THE HISTORY of the British revolutionary and Trotskyist left is deeply marked by sectarianism Under cover of a distortion and fahification of the Worker rotary Party, he Kaderitip of the hisory of the wruggle of Lenin others claimed rithin their organisations I/ Trotskyist sectarian mytha, and have believed that the political differences on the revolutionary left in Britain toduy justify, on the basis of the principles of Lenin and Trotsky, a separation into different organisations (2).
It was to dispel this sectarian falsification that Red Weetle ran a series earlier this year entitled "Faction and Party" (l. This showed clearly that the political Siffermoes which Lenin and Trotsky considered could be contained within a united organisation were vastly greater than those which divide the organisations of the revolutionary left in Britain today. It is quite clear that any senous application of Leninist organisational principles demands not the devision of most of the organisations of the revolutionary left but instead March 1976 |4). This article contained grave errors. Not merely did it not have one single paragraph on the 17 year struggle of Trotsky inside and outside the Communist International but it contained elementary two organisations, and two parties. Zinoviev - History of the Bolshevik Party, p.96. into a weapon with which to continue the fight. Lenin -Vol. 7, p.457.
consent of all comrades and Party members, And our struggle against the Right Wing of the Party at the Congress, against Akimor and Axelrod, Martynor and Murtoy, in no way exceeded these bounds." 111) Thus the representarives of every position which had emerged in the groups before the Second Congress excluded from the RSDLP chrough a split by Lenin even the most outspoken Economists, Akimov and Martynov, were expirity members of the newly created Party. Lenin analysed the differences within the RSDEP at that time as being inevitably due to its rapid expansion. and that posicions of calling for splits and expulsions reflected hangovers from the sectarian "circle spicil' (13]While the founding of the Party was a great step forward, it therefore gave rise to faction struggles. Out of the disputes over ibe composition of the Central. Commirtee of the Party and the Editorial Mensheviks crystallised 113).
Lenin had been defeated at the Second Congress on the Party Riles, but he had gained a majority on the question of the compositiont of the Central Committee and Idilocial Board. However, while he and the Bolsheviks, acring on party principles, accepred disciMensbeviks refused to accep: discipline on their defeat ao the composition of the leading bodies. Starting with Martor, the Mensheviks began a policy of boycotts and resignations which rapidly brought the and principle and to raise the discussion of sectarianism to a serious political level [0]. To clarify the issues further, and to show again the errors of sections of the revolutionary left in Bricain, we devote this issue of By the end of 1903 we already had two clear-cut groups, The mode of action of each of the sides corresponded to its fundamental trend. The Party majority [Bolsheviks], anlous at all costs to preserve the Party's unity an rganisational conesion, tougnt only by loyal Party mean: and more than once made concessions for the sake of reaching a reconciliation. The minority [Mensheviks], following an anarchistic trend, showed no concer for eace and unity in the Party. They turned every concession To the Party [August 1904] Collected Works, the fight agains circle sectarianism. He nected under any Bircumstances giving up the fight for Bolshevik palitical positions (15]. At the same time however he rejeciod the concept that political events, and the struggle over organisation, had already definitively demonstrated the need for a split. Whereas Lenin declared in 1914 chat the gigantic event of the reaction of the Second International to the First World War Lad proved conclusively that not merely Russian bur international Menshevism were cnemies of sociazism, in 1903 he was clear that no such decisive lesteric test Are the sew-Iskrists (Menshevils] traitors to the proletarian cause? No. But they are inconsistent, wavering, opportunist champions of that cause land of the organisational sed tactical prisciples illuninating that cuuse). That is wity their position is opposed by the revolutionary social-democracy: (16)
In consequence Lenin rejected the position that there was a principled basis for a split into two different parties:
The differences in principle between Vperyod Whe Lenin with Mertov (front right Bolshevik paper| and the new Iskra are essentially the sarne as those hetween the old Iskra and Raboche Dyelo [the paper of the Keonomists): We consides these differences importunt, but, given the opportu nity fully to defend our views, the views of the old Iskra. we would nor consider these differences of themselves to be a bar to working sogether in one Party: (17)
Faced with such a sinuation the task was not to split ZINOVIEV fastly, scorning the philistine methods of circle wrangling, doing our utmost to preserve the burd-won single Party tie linking all Russian Social DemneIndeed, far from advocaring u split himself, Lenin considered that the Mensheviks" split maves revenle dearly the contrast between their anarchistic acts and the proletarian discipline of the Bolsbeviks:
corresponded to is fundamental trend. The Party majority (Bolsheviks), anxious at sil ensts do preserve the Parts's unity and organisational cohesion, Fought only by loyal Party means, and more then once made concessiums for the sake of reaching a reconciliation. The minority [Mensheviks), foliowing un anurchistic treed, showed no concern for peace and anity in the Purly. They turmed every concession into a weapon with which to continue the fight." (19)
The culmination of this attempr of the Bolsheviks to carry on the struggle against the Menshevika within the confines of a united pary was the call for the Third Party Congress. As Lenin put it:
*I think that preeisely with u view to the free clarification of principle it is mecessary to cilminate the crisis, to dear the atmosphere of sumabbies, and for that we need a congress, Not in order to cut short the struggle, but in order to brieg it withie mormal hounds." (20) Majority He considered that a new congress, the real alterative to the policy of boycorts and splits of the Mensheviks, was the only way to seleguard the unity of the Party:
We most try to find the frumework within which the ideological simgale can proceed more or les normally; a new congress is needed .... To think that a congress could only lead to a split would meun do adit that we huven't got a Party at all, that Parts feeling is so poorly developed umong ull of us that it cunnot evercome the old circle spirir ... The majority. at any rute, does mot wunt a split. (21)
By the beginning of 1905 the Bolsheviks had gained the support of the majority of the local party commitees far a congress, and under the constitution Menshevike should bave been compelled to call one. li was at this point thar the Mensheviks took the Tainanion to sweeturn the Parts Constitution alroee!