This paper, along with another one, The Situation in the U.S. Communist Movement[1], was written in considerable haste for a Party building forum[2] hosted by the Colorado Organization for Revolutionary Struggle (COReS) and held in Denver, March, 1977. COReS withdrew our invitation to attend the forum and “demarcated” us, so neither paper was distributed at the time. The Kansas City Revolutionary Workers Collective (KCRWC) and the League for Proletarian Revolution (LPR), two participants at the forum, agreed with our exclusion. After the forum, we struggled with the KCRWC comrades. We criticized KCRWC for assisting in our exclusion from the forum and defending the revisionists in the Communist Party of China (CPC), criticisms which they later accepted. In turn, KCRWC criticized us for calling for an immediate “break” with the CPC. We later accepted this criticism which is discussed below. At present, we are in unity with the KCRWC on the fact of a revisionist take-over in China, the complete bankruptcy of the “theory of the three worlds,” and that the Party of Labor of Albania (PLA) is the leading Marxist-Leninist (M-L) party in the international communist movement.[3] This is a good example of unity-criticism-transformation-unity. On the other hand, the COReS and LPR, while nominally stating they should have struggled with us, have not resumed struggle with us, have not publicly admitted their errors or done Bolshevik self-criticism. This, along with other factors, has led them into refusing to engage in principled struggle over the line and practice of the CPC. The LPR, who have made contributions to party building in the past, openly support the revisionists in the CPC against the Chinese proletariat and people, and have developed a centrist line on the “theory of the three worlds,” trying to reconcile the M-L line and leadership of the PLA with the anti-Leninist line and practice of the CPC. Comrades, in the struggle against revisionism and opportunism there is no middle ground, no third road.
Shortly after the forum, we tried to place an advertisement in The Guardian. After much stalling, eight months later, our ad was “accepted,” providing we reworded it to make it less “inflammatory.” Of course, The Guardian regularly advertises every kind of counter-revolutionary, trotskyite trash which is only inflammatory to genuine M-L’s and class conscious workers. But now is not the time or place for further exposure of The Guardian’s right opportunism.
The main reason why we are distributing this paper is to aid the struggle against CPC revisionism, which is an integral part of the struggle for proletarian internationalism and the building of a genuine party of the proletariat in the U.S. Much has been written about the “theory of the three worlds” by the PLA and other M-L parties and organizations around the world. And much more will be written in the future as CPC revisionism has developed into an accomplice of the imperialist bloc headed by U.S. imperialism. What is being struggled out is the general line for the international communist movement (icm), the strategy and tactics for the world-revolutionary proletarian movement. This struggle immediately confronts all the proletarian parties and M-L organizations, which is why the struggle against the “theory of the three worlds” is the principal aspect of the struggle against CPC revisionism. An increasing number of international M-L parties and organizations who have struggled against the “theory of the three worlds” are coming forward and openly recognizing that the revisionists hold state power in China and are in the process of restoring capitalism. At present, the struggle around the situation in China, the struggle against the revisionist take-over in China, the struggle against the restoration of capitalism there, constitutes the secondary aspect of the struggle against CPC revisionism.
An irreconcilable split is rapidly developing in the icm with Marxism-Leninism, led by the PLA, at one pole, and the latest form of international revisionism, headed by the CPC, at the opposite pole. Lines of demarcation are in the process of being drawn throughout the icm. Drawing lines of demarcation has both content and form, which constitute a dialectical unity. Content precedes and determines form, but when the content cannot develop further without a change in form, the form becomes the principal aspect. In this case, the line is the content, while how the line is expressed is the form. Many parties in the icm, including the PLA and the CPC, have had fraternal relations for years. The line is the content of the relationship while the fraternal relations are the form. The content has been undergoing change for a few years, and has been the subject of particularly acute struggle internationally since November, 1976 (the 7th Congress of the PLA). As the struggle of opposites develops, first with the line (content), at the appropriate time and place, the form is bound to undergo a qualitative change. Uneven development of struggle accounts for the fact that only in the last year have M-L parties and organizations begun to openly state there has been a revisionist take-over in China. On the one hand, this marks a qualitative change in the firm of the relationship, certainly an organizational break in any remaining fraternal relations, and on the other hand, this allows the content of the struggle against CPC revisionism to develop to a higher level. In these instances, lines of demarcation are drawn, in both content and form. However, because many M-L parties and organizations have not made an open organizational break with the CPC and its adherents to date, we are justified in concluding that lines of demarcation are being drawn. In any event, the split in the icm is irreconcilable and inevitable.
Within the U.S. communist movement (cm), the process of drawing lines of demarcation around CPC revisionism is underdeveloped, particularly among the genuine forces. In general, this is due to the underdevelopment of the subjective factor; in particular, this process is hampered by the lack of a genuine center to centralize and lead the struggle around line.[4] While we must struggle to build the center as the key link, we must also struggle to win comrades away from CPC revisionism. Concretely, for example, this means finding appropriate forms of struggle to win the LPR comrades away from centrism and revisionism. Only after sharp and consistent struggle, if LPR refuses to abandon their centrism and revisionism (consolidates their opposition to M-L), will lines of demarcation have to be drawn. Even if this occurs, the genuine forces would still wage struggle against their line, but would also try to expose and isolate their leadership and win the rank-and-file cadre away from their line and leadership. In general, the purpose of waging line struggle is to further develop the correct line and its influence and to defeat the incorrect line and its influence. The waging of sharp and consistent line struggle, throughout the movement, can only be accomplished by building the center as the key link in party building. The content of the yet-to-be-formed party of the U.S. proletariat will embody, in theory and in practice, among other things: proletarian internationalism; the international leadership of the PLA; resolute struggle against the “theory of the three worlds,” the revisionist take-over in China, and the restoration of capitalism in China.
Next, we would like to summarize the main errors in this paper and then briefly discuss how we see correcting them. But before we do, it is necessary to explain why we attach so much importance to criticism and self-criticism. Stalin, in Foundations of Leninism, teaches us we should derive “revolutionary training” on the basis of our own (and other comrades) mistakes. Further, in quoting Lenin from “Left-Wing” Communism:
The attitude of a political party towards its own mistakes is one of the most important and surest ways of judging how earnest the party is and how it in practice fulfills its obligations towards its class and the toiling masses. Frankly admitting a mistake, ascertaining the reasons for it, analyzing the circumstances which gave rise to it, thoroughly discussing the means of correcting it – that is the earmark of a serious party; that is the way it should perform its duties, that is the way it should educate and train the class, and then the masses.[5]
Given the lack of a genuine center (the building of which we see as the key link) to guide the central task of party building, given ideological and theoretical weakness and disunity, political underdevelopment and disunity, amateurish methods of work (including small-circle mentality) and fragmentation, which describes the present party building motion – we firmly believe that all the more attention must be paid to M-L criticism and self-criticism. While some cover up their errors and shortcomings (e.g. by failing to respond to criticisms, unexplained changes in their line), while some do self-criticism in form only, other comrades are making improvements in the area of criticism and self-criticism. In general though, our party building movement in the U.S. needs to develop the M-L orientation and attitude toward criticism and self-criticism, as Hoxha teaches us:
...The correct development of criticism and self-criticism educates them on the correct party road to realize the essence of their mistakes, and following the example of the good comrades, the sound communists, who are not in the least afraid to criticize anyone at all in a correct way, and who are not ashamed but consider it an honour to acknowledge their errors and mistakes honestly, openly, in a Bolshevik manner, and to give the Party tangible proof that they have corrected their errors through work, and struggle, all the others should profit from them and raise the level of their criticism and self-criticism, Those who stifle criticism in various ways should be severely dealt with.[6]
We criticize ourselves, ask other comrades to criticize us, and hope other comrades learn from our mistakes as a part of the struggle against amateurishness, small-circle spirit, and disunity, as a part of the struggle to practice building the center as the key link, in the context of the central task of party building.
The main errors we made in this paper are: we failed to recognize and uphold the M-L leadership of the PLA internationally; the struggle against the “theory of the three worlds” should have been the main aspect of our struggle against CPC revisionism, instead we liquidated this struggle while struggling exclusively around the revisionist take-over in China; we called for an open “break” with the CPC (meaning an organizational break).
In general, the way we see correcting these and other errors is through a protracted rectification campaign, to thoroughly remould the ideological basis of errors, to correct errors in theory and in practice. This requires a determined struggle against amateurishness (including small-circle spirit) and disunity, to uphold party building as the central task and building the center as the key link in the party building chain. On the one hand, only when errors are rectified in practice over a period of time can the rectification process be deemed relatively complete, and on the other hand, the building of the genuine center and then the formation and consolidation of the party itself will mark qualitative advances in the struggle against amateurishness, small-circle spirit, and disunity.
We think it is first necessary to provide comrades with a brief overview of our historical development and then proceed to the specifics of our rectification campaign. We developed out of the mass anti-war and anti-imperialist movements of the 60’s and 70’s. After a few years of bowing to spontaneity, with the ebb of spontaneous upsurge, in late 1975, we began to form M-L study circles. In the Fall of 1976 some of the study circle members formed the Wichita Communist Cell while others failed to progress. We were by no means consolidated as an M-L organization when the revisionist take-over in China took place. One of our principles of unity was that the CPC and the PLA were the leading M-L parties in the world. Our understanding of the CPC and PLA was shallow rather than deep, although the principle was objectively correct at the time. We saw troubling signs in China and began to investigate the situation, but not from the standpoint of upholding the leading role of the PLA. Thus, we separated our theoretical principle from our practical work. The social and ideological basis of this error is petty bourgeois individualism and metaphysical methodology, manifested in small-circle mentality. Failing to understand and uphold the correct M-L leadership of the PLA led us into the other two major errors: one-sidedly emphasizing the internal aspects of the revisionist take-over instead of concentrating on the struggle against the “theory of the three worlds”; calling for an organizational “break” with the CPC.
It is one thing to call for an ideological and politica1 struggle against CPC revisionism, which we correctly put forward. This is, in general, the content of the struggle. But it is another thing to call for an organizational break which is a specific form the struggle will take. Content precedes and determines form. The specific content of the struggle has been mainly around the M-L strategy and tactics for the world-revolutionary proletarian movement, against the “theory of the three worlds” and its application. The unity and struggle of opposites has developed to the point where the two opposing lines are becoming clearly defined: the M-L line, led by the PLA; the anti-Leninist line of the “theory of the three worlds,” headed by the CPC. As we said earlier, this is why only recently have M-L parties and organizations begun to make open organizational breaks (in form) with the CPC and its adherents.
Since we began to investigate our errors in the Fall of 1977, first with the call for an organizational break with the CPC, we have found several additional “left” errors. The main conclusion we have reached so far in our rectification campaign is that the essence of nearly all of our errors is the separation of theory and practice. In addition to the example of the PLA cited above, in theory we held that winning the advanced workers was an extremely important party building task, although in practice we did almost no practical work in the working class movement. We have since made strides in overcoming this specific form of separation of theory and practice (i.e. we have begun to do mass propaganda and agitation in the working class movement and conduct study groups). However, as with all errors, it is necessary to understand the content of the error on an ideological level and the specific forms that it has taken. This is necessary to consciously prevent the same type of error from occurring again, only in a different form. Unless scientific consciousness prevails, bowing to spontaneity will gain the upper hand.
In terms of ideological remoulding, we are concentrating on the study of M-L philosophy and its application to our rectification campaign, the international situation, and the theoretical and practical problems of the party building motion in the U.S. We have restudied Reform Our Study, Rectify the Party’s Style of Work, On Practice, On Contradiction, and (for the first time) Anti-Duhring (the section on philosophy). All of these works have been extremely helpful, but only when we used them to solve concrete problems and correct errors. This outlook has also helped us to combat our major ideological weakness: the separation of theory from practice. In the future, we plan to deepen our study of pragmatism and its manifestations with the U.S. communist movement (cm) and within our organization.
Our view is that a rectification campaign, at the heart of which is ideological remoulding, is a protracted process. Of course, this should not be interpreted as an excuse for repeating errors, a lax attitude toward rectification, lightening up on criticism and self-criticism, or anything of the sort. While we have done some theoretical study of the rectification process and have some practical experience, we undoubtedly need much more. We request that other comrades send us relevant theoretical references and sum ups of their rectification campaigns, criticizing what we have presented so far. In turn, we will prepare a full-scale, sum up of our rectification campaign (which we are conducting jointly with the Kansas Collective for Proletarian Revolution and KCRWC comrades) and make this available to comrades. We see these as concrete measures in the struggle against amateurishness, small-circle spirit, and disunity, essential to uphold the key link of building the center and party building as the central task.
Our paper on the revisionist take-over in China also has a short-coming which is: the lack of a historical presentation of the two-line struggle in the CPC. Actually, this shortcoming is the main strength of the other paper in the U.S. cm on the revisionist take-over in China: The Capitalist Roaders Are Still On The Capitalist Road, by the China Study Group, Denver. It is for this reason that we recommend this paper to comrades. There are, however, errors in this paper. First, it is abstracted from the movement and struggle to build a genuine party of the proletariat in the U.S. Second, it does not proceed from Lenin’s line on the dictatorship of the proletariat. Our paper, although not entirely correct, did speak to the struggle to build the party, and did, in many instances, take the struggle back to Lenin’s line on the dictator ship of the proletariat.
No attempt has been made to update the internal aspects of the revisionist take-over in China since we wrote this paper in March, 1977. The reason for this is that we have other pressing theoretical and practical work (mainly party building), plus the struggle is mainly being waged against the “theory of the three worlds,” In addition, the revisionists are constantly out-doing themselves in self-exposures, from the reinstatement of Teng to the rehabilitation of Confucius. Eventually, it will be necessary to analyze and sum up the internal aspects of the struggle in China, in their historical development, particularly to understand how and why revisionism was able to seize state power in China. We should look to the PLA for leadership on this question. Not only is the PLA the leading M-L party in the icm, but it also has the immediate task of carrying forward the dictatorship of the proletariat in Albania; so the question of how and why revisionism was able to seize state power in China is an immediate theoretical and practica1 question to the PLA.
In closing this preface, we hope that this paper enables comrades to better understand the internal aspects of the revisionist take-over in China. As we stated earlier, we would appreciate receiving criticisms.
Comrades, now is the time to intensify our efforts to uphold in practice the central task of party building. This can only be done by grasping, concretely the key link of building a genuine center to guide our party building movement. This requires serious efforts to overcome the amateurishness, small-circle spirit, confusion, and disunity which continues to hold back the emergence of a genuine center. It also requires serious efforts to transform our disdain for theory into respect for revolutionary theory, and to create and develop revolutionary theory to guide our revolutionary practice. Only in this way can we fulfill all our party building tasks and our secondary task of winning the broad masses to the side of communism.
With Communist Greetings
Wichita Communist Cell
June, 1978
[1] We are no longer distributing this paper as our line has undergone some qualitative changes since then, some aspects were incorrect, and other aspects are being reevaluated.
[2] The speeches made at the forum are contained in the pamphlet Party Building: The Overall Situation in the Communist Movement and How to Complete the Central Task.
[3] We also have unity on party building. See “Let’s Move Party Building Forward.”
[4] This is one of the particularities which demonstrates why building the genuine Marxist-Leninist center is the key link in the party building chain. See “Let’s Move Party Building Forward” for a more thorough exposition.
[5] J. V. Stalin, Foundations of Leninism, FLP Peking ed., p. 19.
[6] Enver Hoxha, “Bolshevik criticism and self-criticism in our Party recognizes no limits,” The Party of Labor of Albania on the Building of the Life of the Party, p. 132.