
Speak to any member of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and they will tell you that they consistently build the United Front. They will tell you that United Against Fascism (UAF) and Love Music Hate Racism (LMHR) are both United Fronts. The problem is they are wrong and are not alone in their misunderstanding. The Permanent Revolution (PR) group, join them and the majority of the Left in getting the United Front wrong. Whilst PR does not go all the way along the road with SWP’s take on the United Front, they still manage to believe that a group of 30 people with no influence in the class has managed to form a United Front with the Labour Party. A United Front where the other party is ignorant of others existence by the way! The debate can be found
here.
The biggest and most obvious mistake PR have made is that they are not a Communist Party and are a group with no influence on the working class. The united front is done on a mass scale, I don’t see any section of the masses following PR at the moment. “If the use of this tactic is to advance the cause of Communism, the actual Communist Parties carrying it out must be strong, united and under an ideologically clear leadership.” [http://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/4th-congress/united-front.htm]
PR is not at that point. Neither is the majority of the Left. PR’s understanding or use of the United Front does not at all correspond with the theses accepted at the Fourth Congress of the Comintern.
The United Front tactic is to be deployed by parties which have won a significant layer of workers to communism. Trotsky is quite clear on this:
"wherever the Communist Party already constitutes a big, organized, political force, but not the decisive magnitude: wherever the party embraces organizationally, let us say, one-fourth, one-third, or even a larger proportion of the organized proletarian vanguard, it is confronted with the question of the united front in all its acuteness." [http://www.marx.org/archive/trotsky/1924/ffyci-2/08.htm]
The United Front tactic was introduced as workers’ were moving back towards the social democratic parties at the end of the slaughter of world war 1, it was about engaging with these workers and winning leadership of them. Over the last period the working class is abandoning the Labour Party and in the Euro elections will deal a severe beating to the Labour Party. The workers are not calling for unity with Labour Party in face of mounting assaults by capitalism, our class is having to defend itself against this onslaught led by the Labour Party.
Campaigns around school closures etc are simply campaign blocs. The United Front is a tactic of the Communist Party to win the adherents of social democracy/ labourism to socialism. In the UK we have no Communist Party. We are not even at the point communists were before the formation of the CPGB in 1920.
Trotsky is clear on what type of organisation should and can carry out the United Front tactic. Let’s look at Trotsky’s advice to the ILP, he is even more clear:
“QUESTION – Should the ILP terminate its united front with the CP?
ANSWER – Absolutely and categorically – yes! The ILP must learn to turn its back on the CP and towards the working masses. The permanent “unity committees” in which the ILP has sat with the CP were nonsense in any case. The ILP and the CPGB were propaganda organizations not mass organizations; united fronts between them were meaningless if each of them had the right to advance its own program. These programs must have been different or there would have been no justification for separate parties, and with different programs there is nothing to unite around. United fronts for certain specific actions could have been of some use, of course, but the only important united front for the ILP is with the Labour Party, the trade unions, the cooperatives. *At the moment, the ILP is too weak to secure these; it must first conquer the right for a united front by winning the support of the masses.* At this stage, united fronts with the CP will only compromise the ILP. Rupture with the CP is the first step towards a mass basis for the ILP and the achievement of a mass basis is the first step towards a proper united front, that is, a united front with the mass organizations.”[http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/xx/ilp.htm]
I think looking at what else Trotsky has to say on this is helpful (sorry for the length):
“to conquer the masses – the parties are divided quite naturally and logically into three large groups:
First, there are the parties which are but at the beginning of their successes and which are not yet in a position to play a big role in the immediate action of the masses. Naturally, these parties have a great future, like all the other communist parties, but right now they cannot count very much upon the action of the proletarian masses for they are numerically weak as organizations. Hence, these parties must fight for the time being for the conquest of a basis, of the possibility of influencing the proletariat in its action (our English party is now emerging from this situation with ever-increased success).
On the other side there are parties which completely dominate the proletariat. I believe comrade Kolarov is right in claiming that this is the case with Bulgaria. What does this mean? It means that Bulgaria is ripe for the proletarian revolution and that only international conditions stand in its way. It is clear that in such a situation the question of the united front scarcely exists. In Belgium and England, on the other hand, it signifies the struggle for the possibility of influencing the proletariat and of cooperating in its movement.
Between these two extremes, there are parties which represent a power, not only in ideas but also through their numerical and organizational strength. This is already the case with most of the communist parties. Their strength may come to a third of the organized vanguard, a fourth, even a half or a bit more – that does not alter the situation in general.
What task confronts these parties? To conquer the overwhelming majority of the proletariat. And to what end? To lead the proletariat to the conquest of power, to the revolution. When will this moment be reached? We do not know. Perhaps in six months, perhaps in six years. Maybe the interval will differ for the various countries between these two figures. But speaking theoretically, it is not excluded that this preparatory period will last even longer. In that case, I ask: What will we do during this period? Continue to fight for the conquest of the majority, for the confidence of the entire proletariat. But this will not be attained by today or tomorrow; for the moment we are the party of the vanguard of the proletariat. And now still another question: Should the class struggle stop meanwhile, until we have conquered the entire proletariat? I put this question to comrade Terracini and also to comrade Renoult: Should the struggle of the proletariat for its daily bread stop until the moment when the communist party, supported by the entire working class, is in a position to seize the power? No, this struggle does not stop, it continues. The workers who belong to our party and those who do not join it, like the members of the social-democratic party and others, all of them – depending on the stage and the character of the working class in question – are disposed and able to fight for their immediate interests; and the struggle for their immediate interests is always, in our epoch of great imperialist crisis, the beginning of a revolutionary struggle. (This is very important but I mention it here only parenthetically.)
Now then, the workers who do not join our party and who do not understand it (that is precisely the reason why they do not enter it), want to have the possibility to fight for the piece of daily bread, for the bit of meat, etc. They see before them the communist party, the socialist party, and they do not understand the reason why they have parted company. They belong to the reformist General Confederation of Labor [CGT], to the socialist party of Italy, etc., or else they do not belong to any party organization. Now, what do these workers think? They say: Let these organizations or sects – I don’t know how these not very conscious workers call them in their language – give us the possibility of conducting the fight for our daily needs. We cannot answer them: But we have separated in order to prepare your great future, your great day-after-tomorrow! They will not understand this, because they are completely absorbed by their “today”. If they were able to grasp this, to them, entirely theoretical argument, they would have joined our party. With such a mental outlook and confronted with the fact of different trade union and political organizations, they have no means of orienting themselves; they find it impossible to undertake any immediate action, no matter how small or partial. Along comes the communist party and tells them: Friends, we are divided. You think it’s a mistake; I want to explain the reasons. You don’t understand them? I regret it greatly, but we are already in existence, we communists, socialists, reformists and revolutionary syndicalists; we have our independent organizations for reasons which are entirely sufficient for us communists. Nevertheless we communists propose an immediate action in your struggle for bread and meat, we propose it to you and to your leaders, to every organization that represents a part of the proletariat!” [http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1922/02/uf.htm]
As you can see Trotsky is quite clear on which type of organisation should carry out the United Front tactic, that is those parties that have won a significant section of the vanguard and have the ability to engage the reformists in serious way both organisationally and politically. Groups the size of PR or even the ILP are not at this point. They are at the first stage that Trotsky describes, that is the fight for a Communist Party. That fight should guide our actions in the movement. That is the fight the CPGB has taken up.
The united front against fascism is about defeating the fascist threat but it is also about winning leadership of the class. Again we must go to Trotsky:
“The program of action must be strictly practical, strictly objective, to the point, without any of those artificial “claims,” without any reservations, so that every average Social Democratic worker can say to himself. what the Communists propose is completely indispensable for the struggle against fascism. On this basis, we must pull the Social Democratic workers along with us by our example, and criticize their leaders who will inevitably serve as a check and a brake. Only in this way is victory possible.” [http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/germany/1931/311208.htm]
I don’t think it is formalistic and at the same time revisionist to simply state that a little group PR cannot form a United Front with the Labour Party. It is what is written in the theses but more importantly, it also proven by reality.