In the course of this polemic we have examined the views of the October League on a number of fundamental questions: the nature of the imperialist crisis, the trade union question, the Black National Question, and other issues. What has this analysis shown?
The OL’s ideological line attempts to accommodate the long term interests of the proletariat to the short term interests of the petty bourgeoisie within our movement. By battling against “ultra-leftism” and denying concretely the importance of the development of theory – the experience of the proletariat – the ideological stand of the OL does not consolidate a break with bourgeois ideology. This leads, inevitably, to the belittling of the conscious element, of the subjective factor, and of the revolutionary role of the working class itself. This, ’means quite independently of whether he who belittles that role desires it or not, a strengthening of the influence of bourgeois ideology upon the workers.’ Lenin, WITBD, CW vol. 5, p. 383)
OL’s organizational line is basically social democratic. By rejecting the party program as the genuine basis for unity, (and therefore for organization) and by rejecting a party congress as the basic authority for the formation of a party, the OL reduces party building to the formation of a “steering committee.” This body would lead what would amount to a confederation of smaller units, due to the fact that there have not been definite lines of demarcation drawn, and no application of the Marxist-Leninist principles for the scaffold of organization to be built upon. Democratic centralism, as the guiding Marxist-Leninist principle for party organization, flows from centralism (developed through unity-struggle-unity) around political line. A vanguard party of the type built by Lenin and Stalin is based on the “transformation of the power of ideas into the power of authority,” (Lenin quoted in Stalin, FOUNDATIONS OF LENINISM, FLP, 1970).
OL’s political line is idealistic and liberal, not materialist and proletarian.
The most important test of an ideological stand is in political line, the application of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought to solving the strategic and tactical questions of the class struggle. The OL believes that a great “ideological leap” had been made, and that “significant steps” have been made in the development of theory and political line.
However, OL’s political line, by rejecting the fusion of the workers’ and communist movements, by not consciously and systematically introducing socialist ideology into the working class struggle, by failing to offer concrete analysis of the crisis of imperialism and the Black National Question, fails to prepare the working class mentally and materially for the fierce class struggles which lay ahead.
This is why we say that in regard to party building the OL negates the role of the conscious factor and denies the advanced forms that the working class movement takes. Political activity has its logic quite apart from the consciousness of those who practice it, especially to those who choose to be drawn along the “line of least resistance,” along the line of opportunism in approaching both the workers’ and communist movements, and more importantly, toward the question of their fusion in building the communist party.
Philosophically, OL’s ideological, political and organizational line stems from vulgar materialism, instead of dialectical and historical materialism. OL’s vulgar materialist approach rejects new developments in the world situation, causing them to rely on outdated analysis and “die-hard” positions. From this they are unable to grasp the necessity for a revolutionary leap by the masses, a leap to proletarian class consciousness.
This has lead OL to a productive forces theory of development of history, which negates the subjective factor in the revolution and relies instead upon the movement of the objective factor alone. This will, if left uncorrected, eventually lead to a denial of the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat, and from there the OL must, independent of its will, step upon the road of revisionism.
The social basis for this right opportunist line lies clearly in the basic failure of the OL to break with its petty bourgeois, student origins. They have carried with them the vacillating nature of the petty-bourgeoisie; revolutionary in so far as it sees that it is being pushed down into the working class; reactionary when wishing to hold on to its privilege. Historical experience has proven that to fail to move rapidly to rectify this social base by first bringing in the advanced elements of the working class, and secondly by uniting the intermediate with the advanced in the course of building the party, will lead to opportunist degeneration which will allow for the introduction of bourgeois ideas and bourgeois elements into socialism.
A clear manifestation of this danger has already appeared in the practice of the OL, which flows from this social base, its world outlook, and political and organizational line. OL holds the view that workers cannot understand Marxism-Leninism. This characterizes OL’s work nationwide, on many fronts. This view was clearly expressed in different ways at the Fight Back Conference, from the fact that no sneakers at the plenary of the Fight Back identified themselves as members speaking for OL, to the systematic separation of the communist and workers’ movements, by the suppression of political debate, on through their watering down every attempt to bring socialist consciousness to the workers at this conference, and at other times.
The OL did not oppose the Spanish speaking worker who stated that “workers cannot understand all this talk about Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc. etc.” because this is OL’s view of the working class. The OL suppressed putting forward any positions from a communist standpoint on the basis that it “would destroy the united front character of the Fight Back Organization.” Lenin points out what still holds true, namely that advanced and intermediate workers know and will say:
we are not children to be fed on the thin gruel of “economic” politics alone, we want to know everything that others know, we want to learn the details of all aspects of political life and to take part actively in every single political event. In order that we may do this, the intellectuals must talk to us less of what we already know and tell us more about what we do not yet know and what we can never learn from our factory and “economic” experience, namely, political knowledge. You intellectuals can acquire this knowledge, and it is your duty to bring it to us in a hundred- and a thousand-fold greater measure than you have done up to now; and you must bring it to us, not only in the form of discussions, pamphlets, and articles (which very often – pardon our frankness – are rather dull), but precisely in the form of vivid exposures of what our government and our governing classes are doing at this very moment in all spheres of life. Devote more zeal to carrying out this duty and talk less about “raising the activity of the working masses”. We are far more active than you think, and we are quite able to support, by open street fighting, even demands that do not promise any “palpable results” whatever. It is not for you to “raise” our activity; because activity is precisely the thing you yourselves lack. Bow less in subservience to spontaneity, and think more about raising your own activity, gentlemen! (Lenin, WITBD, CW, vol. 5, pp. 416-417).
At bottom, the line of the OL, its ideology, politics, program and practical activity will lead, if it continues on its present path, to deny class struggle. By denying socialism as a goal, (which in essence means denying the dictatorship of the proletariat) in their practice before the masses, the October League has placed its foot upon the path of opportunism. This is a downhill path leading away from the heights of proletarian revolution, away from the elimination of capitalist exploitation. The dictatorship of the proletariat is not only the rule of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie, it is also the instrument for the seizure of state power. “The fundamental question of every revolution is the question of power.” (Lenin)
We invite the OL and all comrades and friends to study this criticism of the political, organizational and ideological line of the October League, to correct what is incorrect, and to deepen what is correct. We invite the October League (M-L) to reply to this criticism in a Marxist-Leninist manner, in the spirit of criticism and self-criticism. While the criticism presented here of the OL is very serious, it is raised in order to advance the struggle for the party, to repudiate errors, and unite around a correct ideological and political line. While Marxist-Leninists take the stand that against opportunism, struggle is absolute, toward the OL as an organization, the MLOC takes the stand of unity, struggle, unity. We hope that the OL will take such a stand as well.
The forging of a genuine vanguard communist party by the most advanced detachment of the working class will constitute the most significant step taken by the working class in its historic mission for emancipation in over forty years. It is nothing short of a declaration of war against the bourgeoisie.
To forge a party which denies the advanced forms of the working class movement which arise as a result of the capitalist mode of production itself; which holds that the productive forces of imperialism can resolve the contradictions between imperialism and the exploited and oppressed peoples of the world; which relies upon sentiment and not a concrete analysis of concrete conditions; which seeks to unite with certain sections of the trade unions bureaucracy and begins to work in the absence of a party program and a party congress–such a party would begin mutiny on its knees.
“Class political consciousness can be brought to the workers only from without.” (WHAT IS TO BE DONE?, p.422). Without holding to this principle of Marxism-Leninism there will be no communist party. The OL denies both the working class’s ability to grasp Marxism-Leninism and Marxism-Leninism’s ability to mobilize the masses by speaking to their needs. This is the outcome of the essence of their political practice, the real proof of the OL’s political line.