In launching a new Marxist-Leninist theoretical journal, the editors are obligated to make a forthright statement of their views and purposes.
This is best done, perhaps, by an explanation of the name we have chosen for our publication.
Communists are able to act as the vanguard of the working class only to the extent that they clearly understand the “Line of March” of the proletarian movement. When that understanding is lacking, when communist organizations have lost their theoretical bearings, Marxist-Leninists have the responsibility to take action to set the revolutionary movement back on a proper course.
The term “rectification” is historically associated, within the Marxist-Leninist movement, with a conscious effort to correct a fundamental deviation among communists whether in political line, ideological outlook, social practice or style of work. Rectification movements have played a decisive role in the development of every successful revolutionary party and movement.
What is it that requires ‥rectification” today? In the view of the editors, Marxist-Leninists in the US must begin to address, with the utmost seriousness and with a profound understanding of the dimensions of their task, the question of the general line and orientation of the communist movement today, both internationally and in the United States.
This task confronts Marxist-Leninists because of the profound crisis in the world communist movement.
The crisis we speak of is all-sided. It manifests itself ideologically in the abandonment and distortion of Marxist-Leninist theory. It manifests itself politically in the subordination of proletarian revolution to the narrowly perceived national interests of the largest socialist countries; in the adoption of a non-revolutionary general line by the majority of the “old” communist parties; and by the adoption of a class-collaborationist general line by most of the newer anti-revisionist parties and groupings. It manifests itself organizationally in the degeneration of most of the world’s communist parties and the collapse of those who would replace them into equally serious deviations from the principles and tasks of revolution.
Line of March is an outgrowth and speaks on behalf of a new and developing trend in Marxism which has taken responsibility for addressing this crisis from within the communist movement. This trend is still very young and does not yet have firm ideological moorings. But it is growing and shows signs of becoming a material force in US political life. Significantly, there are similar stirrings in several other countries as well, and we assert that this trend is becoming an international phenomenon.
One sign of this trend’s present stage of development is that, beyond identifying itself as Marxist-Leninist, it still defines itself primarily by what it opposes. Fundamentally, this trend draws a line of demarcation with the two main currents that presently dominate the international communist movement: modern revisionism (including its Eurocommunist variant) headquartered in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) and “left” opportunism (including its Albanian and neo-Trotskyist variations) headquartered in the Communist Party of China (CPC). Hence the popular designation, the anti-revisionist, anti-“left” opportunist trend.
The historical process which gave rise to this trend began with the international reaction to the various revisionist theses promulgated by the CPSU in 1956 and subsequently adopted by a large number of communist parties, including the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA).
Among these theses were that in the present period it had become possible (even necessary) for the transition from capitalism to socialism to be effected peaceably; that war could be eliminated from the world even before imperialism had been defeated; and that peaceful coexistence between the US and the Soviet Union was the principal strategic consideration of “revolutionary” forces in the world, with the future of the world revolution depending mainly on the economic and military might of the Soviet Union rather than mainly on the struggles of workers and oppressed peoples. These theses, in turn, gave rise to a number of political policies and lines which, objectively, reinforced illusions about the nature of imperialism and disoriented the world communist movement.
More immediately, however, the new trend emerged in opposition to the “left” deviation which came to characterize the principal forces leading the critique of modern revisionism. While ultra-leftism was a definite feature within the anti-revisionist movement for a number of years, its crystallization occurred in conjunction with the revolution in Angola in 1975 and 1976 when the full political implications of the “left” deviation became manifest. It was at that time that the CPC and its followers in the US, basing themselves on the Theory of the Three Worlds, effected an objective alliance with US imperialism and its closest allies (the Portuguese colonialists and the South African white racists) against the revolutionary struggle of the people of Angola led by the MPLA.
This stand of the “left” opportunist forces was the culmination of a developing line that has since congealed into a naked call for revolutionary forces throughout the world to subordinate the struggle against US imperialism and for socialism to the task of building an international anti-Soviet front.
Of course, the developing Marxist-Leninist trend is not alone in noting the crisis of the communist movement. The bourgeoisie notes it with consuming, interest and considerable glee, recognizing that the ideological disorientation of the conscious revolutionary forces at the moment of the imperialist system’s intensifying crisis provides some unexpected maneuverability in what is for them an otherwise grim reality.
In addition, others on the “left” are likewise acutely aware of communism’s current agonies. Long discredited tendencies with which Marxists have in the past settled accounts have begun to stir again, getting a new lease on life as a result of the communist movement’s loss of a revolutionary perspective. From the right, new versions of social democracy and reformism have sprung up to challenge the Marxists anew, in the process reviving the hoariest cliches of anticommunism. From the “left”, modern day variants on anarchism exploit the disorientation of the communist movement and obtain a hearing that otherwise would be hard to come by, while the “permanent oppositionists”, the Trotskyists, loudly proclaim that the present crisis proves they were right all along.
But there is no future for the communist movement along such paths. The editors of Line of March base themselves not only on the demarcations with modern revisionism and “left” opportunism, but also on the historic lines of demarcation with anarchism, social democracy and Trotskyism which have shaped the history and theoretical legacy of the communist movement.
Obviously Line of March is not simply a contemplative journal. In saying this we reaffirm Marx’s famous injunction that “the philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it.” (Theses on Feuerbach). We also assert that it is not even possible to describe social reality accurately unless one participates in the movement to change it. It is only by actively participating in the process of history and class struggle that we can hope to understand the laws, the motion, the contradictions and the development of revolution.
In this sense, Line of March is distinct not only from those publications of academe which pride themselves on being above the maelstroms of vulgar politics, but also from those journals and newspapers–irrespective of their point of view–which do not take responsibility for the tasks of the communist movement or its future, usually in the name of safeguarding their “independence” from faction.
Finally, we must note that Line of March is neither the first nor the only publication to speak on behalf of the anti-revisionist, anti-“left” opportunist trend in the US. Theoretical Review (published by the Tucson Marxist-Leninist Collective), The Organizer (published by the Philadelphia Workers Organizing Committee), Obreros en Marcha (published by MINP-E1 Comite) and the Guardian newspaper are all publications which, either in whole or in part, address some of the theoretical questions before the developing Marxist-Leninist trend. Line of March looks forward to engaging in joint theoretical work as well as debate and struggle with these forces and others in our trend in order to push forward the communist movement.
Within the debates among Marxist-Leninists, Line of March will uphold a definite point of view concerning the present crisis of the communist movement and the appropriate method of resolving that crisis.
In our view, the present crisis of the communist movement is, in the first place, a crisis of political line. The other problems of the communist movement–its general political ineffectiveness, its relative isolation from the masses, its disunity and organizational fragmentation–result from domination of the movement by opportunist lines.
Within the United States, these opportunist lines are so consolidated in their respective organizations that Marxist-Leninists, basing themselves on the understanding that communism cannot become a material force in the working class movement until it is made such by the organized, collective efforts of the communists through a Leninist party, now have before them the task of re-establishing such a party.
But the only basis on which a genuine party can be established is a revolutionary ideological and political line. All other questions must, of necessity, be subordinate to this central one.
It is for this reason that the editors of Line of March see the rectification of the general line of the US communist movement as the principal task before US Marxist-Leninists today, the absolute precondition for re-establishment of a Marxist-Leninist party. Clearly such a task takes place primarily in the theoretical arena, since it involves the summation and critique of the prevailing opportunist lines as well as the elaboration of a general line sufficient to unite Marxist-Leninists and guide the party’s work.
Nor can this general line simply be a combination of positions on a variety of questions. In our view, it must embrace the fundamental propositions of Marxism-Leninism and elaborate these to the point where, in broad outline at least, a strategic concept of the path of the US revolution has been laid out.
There are two major barriers to this process: the low theoretical level of the US communist movement and a legacy of pragmatism and anti-theoretical prejudice which historically has been a feature of the US communist movement.
Taking into account both the dimensions of the task before us and the powerful subjective barriers that block the path, we believe that the rectification of the communist movement’s general line and the re-establishment of a genuine Marxist-Leninist party in the US require the building of a broad rectification movement among communists.
Such a movement must be all-sided, focused on the task of rectifying the movement’s general line but also addressing the need for a thorough ideological reorientation of the movement and the development of organizational forms appropriate to the tasks and the period. As in all communist work, the political tasks of the rectification movement are central, for it is only in the course of taking responsibility for changing the world that the questions of ideology (world outlook and methodology) and organization can be properly addressed.
In short, we believe that the ideological remolding of our movement can only occur in the course of taking up its central task. Similarly, on the principle that organization must serve politics, the organizational forms appropriate to a rectification movement in a preparty period must be determined by the political tasks of the period.
Ultimately, the ideological question is decisive. Errors of political line and organizational form can be corrected by an ideologically strong communist organization. The dialectic involved here, however, is that there can be no forging of a proletarian world outlook and methodology in the abstract. In our view, this is a process which can only take place in the course of solving the actual questions posed by the tasks before the communist movement at any given time and which will be accomplished only if it is consciously guided.
It is for all these reasons that the editors of Line of March consider the launching of a communist theoretical journal to be of special significance at this time. The advantages of such an instrument are readily obvious. It can speak simultaneously and systematically to the entire communist movement and those on its periphery, and in doing so can draw many forces who presently take no responsibility for the communist movement into its sphere of activity. It can take up with a depth and consistency not currently possible through other periodicals the outstanding questions of line and orientation which the movement must address–and do so in the broadest public fashion. It can help raise the theoretical level of the movement by establishing more advanced criteria than the movement presently utilizes in the rigor of its theoretical work. It can help develop a common theoretical language so that, through usage and conscious definition, the Marxist-Leninist trend will not only enhance its ability to take up theoretical questions but will also be forging its unity as well. It can make a contribution to the debates and struggles raging in the world communist movement.
In all of these ways, Line of March is an instrument of the developing Marxist-Leninist trend as a whole.
At the same time, the editors hold to certain definite views on the party-building question, undoubtedly the chief point of contention within the anti-revisionist, anti-“left” opportunist trend. This question will also be taken up in the pages of Line of March, and the editors anticipate that readers will have an opportunity to consider all of the major contending views on this matter.
Nevertheless, in terms of the content of this journal, we consider the party-building question to be only one of several which must command our collective attention and we do not intend to make that question the journal’s principal focus. While the struggle over party-building line can and must go on in our trend, we do not believe that it will be principally resolved through the theoretical struggle between the contending positions. Rather, for Marxist-Leninists, it will be solved in a much more materialist fashion–by the various lines demonstrating their relative capacities to transform our trend as a whole into that revolutionary party of the US working class which can guide the lengthy and complex process that will inevitably culminate in the destruction of the imperialist system’s most powerful bastion.