First Published: The Organizer, Vol. 5, No. 12, December 1979.
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.
In the course of stubborn ideological struggle – especially one in which your own position is not faring very well – there is a great temptation to fashion the appearance of success. One of the more common ways of doing this is to charge your opponent with changing his line. By accusing him/her of opportunely shifting the ground of debate in order to meet your objections, you make it appear that your perspective is winning out.
This tactic – along with almost every other from the polemical bag of tricks – has been adopted by the leaders of the National Network of Marxist-Leninist Clubs (NNMLC). On several occasions (see for example their pamphlet “Rectification vs. Fusion”) they have charged the PWOC with having amended its perspective on fusion in order to avoid the critique of the NNMLC.
In the NNMLC’s view the changes have been in two areas. First, the PWOC upgraded the role of theory in party-building in order to strengthen its hand in polemics with the rectification line. Second, the PWOC also introduced the qualifier “embryonic” to fusion so as to not appear to be demanding a Utopian level of fusion prior to the formation of a vanguard.
Like most of the NNMLC’s charges, these are made without documentation. That they represent a significant change in the fusion line is merely asserted – as if assertion alone was sufficient proof. There is no meaningful examination of the early formulations of the fusion line and no attempt to demonstrate that that line has been amended in a manner which fundamentally alters it original content.
This is especially true of the charge that the PWOC has modified its conception of the role of theoretical work in the party-building process. According to the NNMLC, the PWOC has been “won over” to recognizing the primacy of the theoretical struggle in the period of party-formation.
An honest study of PWOC publications will show the NNMLC’s contention to be false. Some four years prior to the publication of what was to become the opening exchange in the fusion/rectification debate, the PWOC set forth its views on the importance of our theoretical tasks in a document entitled ’The State of the Struggle – 1973.”
This document (in circulation since that time) argues that the struggle for correct theory plays the central role in the party-building process. In fact, it even repeats the idealist formulation that “theory is primary in relation to practice” in the party-building period.
Although that formulation was soon corrected, all subsequent statements of the PWOC’s position continued to stress the centrality of the theoretical struggle. For example, in an article published in the first issue of the Organizer (Jan-Feb 1975) – once again, prior to the initial phase of the fusion/rectification controversy – theoretical tasks are given top billing.
“In order to bring about the most rapid possible union of socialism with the advanced workers,” it is stated, we must “first ...create a worker’s communism” (emphasis added–CN). “Worker’s communism” is explained as a concrete application of the principles of scientific socialism to the conditions in die US. The application is to be both capable of addressing the actual problems posed by our revolution and to be refined by testing in the class struggle (see “Party-Building Reprints,” p. 8).
In fact, in the opening statement of the PWOC perspective on the rectification/fusion debate, we sharply criticized Silber for objectively belittling the importance of our theoretical tasks. We pointed out that by denying that fusion is the essence of the party-building process, Silber removes the real impetus for engaging in creative theoretical work.
We wrote:
If we are not to fuse our movement to the class struggle of the proletariat and thus establish our vanguard character in fact, then we really have little need to make the theoretical struggle a priority. We would be content with addressing questions in an abstract and general way...We would take a liberal attitude to the development of ’theory’ that is not worthy of the name, for there would be no reason to demand that our theory be capable – now and not at some future time – of solving the concrete political, organizational and tactical problems posed by the working class movement. (Ibid., p. 46)
From this it should be clear that the PWOC has not altered its attitude towards the role of theoretical work in the party-building process. 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. We have also consistently argued – and still do – that theoretical work is key to advancing the fusion process.
This is not to deny real differences between the NNMLC and the PWOC on the relation of theory to practice in the period of party-formation. These differences are quite sharp, and they have remained relatively consistent since the beginning of the struggle over this question is itself confirmation that there has been no fundamental change in our views.
In addition to attempting to fashion the appearance of success, the NNMLC has another purpose in its attempt to fabricate a change in the PWOC’s position. Utilizing the much broader circulation of the rectification line through the pages of the Guardian, and speculating on ignorance of the opposing position, the future leaders of the NNMLC sought to create the impression that fusion, particularly as formulated by PWOC, was solely a question of integrating communists into factories – and nothing more.
But as the debate heightened, Silber and Co.’s caricature of the fusion line became more and more exposed. It became clear to most of the comrades in the anti-revisionist, anti-“left” opportunist tendency that the PWOC’s views had been seriously distorted. Given this, the “rectifiers” were faced with a choice: either be self-critical for twisting the PWOC’s position or claim that the PWOC had changed its views. In characteristic commitment to honesty and principle, the NNMLC chose the latter.
There is more substance to the NNMLC charge that the PWOC amended its formulation that fusion was a requisite for the formation of a party. We did indeed introduce the qualification that only an “embryonic” level of fusion between Marxism-Leninism and the class struggle is required prior to calling the first party congress. And this introduction was indeed made during the life of the debate.
An error in our original formulation necessitated this qualification. 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 formulation of the party is very different from the kind of fusion of which a genuine vanguard is capable.
Our failure to be specific on this rather obvious point did provide an opening for the supporters of the rectification line. It allowed them to argue that the PWOC’s perspective was incorrect because clearly only a party can achieve a mature fusion with the class. And, by extension, it gave credence to the NNMLC’s charge that the PWOC’s views were economist. Obviously, if a mature fusion can be achieved prior to the formation of the party, then a vanguard can spontaneously evolve out of the existing struggles of the working class.
Objectively, our error stemmed from an underestimation of the strength of dogmatism. We were (wrongly) of the opinion that it was not necessary to be specific about the qualitative differences between fusion prior to, and fusion after, party formation. To us the difference seemed obvious.
However, we did not forsee the kind of position put forward by the rectification forces. Given the isolation of the Workers’ Viewpoint Organization and the other ultra-dogmatists, we assumed that their view that the party could, and should, be built prior to fusion would have no credibility. We did not anticipate that this same view would once again be taken up by a significant section of the communist movement.
The dogmatism implicit in the party-building-first-and-fusion-second position is not difficult to grasp. It is rooted in the kind of infantile logic that has characterized much or our movement. The logic runs like this: if the danger of revisionism increases according to one’s roots in the working class, then the purity of Marxism-Leninism can only be guaranteed by isolation from it.
But the fact that the PWOC did not anticipate the NNMLC’s revival of dogmatism does not mean that we made a change of fundamental political significance in our position.
In the course of ideological struggle, every position goes through some development and change. But one must be able to distinguish between a change which serves to clarify and sharpen the debate and one which represents a significant change in perspective.
The distinction between the two can not be made in the abstract. In one context a seemingly minor change could have profound political significance, whereas in another it could mean very little. Assessment of the significance of any alteration is only possible when the change is viewed in the context of the larger debate.
In the context of the struggle rectification and fusion, the introduction of the qualifier “embryonic” only served to clarify the debate. On the one hand it demonstrate that the PWOC understood that fusion could not really mature in the absence of a party. It showed that the fusion line was consistent with Leninism on this point.
On the other hand, it served to underline the dogmatism of the rectification line. It exposed the roots of their objection to the fusion line. They objected not to an exaggeration by the PWOC of the degree of fusion that was possible prior to party formation. Rather they denied that any significant – even immature and circumscribed – fusion could occur before the first party congress.
Again the motivation of the NNMLC’s charge was not purely tactical. The PWOC’s clarification sharply undercut the strength of their position. Once again the only way to limit the depth of their exposure was to claim that the PWOC had changed its position. Only in this case, the fabrication of change was not wholesale. It was limited to grossly distorting the political significance of a relatively minor clarification.
That the NNMLC feels compelled to resort to such shoddy polemic; tricks is worthy of some reflection. In our view it is not just indicative of the weakness of the rectification line – its basic inability to stand up to sharp struggle over an extended period of time.
Even more significantly, it stands as just one more exposure of the NNMLC’s circle spirit. Having placed the promotion of their own claim to seats on the party’s future central committee at a premium, the NNMLC leaders are compelled to exploit every opportunity to achieve their goal – even if it means compromising truth and honesty in polemics.
November 29, 1979