REPLY TO PROLETARIAN, April 1985
I have read the letter, which Proletarian sent to Richard. This letter was accompanied by another, shorter letter, which concluded in the following way: "Naturally the contents of the enclosed letter are directed also at you, in case you hadn't realised".
This letter, apparently, is aimed at Richard and his associates, but as you can see from above, the letter is also purported to be aimed at myself!
In the letter sent to Richard, K. Nilsen states that, 'I would be the first to agree that there have been problems in developing Proletarian. However, the acid test (note he says the acid test) has been whether its supporters have been able through their collective discipline and commitment to master these frustrations and overcome these problems, or whether they have succumbed to the forces of despondency and impatience and beaten their own individualistic retreat to the petty-bourgeois camp'
K. Nilsen may well be 'The first to agree' that there have been problems in developing Proletarian, but he may well be the last to agree that part, and a substantial part of this problem was an inability to give correct political leadership, which could win over the more politically independent elements of Proletarian supporters, as opposed to his immediate personal or semi-personal followings.
So the initial acid test of Proletarian in its first stage of development was not the acid test of discipline as opposed to or separated from the test, indeed the acid test of leadership.
Nowhere in the letter to Richard do we see any criticism of the leadership of Proletarian. This is not surprising, since the leadership of Proletarian was the leadership of K. Nilsen, which in London had reduced the organisation to a shambles. This included unsubstantiated slanders from certain members of the leadership,
The letter sent to Richard is undialectical in that it fails to establish any relationship, any connection with the leadership of Proletarian. (By the way, the leadership techniques of Proletarian were under constant scrutiny, 'in case you hadn't realised')
Having failed to establish any connection between the incorrect leadership of Proletarian, although we hear a reassuring squeak from K. Nilsen, i.e., 'I would be the first to agree that there have been problems in developing Proletarian' etc., the blame must be put on others. This is why discipline becomes the acid test, and leadership is nowhere mentioned.
If the majority of people who resigned from Proletarian still defend the basic ideas of Proletarian, then their differences must be other than theoretical differences. That is to say that to find the differences would mean establishing them on an organisational level, or a political level, which includes the important questions of strategy and tactics. In so far as there were differences within Proletarian on these other questions, unity and discipline could only be relative. And the relativeness of this unity and discipline was facilitated by incorrect leadership.
The presentation of the acid test, at this stage, as being the question of firmness and discipline, in view of the mistakes of the leadership cannot be accepted. Why cannot it be accepted? It cannot be accepted because the kind of ABSOLUTE IRON discipline required by the Proletariat could not be achieved by an inexperienced political leadership. It is no wonder that Lenin warned about clowning about discipline. The following passage taken from Lenin's "Left-Wing Communism, an Infantile Disorder" is important in this respect.
"How is the discipline of the proletariat's revolutionary party maintained? How is it tested? How is it reinforced?
First, by the class-consciousness of the Proletariat and by its devotion to the revolution, by its tenacity, self-sacrifice and heroism.
Second, by its ability to link up, maintain the closest contact and, if you wish, merge, in certain measure, with the broadest masses of the working people...primarily with the proletariat, but also with the non-proletarian masses of the working people.
Third, by the correctness of the political leadership exercised by this vanguard, by the correctness of its political strategy and tactics, provided the broad masses have seen, from their own experience that they are correct.
Without these conditions, discipline in a revolutionary party really capable of being the party of the advance class, whose mission is to overthrow the bourgeoisie and transform the whole of society, cannot be achieved. Without these conditions, all attempts to establish discipline inevitably fall flat and end up in phrase-mongering and clowning...etc.'
This was Lenin's approach to discipline, and although what he has in mind here is a mass party, and not a small group, his many-sided approach to discipline is opposed to the phrase-mongering I have seen in Proletarian on this subject.
In my view the letter sent to Richard, pretending to be against opportunists and opportunism is a further vindication of the sectarian mentality of Proletarian. The vanguard, and in particular the advanced workers cannot be won over on the theoretical level alone, rather such elements can only be won over on all levels, theoretical, political, organisational, and on the level of strategy and tactics.
The picture which K. Nilsen paints of events within Proletarian is false and corresponds to his own one-sided view of these events. The picture that he paints is one of firm 'proletarians' on the one hand, and on the other, unstable petty-bourgeois elements, which he attempts to label as 'opportunists'.
To use this schema to guide our understanding of the true nature of developments within proletarian is to confuse Proletarian's members. The only schema which can guide our understanding of developments within Proletarian over the past period is, or must include the schema I have put forward; which is that of a politically inexperienced, sectarian leadership which attempted to win over the leadership of advance workers, and developing average workers, through opportunist tactics and manoeuvres...which in the end failed.
I can only conclude by saying that the kind of iron discipline which is necessary to lead a proletarian revolution cannot be forged by the kind of antics a number of people have experienced in the Proletarian group.
So, the false presentation of the developments within Proletarian as being a division between opportunist, unstable elements on the one hand, and on the other, principled elements is a schema concocted by K. Nilsen to justify and explain away the opportunist mistakes of Proletarian, a product of sectarianism and inexperience. Lenin pointed out that a number of conditions were necessary to establish real discipline.
'They are created only by prolonged effort and hard-won experience. Their creation is facilitated by a correct, revolutionary theory, which, in its turn, is not a dogma, but assumes final shape only in close connection with the practical activity of a truly mass and a truly revolutionary movement'
(Lenin, Left-wing communism)