Written: June 12, 1980.
First Published: Discussion Bulletin Melbourne Articles, June 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.
A major theme in left wing propaganda is opposition to fascism. Quite often even relatively moderate opponents of the left are described as “fascists”.
Yet scratch a “Communist” and one quite often finds a fascist underneath.
The regime that began with the October Revolution is now a fascist dictatorship. In China too, since the defeat of the Cultural Revolution many revolutionaries have been executed and the right to speak out freely, hold great debates, put up big character posters and so on has been officially and formally repudiated.
The degeneration of Communist Parties in power is a separate problem calling for a separate analysis. But what about the degeneration of parties holding no power?
Our experiences with the “Communist Party of Australia (Marxist-Leninist)” were sufficiently frightening to require some deep analysis. Almost any split is accompanied by outraged cries of “unfair” or “undemocratic” from the losing side, so it seemed undesirable to distract attention from the fundamental issues at stake by going into details of who done what to who. But another reason why we never got around to it was probably embarrassment at having to admit to ever having been involved with such a sick group.
The bankruptcy of Australian nationalism as an ideology for Communists is now pretty apparent, while the question of whether China has gone revisionist has been settled by open proclamations from the Chinese leadership themselves. Although “Vanguard” keeps coming out each week, the people behind it seem pretty discredited and there is little need to discredit them further. In Adelaide the “Worker Student Alliance for Australian Independence” has disintegrated, along with its newspaper “People’s Voice”. In Melbourne the entire editorial collective of “Independence Voice” quit some time ago, there was no “Independence platform” at Mayday and supporters of this line have been completely routed in “Community Radio” 3CR.
As a complete expression of E.F. Hill’s bankruptcy we have the suggestion in “Australian Communist”, that they want unity with us (previously described as “Soviet agents”), and actual signed articles from Hill proposing reunification with the CPA in “one Communist Party” (presumably based on the fact that the Chinese revisionists, having recently recognized the Communist Party of Italy, as well as the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, as great “Marxists”, also wish to re-establish relations with the CPA, leaving Hill out in the cold).
The thuggish behaviour of CPA(ML) supporters in attempting to intimidate their opponents is well known. Both intellectual and physical thuggery have been characteristic of their behaviour in 3CR and elsewhere, to the point where the only “broad united front” they have been able to create has been that directed against themselves. They have also become notorious for openly preferring to ally themselves with various Nazis and other fascists against the Soviet Union rather than trying to unite the people, and especially the left, against Soviet imperialism on the basis of progressive principles.
But this more or less open fascism has resulted in that group being simply dismissed as “crazies”. In fact they are only a more extreme expression of problems that exist, less overtly, throughout the left. Indeed it has been noticeable in 3CR for example, that the excuse of keeping out the crazies, has been used to justify appallingly manipulative and undemocratic behaviour (e.g., elected listener sponsor representatives voting against explicit directives from a large general meeting of listener sponsors). People who would be shocked and indignant about that in other contexts have made excuses for it when their own friends are doing it. Really how far is it from making excuses to acting in the same way? And how far from there to ending up just like the “crazies” themselves?
In Australia other groups supposedly on the left have exhibited a personal intolerance comparable to the Chinese parrots (the Spartacists come to mind). Scanning overseas “left” newspapers one gets the impression that narrow minded religious bigotry is pretty common, and even where it isn’t taken to extremes, it is still present.
This is a common theme in anti-Communist propaganda from open representatives of the bourgeoisie, from Social Democrats, from Anarchists, from “Left” or “Council” Communists and what have you. Nevertheless, attacks on Marxism-Leninism from our opponents should be taken seriously, and indeed have been taken seriously by the classic exponents of Marxism. Some of the material from the Chinese Cultural Revolution is very valuable in understanding the emergence of fascist tendencies among alleged “Communists”. For example Mao Tsetung’s unpublished works, and the material criticizing Lin Piao (the “successor” who turned out to be a fascist).
In the “gang of four’s” Peking University Journal of September 1, 1976 there is an important article on “The Bureaucrat Class and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat” (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition No 4, Translation from “Selections from People’s Republic of China Magazines” No 895, American Consulate General, Hong Kong. Reprinted in “Study Notes” No 8, Red Eureka Movement, August 1978): “...We must further recognize the high concentration of political and economic powers under the dictatorship of the proletariat. If the bureaucrat class succeeded in usurping power and in its restorationist conspiracies throughout the country, then it would continue to flaunt the banner of socialism, take advantage of this high concentration of political and economic powers and turn the democratic centralism of the proletariat into the fascist centralism of the bureaucrat class.
In controlling and manipulating the means of production and the product of labor, these bureaucrats will be far more powerful than any previous exploiting classes and their political representatives, than the slave owners and feudal rulers who claimed that “all land under the sun is my territory and all people on earth are my subjects,” and than the bureaucrats and financiers in capitalist countries,,. .In a similar vein, the present day new tsars behave much worse than the old tsars...
This article also goes into the question of the transformation of authority into capital and capital into authority, which is relevant to an understanding of imperialism in the West as well as in the Soviet Union and China.
If the democratic centralism of the proletarian dictatorship can be easily transformed into the fascist centralism of the bureaucrat class in a developing socialist country, then what about democratic centralism in Leninist parties out of power? Is this an argument against democratic centralism and proletarian dictatorship, as anarchists and others insist?
There never can be a guarantee against proletarian dictatorship turning into its opposite, and Communists in power must always be prepared for transition to underground life as Communists in opposition to capitalist readers in power. Likewise in Communist Parties generally.
But if there is no democratic centralism and proletarian dictatorship then it is quite impossible for the revolutionary ideas held only by a minority in capitalist and socialist society to be centralised and dominant and in that case the bourgeoisie holds power anyway. So weakening democratic centralism is not the answer. On the contrary, it needs to be strengthened to keep fascists out, on the same argument that the left cannot afford to be pacifist and must learn the use of arms if it doesn’t want warmongers to hold power.
Fear of strengthening democratic centralism is really fear of struggle. Such fear is fully understandable in the present situation, and a lot better than blinkered complacency. But it must be overcome.
The quote from Orwell’s “Road to Wigan Pier” in “The Personal is Political” (Discussion Bulletin No 9) rang a few bells and is worth repeating: ““Socialism” is pictured as a state of affairs in which our more vocal Socialists would feel thoroughly at home. This does great harm to the cause. The ordinary man may not flinch from a dictatorship of the proletariat, if you offer it tactfully; offer him a dictatorship of the prigs, and he gets ready to fight.”
We should be ready to fight against the dictatorship of the prigs and to do this it is necessary to understand the transformation of Communists into prigs.
If we take Lin Piao for example, there is no doubt that he did make contributions to the Chinese revolution before emerging as an outright fascist. The superstitious Mao cult he built up in opposition to Mao had definite roots in China’s feudal past, but also struck a chord among Western “Maoists”.
Ted Hill now appears to be nothing more than a follower of Liu Shao-chi, then Lin Piao (as a major cult advocate) then Liu Shao-chi again, or whoever may hold power in China at any given moment. But some of his analysis of revisionism, parliamentarism and trade union politics in publications like “Looking Backward; Looking Forward” are still valuable and he once made a point of opposing sacred cows and stereotypes and supporting rebellion.
Things were drastically wrong with the CPA(ML) long before we parted company and people are entitled to ask how we got mixed up with them and why we should be regarded as any different. If we are to be any different then we must analyse the thin dividing line that appears to exist between being a Marxist-Leninist or “Maoist” on the one hand, and being a lunatic or a fascist on the other.
There is little need to “expose” the CPA(ML) leadership now in view of its obvious degeneration. But the roots of current fascist attitudes do need study, and the following facts are placed on the record for our own benefit rather than for the benefit of anyone still taken in by Hill.
1. There never was anything remotely resembling democracy within the CPA(ML). This became obvious when concrete disagreements made it necessary to have a proper discussion and take a decision. But it should have been obvious even when people thought they were in agreement.
2. As soon as a disagreement in principle was announced “through the proper channels” etcetera, the IMMEDIATE response was to launch vituperative attacks on individuals at first surreptitiously behind their backs and then openly in “Vanguard”.
3. The very idea of discussing the differences was repudiated and “security” was abused to tell people that there had been a full democratic discussion, which they just didn’t happen to be part of.
4. As a matter of fact it turned out that no Central Committee actually existed. At least one member of the Red Eureka Movement discovered that they were supposed to be a member of it, after wanting to express their views to it. This must be some sort of record in the international communist movement!
5. Other members of the Red Eureka Movement who were both on the Central Committee and knew it, were able to expose the lie that there had been some kind of Central Committee discussion about China and that documents expressing opposition had been circulated to the Central Committee etcetera.
6. Individual party members had to go outside the “channels” to get any kind of discussion and then discovered that the “channels” didn’t really exist.
7. It was not a case of discussion being suppressed arbitrarily and decisions usurped, but of there being no provision whatever for seriously discussing and reversing a policy disagreed with.
8. This situation which existed long before it came to a head was put up with by people who would rebel strongly against similar fascist practices in any other social institution.
9. Many people on becoming aware of it, and seeing people branded as Soviet agents etcetera, took a cynical attitude that this was wrong but not a major question of principle requiring them to take a stand.
We did not fully realize it at the time, but there was little alternative to the apparent extremism of Hill’s stand because there really wasn’t any possibility of a discussion. If he had agreed to a discussion, what could he possibly have said? And if the CPA(ML) did not follow China religiously, what else could it do? We cannot blame Hill for our own naivety.
We only realized how difficult most people find it to rebel and think for themselves once we had broken with Hill and company. “Stalinists without a country” was the contemptuous Trotskyist label, and there really is something in it. It really is enormously easier to at least think you know what you’re doing when there is some “socialist motherland” backing you up, (Or a “Fourth International”, a “great leader” or some other crutch).
For non-revolutionaries it’s fairly easy to maintain a political position sustained by one or other of the reformist currents in mainstream bourgeois society. But in a non-revolutionary society and with no back up from a revolutionary society it requires real effort to develop a revolutionary program. How much easier it would have been if we could have forgotten that we didn’t have such a program by simply pretending to ourselves that China, or Albania or somewhere was revolutionary and that supporting them would somehow help produce a revolution here.
Idealism and metaphysics are the easiest things in the world, because people can talk as much nonsense as they like without basing it on objective reality or having it tested against reality. Materialism and dialectics, on the other hand, need effort. They must be based on and tested by objective reality. Unless one makes the effort, one is liable to slip into idealism and metaphysics,It’s interesting to note how even people with no attachment to Russia, China or Albania have managed to persuade themselves that Vietnam is still worth supporting and feel a deep and personal threat to their whole ideology when this is questioned.
Judging from overseas literature, the temptation of closed minded religious fanaticism is very strong in this situation. It provides a certainty that would otherwise be lacking and puts an end to all confusion, doubt, cynicism, liberalism and so on.
But this way out is the way out of the movement. It means joining the innumerable sects that are much better organized and disciplined than we and are able to get more done precisely because they do not have the “burden” of really having to think out a revolutionary line.
We did not hesitate to reject the “security” of blindly following China, Albania or anybody else so we should not. regret, the consequences.
One consequence is that we are in some respects more vulnerable to confusion, doubt, liberalism, cynicism and so on than other left groups that feel more confident about their (manifestly wrong!) lines. The reason horses are given blinkers is that it keeps them working away steadily without getting distracted by things they might see. Groups that have attached themselves to a foreign state, or that merely reflect a reformist current in mainstream bourgeois ideology, have a secure basis for their activity and can work away at it for years after it has ceased to have any social relevance or has become purely reactionary.
The same can easily be true of “revolutionary” groups that feel secure, or pretend to feel secure in their “correct line”. They can whip up a great frenzy of activity, full of sound and fury, but signifying nothing. Take a look at the “Revolutionary Communist Party, USA”. On many points we would be in full agreement. They have a similar analysis of China and Albania to ours and they certainly do make a clear distinction between communist revolution and the bourgeois reformism advocated by most “revolutionaries”.
On international questions of very great significance they appear to have a fundamentally wrong analysis. But. even more important, their whole APPROACH to “correct line” politics seems alien. They are certainly not paralysed by liberalism – but so what?
While confusion, doubt, liberalism, cynicism and so on persist we will remain unable to accomplish very much, including theoretical work.
We must have faith in the masses and we must have faith in the Party. These are two cardinal principles. If we doubt these principles, we shall accomplish nothing.
But the only acceptable basis for faith in the Party is confidence in the soundness of its analysis and line. Once we have grounds for such faith we will be able to accomplish something, but. not before. (And of course once we do, we will again have the problem of blind faith and the potential for people to continue following a leadership that has proved itself worthy of confidence, long after it has ceased to play a progressive or revolutionary role. But then it would be at a higher stage of the spiral).
Demands that people pull themselves together, combat liberalism or what have you, will not solve the problem of lack of faith. This is an atheistic age and real communists are atheistic people. Our only God is the masses and the only basis for our faith is scientific analysis of reality.
The situation we are in calls urgently for working out where we are and where we are going. Without that, calls to press on more resolutely and with greater vigour will only result in people getting more lost. If some of us aren’t any good at reading maps or surveying the surroundings, then they will have to make their contribution later. But it seems more likely that everyone would be able to make at least some contribution now, since even illiterates and blind people can study their surroundings and communicate with others.
It is conservative, not revolutionary to promote “leadership”, “organization”, “doing things”, “collective life” and so on without a clear perspective for liberating people from oppression. Defenders of the status quo habitually make such appeals and every organization, revolutionary or not, naturally wants to be as effectively organized as possible (and most sewing circles and amateur theatrical societies are probably a lot better organized than REM). But it is quite wrong to see the organizational reflection of our confusion as the central problem instead of dealing with the confusion itself, (As for any who are not confused, they would have an even greater problem. Take off the blinkers!)
Communism is not the only ideology opposed to liberalism, Fascism opposes liberalism too. We have to make a clear distinction for example between the Communist idea that “bourgeois democracy is a fraud” and the Nazi idea that “democracy is a bourgeois fraud”. It is one thing to want to widen and deepen and ultimately transcend democracy by going beyond such mere forms as majority voting to develop real participation. It is quite another thing to declare that one’s policies have proved their own correctness and deliberately exclude others from even a vote, let alone a real say, on the matter.
The fact that people like Lin Piao or Ted Hill could turn out to be fascists and that we could go along with a load of shit for a long time should alert us to the dangers. When people on the left start acting like people on the extreme right they must be pulled up sharply and told “You’re ill” before the disease becomes incurable and before it spreads.
12 June, 1980