The current state of the anti-revisionist movement in the U.S. is characterized by two wings, a revolutionary wing and an opportunist wing. This division of 1 into 2 is not new, either here or internationally. The First International, led by Marx and Engels, divided into two groupings, one upholding Marxism, the other one was the anarchist, “secret alliance” led by Bakunin. The Second International likewise separated into genuine led by the Great Lenin and the sham led by Kautsky Bernstein and other renegades and social chauvinists.
And in our time, we see that the International Communist movement has split, with the CPC and PLA historically leading the struggle for Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse Tung Thought (MLMTT) against the slimy, double dealing, reactionary revisionists, led by the “CP” SU and its lap dogs like the CPUSA(R).
Comrade Lenin long ago saw the inevitability of this struggle of truth against falsehood, of genuine against sham. He summed both the particular experience in Russia and the general international development as well.
In regard to Russia, he pointed out,
It is in the conflict of trends within the Marxist movement that the petty bourgeois intellectual wing of social democracy has made itself felt, beginning with economism (1895-1903) and continuing with Menshevism (1903-1908) and liquidationism (1908-1914). (Breach of Unity, Collected Works, Vol. 20, p.343)
On the international experience, he summed up,
But after Marxism had ousted all the more or less integral doctrines to it, the tendencies expressed in those doctrines began to seek other channels. The forms and causes of the struggle changed, but the struggle continued. And the second half century of the existence began (in the nineties) with the struggle of a trend hostile to Marxism within Marxism itself. (Marxism and Revisionism, Collected Works, vol. 15, pp. 31-39)
In the U.S. we have seen the truth of this analysis. The anti-revisionist movement developed in 1969-1970 of forces who in the main were advanced elements produced by the mass movements of the 50’s and the 60’s, who in the ideological struggle against eclecticism turned themselves into communists, with some influence from the international communist movement, especially the lessons of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution as well from some Marxists-Leninists who had split from the degenerate CPUSA(R). This anti-revisionist movement, composed of a workers, revolutionary youth and intellectuals of all nationalities was united around the leading role of the working class and necessity to uphold MLMTT. However, within this movement there immediately began a two line struggle that has led to the dividing of 1 into 2. And this is no surprise if we look at the RU, for example, we see that they played an important role in the struggle against eclecticism, particularly in SDS. However, the line that they introduced and pushed in the communist movement contained in their Red Papers reflects an economist Menshevik line of build the mass movement, not the party. They consistently refused to do self-criticism, in fact, to this day they have yet to repudiate the Yippie as vanguard line in Red Papers 2. Instead, they simply edited the whole article out of print.
They developed theoretical justifications for their erroneous line and practice like the “single spark method” which, is actually the blueprint for bowing to spontaniety. Instead of bringing Marxism-Leninism propaganda and agitation to the working class they put forward “anti-imperialist” literature, some “new ideology”, which the O.L. has since taken up and run with, screaming like a shot in the dark.
The RU failed to put forward Marxist-Leninist theory and sought to lead the entire movement down a blind alley into the waiting arms of the bourgeoisie. Many people struggled with this line, some as thieves struggle over dividing loot like the OL and later the Workers Viewpoint Organization, while others, genuinely seeking to uphold the stand and science of the proletariat, struggled with the line like somebody trying to rid themselves of the plague, relentlessly, sparing no quarter, tit for tat on every aspect. It was in the development of this struggle that led to the split, to the development of two trends within Marxism, each hostile to one another, one genuine and one sham.
Let’s look at what the lines of demarcation between these wings are, what and who constitutes the Revolutionary Wing and what and who constitutes the Opportunist Wing.
Comrades, we put forth that there are three areas in which we can draw an absolute line between the two wings. These are: (1) theory as the leading factor in all our work; (2) correct attitude towards criticism, self-criticism, repudiation and transformation; and, (3) Marxist-Leninist line on how and what kind of party we’re trying to build. The revolutionary wing, composed of all genuine Marxist-Leninists and led by comrades from the August Twenty Ninth Movement (ATM), the Puerto Rican Revolutionary Workers Organization (PPRWO), and the Revolutionary Workers League (M-L)(RWL) holds basically correct lines on these questions and the opportunist wing, currently led by O.L. and WVO and tailed by WC, IWK, CAP, MLOC and others are fundamentally incorrect on these lines.
Historically, the CP never place theory as the leading factor. Even during the period when they militantly led strikes, organizing drives, and campaigns against national oppression, like the campaign to free the Scottsboro boys, they consistently failed to carry out the key tasks of raising the theoretical level of the organization and of ideological preparation of the advanced. The ideological basis of this deviation was the consistent worship of spontaneity by the CP’s leadership. As we will see, this is clearly the path being followed by the O.L. and WVO.
As we said earlier, the movements of the 50’s and 60’s were not guided by MLMTT, and a large amount of our so called “theory” came from Che, Fanon and Nkrumah, which were, at best, writings of the enraged petty bourgeoisie. And in the anti-revisionist movement, the RU sought to continue this trend by substituting Marxist-Leninist works with Red Papers, and study of the international communist movement with study groups around economist “workers” paper. The bourgeoisie and their lackeys fear arming of the working class with Marxist-Leninists theory, our invincible weapon, so they create their own theories, often under the signboard of Marxism and they try to keep the class tied to its tail by pushing the bowing to spontaneity, with the line “build the mass movement”.
But these bourgeois schemes cannot keep MLMTT from being grasped by the masses, anymore than they can keep their butts out of the hot water of economic crisis.
Genuine Marxist-Leninists seek out and grab hold to Marxist-Leninist theory, and seek to use it in their fight to change the world. Theory for the genuine is not book reading, is not something that we look at in our spare time, we don’t take Marxist-Leninists theory and read it in the bathroom between fightback rallies. No comrades, theory is the weapon we use to analyze any and all situations, that is our micro-scope and telescope. We use Marxist-Leninist theory because it is a science, the only theory that is in complete conformity with objective law, that allows us to seek truth from facts.
And in these conditions, where our movement is young, our party is yet to be formed, how even more despicable is the belittling of this theory under cries of “build coalitions”, “dogmatism”, “we need new theories”, and the rest of the trash that comes from the opportunist wing. Look at what Lenin said on the question,
Those who have the slightest acquaintance with the actual state of our movement cannot but see the wide spread of Marxism was accompanied by a certain lowering of the theoretical level. Quite a number of people with very little, even total lack of theoretical training joined the movement because of its practical significance and its practical success. We can judge from that how tactless the Rabocheye Dyelo is when, with an air of triumph it quotes Marx’s statement: ’Every step of real movement is more important than a dozen programmes.’ To repeat these words in a period of theoretical chaos is like wishing the mourners at a funeral ’many happy returns of the day.’ Moreover these words are taken from his letter on the Gotha Programme in which he sharply condemns eclecticism in the formulation of principles: ’If you must unite,’ Marx wrote to the Party leaders, ’then enter into agreements to satisfy the practical aims of the movement, but do not make ’concessions’ in questions of theory. This was Marx’s idea, and yet there are people among us who in Marx’s name seek to belittle the significance of theory. Without a revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement. This thought cannot be insisted upon too strongly at a time when the fashionable preaching of opportunism goes hand in hand with an infatuation for the narrowest form of practical activity. (What Is To Be Done? Collected Works, Vol. 5, page 36)
Now compare this to the O.L. (Menshevik-Liberal) in their pamphlet on Party Building.
In recent months, we have seen more and more examples of communist groups playing a leading role in the workers movement; leading strikes, building united front demonstrations against the government’s policies of war and fascism. The increased level of this kind or work has made a higher level of unity among the communists possible.
Comrades, what is this but, “Every step of real movement is more important than a dozen programmes.” The working class has proved historically capable of heroically building its own demonstrations, leading its own strikes, often bloody confrontation with the capitalists and their state, and have done fine without the help of the O.L. What the working class needs is scientific, Marxist-Leninist leadership that can only from Marxist-Leninist theory, concretized in political line. The advanced workers need to be armed with this theory. This is our duty and tasks as communists in this stage.
The OL might as well have stood on the curb with flags as the funeral went by, with this raggedy Menshevik line, and across the street would be WVO.
WVO unlike the OL, says that theory is key. But let’s look at what theory they are talking about.
Their “new theory” their contribution to the movement is called the Anti-Revisionist premises. Later we’ll polemicize against this new way to become revisionist. But now listen to what they say about their premises. “The theory of MLMTT itself is part of our anti-revisionist premises. It is what some call the “premises of the premises.”
Comrades, we say that MLMTT is our only theory, not the basis for our new theory. To reduce MLMTT to the premises of the premises is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole; it simply sounds nice and different, and catchy, and intellectually appetizing and all that shit. But as Lenin said, “any belittling of theory is tantamount to abandoning it.” How much more can MLMTT be belittled than reducing it to the premise of the premises.
No, comrades, we don’t take the red flag of Marxism and store it in the basement, we seek to climb the highest mountain, proletarian revolution, and use it to guide our path and firmly implant it on that mountain, as a clarion call to all oppressed.
Allow us to read from our comrades in PRRWO’s new pamphlet, “Party Building In The Heat Of Class Struggle”(p. 32)
We had to and continue to struggle today for the principle of criticism and self-criticism, the hall mark of a truly genuine communist organization. In fact, we recall many organizations that would call us “ultra leftist”, not because of the left errors that we were indeed committing and still commit today, but because criticism and self-criticism meant to seriously disclose one’s errors, the basis for them, present how to rectify them and move to do so in practice. For the hidden opportunists this meant exposure of their rotten lines and views which they peddled in our movement. They knew we were serious about building a Bolshevik Party and that we would exclude any known Mensheviks.
Compare this method of how to view one’s errors with that of the opportunist wing.
At a recent forum on party building in Boston, WVO’s method for viewing one’s errors was demonstrated. Their opportunist nature was revealed when the WVO attempted to do self-criticism for ’certain aspects’ of the “Anti-Revisionist Theoretical Premises.” The hallmark of a genuine communist organization is its ability to discuss the essence of their errors, trace their ideological and social basis, and outline a method for rectification. WVO did some of this. First, they said they should not have ’formulated’ their line with terms like “Anti-Revisionist Premises,” because “it could lead to substitution for Marxism-Leninism.” They then said that it’s true, that taken separately the Anti-Revisionist Premises are not nationally specific, but “taken together” they are.
They also said they did not include narrow nationalism as a nationally specific form. To wrap it up, they went on to say, “However, our errors were made- in response to the “dominant pragmatist trend,” and that their errors were a “thousand times better” than the “dogmatist’s” errors. They also revealed that they would not accept criticism from, nor self-criticism in front of the opportunist wing because it would blunt the class struggle. In essence, they rejected the criticism of PRRWO and RWL.
We ask all genuine communists and advanced elements– is this an example of Bolshevik self-criticism? We say no! This is a further attempt to cover up errors on the basis of external causality, rather than revealing their basis; laying the errors on the formulation of terms, rather than the lines from which the formulation flows; wiggling like a snake to avoid getting to the essence; openly professing the Trotskyite line on self-criticism that to be ruthlessly critical of our errors in front of all weakens us; using self-criticism to launch attacks, most particularly against PRRWO. Practice is the sole criteria of truth – WVO’s practice of doing self-criticism confirms the truth of their opportunist line.
On the OL we’d like to refer to the March Call article on their Central Committee report. In this article, the liberals supposedly do self-criticism of the Call to the Menshevik Party. The report says:
As a result of further discussions the Central Committee decided on a partial modification of the party building plan put forward in the November appeal (sounds like the March of Dimes crusade, ed.) The plan had as its first organizational step the ’formation of a temporary leading body that could survey the organizational forces represented in the party, establishing democratic centralism and prepare us for the first Party Congress, to be held within a year of its founding.’ The Central Committee decided to omit this ’temporary leading body’ and instead to call for the founding congress of the party to be held later this year.
The weaknesses of the ’temporary leading body’ were: first it would not have the full authority that it could have if elected by a congress, and this would open the door to federationist weaknesses and undermine centralist unity.
Secondly, under ’temporary leadership’ the party would be without a program to guide the struggle for up to a year until the first congress.
Thirdly, the unification process would be based solely on unity from above, not also on unity from below.
The report then goes on to speak to the need to adopt a program, elect a Central Committee and have discussion groups.
Comrades, this incorrect idea the OL refers to did not drop from the sky; it is an essential part of the plan set forth in the November Call. The slight modification amounts to “plastic surgery” on that bankrupt line. In February at a forum in Boston, we put forward this view on the “Call To The Party”,
The OL because it is attempting to build a lowest common denominator Menshevik Party, first attempts to unite people behind the Principles of Unity, set up a rump central committee and democratic centralism without a congress, then develop the political line and program and call a congress a year later. Meanwhile, ’every striker’ in this Menshevik Party will be running around worshipping the spontaneous movement, building the “fight back” with no political line or program, which Lenin said was necessary to give scope and orientation to our propaganda and agitation. This is outright Menshevism–conciliationism centrism–and not the road to building a genuine Bolshevik party, firmly united around program and cemented by the iron discipline, unity of will and action that flows from democratic centralism. The OL, because it represents the interests of the declassed petty bourgeoisie, anarchist intellectuals, and unstable elements and attempts to appeal to every striker, professor, and vascillating elements, put forward under the section on party organization that: “...It (the party) must practice democratic centralism with one center and full democracy for all members....”
Comrades, centralism restricts democracy. Full democracy (to do whatever you want–your own thing) is the outlook and aspiration of the alienated petty bourgeoisie. The proletariat demands and understands the dialectical relationship between centralism and democracy. There can be no freedom without discipline, nor democracy without centralism. In order to have democracy, centralism is necessary. Chairman Mao says: “...We need democracy, but we need centralism even more...” While Engels has said that freedom is the recognition of necessity (which Chairman Mao enriched with the view that “...freedom is not only the recognition but also the transformation of necessity...”) The bourgeoisie and anarchist intellectual promote a metaphysical view of freedom as equivalent to free will, with no restrictions, no centralism. In One Step Forward, Two Steps Back, Lenin wrote:
Martov’s formulation ostensibly defends the interests of the broad strata of the proletariat, but in fact it serves the interests of the bourgeois intellectuals who fight proletarian discipline and organization. No one will undertake to deny that it is precisely its individualism and incapacity for discipline and organization that in general distinguishes the intellectual as a separate stratum in modern capitalist society. (LCW, Vol. 7)
When you undertake to build a lowest common denominator Menshevik Party this inevitably gives rise to a lower level of discipline. We ask you “who is the OL appealing to but the non-proletarian elements, with its promise of full democracy?” The proletariat recognizes that in order to make proletarian revolution democracy is necessary but centralism is needed even more. This is the difference between Bolshevism and Menshevism. To the Menshevik, the Party is a debating club. To the Bolshevik, the party and its organizational discipline are an instrument for carrying the proletarian revolution through to the end.
Comrades, we think that the essence of this Menshevik method of party building is to build a party from below and not the Leninist method of building the party from above which demands principled ideological struggle to reach the highest level of unity around program, the formulation of a leading center by the Congress and then direction to all parts from the Bolshevik Center. Genuine democratic centralism flows from unity around the correct line. The opportunist OL instead attempts to build the party in the opposite manner – unite people around a minimal level of unity, (with no clear program or basic line), establish democratic centralism, and only then, develop line.
What is this but an attempt by the OL to sneak its opportunist line in to the “Menshevik” Party through the back door. The whole process is a cover for ensuring the minimal disagreement with OL’s line in the formative stages and reflects a philistine attitude toward ideological struggle that has characterized the OL since its inception. Build the party from above–this is the Bolshevik principle. The OL, in effect, was forced to admit that these criticisms were correct but did so in a manner true to their opportunist nature. No mention of the class basis for this line, no searching for its ideological roots, no open repudiation, of this incorrect line. Instead, we get partial repudiation, gutless and empty word magic, a modified plan, true Philistinism, the hall mark of an opportunist.
And why do we place so much importance on this question of criticism, self-criticism? Because it is a clear indicator of how it is we fight opportunism, within our ranks and within the movement as a whole. Criticism and self-criticism is no magician’s wand, it won’t prevent us from making mistakes, but it is crucial in our ability to correct deviations, in fact to break with incorrect lines, and to expose the political swindlers in our ranks who represent the bourgeoisie. No one organization has the overall correct ideological and political line concretized a program. There is no Lenin or Mao leading this wing from a secret location in Canada, no comrades, we all have made mistakes, some very serious. We will continue to make deviations. But we must all be able to root out these incorrect lines and their major exponents.
Comrades from, PRRWO, ATM, and some comrades in the BWC were staunch as redwoods in the struggle against the RU.
They made deviations and fell prey to a dogmatists’ line and fell into the CL motion to build another sham party. But because of consistent struggle against opportunism and correct Bolshevik attitude towards criticism and self-criticism, they broke from this line and purged from their ranks, the opportunists who lead that line, carrerist who are still jockeying for positions inside the Worker’s Congress.
Inside the RWL we have been waging a long and hard battle against right opportunism, which for nearly two years has dominated our organization. This struggle proceeded from a lower to a higher level, from perceptual to rational knowledge, as the Bolsheviks in the rank and file and leadership increased their understanding of Marxism-Leninism in the course of struggle.
One of the leaders of the Menshevik line in the organization the renegade Abdul Alkalimat is probably known to some of you here tonight.
This revisionist tried to take the organization down any path other than the Marxist-Leninists one.
Pushing centrism, petty bourgeois intellectualism, this careerist was a clear representative of his class.
In the course of the struggle, this skunk was purged, and is now in Chicago making his “individual contribution to the movement”.
The point we’re trying to make comrades is that if we were satisfied that Alkalimat is gone, or satisfied that the class composition of our organization is relatively good, being mostly working people from the oppressed nationalities or that comrades in our organization have organized demonstrations of 100,000 people all over North America in support of African liberation, then we’d still be dominated by a right line. What we had to do, and must continue to do is to go deeper into how it was that Alkalimat even got into the organization. How our own liberalism, bowing to spontaniety, remnants of bourgeois nationalism, fed into his opportunist schemes. And it is only with ruthless self-criticism and consistent study of MLMTT that we can do this. To fail to do so leads to the swamp, as it has with the OL and the WVO.