What Matters is What You're For, Not What You're Against
Lessons for Today: Workers' Fight & Lutte Ouvrière
Revolutionary politics often involves sharp criticism of the existing capitalist system, the state, and other political forces, including reformist and even rival revolutionary groups. This is a necessary part of defining one's position. However, historical experiences from Britain and France highlight a crucial lesson for revolutionaries today: simply being against something is insufficient; what truly matters is articulating, implementing, and building the capacity for what you are for. Failure to do so can lead to political ineffectiveness, confusion, and an inability to genuinely guide the working class towards emancipation.
The Pitfall of Just Being "Against"
Critiques of both the British organisation Workers' Fight (WF) and the French organisation Lutte Ouvrière (LO) illustrate the problems of primarily defining oneself by opposition. A critique of Workers' Fight points to the "habitual empty phrasemongering of British Trotskyists," suggesting rhetoric that is long on denunciation but short on substance regarding concrete plans. A key alleged weakness highlighted is the lack of a clear definition of organisational tasks, distinct from political tasks. This relates to the fundamental question of "what is to be done?" While they might be "against" the current state of affairs politically, the practical, organisational steps required to change it are not clearly laid out.
Similarly, Lutte Ouvrière faces repeated criticism for what is described as a "passive critique." LO writes extensively to criticise the actions of other groups, such as the Ligue Communiste Révolutionnaire (LCR), without proposing any alternative line or action themselves. In the context of strikes, LO is criticised for failing to explain how workers should organise after a struggle, on what slogans, and with what forms of struggle to pursue the fight. This is framed as a lack of practical guidance on "how to continue?" Their approach in factory bulletins is described as "economist," focusing on denouncing the failures of bureaucrats and complaining about immediate, even trivial, issues like vending machines or hot water, rather than clearly presenting a revolutionary political alternative and practical steps for change. LO is also seen as reluctant to put forward demands or slogans on their bulletins, reportedly because they do not propose what they cannot personally ensure will be realised. This hesitation highlights a focus on current limitations (against the possibility of immediate victory or full control) rather than a proactive stance on articulating what is needed (for advancing the struggle). This leads to a perceived "sentiment of helplessness" and a contrast with a more active approach to revolutionary intervention.
Beyond these specific groups, the problem is broader. Traditional French parties and unions, like the PCF, CGT, and CFDT, are criticised for being more defined by their integration into the existing system or their verbal opposition than by a clear, revolutionary path forward. The PCF, despite "left" verbalism, is described as having ceased fighting for the revolutionary transformation of society, instead aiming to conquer positions within the existing state. Their positions sometimes fall short of defending workers' immediate interests and may advocate dispersed rather than unified action. The direction of the CFDT is noted for not linking demands strategically (e.g., reduction of work time with salary issues or industrial policy), reflecting a disconnect between different aspects of a positive programme. Established unions can also tend towards "contractual action" over mobilisation and bureaucratic control, stifling initiatives from the base. Even within the Algerian FLN, there was an objective radicalisation, but the organisation itself served as a "catch-all" ('fourre-tout') encompassing both radical and conservative positions, lacking a clear, programmatic "for" beyond the immediate struggle for liberation.
The Necessity of Being "For": Articulating a Programme and Tasks
A revolutionary organisation must define not only what it is against, but crucially, what it is for. This involves:
Defining Tasks: The critique of Workers' Fight for lacking clear organisational tasks points to the need for revolutionaries to explicitly think through how political goals are to be achieved in practice. The LCR's criticism of LO echoes this, stressing the need for revolutionaries to assume and define organisational tasks and explain how workers should organise. This goes beyond general calls for action and requires concrete planning.
Developing a Programme and Strategy: Being "for" implies a programme—a set of demands and a strategy to achieve them. The importance of linking immediate demands with broader transitional or socialist goals is highlighted. Revolutions are not achieved by simply defending immediate interests; revolutionaries must articulate a path that moves from present struggles towards the goal of overthrowing capitalism and building socialism. The LCR criticises LO for failing to integrate the conscious role of the revolutionary organisation in proposing alternative tactics and guiding the fight within mass struggles. Demands and slogans must be linked to practical intervention.
Active Intervention and Mobilisation: A clear "for" requires active intervention. Calls for action are often only possible "at the place of action," suggesting a limitation in their ability to initiate or sustain broader, organised efforts. In contrast, revolutionaries must be capable of intervening in struggles, proposing concrete actions and forms of organisation. This is not just about being present, but about providing leadership and guidance. As the LCR argues against LO, focusing on criticising bureaucrats without proposing alternative tactics is insufficient.
Educating and Leading: Being "for" involves actively educating the working class. Revolutionaries cannot rely solely on the spontaneous development of consciousness. They must bring political knowledge to workers and explain complex political differences and their practical implications. The role of the revolutionary organisation is to be "a step ahead of the masses," clarifying the path forward rather than adapting to the "average worker's" current level of consciousness.
Building the Organisation: Ultimately, being "for" requires building a revolutionary organisation capable of implementing the programme and leading the struggle. This involves not just recruiting but training militants, diffusing knowledge, and establishing local structures. It requires a clear political line and the ability to differentiate it from reformist strategies.
Lessons from the FSLN and Challenges for Revolutionaries Today
The example of the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) in Nicaragua offers a contrasting perspective on being "for." The FSLN presented a "Plan of Struggle” as their programme for the people. They developed a "guide for the propagandist" to instruct militants on how to explain the programme, respond to counter-arguments from counter-revolutionaries, and emphasise assuming errors while presenting the Plan as a way for the people themselves to overcome problems with the FSLN's mobilisation. They explicitly linked the programme to their history of struggle and practical action through house visits and discussions. This demonstrates a conscious effort to articulate what they were for and actively engage the population in that vision.
For current revolutionaries, including those associated with the LCR tradition (which itself faced debates on how to fully articulate its "for" in certain areas, such as self-management theory or addressing new issues like ecology), the lesson is to avoid the trap of defining oneself primarily by opposition. While critique is essential, it must serve the purpose of advancing a clear, practical, and inspiring vision of the future and the steps needed to achieve it. This requires constant theoretical work, strategic planning, self-criticism, and a deep engagement with the practical struggles of the working class, not just observing or criticising them. The ability to explain what we are for and how we plan to get there, rather than merely denouncing what is wrong, is the key to building a genuinely revolutionary movement.
Further Reading
For those wishing to delve deeper into the historical experiences discussed and the source materials, the following French documents offer valuable insights:
"Le guide du propagandiste du Front" (The Front's Propagandist Guide): This excerpt details the practical methods used by FSLN militants in Nicaragua to explain their Plan of Struggle (see the English translation in October 1, 1984, Intercontinental Press) to the population. It provides arguments to counter "counter-revolutionary lies" and highlights the importance of an open but firm approach, capable of self-criticism and sensitive to the people's questions. The guide includes concrete suggestions for discussions during house visits and underscores the electoral campaign's significance as an opportunity to develop political consciousness and popular self-organisation. A related excerpt shows the FSLN specifically addressing women, detailing revolutionary gains for children and addressing women's own demands for equality, linking the programme to practical action like house visits. This document exemplifies an organisation consciously articulating and disseminating what it is for.
Texts on the CFDT Debate: "CFDT: des forces importantes pour redresser la barre" (CFDT: Important Forces to Right the Ship): These articles (and for a summary, see Critique Communiste) report on internal opposition within the CFDT trade union confederation, particularly critiquing the leadership's "recentering" towards integrating its action within a "durable capitalist system." Texts from the Basse-Normandie region and the Hacuitex federation reject the fundamental choices of the confederation, advocating for a class and mass unionism ("syndicalisme de classe et de masse") and explicitly calling for unity of action, primarily with the CGT, despite divergences, in the perspective of mobilising workers and pursuing an anti-capitalist struggle. This highlights a debate within a major workers' organisation over defining what it should be for in strategic terms.
"Lutte ouvrière" et la révolution mondiale ("Lutte Ouvrière" and the World Revolution): This document offers a critique of Lutte Ouvrière's (LO) analysis of revolutionary processes internationally. It examines LO's method of analysis and its implications, particularly concerning the nature of revolutions and state power in China, Cuba, and the popular democracies of Eastern Europe. The critique suggests theoretical and practical deviations in LO's approach, which, from the perspective of the analysis presented, hindered a clear understanding of the international revolutionary dynamic.
Critiques of Lutte Ouvrière's Practice and Theory in lutte ouvrière" ou la tendance prolétarienne": This comprehensive analysis delves into the structure and political practice of Lutte Ouvrière, contrasting it with the approach of the Ligue Communiste (LC/LCR). It critiques LO's system of press, particularly its factory bulletins, which are described as often focusing on immediate, even trivial, issues ("économiste") and lacking clear political slogans or alternative actions. The text highlights LO's perceived "passive critique" of other organisations and bureaucrats without proposing alternative lines or explaining how workers should organise or continue struggles. It points to a hesitation in defining specific organisational tasks and a tendency towards a "sentiment of helplessness" when struggles face difficulties. The critique suggests this approach focuses on what LO cannot immediately ensure rather than actively proposing and fighting for necessary steps. The document argues for the revolutionary organisation's necessity to assume and define organisational tasks and bring political knowledge to workers. It also touches upon LO's relationship with student movements.
"Construire le parti, construire l’Internationale" (Building the Party, Building the International): These documents stem from the preparatory debate for the founding congress of the Ligue Communiste. They are dedicated to the theory and system of organisation (Part 1) and the relationship between internationalism and the International (Part 2). These titles themselves indicate a focus on the active construction of the revolutionary instrument, defining the practical tasks required to achieve the revolutionary goal—explicitly outlining what the organisation is for in terms of its structure and international role.
"Pédagogie et crise de la bourgeoisie" (Pedagogy and Crisis of the Bourgeoisie): Authored by the teaching cell of the Ligue Communiste in Toulouse, this brochure analyses the education system within the context of the capitalist state. It critiques reformist approaches to education, including those from the PCF and certain union tendencies, highlighting their limitations in challenging the fundamental function of the school under bourgeois rule. The document aims to provide a basis for revolutionary militants in defining their line of struggle within the education sector, outlining orientations for transforming pedagogy and fighting the crisis of the bourgeoisie as it affects schooling.
"Fascisme et démocratie. Les formes de domination de l’état capitaliste. Suivi de Bonapartisme et fascisme" (Fascism and Democracy. Forms of Domination of the Capitalist State. Followed by Bonapartism and Fascism): This document provides a foundational Marxist theoretical analysis of different forms of the capitalist state, including bourgeois democracy, Bonapartism, and Fascism, including classic texts by Leon Trotsky on the subject. Understanding the nature of the state is crucial for revolutionaries to define what they are against (the capitalist state) and also implicitly shapes their understanding of what they are for (a workers' state, socialism), by defining the structures of domination that must be overthrown.
Critiques of the French Communist Party (PCF): See Critique communiste n°22, Février-Mars 1978 These excerpts include a discussion on the evolution of the PCF and the "Stalinist system," particularly focusing on the PCF's perceived "sectarian turn" after September 1977. One article is titled "PCF: the impossible strategy." Critiques of the PCF's positions, such as regarding a "capitalist private sector" within "advanced democracy" or their general political line, highlight the perceived lack of a viable revolutionary strategy. This serves as an example of a major political force whose strategy is analysed and found wanting from a revolutionary perspective, underscoring the need for revolutionaries to articulate a concrete alternative for achieving socialism.