Analysing factions
We must use materialist tools to analyse the origins of factions argues Alex Mohubetswane Mashilo*.
Our congress movement is characterised by factions. In various public platforms Cosatu president, Willie Madisha has condemned factions and their effects. Let us join hands with the president, and deal with the question of factions from the stand point of a materialist approach.In the run up to Cosatu’s National Congress held in 2006 and during the congress itself, factions were associated with processes and to make matters worse were suspicions of tribalism. But if there are factions, who is in them? What are the causes of these factions? What is the purpose of each faction? How long have these factions been in existence? What are their historical developments and associated dynamics? Is there, or has there ever been any floor-crossing between factions? If there is, who has done so, how many times? What is the solution?These are some but not all of the questions that must be answered by sincere discussions and empirical evidence.
Disruption of Unity Under Cover of Outcries for UnityI want to quote extracts from VI Lenin’s article Disruption of Unity Under Cover of Outcries for Unity (Published in May 1914 in a journal Prosveshcheniye Number 05; Signed – V. Ilyin.Source: Lenin Collected Works, Progress Publishers, 1972, Moscow, Volume 20, pages 325 to 347). This article can also be obtained from Marxists Internet Archive (MIA), www.marxists.org. The reasons for selecting Lenin’s article is to promote free discussions on factions and condemnations of factions and to promote a materialist approach, which treats things on the basis of empirical evidence. In this way we can examine the qualitative and quantitative aspects of these factions, their parts and historical connection, interpenetration and the environment within which they spring into existence. I also think that a materialist method will bring us closer to identifying correctly the contradictions, quantities and qualities of these factions and to identify what must be changed, in order, not to manage them, but to eradicate them. We must implement change where necessary, to eradicate factions. Let’s follow Lenin’s method, for instance.In his article he traces a claim by Trotsky, who had initiated a journal and called it “non-factional”. He also deals in the article with Trotsky’s claim that the journal was a workers’ journal:”Trotsky calls his new journal “non-factional”. He puts this word in the top line in his advertisements; this word is stressed by him in every key, in the editorial articles of Borba itself, as well as in the liquidationist Severnaya Rabochaya Gazeta, which carried an article on Borba by Trotsky before the latter began publication. What is this “non-factionalism”?” Thereafter Lenin concluded as follows:”Trotsky’s “workers’ journal” is Trotsky’s journal for workers, as there is not a trace in it of either workers’ initiative, or any connection with working-class organisations.”
Following the tools of analysis and calling things by their name, mainly drawing attention to Trotsky, Lenin identified that:
“…the label “non-factionalism” is used by the worst representatives of the worst remnants of factionalism to mislead the younger generation of workers.” After examining the then situation from the point of view of Paris or Vienna and listing factions or group divisions by their names Lenin turned back attention to Trotsky, based on his (Trotsky’s) role and arrived here:”And that fact proves that we were right in calling Trotsky a representative of the “worst remnants of factionalism””. And here: “Trotsky, however, possesses no ideological and political definiteness, for his patent for “non-factionalism”, as we shall soon see in greater detail, is merely a patent to flit freely to and fro, from one group to another.” After this point of arrival, but not to the final destination concerning Trotsky, with regards to his (Trotsky) sort of revolutionary but empty phrases Lenin borrowed an axiom:”All that glitters is not gold. There is much glitter and sound in Trotsky’s phrases, but they are meaningless.”At this point I would like to avoid rewriting Lenin’s article by quoting from it, but instead follow his methodology. But it is worth presenting how Lenin discussed Trotsky for the younger generation, not for the older participants because they knew him (Trotsky) very well. Lenin went as follows:”In the days of the old Iskra (1901–03), these waverers, who flitted from the Economists to the Iskrists and back again, were dubbed “Tushino turncoats” (the name given in the Troublous Times in Russia to fighting men who went over from one camp to another). When we speak of liquidationism we speak of a definite ideological trend, which grew up in the course of many years, stems from Menshevism and Economism in the twenty years’ history of Marxism, and is connected with the policy and ideology of a definite class “” the liberal bourgeoisie. The only ground the “Tushino turncoats” have for claiming that they stand above groups is that they “borrow” their ideas from one group one day and from another the next day. Trotsky was an ardent Iskrist in 1901–03, and Ryazanov described his role at the Congress of 1903 as “Lenin’s cudgel”. At the end of 1903, Trotsky was an ardent Menshevik, ie, he deserted from the Iskrists to the Economists. He said that “between the old Iskra and the new lies a gulf”. In 1904–05, he deserted the Mensheviks and occupied a vacillating position, now co-operating with Martynov (the Economist), now proclaiming his absurdly Left “permanent revolution” theory. In 1906–07, he approached the Bolsheviks, and in the spring of 1907 he declared that he was in agreement with Rosa Luxemburg. In the period of disintegration, after long “non-factional” vacillation, he again went to the right, and in August 1912, he entered into a bloc with the liquidators. He has now deserted them again, although in substance he reiterates their shoddy ideas. Such types are characteristic of the flotsam of past historical formations, of the time when the mass, working-class movement in Russia was still dormant, and when every group had “ample room” in which to pose as a trend, group or faction, in short, as a “power”, negotiating amalgamation with others. The younger generation of workers should know exactly whom they are dealing with, when individuals come before them with incredibly pretentious claims, unwilling absolutely to reckon with either the Party decisions, which since 1908 have defined and established our attitude towards liquidationism, or with the experience of the present-day working-class movement in Russia, which has actually brought about the unity of the majority on the basis of full recognition of the aforesaid decisions.”
Conclusion
It is time to follow the example set by Lenin. Discussions and condemnations of factions in the present and the future relating to the position of our congress movement must be made from sincerity, and within a materialist mode of understanding our present reality. In his article Lenin explained how he himself came to observe these factions. He analysed the economic and material conditions. He did not just point out that they meet in dark corners. He also explained how they functioned in the open, inside organisations and the structures of organisations. Lenin also identified, at least to the minimum, who belonged to these factions and who vacillated in time periods. What is interesting about Lenin’s approach is the manner in which he discussed the subject matter of factions openly and frankly, in response to Trotsky’s media campaign in the form of his (Trotsky’s) journal. Take for instance the following extract: “First of all we must express our thanks to Trotsky. Not long ago (from August 1912 to February 1914) he was at one with F. Dan, who, as is well known, threatened to “kill” anti-liquidationism, and called upon others to do so. At present Trotsky does not threaten to “kill” our trend (and our Party “” don’t be angry, Citizen Trotsky, this is true!), he only prophesies that it will kill itself!” Let us deal with our own South African situation, the situation of our congress movement, and identify existing things and people by their names, like Lenin did to his Russians.Discussion is hereby open to examine factions and ultimately eradicate them out of our congress movement.Let us build a united, strong revolutionary movement and its formations.
* Mashilo is head of Numsa’s education and training unit