Labour Leninists Welcome Spark's Report

national | anti-capitalism | press release Friday December 05, 2008 12:06 by Lenin12343 - Labour Leninists

After analysing reports and leaks from the '21st Century Labour'
review of party structures headed up by Greg Sparks, the 'Labour
Leninists Faction' within the Party has strongly endorsed the
recommendations as a welcome return to sound organisational
principles.

Lenin (or is it Sparks?)

The report moves decisively to strengthen the base of the party and
return it to organisational approaches which have been set out by
Comrade V. I. Lenin and tried and tested by left parties in the
intervening decades.

The three key initiatives which characterise the report and will
return party structures to Leninist norms are:
- the central place of the leader
- the role of trade union organisations
- the elimination of horizontalism

The Central Place of the Leader

The Second Congress of the Communist International in July-August 1920
(and in fact the first real one, as the first merely established the
rudiments of a new International) adopted both the Statutes and the 21
Conditions. The former demanded 'a strongly centralised organisation'
and granted the ECCI (Executive Committee) supreme power) while the
latter, in Point 12, which declares Democratic Centralism a principle,
demands on organisation 'as centralised as possible', with 'iron
discipline', and a party centre 'equipped with the most comprehensive
powers'.

Using modern language this is what Spark's offers the membership of
the Labour Party.

In 'What is to be done?'(1902) Lenin wanted membership to be
restricted to a few professional leaders, and for the party to be a
centralized and elitist agent that organized and led the proletariat.
Many people, including Plekhanov and Martov, called his ideas
dictatorial and preferred a more moderate party structure – who will
fill their reformist shoes when we get to debate this in Mullingar?
Lenin stood firm on his views, which split the Marxist Party into
Lenin's group, the Bolsheviks or majority, and Martov's group, the
Mensheviks or minority. They would debate and fight for years within
the party until Lenin made the final split in 1912 in the Prague
Conference for the Bolshevik Party. Labour Leninists do not advocate
such a split in the Labour Party but strongly urge a similar holding
firm by Sparks and Gilmore against elements who will preach
'democracy' and 'accountablity' rather than revolutionary
effectiveness.

Under Stalin, the key role in the Communist Party became the role of
General Secretary. Within the Irish party historical context this
would not be appropriate and this explains the decision to suppress
that role in the Sparks report.

The correct role of the Trade Unions

Lenin set out in detail the correct relationship with the Trade Union
movement, rejecting the 'neutralism' which put forward the erroneous
analysis that there was 'no place in the union for politics'. But
Lenin also rejecting the notion that trade unions should be
represented on the ruling body of the party. He argued that this idea
"mixes up the 'music of the future' with the organisational forms of
the present" and can only be achieved when all trade unions are
socialists.

We are a long way yet from that and Sparks is quite right to realign
the relationship of party and trade unions and to establish the
Executive Committee and Leader as the basis on which the
radicalisation of the Trade Union rank and file will emerge.

In Preface to the Pamphlet by Voinov (A. V. Lunacharsky) on the
Attitude of the Party Towards the Trade Union (1907) Lenin stated
that:

What distinguishes Bolshevism from Menshevism is not that the former
"repudiates" work in the trade unions or the co-operative societies,
etc., but that the former takes a different line in the work of
propaganda, agitation, and organisation of the working class. Today
activity in the trade unions undoubtedly assumes tremendous
importance. In contrast to the neutralism of the Mensheviks we must
conduct this activity on the lines of closer alignment of the unions
with the Party, of the development of socialist consciousness and an
understanding of the revolutionary tasks of the proletariat. …

" …. But I am not in the least afraid of Comrade Voinov's perspective,
namely: "subordination of political organisations to a class social
organisation" ... "only when [I am still quoting Comrade Voinov,
stressing the important words]... all trade-unionists will have become
socialists".

Sparks in other words…

3. Elimination of Horizontalism

The correct orientation of power within a left party is vertical and
hierarchical. This is in keeping both with Marxist analysis, the
emphasis on centralised control in the Communist Manifesto and all the
experience of left parties in the last 100 years. In recent years in
the Irish Labour Party, under 'reformers' such as Quinn, horizontal
associations between party structures have not only been permitted but
actually encouraged and rewarded with seats on the Executive etc.
Units which share similar ideas – and, worse, similar , so called,
'identities' - have been allowed to work together without reference to
the vertical structures of branch and constituency secretary.

This has undermined the party apparatus and necessary authority of TDs
who correctly must exercise ideological and organisational authority
over those vertical structures. Members have been allowed to serve on
the central Executive Committee without the agreement or involvement
of local party structures or elected representatives in their own home
base. The low level of party discipline and our incapacity to win the
war of ideas in recent years can be directly explained by this
misplaced emphasis on horizontal structures and the refusal of certain
elements to subordinate their sexual/gender identifies to the vertical
structures of party democracy and authority. While it is important to
acknowledge that individual horizontalist structures – such as Labour
Youth – have played a generally progressive role in recent years,
Lenin's clarity on the danger of such approaches and the risk of
autonomy that they bring cannot be ignored. Again Sparks is correct to
eliminate this creeping anarchism from a party which needs the
ruthless, efficiency of modern capitalism if it is to confront and
overthrow it.

Conclusion

Given his class background, Labour Leninist did not have high hopes
for the Sparks review of the party structures. We are pleasantly
surprised with the rigorous analysis which he has undertaken and his
adherence to Leninist norms in party organisation. No doubt Sparks
insider knowledge of capitalisms workings informed him – like Engels
before him – on the best ways to challenge and overcome its hegemony.

We look forward to this document being brought forward to conference
where it will receive our vigorous and forthright support. We believe
that its proposals will position the Labour Party in an ideal
relationship with the Irish working class to take advantage of the
revolutionary circumstances that will undoubtedly arise with the
collapse of neo-liberal capitalism and the pauperisation of the Irish
working class.