WV’s attempt to replace MLMTT with its own new “theoretical” system has other particular ramifications to party building. In this section we present one example of their view of the communist party itself.
First, with regard to the communist party, incredible as it may seem, WV has raised that the purpose of our party building struggle is to construct a cadre core so that a mass workers’ party could be built. According to WV, a “mass workers’ party’ is a party which permits recruitment of non-communists.
Let us examine carefully WV’s own words.
Until we have a cadre core that is highly consolidated on party programme, strategy, tactical and organizational principles, to rush blindly ahead to build a mass workers party would be suicidal. Furthermore, such a cadre party of highly consolidated professional revolutionaries is necessary to preserve the party intact when conditions change abruptly. Such was the case with the Bolsheviks during the stormy and sometimes grey years after 1906 (1905-07 period of flow, 1908-11 period of ebb). Their stability in those difficult times ensure the eventual victory of the Bolshevik revolution, as compared to the Cadets, the Social Revolutionaries and the petty bourgeois “socialists” who became totally lost in the twist and turns of bourgeois tactics and eventually selling themselves out when the crunch came. For us today, with the development of modern revisionism, our anti-revisionist party must be particularly consolidated around the need for armed struggle, rejecting any illusion of “peaceful transition to socialism.” Without this cadre core, no workers party is possible, (see anti-revisionist premises #3). Since the economic crisis in the imperialist system has opened up the minds of vast numbers of workers, and many more are now open to socialism as the alternative. But to establish a workers party, there must first be the core cadre party, which, as we said before, must be highly consolidated. Again there is a contradiction caused by the lagging of the subjective factor behind the objective factor. While the objective condition for the mass workers party is ripening, the subjective factor, vanguard party of the proletariat,[1] does not yet exist to consolidate them to lead the working class. This makes our principal task of building a cadre party urgent. (WV, Vol. 2, No. 1, p. 35, emphasis added)
It is fundamentally wrong to “rush blindly” into a “mass workers party” until we have a cadre core, and it is just as wrong to walk clearly consciously and rationally into a “mass workers party” even after establishing a “cadre core.” For WV, party building is the central task and is so urgent now simply so that they can get through this stage and get on with the “mass workers party.” WV raises party building only to liquidate the communist party.
Does not Lenin, however, speak of making the communist party a mass party? Yes, he certainly does, such as in Left-Wing Communism, but from the point of view of struggling to make the party a real detachment of the working class by incorporating its advanced elements and leading its struggles. The communist party cannot Just be advanced but in order to be truly a vanguard party it must have profound ties with the class and be able to lead the masses to understand revolution, to be able to lead the masses through their own experiences to grasp revolution. It must be an advanced detachment of the working class. This is what Lenin means by a mass party, contrary to WV’s view.
WV however tries to turn Lenin upside down and uses Lenin to oppose Lenin. WV takes a quote from Lenin to try to prove the exact opposite of Lenin’s teachings on the party. The following quotation from Lenin is used by WV to try to support their contention that a cadre core becomes a “mass workers party” by consciously and deliberately admitting large numbers of non-communists into its ranks. (Lenin’s quote is from his article “Reorganization of the Party,” which was written in November, 1905, in which he argues for democratization of the party. This is in the context of the new conditions in which the party found itself after “freedom of assembly, of association and of the press” had been captured in Russia. See Vol. 10, p. 29 of Lenin’s Collected Works. He argues primarily against those who would take advantage of the new situation but also against those who wanted to liquidate the party by allowing all sorts of non-communist elements into its ranks.)
We will print both passages side by side to contrast the differences. The WV passage is printed in its entirety. All omissions from Lenin’s quote come from WV’s own writings.
As we (wv) said before, what we are building now is a cadre party and not a mass worker party. In Russia, 1905 marked the beginning of a new phase of mass militant upsurge of the working class. As soon as the freedom of assembly, of association and of the press were wrested from the Czar, the RSD emerged from its underground activity and took up open work. There was a great influx of workers into the RSD party. In the same year, Lenin pointed out the reason why the sudden influx of large numbers of non-social democrats would not cause the Party to dissolve among the masses... (IWK emphasis)
The danger (of the party ceasing to become the vanguard) could become very serious if we showed any inclination towards demagogy, if we lacked party principles (programme, tactical rules, organizational experience) entirely, or if those principles were feeble and shaky. But the fact is that no such ’ifs’ exist. We Bolsheviks have never shown any inclination towards demagogy. On the contrary, we have always fought resolutely openly and straightforwardly against the slightest attempts at demagogy...
We have preached discipline and demanded that every Party member be trained in one or other of the Party organizations. We have a firmly established Party Programme which is officially recognized by all SDs and...we have resolutions on tactics which were consistently and systematically worked out at the 2nd and the 3rd Congresses and in the course of many years’ work of the SD press. (Reorganization of the Party, 1905) (WV, Vol. 1, No. 2, p. 35)
Look at this question from another angle—from the point of view of the substance of the matter, not of its form. Is Social-Democracy endangered by the realization of the plan (the plan for internally
democratizing the party-IWK note) we propose?
Danger may be said to lie in a sudden influx of large numbers of non-Social-Democrats into the Party. If that occurred, the Party would be dissolved among the masses, it would cease to be the conscious vanguard of its class, its role would be reduced to that of a tail. That would mean a very deplorable period indeed. And this danger could undoubtedly become a very serious one if we showed any inclination towards demagogy, if we lacked party principles (programme, tactical rules, organizational experience) entirely, or if those principles were feeble and shaky. But the fact is that no such “ifs” exist. We Bolsheviks have never shown any inclination towards demagogy. On the contrary, we have always fought resolutely, openly and straightforwardly against the slightest attempts at demagogy; we have demanded class-consciousness from those joining the Party, we have insisted on the tremendous importance of continuity in the Party’s development, we have preached discipline and demanded that every Party member be trained in one or other of the Party organizations. We have a firmly established Party programme which is officially recognized by all Social-Democrats and the fundamental propositions of which have not given rise to any criticism (criticism of individual points and formulations is quite legitimate and necessary in any live party). We have resolutions on tactics which were consistently and systematically worked out at the Second and Third Congresses and in the course of many years’ work of the Social-Democratic press.
We also have some organizational experience and an actual organization, which has played an educational role and has undoubtedly borne fruit, a fact which may not be immediately apparent, but which can be denied only by the blind or by the blinded.
Let us not exaggerate this danger, comrades. Social Democracy has established a name for itself, has created a trend and has build up cadres of Social-Democratic workers. And now that the heroic proletariat has proved by deeds its readiness to fight, and its ability to fight consistently and in a body for clearly-understood aims, to fight in a purely Social-Democratic spirit, it would be simply ridiculous to doubt that the workers who belong to our Party, or who will join it tomorrow at the invitation of the Central Committee, will be Social-Democrats in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred. The working class is instinctively, spontaneously Social-Democratic, and more than ten years of work put in by Social-Democracy, has done a great deal to transform this spontaneity into consciousness. Don’t invent bugaboos, comrades! Don’t forget that in every live and growing party there will always be elements of instability, vacillation, wavering. But these elements can be influenced, and they will submit to the influence of the steadfast and solid core of Social-Democrats. (Lenin, “The Reorganization of the Party,” Collected Works, Vol. 10, pp. 31-32, emphasis in original)
Reading Lenin’s and WV’s quotations side by side shows that WV actually advocates the precise danger Lenin warns of in his article, i.e. the danger of allowing non-Social Democrats into the party. Lenin advocates internal democratization of the party and wider recruitment but WV distorts Lenin’s writing to try to make it appear that Lenin favors opening the doors of the party to non-Social Democrats. Examining the exact omissions and distortions of Lenin by WV tells us much about WV’s own line.
First, WV completely omits Lenin’s main point in the first part of his paragraph. WV cuts out the part where Lenin warns against allowing “a sudden influx of large numbers of non-Social-Democrats into the Party.” Such an influx, Lenin correctly pointed out, would have the effect of liquidating the vanguard nature of the party and transform it into a tailist organization. This point, however, WV entirely omits, thereby revealing its own lack of understanding of the nature of the party that must be built, and its actual advocacy of a backward party. Lenin seriously notes how “deplorable” this would be, a lesson WV chooses to disregard.
Because WV omits Lenin’s stern warning about allowing non-Social Democrats into the party, WV does fall into the demagogy Lenin warns of in his next several passages. If the party started to recruit indiscriminately because it simply wanted to increase its ranks, it would make the deviation of demagogy—but this, too, WV does not understand and thus becomes demagogic itself.
Next, incredible as it may seem, WV chooses to omit Lenin’s comment that the Bolsheviks have always “demanded class-consciousness” from those who join the Party. The Bolsheviks demanded that its members be communists, who are clear and firm as to their tasks and proceed from a definite proletarian outlook. But WV leaves out these few words which quite obviously make a world of difference! WV needs to cut these words out in order to make Lenin consistent with WV’s own advocacy of allowing non-class-conscious, non-communists into their party.
The next omission of WV further exposes their opportunist use of Lenin to oppose Lenin. In Lenin’s original quote, he makes a strong point about the “firmly established Party programme which is officially recognized by all Social-Democrats.” Fundamental agreement had been reached among the Bolsheviks over their basic line. The Party’s ideological, political and organizational lines were clearly marked out in their programme. Correct politics were in command. But WV artfully downplays this point while elevating in importance the “tactical resolutions” of the Party.
This rewriting reflects WV’s own preoccupation with tactics, which they consistently place before or even on an equal level with the basic line. Tactics are based on line and programme and are not a replacement for them.
In Lenin’s next paragraph, which WV neglects completely, he makes it crystal clear as to his intentions regarding his proposal for reorganizing the party. He once again emphasizes the danger of allowing the party to become dissolved among the masses, but also reiterates that his plan is for the wider recruitment of Social-Democratic workers. There is no guarantee that all of the new recruits will be communists, that is true; but Lenin clearly rejects consciously allowing non-Social-Democrats into the Bolshevik Party. When Lenin speaks of unstable and wavering elements he speaks of not only new members but also of those already in the party who may have fallen behind. Every live party will have some of these vacillating elements, but no party intentionally allows them to join its ranks. Lenin in no way advocates letting in non-communists. In fact, Lenin consistently speaks of purging non-communist elements from the party.
WV attempts to turn Lenin upside down to rationalize their own erroneous position which advocates the conscious admission of non-communists into the communist party. Based on this erroneous position they proceed to present a confusing position on who are the advanced elements and advanced workers who should comprise this party.
Under the guise of attacking the RU’s position, WV winds up actually upholding the essence of the RU’s line:
The RU’s position is that an advanced workers “Wins the respect of the fellow workers; is someone one comes to in trouble and when one needs to discuss problems, is someone other workers rally around when faced with a collective problem, provides leadership in struggle; demonstrates class stability and serve the people attitude and someone who may even profess anti-communism.” (Red Papers, #5) While most of the components are correct (IWK emphasis), the last ideological point is the point which turns everything around. (WV, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 35-36)
WV essentially agrees with everything the RU says except the point about anti-communism; rather, WV asserts that advanced workers have to be Just “open to socialism.” WV then goes on to say we are building a party that would be composed mainly of advanced elements from all backgrounds in addition to advanced workers. This must be a core that is highly consolidated around M-L, and who are tested fighters of the class. Special attention must be paid to the consolidation of advanced workers. An increasing number of advanced workers has come to the forefront of the struggle against monopoly capitalist. These advanced workers are open to the ideology of MLMttT and are staunch fighters of the working class who are able to win the confidence of the class. (WV, Vol. 2, No. 1, p. 36)
WV advocates having a cadre core of “advanced elements” “highly consolidated around M-L” and advanced workers who are “open to the ideology of MLMttT and are staunch fighters of the working class who are able to win the confidence of the class.” (WV, Vol. 2, No. 1, p. 36)
This is a confusion and a caricature of Marxism-Leninism and its conception of a vanguard party. Instead of a party composed of the class conscious advanced section of the class based on MLMTT (i.e. communist revolutionaries), WV seeks to build a “mass workers party” through the construction of a “cadre core” of advanced elements “highly consolidated around M-L” and “advanced workers” open to MLMTT.
In our view, a genuine communist party is a workers party, a proletarian party because it is guided by MLMTT, the ideology of the proletariat, and has as its membership the leading members of the working class. The party maintains its class nature through its internal struggle, its ties with the revolutionary masses and its demand that its members be class conscious revolutionaries.
The communist party would actually lose its proletarian character if it allowed into its ranks elements who were not class conscious. To open the door to these elements would ensure that the party could not remain a party of the working class.
The party must be a cadre party if it is to be a genuine mass party, a party that can lead the masses. The party operating on the principles of democratic centralism is able to scientifically gather and synthesize the ideas and concerns of the masses and after concentrating these ideas return them to systematic revolutionary practice. In this way, a communist party can become a genuine mass party.
This we believe to be the correct Marxist-Leninist understanding of the communist party as opposed to the WV deviation which negates fundamental Leninist teachings on the party.
In this paper we have tried to show that WV has committed serious theoretical errors and that WV is attempting to create a new theoretical system to replace MLMTT. We have tried to show this by tracing their consistent idealism and metaphysics on the issues of the correct view of MLMTT, the role of experience in the theory of knowledge and the relationship between theory and practice. In essence, we believe WV attempts to throw MLMTT out the window and substitute in its place its own incorrect outlook. They have done this by time and again rewriting and quoting Marxist classics out of context to rationalize their own view—this is demonstrated even on the basic issue of the nature of the communist party.
We expect WV to protest and point to different places in their writings where they talk about those who “separate theory and practice,” “opposing opportunism and bourgeois ideology,” etc. And their writings do contain all sorts of confusing and contradictory pronouncements (just like the RU’s old writings which were written to “cover” themselves from all angles), but the point is we should follow Lenin’s advice and “judge people not by the brilliant uniforms they don, not by the high-sounding appellations they give themselves, but by their actions, and by What they actually advocate.” (Lenin, What Is To Be Done?, p.9)
And this is what we have tried to do with WV, which entailed wading through all their rhetoric and inflated pronouncements. We have had to write a relatively long paper because WV’s system is particularly confusing and they have deliberately tried to take advantage of the theoretical immaturity of the communist movement. We hope that this article will contribute to help people see through WV’s superficial “brilliancy” and judge them by their actual actions and what they advocate for the revolutionary movement.
We hope this paper has contributed to the struggle in the communist movement for a correct line on which to build the party. We look forward to comments and criticism from WV and others in the communist movement.
[1] The position that equates the subjective factor with the vanguard party is incorrect. Please see the first section of our party building paper for our view.