The Marxist nucleus or organization that does not direct its attention and energy to the existing struggles and organizations of the workers’ movement is condemned to become a sect, even if that is not the intention of its members. As fragile and degenerated as the working class organizations may be, ignoring their existence means conceding to “start from scratch”. Marxists must carry out their own propaganda activities and their own agitation, meetings, demonstrations, leaflets. But a key element of their activity must be to intervene in the existing organizations of the proletariat.
Especially for a young organization, building itself in the workers’ movement is the most important task to prevent becoming a sect, or becoming restricted to intellectual and petty-bourgeois circles. This does not mean that intellectuals cannot play an important role in building organizations, but that their eyes and their efforts must be turned to the proletarian movement.
The most common form of organization of the workers’ movement in times of subdued struggle is the union movement. In addition, other forms of organization exist, and should also receive attention from Marxists, such as the struggle for housing. In such cases, these organizations are not necessarily composed only of the proletariat and Marxists must emphasize proletarian class interests in their intervention.
The intervention of Marxists in other movements must not be guided by either liquidationism or by “apparatism”. Marxists do not enter the movement to “dance to the tune”, but rather to swim against the stream. It is a fact that we must support the workers’ struggles for improvements in our material conditions, however small and partial they may be. But in each of them, it is crucial to always point out the overcoming of the capitalist system as the central objective of the working class in our epoch.
One of the best ways to do this is through the use of transitional demands. These are demands that in themselves contain the germ of elements of transition to socialism. They are not the same as simply defending revolution or socialism. They mean linking the current needs and struggles of workers at every moment and in each context with the solution that only a society of transition to socialism, governed by the dictatorship of the proletariat, could truly achieve. Some transitional demands may, temporarily and to a limited extent, be accepted by bourgeois governments. But capitalists will seek to reverse them at the first opportunity.
If transitional demands are not, therefore, of a purely propagandist character, their main objective is educational. Among some transitional demands we can include: the distribution of working hours among all available workers, without wage reductions, to end unemployment; the increase of wages at the same pace of inflation, to prevent the erosion of living conditions by capitalist crisis; the expropriation without compensation of certain strategic capitalist industries, such as finance, land and heavy industry, under the control of workers; the construction of management committees in companies, which seek to rival the bosses; land for those who live and work on it; expropriation of agribusiness and capitalist farms; and equal pay for equal work, with the aim of eliminating wage cuts in oppressed sectors that favor employers.
These are just a few examples, but they do not exhaust the list of possible transitional demands. Obviously, this does not mean that Marxists leave aside minimal demands or democratic demands that are important for the workers’ movement. But the transitional program is the most important axis of agitation, though it cannot be achieved in each minor struggle. The transitional program emerges out of the real needs of the proletariat, not from its current level of consciousness. Therefore, it is to be expected that it will be received with skepticism by workers at certain times, but its necessity is objectively demonstrated as soon as struggles acquire more serious traits and move towards an open confrontation with the capitalists and the state.
It is revealing that many groups on the ostensibly socialist left which have turned to the perspective of a more rational or “human” administration of the bourgeois state and the capitalist system reject the transitional program; instead adopting as their main goalposts “taxation of the rich” and the adoption of a “universal basic income” or other social welfare program funded by a portion of capitalist profits. As stated, Marxists do not refuse reforms, and these measures could be gained from the capitalists in some contexts. But contrary to the harmonious perspective of the opportunists, who reconcile these demands with the continuity of capitalism and the ruling class in power, we contend that they could only be obtained temporarily, in a situation of advancing struggles, and that the capitalists would seek to reverse them as soon as possible. That is why the transitional program, by contrast, should not be seen as a set of reforms to be achieved within the framework of the system, or as an end in itself. It aims, instead, to pave the way for understanding the need for the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Apparatism means prioritizing control of the positions of power in workers’ organizations over the task of putting forward a revolutionary perspective, and often over the real influence of Marxists in the rank and file. Many small socialist currents try to control union apparatuses without often having the strength to manage them effectively. The struggle for the apparatus is also the easiest way for a Marxist nucleus to set aside its program and its objectives, as it starts to prioritize the maintenance of these positions, making spurious blocks with other forces and accommodating their speech and objectives. The main objective of a small Marxist nucleus is to broaden its bases of support, recognition and authority, while helping develop class consciousness in the workers’ movement.
An important tactic in many cases is the united front. It is an agreement among working class organizations to carry out a campaign of struggle or confrontation against the ruling class (even if in one company in particular) in the common interest of the workers. This is a useful tactic for the workers’ movement, for instance, to dismantle fascist groups, or to defeat the imposition of a measure against the working class. Marxists take advantage of the united fronts to “set the base against the leadership” of the bureaucratic, reformist or opportunistic organizations in general. In these contexts, we must be the ones who take it most seriously and dedicate ourselves actively to the efforts of the struggle, to show the superiority of the Marxist program in theory as well as in practice. In united fronts, Marxists do not issue common general political perspectives with other tendencies, and reserve themselves the right to criticize (and also to be criticized by) all participants. Frank political debate should not impede common action, except for sects (whether they are politically radical or moderate). The most succinct explanation of the united front is “to strike together for a common goal, but to march separately”.
The united front is not, contrary to what some think, an agreement or bloc of organizations to make joint political propaganda, with the intention of appearing to be a greater or more influential force, and which often takes the form of an electoral front. Such a practice is both dishonest, because it inevitably involves silencing the political differences between separate organizations, and liquidationist. Instead, if there is sufficient closeness between organizations in the context of a united front, Marxists would seek to direct the discussion towards a merger or regroupment, without this preventing the joint struggle in the front with other groups from continuing.