The article discusses the question of left unity and how to balance diversity of opinion and political unity. The author argues that the broadness of any left unity is relative to the political climate in which it finds itself, and that the left must be outward-facing and willing to infiltrate popular social institutions. The article concludes that there are no absolute formulas for left unity and that the approach must be tailored and multifaceted, with a focus on maximizing potential for infiltration while protecting against complicity and ideological compromise.
It is not uncommon to find in the dregs of my comment sections rather contradictory accusations. On one hand there will be the heroic anarchist, denouncing any sympathy for socialist states as a “tankie redfash” betrayal, whilst only a a few scrolls away we will find the unflinching state vanguardist, denouncing me as a “CIA liberal degenerate”. I often wish that these proletarian champions could perhaps converse with one another and decide between them which one is true, though I would of course point out that the existence of both accusations simultaneously seems to suggest I am in fact neither. Overall, Anarchists are often appear taken a back by my open appreciation of Marxist Leninist success, whilst state socialists are themselves shocked when their rosy nostalgia for dead socialist experiments is infringed upon by a critical post or comment.
These enthusiastic commentators illustrate the wider debate on left unity; who within the so called anti-capitalist bloc is our friend and who is our enemy? What are the red lines for leftists? How do we balance dogma and principle - diversity of opinion and political unity?
Thanks for reading Fight’s Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
I approach these questions I suppose from a slightly niche perspective. I have a decent online presence which I like to think has a healthy mix of different left views. Whilst this mix is good in the sense that it shows my page is generally broad in appeal and focused on the “issues which really matter” rather than partisan infighting, it is also annoyingly restrictive. It is true that critique of capitalism, neoliberalism and social conservativism are important tasks, but it is also vital to discuss the tougher subjects that are less likely to be so overwhelmingly agreed upon. Often, this arises around the question of “What do we replace capitalism with?”. In the propaganda arena, a rhetorical balance must be struck between the negative deconstruction of capitalist narratives and the more tricky positive anti-capitalist construction. In simple terms we cannot merely become a movement of Nos - we must also be able to say Yes to a coherent alternative. This rhetorical balance of propaganda focus is relative to the political climate; within a restricted environment, talk of the anti-capitalist alternative should be minimal, whilst capitalist critique - even the more narrow neoliberal critique - should dominate. In comparison, the pre-revolutionary situation (or even simply the more hospitable environment) demands a great deal of attention to the construction of a post capitalist alternative. Based on this it can be understood that the broadness of any left unity is also relative to the political climate in which it finds itself. The more political focus moves towards post-capitalist construction the greater the divides amongst the Left appear. That which unites us is de-emphasised, whilst our differences are exaggerated. It can be therefore concluded that in most western countries such as the US or UK, where the Left remains comparably weak, the principle of left unity must be applied most vigorously. In countries where a fascist threat is incredibly serious, the principle must be adhered to in its most extreme extent - it must go beyond its leftist restrictions, and offer a hand to the liberals, social democrats and even conservatives. Naturally, history teaches us where alliances with counter revolutionaries (Stalinists, liberals, social democrats) can lead. This possibility of betrayal should not however end any alliance, but should merely serve as a warning against our own ill preparation and complacency. When engaging with a left unity policy, we must understand that its own collapse is inevitable; we must be ready for the moment in which our allies turn against us. We must not however be the ones to strike first whilst a fascist threat maintains itself or while the political environment remains overwhelmingly backwards, the leftist must act selflessly and in the broadest of terms, rallying around calls for democracy and anti-fascism, rather than the specifics of post-capitalist construction.
When faced with the repressive environment of Tsarist Russia the Bolshevik Party was able to walk this fine line between negative deconstruction and positive construction with devastating effect. Isolating political enemies with a policy of ever shrinking left unity gradually transformed Russia’s political environment from the harshly reactionary (dominated by the Cadets and Octobrists) to the sharply progressive (dominated by the Left Social Revolutionaries and the Bolsheviks). In 1920s & 30s China, the Communist Party infected every prominent social institution so as to extend its reach to the apoliticial masses. The most notable example of this was the Communist infiltration of China’s many secret societies and clans, despite the often backwards and reactionary nature of these groups. Whilst not evidencing a “left unity” principle, this shows the far more important and underlying open-ness principle, which highlights the need for the communist movement to be outward (not inward looking). Existing popular social institutions (contemporary examples could be football clubs or social media platforms) that lack a revolutionary nature should be co-opted and transformed into fronts for progressive action. This underlying “infiltration” premise should also be the basis for the more “comradely” left unity policy. Other movements - social democratic, Stalinist, climate activist - should be embraced, but with the blunt desire for an ultimate eclipse and infiltration. The Left Unity policy should thus be applied when rational and in our own self interest, rather than through any moralist sentiment.
There will of course be instances where the desire for eclipse means the direct opposite of unity; it may call for militant separation. For example during the days of Russia's Provisional Government, the Bolsheviks boycotted the liberals and moderate socialists who continued to pursue war, refused to redistribute land and declined to hold elections. Untainted by the idiocy of the Provisional Government, the Bolshevik’s political boycott made victory in October inevitable. In this sense, attaching ourselves to undesirable institutions in such a way that makes us complicit in their crimes should be avoided at all costs.
There is no absolute formula which determines the balance between the outward facing Communist and the harmful complicity in undesirable action, yet it can be understood that the “outward facing” stage is most dominant in the primitive days of any communist movement, and that the ability to cut off from “harmful complicity” is increasing available as the revolutionary consciousness of the masses increases. When a substantial degree of political education has been achieved amongst the masses the avalanche of revolution is able to function with greater autonomy and will take on its own progressive initiative, as the Russian masses did so boldly in the months leading up to 1917. This gradual transition from an organised movement leading the masses, to the masses and the organised movement being equals, to - in its most mature stage - the masses leading the organised movement, is the indicating instrument with which questions of revolutionary organisation must be judged.
Ultimately, this strategy preaches above all else an opposition to uniformity and absolutism when it comes to unity. There are no red lines. In the most extreme contexts, work with conservative forces can be called progressive (when faced by the fascist threat) whilst in the most revolutionary situations a more partisan position must be taken. However, whilst there are no theoretical red lines, in reality limitations will exist. Organisations of the economically and socially regressive will be avoided in almost all circumstances, with reasons threefold. Firstly in such organisations the prospects of infiltration and eclipse are often negligible. Thus greater energy is required for an output which would be equal in the infiltration of a more progressive organisation. Secondly the more reactionary an organisation the more morally abhorrent co-operation becomes. Whilst this has no inherent value it itself, morally repulsive co-operation has a real impact in the demoralisation of cadres and can cause the deterioration of the pre-existing Left Bloc, thus counteracting any positive result of morally abhorrent co-operation. Lastly, engagement with reactionary sections of society can create a dangerous environment for communist agitators. When the Chinese Communists allied with the KMT (the Chinese Nationalists) they grew their influence significantly across China, apparently showing once again the power of an infiltration policy. However the effectiveness of communist openness led to a siege mentality amongst the most reactionary sections of the KMT, who took control of the party and launched a bloody suppression against the communists. During the repression over 300,000 Chinese communists were killed. Thus there are in fact de facto limits on the unity policy, even if in theory no such limitations exist.
In a post-revolutionary situation we may become our most partisan, disenfranchising all who disagree with us on capitalist deconstruction. However, we cannot come to censor those who disagree with us on the question of anticapitalist construction. Inevitably the authoritarian will claim that there will be those whose “anti-capitalist construction” amounts to a capitalist construction and in some cases this will undoubtedly be true. This does not however explain how such instances can be independently verified and censored, whilst at the same time preserving positive debate between socialists. In a world where the working masses may be censored or repressed by their own state or established institutions a clear substitutionism has occured, whereby the workers state has displaced the existing working class and replaced it with an idealised working class, one in which the state claims exclusive rights to. It is this line which separates my own thinking with that of the Bolsheviks who, in the name of the revolution, ultimately sacrificed the most revolutionary principle of all (proletarian democracy). We must express an unwavering tolerance for diverse proletarian thinking, even if, by some miracle of contradiction, upholding proletarian democracy results in the dismantling of said system. This is not simply an idealistic expression. By collapsing proletarian democracy to save it from itself, we establish a premise for cannibalistic self-suppression, thus making inevitable the death of the revolutionary mission and the victory of substitutionism. The fate of the USSR is proof of where proletarian suppression of the proletariat leads. In China and the DPRK we find the same. There may be many a time where the democratic masses find themselves in the wrong, but we must face these inconsistencies in open and furious debate, acknowledging that no higher authority exists above the proletarian’s right to speak for itself. In the post-revolutionary situation there can be no God, King or Party which seeks to mandate to the proletariat its destiny. Such action is nothing more than the condescension of the bourgeois mindset. Thus we must conclude that the constitutional broadness of the post-revolutionary society must be upheld, even if the left unity of the movement is weakened. The workers’ state and the monolithic state are incompatible; the proletariat is no monolith.
And so what can we conclude on the unity question? Who is Comrade and who is Enemy? Ultimately we must argue that such ironclad and oversimplified labels do not exist - that in every enemy there is opportunity as well as a threat, and in every comrade danger as well as an ally. We must not pursue either open unity or partisan sectarianism with militant dogmatism, but constantly shift our approach so as to maximise the potential for infiltration, whilst at the same time ensuring protection from complicity and ideological compromise. This means that every answer to the unity question must be heavily tailored and multifaceted; in the leftist approach to the Labour Party for example, there exists no absolute no or yes to collaboration. In reality the leftist should assess the current situation in the Labour Party and seize the political opportunity when it arises - voting for anti-Starmer candidates in NEC elections, support for SCG MPs - and make the appropriate political boycotts when necessary - reduced donations to the party apparatus, minimal energy paid to its campaigning efforts. We must be obstructors and dissenters not accomplices and passive observers when operating within established institutions. Nonetheless we cannot ignore the political might of the institutions themselves, and engagement with them remains necessary.
I will leave this article with a final note of warning; we cannot and must not let any mindless emotionalism guide our answers to the unity question. The Stalinist who denounces me as an “enemy of the people” ans the anarchist who proclaims me as subservient to the interests of “Bolshevik propaganda” does not do so out of rational self interest for the communist movement, but rather the blind rage that so often proliferates in the world of virtual politics. We cannot afford to cut off opportunities because of petty divisions and moralist squabbles. All too soon we will find ourselves isolated and reduced to a more individual, unable to do anything to stop the grinding tires of the capitalist machine.
Thanks for reading Fight’s Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.