participation in the parliamentary struggle. This activity in parliament, which consists mainly in revolutionary agitation from the parliamentary rostrum, in unmasking opponents, in the ideological unification of the masses who still, particularly in backward areas, are captivated by democratic ideas, look towards the parliamentary rostrum, etc., should be totally and completely subordinated to the aims and tasks of the mass struggle outside parliament.”

“Election campaigns should not be carried out in the spirit of the hunt for the maximum number of parliamentary seats.”

“‘Anti-parliamentarism’ on principle, in the sense of absolute and categorical rejection of participation in elections and revolutionary parliamentary activity, is a naive, childish doctrine below any criticism. On the other hand an absolute recognition of the necessity of actual elections and of actual participation in parliamentary sessions under all circumstances by no means flows from the recognition in principle of parliamentary activity.”

“In the process, one should always bear in mind the relative unimportance of this question. Since the centre of gravity lies in the struggle for state power carried out outside parliament, it goes without saying that the question of the proletarian dictatorship and the mass struggle for it cannot be placed on the same level as the particular question of the utilisation of parliament. The Communist International therefore emphasises decisively that it holds every split or attempted split within the Communist Parties in this direction and only for this reason to be a serious error.” “Communist members of parliament must subordinate all parliamentary action to the activity of their Party outside parliament. Every communist member of parliament must bear in mind that he is not a legislator seeking an understanding with other legislators, but a Party agitator who has been sent into the enemy camp in order to carry out Party decisions there.“