....there are two kinds of subjectivism in our Party–dogmatism and empiricism. Each sees only a part and not the whole. If people are not on guard, do not realize that such one-sidedness is a shortcoming and do not strive to overcome it, they are liable to go astray. Mao Tse Tung
Within the overall revitalized communist movement, a trend has developed identifying itself as anti-revisionist and anti-dogmatist. This trend is seriously beginning to face up to questions concerning the building of a revolutionary party of the proletariat. A debate has begun between two major components of this trend–the Guardian Newspaper and the Philadelphia Workers Organizing Committee (PWOC). Characteristics of the previous divisive experiences begin to appear: simplifications and epithets (“economists,” “localists,” etc.), which not only obscure the real issues but also indicate ideological impoverishment and questionable revolutionary morality, creating further discord in an already fragmented movement. This form of “ideological struggle” can only divert a revolutionary movement from properly confronting fundamental questions.
Obviously, ideological unity has not been reached even among the anti-revisionist, anti-dogmatist groups, who find themselves at different level of political development. The Guardian and the PWOC have recently expressed their views concerning the immediate tasks confronting this sector of the revolutionary movement, each calling for the other to fall in line behind its respective formulations. Though opposed to each other, both conceptions contain some fundamentally similar elements. While we are in basic disagreement with both formulations, we must nevertheless clearly distinguish between them.
The formulation by the PWOC is that of an organization actively engaged in the struggles of the working class which is in the process, helping to build a truly revolutionary party. The PWOC and its followers argue that despite the disparate present level of development among all the components of the trend, their immediate task is the formation of a “leading ideological center” as a precondition to building a pre-party formation. The objective of this “ideological center” would be to help overcome present weaknesses and lead to the integration and unity of the different groups throughout the country and thus to the eventual formation of the revolutionary party. PWOC bases its conception on the premise that “revisionism and dogmatism” are the main obstacles to the party-building process.
The formulation by the Guardian Newspaper is that of an elitist group which has little, if any, experience among the masses. Refusing to accept responsibility in the recent negative experiences of the party-building process in the U.S., the Guardian emphasizes its positive contributions made in earlier years and the prestige of its international news coverage–particularly the widely-respected efforts of Wilfred Burchett. Its editors call for a “reconstitution of the Communist Party” based on their published 29 “Principles of Unity.”
Though they differ in terms, the Guardian and the PWOC nevertheless share a common disregard for party-building as a complex social process which must be understood within the context of the fundamental laws of social development. Concisely stated, these laws teach that the party is a decisive factor in the class struggle which synthesizes elements of the objective situation and subjective consciousness, theory and practice, science and art. To view only one aspect of this dialectical relationship leads either to theoricism and dogmatism or to practicism and economism. In our view, the formulations of the Guardian and the PWOC are narrow, non-dialectical conceptions whose acceptance would only continue the present trend of building “parties” in isolation from the masses.
The Party is, as we have already described, at the same time, an element external to the working class and an integral part of it. It is external in that its formation is not simply an organic growth of the working class. On the contrary, it results from the voluntary and deliberate efforts of a group which proposes to lead the proletariat toward objectives that the class cannot define for itself. On the other hand, the Party does not function in isolation, separated from the class. In other words, the party is both an integral part and a detachment of the class.
The conception of the party as an entity external to the masses, fully consolidated among the dogmatist “parties” and organizations, is also sometimes found within the new anti-revisionist/anti-dogmatist forces. Ignoring the Marxist view of social development, those with this elitist conception of party-building attempt to place ideas and intellectual consciousness above reality and society. They do not recognize the fact that it is the masses who make history, and pay only lip service to this fundamental law of historical materialism, they refuse to understand that the formulation “the masses make history” assumes objective reality and social development as the determinant and conditioning elements in the historical process, whereas the subjective and the individual are the determined and conditioned elements, reacting upon the former. We can state then, that ideas are derivative forms of the development of material reality. This is elementary in the study of dialectics, but idealists act on the opposite assumption. For them, the individual conditions society while the subjective determines the existence of the objective. Ultimately, for them, ideas are the substance to reality.
Intellectuals, who concentrate on abstract theoretical investigations conducted without any real relations to the working class and the state of the masses, utilize passages gathered from the classics of Marxism and, in essence, support the premise that ideas arise purely from man’s intellect. In the process, social practice–the correct point of departure for Marxist ideas–is isolated from theory. As a consequence, theory degenerates into dogmatism and revisionism, while practice assumes the character of spontaneity, oscillating blindly between adventurism and opportunism. The result is that party-building becomes bureaucratization, with non-proletarian positions at the core of the organization. This has been the experience in various other countries, as well as in the U.S. But an understanding of these deviations has not yet been grasped by the revolutionary movement. Serious misunderstanding of this process is evident in the recent pronouncements of the Guardian Newspaper on party-building where the process is reduced to the establishment of a bureaucracy led by the Guardian’s editorial hierarchy, and the creation of “Guardian Clubs” becomes a substitute for social practice.
This plan clearly presents a process in which party cadres are to be formed in separation from the masses. Reducing the study of Marxism-Leninism to an abstract discussion of a minimal number of works of Marxist literature, this scheme ignores the fact that revolutionaries study as a result of concrete needs arising out of social practice. New experiences demand intellectual reflection and the development of relevant theory. Study separated from practice leads to theoricism, a non-creative theory incapable of directing social transformation. It produces individuals who may be capable of engaging in “profound” debates on the intricacies of other revolutionary experiences but who are incapable of using the weapons of class struggle to transform present reality. As the history of class struggle shows, such individuals may be self-sacrificing and in desperate moments perhaps even heroic; but they are isolated from the real struggles of the working class and therefore bureaucratized.
In the process of forming such cadre, paternalism and the self-serving attitudes of the “leading circle” of intellectuals are perpetuated, negating democratic centralism or at least limiting it to a mere formality. In the case of the Guardian, not even the formality is apparent. The “leading circle” here assumes all the taks of giving theoretical direction. In their impatience with the slow progress of the mass movement, the members of the “leading circle” cannot see that a newspaper, even one avowedly dedicated to Marxism-Leninism, is not and cannot be a substitute for a party. It can only serve as a communication center for whatever exists–as did the early National Guardian which was so effective that it lived until its movement died. A newspaper can only help to advance the mass movement by serving, not by leading; whatever the reputation for leadership it acquires comes from its services to the masses concerned and their leading cadre.
Of course, this does not mean that a newspaper’s editors and contributors cannot have opinions of their own and voice them in the process of implementing their tasks. But they must recognize that these are personal opinions which are valid only insofar as they reflect the purposes and experiences of the mass movement they serve. A newspaper cannot become an ideological leader unless and until it becomes the voice of a real, mature Marxist-Leninist Party, one rooted in a significant working class movement.
As history has proven, any “party” formed in the artificial manner proposed by the Guardian will inevitably lack a mass line. Its sole relationship to the masses will be one of explaining, disseminating and popularizing the “correct positions” previously conceived by the elite circle. Mass line is then reduced to the propagandization of ideas, to the act of making propaganda. This in itself is not useless, and often has substantial merit, as the history of the Guardian itself proves. But a party built by such an elite group will never have roots in the masses. It will not be submerged in them or be able to listen to them and really respond to their needs. This form of party-building attempts to have the masses become submerged in the party, requiring that they adapt their actions to the molds it creates. This is the core of the Guardian’s proposal for party-building.
Whereas the Guardian’s editors disregard the fundamental element of social practice as a determinant factor, the formulation of the PWOC emanates from an essentially empirical view of the present situation and the current state of the revolutionary movement in the U.S. We can see that in the U.S. today there exists great potential for rebuilding class consciousness among the masses. But this potential seems to be lessened by the dispersion of Marxist-Leninists into a variety of different organizations, groups and collectives, most of whom are relatively isolated from the masses. If it were possible to organize these groups into one common effort the party could be built more easily.
The attempt to integrate the various anti-revisionist and anti-dogmatist groups and establish a “leading ideological center” is presented by the PWOC as a necessary alternative to the old and newer dogmatist “parties.” Based on the honest efforts of revolutionaries to combat dispersion and the inherent limitations of local organizations, this proposal is obviously an attempt to establish a positive direction for the new communist movement. However, good intentions are not sufficient, so that despite its good will, this proposal is also an obstacle to the development of a proletarian party.
Dialectics teaches us that in order to understand and transform anything we must recognize its internal contradictions and resolve them. In order to understand the present state of our revolutionary movement and expose incorrect ideas about it, we must recognize the contradictions within the movement itself. We must go beyond an empirical observation of the petty-bourgeois original social character of most of the organizations in the revolutionary movement and the developing trend and identify other internal contradictions which may assume decisive roles in the process of party-building. We must seek to resolve the contradictions between theory-practice and between the masses and the revolutionary movement rather than pretend these do not exist. This is a necessity if we are to reach a higher level of unity.
There is a great disparity in the level of development of the various groups, organizations and collectives in the left. Some are at the most embryonic stage of collective work. Others lack a uniform ideological character and as a consequence of earlier experiences reflect the mistakes and successes in the historical development of the revolutionary movement in the U.S. In dealing with this reality we must not bypass necessary analysis in the name of unity. This could only lead to disunity.
PWOC bases its positions on the weakness of a fragmented movement and proposes to overcome that weakness by creating a mechanism to which they can rally formations that agree or think they agree with their perspective. But we must go beyond this empirical observation and focus on other internal contradictions which may assume a decisive role in the process of party-building. Two of these–the contradiction between theory and practice and the contradiction between the masses and the revolutionary movement, which underlie the problem of creating a mass line–have already been discussed. We must seek to resolve these contradictions rather than “recognize” them and then proceed as if they do not exist. This is a necessity if we are to reach a higher level of unity.
Furthermore, the development of an “ideological center” at this time can begin a process where the autonomy and initiative of the constituent groups is seriously hampered or liquidated. This will be justified only when the prevailing contradictions have been overcome. Otherwise, we will be sacrificing the possibility of self-development of political maturity. Now our task is to provide the conditions for raising the political level of our movement to play a constructive role in the working class movement.
Any Marxist analysis of the need and feasibility for an ideological center cannot take for granted that the “main obstacles for the party-building movement are revisionism and dogmatism.” There is a world outside our fragmented and underdeveloped trend, the world in which the working class must live, struggle and survive. That world presents the objective situation which we must first try to understand as it confronts the masses today. It is that world which sets limits to the practical possibilities of organizational advancement at present–limits further affected, of course, by our subjective unpreparedness.
Unfortunately, we have been concentrating on the problems of the “trend,” neglecting the need for a more extensive and more definitive analysis of the objective situation within which we must operate to serve the working class and, wherever possible, to lead it. This is, unhappily the same subjective preoccupation which led the dogmatists to the arrogant presumption of leadership, with its divisive and sectarian consequences. We must assimilate past experiences, raising the level of our political development to at least the common denominator of an understanding that, as Marxist Leninists, we cannot usurp leadership of the working class; we can achieve leadership only by distinguishing ourselves in the experience of the working class, that is, by serving it well. Once we can command the support and acclaim of leadership of significant sectors of the working class in a number of decisive localities, we will have an objective basis for undertaking the organization of a truly revolutionary Marxist-Leninist party in the U.S. Similarly, this consciousness can transform our social composition so that multi-nationality and the pervasive nature and affects of racism will not be topics of discussion solely among white communists but among communists of all races, colors, and nationalities. It is necessary to achieve an approach which will draw minority groups into the process of Marxist-Leninist organization.
Any discussion of the character of the U.S. socialist revolution will remain an abstraction unless the activities dictated by that process have the active participation of dialectical materialist cadres actively engaged in revolutionary practice among the masses. These activities develop from the particular experiences which, when analyzed and synthesized, will enable an elaboration of the correct general line for the revolutionary process.
In emphasizing ideological development and real integration among the masses, we understand that a serious ideological struggle waged by and among our respective formations–within the context of social practice–can be carried out only by class-conscious and theoretically-developed members whose social practice has been developed by local and autonomous development. We do not deny the need of a mechanism to resolve the inherent limitations of local work, the dispersion of revolutionaries and the lack of ties among the various formations themselves, as well as with the masses. It is true that without such a mechanism, we cannot solve the contradictions confronting the revolutionary movement, and the movement itself will thus continue to evolve without a proper foundation and without real influence among the masses. Moreover, a tendency toward further division and sectarianism will continue to grow, making possible the existence of a multiple number of “communist parties” in the U.S., all opposed to each other and each characterized by its isolation from the masses.
Today we are called upon to create the means for continuing communication and increasing cooperation among ourselves in order to be better able to overcome our weaknesses and grow in strength. We need a means, a facility or an instrument for dealing with the dialectics of the contradiction between centralized development and autonomous effort. We believe that, “at the present juncture, centralization, authoritative control or direction would have a stifling effect on the initiative and self-reliant responsibility which is necessary for the health and continuing growth of our movement. It is true that the balance in the contradiction centralization-autonomy must move to centralization for the party to be built. Therefore, the means or instrument for communication and cooperation we provide now should facilitate the shift to the time and conditions when central direction will be useful and productive rather than stifling. But we believe fundamentally the problem involved in the centralization-autonomy contradiction will be resolved only as we resolve the underlying contradiction already discussed, namely theory-practice and the correct implementation of the mass line.
In our view, there is a long way to go before we can begin to speak of centralization and a national pre-party formation. We don’t know how long that way is in time; we do know we are a long distance from resolving the problems of theory and practice and in implementing a correct mass line. Some form of voluntary coordination of aspiring communist groups is essential to overcome the major deficiencies of the fragmented Marxist-Leninist left. We believe it is not only important to overcome destructive elements of competition among ourselves and their consequences in promoting bureaucracy and sectarianism, but we must also overcome the tendency to turn inward to the small world of Marxists-Leninists in the U.S. and learn to deal with the large world of the U.S. working class, of which we are now only a fringe. Some coordination is, we believe, even more important as a positive means for exchanging experiences, for building the necessary trust in each other as comrades who share a common purpose, even though we do not yet know how we can achieve it together, and for learning from each other’s positive contributions while overcoming the negative. Obviously, the sooner we can agree on a mechanism which can effectively serve those purposes, the better.
We do not have a blue print for the course of development from here on. In fact, we believe a blue print would be anti-Marxist. As revolutionaries, as Marxist-Leninists, we must learn to mature and to learn from experience.
Our task is not merely the task of not contributing to divisiveness. The mantle of Marxists-Leninists can rest only on those who know how to overcome divisive tactics when confronted with them and who can contribute to uniting our own forces and the other workers in the common tasks before the working class. This cannot be taught by establishing an authority to issue directives. It can be learned only through the voluntary association of those of us who understand that our guiding objective cannot be the promotion of our own organization but of its purpose. At this time, our main purpose should be to promote class consciousness and unity in the working class and a sense of its own power.
When we collectively grow sufficient roots among the masses and especially the working class and advance sufficiently in resolving the contradiction between theory and practice and between our movement and the masses, that will be the time to put the question of party organization on the agenda.
Saying that the process must start through the efforts of local and autonomous groups does not mean that the process should end there, nor does it imply that we are glorifying localism, as the intellectual elite and dogmatists are apt to respond, obscuring their own real national, as well as local, isolation from the masses. We do not attempt to impose local particularities on the coming party or, conversely, to seek a national program based solely on the experiences of local groups. The process of building a revolutionary party embracing a multiplicity of local groups and collectives must be founded in an understanding of our situation through critical reflection and analysis based on current realities, and not on our subjective wishes. Only in this way can we work to overcome current limitations. All too frequently we find groups and collectives which have not succeeded in consolidating their forces anywhere, not even in the city or region where they are based, but nevertheless attempt to project themselves as “national organizations.” We find organizations engaged in profound discussions about class struggles where they work and “organize.” These forces place all their efforts in studying the international situation, while neglecting to study the problems they confront directly or the problems affecting the working class in the U.S. Others, under the influence of empiricism and consequent frustrations, impatiently call for the integration of all local groups into a national organism–a “pre-party formation”–as the solution to the inherent limitations of “local work.” This is often done without clearly defining the principle tasks of the national organism, as well as overlooking or disregarding the uneven development of the component elements of the national formation.
All of our efforts will be futile if we do not overcome the attitude that “anything is better than the present situation” or if we do not understand that, in the relationship between theory and practice we are at the stage where theory is fundamental if we are to move forward in setting the basis for a real pre-party national formation. We believe we have reached the stage that Lenin described when he wrote “without revolutionary theory there is no revolutionary movement.”
In our view, the revolutionary party is not the integration of federation or sum of local organization, but rather the organized unity of the Marxist-Leninist cadres integrated among the masses, an organization which is greater than the sum of its parts. We must, therefore, develop the mechanism that will facilitate the formation of such cadres, individuals that unite in one being social practice and revolutionary theory, in opposition to the incorrect conceptions of the elitist intellectuals who view Marxist theory as solely a process of bookmanship.
These cadres, capable of analyzing their everyday experiences, become the basis not only for the formation of a pre-party national center but for the correct delineation of the U.S. Socialist Revolution and for the integration of the party within the masses.