Despite this high-sounding goal, a closer look at MLOC’s line and practice reveals that this has not been carried out in a communist way. Their line, quoted above, that “trade union work is the most important work,” is not a mere slip. What MLOC has done is to send its cadres, mainly petty bourgeois intellectuals, into the factories to substitute themselves for the advanced workers already there and to artificially initiate the spontaneous struggle. But, they were not the first such petty bourgeois “missionaries” to the working class. RU, OL, and most of the movement did the same thing years ago. And, it is not such a novel idea to go to the Black Belt Nation, for OL had gone there years before MLOC. The essence of this is that the real advanced workers are not sought out and trained as revolutionary leaders of the working class and, instead the struggle for reforms is put in first place. This has all been done before by the likes of Klonsky, Avakian, Tung, and Co., and now Weisberg would like to add his name to this infamous list. The task of the communist intellectual is not to play militant trade unionist or reformist, as all the economists do. Rather, it is to bring socialist consciousness to the working class, and to take the theoretical and practical measures necessary for its working out and propagation. Stalin clearly laid this out:
The vehicles of science are the intellectuals, including, for example, Marx, Engels, and others, who have both the time and opportunity to put themselves in the van of science and work out socialist consciousness. Clearly, socialist consciousness is worked out by a few Social-Democratic intellectuals who possess the time and opportunity to do so. (A Reply to ’Social-Democrat’, Works, vol. 1, p. 164)
The class struggle would far more benefit if the intellectuals in our movement, those who have the “time and opportunity” to fulfill our theoretical tasks, would concentrate on this rather than on inciting the spontaneous struggle which inevitably goes on without them, and if they stopped substituting themselves for the advanced workers who already exist without (and often in spite of) them. The objective developments of capitalism always do a better job of producing this spontaneous movement than the meager and amateurish efforts of the economists.
Stalin goes on to add that this socialist consciousness can only have importance if it is disseminated among the proletariat, and that when this is done,
the proletariat will become conscious of its position and will more rapidly move towards the socialist way of life. It is here that Social-Democracy (and not only Social-Democratic intellectuals) comes in and introduces socialist consciousness into the working class movement. (Ibid.)
This training of revolutionary leaders from the working class creates new, proletarian forces who can likewise work out and introduce this socialist consciousness. Stalin sums up,
Thus, socialist consciousness is worked out by a few Social-Democratic intellectuals. But, this consciousness is introduced into the working class movement by the entire Social-Democracy, which lends the spontaneous proletarian struggle a conscious character. (Ibid.)
Clearly, while the particular task of the intellectual (whether from the working class or the petty bourgeoisie) is to work out and disseminate this consciousness, advanced workers must likewise be trained to do so. But this cannot be done if the “trade union work is the most important work,” if the intellectuals are immersed in narrow, local, economic activity as MLOC has done. In fact, MLOC wants to be the patron saint, the grand chief organizer of all this economist, trade unionist activity on a nation-wide scale. Here MLOC degrades socialist consciousness and diverts the intellectuals from the theoretical tasks necessary to work it out.
The genuine communist intellectuals in our ranks could best serve the working class by addressing these theoretical tasks. But to do so, the obstacle of economism, of which MLOC is only the latest and loudest defender, must be overcome and its theoretical foundations smashed. Only then can there be real communist concentration on the real advanced workers in the key, strategic areas of the US.
CPP presents a similar confusion of the role of intellectuals. They write, “Every communist movement finds its first roots among elements of the intelligentsia, intellectuals who break with their petit-bourgeois relation to social production, adopt a proletarian world outlook, and bring Marxism-Leninism to the working class.” When they say that intellectuals “break with their petit-bourgeois relation to social production”, do they mean ideologically? Apparently not, since they separately mention ideology (or “world outlook”). So they must mean that these intellectuals must get working class jobs, at the point of production. But despite the widespread acceptance of this view, getting a working class job has never been a tenet of Marxism-Leninism or a necessity for intellectuals. Never did Marx, Engels, Lenin, or Stalin take such a job for political reasons, and Engels was even a businessman for a while. What was key was that they worked out the science of Marxism-Leninism and brought it to the working class. They lived as professional revolutionaries, and advocated the building of a party of them. Lenin even said that factory workers should be taken out of the factory to allow them more time and energy for political work, so that they could develop as leaders of the whole movement and broaden their scope by being freed from the stupefying demands of the factory. Further, work among the truly advanced workers does not require that communist intellectuals themselves be physically in the factories, but only that they are in a position to bring Marxism-Leninism to the working class. While now is not the place to advance plans for doing this, it should be understood that the real advanced workers, whom Lenin called the “working class intelligentsia,” will respond first and best to the science of Marxism-Leninism, and in many cases even seek us out.
MLOC has also poured out a mass of confusion that obscures the focus on winning the advanced workers to communism. On the question of when to form the party, they ridicule the view that “You ’have to have’ 859 advanced workers, or you ’have to have’ factory nuclei in ten of the major industries in the country.” (Class Against Class #10, p.43) They also write that “We thought that fusion was a ore-condition for the formation of the party, rather than understanding that the formation of a vanguard party is a reflection of the fusion that exists.” (Unite, Sept., 1977, p.10). And CPP echoes, “although we required as a high priority that advanced workers be won to communism as the basis for forming the party, we did not also recognize that the party itself is the best vehicle for winning the advanced.” (Unite, Dec.1, 1978, p.6). Boiling down these ball of confusion leaves us with just this: MLOC does not see winning over any even significant section of the advanced workers to communism as a pre-requisite for forming the party. Rather, that is the task of the party itself.
MLOC is fond of bragging about its “live ties” with the working class But if these ties are so “live,” why have they recruited so few advanced workers? What MLOC says is reminiscent of the line of “close, organic contact” with the workers pushed by the economists of Lenin’s day. What MLOC does is to tail the spontaneous movement and not win workers to the science of socialism. This is the same as the trade unionism of OL and RU, who for years were famous for running all over the place and recruiting next to no workers. But MLOC’s failure to attract and train workers is not only due to their economism, but also to the good sense of many of the workers they come across who won’t buy their opportunism.
Is all this in contradiction to MLOC’S oft-repeated view that fusion is “at a relatively high level?” (Unite, Feb., 1977, p.7) If “the formation of a vanguard party is a reflection of the fusion that exists,” and fusion is at a high level, how then can the party have 30 few advanced workers? Wouldn’t that really mean that fusion is at a low level, since the party reflects the fusion that exists? But if we look more closely at what MLOC is saying, we will see that this seeming contradiction really reflects something else. While MLOC talks of the influence of Marxism-Leninism in the working class over the past 125 years, they do not explain how this influence developed for the current generation of workers. It is true that the influence of both the international communist and revolutionary movements and the various revolutionary mass movements of the past two decades in the US (even including to an extent the work of some of the present groups that call themselves Marxist-Leninist, both real and phoney) has meant that there still are advanced workers, a view we will more fully discuss in our upcoming article on OL. But MLOC has done no analysis to back up their view that fusion is high. All they do is assert it. While we oppose the more predominant view that fusion is virtually non-existent and that there are only a tiny handful of advanced workers, MLOC nowhere accounts for how this fusion took place. They refer to their “analysis of the state of the working class movement in ’Communist Line’ #3.” Probably they are hoping that no one has this document any more, for all that is in it is 14 pages of reprints from the Russian, Chinese, and Albanian parties, plus a one page introduction of generalizations that calls for a class analysis, which MLOC has still not done. No analysis of the current state of the workers movement or the level of fusion is even offered.
All we can conclude from MLOC is that either this fusion has taken place spontaneously, or that MLOC is not really talking about the fusion of scientific socialism with the working class. Here lies the key. To MLOC, fusion means “combining scientific socialism with the working class movement in the course of leading the day to day struggles of the workers. In other words, fusion means carrying out the kind of economist activity that they, OL, and all the other economists are well known for. Rather than bring scientific socialism from outside the spontaneous working class movement, MLOC wants to develop it from inside the spontaneous movement “in the course of leading the day to day struggles” for reforms. Rather than trying to divert the spontaneous movement, as Lenin says, MLOC wants to “combine” scientific socialism with it, to unite two opposites. Certainly there has been plenty of this kind of activity for years. Thus the evidence for MLOC’s brand of “fusion” is the existence of a spontaneous movement and trade union consciousness.
Even clearer evidence of this is MLOC’s view that “The national coal strike demonstrates the growing consciousness and organization of the working class movement in its war against capital.” (Class Against Class, #11, p.1) They then cite the militance of the rank-and-file, the rejection of the trade union bureaucrats, and the “political demands” against the state’s strike-breaking, which were what Lenin called “trade union politics,” and not communist politics. What is this but “lending the economic struggle a political character,” that socialist consciousness develops spontaneously from inside the trade union struggle?
Thus, there is no contradiction between MLOC’s views that “the formation of a vanguard party is a reflection of the fusion that exists,” that fusion is high, and that the party need not have many advanced workers, since in reality they are not talking of the fusion of scientific socialism with the working class movement, but only the level of trade union consciousness. It is this “fusion” that is far greater than the influence of MLOC among the working class. So, MLOC uses the “left” line that fusion is high, which on the surface overestimates the subjective factor, to cover for their real rightist, economist line that glorifies trade union consciousness, sees socialist consciousness as developing spontaneously, and negates the role of communists in introducing this consciousness. In fact, the lack of advanced workers in MLOC actually does reflect the level of fusion that does exist between MLOC and the working class, and that level is almost zero.
MLOC’s line is in sharp contrast to the clear distinction Lenin made between two “historical tasks” and “steps” for the proletariat in carrying out its historical mission–the first, winning over the vanguard of the proletariat to communism, and the second, winning the broad masses of the workers and all toilers to the side of the vanguard (see Lenin, Left-Wing Communism, Peking ed., p. 96-98, and Stalin, The Political Strategy and Tactics of the Russian Communists, Works, vol. 5, p. 82-83). We will elaborate on this in our exposure of OL-CPML. Suffice it to say here that MLOC totally obscures these two tasks and steps, both belittling the work among the advanced workers and overemphasizing work among the masses both before and after the formation of the party . The result will be the same - a group of loud-mouth economist petty bourgeois intellectuals miserably tailing the working class. The task of training the advanced workers is thus once again neglected, being supposedly unnecessary in the period of party-building, and supposedly already completed after the party is formed. Nor does this first historical step of the revolution of winning the advanced workers to communism end when the party is formed.
But for MLOC, it never even began. In a meeting with us in the summer of 1978, they said that they will function no differently when their party is formed. If there is no qualitative difference in the work of a “pre-party” group and the party itself, why go to the bother of forming the party at all? MLOC goes even further here than WVO in attacking Leninism. WVO claimed to uphold the two historical steps, but said that in the US, they “overlapped”. They always overlap to some extent, but at different times one of these must take clear precedence. To MLOC, all this is empty talk. What a contemptuous rejection of Leninism!
For those in MLOC (now “CPUSA (M-L)”) who honestly think that their course is revolutionary and correct, we urge a thorough study of the Leninist laws of party-building to explain why all the views and formulations of your leadership run counter to the teachings of Lenin and Stalin on the party. Our purpose is not to insult your revolutionary dedication, out only to point out that despite even the noblest of intentions, you are marching upon the well-worn oath that ultimately leads to revisionism.
Finally, it is a well-known Marxist-Leninist principle that the party be based on the industrial proletariat, its advanced detachment, and that we must “make every factory our fortress.” But, MLOC takes this correct principle out to lunch. As we pointed out in our critique of their Draft Joint Statement, they single out proletarian composition as the chief guarantee against revisionism. While claiming to support the line of the PLA, MLOC’s view is in direct opposition to it. The PLA instead emphasizes as key the ideological struggle against revisionism. This is spelled out in their article “The Class Struggle Within the Party–A Guarantee That the Party Will Always Remain A Revolutionary Party of the Working Class” (Albania Today, #1, 1978), in which they say, “The class struggle within the Party is, in the first place, an ideological struggle for the Marxist-Leninist purity of its theory, of its general line, and of the communists themselves.” But MLOC thinks that a proletarian background, rather than ideological struggle, is the main guarantee against revisionism. This is another version of the theory of spontaneity, since it expects the proletariat spontaneously to defeat revisionism without placing first attention on the ideological struggle.
While we do not necessarily quarrel with the phrase “industrial concentration” itself, the way MLOC uses it has nothing in common with the Leninist line of “make every factory our fortress” and concentrating on factory nuclei. Instead, the phrase is really used in the economist tradition of William Z. Foster and the CPUSA. While the phrase “industrial concentration” is not as vulgar as OL’s “fightback” rhetoric, it signifies a continuation of the rotten trade unionism, economism, and reformism that have for so long plagued the US communist movement.
We reprint here the comments on MLOC’s program we made on August 31, 1978, in our critique of MLOC’s joint statement affair:
Another key area where MLOC has failed is in laying the theoretical foundations for the party and the program. At a meeting with leaders of MLOC, briefly they outlined the key points of their draft program as being the questions of strategic alliance, the two worlds-socialist and capitalist, and the reformist nature of the trade union bureaucrats and labor aristocracy. While these are all important questions, they miss what should be the key point of the program. Lenin taught, “The cardinal point of the program should be the characterization of the basic features of the present-day economic system of Russia and its development.” (A Draft Program for Our Party, CW vol. 4, p. 233) This is even more essential for the US, where virtually no work has been done on this question for decades, where the CPUSA never did this work and never developed a genuine party program, and where the ignorance of Marxist political economy is so widespread that most forces are not even aware that political economy is “the principal content of Marxism.” (Lenin on Marx and Engels, Peking ed., p. 7) While we will not attempt a critique of MLOC’s draft program here, on what should be the “cardinal point” of the program, it is enormously shallow. We fail to see how such a weak program could fulfill the task of providing material for propaganda and agitation. Of course, such revolutionary theory is only required if we plan to have revolutionary^ practice. MLOC’s economist practice, on the other hand, does not require this, for you don’t need M-L theory to guide reformist practice. This is why when we pointed out that the Bolshevik party and its program were preceded by years of detailed, painstaking theoretical work analyzing Russian capitalism, agriculture, etc., and that the only way US communists can break with the decades of revisionism, reformism, and social-chauvinism and put us back on a revolutionary oath is for us now to resume the theoretical work and give it priority, MLOC vehemently disagreed and insisted that they have already done this sufficiently to form the party. For carrying out the trade union struggle, we agree, you have already done enough theoretical work. But for winning advanced workers to the science of Marxism-Leninism, for building a revolutionary party, no, you have not.
We would like to add here that time has fully confirmed our views. In trying to refute the line that ideological confusion characterizes the communist movement as a whole, MLOC writes, “Nor is there confusion around the strategy for revolution in the US. The Draft Program lays out this strategy correctly and the tactics for waging the struggle are being worked out on a consistent and clear course by examining and taking part in the class struggle.” The economist “tactics-as-process” line of working out tactics as you go along from one spontaneous movement to the other is extremely evident here. While, as Lenin taught, they are not worked out merely by “examining and taking part in the class struggle,” but can only be developed by a scientific analysis based on Marxist-Leninist theory the program, and refined in the course of struggle. Further, MLOC persists in its anti-Leninist conception of the program by emphasizing as its “cardinal point” not the characterization of the economic system, but the strategy for revolution. This means that whatever strategy and tactics they do end up with will not be based on a sufficient theoretical understanding of US imperialism, and will be at best shallow and at worst revisionist.
In fact, what they do pass off as strategy already shows their weaknesses. For one thing, while their program talks of the dictatorship of the proletariat, it makes no mention of how the working class will set this up, in what form. Historically, this has been a major point of analysis for Marxist-Leninists. Marx and Engels in “The Civil War In France,” writing about the Paris Commune, talked extensively of this. Lenin, in “Left-Wing Communism”, talked of the “international significance” of the “Russian model” of revolution, of the “fundamentals of Bolshevik theory and tactics”. (Peking ed., p. 1-2) And as an example of which features had international significance, he specifically mentioned “Soviet power,” which itself was based on the example of the Paris Commune. Yet, the MLOC belittlers of theory have ignored this point, and do not even hint at in their draft program that the proletariat can only establish its rule through Commune-type or Soviet-type organs. The only mention of the form of state power is in a list of the “first acts of the dictatorship of the proletariat,” meaning after the seizure of power. MLOC wants “Establishment of the Peoples’ Congress based upon democratic elections, which will lead to the formation of a genuine People’s Socialist Republic of the United States.” (Draft Program, p.21). In other words, even if they see such a congress as similar to the Paris Commune or the Soviets (which is never even explained, either in the program or in MLOC’s “commentary” on this section of the program in the June 1, 1978 “Unite”), it can only be set up after the proletariat takes power. But in what form then does the proletariat seize power in the first place? This gaping hole, this ignoring of one of the greatest teachings of Lenin, on the question of Soviet power, shows how utterly incomplete MLOC’s “strategy” and program are. It also reveals a new variety of parliamentary cretinism, a bias against the new forms of power created by the revolutionary proletariat, and towards re-establishing bureaucratic rule without the real participation and control by the working class and people, which can only at first be accomplished through Commune-type or Soviet-type organs (even though the forms of power can change after the proletarian dictatorship is consolidated). Also, the blanket call for “democratic elections” also shows this bourgeois-democratic bias because it does not specify any restrictions on the bourgeoisie and its parties.
Finally, MLOC also nowhere notes that Commune-type or Soviet-type organs generally develop in large cities, which are key strategic areas for the revolution. Their ignoring the cardinal point of the program, that characterization of the economic system and conditions, leads them to ignore that the strategic, decisive battles in the revolution and organs of power such as the Paris Commune and the Soviets will develop in the large urban areas. To think that they will develop on a factory-by-factory basis is sheer anarcho-syndicalism. Without an analysis of the urban question, no strategic determination of the key centers of the revolution or the effects of the urban crisis can be made. Again, MLOC’s belittling of the theoretical tasks leaves them “groping in the dark,” without an adequate, clear, and correct strategic conception of how a revolution will develop and triumph in the US.
Another glaring example of their incorrect strategy is their shoddy explanation of alliances. They tell us “The most important allies of the proletariat are the oppressed nations-both inside and outside of the state borders of the US.” (p. 29) But what about the oppressed nationalities that are outside of the oppressed nation itself, such as the millions of Black people in New York, Chicago, etc., or Puerto Ricans in New York, etc.? According to US government statistics (1970 census), there are more Black people in New York City than in all of North Carolina, and more in Chicago than in all of Mississippi. While we know that the statistics on Black population are notoriously inaccurate, they at least give us some idea of the population breakdown. While we do not belittle the strategic importance of the Black nation in the Black Belt, neither do we raise it up to downplay the significance of the movements of the oppressed nationalities outside of the oppressed nations and especially in the major cities In this regard, MLOC’s program is even shoddier than CPML’s and RCP’s.
More importantly, MLOC has the line that US workers have no national privileges, and that whatever privileges do exist are restricted to the bribed sections of the labor aristocracy and the trade union bureaucracy. While only those sections are bribed and bought off by imperialism, and while they only constitute a minority of the working class, to deny the existence of national privileges for the proletariat of an imperialist country, especially an imperialist superpower like the US that dominates most of the world economy and so many neo-colonial oppressed nations, and to not even consider how this effects revolutionary strategy, is patently anti-Leninist. Lenin dealt with this question most notably in “Imperialism and the Split In Socialism” (CW vol. 23). He extensively quoted Marx and Engels and made a contemporary analysis to show the existence of not only a small privileged upper stratum of the proletariat that was permanently benefitted by the privileged position of the dominant imperialist and colonial powers, but also the existence at certain times of privileges and benefits for the “great bulk” of the working class, if even temporary. Lenin also wrote, “To a certain degree the workers of the oppressor nations are partners of their own bourgeoisie in plundering the workers (and the mass of the population) of the oppressed nations.” (A Caricature of Marxism as Imperialist Economism, CW vol. 23, p.56). He mentions both economic and political privileges and differences, and also the ideological chauvinism the workers of the oppressor nations are taught to those of the oppressed nations. Thus, he says, “In real life the International is composed of workers divided into oppressor and oppressed nations.” (emphasis original.) Yet, MLOC has made no attempt to analyze how the US’s relative prosperity and its prolonged dominance of world capitalism have affected both the consciousness and objective material position of the working class of the world’s richest imperialist country, how all this is connected to the depth of social-chauvinism in the mass of the working class itself. For Lenin, the “connection between imperialism and the monstrous and disgusting victory opportunism (in the form of social-chauvinism) has gained in Europe” is called “the fundamental question of modern socialism.” (Imperialism and the Split in Socialism) But for the anti-Leninist MLOC, it is not even a question at all. They negate the privileges and material differences of life that objectively exist for the workers in the imperialist, oppressor nations. Clearly had MLOC been around in the days of Lenin, they would have sided with the social-chauvinist opponents of Lenin, the “heroes” of the 2nd International. This covering over of the relative privileges of imperialism shows that MLOC really aspires to. “become new members of the labor aristocracy, new bootlickers of imperialism. Such is the sad result of belittling and eventually revising Marxist-Leninist theory. So much for their much-vaunted “strategy” and program.
It is also interesting to note how MLOC’s own conception of the program changed as they degenerated and slid ..to the right. At one time, they republished the Program of the Communist International, adopted in its final form by the 6th C.I. Congress in 1928 (“Communist Line”, #9, August, 1976). This program briefly but clearly characterized the world system of capitalism and provided guidance to and laid out the aims of the revolutionary struggle. At that time, MLOC said of this program that “It is a model for a fighting program of the proletariat.” Even a brief comparison of the programs of the C.I. and MLOC will reveal that MLOC’s cheap and substanceless program is devoid of the depth and value of the C.I.’s, their supposed “model”. We shudder to even mention them in the same breath. But also reprinted in this same issue is the program of the so-called “Communist Party of Australia (M-L),” the revisionist “three worlds” group of E.F. Hill. Besides including the revisionist line of two-stage revolution and “national independence” for this developed capitalist country, it is also marked by its extreme poverty of analysis, containing even less and worse of an analysis of what should be the “cardinal point” of the program than MLOC. Yet, MLOC called this shabby job “remarkable in its conciseness and yet in its breadth.” How naked is their fascination with and affection for this stupid little tract! Time has shown that it was the trashy sort of program put out by the opportunists and belittlers of theory like E.F. Hill and company that served, as the “model” for MLOC, and not Lenin, Stalin, and the C.I. MLOC’s program is a simple list of principles of unity, rather than a precise, scientific analysis that can guide the revolutionary struggle.
Finally, while MLOC says that they have “made enough efforts to win over these groups” and “in the program discussions alone, the MLOC has actively pursued unity with these organizations,” and while they charge that it has been others who have refused to discuss their program, the facts speak otherwise. Last summer, the Workers Revolutionary Organizing Committee presented a written critique of MLOC’s program. Also, we and others have criticized the program for not being based on adequate theoretical work. To our knowledge, none of these criticisms have been answered. So why should groups send more criticisms to MLOC when the ones already made are still unanswered? At this point, further criticisms of their program are mainly necessary to expose them, since MLOC has proved time and again that unity on the basis of Marxism-Leninism and its application to the US is impossible with them.
Two points are raised here–the press and the center.
First, the Marxist-Leninist press. It is on this that MLOC most openly exposes itself as economist. Remarkably they have attacked as ultra-left and even Trotskyite, the view that propaganda is the chief form of activity (see “Unite”, February, 1977, “Trotskyism Exposed”). Perhaps, the ill-trained cadre of MLOC are unaware of this, but it was not Trotsky who advanced this view. No, it was none other than Lenin and Stalin themselves. It was Lenin who said:
As long as the question was (and in so far as it still is) one of winning over the vanguard of the proletariat to Communism, so long, and to that extent, propaganda was in the forefront; even propaganda circles, with all the defects of the circle spirit, are useful under these conditions and produce fruitful results. (Left-Wing Communism, Peking ed., p. 98)
And, it was Stalin himself that coined the phrase “propaganda as the chief form of activity” (Works, vol. 5, p. 83), the phrase MLOC hates so much. In fact, all Stalin did here was to summarize Lenin’s teachings on strategy and tactics, especially from “Left-Wing Communism.”
Notice how Lenin emphasizes the positive value of propaganda circles in the period of the formation of the party, in contrast to MLOC’s and CPP’s emphasis only on their drawbacks. These circles were a necessity of the time, even though now, as in the time of the Bolsheviks, they were of use for only a limited period. But has the problem in the US communist movement of late been that these circles have as of yet outgrown their usefulness, that we have been shut up talking only to the advanced or to just ourselves, and that it is now time to move on to mass agitation? Not at all. On the contrary, many of the circles and individuals we have spoken to have claimed that either there are no advanced workers, or just very, very few. What this means is that they have not yet even found and identified them yet, much less trained them. While many of these circles are engaged in various trade union and mass activities, the fact that they see so few advanced workers reflects the fact that they are not pursuing correct methods to attract them. Immersed in local activities, they bypass or ignore the “working class intelligentsia,” who want to study, study, study and turn themselves into conscious Social-Democrats,” as Lenin described the advanced workers (A Retrograde Trend, CW vol. 4, p. 281). In short, they miss the forest for the trees. So, for MLOC to call for agitation as chief now is downright criminal, for it pushes our movement even further in the wrong direction.
The Bolsheviks put such attention on propaganda in the period of forming the party because they knew that only propaganda could be used to train revolutionary leaders from the working class, and that only after these advanced workers had been won to communism ideologically, could the party be in a position to lead the broad masses in the revolution. Otherwise, they would merely tail the spontaneous movement, which has been exactly what every other opponent of propaganda as chief in the US, such as OL, RU, WVO, etc., has done. The Bolsheviks also used many methods in distributing and using their propaganda and in setting up a network of agents, as opposed to the Fosterite conception of sending ex-students into the factories. We illustrate this in the re-published old pamphlet about Babushkin, an advanced worker and close associate of Lenin.
While MLOC’s paper “Unite” has expanded and grown, it has not been on the right path. It is really not that different from “The Call”, the “Guardian”, “Workers Viewpoint”, and a whole host of other papers before it. Rather than modeling itself after Lenin’s “Iskra”, it is but another collection of local leaflets and weak analysis. It is true that occasionally it carries interesting and informative articles certainly not as vulgar as “The Call.” But this does not mean that it fulfills our tasks of theory and propaganda so urgently needed at this time. MLOC’s whole purpose is not to have a newspaper that can help train advanced workers, but instead to write short articles about each reform struggle they are tailing.
Our view is that there are many significant parallels between the situation the Bolsheviks were in when they built their party, and our present situation: the scattered state of the communist movement, the existence of a stratum of advanced workers, the lack of a leading center and the need to fight for and build one, the dominance of economism, the lack of a revolutionary situation but a growing spontaneous movement, and the lack of an International that could directly guide party-building. The Russian movement was further developed than ours at the time of “Iskra,“ especially since they had developed a core of theoretical and ideological leaders of stature, particularly Lenin and Plekhanov. In addition, in the US, there are very, very few ex-CP’ers who are still revolutionary, and almost none of them has taken up the necessary theoretical tasks to re-establish a genuine party. Most brought with them into the newer movement various shades of right opportunism inherited from Browder, Foster, and company. Almost all of the CP’s theoretical work is so imbedded with revisionism that we cannot use it as a basis for ours. Thus, our movement over the last few years has had to almost start from scratch in the theoretical work, to re-establish in the US continuity with the international communist movement and with a correct Marxist-Leninist analysis of the conditions in the US. Our situation has important differences with the situation at the time of the formation of the Albanian party, which took place during the anti-fascist war and under the leadership of the Comintern and its Balkan federation. All this makes it imperative for us to follow a similar path to that of the Bolsheviks, not only in general principle, which is true for all parties, but also in terms of closely following Lenin’s two historical steps and emphasizing propaganda and theory in this period to lay firm foundations for the party.
It is this kind of Leninist approach that has caused MLOC to blow its stack and denounce emphasis on propaganda as “Trotskyite”. But what has this in common with Trotskyism? It should be well known that at the time Lenin led the Bolsheviks in struggle against the Mensheviks for their belittling of theory and the role of the conscious element. Trotsky himself sided with the Mensheviks, whose views are remarkably similar to MLOC’s (no coincidence here). So who is the one really closer to Trotsky? As for the contemporary Trotskyites in the US, whose deviations take innumerable right and “left” forms, there is also nothing in common between their approach and ours. The view of the Trotskyites is that socialist consciousness will come spontaneously out of their so-called “transitional program,” and not through propaganda. This is one reason why Trotskyism, which Stalin called “a variety of Menshevism” (October Revolution and The Tactics of the Russian Communists, Works, vol. 6, p.386 ), is also another variety of the theory of spontaneity. The Trotskyites, as the Albanians have said, proceed to engage in their “permanent feud” amongst each other over who has the “correct” transitional-program, and who are the “real” Trotskyites. Besides their own version of the theory of spontaneity and opposition to Lenin’s teachings on propaganda, there are many other key features of Trotskyism-support of a party of factions and many lines, strategy of “permanent revolution” (which is really permanent counter-revolution), liquidation of the national question, support for Soviet social-imperialism, etc.–which have absolutely nothing in common with anything we have stood for.
It is an old trick of OL and RU to denounce anyone talking of the importance of theory as Trotskyite, since the Trotskyites also talk of theory. What MLOC is doing here is not attacking Trotskyism, but actually attacking Leninism. They present a caricature of Leninism and then call it Trotskyism. This cheap slander not only shows how unprincipled and shameless MLOC is, but also shows their contempt for their own cadre and supporters, whose knowledge of the science of Marxism-Leninism and whose basic sense MLOC hopes is low enough so they can get away with their slight of hand.
In fact, in their opposition to the teachings of Lenin and Stalin on propaganda in the pre-party period, MLOC goes even further than OL. By 1976, or so, almost every group had to cop to the line “propaganda as the chief form of activity,” if only in words, due to the struggle being waged against right opportunism. Although there were many errors in this struggle, and because of this no leading Leninist center was established, OL could no longer avoid taking a position on this. What they did was to say that they agreed propaganda was the chief form of activity, but went on to re-define propaganda as meaning “revolutionary education”–meaning both propaganda aimed at the advanced and agitation aimed at the masses (see “The Call,” Feb. 14, 1977,–again, we exposed this thoroughly in our forthcoming analysis of OL). But, MLOC makes no pretense of upholding Lenin or Stalin on this point, and attacks it head on with a sledge hammer. This not only shows how utterly bankrupt MLOC is, but also how far downhill the US communist movement has gone when the opportunists are no longer forced to give themselves an orthodox cover, but come out full-blown out in the open with their attacks on Leninism.
Next, the question of an ideological center. Clearly, an ideological center can only be established by giving ideological leadership, which clearly MLOC has not done. The Iskra circle led by Lenin became the ideological leader of the Russian Marxists because its members over a period of time had fulfilled the theoretical prerequisites necessary to lead the movement, and put that into practice by organizing around their line. Rather than building such an authoritative group of leaders, MLOC has fulfilled none of the burning theoretical or practical tasks, and has not given ideological leadership to the communist movement in any area. Even on the struggle against the “theory of the three worlds,” they played no significant role either in fighting its proponents or in rallying forces against it. Those opposed to it have done so under the influence of the PLA and the international communist movement, and not because of MLOC. To this day, MLOC has never issued a self-criticism for its previous support of the “theory of the three worlds,” or explained the ideological reasons they accepted it, how they will guarantee they will not again promote a similar revisionist line, what they are doing different now, etc. In the past, they upheld “Mao Tsetung Thought,” but now they print articles by the PLA criticizing this as anti-Leninist, without, as usual, even a mention of their past position. Nor has MLOC undertaken the responsibility of US Marxist-Leninists to sum up the specific implications of Chinese revisionism and the “three worlds theory” for the US, including both the types of social-chauvinism and also narrow nationalism related to “third world-ism,” and also for party-building in particular. We are not holding our breath until MLOC does so, either.
It is our view that the ease with which almost the entire US communist movement accepted the “theory of the three worlds” reflected a low ideological level and lack of revolutionary training; a slavish tailing of other parties, which was encouraged by the CPC; belittling of theory by not independently keeping up with the international situation and substituting copying Peking Review for fulfilling our theoretical tasks, thus tailing the spontaneous development of events; generalizing or exaggerating certain features of the international situation, especially after the defeat of the US in Indochina and the Arab oil embargo, and not seeing them in light of Marxist-Leninist theory; and the depth of social-chauvinism and narrow nationalism, which itself reflects the dominance of right opportunism in our movement. Social-chauvinism is the ultimate, counter-revolutionary consummation of this opportunism. By not dealing with these questions, MLOC shows no signs that they are committed to fundamentally changing the state of affairs that led to the present victory of the “three worlds theory” and revisionism in most of our movement. The little they have ever mentioned on why they and others once accepted the “three worlds theory” only singles out the factor of slavishness, of blindly following other parties (see Class Against Class #10, p. 44, and #11, p. 58). But this is only the most obvious point. MLOC even reduces the error to having just “followed incorrectly certain positions of the CPC.” “Certain positions” baloney! A whole wrong view of the world, from support of FNLA and UNITA in Angola, to support of the purge of the so-called “gang of four,” to propagating the whole general illusion that US imperialism was less aggressive than the Soviet Union, all served to greatly disorient our movement and the advanced workers, to lull us to sleep about the real danger of US imperialism, and to cover up just what its real plans were during the years of dominance of the “three worlds theory” in our movement. We must go back and re-examine this period to catch up with history and correct the damage done to our view of the world, to uncover the aggressive acts and maneuvers of US imperialism such as creating a military stronghold in Iran after its defeat in Indochina (which is already crumbling), its instigation of the fascist coup in Argentina in 1974, its patching up differences with NATO members and strengthening its ties with them, and other acts elsewhere which were not talked about when our movement spread the illusion that the US was on the defensive. Obviously, MLOC has learned little or almost nothing from this struggle against the “theory of the three worlds,” and therefore seems destined to eventually repeat similar errors in a different form.
Further, on our central task of party-building, MLOC has played a retrograde role. While in “Communist Line” #1, they promised all sorts of theoretical work, they soon abandoned this and reversed their course. They have never publicly summed up their views on the split in the BWC or their role in it, which is particularly important to do since the BWC led one of the first major attempts at breaking with the economism of OL and RU, the main danger in our movement. So there is nothing very “ideological” about the center MLOC has built. Rather than leading on a correct path, MLOC has merely become a new “leader” of economism, doing what OL had done before it.
Adding to the confusion is the CPP. Besides anointing MLOC as the “leading circle,” CPP has concocted its own “creative” formula for party-building. In their attack on the other circles, they tell us, “we work for the emergence of a leading circle whereas the other groups propose to build a leading center.” The problem with our approach is that “a significant number of these local circles still harbor the petit-bourgeois pipedream that somehow out of their protracted multilateral labors some mythical ’genuine’ leading center will emerge, probably after an interminable series of forums, polemics, theoretical journals, and conferences.” CPP, on the other hand, “sees a party being formed by the efforts chiefly of a leading circle.” They then give as examples of this formula the Iskra circle led by Lenin in Russia, and the Tirana circle led by Enver Hoxha in Albania.
Even a brief examination of these two examples refutes CPP’s nonsense. The Iskra circle was not merely a leading circle, but a leading center that developed out of the merger of leaders of various circles, including Lenin and Co., from St. Petersburg, and Plekhanov and Co., from the Emancipation of Labor group outside of Russia (see History of CPSU(B), chapter 1). As for Albania, Enver Hoxha first emerged out of student circles in France. When he returned to Albania and became a leader of the communist movement there, he not only led the Tirana branch of the Korea Communist Group, as CPP quotes, but also “found a common language with the outstanding activists of the Shkroda Communist Group Vasil Shanto and Qemal Stafa.” (History of PLA, p. 80). While quoting from this section of this book, CPP conveniently leaves this part of the quote out. Although there were differences in the historical particularities of the formation of the Bolshevik Party and the PLA, what both these examples show is that the leading circle was a leading center that was welded together and emerged out of years of “forums, polemics, theoretical journals, and conferences,” preparatory work which CPP, like all economists, dreads and fears.
In the case of Russia, CPP actually negates the actual course pursued by the Iskra circle, the years of theoretical work and propaganda that made it possible for it to emerge as the leading circle.. In the case of the PLA, they negate the preparatory work of Ali Kelmendi and the leadership of the Comintern that laid the basis for Hoxha to proceed to lead the formation of the party. Clearly in the US, we have not yet completed such preparatory tasks. So it is totally wrong to declare MLOC the leading circle, since they have not led our movement in fulfilling these key tasks.
For us, this means that we must chart the proper path to forming a leading center which can then become the leading circle. If one emerges (which in our view has not happened yet), then it must immediately gather around it all the chief leaders of the communist movement, and fight for its hegemony over that movement. But what CPP says is something different. They present as a law that the leading circle must consist of only one of the various circles that crop up, that one and only one of them can become such a leading circle, and that every other circle must liquidate itself into it. In reality, this course is only one of many possibilities. It did not happen in Russia or Albania. For the US, it is more likely a leading center will be formed out of some sort of merger of the best leaders from different circles, although we cannot totally rule out the possibility of one circle emerging as the leading center. But CPP presents an idealist formula, neither derived from historical experience nor corresponding to the reality of our movement. This is nothing but idealist apriorism, nothing but an attempt to get life to conform with their “theory,” rather than their theory being based on life itself.
CPP’s idealist formula reduces party-building for the smaller circles to one of merely choosing which larger group to join. In their December, 1978, letter announcing their “liquidation” (which really was the prelude to joining MLOC’s “party”), they quote their 1977 Principles of Unity, and saw that from their start, CPP has sought “to merge itself into a national communist organization.” But what if no genuine leading center existed, no national group had a consistently correct line, and those who were on the right oath also had important inconsistencies? Apparently this did not matter to CPP, for their idealist formula of a priori declaring that they must liquidate into one of the existing organizations reduced party-building to mere window-shopping, to finding the lesser of many evils. The result of this is to negate the struggle of these circles for correct line and for drawing clear lines of demarcation between Marxism-Leninism and revisionism, since it postulates that a consistent, correct Marxist-Leninist line must already have been worked out, and all we must do is pick it out of the bunch. This cripples the initiative of the local circles in criticizing the rampant opportunism of our movement. In fact, all the national organizations themselves, including MLOC, started out as one or two local circles. This is also true of RCP, CPML, IWK, WVO, etc. Now, if CPP’s “leader” MLOC had said in 1975, that they had “to merge itself into a national communist organization” rather than fight to become a national organization itself, where would they be now? It is one thing to debate if in reality MLOC is the leading circle or not. That is one thing. But to introduce the idealist formula that one and only one circle must make up what becomes the leading circle, and that the chief task of the local circles is to merge into a larger group rather than fight for the hegemony of a correct line regardless of where it comes from, is to reveal a hopeless confusion on the tasks of local circles and the struggles to overcome circle spirit. For those who would restrict our choices to the already existing national groups, and a priori eliminate the struggle to develop a correct line, fight for its hegemony, and create a new party, we reply with the words of Lenin that we should “decide not with whom to go, but where to go.” (The Bourgeois Intelligentsia’s Methods of Struggle, vol. 20, p. 473)
Marxism-Leninism makes no mystery of how to unite the genuine different circles are scattered and disunited, where ideological confusion prevails, and where a wide range of differences on basic questions remains, the only road to organizational unity on a nationwide scale in a vanguard party is first establishing ideological and political unity. Thus the question becomes how to establish this ideological and political unity.
Lenin clearly laid out these general principles in “Declaration of The Editorial Board of Iskra.” He said that:
such unity cannot be decreed, it cannot be brought about by a decision, say, of a meeting of representatives; it must be worked for. In the first place, it is necessary to work for solid ideological unity which should eliminate discordance and confusion that–let us be frank!–reign among Russian Social-Democrats at the present time. This ideological unity must be consolidated by a Party programme. (CW, vol. 4, p. 354)
Lenin also called for:
an organization especially for the purpose of establishing and maintaining contact among all the centers of the movement, of supplying complete and timely information about the movement, and of delivering our newspapers and periodicals regularly to all parts of Russia. (Ibid.)
How to do this? Lenin continues:
As we have said, the ideological unity of Russian Social-Democrats has still to be created, and to that end it is, in our opinion, necessary to have an open and all-embracing discussion of the fundamental questions of principle and tactics raised by the present-day ’economists,’ Bernstein-ians, and ’critics.’ (Ibid.)
Why did Lenin attach so much importance to such “an open and all-embracing discussion?” Because, he said,
Before we can unite, and in order that we may unite, we must first of all draw firm and definite lines of demarcation. Otherwise our unity will be purely fictitious, it will conceal the prevailing confusion and hinder its radical elimination. (Ibid.)
In order to achieve this “radical elimination” of the prevailing ideological confusion, Lenin proposed that “Iskra,” while representing “a strictly defined tendency” of Marxism, would ”give space in our columns to polemics between comrades.” He then laid out the chief method for ending the ideological confusion and disarray that then prevailed:
Open polemics, conducted in full view of all Russian Social-Democrats and class-conscious workers, are necessary and desirable in order to clarify the depth of existing differences, in order to combat the extremes into which representatives, not only of various views, but even of various localities, or various ’specialities’ of the revolutionary movement, inevitably fall. Indeed, as noted above, we regard one of the drawbacks of the present-day movement to be the absence of open polemics between avowedly differing views, the effort to conceal differences on fundamental questions. (Ibid., p. 355)
All this demands close attention-ideological unity consolidated in a program, an open discussion, drawing clear lines of demarcation, a radical elimination of ideological confusion, and open polemics in full view of all communists and class-conscious workers. Life has proved that these are not mere tactical particularities of one time, but general principles which apply to the construction of all Marxist-Leninist parties, general requirements that must be met for a party to have solid foundation. These principles are a component part of Leninism. Stalin taught that:
Leninism is Marxism of the era of imperialism and the proletarian revolution. To be more exact, Leninism is the theory and tactics of the proletarian revolution in general, the theory and tactics of the dictatorship of the proletariat in particular. (Foundations of Leninism, Peking ed., p. 2-3)
Thus, to oppose the general principles quoted above, either in word-or in deed, is to violate Leninism itself, to take an opportunist and anti-Leninist path.
Let us see how MLOC, in its close to four years of existence, has abided by these Leninist principles.
What first might be expected of MLOC was an accounting of the struggle in the BWC, of why they chose to form a separate group, and an analysis of why what was once one of the most important organizations in the US communist movement so quickly splintered and died. In fact, in 1975, MLOC even distributed a letter introducing their newspaper, “Unite” that promised an analysis of the split in the BWC. But that promise was never kept, with no explanation given. Recently, when we asked a leader of MLOC why they had never done this analysis, they told us that a private paper was sent around to some groups, but no public paper was done because the working class had never heard of the BWC! We responded by saying that Lenin’s polemics against the economists, including What Is To Be Done?, were necessary to clarify the principles of Marxism-Leninism and to draw clear lines of demarcation between Marxism-Leninism and revisionism. So from its very beginning, MLOC was on an anti-Leninist path opposed to open polemics conducted in full view of all communists and class-conscious workers.
It soon became clear why MLOC so studiously avoided its past. Breaking their long public silence on the BWC, in the February, 1977, “Unite,” they wrote, “In fact, looking backward, we can see that the struggle in the former Black Workers’ Congress against right opportunism was correct in as far as it went – but it did not go far enough. It did not correctly take up the struggle on two fronts against opportunism exposing both right and ’left’ opportunism.” In fact, the majority of the BWC held that supposed “left” errors, including emphasis on theory and propaganda, were the main danger. In this same article, “Trotskyism Exposed,” as shown earlier, it was precisely on these same questions that MLOC reversed its stand and adopted the same economist line as OL, RU, and yes, the right wing of the BWC itself. Now, when it was formed, MLOC said that they agreed with the Workers Congress that right opportunism had been the main danger in the BWC, although they had differences on other questions (which incidentally, were spelled out in secret letters between the leaders of MLOC and WC, but also never publicly aired due to a collusion of opportunist silence by the leaders of both groups). Now MLOC’s silence had served its purpose, for it allowed them to actually switch sides on the key issues of the split in the BWC without having to explicitly account for this change. Their philistine attitude to open polemics was also connected to their overall swing to the right, since both reflected a belittling of the role of theory and the conscious element, and both, as we shall see,, reduced party-building to a process of intrigue and secret horse-trading. Thus, in order to advance the struggle against opportunism in general and MLOC in particular, we call on all comrades and ex-MLOC members who have access to the secret polemics of MLOC to publicly publish them, with, of course, necessary deletions for security reasons.
At MLOC’s 1st Congress, in November, 1977, they briefly mentioned their origins in the BWC. They say that “our organization was formed out of a struggle in the former Black Workers’ Congress. We want to retrace just a little bit of this history to draw some lessons from it. Many comrades attending this First Congress may not be familiar with this history.” No wonder, since MLOC has been so careful to cover it up! Now this Congress was supposedly a gathering of the best leaders of MLOC. Yet, according to MLOC’s own chairman, “many comrades” in MLOC didn’t even know how and why their group was formed, or what role its leaders played only a bit more than two years before this Congress, in 1975! Probably even fewer of them knew that before that, these same leaders were in RU. Of course, this was no crime, since they left RU in general support of the position taken by BWC and PRRWO in 1974. But, all this mystery and covering up the past shows just how little revolutionary training there really is in MLOC and just how little drawing of clear lines of demarcation MLOC intends. Even MLOC’s explanation here of the split in the BWC masks the real reasons, They say the struggle was against those who did not uphold the existence of the Black nation, those “who thought that the Party would grow out of the spontaneous movement and would not represent the fusion of Marxism-Leninism with that movement,” and those who thought that “revolution was not possible” or “not on the agenda” and saw “no reason to have an organization.” Even the Workers Congress, with all their opportunism, came nowhere near to obscuring and distorting the struggle in the BWC as did MLOC. The key struggles around theory and practice, around the relation of propaganda and agitation and the role of the communist press, and the relation of winning the vanguard of the proletariat and winning over the broad masses, are not even mentioned here. While the central theme was a struggle against those who did see the party growing out of the spontaneous movement, MLOC here tries to sneak in its own line on fusion as a key issue. But the key struggles were over what to do to form the party, differences MLOC doesn’t even mention. This is idealist history, distorting the facts to fit one’s own conception of what you wanted to be, doctoring the facts to fit your idealist and self-serving conception of things and theories. WC, while playing a major role in this struggle and initially talking of its role in it, refused to publicly distribute any of the major polemics from within the BWC, and soon hushed the whole thing up. MLOC goes even further than WC in covering up this struggle, since MLOC gives the impression that they played a major role in it, and that their line was a major point of contention, when in fact they played only a minor role at most. Mangle, spindle, tear, and fold history all you want, MLOC, for it cannot be destroyed or changed. It will come back to haunt you, no matter what you do. And thus far, history has proved that the split in the BWC actually produced four right opportunist factions.
It was also right after the BWC split and the formation of MLOC that the revolutionary wing was formed, composed mainly of PRRWO, WVO, RWL, and ATM. Time has shown that the majority of the wing was right opportunist, with most of its former members (both groups and individuals) upholding the revisionist “three worlds theory” openly or clinging to other opportunist lines. The wing also did include genuine Marxist-Leninists, although they did make mistakes. The platform of the wing did not represent a consistent Marxist-Leninist line. While in word it emphasized theoretical work and propaganda as the chief form of activity, most of its forces did not carry this line out in deed. Most of the rest of its platform-political line is the key link, the ideological break with revisionism had been complete with the “re-affirmation of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought” in 1972, the two “tactical” Tasks (uniting Marxist-Leninists and winning the advanced workers to communism – since when have these merely been “tactics?”), the three periods (first, ideology; second, political line; third, organization–a new “creative” American exceptionalist formula for party-building that separates the ideological and political tasks with a Chinese wall),etc.–was a step back from Leninism and the gains made in the struggle against RU. To say the ideological break with revisionism had been in the main complete in 1972, which was precisely the time that the economism and bowing to spontaneity of RU actually gained dominance over the communist movement, was to belittle the central importance of the ideological struggle against the theory of spontaneity, which, as we quoted earlier, Stalin had called “a preliminary condition for the creation of truly revolutionary parties in the West.” (Foundations of Leninism, p. 26) Further, there were deep differences in the wing around many key questions, such as the Black national question, the relation of party-building to mass work, and even the ideological basis of all opportunism (WVO had denied that bowing to spontaneity was the ideological root of all opportunism and had promoted its American exceptionalist “anti-revisionist premises” ail throughout the period of the wing). This meant that, rather than there being a single, Marxist-Leninist line in the wing, there were many lines and many factions. The one point the whole wing was united on was the “theory of the three worlds.” So how could the ideological break with revisionism have been in the main completed by then? To plagiarize a bit, from the struggle against RU to the formation of the wing, it was one step forward and two steps back. So, although the wing included genuine Marxist-Leninists dedicated to forming a truly vanguard Marxist-Leninist party, the many errors and glaring inconsistencies in its platform, plus the multitude of different lines on so many questions, meant that the revolutionary wing did not represent a consistent, Leninist trend united around a single, correct Marxist-Leninist line, which i s a prerequisite for being a revolutionary wing. Thus, despite its name, it was not a real revolutionary wing or trend of our movement, but, in fact, an alliance of both opportunist and revolutionary forces, of those from the opportunist trend or wing of our movement and those who were in the embryo of a real revolutionary wing or trend of our movement.
Despite MLOC’s slandering of our group and others as continuing the errors of the wing, the facts show that is was MLOC who found basic unity with the worst features and biggest errors of the wing’s line, and tried desperately to join it. They united with its analysis that “for the most part, the ideological break has been made,” talking of the ideological break with revisionism (see Communist Line #1, and Unite, vol. 2, p. 1). They also upheld “political line is the key link.” Instead of insisting that clear lines of demarcation on all major questions are necessary for a revolutionary wing or trend to be established, and instead of emphasizing the actual lack of ideological and political unity and cohesion within the wing itself, MLOC went even further than the wing in seeking unprincipled unity, unity not based on having first drawn clear lines of demarcation. If the groups that declared themselves the revolutionary wing did so on an unprincipled basis, then MLOC wanted to push them even further along that opportunist path.
In the fall of 1975, shortly after they were formed, MLOC sent secret letters to the wing groups calling for a secret plan to “concentrate a superior force to defeat the enemy” in party-building. These secret letters were revealed and publicly published by Workers Viewpoint in their November, 1976, newspaper. In the letters, MLOC declared “that between ATM, WVO, PRRWO, and themselves, “a high degree of ideological unity has already been achieved,” that these groups comprised a “revolutionary trend,” and that “the principal slogan in the communist movement is Marxist-Leninists Unite.” It was not incorrect for MLOC to declare its ideological unity with these groups, since, at that time, they all were making economist errors, although MLOC did not of course mean it that way. Also, one of the examples MLOC gave of this ideological unity was around “Mao Tsetung Thought,” and they even denounced “the attack against Mao Tsetung Thought in the Draft Party Program of the Revolutionary Union,” since RU only put “Mao Tsetung Thought” after “Marxism-Leninism” with a comma and not a dash. While we are still studying the subject of how following “Mao Tsetung Thought” has been related to the opposition to the Leninist teachings on the party by OL, RU, and all its adherents, one look at MLOC’s secret “strategy and tactics” of party-building show how applying “Mao Tsetung Thought” rather than Leninism so neatly coincides with economism. This can also be seen by the profuse usage of Mao’s quote “Unite, don’t split” in all of MLOC’s writings of that period. We have vividly seen in the history and practice of the CPC, that Mao viewed the party as a series of factions, each with their own line. MLOC “applied” this to the US by emphasizing unity not on the basis of revolutionary principles, but instead a unity of various trends and lines into one party.
MLOC insisted its plan be kept secret because “While the pace of this work must increase, it must be conducted in a quiet, secretive manner, until such time as a superior force has been assembled. We must not arouse the watch dogs at the gate before we are inside.” The “gate” MLOC wanted to so secretly sneak “inside” was that of OL, with whom they were also seeking unity with at that time (see below). The secret plan allowed MLOC to bet on both sides at once, hoping to be accepted onto one side (either the wing or OL) if they were kept out of the other, or to join both at once. Open polemics, which, as Lenin taught, were absolutely necessary for the cadre and advanced workers to be trained in the science of Marxism-Leninism, to be steeled in the course of the ideological struggle against revisionism, and to themselves recognize Marxism-Leninism from revisionism, were thus alien to MLOC’s plan, since MLOC had no intention of drawing clear lines of demarcation. Instead, they wanted whatever unprincipled unity they could get. It did not matter to them on what basis this was, whether it was on a line and program that could lead to the defeat of US imperialism. No, this was of no matter to the back-room horse-traders of MLOC. What mattered to them was their own political careers, whether one or two of them would be accepted as “leaders” of a larger group, of what appeared to be popular at the time. Principles were to be sacrificed, since their careers were of prime concern, and not whether or not the fundamental revolutionary interests of the proletariat were served. Instead of showing the proletarian staunchness and revolutionary fortitude to denounce the whole pack of opportunists and proceed on a Leninist path, if even in a small circle or alone, MLOC chose to go along with the fashion of the day and blow with the wind. To MLOC, the “watch dogs at the gate” were the cadre and advanced workers, whom MLOC wanted to keep in the dark about their opportunist maneuverings. This not only revealed their despicable petty bourgeois contempt for the working class and their careerism, but also their bureaucratic approach to party-building.
In the end, nobody in the wing went for MLOC’s secret diplomacy, and MLOC soon fell out of favor with them. But did MLOC learn the correct lesson from this episode and adopt a Leninist approach? Not a chance. To this day, they defend their anti-Leninist maneuvering. They ridicule the former wing members, saying, “We were told that concentrating a superior force was an opportunist view, and that it was only a military tactic. Now these same people have come around to talk about working in the industrial proletariat.” (Class Against Class, #10, p.32) This was printed in January, 1978. So MLOC’s analysis that they had this great ideological unity with the wing forces (the majority of which are still loud defenders of the “three worlds theory”), and their attempts to merge with these groups, was apparently right all along.
As we said above, MLOC was betting on two horses at once, the wing and OL. Even in a long polemic with OL in “Unite,” vol. 2, no. 1, in early 1976, they still referred to OL as comrades and called for struggle on the basis of “unity-struggle-unity.” This was long after much of the communist movement had correctly recognized OL as a leader of the right opportunist trend, and had severed relations with it. Instead of trying to defeat it, MLOC was trying to join it. Instead of trying to build a new Leninist trend, MLOC was trying to merge with the opportunist trend. They thus hung around all sorts of conferences and coalitions headed by OL, trying to patch up their differences, rather than exposing OL. In the midst of their courting of OL, in the spring of 1976, they issued a list of so-called “Principles of Bolshevik Unity.” They said, “Equality among Marxist-Leninists is a fundamental principle guiding correct relations. Regardless of size, previous achievements or past records, Marxist-Leninists sit down together as equals. No one waves a baton over the others. Without strict equality among Marxist-Leninists, genuine unity cannot be achieved.” (Unite, vol. 2, no. 2, p. 4) In other words, regardless of whether one is a Marxist-Leninist or an opportunist, everyone should be equal. “Strict equality” must exist for all lines, trends, and classes. This is a bourgeois democratic approach, an anti-Leninist and tailist, gutless line. MLOC was so humble when they were the small fish trying to swim with the big fish. Now that they think the shoe is on the other foot, their arrogance is as extreme as their false humility had previously been. While today the CPP, as hatchetmen for MLOC, screams that it and MLOC are the only ones who have broken with the petty bourgeois line of equality of all circles, let us remind them that it was this same MLOC that preached this line of “strict equality” in the most open and vulgar fashion, and has still to this day to repudiate the actions it took in that period.
MLOC searched long and hard for a way to join OL, to advance the careers of their leaders through the opportunist party OL was in the process of forming. When OL shifted tactics somewhat (a process we examine in detail in our upcoming work on OL), MLOC declared that “OL has recently begun a series of articles which fundamentally change their line on trade unions.” (Communist Line #9, August, 1976, p. 2) Now, this was not true, for all OL had done was make their militant trade-unionist reformism a pinch more “militant” in their reform demands, without “fundamentally” changing what was “fundamentally” behind their errors, namely, bowing to spontaneity. It is useful to note here that MLOC’s failure to see through OL’s “new” line on the trade unions also reveals MLOC’s own economism and own fundamental unity with OL.
While OL’s little shift was applauded by MLOC, they still had one complaint: “To this date, the OL has not offered any meaningful self-criticism as to the basis of this change.” If MLOC wanted to see who else has never done self-criticism for past errors, they should look in the mirror. This is the same MLOC that, as perhaps the one organization that has done more flip-flops than OL, has not only never issued any self-criticism, but even invented theories to the effect that self-criticism is not necessary. They even argued that the PLA never did any self-criticism, which, of course, is not true. Self-criticism is not a religious ritual of atonement for sins, but a Marxist-Leninist method of rooting out one’s errors and attempting to prevent them from recurring, especially in different forms. Stalin pointed out:
the fear the parties of the Second International have of self-criticism, their habit of concealing their mistakes, of glossing over vexed questions, of covering up their shortcomings by a deceptive show of well-being which blunts living thought and prevents the Party from deriving revolutionary training from its own mistakes–a habit which was ridiculed and pilloried by Lenin. (Foundations of Leninism, Peking ed., p. 19)
It was not only OL, but MLOC, too, that blunted living thought, took away its revolutionary content, and prevented revolutionary training by covering up its dirty tricks, all in the traditions of the Second International.
A few months later, OL, too, decided to burn its bridges with MLOC, and openly denounced it. A somewhat stunned MLOC wrote an open letter to OL, in which MLOC declared, “We must also conclude that they “are not interested in seeking to resolve differences.” (Unite, February, 1977, p. 1) In other words, until February, 1977, MLOC still hoped and thought it could patch up its differences with OL. MLOC wanted to become a partner in the crime of economism with OL, but, alas, their love was spurned. Still, MLOC continued its support of OL’s basic line, calling upon the cadre of OL to still have comradely struggle and relations with MLOC because “This is the essence of the ’unity trend’ which the OL is so fond of raising–yet which the OL has failed to live up to.” (Ibid.) No, MLOC, OL had lived up to the “essence” of its “unity trend”, since its essence was really the unity of all the right opportunists, all the supporters of the “three worlds theory,” into one party. Even when this was written, it should have been clear that the “unity trend” was nothing but a right opportunist trend, even if the situation in the international communist movement was still not fully clear (MLOC initially supported the purge of the so-called “gang of four” in the Dec. 1976-Jan. 1977 issue of “Unite”, p. 2 which immediately preceded the Feb. 1977 issue quoted above). Even to this day, MLOC still does not understand OL’s essence. The most recent issue of their journal, “Class Against Class,” number 11, said that OL’s chief errors in the Gary Tyler struggle were “left” errors, “splitting and wrecking the committees.” (p. 31) MLOC still does not see that the main error can only be determined in relation to the principal task, in this case party-building, and that OL’s errors have thus been mainly right. Thus, to MLOC, had OL not wrecked the committees, all would have been well. Here they really confess that they, just like OL, do not put their main attention on party-building, theory, and winning the vanguard of the proletariat to communism, and have all along had a similar line on party-building.
After it was cast out by both the “wing” and OL, MLOC was fairly isolated in the US communist movement. It was also at this time that it began its swing on party-building to the right. They even continued to label WVO and ATM, both upholders of the “three worlds theory” and Chinese revisionism, ultra-left, showing just how far MLOC had gone to the right. But in the midst of all this, the struggle in the international communist movement against the “three worlds theory” broke out. After a while, MLOC sided with the PLA. Here was an opportunity to turn things around, to return the focus of the ideological struggle to the real main danger of right opportunism, and to correct the opportunist maneuverings of the past. The struggle against the “theory of the three worlds” in° particular emphasized upholding Leninism against all distortions. This created favorable conditions for building a new trend that not only upheld Leninism on the international situation, but also would uphold Leninism on party-building, our principal task.
The struggle against the “theory of the three worlds” at first implicitly, and later explicitly, was related to the overall struggle against Chinese revisionism. The struggle against it afforded our movement an opportunity to root out the pragmatism that both has plagued our movement for so long, and also has become a trademark of the revisionist clique led by Teng, with his “white cat, black cat” theme. The struggle also afforded a good opportunity to defeat various social-democratic concepts of the party that the CPC has popularized, such as that the party must always have two lines rather than one line and monolithic unity, which in essence and in practice has legitimized the existence of different factions in the party. But instead of using this struggle as a starting point for repudiating past errors that have crippled not only our movement, but also almost every other party not in power in the international communist movement, what did MLOC do?
MLOC not only did not organize a national campaign of polemics, forums etc., against the “theory of the three worlds,” but, only two months after they formally declared against it, they announced that, in the US communist movement, “lines of demarcation have already been drawn.” (Class Against Class #10, p. 34) While it is true that in both the international communist movement and the US communist movement, this had become a line of demarcation between Marxism-Leninism and revisionism, MLOC neither waged a struggle on this question in the US, nor ever attempted to correct ideological weaknesses that led them to accept both the “theory of the three worlds” and the purge of the so-called “gang of four.”
Again and again we come back to this question of self-criticism. And. again and again we are not interested in self-criticism to fulfill some idealist moralistic fetish. Rather, we take the attitude of Lenin, who said:
The attitude of a political party toward 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, 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. (Left-Wing Communism, Peking ed., p. 50-51)
So, the chief purpose of self-criticism is the revolutionary training of the working class and the masses, the ideological and political routing of errors. And this should especially be important to our movement, which is still in the process of the formation of its views, and which has historically proved itself as extremely ideologically vulnerable to all sorts of opportunism. In the US, at the first weak breeze of opportunism in the world, the communist movement has time and again quite easily been swept along the path of revisionism. A group that wants to take the leadership of the US communist movement can only do so if it takes the lead in such revolutionary training and education, in such self-criticism. To declare oneself the “leading circle” without having done so, and while even ridiculing the need for this process, is to demonstrate that the group is not, to paraphrase Lenin, a serious revolutionary organization. MLOC was not at all interested in rectifying its previous opportunist path, but was rather set on continuing merrily along upon it. Such is our evaluation of MLOC.
So lines of demarcation have supposedly been drawn, and without any self-criticism or rectification. It was not so long ago that MLOC’s cousins in OL declared the same thing. When OL was going through its party forming process, its main lines of demarcation were with groups outside of the communist movement – the CP revisionist, the Trotskyites, etc. And here MLOC, which has ridiculed the need to carry through the process of self-criticism, makes precisely the same error. Their chief evidence that there are “clear lines of demarcation between Marxism-Leninism and revisionism” is that MLOC is supposedly “the only organization in the US that stands consistently for proletarian internationalism,” meaning against the “three worlds theory.” (Ibid,, p. 8) For one thing, they know this is a lie. For another, it does not deal with the struggle to draw lines of demarcation among the groups also opposed to the “three worlds theory,” among those who have not totally succumbed to this latest of international revisionist currents. It is so essential to draw these lines of demarcation among these forces, since the embryo for a party will come from the most advanced forces, from among those clearly in opposition to the “three worlds theory” and Chinese revisionism. To declare lines of demarcation drawn without drawing them within the most advanced or relatively advanced forces is the height of political deception. Perhaps no one was in a better position than MLOC at that time to know the breadth of forces in the US opposed to the “three worlds theory.” Thus, as far back as its first congress in November, 1977, MLOC was set on a track of abandoning the ideological struggle to draw clear lines of demarcation in the US communist movement, and already were functioning as if they were already the party, and as if their first congress was actually the first party congress.
MLOC’s motion after they issued their program is worth noting. In the March 15, 1978, “Unite,” they listed some 32 organizations they wanted to wage struggle with around their program. These included pro-“three worlds” groups such as CLP and PWOC (but for some reason not the Guardian), and anti-“three worlds” groups (but, for some unexplained reason, not the Leninist Core, which was more widely known, incorrectly, as the Revolutionary Wing.) MLOC said, “With consolidated counterrevolutionary organizations of long-standing like the CPUSA and various Trotskyist sects, there is no basis of struggle other than the war of our class against the bourgeoisie and these class collaborators.” But, MLOC had just got done announcing to the world that lines of demarcation between Marxism-Leninism and revisionism had already been drawn in the US movement, that CPML was a “social prop of the bourgeoisie” and a class collaborator, etc. So, why invite so many opportunist and revisionist groups to have meetings to discuss their program? Was not the “theory of three worlds” a counter-revolutionary and class collaborationist line, in common with modern revisionism and Trotskyism? We certainly think so, and this was clear as day well before March, 1978. The fact that MLOC never was able to reconcile their differences with the various revisionists and opportunists is not the point here. What this shows is that MLOC’s whole conception of what drawing lines of demarcation meant (and what explanation of this they ideologically fought for), was a self-contradictory farce, a continuation of their previous unprincipled maneuverings, and a justification for alternations of attempts at unprincipled blocks and sectarianism.
This was further borne out by how MLOC proceeded to organize around their program. When MLOC was a small group trying to gain the favor of larger groups, they were more humble than humble pie, throwing principles to the wind to gain admittance to the “revolutionary wing” and OL’s Organizing Committee. Now, when they were a relatively large group (relatively large when compared to the local, small circles opposed to the “three worlds theory”), trying to woo smaller, local circles, their new song was “love me or leave me.” Small group spirit, sectarianism became the order of the day. They did not seek to first gain ideological and political unity with a circle to lay the basis for organizational unity”. Rather, a group’s willingness to join their proposed party, to submit to MLOC’s leadership, without first having established unity of ideas and unity on a program, was MLOC’s sole criterion for relations with other groups. Thus, to MLOC, organization became the key link.
One of the most graphic examples of MLOC’s attempts at unprincipled unity was its relations with the Pacific Collective, a Marxist-Leninist circle in the Bay Area opposed to the “three worlds theory.” This group makes serious deviations on various questions such as party-building. They also wrongly characterize MLOC as ultra-left, which shows the extent of their own right deviation. Nevertheless, it was very positive for them to openly recount their episode with MLOC, and we call on others to similarly reveal the secret diplomacy of MLOC and unmask them before all communists and advanced workers and the international communist movement. PC has recently said that it will publicly publish its account of MLOC’s dealings with them.
MLOC has claimed that its work around its program was the “key link” to its party-building efforts. Regarding the various other Marxist-Leninist circles, MLOC says it has “made enough efforts to win over these groups.” But facts are stubborn things, and they show otherwise. For example, when PC gave MLOC a 130 page document sharply disagreeing with their analysis on the Black national question, instead of waging ideological struggle around their program as a basis for organizational unity, MLOC told PC to join their party anyway and struggle for a few years inside it! Not only does this show for how cheap a price MLOC was ready to sell its “principles” on the national question, but this more importantly and most definitively proves that all MLOC’s talk of unity on the program was a joke, that unity on the program didn’t matter, and that all their talk was just a screen for unprincipled maneuvering, for creating a social democratic-type party with different lines and factions. This is especially reactionary on MLOC’s part, because a consolidated incorrect line on the national question has historically in most cases reflected deep opportunist errors, of either social-chauvinism or narrow nationalism, or both. This has certainly been the case in the US communist movement in almost every instance. Certainly the degree of difference between MLOC and PC on this point must reflect deep ideological weaknesses on at least one of their group’s parts. But, MLOC was prepared to live with this, again showing how they wanted a party including people they considered social-chauvinists and/or narrow nationalists. It is a call for two-line struggle in the party.
Of this social-democratic method, Stalin said:
The theory of ’defeating’ opportunist elements by ideological struggle within the Party, the theory of ’overcoming’ these elements within the confines of a single Party, is a rotten and dangerous theory, which threatens to condemn the Party to paralysis and chronic infirmity, threatens to make the Party prey to opportunism, threatens to leave the proletariat without a revolutionary party, threatens to deprive the proletariat of its main weapon in the fight against imperialism. (Foundations of Leninism, Peking ed., p. 116)
What was MLOC’s approach leading to except such a weak, crippled, and non-revolutionary party? (Note–We have not seen the PC document on the Black national question ourselves, and can therefore not pass judgment on it one way or another. We raise this as an example of how MLOC wants a party of two or more lines.)
Before MLOC, OL also tried to build a party without unity on a program, first with their infamous “temporary leading body” that would have first declared the party and then supposedly written a program, and later by only publicly releasing their program two months before they had their founding congress, eliminating any possibility of serious struggle around it in the movement before their congress. Now comes MLOC, this time releasing their draft program with enough time for serious struggle, but pushing it aside when this struggle comes. In line with this was their attempt to limit the ideological struggle in the US communist movement to bilateral relations between them and other circles one at a time, and their telling PC (and presumably others) not to publish public, open polemics against them.
The Leninist conception is that organizational unity in a party must be preceded by ideological and political unity manifested in a program. Lenin wrote:
As long as we had no unity on the fundamental questions of programme and tactics, we bluntly admitted that we were living in a period of disunity and separate circles, we bluntly declared that before we could unite, lines of demarcation must be drawn; we did not even talk of the forms of a joint organization, but exclusively discussed the new (at that time they really were ... new) problems of fighting opportunism on programme and tactics. (One Step Forward, Two Steps Back, CW vol. 7, p. 385)
But, MLOC would rather have us discuss almost exclusively questions of joint organization, pushing aside key differences on program and strategy and tactics. Again, a revolutionary program is needed only to guide a revolution. If one is not chiefly concerned about making a revolution, or building a party that could lead one, then unity on the program is of no real concern.
MLOC’s easy switch from pleas for “strict equality” and against “waving a baton,” to demands that groups recognize them as the leading circle and join them, regardless of line differences, is really not so big a change. Both views reflect a liberal, social-democratic concept of forming the party on unprincipled factional maneuvers rather than through a process of drawing clear lines of demarcation to establish principled unity and accomplish revolutionary training of cadre. MLOC’s entire history in the US communist movement is a history of one unprincipled maneuver followed by another, of unexplained flip-flops repeated over and over again. Such a method can neither train real revolutionary leaders from the working class nor inspire the confidence and trust of the masses to rise in revolution and risk sacrificing their lives under the leadership of such a party.
The example of the Pacific Collective is not an isolated one. Even with our circle, MLOC at one time tried to initiate a discussion about relocation, without dealing with the differences we had raised or even asking us about how we view the strategic importance of the New York metropolitan area and the surrounding region.
For the movement as a whole, MLOC has failed to ever support the idea of a nation-wide vehicle or forum for debate among those in the US opposed to the “three worlds theory” and Chinese revisionism. They have ignored the Leninist concept of an “open and all-embracing discussion” of the burning questions of our movement. Such a method is indispensable for building a genuine leading center and uniting the best revolutionary forces One of the key tasks facing the circles who have not been tricked by MLOC’s maneuvering is, in the next few months, to solve the practical problem of finding just such a vehicle or forum for ideological struggle to be carried throughout the movement as a whole for the hegemony of a correct Marxist-Leninist line, and of setting it up. Needless to say, we do not expect the “CPUSA (M-L)” (MLOC’s “party”) to want to play any part in this following of Leninist principles.
Another example of MLOC’s opportunist approach in relations with other circles was its activity around its joint statement to oppose China’ cutting off of aid to Albania. It is significant that in its attack on the other circles, MLOC sees this question as so important that, besides the attitude of the other circles to its party-building plan, only this specific question is singled out. But MLOC’s account of what happened bears only faint resemblance to reality. First, MLOC sent out a general letter, dated August 9, 1978, saying that the proposed joint statement would be based on three points–opposition to the “three worlds theory,” to the attacks on Albania by China, and to imperialism and social-imperialism. It looked as if MLOC wanted a statement that could be agreed upon by the majority of forces opposed to the “three worlds theory,” and took account of the differences on party-building and other questions. The original proposal did not even take up the question of Chinese revisionism and we were told that there need not be agreement on this point for this proposal, giving us the distinct impression that MLOC seriously wanted a statement that a variety of forces would find acceptable. But when MLOC circulated its proposed draft, their real intentions came out. As outlined elsewhere in this journal, their draft contained numerous important errors of analysis, especially all sorts of self-praise declaring it a “fundamental break with opportunism,” an “important contribution” to Marxism-Leninism, etc. MLOC likewise dubbed the rather small meeting called to discuss the draft an “extraordinary meeting” of US Marxist-Leninists. But the only thing that proved “extraordinary” about it was that MLOC had even once called a multilateral meeting. This whole build-up was merely designed to promote MLOC both nationally and internationally as a great Marxist-Leninist leaders in the US.
Even the way they invited groups to their meeting on the joint statement showed the same lack of principles seen in their call to the 32 groups. At the meeting on the joint statement, MLOC’s chairman Weisberg himself reported that invitations were sent “to all organizations” that they knew of that opposed the “theory of the three worlds.” This time they read off a list of 19 groups. Yet these included groups that wavered on opposition to the “three worlds theory” and Chinese revisionism (Pacific Collective and Red Dawn Committee), or still even supported them (COReS). But still, the U.S. Leninist Core was not invited. When we asked MLOC why they were not invited, (at that time we incorrectly called them the “revolutionary wing,” of which they had been only one part), since they fit the principles around which the meeting was supposedly called, Weisberg himself said that inviting them had “slipped their minds.” As if he had hardly heard of them! But, he hastened to add, they would not have invited them anyway, since they were supposedly “agents and wreckers.” Comrades, this is an unproved and slanderous charge that we have only heard from right opportunists like WVO, right wing ex-PRRWO members (in Red Dawn and elsewhere), the likes of OL, IWK, and others. All these charges, including the character assassinations of leading members of the U.S. Leninist Core, and the blaming of them for actions carried out by the very people they purged and exposed as Mensheviks, show that Leninist norms have been abandoned by the vast majority of communists, both genuine and sham, in dealing with these comrades. We ourselves must be self-critical for not having insisted that the U.S. Leninist Core should have been invited, and for having conciliated with MLOC’s opportunism to an extent, since principles must be strictly applied to everyone and everything, with no exceptions, and the principles behind this meeting called for inviting all groups opposed to the “three worlds theory,” regardless of differences on other questions. To selectively apply principles, to shift from case to case, is actually to abandon these principles.
But MLOC’s maneuverings proved to be a failure. Of 19 other groups invited, and of 4 that attended the meeting, only 2 signed the statement besides MLOC – and one of them, CPP, had such substantial unity with MLOC that they had already declared them the “leading circle” and have subsequently joined MLOC’s “party.” We doubt MLOC would have gone to such great lengths if they knew they would only get two other circles to sign their statement.
It took MLOC a few months to publicly sum up what happened around this affair, and when they did, they distorted events to the hilt. Most obvious is that they do not even mention that two circles, the Workers Revolutionary Organizing Committee (WROC) and ours, did attend the meeting, did out forward a long list of criticisms, did refuse to sign MLOC’s opportunist draft, and did proceed to organize a new joint statement. This reality does not fit in with MLOC’s theory that the circles who refused to sign their statement showed no concern for what happened to Albania. The opposition of many of these circles to MLOC’s proposal was not that they did not care about Albania, but that they would not go along with MLOC’s cheap maneuvering. This MLOC finds so embarrassing that, in order to “prove” their point, they quote only one point of a letter from a circle in California to show their supposed “circle spirit.” They cite that this circle preferred to work with local groups on a statement, but leave out the explanation for this-that the “proposal for a meeting comes in the middle of MLOC’s effort to build a party around itself, yet your letter doesn’t even allude to this fact.” The circle then outlines its opposition to MLOC’s belittling of theory. This shows that again MLOC is not at all interested in drawing clear lines of demarcation, but rather prefers to engage in distortion, lying, and trickery, all to further its own narrow interests. Our experience, on the contrary, with several of these circles, including the one whose letter MLOC butchered and distorted, was that they were interested in and did sign or at least struggle around a joint statement opposed to the cutting off of aid to Albania.
The facts show that the greatest small-circle spirit we did encounter was from none other than MLOC itself, since everything they did was subordinated to their first priority, promoting their opportunist party-building plan and unprincipled maneuvering to make themselves look good. MLOC’s consciously distorted account of these events plainly shows that, like OL and RU before it, their accounts of their own activity cannot be believed.
Nevertheless, MLOC continued its grandiose statements about its “protracted and principled struggle for Marxist-Leninist unity.” They say that:
The MLOC has held that unity must be based upon:
1. Unity on the program for waging the class struggle.
2. Unity in deeds. Marxist-Leninist unity must be placed in the context of the struggle against imperialism and opportunism in all its forms.
What they leave out is the most fundamental unity of all–ideological unity. In “Declaration of the Editorial Board of Iskra,” Lenin emphasized that to establish unity of the Russian Marxists, “it must be worked for. In the first place, it is necessary to work for solid ideological unity... (CW vol. 4, p. 354) Ideological unity, unity of ideas, means that there is unity on how we view the world. Of course, this cannot be abstract or established apart from a political program or organization. Lenin said that “This ideological unity must be consolidated by a Party programme.” But ideological unity, unity on the science of Marxism-Leninism, must be a distinct goal and ore-requisite for any party to be solidly based. Only the belittlers of theory, only those who neglect the role of science and the conscious element, can “forget” this key point when they list their bases for party unity. The belittling of the role of ideology runs like a thread through MLOC’s entire plan, from the attack on propaganda to their downplaying the theoretical prerequisites for a program to their opposition to open polemics and drawing clear lines of demarcation. This is a continuation of the old line that the ideological break with revision ism has been in the main completed, a corollary of the “political line is the key link” analysis they claim to have broken with but still in fact uphold in essence and have never really rooted out. It is precisely this belittling of the role of ideology, of the conscious element, that lies at the heart of the theory of spontaneity, and unites all the innumerable forms that bowing to spontaneity has taken. As Stalin said:
The theory of spontaneity is the theory of belittling the role of the conscious element in the movement, the ideology of ’khvotism’ (tailism), the logical basis of all opportunism.. (Foundations of Leninism, Peking ed., p. 247)
The differences we raise are not over whether or not an Organizing Committee should have been established by MLOC. In Lenin’s day, the OC was merely a commission of the Iskra organization to arrange the organizational preparations for the party congress – selection of delegates, funds etc. We are not at that point where the actual organizational tasks for the party congress become so immediate since the ideological, political, and theoretical ore-requisites have not yet been fulfilled. Rather, we differ over what are the theoretical and practical pre-requisites for a genuine party, and how we establish the ideological and political unity of the Marxist-Leninists. Since only one circle, CPP, ended up supporting MLOC’s “party,” MLOC could not be rightly attacked for not having set up an OC that included only them and CPP. But where they can be attack ed is for their failure to strive to establish ideological and political unity in our movement, for their steadfast opposition to creating any kind of vehicle or forum for debate among the circles.
One of the specific features of MLOC’s maneuvering has been to let CPP do its dirty work, to act as a stalking horse by directly polemicizing other circles. This difference in the activity of MLOC and CPP does not reflect a difference in line or even so much a division of labor. Rather, it reflects the different positions each group found themselves in. MLOC was one of the last of the “pre-party” formations, groups that were really mini-parties. Like OL, RU, and the rest, such groups saw no need to draw clear lines of demarcation or to justify their existence, since each one saw its central committee as the sole paragon of wisdom in the movement, and all those outside of their group as hopelessly petty bourgeois, etc. CPP, on the other hand, was but a local circle, with no pretenses about being the center. It had to justify not only to the other circles it had relations with but also to itself, just what direction it would take. For almost all the “pre-party” groups, it became pretty much automatic that each would go it alone. But for the local circles, there were many alternatives. Thus, CPP was cast into the role of a crusader for MLOC and against what they wrongly called “circle spirit.” This not only took some burden off MLOC, but also saved them whatever embarrassment CSP might bring, for then they could deny the blame.
That CPP’s line did not fundamentally differ from MLOC’s is evident when it is examined. The gist of what they say is that the reason all the various circles do not join MLOC’s “party” is that they are petty bourgeois careerists who are “entrepreneurs of innumerable petty enterprises which go by the name of local communist collectives,” and that they therefore do not want to submit themselves to MLOC’s leadership and the democratic centralism of its “party.” Mot only does this repeat all the errors of the likes of OL and MLOC of not drawing clear lines of demarcation and of reversing the relationship between ideological and organizational unity, but it also promotes slavishness. A real leading center would be able to win the authority and influence over the movement. But CPP says, in essence, just follow whatever MLOC says, regardless of what that is, and you will overcome all your petty bourgeois hang-ups. This kind of blind worship appeals best to those who have lost their bearings, those too weak to think for themselves. Communist cadre must be able to find their own bearings themselves, and certainly not be intimidated by insinuation based solely or chiefly on class background. It is really CPP that is playing on the demoralization, spinelessness, guilt, and vacillation of the petty bourgeoisie that, especially in a period of disorganization like this, leads many of them to abandon the hard fight for principles and just jump on the bandwagon of what appears at the time to be a rising star. But since MLOC failed to convince these circles of the correctness of their line and program, CPP appeals to demoralization in a last ditch effort to steamroll others into the party.
This is most clearly seen in their attitude to the Marxist-Leninist Collective (MLC), a group in the Bay Area. Here is a circle, one of the larger and more established of the local circles, that has been unable to play a leading role in party-building. MLC’s proposal for a multilateral committee fell flat, and they withdrew it and criticized themselves. In a letter to several circles, MLC admitted many mistakes on party-building, including belittling of revolutionary theory and reacting spontaneously to MLOC’s plan. This self-critical attitude is good. But when comrades make mistakes, the correct response is to try to persuade them that they are wrong and win them to a correct line. We and others have pursued this method with MLC. But CPP instead, chooses to play on the inevitable frustration and confusion that accompanies an impasse such as MLC is in. In its letter of liquidation, CPP’s comments on MLC nowhere either expand upon the themes MLC has raised or even bother to refute them. Rather, they try to appeal to the obvious dissatisfaction MLC must feel and say look, we have a plan, a party, and a bigger group (and probably a seat or two on the “central committee” to spare), so “stop pandering to the backwardness of many of these local circles” and join MLOC’s “party.” Twice they say “We still hold out hope” for MLC to join MLOC’s “party.” Between boasting, flattery, and playing on demoralization, CPP hones to accomplish what they could not do by ideological struggle, that is, winning MLC to their side. Rather than drawing clear lines of demarcation, the CPP opportunists are acting like vultures circling overhead, hoping that MLC will die so they can nick apart the carcass.
It is one thing to uphold that the party must be built from the top downwards, and that a leading circle must fight for hegemony of its line and build an organization around it. This is elementary to Leninism. But this must be done in a principled way, and not by bullying or playing on emotions. Lenin said that in building the party, the Bolshevik line:
Strives to proceed from the top downward, and upholds an extension of the rights and powers of the center in relation to the parts. In the period of disunity and separate circles, this top from which revolutionary Social-democracy strove to proceed organizationally was inevitably one of the circles, the one enjoying most influence by virtue of its activity and its revolutionary consistency (in our case, the Iskra organization). (One Step Forward, Two Steps Back, CW vol. 7, p.394-5)
But since MLOC has not developed such “influence by virtue of its activity and its revolutionary consistency,” since, in fact, it is quite despised by so many others, CPP appeals to unprincipled, anti-Leninist reasoning to woo or bully others into its lair”. Let MLOC or anyone else earn this influence, let them fight for this authority, and let them convince others of it, and we will be at its side in a flash. But if one’s claim to being a leading circle is based merely on hot air, careerism, and illusion, let every genuine Marxist-Leninist and advanced worker spare no effort to unmask it as an imposter and a fraud, to toss it out of our ranks and send it running away with its tail between its legs.
After playing this game with MLC, who does CPP then go on to accuse of not wanting to unite on the basis of principles? None other than us, Demarcation. They say, “When MLC eventually discovers that with forces such as Demarcation there is no basis for common action guided by principles, it will more clearly see that the only path forward is to follow a similar road as the CPP.” CPP also says that between the various circles that have unmasked MLOC and CPP as rightists, “These retrograde circles have no principles to share.” We are somewhat flattered to be singled out for such sharp attack by name, which must mean that we are doing something right. And we damn well intend to continue doing more of it. We will let others judge whether we put out our views and try to seek principled unity. We believe we have gone to great lengths for a very small, local circle to do this, and we will not be deterred by the squealing of those who sell themselves to the likes of MLOC for a tiny bit of glory.
The facts show that among the local circles outside of MLOC, it has been none other than CPP that is by far the most guilty of unprincipled maneuvering and failing to struggle to draw clear lines of demarcation. Their own letter mentions differences with MLOC. CPP even wrote papers on the united front, armed insurrection, and fusion, but only gave them to MLOC. Why were these not released publicly, at least with appropriate modifications for security reasons? These documents are the property of the whole movement, and could serve to draw lines of demarcation. If CPP had such a valuable contribution to make, they should have followed the Leninist line of open polemics in front of all communists and advanced workers. Even the excuse that MLOC was supposedly the leading circle was not enough, since in Russia it was “Iskra” itself, the leading circle then, that called for, led, and published such open polemics. But CPP did not have the interests of the movement as a whole in mind when it squashed these open polemics. They behaved as if MLOC was already the party, and they were already bound by its democratic centralism. In fact, even when there is a party, there are still occasions where differences can be aired publicly. But to not do so before the party is formed is to abandon Leninism. While CPP delights in calling everyone else petty bourgeois, they conveniently neglect to mention that a typical feature of the petty bourgeois revolutionaries is their tendency to belittle theory and the role of the conscious element, including in the form characteristic of the 2nd International and the “three world” parties of having unprincipled unity and different lines and factions in the party. This is why they repeat as if by rote the method of OL’s OC, which also kept its ideological struggle internal and concealed it from the movement as a whole. It is CPP who are the real petty bourgeois democrats and adherents of narrow circle spirit.
CPP also tries to condemn all the local circles for having no concrete plan for party-building. Certainly this has been a severe shortcoming. But in order to make a plan, we must grasp the concrete conditions. Otherwise, the plan proposed would be idealist. CPP jumps all over us for not coming up with a national plan in September, 1978, in our critique of MLC’s plan, and they attack us as “left” for encouraging debate and forums. Not only are these right opportunists as a rule incredibly open in their contempt for the principles of Leninism, but they also expect us to offer a plan without a detailed enough knowledge of our movement. In September, 1978, we had only had limited contact with a few circles, and were still in the process of finding out just what was out there. Through the work on the joint statement on China’s cutting off of aid to Albania, and through pursuing various contacts, we now have a better idea of the actual situation, and are in the process of working out a plan with other comrades But our plan will not be a list of general tasks as is MLOC’s, but a concrete way to move forward. We and others will follow Leninism.
CPP has also attacked the local circles for, of all things, the area they come from. They attack “many other small collectives based in New York, San Francisco, or other less industrialized center.” MLOC even took this one step further, and, in meetings with us, cited our views as typically coming form petty bourgeois areas like New York. But, Marxism-Leninism holds that our theory is worked out as a science, and not spontaneously from the working class movement. It is the summation of historical experience and social practice. Thus, it is not at all key what area this science comes from. Besides, MLOC developed its main features while still in San Francisco, including their shift to their present economist line. Their move to Chicago has not helped them to change for the better. Nor did it help RCP or CPML either, for opportunism cannot be spontaneously overcome by mingling with the industrial workers. And while MLOC poses our line as some sort of “ultra-left” monstrosity inevitably arising from the sidewalks of New York, they found no difficulty in signing a joint statement with Sunrise Books, also from New York, while the other group that attended the meeting around it and also refused to sign, WROC, was from none other than Chicago, MLOC’s adopted home. Like all opportunists, MLOC shifts its analysis from case to case.
As for New York itself, MLOC betrays the same illusion about this area as does Teng Hsiao-ping for the US as a whole. Listening to them, one would think the streets are paved with gold and that all classes bask in the prosperity of the “American dream.” We’d like to see them come here and say that. We’d like to see them walk the streets and elbow their way through the unemployed on the street corners, as they pass the broken-down buildings, many of which are owned by the bankrupt government of this city, which is in hock up to its ears to the banks and has instituted an austerity plan that demolished what is left of the schools, hospitals, and other services that are worked in and relied upon by millions of workers and oppressed nationalities of New York. We’d like to see MLOC say this at the gates of the GM plant at Tarrytown, the Ford plant in Mahwah, in the garment center, or to the multitude of transit workers, hospital workers, and millions more. And, we’d like to see them say this in the streets of Harlem, the south Bronx, el Barrio, Brownsville, Crown Heights, Chinatown, the lower east side, or Jamaica, not to mention Newark or Jersey City or Yonkers. While the New York region is not as industrialized as others, there is a tremendous concentration of industry in New Jersey. There can be no revolution in the US without this area, and no real party of the working class that avoids the largest metropolitan area in the US.
Finally, if region is so important, then why do so many others from industrialized areas like Chicago, Kansas City, and elsewhere also oppose them? CPP and MLOC not only violate the Leninist teachings on scientific socialism not spontaneously coming out of the working class movement, but they also aren’t consistent. Their views amount to regionalism, to playing one region off another. This is nothing but a variety of local circle spirit that can only divide the communists and working class along narrow, unprincipled lines. Regionalism is also a feature of US bourgeois politics, with the bourgeoisie of each region squabbling with each other. MLOC continues this bourgeois maneuvering.
Instead of attacking the other circles, CPP should be criticizing itself for its failure to draw clear lines of demarcation. These champions of “principles” have put forward many things they are now silent on. In their “Principles of Unity,” which they never tire of praising, they said that there have been important changes in the Black Belt, and that “These developments have not yet been fully analysed and summed up in a scientific fashion by Marxist-Leninists so that the defense of the right of self-determination can be put on a solid footing…To fail to carry out this task is to reduce orthodoxy to a political and theoretical catechism.” (p. 15) But where has the “leading circle” MLOC done this work? Between their “Principles of Unity” and now, we see a big difference in CPP’s estimates of the theoretical pre-requisites for a party and a program. But where has CPP clearly laid this out, or even accounted for this change? At the Chicago meeting called by MLOC in September, 1978, on the joint statement on China’s cutting aid to Albania, CPP said that they disagreed with MLOC and the PLA on the formulation that the two imperialist superpowers represented an equal danger. And again, where was the debate, where were the lines of demarcation drawn? CPP says that they still have some differences with MLOC, but not enough to stop organizational unity. But they do not lay out which questions are key and which are not. So it seems like it is CPP that is the one that bends principles to achieve unity without drawing clear lines of demarcation. Who knows how many other differences there are between CPP and MLOC, or how big they are. If they have their way, no one else will ever know, and their real views will remain shrouded in the secrecy of their party of many factions and many lines.
CPP tries to reduce the criticisms of MLOC to petty, unprincipled squabbling when they say that the other circles “try to justify their actions by drawing lines of demarcation on party-building alone, i.e., how to build the party.” Obviously, CPP thinks whether or not the Leninist method of party-building is adhered to is of no concern. But even here they miss the point. The struggle over party-building, which is sup posed to be our principal task, involves not just how to build the party, but chiefly, the character of the party itself. The struggle for theory is to guarantee that the party we build will not be economist, reformist, and eventually revisionist. We insist on strictly following the Leninist method so that the result will be a Leninist party. Won’t a house built with cheap material and on a weak foundation by sloppy builders following a faulty blueprint soon deteriorate and fall down? But CPP would rather live in a quickly-built pre-fab than a carefully built sturdy structure. The only way we can build a truly advanced detachment of the working class, is by following a thorough and carefully laid plan, fully utilizing the most advanced historical experience of the proletariat and applying it to our own concrete conditions. The quick degeneration of the so-called “anti-revisionist” communist movement into collaboration with US imperialism justified by the “three worlds theory” should alone be enough to teach the genuine Marxist-Leninist and advanced worker the pitfalls of such bargain-basement party-building schemes.
So MLOC’s claims that “lines of demarcation have already been drawn” is pure hogwash. Their get-rich-quick scheme tried to avoid persevering in the ideological struggle and pass over the theoretical ore-requisites for the party around polemics, the program, propaganda, etc. Their latest antics were but a continuation of their consistent history of unprincipled maneuvering. Their declaring themselves the “party” is just raising this maneuvering to a higher level, and represents a consolidation of their ooportunism.
When MLOC writes that they have already “made enough efforts to win over these groups,” in one sense they are right, since it has become obvious that the bulk of the circles opposed to them will not go along with their opportunism. In that sense, MLOC has succeeded, if against their wishes, in drawing at least one line of demarcation–that the “CPUSA (M-L) is a right opportunist group and that party-building still, remains the central task.
We have already shown at length how MLOC did not fulfill the prerequisites or make the correct ideological, political, and organizational preparations for the founding congress to be called. That they list preparation for the congress separate from the other four points may not be a slip, since it was precisely these points that they claimed would be the preparations for the congress, and since they fulfilled none of them on a Leninist basis. They thus apparently are just referring to the organizational preparations for the congress.
A similar struggle took place in Lenin’s day over the necessity of laying a firm basis for the calling of a founding party congress. The “History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union” tells us:
Some thought that the “building of the Party should be begun by summoning the Second Congress of the Party, which would unite the local organizations and create the Party. Lenin was opposed to this. He held that before convening a congress it was necessary to make the aims and objects of the Party clear, to ascertain what sort of a party was wanted, to effect an ideological demarcation from the “Economists,” to tell the Party honestly and frankly that there existed two different opinions regarding the aims and objects of the Party–the opinion of the “Economists” and the opinion of the revolutionary Social-Democrats–to start a wide campaign in the press in favour of the views of revolutionary Social-Democracy–just as the “Economists” were conducting a campaign in their own press in favour of their own views–and to give the local organizations the opportunity to make a deliberate choice between these two trends Only after this indispensable preliminary work had been done could a Party Congress be summoned. (p. 32)
Just like OL, MLOC held its congress without first finishing “this indispensable preliminary work.” And just like OL, the founding of their “party” has been nothing more than an empty declaration. It is thus totally left up to those outside this phoney “CPUSA (M-L)” to prepare the conditions for the founding congress of a genuine vanguard party.
In the December 15, 1978, “Unite,” MLOC tells us that “at this point the MLOC has contributed all that is can as an organization.” And in one sense, this is true, since MLOC has done all that it can to consolidate itself around an opportunist line and program and on a thoroughly opportunist path. There is no more need for MLOC, this “pre-party” formation, since it is now ready to become another party of the labor aristocracy and the petty bourgeoisie, another reformist party pimping off the struggles of the working class and people to advance its own narrow interests and careers. Just walk along this path by yourselves, MLOC, for we will have no part of your imitation of OL.