The next section is on the correct line on Party Building. In this section we’d like to cover the following, key link, fusion, advanced worker, and the strategic principles of Marxist-Leninists and win the advanced to Communism and our view of polemics and unity.
The key link to party building in this period is the hammering out of the political line–the concrete application of MLMTT to the burning class questions of today.
Key link is an important concept in Marxism-Leninism. Currently the struggle in China is focused around the Right Deviationist wind which tried to liquidate the “Key link class struggle”. Comrade Stalin stressed the necessity
to locate at any given moment the particular link in the chain of processes which if grasped, will enable us to keep hold of the whole chain and to prepare the conditions for achieving strategic success. (Stalin, Foundations of Leninism, p. 95)
Chairman Mao has taken this teaching and applied it to the concrete conditions of the Chinese Revolution in the struggle with the Right Deviationist wind, he said:
What, taking the three directives is the key link.’ Stability and unity do not mean writing off the class struggle; class struggle is the key link and everything else hinges on it. (Peking Review, #13, 1976)
It is precisely this key link that the capitalist roaders inside the Communist Party of China had to attack in order to divert the proletariat from “achieving strategic success”.
And in the U.S., we too must struggle against those who attack the key link in this period of Party Building, who attempt to pull us away from the formation of a genuine Bolshevik Party. As we have said, Political Line is the Key Link in this period.
What do we mean by political line? Political line is the basic programme; strategy and tactics of proletarian revolution in the U.S.
The programme of a worker’s party is a brief, scientifically formulated statement of the aims and objectives of the struggle of the working class. The programme defines both ultimate goal of the revolutionary movement of the proletariat and the demands for which the party fights for while on the way to the achievement of the ultimate goal. (History of the Communist Party Soviet Union Bolshevik)
The programme consists of two parts: a maximum programme and a minimum programme. The maximum programme dealt with the principal aims of the working class party, namely the socialist revolution, the overthrow of the power of the capitalists and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The minimum programme dealt with the immediate aims of the party aims to be achieved before the overthrow of the capitalist system and the establishment of the dictatorship proletariat. (HCPSUB)
Political line is not “simple”, is not “mere formulations” as WVO says, it is not the general principles of Marxism, as the OL would have us believe. The development of political line requires that we make a concrete analysis of the U.S., an analysis of the basic glasses in society and their attitude toward the dictatorship of the proletariat. We must make an analysis of the basic forms and methods of struggle of the proletariat that correctly accumulates its strength and develops the reserves. We must analyze the international situation, and its affects on the development of the political economy of the U.S. We must take all of these and concretize them into a minimum and maximum program. In short, we must apply our principles to the concrete conditions of the U.S. Revolution.
This program which we must develop is not something that changes every two months, it is not simply demands for a particular coalition, or group of coalitions. In Russia, the program, adopted at the Second Congress of the Social Democratic Labor Party in 1903 served as the party’s basic line until 1917, up to the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is what we must hammer out in this period. The OL cannot even lay out a clear set of principles and demands for its “Fight Back” organization; we don’t even need to speculate on the character of its Menshevik Party’s basic programme.
Political line is more than “formulation”. It must be tested in the heat of class struggle. The hammering out of political line must be used to win over the advanced and unite Marxist-Leninists and move the class struggle forward.
It is by developing a correct political line that we develop a correct scope and orientation for organizational tasks as well as giving concrete form to our developing proletarian ideology.
Has political line always been key? What was the key link in the past? In the previous periods, following the complete degeneration of the “CP”USA in 1957 and through the birth of the NCM in 1969 and up until 1973-74 with the break-up of the NLC, the reaffirmation of the general truths of MLMTT was the key link to moving toward building a genuine Bolshevik Party. Comrades have asked whether our formulation “re-affirmation of the general truth of MLMTT as key” means that ideology was key. It does, but we think that it is important to lay put the specific points that came forward in the ideological struggle.
From 1957 to 1969, the main struggle was for Marxism-Leninism, in general against the eclectic theories of the petty-bourgeoisie. It was necessary to criticize the revisionism of the “CP”SU and the “CP”USA – criticizing their total abandonment of Marxism-Leninism in the form of the three peacefuls. To do so, the basic truths of MLMTT were reaffirmed: the class nature of state power, the inevitability of war under imperialism, the necessity for the dictatorship of the proletariat. In the subsequent struggles against the petty bourgeois “new working class” theorists, Fanon, Che, the Panthers, Marcuse, etc, it was the leading role of the working class in revolution that was reaffirmed.
After breaking with eclecticism, we had to continue to struggle for the general principles of MLMTT as the key link, We had to still struggle for proletarian ideology. But this struggle had a different form. It was not for Marxism in general, rather it was for the general principles of MLMTT on the basic questions of U.S. Revolution.
As the Anti-revisionist communist movement upholding the leading role of the working class and criticizing the revisionist three peacefuls of the “CP” SU and “CP” USA struggled for its existence, it was still necessary to further reaffirm the leading role of theory, the importance of the science of MLMTT, dialectical materialism, on the basic questions of US revolution, the basic principles of the national question; trade union question, the central task of party building when there is no Bolshevik Party, criticism, self-criticism, strategy and tactics. In these periods ideological struggle took place on political lines, organizational lines (bureaucratic centralism, federation), and military lines (peaceful transition and armed struggle and terrorism), but the focus was of necessity to bring forth the general principles of the science. This struggle was primarily against the right opportunist line within the Communist Movement, over whether we used a new form of eclecticism, such as Avakianism, or whether we upheld MLMTT. In both these periods, ideology was key, but the focus and forms of the struggle was different. By 1974 these basic truths had been reaffirmed, and the NCM was split. The split came over the chauvinism and hegemonic line on party building of the opportunist wing, especially RU; on criticism, self criticism as essential to the development of a communist organization on the leading role of MLMTT in all areas of our work in opposition to RU’s worship of spontaneity and pragmatism.
At that point it became necessary for those upholding the leading role of theory to apply it to the concrete conditions and answer the basic class question, Comrade Lenin says,
...the task of the socialists is to be the ideological leaders of the proletariat in the actual struggles against actual and real enemies who stand in the actual path of social and economic development. Under these circumstances, theoretical and practical work merge into one aptly described by the veteran German Social Democrat Liebknecht as ’Study, propaganda, organization.’ You cannot be an ideological leader without the above mentioned theoretical work just as you cannot be one without directing this work to meet the needs of the cause, and without spreading the results of this theory among the workers and helping them to organize. (“What the Friends of the People Are”)
The tasks of theoretical and practical work are linked to the development of political line: the study of MLMTT and the analysis of the real conditions of the proletariat and all other classes in society, analyzing from a materialist viewpoint, the motion of all classes in society propaganda work to the advanced workers to spread the results of our theoretical work among the independent leaders of the working class and through them to the class as a whole; and organizing a Bolshevik party to give day to day leadership as well as long term strategic leadership to the class struggle for proletarian revolution.
It is by grasping the key link of political line that we recognize and criticize right and left deviations, go to its ideological root, bowing to spontaneity, and build the party on an ideological plan.
While swamp forces drenched in the muck of revisionism, reformism and opportunism, rise up and call us dogmatists and sectarian we remind them:
There can be no dogmatism where the supreme and sole criterion of a doctrine is its conformity to the actual process of social and economic development; there can be no sectarianism where task is that of promoting the organization of the proletariat, and when, therefore the role of the “intelligentsia” is to make special leaders from the intelligentsia unnecessary. (Ibid)
To continue to hold that ideology is key or to be unable to even say that political line is key and spend most time on ideology as WVO does is a right line. It is to underestimate the level of development that has occurred in the concrete struggles against revisionism, and other forms of bourgeois ideology.
The “Ideology is Key Link” line held by WVO leads to viewing “Organization as Key” and is very close to the line put forward by the dogmatist, left opportunist WC. Both belittle the task of forging the basic political line – the program, strategy and tactics, and centrism in general. WC would form the party by uniting in a newspaper based on the “Iskra principles”– upholding ML’s leading role, the necessity for communist independence of policy, to consolidating ideological unity in organizational unity and the need to unite with the advanced to win over the intermediate and backward.
Upholding general ideological principles in 1976 as the basis for unity of a Bolshevik Party is a right line which inevitably leads to a hegemonic approach to party building, because the organizations putting forward these general principles in the final analysis mean that you must unite on their applications of these general principles to the U.S. revolution. They see themselves as leading circles with overall correct line needing only to strengthen their organizations by swelling their ranks with others who are “honest” (that is, those who will follow their general line).
All these opportunist forces use “ideology as key” or “organization as key” as a cover for their erroneous line. By bowing to spontaneous movement, practicing bureaucratic centralism, they in fact do not uphold the general principles. Their application to the concrete class question, especially on the central task, takes the heart out of the general Marxist-Leninist principles.
These forces claim that they already have a developed political line. They use as examples their positions on different tactical questions such as bussing and the ERA. We know that positions on these questions do not represent a developed political line. As communists, we have a responsibility to provide the analysis of these questions and, to provide conscious leadership to the struggles developed around them. But our ability to do this is limited at this time, because we have a lower level of rational knowledge of the correct policy of the proletariat toward other classes, do not have a Party program, that provides continuity in principle between our propaganda and agitation, that develops out tactics as a plan linking it with strategy. We must use these tactical questions to deepen our basic work of hammering our political line, by going into a full analysis of the basic class questions involved in these different “issues”. But to equate the development of political line to solely a position on tactical questions and issues of the moment inevitably is to raise a theoretical justification for bowing to spontaneity, to the development of “tactics as process”.
Comrades, the question of whether to support the ERA or not will be of little importance in a year or two. But the basic questions of what the forms and method of struggle are that should be used to accumulate the revolutionary potential of working women, this powerful force in proletarian revolution, what the proletariats policy toward the bourgeois feminists and social reformers should be, will be questions that will face us for years. We must focus our efforts at scientifically analyzing these questions, on developing the Party’s minimum and maximum programme that provides a basis for analyzing not just the ERA, but all reforms, that enables us to correctly win real reforms for the proletariat and its allies as a by-product of revolutionary struggle.
The opportunists say, in effect “positions on passing issues of the moment is political line”; they say that we must unite on general principles line “move, the unions to left”; they claim that an ideological breakthrough has been made in finding a way to “repudiate revisionism as an integral whole”. They put forth that we should build our organization apparatus, not in an illegal way through factory nuclei style of work, but through the social democratic style of “all through the coalition. ” They claim we must do this because there will be a war and fascism (As WVO put forth in a leaflet on Angola published on January 10, 1976, in New York). These positions represent the main component of the Menshevik Key Link.
Comrades, we must oppose this Menshevik line, and firmly grasp the Key Link of political line. We must pay special attention to linking the development of political line and program to our polemics. As Comrade Lenin said,
Only the introduction of the programme question into the polemics, only a definite statement by the two polemicizing parties on programmatic views, can provide an answer to all these questions that insistently demand an answer. The elaboration of a common programme for the party should not of course put forward an end to all polemics; it will firmly establish those basic views on the character, the aims and tasks of the party that remains unconsolidated and united despite particular differences of opinion on particular questions. (On Immediate Task, CW, Vol. 4).
Comrades, we put forward to all Marxist-Leninists and advanced, grasp firmly onto this key link, and hold tightly onto this as we forge ahead in struggle to build a genuine Bolshevik Party.
Fusion is the connection of Marxism-Leninism with the spontaneous workers movement. In “Our Immediate Task”, Lenin quoted K. Kautsky defining fusion as:
...the combination of socialism and the workers movement.” Lenin goes on to say, “..the task of Social-Democracy is to bring definite socialist ideals to the spontaneous working class movement, to connect it with socialist convictions that should attain the level of contemporary science, to connect it with the regular political struggle for democracy as a means of achieving socialism, in a word to fuse this spontaneous movement into one indestructible whole with the activity of the revolutionary party. (LCW 4:217)
Fusion develops on the basis of the convergence of socialist theory and the spontaneous working class movement.
The motion of Socialist theory and socialists towards the working class is one aspect of fusion. The other is the gravitation - the urge of the working class toward socialism. Since the development of capitalism every workers movement has spontaneously strived towards socialism. (The spontaneous struggle represents embryonic political consciousness. This embryonic political consciousness, it not raised to the level of scientific socialism, will inevitably become TU consciousness because the striving of the working class towards socialism is Spontaneous and will be subverted by the bourgeoisie and its agents by their conscious spread of bourgeois ideology by their encouragement of the bowing to spontaneity. This tactic is combined with the active repression of the advanced and conscious elements).
It is important that we recognize that there is a striving of the working class itself toward socialism.
...that the Russian working class movement has been long striving to organize itself into a revolutionary party and has demonstrated this striving by action. (A Retrograde Trend In Russian Social-Democracy LCW, 4:255)
But the working class due to its conditions of life, cannot develop scientific socialism, this does not develop from spontaneous struggle but only on the basis of profound scientific and historical knowledge. This was the task of the revolutionary intellectuals from the propertied classes.
Therefore, we must bring socialism to the working class movement, but most importantly, we must bring it to the advanced, for it is these forces,
...that always and everywhere determine the character of the movement, and they are readily followed by the working masses because they showed their readiness and the ability to serve the cause of the working class, because they proceed able to win the full confidence of the masses. (ibid)
Two movements converged in Russian and this convergence is repeated in all capitalist countries, as the working class movement struggles with opportunism and fuses with scientific socialism. In Russia, the movement of socialist theory proceeded toward the working class and thereby began to integrate the universal principles of Marxism with the actual conditions Of Russia and thus Russia working class movement in doing so further developed Russian Social-Democracy (Communism).
This convergence can be seen in all countries in the U.S., as early as 1850’s, Marxists were bringing socialist theory to the working class, and the working class was striving towards socialism; this was concretely manifested in the formation of Communist Clubs, and in their attempts to give leadership to the National Labor Union. This National Labor Union exchanged statements of solidarity with the First International, led by Marx and Engels. And this fusion has continued, through many twists and turns, until today, where MLMTT has become the dominant trend in the U.S. revolutionary movement and more and more advanced are taking up the weapon of the science of the proletariat.
Comrades, we must look at how, historically, the science of Marxism develops, and how it is related to fusion. Although the struggle to uphold and develop Marxism takes place on an international scale, it can only develop based on the struggle within each country. The development of capitalism brought into being the modern nation state and theory dictated that the struggle to defend Marxism and fuse it with the working class could only go down on the basis of the struggle of the working class in each country against its “own” in accordance with its own specific conditions and historical development.
Though not in substance, and yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie. (Communist Manifesto, p. 45)
The victory of socialism in China and Albania (and in the Soviet Union before the party went revisionist and restored capitalism) does not negate this struggle in each country against imperialism and capitalism. In fact, the victory of socialism proves the correctness of the necessity of the proletariat to fight its’ own bourgeoisie and the inevitability of success in this struggle. And these struggles have helped to deepen the fusion of MLMTT with the workers and oppressed peoples of the world.
As the process of fusion develops, the contemporary level of the science develops. In the struggle to apply Marxism, the science is enriched and integrated with the national and international conditions. The relative quality of the science, the depth to which it goes in elaborating a particular question, disclosing internal contradictions and external conditions increases as well as the number of questions it is forced to speak to in the course of making revolution increases. This movement of the science is closely bound to fusion. Because the working class is the only class whose conditions of life prepare it for the science of MLMTT.
Of all the classes that stand face to face of modern industry the proletariat is its special and essential product. (Communist Manifesto)
So it is the working class that must grasp MLMTT and enrich it as it struggles to overthrow the bourgeoisie. A good example, of this process is the development of strategy and tactics in the Russian revolution. This area of the science was constantly enriched on the question of insurrection, role of the peasantry, parliamentary forms of struggle, etc. as the struggle for proletarian revolution moved though the twists and turns. The same can be said of the leading role of the CPC and the Chinese working class in deepening the contemporary understanding of continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Faced with new problems, we utilize the science to solve them and in doing so enrich and broaden MLMTT.
The development of Marxism proceeds in the course of the struggle against opportunism which is a reflection of the class struggle between the two classes – the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.
No, wonder therefore, that the Marxian doctrine, which directly serves to enlighten and organize the advanced class in modern society, indicates the tasks facing this class and demonstrates the inevitable replacement (by virtue of economic development) of the present system by a new order, no wonder this doctrine has had to fight for every step forward in the course of its life. (Marxism And Revisionism, LCW:15)
In the U.S. Anti-Revisionist Communist Movement, this struggle has proceeded against the opportunist line of the leading role of theory, criticism and self-criticism, party building, national question, trade union question, the woman question, and strategy and tactics. In the course of this struggle the movement divided into two wings, the revolutionary wing and the opportunist wing. As a result, the contemporary level of the science was raised and the fusion of MLMTT developed. Some of the forces in the opportunist wing were a part of the genuine forces in the old period and made some contributions to the development of fusion, bringing some aspects of MLMTT to the working class movement. In failing to go deeply into their errors, however, criticize and repudiate opportunist lines and wage tit for tat struggles against the opportunist within their own ranks and place MLMTT theory in the leading role – they all have degenerated into the swamp of opportunism. The contemporary level of the science has developed past them on the basis of MLMTT in the struggle waged against the incorrect lines they propagated within the movement.
The question of fusion is one of the fundamental questions of party building. The party is the advanced detachment of the working class and is the organizational manifestation of the fusion of socialism with the U. S. working class movement This is why, in order to further develop this fusion, we put forth the strategic principles of Marxist-Leninist unite and win the advanced to Communism.
The question of the advanced worker has been an important struggle in our movement, first against the RU who held that advanced workers were mainly militant fighters that could even have some anti-communist ideas. This definition went hand and glove with their economist trade union work. It is such an important question because they are the key connectors between socialism and the working class, and they are the focus of our propaganda and agitation in this period. In the struggle against the economists in Russia Lenin said,
The newspaper that wants to become the organ of all Russian Social-Democrats must, therefore, be at the level of the advanced workers; not only must it not lower its level artificially, but, on the contrary, it must raise it constantly, it must follow up all the tactical, political, and theoretical problems of world Social-Democracy. Only then will the demands of the working class intelligentsia be met, and it itself will take the cause of the Russian revolution, into its own hand. (Retrograde Trend in Russian Social-Democracy, LCW, Vol 4)
Advanced workers are the life and blood of the Party, the best elements produced by our class, the proletariat. These elements are the target of our agitation and propaganda in this period, those who, when armed with MLMTT, can change the character of the workers movement from spontaneous to conscious. Winning these advanced to communism is one of our two main strategic principles of party building. Analyzing an organization’s attitude toward these “diamonds of the class” is a good method for helping to distinguish the genuine from the sham. We view the advanced as independent leaders, who have practically demonstrated their desire and commitment for fundamental change, leaders who study, study a wide range of materials in an effort to find answers to the problems facing them everyday. These materials range from Newsweek type magazines to Communist newspapers and Marxist-Leninist works. This study, under the influence of communists becomes the systematic, regular study of MLMTT. And comrades, we must grasp the fact that the advanced are active, in motion, agitating and propagating the understanding they have acquired from their study and practice about the fundamental problems in society and the long range solutions. (We believe that this is elaborating independent socialist theories, which are Utopian, but when these advanced grasp MLMTT they become the best communist agitators and propagandists forces in the mass movements, our future working class revolutionary intellectuals).
These advanced workers do not drop from the sky, but are produced by every movement.
How is it that the OL deals with the advanced? At last year’s May Day preparation in the Bay Area, a leading OL cadre said:
We don’t know who the advanced are; we don’t have a position on the difference between advanced and intermediate. We just put out the call to an activity, whoever comes must be the advanced, so we work with them.
Comrades, is this a scientific approach towards building the party, towards giving the mass movements conscious leadership? No, this is nothing but a petty-bourgeois, ex-Peace Corps approach towards “building the mass movements”, towards winning over “every striker”, every picket sign carrier to the Menshevik party. Like the RU, who see that the advanced can be anti-communist, and the Workers Viewpoint, who see that the advanced are militant fighters open to socialism, the OL fails to understand that there has been fusion between the two great movements of socialism and the working class, that these two movements strive towards one another, and the advanced workers are the key connectors between the two. The opportunist wing cannot understand that the League of Revolution Black Workers developed and spread spontaneously, maintained contact with hundreds of advanced elements across the country. They ignore the fact that the League, Malcolm X, the Black Panther Party, HRUM, SNCC, SDS, the Young Lords Party, SOBU and ALSC all developed from the mass movements at the initiation of advanced elements in those movements, fought opportunism of all shades and descriptions, and sought out MLMTT as it proved most successful in solving the practical problems presented by these movements. In fact, as Lenin said, they “turned themselves into Social Democrats (Communists).”
But the petty bourgeois opportunists, because of their contempt for the masses, see that it is only when they became communists that the movement began, that they have the “theory” and the advanced have only practice. Because their organizations are not composed of the truly advanced, they say that the advanced don’t really exist, or they lower their propaganda to speak to the intermediate and backward, those elements with whom they are most familiar. Instead of aiming the arrow of Marxist-Leninist propaganda at the target of the advanced, especially advanced workers, these Mensheviks throw the boomerang of “anti-imperialism” at the intermediate and advanced, missing the target, a boomerang that comes right back, knocking them even further into the swamp.
Comrades, we must do some summing up at this point, of the interconnection of the erroneous lines of the opportunist, because it is from these lines that their incorrect view of the current tasks and tactics flow.
Our view on periods is that periods trace the historic development of the communist movement. A correct view of periods helps us to define the main task at a given period to see what is coming into being and what is dying away and then deepens our understanding of how to deal decisive blows against opportunism and revisionism. There must be a correct understanding of what period we are in, in order to draw further ideological and political demarcations in accordance with our key link.
The OL distorts the development of the communist movement with an unscientific analysis of periods. They see periods essentially as going from little organizations to big organizations, which is less then simplistic.
The WVO puts forth that periods are characterized by unity or disunity, by a dominant line, “whether its relatively correct or not.”
After years of an incorrect leading line on this question, the question is still how to build the party of the working class. So far, the presentation of the party building question has been eclectic. (Party Building And The Anti-Revisionist Premises, “Workers Viewpoint”, p. 29)
This view of summation of the movements history is nothing but bourgeois journalism, looking only at the surface, perceptual level, only recording quantity, and negates the qualitative development of the correct line. OL and WVO portray periods as chaos, only to serve their own hegemonic plans. And as Lenin said,
Anybody who regards the history of his own party as ’chaos’ is an unpardonable blockhead. (Breach of Unity, LCW: 20-330)
On fusion, the WVO says that in 1975 that “fusion has just begun”, the OL never even address the question.
The fact that a great deal of the present day communist come from the ranks of the middle classes or the intelligentsia is only natural. It stems from the fact that the mass movements which so greatly affected the students and intellectuals during the 60’s brought many of them into the ranks of the working class. (Party Building in the U.S., O.L., page 8)
And their partners in principles, WVO, put forth essentially the same analysis:
Concretely, the advanced elements open to Marxist-Leninist in the last few years came mainly from two sources. One, the movement of the oppressed minorities–two, the movement of students and the petty bourgeoisie who fought against the war and imperialism. Besides some workers from the oppressed nationalities and a few white workers and anti-revisionist ex-CP members, all of whom are open to socialism, there is not a sizable cadre pool of workers. Why? Because the immediate past movements were not movements of the working class as a whole. They were movements of the most conscious sector of the population–the oppressed nationalities and student, youth and revolutionary intellectuals. (Party Building And The Anti-Revisionist Premise, p. 36)
It is no wonder, then, that they put forth economist lines on advanced workers, and are unable to correctly apply our two simultaneous principles of Marxists-Leninists Unite and Win The Advanced to Communism. Let’s look at these principles and the tactics we develop for implementing them. We need to go into this since it is because we constantly raise these two principles that we are called dogmatist by both OL and WVO. Both these Mensheviks keep raising the “left” danger in order to cover their own raggedy right lines. The dogma they shout about are good old Marxist-Leninist principles. Let’s look at Comrade Stalin, to back this up:
the party confined itself to mapping the movement’s strategic plan, i.e., the route that the movement should take; and the party’s reserves–the contradiction within the camp of the enemies inside and outside of Russia remained unused, or almost unused, owing to the weakness of the Party.
In this period the Party focused its attention and care upon the party itself, upon its own existence and preservation.
The principle task of communism in Russia in that period was to recruit into the Party the best elements of the working class, those who were most active and most dedicated to the cause of the proletariat; to form the ranks of the proletarian party and to put it firmly on its feet. Comrade Lenin formulates this task as follows: ’to win the advanced to communism.’
The second period was the period of winning the broad masses of the workers, peasants, to the side of the vanguard of the proletariat.
The Party’s principle task in this period was to win the vast masses to the side of the proletarian vanguard, to the side of the party, for the purpose of overthrowing the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, for the purpose of seizing power.
The party now no longer focused its attention on itself but upon the vast masses of people. (“The Party Before And After Taking Power”, Collected Works, Stalin, Vol. 5)
Comrades, we hold that we are in the first period that Stalin talked about, the period of winning the vanguard to communism, where we must pay attention to the party itself. Throughout all periods of the development of the party it is necessary to unite the Marxist-Leninists into one party and then constantly within the party, consolidate them around the correct line, in the struggle against opportunism. This is strategic. It is also necessary in all periods to continue to win the advanced to communism. But the separation of the genuine from the sham is whether we correctly assess what period we’re in, because, as Stalin pointed out, it greatly affects our tactical line.
We formerly put forth that Marxist-Leninist unite was the principle tactic in party building. We repudiate this. We believe that this is an incorrect line, that, in the final analysis, leads to seeing ideology as key, to building unity on general principles, not the application of these principles to concrete conditions. This line has led to over emphasizing liaison work and coalition work, while not placing sufficient emphasis on winning the advanced. This view, because of the spontaneity it breeds, strengthened a tendency to negate our main form of work, propaganda. Marxist-Leninists Unite as principle thing belittles the role of advanced in hammering out political line. We believe that we must carry out the work of uniting Marxist-Leninists and winning the advanced to communism simultaneously. Even in those work places where we may be the only known Communist, we have the responsibility of introducing the polemics into that work place so the advanced can be trained in struggle to discern genuine from sham; and thus play an even greater role in uniting Marxist-Leninists and winning over other advanced to the science. To either fail to bring forth these principles of uniting Marxists-Leninists and winning the advanced or to incorrectly assess the period and develop an incorrect tactical line, such as WVO’s, Marxist-Leninist unite as principle, means that independent of one’s will, one will develop a Menshevik line on party building.
In this general period of winning over the advanced, the correct application of these two strategic principles to the concrete conditions to the U. S. revolution means, first, having a correct line on key link, since as we said earlier that is what gives scope and orientation to our work with Marxist-Leninists and the advanced. Second, it means that we uphold our main form of work is propaganda to the advanced. It means that we seek to develop study groups of advanced workers, put out leaflets, newspapers, theoretical journals, consistently carry out independent propaganda work in mass activities that we engage in. This must become the main form of work. It is through our development of this that we train the advanced in doing Marxist-Leninists propaganda and agitation to the intermediate and lower strata of workers, thus raising the class consciousness of the entire working class and masses. Comrades, it is important that we not ridicule this difficult, important task, as the OL does, when they say:
They have no faith in the peoples’ ability to learn through the struggle, and so they participate in the mass work for the sole purpose of ’winning the handful of advanced workers’ to their organization.
and
Instead of pushing forward the work in the plants of organizing strikes, working in unions, and building up caucuses and other rank and file movements, these leftists can be found only when it comes to selling their newspapers or giving our their own leaflets. (Party Building In The U.S., October League, pp. 9 & 10)
Once again the OL waves “many happy returns” while riding the surfboard of spontaneity.
Thirdly, the correct application of our strategic principles to the concrete conditions means that we uphold a correct view of polemics. Our view of polemics is a key aspect of our view of unity. There are two lines on this question.
From the very beginning the OL has shown a disdain for drawing lines of demarcation, a fear of ideological struggle – leading to a line of unprincipled unity, conciliationism, and liquidation of the truth that Marxism develops in the course of struggle in the struggle against falsehood.
At that Guardian Forum; attended by RU, BWC, PRRWO, Guardian and OL, the renegade Klonsky put forward the basic line of how to fight “ultra-leftism” as mainly by not abandoning the mass struggle, to build the united front. He said:
...We’ve got to unite the communist forces and we’ve got to combat everything that stands in the way of unity, whether it be on the level of divisive rumor spreading and gossip which the police and revisionist use to their advantage – the approach of always putting differences first or looking for differences as the main thing. We have to see that within every communist party there is a sharp struggle. We’ve got to build unity and we’ve got to fight for unity...So we’ve seen a spirit among all groups represented here today. This has encouraged us a great deal. If we all stick together and take a principled stand in a very short time we’ll be able to forge a Communist party... (ed.)
Here the OL reveals its spineless, liberal, all unity attitude toward party building that has led straight to Menshevism. Lenin, in the preface to the Collection Of Twelve Years wrote:
The old, and in many respects outdated, polemic with Struve is important as an instructive example, one that shows the practical and political value of irreconcilable theoretical polemics.. Revolutionary Social-Democrats have been accused times without number of an excessive penchant for such polemics with the ’Economists,’ the Bernsteinians, and the Mensheviks. Today, too, these accusations are being bandied about by the ’conciliators’ inside the Social-Democratic Party and the ’sympathizing’ semi-socialists outside it. (“Preface to the Collection Twelve Years,” LCW, volume 13, pages 97-98)
And in The Declaration of The Editorial Board of Iskra, Lenin wrote:
As we have said, the ideological unity of Russian Social-Democrats still has to be created, and to this end it is in our opinion, necessary to have an open and all embracing discussion of the fundamental questions of principle and tactics raised by the present day economists, Bernsteinites and critics. Before we can unite, and in order that we may unite, we must first of all draw firm and definite lines of demarcation. Otherwise our unity will be purely fictitious, it will conceal the prevailing confusion and hinder its radical elimination...open polemics conducted in full view of all Russian Social Democrats and class conscious workers are necessary and desirable in order to clarity the depths of existing conditions in order to afford discussion of disputed questions from all angles, in order to combat the extremes into which representatives, not only of various views, but even of various localities, or various specialities of the revolutionary movement inevitably fall. Indeed as stated above, we regard one of the drawbacks of the present-day movement to be the absence of open polemics between avowedly differing views, the efforts to conceal differences on fundamental questions. (LCW Vol. 4)
Now comrades, does not the renegade Klonsky of 1973 sound like the philistine liberal who sees differences as a bad thing to be covered up, who sees struggle and splits always as a bad thing, and that the road forward is to all stick together. And has not the OL failed its responsibility to engage in open polemics, denied the educational value of them to the Communist Movement and in fact used polemics only to defend its raggedly line when attacked, in fact responded with a slanderous method and guilt by association tactics. And does not the OL of today still represent this bourgeois liberal trend with its “Call To The Party”, by stating:
...We must move towards unity with great speed and oppose endlessly redefining our differences and eternally drawing even further lines of demarcation – outside the organization structure of the Party...
Comrades, how can these people have the audacity to say this when this Party has no program – but only vague incorrect principles of unity! This is out and out Menshevism. Even the bankrupt RU put forward a draft program in its rush to form its Menshevik Party. But the frenzied, petty-bourgeois madness of the OL, trying to scare others into this Menshevik formation by raising up the danger of war and fascism, refuses to even put forward a program. This is an affront to even the most backward elements. And the OL has the audacity to say that this is not “a-get-rich-quick-scheme.”
This line of the OL comes out clearer in other places in the “Call” as they equate weaknesses in the course of sharp ideological struggle with splits, and strength with quantitative growth, and then claim that they have passed the test and proceed to beat their breasts for never having a split. Every genuine Bolshevik knows that separation of genuine from sham is a good thing and reflects the truth of one dividing into two. Of course the OL has never had a split as only firmness and correct class stand based on the principles of MLMTT provides the basis to draw lines of demarcation and purges our ranks.
With WV, although they like to brag about how good they are in polemicizing against the RU and OL, when it comes to defending their own line on party building, they turn tail and run, or resort to bourgeois maneuvering. At a coalition around IWWD, when the revolutionary wing polemicized against their “Premises” and demanded struggle, WV responded that what we had to do was get down with the practical problems of the coalition, and that party building wasn’t a principle of unity of the coalition, they couldn’t discuss it since the people they brought “might get offended.” Their actual line as shown in practice also came forward clearly at the recent forum in Boston when comrades from PRRWO and ourselves again pushed them to defend their line. Their practice there was summed up in a joint editorial with the PRRWO in the February Palante:
WVO was determined not to get into the main questions involved in the polemic. The essence of the struggle with the WVO line on party building, as expressed in their article “Party Building and the Anti-Revisionist Theoretical Premises,” is that it is an ahistorical analysis of party building which shows no motion resulting from the fierce two line struggle to build the party, contains a conciliationist line which distorts the true nature of the treacherous revisionists, belittles the struggle against opportunism, and substitutes these “Anti-Theoretical Premises” for MLMTT, calling them “the ideological foundation of the party” and the “sole safeguard against degeneration.” We think WVO puts forward the line to put itself forward as the “leading circle with the overall most correct line”–a hegemonic and sectarian stance toward the genuine wing of the movement.
WVO refused to defend their line and in the process prove, on the basis of MLMTT, that their analysis is correct. The genuine wing has been laying our clearly how we see the development of the party building motion and the main questions– periods, fusion, tactic, key link that this involves. WVO tried to stay as far away from this as possible. They raised struggle over questions not to focus in on the main questions, but to deviate us from them.
Their attempt was to have us go through abstract debate over “what is ideology” and ”conscious and unconscious revisionism, without interrelating it to a defense of their Views on how revisionists are “muddled and confused” or why we should enter into unity of action with them. In fact, in their attempt to slip and slide, they had the nerve to say that the ideology of the proletariat was not dialectical and historical materialism and that the ideology of the bourgeoisie was not metaphysics and idealism–a clear revision of MLMTT.
They struggle around the question of the advanced not to interrelate it to the historical fusion of the communist and workers movements, giving rise to the different periods in party building, the two tactics flowing from the key link – Marxist-Leninists Unite and Win the Advanced to Communism on the basis of a correct political line. Instead, their forces was to struggle over the question of the intermediate and backward. They did not defend their views on how the advanced are just “open to socialism” and even went so far as to distort reality, saying, for example, that leaders such as Malcolm X and George Jackson were “unique” and not that they were examples of the historical truth that every working class brings forth advanced fighters who lead the masses and struggle to find ever more scientific answers to the questions raised by the revolution, driving them to the study of Marxism-Leninism. These are examples of how WVO attempted to sidetrack the struggle, keeping it off the crucial questions and instead attempted to take us off into abstract trips. Under the smokescreen of demagogy and sophistry, they tried to evade defending their bankrupt line on party building.
In short, comrades, we think that this opportunist stance on polemics by WVO, OL, while constantly crying for unity, is best summed up by Comrade Lenin in the Liquidators Against The Party,
In order to build the party, it is not enough to be able to shout ’unity’, it is necessary, in addition, to have some sort of political program, a program of political action. The bloc of liquidators, of Trotsky, the Vpreryodists, the Poles Bolshevik Party members, Paris Mensheviks, etc., etc., was foredoomed to a scandalous downfall because it was built on a lack of principles, on hypocrisy and empty phrases. It wouldn’t be a bad thing if these sighers finally got down to solving for themselves the most complex and difficult question: Whom do they want to unite with? If it is with the liquidators then why not say so without grimacing; if they are against uniting with the liquidators, then what sort of unity are they sighing for? (LCW: 18-24)
WVO and OL, since you have so much in common and both are hollering so loud about uniting, why don’t you stop grimacing and come straight out with the call – “Mensheviks Unite!”