First Published: In two parts in The Organizer, Vol. 5, Nos. 7 and 8, July and August 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.
Having barely completed its initial break with the ultra-lefts, our tendency is once again faced with the consequences of its inadequate rectification of modern “left-wing” communism.
A few months ago the anti-“left” tendency consolidated its political separation from the key manifestation of the ultra-left line. Led by the Steering Committee of the OC, the bulk of the tendency concluded a protracted struggle over international line begun some three years ago in the wake of Angola. Centralized and movement-wide ideological struggle forced the real thinking underlying opposition to the view that US imperialism is the main enemy to the surface.
It was demonstrated that this opposition shared with other aspects of the prevailing “left” line an absurdly “left” approach to the struggle against revisionism. And it was further shown that this opposition was rooted in dogmatism generally and, in particular, the belief that a deviation from “Mao Zedong Thought” is by definition, revisionism.
Just as the process of breaking with “left” internationalism was drawing to a close, a new struggle against ultra-leftism began to rage. Like the debate on international line, this new controversy also centers on the need to break with “leftism” on the political level – namely, on party-building line. But unlike those spearheading the defense of “left” internationalism, the headquarters of the backward elements lies within the anti-“left” tendency.
This opposition to a break with “leftism” on party building line is centered in and around the leadership of the National Network of Marxist-Leninist Clubs (NNMLC). Their line is summed up in the slogan: “the central task of US Marxist-Leninists today is the rectification of the general line of the US communist movement and the reestablishment of its party.” And their views are elaborated in a document entitled “Developing the Subjective Factor.”
The NNMLC seems bent on the “rectification and re-establishment” of the “left” line on party-building. Their approach to the concrete tasks facing the tendency, their general party-building strategy and their conception of the party itself all reveal the most pronounced ultra-leftism.
Ironically, the principle error of the “rectifiers” is their incorrect approach to our rectification tasks. According to them, rectification should focus chiefly on overcoming the distortions of communist theory brought about by revisionism and only “secondarily” those errors caused by ultra-leftism (Developing the Subjective, p.35).
As a general formulation, no one could quarrel with this. But it is apparent that in the NNMLC’s view overcoming ultra-leftism must be accorded a secondary priority even in the present period of our tendency’s development. That this is their perspective is shown by their remark that “at some point (after party formation, perhaps? – CN), an all-sided summation (of ultra-leftism) must be developed” (emphasis added – CN; ibid., p. 24). And it is also clearly demonstrated by the fact that none of the leading exponents of the rectification line have devoted any significant attention to developing a systematic critique of the ultra-leftism and its ideological roots.
To give only secondary weight to overcoming modern “left-wing” communism is a grave error. It not only disarms our tendency in its struggle against the ultra-lefts, but it is likely to lull it into a false sense of security. Our forces have just recently emerged from a movement where ultra-leftism has held ideological hegemony for over 20 years. All of our thinking has, to one degree or another, been molded by this experience. Given this, we can hardly afford to proceed on the assumption – without the reality – of a thorough-going break with “leftism”.
Have we not seen sufficient examples of what the failure to rectify ultra-leftism leads to? Do we need another example of an organization that establishes its political credentials by criticizing the “leftism” of its predecessors, only to itself consolidate around a “left-wing” program? Must the anti-revisionist movement suffer yet another “vanguard party” of the type already so well known?
No! On the question of ultra-leftism, above all, we must be certain of our footing. The development of an all-sided critique of “left-wing” communism –identifying its principle manifestations, ideological roots and material basis – must be seen as our primary theoretical task. On the basis of such a critique, we must conduct a thorough rooting-out of “leftist” thinking in our ranks. This, and only this, can provide a firm foundation for proceeding with our efforts to elaborate program and strategy for the US revolution.
In the past, the failure to grasp the centrality of overcoming ultra-leftism was rooted in faulty historical analysis or simple-mindedness. In the former case the inability of anti-revisionists to sum up their own history of “left” errors led them to repeat them – even if in a different form. In the latter, it was assumed that it was merely sufficient to demarcate with “left” errors at the political level and leave the summation of the errors and their roots to “some point” on down the road.
In the NNMLC’s case, neither faulty analysis nor simple-mindedness is primary. Given the ultra-leftism inherent in their own line, the NNMLC leaders recognize that focusing on combatting “leftism” can only serve to undermine their influence in the anti-“left” tendency. Thus, they have an objective interest in diverting our tendency from deepening its critique of the “left” line.
Here we come upon a central underlying feature of the NNMLC approach to party-building. The NNMLC leaders do not proceed on the basis of consolidating the foundation and advancing the genuine interests of the anti-“left” tendency as a whole. Instead, they base their intervention in the communist movement on what is most likely to advance the influence of their own narrow circle.
It is this narrow circle mentality–placing the interests of one’s own circle of comrades above the interests of the communist movement as a whole – which underlies the NNMLC’s approach to political struggle in the anti-“left” tendency. Rather than join with other forces in the tendency in common work designed to both secure our break with ultra-leftism and to lay a firm foundation for our struggle for a common party-building line, the NNMLC argues that we should fight for a division in our ranks along the lines of “rectification vs. fusion.” This, they argue, is the “key struggle” within the anti-“left” tendency (ibid., p.5).
Now we do not deny that the debate over “rectification vs. fusion” may become a fundamental controversy in our tendency in the future. Nor do we maintain that any discussion of these differences will inevitably detract from consolidating the anti-“lefts.”
Our principle objection is to making this the “key two-line struggle” prior to consolidating our critique of ultra-leftism. To leapfrog an all-sided summation of ultra-leftism will just lengthen the life of the more incorrect line. And it will also enhance the possibility of premature political division – i.e., division in the absence of a thorough contention between the two lines.
In addition, we object to the manner in which the NNMLC has chosen to conduct the discussion. Along with contention between lines, the NNMLC desires to add competition between organizations. In spite of the fact that they have no principled disagreements with the line of the OC, the NNMLC has set itself up as a competing center with that body. And to reinforce this competitive dynamic, all NNMLC members are bound as a matter of discipline to defend the rectification formula.
The addition of organizational competition reinforced by centralism (even if only on the NNMLC side) can only heighten the likelihood of a premature and unprincipled split. Debate will not take on the character of clarifying and sharpening differences between opposing views in order that the correct one can win out. (This, after all, should be seen as being in everyone’s real interests.) In fact, it almost guarantees that “my organization over all” will become the watch-word.
The NNMLC does not just operate on the basis of its own narrow interests.
It has even attempted to elaborate a theoretical defense of the circle mentality. This defense finds its chief expression in an opportunist critique of the OC.
But before we expose its defense of the circle mentality, it is important to reply to a NNMLC distortion of the OC’s line. The Club leaders argue that the OC is united around the “fusion strategy” for party-building. Their logic runs as follows: The OC is led by the PWOC. The PWOC is the leading exponent of fusion. Therefore the OC is guided by the fusion line.
The NNMLC knows full well, the OC represents the coming together of a number of political currents with differing overall party-building strategies. Certainly the fusion line is well represented, but it is hardly the exclusive view of OC members. The Tucson Marxist-Leninist Collective has expressly opposed fusion and yet it actively participates in the OC. And even those who agree with fusion formulate it in different ways.
Does this mean that the OC has no party line? Of course not. While the line of the OC is limited, all of its members agree on the following points: 1) the immediacy of developing a genuine Marxist-Leninist trend in the communist movement, 2) the primacy of consolidating a break with ultra-leftism, 3) the necessity of struggling for a single leading center for the anti-“left” tendency, and 4) the centrality of the theoretical struggle in party-building.
By implication, all OC members hold that these four points (along with the OC’s 18 points of unity) provide a sufficient basis for common work towards a party at this time. And all have also agreed to allow their differences around long-term party-building strategy to unfold in the context of common work.
Once the falsehood of the OC’s consolidation around fusion is dispelled, the NNMLC’s narrow circle spirit stands out in bold relief. From its very conception, C. more than any other organized form in the entire tendency, has stood for the demand that each narrow circle, without exception, subordinate itself to the struggle for a single center in the communist movement. Whether they be El Comite-MINP, the Guardian staff or the Club Network, this point has always been central to the contention between the OC and its various anti-“left” opponents.
Of these three forces only El Comite-MINP has been able to provide a principled basis for its decision to remain outside the OC. The Guardian staffs arguments for separation from the OC have been exposed as a ploy for protecting its circle independence. And stripped of the argument that the OC has adopted the fusion line, what is left for the NNMLC but opposition to its own subordination to the struggle for a single center?
The NNMLC’s circle mentality is even more clearly revealed in its critique of the “organizational scheme” of the OC. The NNMLC attacks the OC for a “federationist approach”, a “fetish on organization over politics”, “ultra-democratic approach to leadership”, and the conception of an ideological center “as a mere administrative body, a place to organize debate and develop a leading line” (ibid., pp. 30-31).
None of these charges are true. The OC has consistently opposed a federationist approach to party-building and has repeatedly emphasized the primacy of politics over organization. It has neither advocated “electing a leading center” nor ever held that an ideological center can develop based on anything but a correct political line. This is indicated both by the failure of the NNMLC to make any attempt to substantiate its charges and the entire practice of the OC.
Since this is the case, the source of the NNMLC criticisms must be located elsewhere. Instead of being sought in genuine errors of the OC, they must stem from the NNMLC’s own conception of how to forge an ideological center. Unfortunately, they have not elaborated their approach to a center – not at least in public.
Given the NNMLC’s failure to set forth its views in public, we will have to rely on discussion between representatives of the PWOC and the leading ideologist of the rectification line. According to him, a leading center is forged by joint theoretical work and study between “leading elements” working largely in secret. These “leading elements” identify themselves and one another, and through discussions “synthesize a general line.” In order to conduct their work, they must be free of organizational constraints of any kind. And once their work is completed, they fight to win the rest of the communist movement to it.
A moment’s reflection reveals the circle mentality implicit in this scheme. The “leading elements” are self-declared; they do not have to earn their designation as ideological leaders. They work in secret and thus can choose to conceal any disagreements that might tend to weaken their influence over the movement as a whole. They are free of any organizational constraints that might tie them to the rest of the movement or the working class. And they establish their influence by a fight for hegemony over the communist movement.
With this approach, no wonder the NNMLC accuses the OC of being “federationist”, “ultra-democratic”, “organizational fetishists”, “administrators” and the like. As opposed to the OC’s views, the NNMLC’s line is an ideological justification for a small group of “leaders” to set themselves up as a “leading center” and contend for narrow hegemony in the movement. In essence, it reduces the struggle for the party to contention for seats on the central committee!
It is precisely this kind of narrow circle approach to party-building which was adopted by the ultra-lefts. The core of both the RU and the OL, for example, set themselves up as “leading centers”, advanced a “general line” and fought to establish their own organizational hegemony in the communist movement. But neither proved capable of creating a genuine ideological center, of elaborating genuine program or of achieving genuine ideological hegemony.
Of course, their failure was primarily the result of ultra-leftism in general and not just the circle spirit. But their narrow circle approach to party-building played an important role in reinforcing the influence of “leftist” thinking. It did so for the simple reason that the shortest road to the desired seats on the central committee was paved with appeals to ideological backwardness among the communist forces.
The fact that the NNMLC has not broken with this aspect of the past shows just how far they are from overcoming their own ultra-leftism. In our next article we will explore their conceptions of party-building strategy in general and of the party itself.
In our first article we saw that the National Network of Marxist-Leninist Clubs’ (NNMLC) incorrect and sectarian orientation to our immediate tasks was rooted in a narrow circle approach to the anti-“left” tendency. Instead of basing their intervention on the genuine interests of the party-building movement as a whole, the Club leaders have chosen to proceed according to what best serves their claim to seats on the Party’s future central committee.
We also pointed out that historically the circle mentality has been a key aspect of the “left” line on party-building. Like the NNMLC, numerous small circles have anointed themselves “leading centers”, advanced their “general lines” and sought to build the Party from their own narrow circle outwards. And like the NNMLC, the cores of Communist League, Revolutionary Union, October League, Workers’ Viewpoint Organization, Marxist-Leninist Organizing Committee and others all pursued sectarian tactics toward their main competitors.
But the NNMLC’s dependence on a narrow circle approach is qualitatively different from that of its predecessors. Previous attempts to establish circle dominance developed when ultra-leftism held nearly unchallenged ideological hegemony over anti-revisionists. As a result, although a narrow circle mentality was bound up with ultra-leftism, it was not essential to the maintenance of “left-wing” communism.
The present situation is different. The NNMLC is part of a tendency where ultra-leftism is in decline and Marxism-Leninism on the rise. Like “left” opportunism generally, the “left” line on party-building is under attack and fighting for its breath.
In such circumstances, those influenced by ultra-leftism have an objective interest in the circle spirit. Centralized ideological struggle accelerates the advance of Marxism-Leninism whereas the distorted wrangling of circle competition retards it. Thus, those who defend Marxism-Leninism have every interest in the assertion of party forms of struggle. Those who defend ultra-leftism cannot survive without preserving circle warfare.
The NNMLC’s “leftism” can be shown through a critical examination of its line in any one of three areas. Its summation of previous errors on party-building line, its own party-building strategy and even its conception of the Party itself demonstrate the most pronounced “leftism”.
The NNMLC’s analysis of the anti-revisionist movement indicates that in their view the principal errors on party-building line were right and not “left” ones. They argue:
In brief, the overall party-building view of the dominant organizations of the new communist movement was to take their rudimentary political lines, attempt to make them a material force among the masses through an all-sided preparty formation, and through summing up experiences develop a more refined line. (Developing the Subjective Factor, Pg. 21)
That the NNMLC regards this line as right opportunist can be seen in their so-called critique of fusion. They argue that any attempt to make Marxism-Leninism a material force prior to the formation of the Party only serves to shackle communists “to the bourgeois ideology of the spontaneous movement. It ties the development of the subjective factor (for the NNMLC the subjective factor coincides with the Party! –CN) to the immediate objective conditions of the present backwardness in the working class.” (ibid., p. 27)
The incorrectness of summing up the party-building lines of RU, OL and Co. as right opportunist should be apparent to anyone with even the most superficial knowledge of our history. The efforts of these organizations to transform themselves into parties was not characterized fundamentally by subordination to “the backwardness of the working class”.
In fact, the party-building lines of RU and OL were characterized by voluntarism. Far from tieing their fortunes to the mass movements, they essentially negated the importance of establishing a vanguard relation with the class. Their primary orientation was to establish their dominance over anti-revisionists and then declare themselves a Party.
A failure to correctly sum up the previous errors on party-building line can only lead to further disarray in our movement. To grasp this we have only to reflect on the past results of anti-revisionists taking “left” errors for right ones.
The Workers’ Viewpoint Organization (WVO) (which the NNMLC conveniently forgets to mention in its critique of previous errors on party-building strategy) summed up the mistakes of RU and OL in a manner almost identical to that of NNMLC. (See Workers’ Viewpoint, Vol. 1, No. 2). They too came to the conclusion that the chief error of these organizations had been their attempt to fuse with the class struggle prior to forming the Party.
On the basis of this summation the WVO put forward an alternative party-building line (strikingly similar to that of the NNMLC). They argued that “theory is primary” in the period of party formation, that “fusion with the class” should await the completion of a “complete ideological and political victory over revisionism”, and that the essence of party-building was setting right the general line of the communist movement “through ideological struggle against revisionism.”
As is well known, the WVO line failed the test of practice. (No wonder the NNMLC denies that practice is the criterion of truth during the period of party-formation.) Far from correcting the errors of RU and OL, the WVO succeeded in reconstituting these errors in a more exaggerated form.
The NNMLC’s incorrect summation of the past is rooted in its own version of the “left” line on party-building. The “leftism” implicit in their view is so pronounced that it even forces the NNMLC to make a serious (and revealing) blunder in their formulation of our central task. They write: “the central task before US Marxist-Leninists today is the rectification of the general line of the US communist movement and the re-establishment of its communist party” (op. cit., pp. 5, 7, 11, 33, 50, et al; emphasis added, CN)
Precisely! What the NNMLC desires to build is not the revolutionary vanguard of the US working class but the “party” of the communist movement! The anti-revisionist movement will be forever in debt to the NNMLC for this exquisite expression of the “left-wing” approach to party-building.
Underlying the ultra-left approach to party-building (and much of the rest of the “left” line as well) is the characteristic petty-bourgeois fear of the masses. Lacking confidence in the ability of the working class and oppressed nationalities to make a contribution to the development of a genuine instrument of revolution, the Avakians, Klonskys, and Tungs (leader of WVO) of our movement have sought to wall themselves off from the “backward” workers.
To the extent that they take up party-building, it is to build an instrument of the declassed petty bourgeois intellectuals who predominate in our movement. These elements recoil from uniting with the advanced workers. Instead they seek a political organization which will allow them to “lead” the proletariat without having to answer to it. They desire above all a “party of the communist movement”.
It is not just blunders, however, that manifest the NNMLC’s “leftist” party-building strategy. Even their intended formulations have a “left-wing” character. 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.
The error of this formulation cannot be understood without grasping the materialist conception of essence. 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. It determines the interrelationship of the varied theoretical and practical tasks and provides the key to identifying which are principal and which are secondary. In short, it provides the determining pivot for the Party’s creation.
Certainly, the development of a general line for revolution in the US (giving the word “rectification” its most generous interpretation) is a central task in party-building. A party without program and strategy is like a football team without a game plan and plays.
But to argue that the development of program for the US revolution is the very essence of the party-building process is profoundly incorrect. It implies that the building of a revolutionary party is fundamentally a theoretical process or that a vanguard will be built basically through thought and not action.
There is a clear connection between this view of the essence of party-building and idealism. Idealism holds that the essence of all phenomena, whether natural or social, is thought. Thus for the idealist the essence of socialist society is socialist theory, the essence of the revolutionary movement, revolutionary theory, and the essence of party-building, developing a correct general line.
Intellectual strata are, of course, especially prone to idealist errors. Their whole identities are bound up with their ideas. Their legitimacy in the revolutionary movement depends on their ability to generate theory that can serve to guide the practice of revolutionaries. The tendency to overrate the importance of their own role is strong and obviously helped along by a well-cultivated contempt for the working class. Idealism is often little more than an ideological justification for that tendency.
Consistent with its idealist “essence” of party-building, the NNMLC also opposes the “notion that communists’ theoretical work today must mainly address the questions posed by the present-day mass movement” (ibid., p. 27). This idea, they argue, will inevitably bind communists to the “bourgeois ideology that of necessity dominates the spontaneous movement.” (ibid., pg. 28).
The idea that focusing primarily on the problems posed by the actual struggles of the masses inevitably leads to bourgeois ideology is profoundly mistaken. In the first place, the questions that are presently being “posed” to us are precisely the most important problems encountered in building a viable revolutionary movement.
Among such questions are how to forge the leadership of the working class into a political party, how to overcome class divisions, how to break the hold of reformist ideology, how to exploit imperialism’s contradiction with democracy and how to build solidarity with the proletariat’s world allies. If one analyzes the mass movements objectively, these are the very questions “posed” by the masses.
Secondly, what leads to subordination to bourgeois ideology is not the practice of addressing questions actually raised by the mass movements, but by the adoption of bourgeois solutions for them. The line between proletarian and bourgeois ideology is drawn not on whether one addresses the questions “posed” by the class struggle, whatever its level of development, but on the answers provided for them.
Thirdly, if we are not to focus on the questions actually raised by the masses, on what should we focus our theoretical work? On those questions which spontaneously pop into the heads of Marxist-Leninists? On those questions, which are most likely to advance our claims to circle hegemony?
Is it not obvious that any criterion other than the actual runs counter to Lenin’s thesis that “the task of socialists is to be the ideological leaders of the proletariat in its actual struggle against actual and real enemies who stand in the actual path of social and economic development?” (Lenin, Coll. Wks., Vol. 1, p. 298; emphasis in original)
The NNMLC’s downgrading of the primacy of problems actually faced by the masses shares nothing in common with Marxist materialism. It is only a more extreme version of the same “left” idealism and fear of the masses that characterized the “leftist” call for abstention from reform movements. In essence, it unites with the infantile desire to steer clear of bourgeois ideology by avoiding any contact with the “dirty and swarming” workers.
Bound up with its contempt for the questions posed by the mass movements is the NNMLC’s fear of practice in the pre-party period. The demand that our theoretical work should be subjected to the test of practice and judged on the basis of whether or not it demonstrates a vanguard character is held to be incorrect.
Consider, for example, the following formulation:
In the pre-party period, the indication of the accuracy of the party’s line and its vanguard potential is found in the ability to clarify key questions for Marxist-Leninists. In uniting on a leading line, Marxist-Leninists of course rely on their grasp of social reality as the measure of a line’s accuracy and power. (op. cit., p. 28)
Thus for the NNMLC the criterion of truth during the pre-party period is the ability of a line to gain a following in the communist movement.
By this standard, the CP M-L must have the correct line!
A genuine Marxist-Leninist will never settle for measuring theory on the basis of its following. Instead, he/she will demand that the “accuracy” of line, its “vanguard potential”, and one’s “grasp of social reality” be subjected to the yardstick of practice. For a revolutionary, a line will be shown to be accurate, to have a vanguard character and to grasp reality only to the extent that it leads to revolutionary practice among the masses.
The NNMLC’s “new” formulation of the criterion of truth is not just rooted in a cynical pursuit of influence among communists. Once again their fear of the masses is exposed.
The NNMLC is frightened that upholding practice as the criterion of correctness will lead to polluting communists with bourgeois ideology. If our movement is forced to demonstrate its vanguard character in practice, it is likely to succumb to opportunism. Better that it should avoid even the thought of putting its theory to the test.
“One’s line on party-building actually draws out the question of what is one’s conception of the Marxist-Leninist party itself,” the NNMLC writes (ibid., pg. 41). True enough and given what we have already seen of the NNMLC’s party-building line, we can expect their treatment of the party to be similarly onesided.
In their discussion of the nature of the Party, the NNMLC lays great stress on the party as the advanced detachment of the working class. They repeatedly invoke the favorite slogan of the “Gang of Four”: “the correctness or incorrectness of ideological and political line decides everything.” And they also quote Stalin’s Foundations of Leninism to the effect that:
In order that it may really be the advanced detachment, the party must be armed with revolutionary theory, with a knowledge of the laws of the movement, with a knowledge of the laws of revolution.
They devote almost four pages of their pamphlet to discussing this important aspect of the party, (ibid., pp. 8-11)
But there is no discussion whatsoever – not so much as a word – of the other main aspect of the Party. The need for the Party to be not only advanced but also a detachment is ignored.
To grasp the importance of this second aspect, consider what Stalin had to say only a few paragraphs after those quoted by the NNMLC:
But the Party cannot be only an advanced detachment. It must at the same time be a detachment of the class, part of the class, closely bound up with it by all the fibres of its being. . . .The Party cannot lead the class if it is not connected with the non-Party masses, if there is no bond between the Party and the non-Party masses, if these masses do not accept its leadership, if the Party enjoys no moral and political credit among the masses. (Vol. 6 pg. 9; emphasis in the original.)
Thus Marxists such as Stalin held the essence of the party to be the fusion – pardon the expression – of revolutionary theory with the advanced fighters of the working class. But consistent with its “essence” of party-building, the NNMLC sees the essence of the Party as its ideological and political line.
In summation, the NNMLC’s narrow circle mentality, its critique of previous party-building lines, its own party-building strategy, and even its conception of the Party itself all demonstrate its own “leftism”. And it is a “leftism” that is as pronounced as any in the history of the anti-revisionist movement – even including Workers’ Viewpoint.
Nothing could demonstrate our tendency’s inadequate critique of ultra-leftism better than this. And nothing could further underline the importance of seeing the NNMLC put right!