In our series of revolutionary pamphlets Sean Vernell looks at Lenin's Left Wing Communism.
Lenin wrote this pamphlet in 1920. It describes how mass revolutionary parties can be built in countries where the trappings of liberal democracy parliaments, trade unions, mass reformist partieshave deep roots.
The Russian revolution in 1917 had been greeted by workers everywhere, and by 1919 the Russian workers' state had set up the (Third) Communist International with the task of building mass communist parties internationally. By 1920 the first immediate revolutionary wave had subsided. In this fluid situation, mistakes by revolutionaries could have disastrous effects on the working class movement.
Left Wing Communism was written in this context. Many of those who had become revolutionaries in these years were impatient, wanting to break completely with the old methods and the old parties. The isolation of the various communist parties from the working class, and the inexperience of their members and leaders, meant that these organisations fell easy prey to the 'disease' of ultra leftismto believing that they could ignore the job of patiently winning workers to revolutionary politics.
Lenin had to argue sharply against the ultra lefts. He stressed the importance of starting from where workers arenot where revolutionaries would like them to be, writing, 'We can (and must) begin to build socialism not with imaginary human material, or with human material specially prepared by us, but with human material bequeathed to us by capitalism.'
The usefulness of this elementary starting point can be seen in Lenin's argument on the question of participation in parliament. Some German socialists argued against parliamentary forms of struggle. For revolutionaries and the most advanced sections of workers, parliamentary democracy had been exposed as a sham, since power still lay in the hands of unelected captains of industry, police commissioners and generals.
However, the mass of workers in 1920who had moved to the leftstill believed that their interests could be met by parliamentary means. Lenin therefore stated, 'Clearly the "lefts" in Germany have mistaken their desire, their political-ideological attitude, for objective reality. That is the most dangerous mistake for revolutionaries.'
The task of breaking workers from their belief in parliament meant showing in practice that it could not deliver the sort of society necessary to meet the needs of the majority. There is no principle involved in standing or not standing in parliamentary elections. It is a tactical questiongiven the right conditions, standing for parliament can be used by revolutionaries to expose parliamentary democracy, and therefore raise workers' aspirations.
For example, after 13 demonstrators were shot dead by the British army in Derry in 1972, the Irish socialist MP, Bernadette Devlin, crossed the floor of the House of Commons and punched the Tory Home Secretary, Reginald Maudling, after he made a speech showing no remorse for the massacre. We have only to look at the tame 'opposition' from Labour today to see the difference.
Lenin criticised the view of some members of the newly formed British Communist Party, such as Sylvia Pankhurst, about abstaining from elections, and ignoring the Labour Party. He was concerned Communists should not cut themselves off from the working class. The Labour Party had 4 million members, and organisations could affiliate while maintaining their freedom to criticise the leadership. He argued, therefore, that the Communists should try to affiliate. Also Lenin was clear about the nature of the Labour Party, describing it as a 'capitalist workers' party'made up of trade union members, but with a leadership consisting of the 'worst kinds of bourgeois elements'.
Lenin's analysis of the basic nature of the Labour Party still applies today. The party remains linked to the trade unions and workers look to it for change. Labour's connection to the unions makes it different from openly capitalist parties. The important point about socialists seeing Labour as a 'bourgeois workers' party' is that it allows us to see that the structures and leadership of the party have a basically pro-capitalist approach, without turning our backs on the workers who support Labour.
Lenin also discussed the 'centrist' organisations which were growing quickly by the spring of 1920. These organisations were a reflection of the situation, as masses of workers became radicalised but had not been fully won to revolutionary politics. Centrist parties fit the consciousness of workers who have rejected official reformist parties but who do not yet have the confidence to break from the parliamentary road and use their own power to change society. The very nature of these organisations means that they vacillate between moving leftwards towards revolution and moving rightwards towards reformism. The leaders of such parties combine revolutionary language with reformist practice.
The appropriate response to such organisations depends on which way they are movingleft or rightand what forces they represent. One of the largest centrist formations in Germany in 1920 was the Independent Social Democratic Party (USPD) which was moving leftwards to accommodate radicalised workers. Because of this Lenin and the leadership of the German Spartakus League argued for joint work and joint organisation if necessary. The 'lefts' were opposed to any such joint activity, which they saw as capitulation to reformism. Lenin argued, however, that unless they did engage in such work they would remain isolated from large groups of workers leaving them prey to the reformists.
This pamphlet is crucial for an understanding of parliament, elections, and how socialists win workers away from reformist politics.