Recognition of the central importance of party building is a common feature of the various tendencies which make up the anti-dogmatist, anti-revisionist communist movement. Yet serious differences become apparent as soon as one inquires about the meaning of party building for the various tendencies which are struggling to practice it.
The problem of defining the present period or stage of party building illustrates the divergent tendencies within the anti-dogmatist, anti-revisionist communist movement. Defining the present period or stage means accurately characterizing the state of the party building forces, pinpointing their principal weakness, and defining the key strategic task, the successful completion of which will secure and advance the movement and at the same time make possible the successful completion of the movement’s other, less important tasks.
One tendency in the anti-dogmatist, anti-revisionist communist movement, the majority, defines the present period as one in which the anti-dogmatist forces on the one hand, and the dogmatist sects on the other, are two wings of the same anti-revisionist ‥new communist movement”. This tendency believes that the principal contradiction within the movement is the contradiction between dogmatism and anti-dogmatism. For them, the key task necessary to overcome this contradiction is the struggle against dogmatism in theory and practice. This tendency also believes that the principal weakness of the movement is its isolation from the working class. They argue that the key task necessary to overcome this isolation is fusion, the successful practice of which will fight dogmatism and aid in the completion of other tasks. So far, however, this tendency has not theoretically articulated the relationship between these two tasks (anti-dogmatism; fusion) except to state that they are somehow related.
The other tendency, the minority of which we are a part, defines the present period differently. It states that the view which holds to a single “new communist movement” is dated; it corresponded to the previous period when our forces were only just beginning to distinguish themselves from the dogmatist sects. Today that process has developed to the point that an anti-dogmatist, anti-revisionist communist movement has consolidated itself, with its own dynamic, its own forces and its own principal contradiction. This principal contradiction is between the economist/empiricist view and the Marxist-Leninist view, although neither viewpoint has either fully developed or fully crystallized in any one organization or group of organizations. This is a contradiction whose effects present themselves within and without our movement. Within our movement economism/empiricism has helped to perpetuate localism and a contempt for theory as well as economist mass work disguised (or misunderstood) as fusion. Without our movement it has blocked the transformation of trade union militants into advanced Marxist revolutionaries and thus has blocked the basis for eventual correct communist fusion. Economism/empiricism has also rendered the struggle against dogmatism ineffectual not only preventing us from grasping Marxist-Leninist theory, but also by limiting our ability to attract honest forces which remain ensnared in the dogmatist movement.
Our tendency argues that the key strategic task necessary to overcome the weakness of our movement is the development of Marxist-Leninist theory and its national practice and dissemination. The successful development of this theory will not only defeat economism/empiricism but it will also serve to develop advanced workers of a socialist type. This goal is also aided by pre-fusion mass work; the participation of communists alongside workers in their economic, political and ideological struggles. This work is preliminary to fusion and a necessary part of it. But it will not become fusion work until the communist movement has the theory and the program which alone can serve as the basis from which to fuse real advanced workers with the communist movement. These two fundamentally different approaches to part building can be briefly summarized in the following two-line struggles.
1) The Marxist-Leninist principles needed for communist unity and a program for the new party.
One line maintains that these principles already exist.
The other line insists that these principles have yet to be produced through the struggles to unite Marxist-Leninists, to restore the revolutionary character of Marxism-Leninism, and to master American reality. This will entail a difficult and protracted process of theoretical practice.
2) The primary task of party building in this period.
One line holds that participation in the spontaneous economic struggles of the workers should be the primary form of party building now.
The other line holds that theoretical practice and struggle are the key tasks.
3) The nature of the fusion process and the definition of advanced workers.
One line holds that fusion is the joining of communists with the workers’ movement. This line defines trade union militants as advanced workers.
The other line holds that fusion is the coming together of an organization of communists and advanced workers of the socialist type based on unity in Marxist-Leninist theory. This line maintains that a break with bourgeois ideology is inherent in the concept of advanced workers of the socialist type (including a break with the most “working class” form of bourgeois ideology—trade unionism).
4) The relation of fusion to the party building process.
One line holds that fusion must be sufficiently advanced before party building is possible.
The other line holds that economist fusion will not lead to the building of a genuine communist party. It insists that the formation of the party is the greatest step towards genuine fusion.
5) The attitude of communists toward the historical example of the Communist Party (USA).
One line holds as a model the practice and theory of the Communist Party (USA) in the 1930’s.
Others insist that a genuine Communist Party can be built only on new foundations and on an analysis which, while recognizing the positive contributions of the Communist Party (USA), also recognizes its fundamental failures.
6) The recognition of the ideological dangers threatening our movement.
One line sees only dogmatism as a threat.
The other recognizes that besides dogmatism there exist the dangers posed by economism and empiricism.
* * *
Taken in isolation from one another, any one of these struggles has only limited importance. Taken together, however, they constitute two qualitatively different approaches to the current tasks of the party building movement. The first approach emphasizes economic struggles, relies on fusion with trade union militants, downplays theory, and worships the pre-1957 Communist Party (USA). Even a passing knowledge of the early years of the “new communist movement” will show that this first, approach is identical (with the exception of opposition to dogmatism) with the party building conception of the Revolutionary Union, October League, and so forth. Today, this assessment of the party building tasks continues to be put forward in the anti-dogmatist, anti-revisionist communist movement by many organizations, including those grouped in the trend.
Can this same conception now be refurbished minus its dogmatist shell? Or is it not essentially an erroneous approach to the question of constructing a genuine communist party? We stand for a clean break with dogmatism: not just on the international situation, or on the black national question, but more importantly, on the party building question as well. Any party building plan, and any assessment of the current tasks of party building which do not make such a break are doomed to repeat the errors which destroyed the dogmatist movement. Therefore, these remarks are not merely reflections of minor differences. They go to the heart of the debate on the tasks of party-building in the present period.