Editorial
The "Lesser of Evils" Theory Condemns Us to Perpetual Marginalization
The theory of the "lesser evil" emerged in Canada and other countries during the Second World War as a justification for the formation of a strategic alliance between the Communist Party and a section of the bourgeoisie. This theory was based on a superficial understanding of the tactical alliance between the Soviet Union and the Anglo-American imperialists to defeat fascism. Not only did the authors of this theory seek to duplicate this alliance with the "democratic" bourgeoisie within individual countries, but they went so far as to declare it a strategic alliance. Furthermore, this wartime Liberal-Labour alliance did not end with the ending of the war, but remained in place after the war, as well.
Within Canada, this political line formed the basis for the tacit alliance between the Communist Party and the Liberals. In the U.S., the alliance was between the CP and the Democrats, against the Republicans. In various other countries, especially in Western Europe, similar alliances were struck between the Communist parties and the liberal bourgeoisie. In all of these countries, the conservative section of the bourgeoisie was equated with fascism, while the liberal section of the bourgeoisie was called "democratic" and an ally of the working class and socialism. Despite the fact that the "democratic" United States donned the mantle of Hitler before the Second World War had even ended and went on to commit untold crimes against the peoples of the world, with the support of the "democratic" bourgeoisie in most countries, the myth that the capitalist class and imperialism are split into "democratic" and "reactionary" sections has persisted to this day.
The theory of "lesser evil" and the Liberal-Labour alliance based on this theory has done more to harm the interests of the working people than any other theory to emerge out of the degeneration of the communist movement of the 20th century. The essence of this theory is that in certain countries (namely the countries in which the adherents to the theory happen to reside) the revolutionary transformation of society is not possible and/or not necessary. In those countries, they maintain, socialism will be achieved through an evolutionary process on the basis of the communists and the liberal democrats working together to solve various problems, all the while beating off the attempts of the conservatives to drag society backwards.
In the more than 60 years since this theory was first espoused by Earl Browder, the leader of the Communist Party of the U.S.A. not a single one of these countries has become socialism. Instead, socialism has been overthrown in most of those countries where it previously existed, in large part because of the adoption of similar theories by the communist parties in those countries. In Canada during the 1950s, the communists were thrown out of the trade unions and the CCF/NDP took control of the trade union movement, replacing the Communist Party as the Labour section of the Liberal-Labour alliance. Today, the Liberals, Conservatives and even the social democrats have become virtually indistinguishable from one another, all having adopted neo-liberalism as their basic doctrine. It has become clear that there is no ideological split in the bourgeoisie and that every elected government at the federal or provincial level obeys the dictate of big capital. Nevertheless, the illusion is perpetuated, even within the revolutionary movement, that electing the Liberals will prevent a greater disaster, a Conservative government. This line has now become the official position of the Liberal Party as its only real, if cynical, justification to retain power.
The myth that the capitalist class is split into progressive and reactionary sections and that socialism can be achieved by forming a strategic alliance with the "progressive" bourgeoisie led to the destruction of the communist movement in every country where it was adopted. It reduced the communists to flag bearers for the Liberals and social democrats. It has plagued the movement for social progress for more than half a century, rendering it marginalized and impotent.
The way that this line works is that between elections social and political activists devote a lot of time and energy to waging struggles against various evils, while doing little or nothing to solve the problem of how the people, themselves, can take political power and thereby put an end to these evils, once and for all. Then, when the spectre of a right-wing government rears its head, they panic, liquidate all of their work and climb on the Liberal bandwagon. Anyone who refuses to follow suit is labelled a splitter of the movement or accused of objectively working for the election of the Conservatives. Then, after an appropriate period of being stunned at the evils heaped on them by a Liberal government, the process begins all over again. In other words, the theory of the "lesser evil" is a theory designed to preserve the status quo and to keep the people perpetually marginalized and at the mercy of the bourgeoisie. It is a theory which opposes the organization of working people to actually transform the situation through revolutionary struggle.
This is not to say that tactical alliances with one or another section of the bourgeoisie are inherently counter-revolutionary. On the contrary, it may be essential to form various tactical alliances for a revolutionary struggle to succeed. However, such alliances should serve to strengthen the position of the revolutionary forces, while weakening the position of the biggest capitalists. They should be alliances in which a section of the bourgeoisie supports the positions of the revolutionary working class. The theory of "lesser evil" does not advocate such alliances, but rather alliances in which the working class abandons its own positions, altogether, and supports its enemies in the vain hope that they will be more lenient as a result. It is a theory which condemns the revolutionary movement to perpetual marginalization and isolation.