Date: Fri, 18 Oct 96 11:37:29 GMT
From: Adam Rose <adam-AT-pmel.com>
Subject: Re: The question of leadership



Ignacio Domingo writes:
>         Comrade Rose writes:
> "A revolutionary party is required which unites revolutionary workers across
> any divisions which may exist in the working class. Without such a party,
> experience tells us there can be no revolution."
>         This might be, as it is, pure leninsm, but it is sadly not
> "experience". Some of the most noted revolutions in this century (USSR,
> Spain 1936, Cuba, Nicaragua...) were done by hungry peasants with a very low
> degree of militancy or organization, and not highly conscientious (good
> dictionary!)socialist workers. Either one accepts this, or one must declare
> that those were not "pure" revolutions. In any case, not "experience",>  sadly.

Sorry.
I should have said, "Without such a party, experience tells us there can
be no successful socialist revolution." 

Russia in 1917 was a workers revolution, in the sense that the working
class led the rest of society, ie the peasantry. Soviets became the
institution which governed Russia, not some form of peasant organisation.

Spain in 1936 was IMO essentially a working class revolution, which was
defeated because there was no revolutionary alternative to the counter
revolutionary Communist Party. Most of the people who worked the land
were agricultural workers, not peasants as in Russia in 1917. This 
explains the strength of Revolutionary syndicalism in the countryside.

Nicaragua and Cuba IMO were nationalist, anti Imperialist revolutions.
Neither resulted in socialist societies. In neither case did the
working class take power - in both cases, a middle class leadership
tried to build up national capital in what they hoped would be a less
unequal relationship to Imperialism.

But Ignacio is right, there is a contradiction between Leninism and
seeing Nicaragua and Cuba as socialist societies. Many, such as the
SWP-US, have followed this to its logical conclusion and ditched
Leninism.

>         Comrade Rose suggest that, until there is a big, organised, marxist
> party, which leads the working class in the right direction, neither
> revolution nor evolution will take place. The working class will always be
> defetaed, and many times with the help of "misguided" or "traitor" working
> class parties.

No, I am not this fatalistic. Out of the struggle, new tendencies emerge,
and old ones change. Lenin did not drop out his mothers womb a fully
formed revolutionary. He stood on the shoulders of the native Russian
revolutionary tradition, and developed his views as the struggle developed
nationally and internationally. Without the struggle, including both
temporary defeats and victories, this process of clarification and learning
cannot occur.

In Britain, this is happening. Workers are, before the election, drawing
conclusions about Blair. We have recieved a large number of signatures 
for our "Statement" , including a significant number of stewards committees,
shop stewards, unions reps, etc. This feeling is articulated and enhanced
by the existence of the SWP, but it would be there whether we existed 
or not. But an organised opposition to Blair in government, with real roots
in the trade union movement, will be crucial to the battles we will soon face
 - and I'm sure the lack of such an organisation in Italy is a real problem
( the RC recently supported the Olive Tree government's cuts, didn't it ? ).
Whether or not the SWP has sufficient roots and influence we will soon find
out. At present, I would say the jury is still out on this question.

Adam.



Adam Rose
SWP
Manchester
UK


---------------------------------------------------------------