AT the centre of Chris Harman's reply to the IMG there lies an important statement about the basis building united tionary party: ...if our two our organisations were agreed over our analysis of the present situation and what had to be done it would be very wrong of us indeed not to unite our forces' 'In the absence agreement', • the letter goes on, 'any talk of unity could only be a manoeuvre'.
Finally the letter concedes that 'to be able to unitv with other forces around a common appreciation of our tasks would make the job of revolutionaries a little tion does exist we will merely get continual sectarian wrangles.
Chris Harman is making a point about the basis for the unity of a revolutionary party in a general sense - that the basis on which we come together to bulld a party 15 'our analysis of the present situation and what has to be done' In other words, revolutionaries.come rogerer to our dardes on. we oasis or prior agreement on the precise tactical tasks of the period Many conclusions flow from this. not least that since there is supposed to be this predetermined disagreements that develop within a party have to be described as sectarian wrangl ing.
For tne HOL teal Class THE revolutionary party seeks to politically unify the working class.
example, among the British Socialist Party (the maior element in the was future CP) there are sincere Bolsheviks because of differences over lo merge communist party the 6, and 7 (three other groupings which later helped to form the CP)
opinion, would be making a mistake a thousand times greater than the mistaken refusal to to ine bourceors Parliament.' (Letter Sylvia So in 1919 Lenin was quite clear that revolutionaries, in one big communist rarty, was or an importanc hat for outweighed differences over ques tions as far-reaching as the correct attitude Why did Lenin put se much weight on this question of anity of evolutionaries in plication that from Lenin's point of view it big manoeuvre. Consistently through the history of the Bolshevik faction in Kussia up to its final split with the Mensheviks with the outbreak of the First World War, we can trace the same consis tent attitude on Lenin's part "LCHIES saeene an the Bolshevik faction after 1905 presents a silmilar example to illustrate this point.
After the 1905 revolution in Russia there was a big debate within the ranks of the Bolshevik faction on whether thev should boycott or take part on the elections to the newly established Duma. Factions alu ucle was a nerce debate. but both Bogdanov and Lenin, who led the fight on either side were agreed on one thing - neither tel -Enis disagreement justinea a spilt ana lne formation of seperate parties. •• Chris Harman refers to out 'aifferent lacues in une stee suke as amalor meica. tion of the impossibility of unity between our two organisations. The difference of approach embodied and the Steel Sheet are important. Bu since we no doubt agreed on the central issues that the subordinate their interests to the viability or ne maustry, mat le present cadersmy of the steel unions would in no way lead the fight to win; and that a new leadership is needed based on miltants at the base of •Cal questions really be used to argue against were What would Lenin have thought of these excuses from our lack of unity - he did took a compete v outerest amude on unt fundamental issue of the correct approach to institutions of the bourgeois state:
So what were the principles that Lenin Lanc many tionaries Lask by forming as a whole jority. ing' (a onestor because icvolutiollar looked to which allowed him to take such a consistent attitude to the unity of revoluThe revolutionary party exists for a very socc burbosc — to cao ana unl the working class in achieving its historic interests, the overthrow of capitalism and social revolution. This is no easy task rirst, it is no easy lask because the im very advanced a will only be overthrow capitalism will only brine working social onenty all - Thil • or nearly all -nave to be we mus asks ™ ocer the social revolution that marks the end of capitalism Revolutionaries in building a party are unity of the working to towardse working class towards this goal in tne nela or pontics brings us slap up against another big problem The working class of its destiny as a whole. It is divided by skill, age, pontical and cultura levers. between Dro ductive and unproductive workers and in se differences Even among revoluthese and divisions express Inemselves, so tnat alscovering unt best route to achieving the interests of the working class as a whole is again no easy This explains the whole history of the among revolutionaries, who are seeking to revolutionary movelc, Il exolas la realise the historic interests of the working class as a whole, there has to be the liveliest of debates and continual discussion.
It is this process of debate and discussion, of approaching problem:
Buner TOHOWIN! through differences and fighting for then tendencies anc factions when accessary. Wal s unc olly way to begill te approach the interests of the working class Coupled with this full debate within me ranks orrevondonares mere nas to de the utmost unity in action around a set of tactical prescriptions agreed by the maThis is the way that revolutionaries who are serious about the tasks confronane nen dave to benave shortcut to ensuring that the ideas of revolutionaries are right except to debate oscuss and unen to act. assess. and dcoatt again. This is not the 'sectarian wranglfavourite CP phrase) feared by Chris Harman. but the liveliest and bes tradition of the working class movement.
iy of revolutionards was an edering.
revolutionaries overriding • use nam revolutionary party is to unify the working class against the capitalist class. How can a DarLy nOD! succeca in unifying the class in the field of politics if it cannot even unite with others it sees as revolutonary because or arrerences over secondary questions?
----- pull-quotes -----
the SWP serious revolu-