Lastly, behind the stratum of average workers comes  the mass that constitutes the lower strata of the proletariat. It is quite possible that a socialist newspaper will be completely or well-nigh incomprehensible to them . . . but it would be absurd to conclude from this that the newspaper of  the social democrats should adapt itself to the lowest possible level of the workers. The only thing that follows from this is that different forms of agitation must be brought to bear on these strata -- pamphlets written in more popular language, oral agitation, and chiefly -- leaflets on local events . . . arousing the consciousness of the lower strata of the workers may have to take a form of legal educational activities".

The central idea contained in this passage, as we have already stated, is that within the working class there are different levels or gradations of class political conscionsness, ranging from the small stratum of advanced workers through to the middle strata of workers behind which is the lower strata of the working class. As Lenin explained the revolutionary newspaper "rust be aimed at the level of the advanced workers. It must not be adapted to the level of the avemge workers, nor must it be lowered to those on the lowest level of class political consciousness.

As we have explained, the original significance of the proletarian group was that of all the groups on the British left, it was Proletarian, standing alone who defended Lenin's view of different levels or gradations of class political consci~sness or awareness in the working class, and the related view that the revolutionary paper must be aimed at the level of the advanced workers. That is to say, the highest political level in the working class.

The differences between Proletarian and us, therefore, are differences at the highest level of the working class movement in this country. These differences cannot be understood in any other way. Our view is that while the leaders of Proletarian were able to defend Lenin's theory of different levels of political consciousness in the proletariat, that is to say defended this essential component of Leninism on the level of theory, in practice the leadership was too politically insecure to win over the advance workers. On the contrary, people who had little understanding of Marxist-Leninist theory were brought into the leadership to "strengthen" it against the advanced workers. It was this opportunist manoeuvre that led to the political crisis in Proletarian in March-April 1985. And it was precisely this crisis which led to the necessity to reassert the defence of Marxism-Leninism, this time not only on the level of theory, but also in practice.

The task of winning over the advanced workers, and continually reinforcing its ranks is the necessary basis for defeating opportunism in the British Communist and labour movement. This vanguard must be built on the basis of Marxism-Leninism. Such an organisation 'mist develop iron discipline in its ranks, and must be free of circ1e-spirit cliquism; it must train a leadership not paralysed by political insecurity of its leadership position.

As we have stated in the preceding part of this political statement, the foundation of Leninism is the theoretical view that there are different levels of class political awareness or consciousness in the working class. Because of these different levels of consci'1sness within the proletariat, the proletariat therefore, dialectically polarises into what Lenin defined as the conscious and the spontaneous element. In other words Lenin's theory of the conscious and the spontaneous element in the class struggle, arises out of, and is based on the idea of different levels of class political understanding in the working class.

This theoretical conception must guide the building of a Communist vanguard, its strategy and tactics, and of course, also guide the struggle to defeat opportunism in the labour movement. The precondition for the consolidation of a communist vanguard is the founding of a revolutionary newspaper, aimed at the level of the advance workers. This paper must seek to influence and follow developments in the working class movement, and follow national and international developments; also when resources permit follow developments in the natural sciences and psychology.

The genuine Communist vanguard must stand for ABSOLUTE AND UNCONDITIONAL DEFENCE OF THE SOVIET UNION, and the defence of all the socialist countries against the counterrevolutionary forces of imperialism who are the agents of the multinational monopolies. In this struggle against the reactionary political forces of imperialism, and its agents in all countries, communists cease to be communists if they fail to give active support in the struggle to force British Imperialism to withdraw from the north of Ireland.

The view that the bourgeois state can be transformed into an instrument effecting and guaranteeing the transition to socialism, does not represent simply an abstract theoretical error, unrelated to social and material experience. Rather, it is the real experience of certain strata of society in the labour movement. Long years of relative bourgeois economic, social and political stability, years when the real essence of the state was in the back-ground, so to speak, and events did not force it to come out openly in the defence of bourgeois class interests, are years when opportunism is particularly nurtured and encouraged in the working class movement.

To many, the view that the state can be reformed has a realistic ring to it. This view seems to conform more to 'reality', or at least to the experience of sufficient people to win support. On the other hand, the view of revolutionary science, that is, of Marxism-Leninism, appears to these opportunist forces as wooden dogma.

In these years, especially, it is widely felt that the capitalist state can play a consistently progressive role. This view is encouraged as the state intervenes more and more into the various areas of social life. This is certainly the case in countries with a long social-democratic tradition like Britain, where the reformists have held formal political power a number of times. However, if the capitalist state appears to play a progressive role, or in fact does in certain situations, this is more a reflection of the balance of class forces, rather than the progressive potentialities of the capitalist state.

The strength of the working class is always a factor behind certain reforms made by the bourgeoisie. This limited possibility of reform under certain situations, and when the bourgeoisie can allow some latitude in social policy, encourages the development of the opportunist idea about the potentially progressive nature of the capitalist state. In this opportunist atmosphere the main lessons of the history of the class struggle must not be forgotten. That is, in the power struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The defeat of opportunism is an absolute precondition for the victory of the working class. Without the political defeat of opportunism the proletariat itself will be defeated.

Finally, we now touch on the question of the communist movement in this country. The Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) is dominated by the opportunist forces and circles in the working class movement. Within the party there is a struggle between different opportunist tendencies for the leadership of the party. In the opportunist camp are the "Eurocommunists", the Morning Star grouping, and finally the "straight-Left' grouping. The leadership circles of both the Eurocommunists and the Morning Star grouping represent a left-reform1st tendency in the communist movement. From the standpoint of Marxism-Leninism, these people are right-opportunist, that is, they represent a form of right-wing deviation within the Communist movement. The Straight Leftist express a left-opportunist trend, however, the progressive pro-soviet stance of the Straight-Leftists separates this grouping from the Eurocommunists. While the Morning Star grouping has become increasingly pro-soviet, the opportunist leaders 0£ this trend bases itself on the reformist ideas contained in the "British Road to Socialism". They share this reformist platform with the Eurocommunists. Also, the right-opportunists reject the notion of the necessity for the dictatorship of the proletariat, in the transition from the old society to the new. For Marxists, however, dictatorship is necessary, in one degree or another, in the process of transition from capitalism to socialism.

Claiming to be opposed to opportunism, and committed to its defeat is the group calling itself "The Leninist". This grouping represents a form of left-deviationism with similarities to Trotskyism. Their sectarian posturing in the 1587 general election, which held the Tories in power, is a case in point. In this election they opposed the call for workers to vote Labour. obviously, the defeat of Labourism in the working class is at the centre of the struggle against reformist opportunism. In our opinion this is the task of the proletariat, with a Marxist-Leninist leadership at its head. We do not see this as the task of the Tories, no 'ratter how much we oppose labourism.

In contrast to the infantile sectarianism of The Leninist", we have the tailist opportunism of the New Communist Party (NCP). This grouping calling itself Marxist-Leninist, bases its practice on a completely one-sided appraisal of the Labour Party, to which it seeks to affiliate as a matter of principle.

In their quest to unite with opportunism of the most anti-Communist variety, the NCP declares that "... .the New Communist Party's policy is to call upon the working class to vote Labour everywhere. It does not put up candidates in opposition to Labour in general or municipal elections'.

The NCP cannot put up candidates in opposition to Labourism because, as they inform the reader, 'Our aim is to build our party in the context of strengthening the 1abour movement. We believe that this is an effective way to work towards a situation where the working class is involved in the necessary campaign to enable the New Communist Party to affiliate to the Labour Party'. (NCP pamphlet, "For communist Unity" p.7)

It is clear from thin, that the NCP's whole tactic leads to tying the working class to Labourism, by not presenting it with an alternative leadership, through their policy of affiliating to the election machine of labourism, as a principle. While speaking about the need for a vanguard, the NCP has thrown Marxism-Leninism out of the window, becoming nothing more than a support group for labourism.

The struggle against opportunism in the labour movement is rot only a struggle against the reformist dogma represented by the "British Road to socialism", the programme of the communist Party of Great Britain, but is also against the one-sided mistaken views represented by the NCP, especially the view that Communists must seek affiliation to the Labour Party as a principle. As for the question of economism, the NCP assumes a completely anti-Leninist posture; that is to say, this organisation concentrates mainly on the economic struggles of the working class, in a one-sided way. For instance, this is what the NCP pamphlet says:

'The struggle for wages is of central political importance because of their direct relationship to all economic factors. They are the main means of subsistence of the working class and therefore the issue around which the workers are the most readily mobilised into action'.

Anyone with a basic education in Marxist-Leninist ideas will recognise that the author of the above lines has carried anti-Leninism to the most extreme point on this matter. Lenin, in fact, held the very opposite view. For the benefit of the Economists in the NCP, we shall quote Lenin's position; this is especially of great importance since the traditional British communist movement has never grasp and put into practice Lenin's ideas on this issue. Lenin wrote the following:

All manifestations of oppression and outrage, and not only those which are connected with the economic struggle, must be used to draw the masses into the political struggle. The failure of British communists to learn this lesson is precisely what the NCP expresses today. The NCP wants to teach the British working class trade unionism! Communists participate in the economic struggles to defend the living standards of the working class, at the same time we recognise that these struggles are not enough; this means it is important to participate and raise issues that are not connected with the economic struggles alone. Whether the approach of the NCP is reactionary Lenin would have had no doubts, as the following shows:

To this we can only add that it is one of the primary duties of Communists to fight against all those people, Economists Lenin termed them, who strive to tie the working class movement only or mainly to economic issues. Economism is a profoundly reactionary practice, based on a reactionary view. The development of a highly political labour movement is one of the main goals of Marxists.

The last group, which we would like to outline our attitude towards, is the Revolutionary communist Group (RCG). This grouping, which initially started out basing itself on Trotskyist views, has subsequently, mercilessly rejected Trotskyism, and now represents a tendency moving in the direction of Marxism-Leninism. Opposed to the opportunism in the traditional communist movement, this grouping still contains certain leftist weaknesses, and has failed, up to this date to provide a comprehensive criticism of Trotskyism. Another weakness within this grouping is that they show a tendency to have a very unhealthy sectarianism to the organised trade union movement. The fate of the RCG will depend on how seriously its leaders take the theoretical struggle, not only against the right-deviation within the British Communist movement, but also against the left-deviation, expressed mainly by the Trotskyists.

To conclude, this document is a product of our differences with Proletarian, a group which, in our view, is unable to put the Marxist-Leninist theory of winning over the advanced workers into practice. In this document we have reaffirmed central tenets of Leninism, that there are different levels of class political understanding in the working class, and that the revolutionary paper must be aimed at the level of the advanced workers.

We have outlined, in general terms, our attitude towards Trotskyism (which we consider to be a petty-bourgeois left-deviation) and described their attitude to a number of issues, an example being the Soviet Union, and the post-Leninist Trotskyist ultra-left opposition to building socialism in one country. Our General criticism of Trotskyism will be made more concrete in the future (SEE NOTE). We have also outlined our position in relation to the right-opportunist forces in this country.