First Published: The Organizer, Vol. 6, No. 5, May 1980.
Transcription, Editing and Markup: Paul Saba
Copyright: This work is in the Public Domain under the Creative Commons Common Deed. You can freely copy, distribute and display this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit the Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line as your source, include the url to this work, and note any of the transcribers, editors & proofreaders above.
From 1974 through 1978 the fusion party-building line and its leading voice, the PWOC, made a number of important contributions to the US communist movement. PWOC correctly argued that the major organizations of the “new communist movement” (RU, OL, etc.) were dominated by dogmatism and ultra-“leftism”, and that they had become isolated from the mass movements of the working class and oppressed minorities in the US.
The fusion line called for Marxist-Leninists to establish roots in the proletariat, combatting various anti-working class prejudices left over from the “new left” of the 1960s. And the PWOC led in popularizing the concept of an anti-revisionist, anti-“left”-opportunist trend, drawing many previously isolated groups and individuals into national identification and work within this trend.
However, as the trend matured, major differences over party-building line increasingly came to the fore. PWOC’s fusion line came under criticism from a number of forces (including Theoretical Review, the Guardian and those developing the rectification line) for failing to target correctly the principal and decisive role of theoretical work in the pre-party period. While expressed in different ways, a common thread ran through these criticisms: The fusion line ties our theoretical tasks only to those issues immediately raised by the mass movement. It sets unrealistic expectations for what can be accomplished in mass work without a party and a party’s general line – thus underplaying the role of theory and political line in communist work.
Posing fusion as the essence of party building liquidates the qualitative distinction, between the party and pre-party periods; it objectively subordinates the theoretical struggle among communists to formulate a correct general line (decisive in the pre-party period) to the task of winning influence among the advanced workers and the mass movement generally (a task which will become decisive only after the party is formed).
In short, the fusion line fails to scientifically target the very particular tasks communists must take up in the pre-party period. The general concept of fusion may assist in building a commitment to the working class and its struggles. It may assert correctly that party building will involve both theory and practice, mass work as well as struggle among communists. But the fusion line is unable to go beyond these generalities to target the specific contradictions of the pre-party period, the correct interrelationship of principal and secondary tasks, or the appropriate method of developing a leading political line for the US revolution.
In this sense, fusion may express a correct communist goal, but it is inadequate and incorrect as a party-building line. Unfortunately, the PWOC was unable to grasp that a line which had once advanced the movement had now become a fetter on further progress.
The PWOC failed to recognize that the too-vague direction and questionable formulations flowing from the fusion line required a re-examination of the line itself. Facing criticism, PWOC did not even take strict pains to re-clarify its line in comprehensive fashion for principled struggle with other emerging lines. Instead, PWOC argued that party-building line struggle should not be the key question before our trend and launched a campaign of snide innuendo and intellectual-baiting against leading critics of the fusion line.
Despite PWOC’s objections, however, the substance of the party-building-line struggle dominates the contention within our trend. It pervades the pages of The Organizer itself. We take up certain aspects of that line struggle here, for it is only through the struggle over political line – rigorous struggle over “shades of difference” – that our trend can unite at a higher level and transform itself into a single genuine vanguard party of the working class.
The relationship between theory and practice in the pre-party period has consistently been one of the major differences between the fusion and rectification lines. While PWOC seldom emphasizes it, they actually hold the view that in this contradiction practice is always primary. Clay Newlin made this point in the party-building debates of 1978. And in the December Organizer, Newlin criticizes “the idealist formulation that ’theory is primary in relation to practice’ in the party-building period.” PWOC’s argument, essentially, is that materialists who understand that being determines consciousness cannot hold to any other view.
Now it is undoubtedly true that this position is a cornerstone of materialism. But left to stand by itself, it is not yet dialectical materialism. For dialectical materialism holds that not only does being determine consciousness, but also that consciousness takes on a life of its own, and thus is capable of transforming reality. In other words, while the proposition that social practice is primary is correct in general, there are periods in which the leading role in a process can and must be played by theory.
The pre-party period is one such period. Developing the party’s general line is the indispensable pre-condition to re-establishing a vanguard party, and the principal vehicle to develop such a line is theoretical work.
Newlin and the PWOC recognize that, in some sense, theory plays a leading role in the pre-party period, and some forces professing allegiance to the fusion line state that “theory is primary” in this period. But PWOC is unable to break with its mechanical materialist prejudice of seeing practice as always primary. Consequently, PWOC puts forward such fuzzy formulations as:
“We have always held – and continue to hold – that the development of revolutionary theory is of central importance to the formation of a viable vanguard.” Or, “We have also consistently argued – and still do – that theoretical work is key to advancing the fusion process.” Or, “In an article published in the first issue of The Organizer... theoretical tasks are given top billing.” (All quotes are from the November 1979 issue of The Organizer, emphasis ours.)
All this talk of central importance, key and top billing is just obscurantism. PWOC actually holds that theory is secondary in the theory/practice dialectic during the pre-party period. However, PWOC is unwilling to advance this position straightforwardly and deal with its implications. For this would reveal the fundamental accuracy of the critique made of the fusion line, that it underplays the role of theory in party building.
And the PWOC does underplay the importance of our theoretical tasks. PWOC’s line and practice subordinate developing a line capable of leading a struggle for state power to developing positions that supposedly will be effective in the day-to-day work of “winning advanced workers to communism.” While some short-term gains – “palpable results” – may be made through this approach, it can never yield a leading line capable of serving as the basis for a vanguard party.
Newlin writes that “the principal expression of NNMLC’s ultra-leftism is its statement that ’rectification of the general line’ and not fusion is the essence of party building.” He goes on to argue that this error “cannot be understood without grasping the materialist conception of essence.” He asserts, “By essence, Marxists understand the organizing principle of a process. In the case of party building, it is that principle which guides our efforts from their very inception up to their culmination in the formation of a genuine party.”
This definition of essence runs counter to Marxism-Leninism and reflects the same mechanical materialist outlook that infuses Newlin’s view that practice is always primary. Marxism-Leninism never has defined essence as an “organizing principle” or anything of the like. For Marxists, essence means particularity, that specific contradiction in every object or social process that distringuishes it from all others.
Discussing the significance of the difference between “the phenomenon and the essence,” Lenin wrote: “When we say, John is a man, Fido is a dog, this is a leaf of a tree, etc., we disregard a number of attributes as contingent: we separate the essence from the appearance.” (On the Question of Dialectics.) Mao put it this way: “Every form of motion contains within itself its own particular contradiction. This particular contradiction constitutes the particular essence which distinguishes one thing from another.”
This is why getting to the essence of any problem is at the heart of Marxist-Leninist analysis: we seek to go beyond the surface phenomena and discover what is the particular contradiction that defines an object or process, thus understanding it in its distinction and in its interrelationship to other processes and objects.
With this understanding, how is it possible to say, as PWOC does, that the “essence of party building is fusion”? For fusion is the essential task of communists when we have a party. Fusion as the “essence” is useless in distinguishing the pre-party period and its particular contradictions from the party period. If “fusion is the essence of party building,” then the work of building the party is qualitatively no different (though perhaps quantitatively less) than communist work with a party.
As in the handling of the theory/practice dialectic, PWOC has been forced to acknowledge the immense contradiction in its very formulation targetting the essence of party building. Newlin wrote in “Has PWOC Changed Its Line on Fusion?” (The Organizer, November 1979): “While we were correct to posit a certain measure of fusion as required to construct a genuine vanguard party, we should have made clear the qualitative distinction between two stages of fusion. Clearly, the quality of fusion possible prior to the formation of the party is very different from the kind of fusion of which a genuine vanguard is capable” (emphasis ours).
This statement by itself should be sufficient to refute the fusion line! For if the pre-party period is characterized by a qualitatively distinct stage of fusion, it is the particular contradiction causing this distinct stage that must be targetted to identify the essence of party building. Whatever that essence is, it cannot be simply “fusion.”
The rectification line addresses this question straightforwardly. In the most general sense, fusion is the historical task of the communist movement. But communists must target the particularity of each period in history to determine the essence of that period and thus define our tasks. The particularity of the pre-party period is that the communists lack a general line to serve as the basis for establishing a party and giving direction to the class struggle.
Therefore, the essence of constructing the party is overcoming this particular contradiction, that is, the rectification of the general line. The process of rectification involves all aspects of communist work – theoretical and practical, struggle among communists and work in the mass movement – but the decisive breakthrough leading to the party must be the development of a leading line.
It is mechanical materialism – not Marxism-Leninism – that defines essence as an “organizing principle.” It is mechanical materialism that does not target the essence of party building in overcoming the particular contradictions of the pre-party period, but instead targets only the general historical task of communists.
We are not surprised to note that Newlin and PWOC have little sympathy for the formulation, “The correctness or incorrectness of ideological and political line decides everything.” Yet instead of a sly barb noting only that this was the favorite formulation of the “Gang of Four” (The Organizer, August 1979), it would be more forthright of the PWOC to state openly its disagreement with this formulation and repeat the statements made by leading PWOC members on other occasions that the slogan is “absurd,” “unscientific,” “idealist” and “voluntarist.” We, on the other hand, straightforwardly defend this formulation, and believe that one’s stand on this point is central to the Leninist concept of the party.
First, we emphasize the fact that the formulation, “ideological and political line decides everything” refers specifically to the work of the party, of the conscious element. And it does not mean that line by itself decides everything. The cadre holding the line must embrace, internalize it, and struggle to make it a material-force. But the essential factor on which all other things depend is ideological and political line.
After all, what determines if a party is in reality the advanced detachment of the working class? It is the “advanced” aspect of this formulation that distinguishes the party from all other working class detachments. It is whether or not the party’s line correctly analyzes objective conditions and stands for the revolutionary interests of the working class. What determines if a “communist current” built by a party is really communist, if not the line guiding that current’s development? What decides whether or not a party-building process will succeed, if it is not a correct orientation and line on party building?
PWOC criticizes this as idealism or voluntarism – overrating the subjective factor, downplaying the importance of objective conditions. But Lenin in “What Is to Be Done?” defends the decisive role of line and consciousness, and includes it as a fundamental part of the concept of the communist vanguard.
We would ask our philosopher: how may a designer of subjective plans ’belittle’ objective development? Obviously by losing sight of the fact that this objective development creates or strengthens...certain classes, strata or groups, certain nations...If a designer of plans did that his guilt would not be that he belittled the spontaneous element, but on the contrary, that he belittled the conscious element, for he would then show that he lacked the “consciousness” properly to understand objective development. (Col. Works, Vol. V, p. 394 – emphasis in original.)
In other words, it is a correct line –“subjective plans” – that is decisive in the work of communists, because such a correct line grasps objective reality correctly and gives direction to revolutionary efforts to change those conditions. Rejecting the proposition that the correctness or otherwise of ideological and political line decides everything amounts to “belittling the conscious element” – rejecting the heart of Lenin’s concept of the vanguard party.
Differences concerning the decisive role of ideological and political line translate into crucial differences on the necessary preconditions for party formation. The rectification line holds that these preconditions lie in the level of development of the communist forces. Have the communists developed and united around a leading line? If so, the essential precondition for party formation, has been met, for the communists now are prepared to intervene in the spontaneous movement in a conscious manner.
The fusion line, however, posits a certain measure of fusion – a measure of influence among the masses – as the essential precondition for forming the party. For the fusion line, it is not the development of a leading ideological and political line that is decisive to forge the party – it is some change in the spontaneous movement that is decisive. The communists are not to form their party on the basis of line to lead the spontaneous movement, they are to tail that movement and must wait until it develops to a certain point before the party can be built. Under the guise of materialism and taking into account objective conditions, the fusion line subordinates consciousness to spontaniety. This is the direct result of denying that “ideological and political line decide everything.”
The mechanical materialism of PWOC’s views on theory and practice, essence, and ideological and political line is reflected again in PWOC’s strategy to unite our now divided trend. PWOC is the leading voice arguing that the Organizing Committee for an Ideological Center (OCIC) is the only legitimate vehicle for party building in this period, that the key link in uniting the trend is for all forces to organizationally affiliate with the OCIC’s attempt to build a “single center” for communist work in this period.
This line is both incorrect and profoundly sectarian. It proposes essentially an organizational solution to the problem of political and theoretical differences in the trend. It mechanically separates the notion of a leading line from a leading center, and argues that a “single center” is possible without a single leading party-building line. It leads to the kind of bureaucratic leadership now manifested in the OCIC, since a fully elaborated leading line does not explicitly lead the “single center” and the OCIC must be held together by organizational means.
PWOC’s line is increasingly leading to the danger of a split in our trend, as the OCIC under PWOC’s leadership appears determined to demarcate with forces who do not agree with the “single center” and “OCIC process.”
For our part, we propose a different method to unite our trend. In place of organizational blueprints and schemes, we propose the method of rigorous struggle over the political and theoretical differences which divide our trend, in the Marxist-Leninist spirit of unity-struggle-higher unity. It is precisely this kind of struggle – which the PWOC with its mechanical materialist prejudices can only see as a reflection of “circle spirit”–that has historically been the only effective means of uniting communists.
The concrete application of this method is the call to build a broad movement within the entire anti-revisionist, anti-“left”-opportunist trend to rectify the general line of the communist movement. Such a movement, taking up all the complex areas of communist work, but centered around the theoretical struggle to develop a leading line, provides the best means to transform our trend into a vanguard party.
The call for such a rectification movement flows from the rectification party-building line. This line already is a material force in our movement, having initiated a number of concrete vehicles to conduct rectification work, including Line of March, A Marxist-Leninist Journal of Rectification, the Marxist-Leninist Education Project (MLEP), advanced study projects, and a variety of revolutionary organizations intervening in the mass movement.
We urge readers of The Organizer to study the many documents elaborating the rectification line, and to examine critically the achievements and shortcomings of the projects under its initiative. In our view, such study and examination will refute the distortions propagated by the PWOC, and will provide comrades with the necessary tools to form an opinion concerning the real differences between the rectification and fusion lines.