UNITY NEWSLETTER
NOVEMBER-DECEMBER 1967
~ 5 -
deluded for one moment that mass support is ever total or final.  The
masses are not static either in the level of their political understanding or in the direction of their political commitment - except
in relation to the revolution itself]
Even more important than the foregoing fact, however, is the
straight fact that bigness or smallness of a revolutionary movement
is no absolute criterion by which to judge it.  Having large numbers
is, of course, advantageous but that is no guarantee that the
organisation, in question will lead the revolution or that it merits
the support of revolutionaries.  There have been mass organisations
in history that no revolutionary would consider joining and, conversely,
revolutionary organisations are often minority organisations for long
periods.  Any well-versed revolutionary knows that the Bolshevik Party
(despite its name) was a tiny minority not only within the vastness of
the Russian Empire but was a minority even within the Russian Social
Democratic Party.  Except at the initial split in 1902, when Lenin's
faction first gained its name, the Bolsheviks remained a tiny minority
in Russia right until 1917.  Mao Tse-Tung, when he left the town-based
Chinese Communist Party to work amongst the Hunan peasants in the early
1930's, began with a small number amidst the teeming millions of the
Chinese people.  At that stage, both the Communist Party and Chiang
Kai-Chek's Nationalists had more support than Mao Tse-Tung.  Yet it
was Mao's Red Army that eventually carried the revolution to its
ultimate victory.  It is primarily quality (and very secondarily
quantity) that is the real criterion by which to judge a revolutionary
movement.
And when it comes to judging v/hether a liberation movement should
or could enter into a united front with other organisations, again,
bigness or smallness (supposed or real) is not an operative factor.
Any well-informed revolutionary knov/s that the most inspiring, the
most powerful and the most successful liberation front of today, the
N.L.F. of south Vietnam, has been formed from a multiplicity of very
large and very small organisations - political, economic, religious,
ethnic, civic and professional.  The Vietnamese people did not allow
irrelevant facts to impede their unity in their liberation struggle.
Therefore, arguments about 'bigness' or 'smallness' of organisations vis-a-vis entering the Liberation Front of South Africa are not
only beyond absolute proof but are spurious and unrevolutionary.
The second argument that we have heard raised against the
Liberation Front of South Africa is that "our organisation is older/
younger than yours and we therefore are the people to carry the South
African revolution".   This argument Is even more ridiculous than the
first and we will deal with it as briefly as possible.
There have been pioneering political organisations in history
that have been by-passed by others not despite their age but precisely because of their age.  Their age and roots planted in a
particular period made it impossible or difficult for them to adjust
to the developments of later stages.  Plekhanov's pioneering Marxist
group in Russia is a very clear illustration of this.  His having been
the "father of Russian Marxism" v/as no guarantee that he would be the
leader of the Russian revolution.  His party failed to develop with
the people of Russia, and Lenin had no hesitation in attacking
Plekhanov and his adherents uncompromisingly v/hen the need arose.
The Bolshevik Party superceded Plekhanov's old Liberation of Labour
group, just as Mao Tse-Tung's party superceded the old Communist Party
of China and Castro's revolutionaries took the initiative from the hands
of the old Cuban Communist Party.  So much for fagc'.
/.