The term “Marxist-Leninism Mao-Tse-Tung Thought” refers to the ideas expressed in the four Volumes of Mao Tse-tung’s Selected Works, the ideas in the Little Red Book and in the one volume Selected Readings from the Works of Mao Tse-tung about making revolution and constructing socialism. These ideas are both profound and a most important contribution to the Marxist-Leninist tradition. The term “Maoism” is used by everyone except the most orthodox followers of the leadership of the Communist Party of Chinese to describe those that look to the Chinese for political leadership, e.g., by the Soviets, the late 1960’s, S.D.S., the Monthly Review (which has included itself in the ranks of “Maoists”), mainstream liberals, and most generally pro-China people and radicals (who use the term favorably). It is this usage of “Maoism” that is employed in this paper. There is no necessary relationship between “Marxism-Leninism Mao Tse-tung Thought” and “Maoism.” While in the 1960’s the two closely intertwined this has become considerably less so in the 1970’s as Chinese foreign policy has become less supportive of revolution, more hostile to the Soviet Union and less opposed to U.S. imperialism. The critique of “Maoism” in the advanced capitalist countries is thus meant to refer to the tailing of the Chinese Communist Party, especially in its foreign policies, and not to the ideas of Mao Tse-tung about making revolution and constructing socialism.
As the international line of the Soviet Union mellowed somewhat during the 1950’s, i.e., became more supportive of progressive, nationalist and reformist trends in both Europe and the Third World pushing less actively for rapid social revolution and as the line of most of the Communist Parties of the world did likewise, the left wing both inside, and outside of the Communist Parties became increasingly discontented. In country after country they left or were expelled from the Communist Parties (and in a few cases China, Albania, Burma, Malaysia and Thailand) won leadership. The forces opposed to the dominant reformist trend in the major communist parties and the Soviet Union tended to be composed of both honest revolutionary forces discouraged by the reformist trends and ultra-left dogmatic forces which would have been discouraged by anything. In the United States both the first attempt to form an organization outside of the Communist Party – The provisional Organizing Committee, and the second, the Progressive Labor Party, soon after their formation revealed themselves to be in essence trotskyist-like groups who came to feel no one in the world, not even China; was revolutionary enough for them. The third attempt, the Revolutionary Communist Party, seems to be heading down the same road. Without fraternal relations with other “Maoist” groups in Europe or elsewhere (which it tends to condemn as class collaborationists) and with its increasing isolation from movements of national minorities (which it condemns as “Bundist”) the objective difference between the PLP and the RCP is rapidly diminishing. The tiny pro-Chinese grouplets in the U.S. and Europe find themselves in a similar situation – in the advanced stages of disintegration into mutually hostile and equally irrelevant sects whose main difference with traditional trotskyists is in their position on China and Albania. “Maoism” (i.e., the tailing of the Chinese Communist Party) in the 1960’s was clearly and unambiguously to the left of the major and pro-Soviet Communist Parties, defining itself as supportive of rapid revolutionary transformations and unafraid of armed struggle. The “Maoism” of the 1970’s has come to mean something quite different. During the Cultural Revolution the Chinese analysis of the Soviet Union and its role in the world changed from merely arguing that it was revisionist and insufficiently supportive of revolutionary struggles to a novel analysis that it was both a capitalist and imperialist country which represented at least as much a threat to the world’s peoples as did the U.S. The Chinese thus came to support a world movement against “the two super powers” of which the Soviet Union seems to be in practice the greater danger, both because it is the ascendant power and because it pretends to be a friend of the world’s people. China then began supporting, or at least ceasing to attack, such reactionary but anti-Soviet regimes as those of the Shah of Iran, Pinochet’s in Chile and Marco’s in the Philippines, as well as the NATO alliance in Europe, because they were all enemies of the Soviet Union. The various Maoist groups around the world, which had developed on the basis of wanting a sharper attack on their own ruling classes, were thus turned around to in many cases supporting their own ruling classes, who were focusing their attacks on the Soviet Union and its alleged agent, the local Communist Parties. Groups which had only a few years previously split from the s orthodox communist parties because they did not adequately support revolution, found themselves condemning the Cuban revolution, the Portuguese Revolution and the Angolan Revolution, and not supporting the struggles of the Chilean people or Omani people because they were led by organizations which refused to condemn the Soviet Union. Maoist groups in Europe mobilized in defense of the NATO alliance that had been set up to prevent working class revolution in their countries in order to protect their bourgeoisies against a threat from the Soviet Union. Alliances between Maoists and right wing social democrats, traditionally the most hostile to Communists and working class revolution, blossomed in such countries as Portugal. The total reversal of the thrust of Maoism and the bankruptcy of replacing mechanical acceptance of Soviet leadership with the mechanical acceptance of Chinese leadership became increasingly clear to key forces like the Guardian in the United States.
In the 1970’s Maoism thus came to mean nothing other than mechanically accepting whatever the Chinese Communist leadership said, whether it led to policies to the left or to the right of those of the major Communist parties. The essence of Maoism became clear to many during the struggles of the MPLA in Angola when the Cubans heroically came to their aid, while the Maoist groups did their best to undermine the struggle.
Maoist groups have been as internally divided and as sectarian as the Trotskyist groups with which they differ principally only on the question of whether or not China and Albania are really socialist countries. (The struggles in the Philippines waged by the New People’s Army and in Thailand, Burma and Malaysia which are also led by pro-Chinese Communist parties are the other exceptions.) As in the case of the traditional Trotskyist grouplets, the Maoist grouplet’s problems stem from the essential, dogmatism and rationalism of their method at arriving at analyses and strategies combined with their isolation from mass struggles (outside of countries where they do have mass roots: Burma, Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines). One of the major issues that divide Maoists is on what the real Chinese position is (say on Iran, Nato, the two super powers, etc.). They also divide on how to relate to national minorities, trade unions, and a wide range of other topics which have been the traditional points of issue on the left in the twentieth century. But, as with the Trotskyists, their method of resolving differences is not democratic-centralism, unified practice, sum up and criticism/self criticism and reformulation of policy, but rather one of dogmatic sterile intellectual debate, persuasion and badgering, and splitting off to build another group with the “correct line.” The Maoist left outside of Southeast Asia is thus as fractured, sectarian and irrelevant as the classical Trotskyist left, although because of the youth of their membership, they often have more energy than many of the Trotskyist groupings.
One of the most important developments of all in the key 1974-1975 period for Maoism in the U.S. was the opposition of the Guardian to the Maoist policy in Portugal, Angola and Cuba. This caused the Guardian in 1975 to be excluded from most China oriented bookstores and to be “excommunicated” from the orthodox Maoist movement. The parallel evolution of the PWOC and other pro-China, but non-Maoist groups during 1975-1976, and the current attempt to build a national center of such organizations is also most significant.
While the C.L.P. and the non-dogmatist current left or were pushed out of the Maoist movement, there has been a consolidation of the hard core that remained, each in their separate shell, but each, except for the R.C.P. which keeps its minor reservations, equally dogmatic in its competition for the mantle of Maoist orthodoxy. Since 1974 the formerly pro-Chinese Movement has basically divided into two parts. Those that now fully understand and accept the details of Chinese analysis and policies – these can now properly be called “Maoists”; and the anti-dogmatic/anti-revisionist trend which has been ex-communicated by the mutual consent of all orthodox Maoists. This later trend pretty much continues the attitude of the pre-1973 pro-Chinese movement – support of all revolutionary struggles – including Cuba, the MPLA progressive nationalism and feminism,; etc. It is important to note that it is the new consolidated orthodox Maoist tendency (from which only the RCP stays one step to the side) that has changed during the mid-1970’s, while the people around the Guardian, PWOC, BACU, etc., continue to hold the general line of pre-1973 “Maoists” in the U.S., i.e., a far less dogmatic and sectarian politics.
In 1973 it was still possible for there to be serious and comradely discussions between the Guardian, OL, RCP, BWC, CLP, et al., about unification of the revolutionary left. Before 1973 issues of Chinese foreign policy did not play a central role among pro-Chinese communist forces in the U.S. We all supported the Cuban revolution and saw no conflict with giving full support to China; we all gave support to all progressive and revolutionary, struggles in Asia, Africa and Latin America (e.g., one of the two conditions of unity of the RU’s Attica Brigade and the RSB during its first two years was support of all revolutionary struggles); all opposed the European capitalist class as the primary enemy of European workers. Being a “Maoist” until 1973 mostly meant that we supported revolutionary struggles wherever they occurred and opposed the reformism of the Soviet Union and the CPUSA. Although we all felt that there was something seriously defective about the Soviet Union, few of us really believed that it was capitalism of the Nazi type or a major danger to the world’s people. A turning point in the development of Maoism in the west occurred in 1974-1975. We were now called on to do far more than ever before, we were asked to consider the Soviet Union to be as bad if not worse than the U.S., to attack revolutionary regimes which were close to the Soviet Union such as Cuba, and oppose revolutionary struggles such as that of the MPLA because they accepted Soviet aid. At the same time we disintegrated into tiny warring sects as nasty to each other and as removed from practice as Trotskyists, as each in turn declared themselves to be THE PARTY, reading, the rest of us out of the legitimate revolutionary movement. Reasoned analyses gave way to dogmatic polemics full of quotes designed to prove that one’s opponents, were revisionists/ opportunists, etc. Only the RCP among the mainstream groups continued to do any real thinking at all, and its thinking led it increasingly to the same conclusions as the Trotskyists.
The Maoist movement in the West glorifies in maintaining that most of the world communist movement went revisionist, and betrayed the revolutionary line of Stalin between 1953 and 1956 (although many maintain that the roots of this revisionism were laid during the 1930’s). In fact, although there have been differences both domestically in the Soviet Union (mainly in the direction of increasing worker’s participation, equality and all around democratic life) and internationally (mainly in various degrees of support for non-revolutionary-regimes in the Third World, and greater efforts for disarmament and peace) the shifts in line in the 1950’s were relatively minor compared to those which took place in the mid-1930’s. Perhaps because of the youth of most of its adherents, Maoism often confuses the changes made at the 7th Comintern Congress held in 1934 which ended the ultra-left ”third period” line established at the 6th Congress in 1928, with alleged changes made after the death of Stalin. In fact there is great continuity in the international communist movement in its general analyses, strategies and attitudes towards classes and organizations since 1934 when the radical break was made with previous theory and practice. The list of the errors of revisionism reads far more like a “third period” critique of the Seventh Comintern Congress, which took place in the height of the hegemony of Stalin’s leadership and bears the distinctive mark of his politics, than a defense of Stalin and revolution against the post-1953-1956 policies of the Soviet Union which have in fact not differed qualitatively from the positions laid down in 1934. (The Parties in France, Japan, Italy and Spain however do now differ qualitatively as they have consolidated their revisionism).
It is mistakenly argued by those that try to show that they are orthodox Communists, in the tradition of Stalin and the Comintern, to dismiss the positions of the 7th Comintern Congress as merely a temporary strategic retreat made necessary by the requirements of stopping fascism. According to this contemporary interpretation the idea of the United Front/Popular Front was merely a defensive strategy designed to save democratic freedoms from fascism. In fact, the positions of the 7th Comintern Congress develop an aggressive strategy designed to make socialist revolution. Both the Soviets and the Chinese have diverged a bit from the 7th Comintern statements, but neither very greatly. In the 1960’s the Chinese moved a bit towards seeing the world situations, especially in the Third World, as more revolutionary than previously without rejecting the United Front/Popular Front notions of an alliance of four classes and a two stage theory of revolution, while the Soviets moved a bit in the direction of downplaying the immediacy of revolutionary crisis and overestimating the probability that progressive petty bourgeois radical regimes would follow in the footsteps of the Cuban 26th of July Movement and develop into authentic socialist revolutions. However, in the 1970’s the Soviets came increasingly to support national liberation and anti-imperialist movements whether or not they were led by Communists. While the Chinese in the 1970’s outdid the Soviet’s 1960’s policy of supporting non-Revolutionary Third World regimes (including even the most reactionary such as Iran and Chile) in the name of Third World unity and opposing the “two superpowers.”
The popularity of Maoism in the advanced capitalist countries is in part based on the prevalent anti-Communism which younger petty bourgeois people took in with their mother’s milk. Virtually all petty bourgeois children throughout Europe, Japan, Australia and the U.S., and most working class people in the U.S., West Germany and a few other countries, have suffered one of the most invidious propaganda campaigns of modern times against the Soviet Union and Communism (which in the presentations of the ruling class media and education are one and the same). Images of slave labor, concentration camps, police terror, arbitrary dictators, dull conformity, lack of basic freedoms, food rationing, aggressive foreign policies designed to enslave the world, etc. – in short Nazi Germany rearmed – have been drummed into our heads as youth. This is the unchallenged conception of both Communism and the Soviet Union which we almost all grow up with.
The new left movement of the 1960’s grew up independently of the Marxist-Leninist tradition. Its roots were in the pacifist and social democratic tradition. It moved to Marxism-Leninism because of identification with the struggles of the Cubans, Vietnamese and Chinese (during their Cultural Revolution). The characteristics of these three revolutions did not seem to us to have anything in common with the image of Communism/Soviet Union that we had been conditioned to accept, and thus we became strongly predisposed to a Maoist type argument that the Soviet Union’s brand of “Communism” really was a capitalist of the Nazi type, i.e., what we had believed all along, while the “Communism” of China, Cuba and Vietnam was a qualitatively different phenomenon – people’s power, or the realization of the true; socialist ideas of equalitarianism, democracy and control of production by the common people. The Maoist alternative allowed formerly strongly anti-communist youth to easily make the transition to Marxism without having to, question the fabricated stereotype of Soviet communism they had grown up with, while romanticizing Cuban, Vietnamese and Chinese Communism, portraying the two types as having nothing in common. At no point were the great majority of U.S. Marxists ever sympathetic to the Soviet Union, This appeal to petty bourgeois youth is identical to the appeal of Trotskyism, for Trotskyism too, offers the possibility of having your cake and eating it to. Maoism in the advanced capitalist countries, as does Trotskyism, idealizes and romanticizes the revolutionary process and revolutionary societies, both fail to appreciate the twists and turns, compromises/strategic retreats, mistakes, and patience inherent in the revolutionary process in the real world. Both thus tend to condemn processes and regimes which are unable to live up to unrealistic ideals, and both then tend to become objectively anti-revolutionary forces opposing rather than supporting progressive and revolutionary process which are doing the best they are able in a complex world. To be a Marxist-Leninist is to appreciate the grave problems faced by the Soviet Union in its first thirty years and to under stand, that the policies followed to build socialism under such nearly impossible conditions, necessarily produces a distorted form of socialism. And further to understand that there was no realistic possibility that much more could be hoped for, and that in spite of all problems great world shattering contributions to the revolutionization of the world were achieved by the Soviet’s during these years. It is to understand that the vicious anti-Communist propaganda that the ruling class will necessarily put out (which may or may not have, a kernel of truth) about any socialist country which is threatening it, and honestly and forthrightly reject any inherent internalized prejudices, refusing to let them color our current perceptions, and above all refuse to pander to popular anti-communism when winning people to Marxists-Leninist politics.
A second source of the anti-Sovietism of the Maoists in the advanced capitalist countries lies in the bitter personal experience of a few of the older comrades who were in the Party in the 1950’s, became disillusioned with Khrushchev’s report on Stalin and, instead of accepting the accusations and becoming critical of the party’s practice from the right, became critical of Khrushchev, all the more defensive of Stalin, and saw in the developing Chinese position a justification for holding to their romanticized views of how perfect things were in the Soviet Union before 1953. Again the process of romanticization and idealization characteristic of Trotskyism, and the lack of appreciation for necessary compromise played a key role. Refusing to be shaken in their faith in the perfection of Stalin’s Soviet Union these dogmatists merely transferred their vision of Socialist utopia from the Soviet Union to China, now holding that Chinese society and Chinese foreign policy were as perfect as had been those of Stalin’s. The corollary of this transfer of faith is the thesis that capitalism was restored in the Soviet Union in the 1950’s and that Soviet foreign policy changed from being revolutionary to imperialist in the same time period (accusations that have no substantiation in fact).
The lesson to be learned from the experience with Stalin’s infallibility and the idolization of the Soviet Union in the period 1930’s-1953 was neither that the critiques of Stalin were right and that the USSR and its foreign policies were betrayals of socialism, nor that they were perfect and the model for all other parties to follow. The real lesson is that the world Marxist-Leninist movement can not fall into the Trotskyist error of idealization and romantization, and its corollary of bitter denunciation when reality can not meet the ideals, and that the world movement can not have a single Church and Pope which knows what everyone must do and to which we look to as the model. Peking can not replace Moscow, nor should Moscow be transformed from Rome to anti-Rome. The experience should have taught us the necessity to think for ourselves, to place the interests of no state above a revolutionary policy, to understand the need for revolutionary patience, and to appreciate the curves in the road to revolution and the necessity of supporting, but not tailing, all progressive struggles and socialist regimes.
An idealist definition of a “trotskyist” would focus on whether or not an individual or group like Leon Trotsky, read his work with respect and sided with Trotsky over Stalin in the 1920’s and 1930’s. A materialist definition of a “trotkyist” on the other hand would ask rather whether or not a group acted essentially like Trotsky acted and if its strategy was essentially like that of Trotsky, i.e., was objectively “Trotskyite”. Taking a materialist approach one would be considered a trotskyist if one acting like Trotsky even if one liked Stalin and hated Trotsky, while conversely one would not be considered a trotskyist if one did not acted like Trotsky and have a strategy like that of Trotsky, even if one liked Trotsky, read his works, etc. In EXamining various groups and currents we must be very careful to always use a materialist definition, and not be confused by verbal disclaimers, genealogies or posters on people’s walls.
The essence of what the Marxist-Leninist tradition including Stalin, Mao, Fidel and Ho Chi Minh have meant by “trotskyism” is a left-adventurist and dogmatic analysis which condemns all existing socialist countries and people’s democracies as not really socialist, being run by bureaucrats or perhaps state capitalists acting against the interests of the working people, and which likewise condemns all massive popular, progressive, or Communist led movements as being insufficiently revolutionary or in the process of selling out the masses in the interests of a bureaucracy, either local or located in the USSR, China, etc. Trotskyism differs from the anarchists who make similar claims about all progressive and socialist movements and regimes by claiming adherence to the principles of Leninism, endorsing the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 and organizing themselves more or less according to Leninist principles. This is the essence of trotskyism and the sole criteria by which a group or current should be categorized as “trotskyist.” Applying this criteria to groups like the Progressive Labor Party in the U.S. which condemn China, the USSR, Cuba and ail progressive and socialist regimes as well as the CPUSA, RCP, CL, SWP and all other groups in the U.S., all progressive, socialist or national liberation movements in Third World countries, and all progressive and Communist lead movements in the advanced capitalist countries, as selling out the masses, tools of the Soviet or Chinese bureaucracies etc., are pure trotskyist groups. PLP sees itself as the only truly revolutionary group in the world. On the other hand a splinter group from the Socialist Workers Party (the main Trotskyist group in the U.S.), the Workers World Party and its youth group Youth Against War and Fascism, gives basic support to Third World national liberation movements and socialist regimes such as those of the Cubans, Vietnamese, Angolans, etc., and (at least at last look) considered China and other socialist countries to be socialist. Thus in spite of their positive attitude about Leon Trotsky they can not be considered to be “trotskyists.”
A secondary but central characteristic of “trotskyism” is its historical position on the role of the working class, national bourgeoisies and nationalism in general in the revolutionary struggle, especially in Third World countries, but also in Third World communities in the advanced capitalist countries. Trotsky’s position, generally adopted by trotskyist groups is that the working class is the principle revolutionary force in Third World countries as well as in the advanced countries and that both nationalism and the national bourgeoisie are necessarily reactionary forces. The position developed by the Comintern in the 1920’s and endorsed by both Soviet and Chinese Communists is that nationalism is often a progressive force in Third World countries and should be utilized to mobilize the masses of people to get rid of imperialism and begin a popular democratic (“new democratic”) revolution and further that the local capitalists who are oppressed by foreign imperialism can be allied with (but with the working class and peasantry playing the leading role in this alliance) in getting rid of imperialism. Once again the position of the PLP is identical to the classical trotskyist position on this question, while that of the WWF-YAWF is in conflict.
In general “trotskyism” is characterized by a dogmatic or rationalist theory of knowledge, inflexibility in strategy and tactics, hyper sectarianism in relations to other groups and overbearingness in their style of work. Rather than developing their theory and strategy through the dialectic of theory and practice in the manner described so well by Mao-Tse-tung’s On Practice, trotskyists read Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, or Stalin as a monk would read the Bible (as sacred dogma) then use it to criticize the inadequacies in the world, specifically the imperfect nature of various socialist countries and movements and the backwardness of the peasants, workers, and other progressive forces which do not live up to what they think Marx, Lenin, Trotsky or Stalin said about them. If countries and movements and classes do not live up to the ideal standards of Trotsky than so much the worse for them.
Trotskyists almost never learn from practice, their strategies and tactics almost never change as a result of trial and error and sum up. Instead changes in their positions occur through intellectualist dogmatic debate of the order of who is really loyal to the true Fourth International (or to the Third), who really has the correct interpretation of what Leon Trotsky (or Stalin) really really meant. Because of the rationalism of their theory of knowledge and the corresponding lack of and often distain for practice trotskyist groups constantly split into ever smaller groups all of which maintain hostile relations with all other trotskyist groups. The idea that correct thought, rather than current practice, will decide the issues dividing them is pervasive. Trotskyites often focus most of their energy on fighting each other rather than on actually organizing the working class. Because of their frequent obsession with ideological conversion, rather than with, mass struggles, trotskyists are often most overbearing in their attempts to badger people into endorsing their various lines. Out of fairness it must be noted that not all trotskyists groups share equally in this later categorizations, and hence that they are not defining characteristics of trotskyism. For example, the Socialist Workers Party works in many mass struggles (although some would argue only in order to recruit members) and the International Socialists seem to be rooted in the working class (if only because many of their former student members have taken factory jobs). The most prominent examples of pure trotskyist groups in the U.S. are the Spartacus League and the Progressive Labor Party.
The term social democracy covers a broad range of tendencies. What they have in common seems to be opposition to the Leninist conception of the party and either complete disagreement with watering down, or at least downplaying of the central role of the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Some social democrats are truly socialists who fully understand the class nature of capitalist society and have a full vision of socialism, others accept capitalist institutions and are concerned mainly with increasing the power of unions and expanding social welfare. Social Democrats can best be broken up into three rather distinct groups; right social democrats such as the European Social Democratic parties (e.g., Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Germany, the British Labor Party, etc.) and the American Social Democrats who endorse George Meany, Hubert Humphrey, Patrick Moynihan, Albert Shanker and the U.S, side in the Vietnamese war; center social democrats such as the Italian Socialist Party and the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee in the U.S. (with which Michael Harrington is associated) and the James Weinstein current in the New American Movement and the paper In These Times, and left social democrats (such as the contemporary followers of Rosa Luxemburg and Antonio Gramsci).
The right social democrats have nothing in common with Marxism except their ancient history and are equivalent to liberal democrats in the U.S. The major point of differentiation between right social democrats and liberal democrats is the especially vicious anti-communism of the former, derivative from the bitter struggles in the labor movement which they have often lost to the Communists. Center Social Democrats, while honestly believing in some kind of socialist alternative to capitalism reject the notion of the dictatorship of the proletariat and see a socialist transformation coming about gradually, without the need for military hegemony, through electoral and parliamentary processes. Their organizational forms are loose and they see no need for a cadre party. They too are often anti-communist, although they sometimes ally with Communists. Left Social Democrats share the Communist vision but differ from Communists principally in rejecting the necessity for a Leninist Party and in downplaying or neglecting the importance of the theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Left Social Democrats will usually admit when questioned that the revolutionary transformation will probably come down to a military struggle, but do not generally see this as an eventuality that should now be prepared for or emphasized in propaganda. They further see the post revolutionary period as a rather easy and not very dictatorial time in which a wide range of opinions and organizations will co-exist (in this respect their position is somewhat intermediate between those of the anarchists and Leninists). In place of a Leninist party they substitute a considerably looser mass organization which can probably coexist in leading the revolutionary struggle with other revolutionary organizations. Left social democrats, like Leninists, participate in the battle for reforms and like Leninists they do not believe that a gradual process of reforms focusing on parliamentary and electoral battles without acquiring military hegemony can produce a socialist revolution. Unlike center social democrats, they are not reformists.
Left-social democracy was a leading revolutionary current in Europe before the Russian Revolution (its principle figure and still leading theoretician being Rosa Luxemburg). The great success of Bolshevism in making revolution and building revolutionary movements almost drove left-social democracy from the arena of revolutionary Marxism. There has been a minor revival of left social democracy in the 1960’s in the advanced capitalist countries because of disillusionment with the Soviet Union, but it seems not to have acquired much of a mass base except perhaps in Australia (with the Communist Party). Some of the trends in the New American Movement and in similar organizations are generally left-social democratic, but not as yet fully consolidated. NAM also has strong center social-democratic, anarchist-syndicalist, and even Leninist tendencies as well. Given the proven superiority of Leninism, left-social democracy does not appear to have much of a future other than to help revitalize certain strategic and tactical notions of people like Luxemburg and Gramsci (to the benefit of the Leninist led working class movement).
The right social democratic trend does not appear to have any distinctive future either, since it no longer has any raison d’etre separate from the Democratic Party in the U.S. The sole reason for maintaining a social democratic identity in Europe is to hold working class support by a symbolic attachment to class struggle. No such symbolic function is served in the U.S., so right social democracy can be expected to remain moribund. It might be mentioned that there are center social democratic tendencies in many of the European Social Democratic Parties which have some potential for breaking off and establishing separate trends, e.g., the youth group of the German SPD, the section of the Swedish Social Democrats pushing for worker’s ownership of industry, the left wing of the British Labor Party, an important segment of the French Socialist Party, etc.
Central social democracy does appear to have a future and as a vital force can probably be referred to as “social democracy.” In Europe this trend is perhaps best represented in the Italian Socialist Party, somewhat in the French Socialist Party and perhaps to a degree in the Swedish Social Democratic Party. With the predominance of revisionism in the French, Spanish, Italian and other European Communist Parties the mainstream of these parties seems to be converging with the traditional center Social Democratic tradition on the same analysis, strategy and organizational forms. The alliance, between the Socialist and Communist Parties in France, Japan, Spain and Italy might well be taken to point to an eventual merger as fewer and fewer issues hold them apart. Strong minorities in the major European Communist Parties have resisted the reformist tendencies and can be expected to fight such a consolidation of centrist social democracy, and very likely split when and if they lose. In the U.S. there are numerous signs of a revitalization of center social democracy in such groups as Kinoy’s Mass Party of the People, Michael Harrington’s Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee and a tendency in the New American Movement (that close to James Weinstein’s and the journal Socialist Revolution), the supporters of the Tom Hayden campaign for Senate in California and James Weinstein’s new weekly In These Times and the Journal Radical America. That the mainstream of the C.P.U.S.A. differs from these forces primarily in its mechanical defense of the Soviet Union is becoming increasingly apparent. There is a very real possibility that a regroupment of center social democratic forces in the U.S. into a vital mass organization will pull many out of the C.P. perhaps even provoking a split in the organization. In a general politicization of the U.S. and activization of the masses we can expect a rooted social democratic party, whose origins come from a merger of the various organizations described above, to develop because they fill a political niche as an intermediate force between revolutionary Marxism, led by a Leninist party, and the fully capitalist parties.
The center social democratic tendency can be expected to vitalize in the U.S. as it did in Russia (with the Mensheviks) and in Western Europe in the pre- and post-World War I periods (with the Second International Parties) in the wake of a radicalization of the working class. It can be expected to become the principle competitor of the new Communist movement for hegemony in the working class and in all progressive struggles. The remnants of the tiny Trotskyist, Maoist, and other sects (composed of those that refuse to join the new Communist party) can be expected to remain irrelevant and to sink to even greater obscurity (although some of them will undoubtedly recruit some members) as the two historical forces in which there are room – a revolutionary communist party and a reformist social democratic party – grow, recruiting most of their vital, energetic, intelligent and honest cadre from the various sects and predecessor organizations. There is of course the possibility that in the short run two or even three major revolutionary communist organizations will grow establishing firm roots in mass struggles driving the smaller sects out and eventually merging into one organization only in the final stages of the revolutionary process.
The social basis for an emerging social democratic trend lies primarily in the better off segments of the working class, union leaders, petty bourgeois, intellectuals and white collar workers, all of which feel that they have something of a stake in the status quo and thus do not want to needlessly take risks. It can also be expected to recruit large numbers of workers on the basis of the natural conservatism of people and fear of the unknown, or put in another way, people who have not yet been convinced through their own experiences that all possibility for improvement has been exhausted in the present order and that drastic and sudden change is not only desirable but necessary.
Since the center social democratic trend can be expected to incorporate much of the working class and many left professionals and intelligencia who are honestly anti-capitalist it is clear that everything must be done by a revolutionary communist party to win it to, or hold it on the side of, working class revolution against capital through united front tactics (from above and below). It should be clear that if a vital and mass social democratic party exists a revolution will not succeed if it sides with the capitalists (as it did in Germany in the early 1920’s). As reformist as it might currently be, and as much as their leaders, might now be selling out the real interests of the workers, this party, if it arisen, has to be worked with in order to make sure it comes down on the right side when push comes to shove.
There is a convergence between the “revisionist” Marxist-Leninists, such as the predominant tendency in most Western European parties and the center social democratic tradition. Both agree on the possibility of a gradual transformation to socialism, both feel that military hegemony is not a necessary condition for transformation, and both accept loose mass forms of political organization. Since the term, “revisionist” has been so abused in its usage as any change in Marxist-Leninist theory, since it is inapplicable to center social democrats who are not a part of the Leninist tradition, and because the essence of “revisionism” lies in the rejection of the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat, it is better to use the term “reformism” when describing the tendency, that it has a more or less fully socialist vision and a class analysis of society but believes that a gradual/non-military transition to socialism is a real possibility.
There is considerable confusion about the use of the term “revisionism.” Some dogmatists would use it to mean any modification in the theory or strategy of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, or Mao Tse-tung. A consistent application of this definition would of course make Engels, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao Tse-tung all revisionists, since each made some modifications in the theory and strategy of all of their predecessors. By this definition, Mao would be a revisionist four times over for having modified the thought of Marx, of Engels, of Lenin and of Stalin. Especially on questions of what is the primary contradiction in the world, what is the role of the peasantry, the petty bourgeoisie and national bourgeoisie, what is the role of nationalism, what is the best form of the revolutionary organization and what is the nature of the post revolutionary transformation, Marxist thought has been in a continuing process of change and development since the time of Marx. (And indeed during the very course of Marx’s life, for his own thought also developed.) Marxism-Leninism does not drop from the sky. It is not received from Mt. Sinai like the word of God. Marxism is not a religious dogma. It is rather a body of analysis and strategy which is alive, constantly growing and changing as a result of its being used as a guide to action, and in part, found wanting.
There is a core of perhaps only five basic theoretical notions which are the essentials of Marxist analysis and, one basic organizational principle which defines Leninism. Anything else in the writings of Marx or Lenin, or in Engels, Stalin, Mao, or whoever, could well be modified, rejected, developed, etc. as. a result of practice without producing any “revision” in the essentials of Marxist-Leninism. The five essential elements of Marxist analysis are (1) Dialectical Materialism; the basic Marxist ontology which defines the world as an essential unity permeated with contradictions generally only one of which is principle at a given time and that sees qualitative change as inherent in things and caused by the internal contradictions; and the basic Marxist epistomology which sees knowledge developing as a result of the unity of theory and practice rather than in a purely rationalist or empiricist manner. (2) Historical Materialism; The understanding that all social institutions and historical processes are in the last analysis determined and structured by the logic of social relationships which in turn are determined by the logic of relations of production which are dominant in the society. Thus all social institutions and historical processes must be ultimately explained by their contribution to the logic of the mode of production or, to contradictions in the mode of production, or among different modes of productions. (3) Class Struggle; That since the decline of primitive communism and until the overthrow of the last class society the historical process and social institutions are permeated with the struggle between different classes (as defined by their relation to the means of production). Classes are the primary historical and institutional actors and thus an analysis of all major social struggles arid processes must be a class analysis of which class is acting on what other classes (4) The labor Theory of Value/The Theory of Surplus Value; Virtually all wealth in a class society is produced by the productive class which does not own the means of production, but which must produce for the owning class as a condition for its eating. The owning class always requires that the producing class produce more than is returned to it as the condition of its labor. Thus the wealth owned by the owning class is a result of the exploitation of the surplus value from the producing class. (5) The Dictatorship of The Proletariat; The state in all class societies tends to be a dictatorship of the owning class (or classes) and operates in the interest of the owning class against the interests of the producing class. No owning class ever gives up its control of its state peacefully. Thus, just as the rising capitalist class had to seize state control from the feudal forces, the proletariat, (and other oppressed classes) likewise must seize control of the state and fundamentally transform it into a proletarian state designed to reflect the will of the proletariat (and other oppressed classes and operate in their interests. Gradual transition to socialism and a transition without prior control of superior military force is an impossibility. Attempts to gradually implement socialism through parliamentary reforms are doomed to fail. An essential part of this notion is that the proletariat is, under modern conditions, the leading revolutionary agent (definitions of exactly what the proletariat is vary considerably).
Once a revolutionary transformation occurs it is necessary for the proletariat (together with other oppressed classes) to exercise a dictatorship (now for the first time in history of the vast majority over the small minority of ex-exploiters) which means that the old class of capitalists, landlords and their agents will have no political rights, while the proletariat and other oppressed classes will be the only ones whose interests are reflected in the state and who the state policies benefit.
The essence of Leninism is to: (a) reaffirm point (5) i.e., the centrality of the dictatorship of the proletariat against the prevailing “revisionism” of his time (e.g., Bernstein, Kautsky), and: (b) the organizational principles of the Marxist-Leninist party. The essentials of this organizational form, the sixth essential part of Marxism’ Leninism lies in the notion of iron discipline, full mobilization of political energies of all members, authentic internal democracy and an ongoing process of criticism-self-criticism which produces flexibility and increasingly more successful practice.
In summary only a basic modification in any of these six points entitles one to be called a “revisionist.” For example, neither acceptance nor rejection of either Stalin’s definition of what a nation is or agreement or disagreement with the Comintern position of 1928-1929 that there was a Black nation in the U.S. in the 1920’s or in the 1970’s has nothing whatsoever to do with “revisionism.”
Most of the actual focus of struggles about “revisionism,” whether in China in the 1960’s and 1970’s in Czechoslovakia in 1967-1968, in Italy and France in the 1970’s and in the Maoist challenge to the Soviet oriented Communist Parties, lies in the question of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat – around the question of whether or not a gradualist transformation to socialism can occur, and around whether or not a dictatorship over the old reactionary classes exercised by the proletariat and their allies after the revolution must occur. Thus historically, and today, the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat tends to be the cutting edge of revisionism. The corollary of the rejection of the notion of the dictatorship of the proletariat is normally a tendency to reject the other five basic aspects of Marxism-Leninism as well. Dialectics tends to be forgotten as “useless philosophical dogma,” historical materialism tends to be replaced with eclecticism, class struggle tends to become just one of many forces including inter class unity and national unity,, the theory of surplus value is glossed over while the contribution of capitalists to production is emphasized and the Leninist organization forms tend to disintegrate into traditional social democratic, loose, low energy, polycentric organizations.
As with the definition of “trotskyist” we must be careful to apply a materialist, not an idealist, definition of “revisionist.” It is quite possible as clearly occurred for example in the “Kautskyist” center of the German Social Democratic Party before World War I, and in many Western European Communist Parties in the 1960’s, for their programs to give official support to all six essential points listed above, including the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. However, in practice the organizations, as reflected in their popular agitation, daily press, involvement in parliament’s work in mass organizations, etc., acted as if a socialist transformation was to be brought about gradually and need not involve military hegemony. On the other hand it is possible to have an organization whose program does not give prominence to the theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat (as did many objectively revisionist parties), but in their daily work encourages the masses to rely on their own efforts and be prepared for an eventual military confrontation. It might well be wise for an organization, in order to enhance its mas3 work and discourage repression, not to prominently and proudly broadcast advocacy of violent revolution (as did the suicidal bombast of the Black Panthers, Venceremos, and the Weather Underground in the late 1960’s). Sloganeering is not necessary in order to prove that one is not revisionist. Instead it is necessary to patiently educate the masses as to the necessity of taking power into their own hands and the brutal response to be expected from the ruling class to such an attempt, and consequently quietly preparing the masses for such a possibility. The National Labor Federation seems to be taking such a tact.
A clear distinction should be made between the understanding that a dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary and the idea of the necessity of a violent and blood revolution. While the first is in fact a necessity of socialist revolution the second may or may not be the case. In fact although all successful socialist revolutions have involved dictatorships of the proletariat (or of the proletariat in conjunction with other classes) only a minority have in fact come to power through violent and bloody revolutions. The Communist led revolutions were violent and bloody in China, in Yugoslavia, in Albania, and in Vietnam (North and South). Communist led revolutions were not violent or bloody in Czechoslovakia in 1940 (and to the extent that they were, in fact legitimate popular revolutions, in Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria and Rumania in the late 1940’s as well). The Socialist revolution in Cuba in 1960-1961 was also, of course, a non-violent process. The Twenty Sixth of July movement which did fight a guerrilla war against Batista was not a socialist movement and had the support of almost all Cubans of all classes. The Socialist revolution did not occur until two years after the 26th of July movement came to power. The Bolshevik revolution in Russia in 1917 was also a mostly non-bloody transition with very few people being killed. The violence and bloodshed associated with the Bolshevik revolution occurred in 1919-1921 during the Civil War which was an attempt to liquidate the revolution. Likewise the Communist led revolution in North Korea occurred without a violent struggle.
What is central and essential in a revolutionary transformation then is not a bloody violent revolution, to maintain this is both historically faulty and dangerous – since it might provoke adventurism, scare workers away and needlessly call down repression. ”What is essential is military hegemony and the rapid and fundamental transformation of the state and economy. The reason for the peacefulness of the Czech revolution was the control by the Communists of the rank and file of the-army and the presence of the Red Army which together would, have squashed any attempt by the capitalist class ,to suppress the seizure of power by the Party. What was decisive in avoiding any significant amount of bloodshed in the Bolshevik revolution of 1917 was the strong organization of the Bolsheviks and their allies in the armed services which meant that the soldiers and sailors obeyed the orders of the Soviets rather than of their own commanders. Likewise, the non-violent transition in Cuba in 1960-1961 was a result of the 26th of July Movement wisely having disbanded the old Batista army and replacing it with the guerrilla army. As the case of the Allende regime in Chile shows, non-armed attempts to establish socialism must necessarily fail as the upper class will always utilize the means available to it rather than “peacefully” surrender its privileges. The only factor which will prevent the upper class from resorting to military force to, suppress popular revolutions is its inability to mobilize a military force which looks like it might have a chance of crushing the revolution. Organization within the military has historically been proven to be able to prevent such a ruling class reaction and hence to produce the very real possibility of a non-bloody transition.
The main danger for massive working class Communist parties such as those of France, Italy, and Japan in times of stability is “revisionism,” i.e., reformism. With a stable mass base of workers whose conditions of life are, showing slight improvement rather than deterioration, during stable periods, such a party is under pressure from its base to do something about the oppressions of capitalism. Unable to initiate the revolutionary struggle and faced with the absence of a rapid deterioration in the position of the working class, there is considerable pressure put on it to “do something.” To put forth a program and strategy that can meet the day-to-day needs of the working class. The abstract attribution of all problems to capitalism and the call for revolution is not enough. This would result in the isolation of the kind experienced by the S.L.P. in the U.S. The large party must put forth proposals for improvement in living standards, strengthening of unions, removal of sexual and racial discrimination, etc. If it does not it would gradually lose its support to those that do fight for the day-to-day Interests of the working class. But once it is committed to seriously fighting for the day-to-day interests; of the working class it can not easily refuse participation In a popular front type government which promises such reforms, by using the argument that reforms won’t work, we want socialism. To refuse to do so would betray the very real needs and struggles of workers who are not all convinced that such reforms are a chimera. Thus, even a revolutionary Communist party with massive support in a non-revolutionary period is necessarily sucked into parliamentary and reformist struggles. It has no real choice (unless it were willing to degenerate into a sect and lose its working class base). Further there is pressure to maximize one’s parliamentary delegation, secure parliamentary allies and maximize the probability of reforms being implemented once a party becomes seriously committed to fighting for victories in the worker’s day to day struggles. This pressure can and has led to a renunciation of basic Marxist principles, the abandonment of Leninist forms of organization and the loss of revolutionary will.
Revisionism is not a sin, but a process of degeneration inherent in capitalist society. The process of degeneration can be reversed in a party with a massive basis in the working class in times of revolutionary crisis where the growing felt misery of its base combined With the now obvious futility of reformism re-energizes revolutionary will; reconfirms revolutionary analysis and revitalizes the old revolutionary forms of organization. So long as a party is truly based in the working class, gives at least official endorsement to Marxist-Leninist traditions and remains at least somewhat democratic, the possibility for revolutionary revitalization is quite real and must be prompted by people inside and outside the party. The best cure for revisionism is a revolutionary crisis. The alternative is a shrinking in size of a Communist Party, its renunciation of the logic of reformism and its refusal to play the parliamentary game. This could only occur at great cost to its Working class base and its leading role in progressive struggles, and would prove a great boon to the social democratic party which would be expected to eagerly step in. The price might be worth paying in order to maintain a principled Marxist-Leninism and a truly revolutionary organization form which is prepared to go into action and rapidly expand in a period of revolutionary crisis. Such an organization might be able to play a leading role on the basis of its principled history in revolutionizing social democratic organizations and progressive struggles. On the other hand by surrendering leadership of mass struggles to social democrats it might find itself too isolated to be effective in such a crisis.
The revolutionary left is thus faced with a very real dilemma that Can not be papered over by slogans and facile denunciations of “revisionism” or “ultra-leftism. Somehow the revolutionary left must continue to actively and seriously participate in the battle for reforms without mitigating its revolutionary energy, analysis and organization. While honestly fighting for reforms within the system, it must resist the tendencies to compromise in order to facilitate the realization of reforms. It must continually stress the necessity for a dictatorship of the proletariat, the need for a rapid qualitative transformation into socialism and the necessity of gaining military hegemony.
The problems faced by a massive Communist Party in anon-revolutionary crisis can not be reduced to the simplistic anti-revisionist polemics so characteristic of tiny petty bourgeois based grouplets. Reformism is not a sickness, but rather the natural course of events under certain conditions. Revolutionaries must deal with it, not by moralizing, cursing and calling “revisionists” “cockroaches,” but rather by maintaining the integrity of Marxism-Leninists inside and outside the massive working class based parties, making the best of a bad situation, expanding their forces and preparing for the day when they will assume leadership of the revolutionary struggle, in a crisis period.
The term “petty-bourgeois” is thrown around extremely loosely to characterize opponents right, left, and center. The term is used in such a loose and performative way that many prefer to avoid it altogether as a categorization of political positions. However, the term does have a rather precise meaning. The petty bourgeoisie, because of its class experience and interests is characterized by (1) individualism and competitiveness which comes from the struggle to survive or get ahead engaged in by independent farmers, small shopkeepers, professionals, lower level managers, etc. Their strivings to be unique, outstanding, or get ahead at the expense of one’s fellows, which is induced by the laws of competitive markets for the independent petty-bourgeoisie and the techniques of promotion and control for the salaried petty-bourgeois, are manifested in petty bourgeois radicalism as well. The main manifestation of the individualism/competitiveness of the petty bourgeois on the revolutionary left are (1) anarchism: which elevates the individual and lack of discipline, both in regard to revolutionary organization and the post, revolutionary period, to principles; (2) trotskyism; which glories in sect creation and intranecine polemics; and; (3) sectarianism in general, which thrives on theoretical contest among small groups each with their theoretical leaders. The inherent arrogance and “I’m the greatest, you’re a cockroach syndrome” of sectarianism is the manifestation of petty bourgeois competitive individualism on the left.
Another distinctive characteristic of both the independent and employed petty bourgeoisie is their intermediate status between the capitalist class and working class. While in normal times this produces a moderate politics intermediate between the conservatism of the capitalists and the socialism of the working class, in times of crisis the petty bourgeoisie comes under great economic pressure from both the capitalist class which tries to reduce it to the status of workers and the working class which through its unions and parties fights back, often hurting the petty bourgeoisie as well as the bourgeoisie. In such times of crunch the petty bourgeoisie becomes militant and takes one of three courses, active support of the bourgeoisie, active support of the working class or active pursuit of an independent distinctively petty bourgeois fascist course. Often different segments of the class go in all three directions and often the main thrust of the class flips from one thing to another. Whether the mainstream of the petty bourgeoisie is allied with capital or with the working class, because of its intermediate status it is not a dependable ally. Thus a militance, even extremism, characterized by instability and desperate vacillation in seeking salvation, is characteristic of the petty bourgeois in a time of crisis, and further is an inherent characteristic of petty bourgeois revolutionaries. The ultra left revolutionary sentiments of the petty bourgeois can dissipate just as quickly as they are created, transforming themselves into another fad (eastern religion, drugs, etc.) cynicism or even ultra-rightist politics. Lenin understood this well:
... the small owner, the small master . . . who under capitalism suffers oppression and, very often, an incredibly acute and rapid deterioration in his conditions and ruin, easily goes to revolutionary extremes, but is incapable of perseverance, organization, discipline and steadfastness. The petty bourgeois, “driven to frenzy” by the horrors of capitalism is a social phenomenon which, like anarchism, is characteristic of all capitalist countries. The instability of such revolutionism, its barrenness, its liability to become swiftly transformed into submission, apathy, fantasy, and even a “frenzied” infatuation with one or another bourgeois “fad” – all this is a matter of common knowledge. (Left-Wing Communism)
The intellectual/ex-student strata of the petty bourgeoisie (many of whom drop out of their petty bourgeois class backgrounds and training to take working class jobs) have a third distinctive trait which is a property of their university training – i.e., virtuosity in dealing with abstract theory largely in a rationalistic and rhetorical manner. The removal of the intelligensia from the day-to-day life of the working class (which generates respect for empirical data and practice) is largely absent from the sheltered children of the petty bourgeoisie who tend to be outstanding college students before they become revolutionaries. The very valuable theoretical skills such students could bring to the revolution is often wasted in tiny sectarian groups which waste their venom on each other and on the really revolutionary organizations. This distinctive characteristic of petty bourgeois intellectuals is manifested in the strong tendency to dogmatism.
Petty bourgeois radicalism is thus shaped by the material life conditions of the petty bourgeoisie; competitive individualism, middling status which is being lost, and in the case of petty bourgeois intellectuals, theoretical virtuosity removed from practice. Petty bourgeois radicalism is thus characterized by sectarianism, adventurism and dogmatism as well as by instability. Thus it is in its roots the petty bourgeois backgrounds of its adherents that the ultimate causes of ultra-leftism, sectarianism, and dogmatism are to be found. This analysis is not to condemn the petty bourgeoisie, for they are a great reservoir of strength for revolutionary forces and provide necessary skills and resources to our movement. It is rather a call to petty bourgeois revolutionaries to question their isolation from the working class movement, and the sectarianism, ultra-leftism and dogmatism of their grouplets and to accept leadership from the working class whose interests they must come to articulate.
The working class has a very different life experience than the petty bourgeoisie. Its work experience generates solidarity rather than competitive individualism. To survive and get ahead in the working class militant unity as expressed in unions, strikes and mutual support are necessary, this is the opposite of the experience of shopkeepers, students and college teachers. The working class as a proletariat with no stake in society has a clear and unambivalent stake in socialist revolution, unlike the petty bourgeoisie that has some privilege and status to lose. Relative to what they had before, working class people do not lose as much as the petty bourgeois in economic crises and are better prepared to protect themselves. As a result working class radicalism is far more stable, consistent, reliable, thorough and unfrenzied than that of the petty bourgeoisie. Working class people who develop their consciousness in a far more empirical and practical manner than students, learn more from their experience and less from bocks than intellectuals, have a greater respect for practice and more of a distrust of abstract ideas, and thus tend more than the petty bourgeoisie to understand the worthlessness of ideas developed independently of practice. Working class radicalism thus tends to reject sectarianism, ultra-leftism and dogmatism.