The first congress of the third internationale took place in 1919 and the second in 1920. It was during the second congress that the plenary discussed organisational strategy and tactics, programme of action and also the national and colonial question.
The critical debate was about the role of the national bourgeoisie in revolutionary movements in the colonial countries. The debate on national bourgeois revolution and national democratic revolution.
This was the essence of the debate which took the centre stage between Vladimir Lenin and M. N. Roy, a communist from India, who when he was in exile, became the first General Secretary of the Communist party of Mexico.
The argument between was on the basis of the submission by Lenin to the plenary, the paper on his concept of national bourgeois revolution, which Roy opposed on the basis that without the leading role of the bourgeoisie, the revolution ceases to be bourgeois but remains to be democratic. Hence the agreement on the universal thesis of national democratic revolution, which over the years defined the relationship between the world communist movements and national liberation movements.
But of coarse we need to appreciate that this theoretical framework has caused lot of differences on the strategy and tactics of Communist parties in different parts of the world on different historical periods, which in many instances, led to the demise of most of the powerful communist parties.
For example, the six congress of the communist internationale which was held in 1929, advised the Communisr party of India to abonden the Indian National Congress on the premise that it was an organization of the national bourgeoisie.
The party resorted to take a separate way organising workers and peasants for the establishment of the Soviet Republic under the dictatorship of the proletariat. The party wrongfully regarded the proletariat, as the only class alone, from other social forces and strata, to lead the anti imperialist colonial struggles.
The rest is what history witnessed in India, of the Communist party disintegrating but the congress movement remaining to be the popular government for many years to come.
The other example is that of the Communist party of Indonesia refusing to come for negotiations with other social formation during the transition after the collapse of the colonial government. The party refused to come out of the forest and resorted to continue with arm struggke even if the Indonesian society was crafting the way forward for the establishment of a democratic society. History too is a testimony of what has happened, tactical errors by workerist tendencies.
In South Africa, the General Secretary of the SACP, the late Joe Slovo, was hailed as the author of the most important blue print of our transition, the Sun Set Clause, which paved way for our democratic breakthrough.
History go on and on, Lenin himself, allowed the party to participate in the bourgeois parliament just before the victory of the Russian revolution. He also collaborated with the vicious bourgeoisie of the time, the Kulaks, to form government with them after the victory of the socialist revolution.
The contrast between these events is wide but common in our strategy and tactics. I am sure that there many other similar experiences else which I may not be able to mention.
But the SACP must help us on this question, it was take us along the way to make us understand the caricature of political formations contesting power in South Africa. It cannot just be we don’t want DA and MKP but EFF is better. What is the logic, the difference here, is it because the EFF renagades broke aware from the ANC over ten years ago before MKP. What do they mean when they say EFF is better than MKP. What does that mean from the class point of view.
***
Phatse Justice Piitso is the former ambassador to Cuba and member of the ANC and SACP writing this tribute to Che in his personal capacity. This article first appeared in Umsebenzi Online in 2012, the online journal of the SACP.