Internal contestations are a norm if we seek to develop the revolutionary potential of any revolutionary movement. However, when contestation is subject to the muddy waters of bureaucratic machinations and contestation management it becomes an unpleasant scene. For any contestation to benefit the revolutionary movement it ought to be primarily based on ideas and not personalities. It needs to be based on meritocratic standards balanced out by democratic standards. Our movement needs a standard, and procedure to develop internal democracy. In this article I will venture into how internal contestations can be used as a catalyst for change, and how we ought to contest power internally.
Why do we contest internally?
"In inner party politics, these methods lead, as we shall yet see, to this: the party organisation substitutes itself for the party, the central committee substitutes itself for the organisation, and, finally, a dictator substitutes himself for the central committee." These words by Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky ring true to the nature of contestation that has unfolded in many revolutionary organisations. This is the residue of Stalinism which still grips certain structures and layers of the revolutionary movement. It is therefore of paramount importance that revolutionary activists and cadres keep the spirit of contestation alive in the revolutionary movement. We contest not because we just want to contest, but due to the fact that we have a perspective of how the revolutionary movement should move forward. The basis of any revolutionary contestation in the structures of the revolutionary movement ought to be based on ideas. If we still subscribe to the Leninist adage that there is no revolutionary movement without revolutionary theory we will then realise that our contestation has been misguided in most parts.
Internal contestation in the history of revolutionary movements has always been based on ideas. The difference that developed between Marx and Bakunin was based on the fundamental difference that the state is necessary to begin the liberation of the oppressed masses, while the latter believed that the revolution must immediately abolish the state. Needless to say Bakunin's ideas lost due to their illogical and impractical character. In the German Social-Democratic Party (SPD) the differences arose due to the belief held by Eduard Bernstein that socialism will not develop through revolutionary means but through evolutionary means (elections are seen as the pillar to achieve this), while Rosa Luxemburg held the belief that the revolution is the logical conclusion of the conflict between Capital and Labour. In the long run, Rosa Luxemburg was defeated in the SPD by the reformist faction, and she later co-founded the Spartacus League with Karl Liebknecht, which was later renamed the German Communist Party. In Russia, the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks emerged out of conditions of trying to figure out how to contest the Tsarist regime, and how they should structure the Party.This was the first battle field for the concept of Democratic Centralism, and it won through the course of history.
It is this concept that guides how we contest, and why we contest. However, the space in many revolutionary organisation has been marked with fear due to the fear of what would happen if one's preferred candidate loses. The problem is clear; we contest power based on personalities instead of ideas. There is no scientific appraisal of the development of the revolutionary movement and where we should direct it to. We contest internally to reorient the revolutionary movement towards the revolutionary path. However, not everyone contests on that basis as we have seen in the recent past. Some contest for personal accumulation, using the revolutionary movement as their personal wallet. These elements need to be contested and ultimately purged from the revolutionary movement. We contest to rectify fundamental problems, and not to entrench them. However, due to the development of studentism in our revolutionary movement we have seen this tendency escalate the contestation to entrench lumpen tendencies. In the process of reorientation the movement ought to honestly criticise and diagnose itself. It must analyse its successes and failures in order to come to the scientific conclusion of how to move forward.
Our revolutionary movement is a Marxist movement, and therefore subscribes to the Scientific method of observing, analysing, and implementation. Our methods of moving forward must be based on the analysis of the current material conditions which originate from the historical development of our society. It must also be steeped in the future that we ought to realise, hence, Marx calls us to change the world. We contest because we understand that there is a constant process called change. The material reality of 2022 and the material reality of 2019 are two different things due to how conditions have been changed by the recent developments such as COVID-19, and the military operation in Ukraine. We contest because we understand that to accurately respond to the malaise we are in we ought to change our posture. Our posture must be inward looking in order for us to understand how we ought to adapt to the current conditions.
The character of our contestation
The character of our contestation depends on the internal dynamics. If the internal dynamics don't allow for the exchange and the battle of ideas, we are bound to have a mudfest type of contestation. The mudfest contestation is a shameful exposure of the lack of political education that pervades our movement. The tendency of practice without theory, or rather practicism dominates our movement because the material reality of our political space is that of political entreprenuers (those that use politics for capitalist accumulation and personal advancement in the bourgeois class). Practicism finds expression because of the pervasiveness of reformism which is the norm in our political space. This norm sets in because there is no understanding of what a revolution is. Lenin simply put it as the overthrowal of the old system and replacing it with a new system. The failure to grasp this has led to many leaders of the revolutionary movement acting as brakes to the revolution. We simply contest the space because it is time to replace the reformists with revolutionaries.
A revolutionary ought to contest on the basis of ideas, and those ideas must rest upon science. I stress the importance of science primarily because most of our comrades fall for utopias that are never achieved due to the impracticality of the ideas. The need for comrades to base internal contestation on the scientific analysis and understanding of our struggle is due to how personalities obscure the material reality. We have based our contestation on subjective factors rather than starting from the objective and then moving to the subjective factor. Objective analysis will tell us that the revolutionary movement is in an impasse that will require us to take a great leap forward. This leap forward will not be taken without us understanding the current conditions, how they developed, and what they could possibly lead to if unchecked. We have concentrated on the promotion of names as primary instead of ideas. The ultimate reason why people are bound to be loyal to the movement is because they are brought it in through ideas, and then the name behind the idea solidifies that. When one is brought in through names and the names leave, loyalty wanes.
Ideas sustain the life of the Party. It is the oxygen of the movement, and we cannot have a live movement without the oxygen called ideas. The blood becomes democracy due to how democracy is necessary to sustain the renewal and constant development of the movement. Any movement that has a distorted internal democracy is bound to produce and reproduce ideological and political misfits. In a revolutionary movement, internal contestation ought to be characterised by credentials, and not just personalities. The credentials must be jointly analysed with the results produced in that particular portfolio or position. No revolutionary movement must entrust its strategic positions to comrades that have not meritocratically proved themselves. This means we must analyse your contribution to the movement through meritocratic lenses before sending you to the democratic lense. This is to save the movement from charlatans and demagogues who prey on the revolutionary movement and the popularity derived from leading a revolutionary movement.
What is to be done?
We must begin the process of remodelling our lobby groups around ideas rather than personalities due to the staying power of ideas over personalities. Personalities simply edify ideas, while ideas form personalities. In order for these ideas to be material realities we must contest without fear of reprisal. We must be given space to openly criticise without fear of reprisals, we must be given platforms to discuss the path of the revolutionary movement. Every campus/branch must be actively engaging the status quo in our sector, in the country, and the world. We must begin the process of pushing the ideas of the personality at the forefront, and base our campaign on the ideas the personality espouses.
While doing this, we must use the scientific lense of dialectical and historical materialism to understand the material forces at play, and how we ought to reorient the movement towards a revolutionary path. The material facts that confront us clearly call for a renewal which should be wholesale due to how the revolutionary movement's leadership has failed to ensure a succession plan. It is incumbent on the current generation to capture power by robustly lobbying, agitating, and engaging the comrades on the basis of ideas. It is no lie that the revolutionary movement needs a subjective realignment in order for us to link up with the objective factor. The strike wave which seems to be picking up needs to be linked decisively to the student struggle with the aim of connecting these struggles into one common struggle against the system. Internal contestations which fail to internalise this will move in the same trajectory, and ultimately be made irrelevant by historical developments.
It is through a scientific approach that we shall conquer the internal contradictions. It is through the Scientific Socialist method of analysis and change that we shall finally see the revival of the revolutionary movement of the oppressed masses of our people in the higher educaction sector.
Comments
Post a Comment