The working class movement has two sides, the objective and subjective factors in the revolution. The development of the capitalist mode of production, and of its gravediggers, the modern proletariat, is a result of the objective factors. The subjective factors must take into account the objective processes of development and proceed from this, from the actual laws of motion of society.
Strategy and tactics which do not accurately begin from objective conditions cannot lead the proletariat to victory. That is why the conscious struggle of the working class for its emancipation, led by a vanguard communist party, must base its program on the true motion of society. Although the objective factor develops independently of the will of the proletariat and its party, it is the task of communists, leading the subjective factor, to accelerate or retard this development. “The subjective side comprises the processes which take place within the proletariat as the reflection in the consciousness of the proletariat of the objective processes, accelerating or retarding the latter, but not determining them.” (STALIN, POLITICAL STRATEGY AND TACTICS OF THE RUSSIAN COMMUNISTS, CW, Vol.5, p.63)
At the present time, one of the keys to the performance of this task lies in understanding the objective nature of the crisis of capitalism.
The October League does not understand the dialectics of development of the class struggle and therefore does not understand the nature of the crisis of Imperialism. Instead, as we point out, they view the motion of society idealistically from a vulgar materialist standpoint, with outdated mechanistic ’concepts’. To understand the source of the opportunist line of the OL, we must begin with a correct understanding of the objective situation, and an understanding of the incorrect view which the OL holds of the current crisis.
Since 1973 the entire capitalist world has been racked with crises effecting every aspect of the global capitalist system and from which imperialism has found no relief. Comrade Enver Hoxha, of the Party of Labor of Albania in summing up the essential character of the present crisis, has stated that, “Today the greatest crisis ever since the second World War has broken out in the world of capitalism, and particularly in U.S. Imperialism.. ...This is a general economic, political, ideological and military crisis of all the capitalist states, their structures and their super-structures, it is a crisis of their regimes and alliances. And this great crisis has just begun; the catastrophe will come later.” (ALBANIA TODAY, Nov.-Dec.,1974)
The development of this world crisis is of profound significance for the forces of revolution everywhere. The success of the proletarian revolution requires a thorough going understanding of the objective conditions and therefore places before communists the task of correctly analyzing the present crisis in all its spheres.
In its theoretical journal CLASS STRUGGLE (“Capitalism is a System of Crisis and War, CS #3), the OL presents its current line on the crisis of capitalism and in doing so, clearly sums up its stand, viewpoint and method concerning the present international situation. This line, in which the OL presents the economic crisis as a classic crisis of over-production, runs directly counter to the Marxist-Leninist presentation of the general crisis of capitalism by Lenin and Stalin, and as a consequence, completely blurs the distinction between the general crisis and the crisis of the trade cycle.
Stalin clearly states that the general crisis of imperialism is a crisis divided into two stages.
The general crisis of the world capitalist system began in the period of the first World War, particularly due to the falling away of the Soviet Union from the capitalist system. That was the first stage of the general crisis. A second stage in the general crisis developed in the period of the second World War, especially after the European and Asian people’s democracies fell away from the capitalist system. The first crisis, in the period of the first World War, and the second crisis, in the period of the second World War, must not be regarded as separate, unconnected, and independent crises, but as the stages in the development of the general crisis of the world capitalist system. Is the general crisis of capitalism only a political, or only an economic crisis? Neither the one nor the other. It is a general, i.e., all round crisis of the world capitalist system embracing both the economic and the political spheres. And it is clear that at the bottom of it lies the ever-lasting decay of the world capitalist economic system, on the one hand, and the growing economic might of the countries which have fallen away from capitalism – the USSR, China, and other people’s democracies – on the other.” (Stalin, ECONOMIC PROBLEMS OF SOCIALISM IN THE USSR, Reply to Notkin, FLP, p.58)
The extent of the OL’s understanding of the general crisis is based entirely on Comrade Stalin’s address to the 15th Congress of the CPSU(B) in 1927, in which the general crisis of capitalism was correctly described as occurring within the framework of the ’stabilization’ of the world capitalist system, in which “the world market, the limits of this market, and the spheres of influence of individual imperialist groups remain more or less stationary...” Comrade Stalin made this correct statement, which the OL quotes at length, during the first stage of the general crisis. In 1951, during the second stage of the general crisis, Comrade Stalin pointed out that fundamental changes had occurred in the world situation and explicitly stated that his own earlier view, quoted at length by the OL, could no longer be considered valid.
a) Can it be affirmed that the thesis expounded by Stalin before the second World War regarding the relative stability of markets in the period of the genera! crisis of capitalism is still valid? b) Can it be affirmed that the thesis expounded by Lenin in the spring of 1916—namely that, in spite of the decay of capitalism, on the whole capitalism is growing far more rapidly than before—is still valid? I think that it cannot. In view of the new conditions to which the second World War has given rise, both these theses must be regarded as having lost their validity. (Stalin, ECONOMIC PROBLEMS OF SOCIALISM IN THE USSR, FLP, 1972, p.32)
The error of the OL in this regard is a form of right opportunism which Mao opposed as a “die-hard” attitude toward revolutionary practice, holding serious consequences for the struggles of the proletariat.
We are opposed to die-hards in the revolutionary ranks whose thinking fails to advance with changing objective circumstances and has manifested itself as right opportunism. These people fail to see that the struggle of opposites already pushed the objective process forward while their knowledge has stopped at the old stage. This is characteristic of the thinking of all die-hards. Their thinking is divorced from social practice, and they cannot march ahead to guide the chariot of society; they simply trail behind grumbling that it goes too fast and trying to drag it back or turn it in the opposite direction. (Mao Tsetung, SW, Vol. I, p.306-307.)
Comrade Stalin makes it clear that the general crisis emerged, initially, through the course of the First World War, but that it was the Second World War which ushered in the second stage of the general crisis. This present, second stage of the general crisis, unlike the previous stage, is characterized not by relatively stable markets but by actively shrinking markets.
The disintegration of the single, all-embracing world market must be regarded as the most important economic sequel of the Second World War and of its economic consequences. It has had the effect of further deepening the general crisis of the world capitalist system....the sphere of exploitation of the world’s resources by the major capitalist countries (U.S.A., Britain, France) will not expand but contract. That their opportunities for sale in the world market will deteriorate, and that their industries will be operating more and more below capacity. That, in fact, is what is meant by the deepening of the crisis of the world capitalist system in connection with the disintegration of the world market. (ECONOMIC PROBLEMS OF SOCIALISM IN THE U.S.S.R., FLP, 1972, pp. 30-31.)
From its fundamental lack of clarity on these points, the OL goes on to present the current economic crisis as a simple crisis of over-production, to generally confuse the character of the general crisis with that of the cyclical crisis of the trade cycle, and to fail to differentiate at all between economic crisis during the general crisis and economic crisis during the era of free competitive capitalism.
These crises are present wherever there is capitalism. In the history of this country, crisis broke out all through the I800’s...Similar crises broke out in countries all around the world and some of the biggest capitalist crises such as that of the I930’s hit the whole capitalist world. (Class Struggle, p. 20.)
What the OL describes here is a classic crisis of overproduction, or crisis of the trade cycle, which is the period from the beginning of one crisis to the beginning of the next. Crisis in the trade cycle occurs as a result of the basic contradiction of capital ism between the socialized nature of production and the private nature of appropriation. The trade cycle consists of four phases: Crisis, depression, recovery, and boom, then back to crisis again. When dealing with the trade cycle, crises are basically crises over-production. With the development of the general crisis, the periodic crises of the trade cycle become super-imposed on the larger crisis of imperialism. The effect observable at the present stage is described by the Albanian comrades.
The typical feature of the present crisis of capitalism is the further disintegration of the cycle of economic development. Before one cycle of capitalist reproduction has properly ended the other begins....As a consequence it has passed and must pass, from the phase of enlivening the economy to that of crisis, without passing through the phase of economic build-up as has occurred in the classical crisis of capitalism. This phenomenon is very obvious in the present crisis in the U.S.A. and other capitalist countries. (Albania Today, January-February, 1972, “The Monetary Crisis of Capitalism”, p. 51.)
The failure to correctly analyze the nature of crises in the present period is shown by the fact that the OL takes a narrow view of the current economic crisis, does not see the crisis in all its manifestations, and fails to see the crisis as a process of development. OL states that, “throughout the I960’s, the U.S. capitalists successfully avoided the crisis breaking out. But they could not avoid it forever...”, and then goes on to cite war expenditures and government spending as the means by which the bourgeoisie avoided crisis in the ’60’s. This view deals only with the economic aspect of the crisis and clearly differs from the line of the Party of Labor of Albania concerning the general economic, political, ideological, and military character of the current crisis embracing the entire capitalist world, its structures and superstructures regimes, and alliances.
When viewed correctly, it is obvious that the overall crisis of imperialism was not avoided during the ’60’s, but that the Vietnam War itself, and the means by which the bourgeoisie avoided economic crisis (i.e., war expenditures and deficit spending), were all glaring manifestations of the political, military, and ideological aspects of the deepening general crisis.
OL points out that the present “recovery” is no recovery at all and that it is “a slight upward motion prior to a tumultuous downward spin.” (Class Struggle, pp. 24-25.)
This itself is completely in line with the objective conditions, described by the Albanians above, in which the trade cycle has become distorted and abbreviated to the point where there is no longer a “boom” phase. The Albanian comrades’ analysis, however, is based on a correct understanding of the present second stage of the general crisis, while the OL’s view, based on Comrade Stalin’s no longer valid presentation of 1927, offers no explanation for this happening. The crisis which OL describes, as basically a classic crisis of over-production, would normally proceed through all four phases of the trade cycle, including the “boom” phase.
Although the impact of the general crisis, even in its first stage, did produce less energetic boom periods for the bourgeoisie prior to WWII, it is only at the present acute level of the second stage of the general crisis, in which imperialism is faced with actively shrinking markets, that the trade cycle actually fails to pass through all four of its phases. The fact that the OL combines correct analysis with incorrect analysis points to the basic eclectic nature of their method.
The errors of the OL concerning the world crisis do not stop here, however, but continue to the point of misrepresenting the nature of capitalism itself. On page 20 of Class Struggle #3, the OL correctly states that, “...it is the dangers of deeper crisis and the world war which lie on the horizon.” In the very next paragraph, it states that the present economic crisis*has grown out of the cyclical nature of capitalism, which has produced periodic crises of varying intensity since the beginning of the 19th century.” In this discussion of the “cyclical nature of capitalism”, the OL makes the fundamental error of confusing the cyclical character of the trade cycle with the essential nature of capitalism. Such a stand objectively denies the fact that the history of imperialism, especially since WWII, has been a dialectical process of imperialism changing into its opposite-from strong to weak-and of the rise of socialist revolution; that imperialism has been proven to be a “colossus with feet of clay” and a paper-tiger faced with defeat at the hands of the masses who are the motivating force of history.
In its call for unity, (The Call, November, 1975), the OL correctly describes the Third World countries as the motive force pushing world history ahead in the present period. In its Class Struggle analysis, however, the OL denies that the contradiction between imperialism and social-imperialism on the one hand and the oppressed nations on the other, is the focus of world contradictions.
The Chinese comrades clearly describe the decisive forces at work in bringing about the decline of imperialism since WW II.
The economic power of U.S. Imperialism, which grew during WWII, is confronted with unstable and daily shrinking domestic and foreign markets. The further shrinking of these markets will cause economic crisis to break out. (Mao Tsetung, Peking Review, No. 48, 1974, p. 8.)
In Peking Review (No. 3, 1972, p. 17, No. 48, 1974, p. 8, and elsewhere) the three decisive factors responsible for “imperialism’s rapid decline” since WWII are laid out in order of their importance: I) The perseverance of the world’s people in revolutionary struggle In which the struggles of the Third World are primary; 2) uneven development within the capitalist world in which the U.S., in seeking to maintain and expand its world hegemony, has been weakened and the forces of capitalist economy shifted in the favor of Japan, Western Europe, and other capitalist countries; 3) the revolutionary struggle of the U.S. proletariat, which, although it has not been the decisive factor in imperialism’s decline to date, will be responsible for the final defeat of U.S. Imperialism.
The “causes of this crisis” which OL presents are the following: I) over-production as a reflection of the basic contradiction of capitalism between the socialized forces of production end the private nature of appropriation (p. 20); 2) deficit spending leading to inflation (p. 21); 3) inflation leading to loss of export markets in Western Europe and Japan (p. 21); 4) investment crisis as a result of “crisis mentality”, arising from the loss of markets and upward re-evaluation of the currencies of capitalist countries (p. 22).
The struggles of the Third World peoples are portrayed by the OL purely as a reaction to the tactic of the bourgeoisie in shifting the burden of the crisis to other countries (Class Struggle, No. 3, p. 28). OL effectively denies the primary role of the struggle of the Third World in the decline of imperialism. In spite of a see-saw approach to these struggles, in which a vague recognition of the proper role of the Third World is given, the over-all effect of OL’s presentation is a blatant refutation of the line of the Communist Party of China.
OL even goes so far as to suggest that the U.S.S.R., as the superpower rival of the U.S., is more nearly responsible for the decline of U.S. Imperialism. Immediately after discussing the role of the Third World, the OL states that “perhaps even more frightening to U.S. Imperialism was the fact that the social-imperialists were beginning to get a strong economic foothold in Western Europe.” (Class Struggle, No. 3, p. 29)
What does the OL mean by “more frightening”? Are we to conclude from this that OL views the Soviet Union as a greater threat to U.S. Imperialism than the national liberation struggles of the Third World? Such an implication is extremely serious, needless to say, and demands clarification.
In denying the proper role of the Third World the OL objectively denies that the focus of the contradictions in the world since the dissolution of the socialist camp has been the contradiction between imperialism and social-imperial ism and the oppressed nations.
As a result of its failure to grasp the essence of crises in the present period, the OL is led to deny the role of the Third World struggles, the leading role of Marxist Leninist theory and the Marxist-Leninist party in the defeat of imperialism in Southeast Asia, and the leadership provided for revolutionary struggles all over the world by the Chinese and the Albanians. OL thus negates the importance of the subjective factor in the decline of imperialism. Their discussion of a possible “final crisis of imperialism” and their presentation of the genera! crisis as simply a case of increasingly acute crisis of over-production contribute to this right error, which, in essence, is nothing more than the theory of productive forces which holds that historical development, social development, is the outcome of the development of the forces of production, alone.
Chairman Mao Tsetung has clearly explained the revolutionary dialectical relationship between the productive forces and the relations of production: “True, the productive forces, practice and the economic base generally play the principal and decisive role; whoever denies this is not a materialist. But it must also be admitted that in certain conditions, such aspects as the relations of production, theory and the superstructure in turn manifest themselves in the principal and decisive role. When it is impossible for the productive forces to develop without a change in the relations of production, then the change in the relations of production plays the principal and decisive role....When the superstructure (politics, culture, etc.) obstructs the development of the economic base, political and cultural changes become principal and decisive.”
The OL presentation would lead to the position that imperialism will itself, by its own motion, bring about its demise. Which is simply the other side of the theory of productive forces of Kautsky and Liu Shao-Chi, which held that the socialist productive forces would themselves abolish class struggle.
In the RESTORATION OF CAPITALISM IN THE U.S.S.R. by Martin Nicolaus, which is published by the OL and represents their basic line on the restoration of capitalism, Nicolaus falls victim to this error by making the statement that he is confining himself to an analysis of restoration in the economic sphere, and is not going to take up the questions of the subjective factor which were responsible for this process. Since he is the main OL theoretician on this subject, it would appear that the OL has consciously chosen that this is not important, and instead, presents a “productive forces” explanation for the restoration of capitalism in the U.S.S.R.
In essence it is a vulgar materialist approach to understanding and investigating the international situation which leads the OL to view the motion of the world as purely cyclical and anti-dialectical in nature and producing change on a quantitative level only. The OL’s denial that the events of the present period are part of a dialectical process undergoing uninterrupted historical development from lower to the higher leads them to base their line on out-dated analysis, to take a narrow view of the crisis in which they primarily focus on its economic aspect, and to present the economic crisis simply as one of over-production, in attempting to bridge the gap between their analysis and reality the line of the OL becomes characterized by eclecticism and confusion.
The right opportunist errors of the OL, rooted in a one-sided treatment of the revolutionary process, are a matter of serious consequence for the communist and worker’s movements in the U.S. It is one thing to eclectically acknowledge the obvious features of the crisis, as the OL does, and another to grasp the essence of the present epoch. War, implemented domestically through fascism, offers the only means by which the bourgeoisie may force a temporary resolution to its crisis. The developing situation is one in which either imperialist war will give way to revolution or revolution will prevent imperialist war. At such a time the development of the subjective factor (the vanguard party armed with advanced theory and leading the masses) is the only guarantee for either the prevention of war or for the turning of an imperialist war into a class war. To deny the role of the subjective factor at the present stage of the revolution, when political line is key and theory is decisive, is to deny the proletariat a clear course charted for its emancipation and to disarm the proletariat in the face of the bourgeoisie’s offensive. A correct Marxist-Leninist understanding of the crisis of capitalism is no “academic debate” as the OL claimed at its Fight-Back Conference. It is only by grasping the importance of such theoretical tasks and scientifically analyzing the objective factor that a firm basis for Bolshevik strategy and tactics can be laid.
Marxism requires of us a strictly exact and objectively verifiable analysis of the relations of classes and of the concrete features peculiar to each historical situation. We Bolsheviks have always tried to meet this requirement which is absolutely essential for giving foundation to policy. “Letters on Tactics”, MARX, ENGELS, LENIN ON HISTORICAL MATERIALISM, Lenin, Moscow, 1972, p. 514.
The OL’s erroneous position on the nature of the objective conditions must necessarily effect their position on party building. Based on such an incorrect analysis of the objective factor, the OL’s views on party building cannot in fact correspond to the real objective needs of the proletariat, except by chance. A brief summary of the development of the OL line on party building, up to the November 1975 Unity Call, will show if the OL has been so lucky.