Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder/Chapter 9
CHAPTER IX.
"LEFT" COMMUNISM IN GREAT BRITAIN.
In Britain there is as yet no Communist Party,[1] but there is a young, extensive, potent Communist movement, rapidly growing among the workers, which entitles one to entertain the brightest hope. There are, moreover, several political parties and organizations (the British Socialist Party, the Socialist Labor Party, the South Wales Socialist Society, and the Workers' Socialist Federation) which are desirous of forming a Communist Party and which are carrying on negotiations among themselves to that effect. In the Workers' Dreadnought (Vol. vi, No. 48, February 21, 1920), the weekly organ of the last above-named organizations, edited by Comrade Sylvia Parkhurst, she publishes an article "Towards the Communist Party." The article describes the course of negotiations between the four above-mentioned organizations regarding the formation of a single Communist Party on the basis of affiliation to the Third International, acknowledgment of the Soviet System instead of parliamentarism, and the dictatorship of the proletariat. It appears that one of the chief obstacles to the immediate creation of a single Communist Party is the difference of opinion on the question of participation in Parliament, and on the affiliation of the new Communist Party to the old professionalist Labor Party, composed of Trade Unions, opportunists, and social-chauvinist. The Workers' Socialist Federation, as well as the Socialist Labor Party,[2] are against participation in Parliament and Parliamentary elections; they are also against affiliation to the Labor Party, disagreeing in this respect with all, or a majority of, the members of the British Socialist Party—"the right wing of the Communist parties in England," according to the editor's way of looking at it.
Thus the principal division here is the same as in Germany, notwithstanding the enormous differences in the way in which these differences manifest themselves, and a whole series of other circumstances. In Germany this form much more nearly approaches the Russian than in England. Let us have a look at the arguments of the "Left."
On the question of participating in Parliament, Comrade Sylvia Pankhurst refers to an article of Comrade W. Gallacher, printed in the same issue, who writes in the name of the Scottish Workers' Committee of Glasgow:
"This Committee (S. W. C.) is definitely anti-Parliamentarian, and has behind it the Left wing of the various political bodies.
"We represent the revolutionary movement in Scotland, striving continually to build up a revolutionary organization within the different branches of industry, and a Communist Party, based on social committees, throughout the country. For a considerable time we have been sparring with the official parliamentarians. We have not considered it necessary to declare open warfare on them, and they are afraid to open an attack on us.
"But this state of affairs cannot continue long. We are winning all along the line. The rank and file of the I. L. P. in Scotland is becoming more and more disgusted with the idea of Parliament, and the Soviets or Workers' Councils are being supported by almost every branch.
"This is very serious, of course, for the gentlemen who look to politics for a profession, and they are using any and every means to persuade their members to come back into the Parliamentary fold. Revolutionary comrades must not give any support to this gang. Our fight here is going to be a difficult one. One of the worst features of it will be the treachery of those whose personal ambition is a more compelling force than their regard for the revolution.
"Any support given to Parliamentarism is simply helping to put power into the hands of our British Sheidemanns and Noskes. Henderson, Clynes and Co. are hopelessly reactionary. The official I. L. P. is more and more coming under the control of middle-class Liberals, who, since the rout of the Liberal Party, have found their 'spiritual home' in the camp of Messrs. MacDonald, Snowden and Co. The official I. L. P. is bitterly hostile to the Third International, the rank and file is for it. Any support to the Parliamentary opportunists is simply playing into the hands of the former.
"The B. S. P. here simply cuts no ice. . . .
"What is wanted here is a sound, revolutionary, industrial organization and a Communist Party working along clear, well-defined, scientific lines. If our comrades can assist us in building these, we will take their help gladly; if they cannot, for God's sake let them keep out altogether, lest they betray the Revolution by lending their support to the reactionaries, who are so eagerly clamoring for Parliamentary 'honors' (?—the query belongs to the author of the letter), and who are so anxious to prove that they can rule as effectively as the 'Boss' class politicians themselves."
This letter to the editor splendidly expresses, in my opinion, the frame of mind and the viewpoint of young Communists, or of the rank and file of the workers who have just begun to arrive at Communism. This frame of mind is highly welcome and valuable; it is necessary to appreciate and support it, as, without it, the victory of the proletarian revolution in Britain, or in any other country, would be hopeless People who are able to express such a disposition of the masses, who are able to awaken in them such a mood (which often lies dormant, unconscious, and unawakened) should be cared for attentively and every assistance rendered them. At the same time, they must be told, frankly and openly, that that mood alone is not sufficient to guide the masses in the great revolutionary struggle, and that people devoted to the cause of the revolution may make mistakes which do actual harm to that cause itself. Comrade Gallacher's letter to the editor reveals, without doubt, in embryo all the errors which are being made by the German "Left" Communists, and which were committed by the Russian "Left" Bolsheviks in the years 1908 and 1918.
The author of the letter is full of the noblest proletarian hate towards class politicians of the bourgeoisie; and his hate is comprehensible and dear, not only to the proletariat, but to all toilers, to all "little people," to use the German expression. This hatred of the representative of oppressed and exploited masses is, indeed, "the beginning of all wisdom"; it is the basis of every Socialist and Communist movement and of its success. The author, however, evidently does not take into consideration the fact that politics is a science and an art which does not drop from the skies, and which cannot be obtained for nothing; and that the proletariat, if it wishes to overcome the bourgeoisie, must create for itself its own, proletarian, "class politicians," as capable as bourgeois politicians.
The author of the letter has understood excellently that not Parliament but Workers' Councils will be the way by which the proletariat will achieve its end; of course, those who have not yet understood this are the most vicious reactionaries, even though they be the most learned men, the most erudite Marxists, the most honest citizens and fathers of families. The author of the letter does not, however, even think of putting the question as to whether or not it is possible for the Soviets to vanquish Parliament without introducing "Soviet" workers into the latter, without disintegrating Parliament from within, without preparing inside Parliament the success of Soviets in the impending struggle for the dispersion of Parliament. At the same time, however, the author of the letter expresses the thoroughly right idea that the Communist Party in England must act upon a scientific basis. Science demands, in the first place, an evaluation of the experience of other countries, especially if those others are undergoing or have recently undergone a very similar experience; in the second place, it demands an evaluation of all forces, groups, parties, classes, masses, acting within the given country, and the determination of one's policy not merely according to the strength of the desires and views of one group or party, according to its degree of class consciousness and readiness for the struggle.
That the Hendersons, Clynes, McDonalds and Snowdens are hopelessly reactionary is true. It is also true that they want to take the power into their own hands (preferring, however, a coalition with the bourgeoisie), that they want to govern according to the same old rules of the bourgeoisie, and that they will inevitably behave, when in power, like the Scheidemanns and the Noskes. All this is true, but it does not necessarily follow that to support them means treason to the revolution; on the contrary, in the interests of the revolution, the revolutionaries of the working class must render to these gentlemen a certain parliamentary support.
To make this thought clearer, I shall take two contemporary English political documents, (1) the speech of Lloyd George, on March 18, 1920, as published in the Manchester Guardian on the following day, and (2) the arguments of the "Left" Communist, Comrade Sylvia Pankhurst, in her above-mentioned article.
Lloyd George in his speech argued against Asquith (who was specially invited to the meeting, but refused to appear) and those Liberals who desire, not a coalition with the Conservations, but a closer connection with the Labor Party. (In the letter of Comrade Gallacher we also find mention of the fact that Liberals are going over to the Independent Labor Party.) Lloyd George sought to prove that a coalition of the Liberals with the Conservatives, and a close one at that, was necessary, otherwise victory would be on the side of the Labor Party, which Lloyd George prefers to call "Socialist," and which strives towards collective ownership of the means of production. "In France it was known as Communism," the leader of the English bourgeoisie explained to his hearers (members of the Liberal Party who probably up to that time had been unaware of it), "in Germany it was known as Socialism, and in Russia it is known as Bolshevism." For the Liberals, explained Lloyd George, this is unacceptable on principle, as the Liberals on principle are for private property. "Civilization is in jeopardy," declared the orator, and, therefore, the Liberals and Conservatives must unite.
"If you go to the agricultural areas," said Lloyd George, "I agree that you have the old party divisions as strong as ever; they are far removed from the danger. It does not walk in their lanes. But when they see it they will be as strong as some of these industrial constituencies now are. Four-fifths of this country is industrial and commercial; hardly one-fifth is agricultural. It is one of the things I have constantly in my mind when I think of the dangers of the future here. In France the population is agricultural, and you have a solid body of opinion which does not move very rapidly, and which is not easily excited by revolutionary movements. That is not the case here. This country is more top-heavy than any country in the world, and if it begins to rock, the crash here, for that reason, will be greater than in any other land."
The reader sees from this that Mr. Lloyd George is not only a very clever man, but that he has learned much from the Marxists. It would not be committing a sin for us to learn something from Mr. Lloyd George.
It is interesting to note the following questions put after Mr. Lloyd George's speech:—Mr. Wallace: "I should like to ask what the Prime Minister considers the effect might be in industrial constituencies upon the industrial workers, so many of whom are Liberals at the present time and from whom we get so much support. Would not a possible result be to cause an immediate overwhelming accession of strength to the Labor party from men who, at the present time, are our cordial supporters"? The Prime Minister: "I take a totally different view. The fact that Liberals are fighting among themselves undoubtedly drives a very considerable number of Liberals in despair to the Labor Party, where you get a considerable body of Liberals, very able men, whose business it is to discredit the Government. The result is undoubtedly to bring a good accession of the public sentiment to the Labor Party. It does not go to the Liberals who are outside, it goes to the Labor Party, the by-elections show that."
By way of remark this discussion specially shows how the cleverest of the bourgeoisie have got into a muddle, and cannot help committing irreparable blunders. It is from this that the bourgeoisie will perish. Our people may commit stupidities, it is true, but so long as these stupidities be not vital and be corrected in time, we shall none the less conquer in the end.
Another political document gives the following arguments of the "Left" Communist, Comrade Sylvia Pankhurst:—
Comrade Inkpin (secretary of the British Socialist Party) refers to the Labor Party as "the main body of the working-class movement." Another comrade of the B. S. P., at the conference of the Third International just held, put the B. S. P. position more strongly. He said: "We regard the Labor Party as the organized working class."
We do not take this view of the Labor Party. The Labor party is very large numerically, though its membership is to a great extent quiescent and apathic, consisting of men and women who have joined the Trade Unions because their workmates are Trade Unionists and to share the friendly benefits. But we recognize that the great size of the Labor Party is also due to the fact that it is the creation of a school of thought beyond which the majority of the British working class has not yet emerged, though great changes are at work in the minds of the people, which will presently alter this state of affairs. The British Labor Party, like the social-patriotic organizations of other countries, will, in the natural development of society, inevitably come into power. It is for the Communists to build up the forces which will overthrow the social-patriots, and in this country we must not delay or falter in that work.
We must not dissipate our energy in adding to the strength of the Labor Party; its rise to power is inevitable. We must concentrate on making a Communist movement that will vanquish it. The Labor Party will soon be forming a government; the revolutionary opposition must get ready to attack it.
And so, the Liberal bourgeoisie renounce the bi-party system of the exploiters—historically sanctified by centuries of experience, and highly profitable to the exploiters—finding it necessary to join their forces for the fight against the Labor Party. Part of the Liberals, like rats deserting a sinking ship, run over to the Labor Party. The Left Communists find it inevitable that the power will fall into the hands of the Labor Party by a majority of working men. From this they draw the strange conclusion which Comrade Sylvia Pankhurst expresses as follows:—
A Communist Party must not enter into compromise. . . . A Communist Party must keep its doctrine pure, and its independence of reformism inviolate; its mission is to lead the way, without stopping or turning, by the direct road to the Communist revolution.
On the contrary, since the majority of the workers in Britain still support the British Scheidemanns and Kerenskys; since they have not yet experienced a government composed of such men, which experience was necessary in Russian and Germany before there was an exodus of the masses towards Communism, it follows without any doubt that the British Communists must participate in Parliament. They must from within Parliament help the workers to see in practice the results of the Henderson and Snowden government; they must help the Hendersons and Snowdens to vanquish Lloyd George and Churchill united. To act otherwise means to hamper the progress of the revolution; because, without an alteration in the views of the majority of the working class, revolution is impossible; and this change can be brought about the political experience of the masses alone, and never through propaganda alone. If an indisputably weak minority of the workers say "Forward, without compromise, without stopping or turning," their slogan is, on the face of it, wrong. They know, or at least they should know, that the majority, in the event of Henderson's and Snowden's victory over Lloyd George and Churchill, will, after a short time, be disappointed in its leaders, and will come over the communism—or at any rate to neutrality and, in most cases, to benevolent neutrality towards the Communists. It is as though ten thousand soldiers were to throw themselves into battle against fifty thousand of the enemy at a time when a reinforcement of one hundred thousand men is expected but is not immediately available; obviously, it is necessary at such a moment to stop, to turn, even to effect a compromise. This no-compromise slogan is intellectual childishness, and not the serious tactics of the revolutionary class.
The fundamental law of revolution confirmed by all revolutions, and particularly by all three Russian revolutions of the twentieth century, is as follows: It is not sufficient for the revolution that the exploited and oppressed masses understand the impossibility of living in the old way and demand changes; for the revolution it is necessary that the exploiters should not be able to live and rule as of old. Only when the masses do not want the old regime, and when the rulers are unable to govern as of old, then only can the revolution succeed. This truth may be expressed in other words: revolution is impossible without an all-national crisis, affecting both the exploited and the exploiters. It follows that for the revolution it is essential, first, that a majority of the workers (or at least a majority of the conscious, thinking, politically active workers) should fully understand the necessity for a revolution, and be ready to sacrifice their lives for it; second, that the ruling class be in a state of governmental crisis which attracts even the most backward masses into politics. It is a sign of every real revolution, this rapid tenfold, or even hundredfold, increase in the number of representatives of the toiling and oppressed masses, heretofore apathetic, who are able to carry on a political fight which weakens the government and facilitates its overthrow by the revolutionaries.
In Britain, as is seen specifically from Lloyd George's speech, both conditions for a successful proletarian revolution are obviously developing. And mistakes on the part of the Left Communists are now all the more dangerous just because some revolutionaries show an insufficiently penetrating, insufficiently attentive, conscious and foreseeing attitude, towards each of these conditions. If we are not a revolutionary group, but a party of the revolutionary class, and wish to carry the masses with us (without which we run the risk of remaining mere babblers), we must first help Henderson and Snowden to defeat Lloyd George and Churchill; or, to be more explicit, we must compel the former to defeat the latter, for the former are afraid of their victory! Secondly, we must help the majority of the working class to convince themselves, through their own experience, that we are right; that is, they must convince themselves of the utter worthlessness of the Hendersons and Snowdens, of their petit-bourgeois and treacherous natures, of the inevitability of their bankruptcy. Thirdly, we must accelerate the moment when, through the disappointment of the majority of the workers with the Hendersons, it will be possible, with serious chances of success, to overthrow the Henderson government—which will most certainly lose its head if the clever leader of, not the petit, but grand bourgeoisie, Lloyd George himself, loses his wits so completely and more weakens himself—and with himself the whole bourgeois party—yesterday through his "collisions" with Churchill, today with his "collisions" with Asquith.
Let me speak more concretely. The British Communists must, in my opinion, unite all their four parties and groups (all of them very weak, some very, very weak into one single Communist Party, on the platform of the principles of the Third International, with obligatory participation in Parliament. The Communist Party must offer to the Hendersons and Snowdens a compromise, an electoral understanding:—"Let us go together against the union of Lloyd George and Churchill; let us divide the seats in Parliament according to the number of votes cast by the workers for the Labor Party or the Communists (not in the elections but by a special poll), we to retain the fullest freedom of agitation, propaganda, and political activity." Without the latter condition there can, of course, be no bloc, for this would be treason; the British Communists must and will stand up for and maintain the fullest liberty in exposing the Hendersons and Snowdens, as did the Russian Bolsheviks for fifteen years (1903–1917) in relation to the Russian Hendersons and Snowdens, that is, the Mensheviks.
If the Hendersons and Snowdens accept the bloc on these conditions, then we are the gainers, for it is altogether immaterial how many seats in Parliament we get. On this point we shall make more concessions so long as the Hendersons, and especially their new friends (or should it be their new masters?) the Liberals, who have gone over to the Independent Labor Party—are keenest on this. We are the gainers, for we shall carry our propaganda into the masses at the very moment when Lloyd George himself has thrown the Labor Party a challenge; and we shall help, not only the Labor Party to form its Government the more speedily, but also the masses the sooner to understand our Communist propaganda, which we shall carry on ceaselessly against the Hendersons, overlooking nothing.
If the Hendersons and Snowdens reject a bloc on these conditions, we shall gain still more. For we have at once thus shown to the masses that the Hendersons prefer their own nearness to the capitalists to the unification of all the workers. In this connection it is to be noticed that even in purely Menshevik circles—i. e., the entirely opportunist independent Labor Party—the rank and file are for Soviets. We have at once gained in the eyes of the masses; they, after the highly accurate exposure of Lloyd George—highly useful for Communists—will sympathize with unification of all workers against the coalition of Lloyd George and Churchill. We score again in demonstrating that the Hendersons and Snowdens are afraid to defeat Lloyd George, are afraid to take the power alone, and are striving secretly to gain the support of Lloyd George, who is openly stretching a hand to Churchill against the Labor Party.
It should be noted that in Russia, after the revolution of February 27, 1917 (old style), the propaganda of the Bolsheviks against the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries (i. e., the Russian Hendersons and Snowdens) gained on account of precisely similar circumstances. We said to the Mensheviks and Social Revolutionaries: "Take the whole power without the bourgeoisie, for you have a majority in the Soviets." (At the First All-Russian Congress of Soviets, in June, 1917, the Bolsheviks had only 13 per cent. of the votes.) But the Russian Hendersons and Snowdens feared to take the power without the bourgeoisie. Consequently, when the latter kept delaying the elections to the Constituent Assembly (knowing full well that the majority of votes would go to the Social Revolutionaries and the Mensheviks, which parties were in the closest political bloc and represented in fact one petit-bourgeois democracy), they (the Socialist Revolutionaries and Mensheviks) were powerless to fight energetically against these delays.[3]
Should the Hendersons and Snowdens refuse to form a bloc with the Communists, the latter would have at once gained in the work of obtaining the sympathies of the masses and of discrediting the Hendersons and Snowdens; and if, on that account, the Communists should lose a few seats in Parliament, it would not matter very much to them. We would put forward our candidates only in very insignificant numbers, and only in absolutely safe districts, i.e., where our candidate would not help to elect a Liberal against a Laborite. We would carry on an election campaign, spreading literature in favor of Communism, and proposing in all districts where we have no candidates to vote for the Laborite against the bourgeois. Comrade Sylvia Pankhurst and Gallacher are mistaken if they think there is treason to Communism in this, or that it signifies the renunciation of the fight against social traitors. On the contrary, the cause of the Communist revolution could undoubtedly only gain by this.
At present it is often difficult for the British Communists even to approach the masses, even to make themselves heard. But if I address the masses as a Communist, and invite them to vote for Henderson against Lloyd George, I most certainly will be listened to. And, being listened to, I shall be able to popularize the idea, not only that Soviets are better than Parliaments, and that the dictatorship of the proletariat is better than the dictatorship of Churchill (disguised under the name of bourgeois "democracy"), but also that I am prepared to support Henderson by my vote in just the same way as a rope supports the man who has hanged himself. And, as the Hendersons draw nearer to the formation of their own government, it will be proved that I am right, it will draw the masses to my side and will facilitate the political death of the Hendersons and Snowdens, as happened in the case of their co-thinkers in Russia and in Germany.
And if the objection be raised: "These are too cunning and intricate tactics; the masses won't understand them; they scatter and disintegrate our forces; they will interfere with concentration on the Soviet revolution, etc.;" I shall reply to the "Left" critics: "Don't attribute your doctrinarism to the masses!" It is a matter of fact that the masses in Russian are not more but less advanced than in England; nevertheless, the masses did understand the Bolsheviks, and the latter were helped, not hindered, by the circumstances that, on the eve of the Soviet Revolution, in September, 1917, lists of their candidates for the bourgeois parliament (Constituent Assembly) were being prepared, and that on the morrow of the Soviet Revolution, in November, 1917, they were taking part in elections to the very same Constituent Assembly which, on January 5, 1918, was dispersed by them.
I cannot dwell here on the second point at issue between the British Communists; that is, the question of affiliation or non-affiliation to the Labor Party. I have too little information on this question, which is especially complicated on account of the quite unique composition of the British Labor Party, which is so very unlike the composition of the usual political parties on the Continent.
I have no doubt, however, that, on this question as well, he would be mistaken who would be inclined to draw up the tactics of the revolutionary proletariat on the principle that "the Communist Party must maintain its doctrine pure and its freedom from reformism inviolate; its slogan must be to go forward without stopping or turning aside, to follow the straight road to the Communist revolution." For such principles only repeat the mistakes of the French Communard-Blanquists who, in the year 1874, proclaimed the "repudiation" of all compromises and of all intermediary positions. Secondly, it is beyond question that the problem, here as everywhere, consists in the ability to apply the general and fundamental principles of Communism to the specific relations between classes and parties, to the specific conditions in the objective development towards Communism—conditions which are peculiar to every separate country, and which one must be able to study, understand, and point out.
But of this we shall have to speak not only in connection with British Communism, but in connection with the general conclusions pertaining to the development of Communism in all capitalist countries. These we shall now take up.
- ↑ Written before the formation of the Communist Party of Great Britain in August, 1920.
- ↑ I believe this party (the S. L. P.) is against affiliation with the Labor Party, but not all of its members oppose participation in Parliament.
- ↑ The elections to the Constituent Assembly in Russia in November, 1917, on a poll comprising more than thirty-six million electors, gave 25 per cent. of the votes to the Bolsheviks. 13 per cent. to the various parties of landlords and bourgeoisie, and 62 per cent. to petit-bourgeois democracy—i.e., to Socialist Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, together with small kindred groups.