As stated in the “Minority” Political Report Outline, we do not agree with the formulation that “fusion is the essence of party building”. We have not arrived at this conclusion easily. It reflects serious study and evaluation of the history of the communist movement, as well as our own history. We do not take the rejection of the PWOC’s party building line lightly–but we think our errors, as well as the errors of numerous others in the party building movement, cannot continue to be summed up as “an incorrect application of the fusion party building line.” As conscious people, these continuing errors and failures demand of us to go deeper– to seriously re-consider the fusion line itself–in order to get at the roots of the problem. As comrade Newlin himself stated, “There is a root error and if that error is not singled out, the diseased plant will continually send forth new shoots.” (Dogmatism ...the Root of Opportunism, 7/77)
In the first part of this section of the paper we will present our critique of the fusion party building line as articulated by the PWOC. We will then proceed to link our critique with an analysis of BAWOC’s history in order to show how our weaknesses were principally a result of the fusion line itself. We will conclude this section with an elaboration of our alternative party building line– primacy of theory.
We find the fusion party building line articulated by the PWOC to incorrectly pose the key tasks for Marxist-Leninists in this period. The PWOC has tried to validate its views with numerous references and passages from the Bolshevik experience and quotes from Lenin in order to bolster its line. There are a few problems with this method: 1) Russia was a semi-feudal, underdeveloped autocracy; the US is the most advanced capitalist country this world has ever known and is a bourgeois democracy 2) the RSDLP was built in a period of revolutionary upsurge among the masses; the US is in, and has been for some time, a non-revolutionary period 3) Significant numbers of advanced workers were socialists in Russia; there are few advanced workers who are socialists in the US. These are just a few of the differences. But even if we abstracted out these differences and looked at the Bolshevik experience, we still maintain PWOC has incorrectly posed fusion as the essence of party building.
The essence of something is that which determines its existence, i.e. its intrinsic qualities which set it apart from everything else. If fusion–the actual process of merging scientific socialism with the workers movement–continues after party formation (which even the “fusionists” agree with) how can it both be the essence of party building and also be the general task for M-L? This is where the fusion line breaks down.
Fusion is the general task of M-L or as Lenin stated, “the general question of the relationship of socialism to the working class movement.” (p. 119 On Building the Bolshevik Party). Lenin here is talking about the process of merging the two separate movements together, not about party building. But let us quote the whole passage:
In order to explain this error of Rabochaya Mysl we must clarify the general question of the relation of socialism to the working class movement. At first socialism and the working class movement existed separately in all the European countries. The workers struggled against the capitalists, they organized strikes and unions, while the socialists stood aside from the working class movement, formulated doctrines criticizing the contemporary capitalist bourgeois system of society “and demanding its replacement by another system, the higher socialist’ system. The separation of the working class movement and socialism gave rise to weakness and underdevelopment in each: the theories of the socialists, unfused with the workers’ struggle, remained nothing more than Utopias, good wishes that had not effect on real life; the working class movement remained petty, fragmented and did not acquire political significance, was not enlightened by the advanced science of the time. For this reason we see in all European countries a constantly growing urge to fuse socialism with the working class movement into a single Social Democratic movement. (p. 119 On Building... emphasis added)
This is usually one of the key passages the “fusionists” like to quote in order to back up their views. However, we need to read a little further in order to understand how Lenin is using the term fusion:
In Russia, too, socialism has been in existence for a long time, for many decades, standing aside from the struggle of the workers against the capitalists, aside from the workers strikes, etc. On the one hand, the socialists did not understand Marx’s theory, they thought it inapplicable to Russia; on the other hand, the Russian working class movement remained in a purely embryonic form...However, the Russian socialists did not hold to their undeveloped, fallacious theory. They went forward, accepted Marx’s teaching, and evolved a theory of workers’ socialism applicable to Russia–the theory of the Russian Social-Democrats... Since the foundation of Russian Social Democracy (1883) the Russian working class movement–in each of its broader manifestations–has been drawing closer to the Russian Social Democrats in an effort to merge with them. The founding of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party (in the spring of 1898) marked the biggest step forward towards this fusion. At the present time the principal task for all Russian socialists and all class conscious Russian workers is to strengthen this fusion, consolidate and organize the Social-Democratic Labor Party. (p. 120 On Building...; emphasis added)
Here Lenin clearly stated that fusion was only possible after /the Russian socialists had “accepted Marx’s teachings and evolved a theory of workers socialism applicable to Russia”. Lenin also unequivocably insists that fusion was not preliminary to party building; on the contrary, the creation of the Party was the “biggest step forward toward this fusion” and that fusion was the principal task after the party had already been founded.
We think a careful reading of these passages shows that instead of fusion being the essence of party building, a more correct understanding of fusion is the following: Fusion is the general task of M-L in all periods–before and after party formation. In this sense all M-L who are genuinely striving for socialist revolution–who do not view Marxism as an intellectual career–are “fusionists” or they are irrelevant. This is because, as Lenin stated, the two movements–the working class movement and the socialist movement–are impotent as long as they remain separated. But what is necessary is the development of a “workers’ socialism applicable” to the US and the founding of a genuine Party based on such a theory. At that point fusion becomes the primary or as Lenin put it the “principal task”. Up until then, the development of the correct theory is the principal task.
With this understanding, we regard ourselves–as well as those striving to merge M-L with the working class movement– as “fusionists”. We are not the first ones to put forward this understanding. Comrade Newlin states on page 3 of the Boston Speech, “It (fusion) is this general task which occupies center stage of all communist activity throughout the entire course of the class struggle right up until a distinct vanguard of communists is no longer needed.” Even with this fact, some may claim at this point that it is opportunist for us to call ourselves “fusionists” for our understanding differs from the PWOC’s. We have problems with this approach, for implicit in such a view is the idea that the only “genuine” fusionists are those that agree with the PWOC’s understanding of fusion–as if the PWOC had a patent on the only correct understanding of fusion. More seriously, such a view will necessarily lead to the PWOC saying that only those who hold their formulation of fusion are the genuine M-L and all others in the movement are opportunists. It’s one thing for Lenin and the Bolsheviks to expose Mensheviks as opportunists–it’s quite another for the PWOC to write everyone else out of the movement at this point in time. But then, this type of approach is not new in the anti-revisionist movement.
It is not enough for us to state that fusion is the general task of M-L, for an understanding of our general task does not provide us with an understanding of our particular task in this period. In each period–before and after party formation–there are particular tasks which will differ from one period to the next.
PWOC’s formulation of fusion does not provide us with an understanding of our particular tasks. It states that there are two interrelated and interdependent tasks which proceed in tandem– the independent elaboration of M-L and the winning of the advanced to communism. (**Note: PWOC has used this formulation along with many others. In fact, in the Boston Speech, Comrade Newlin can be found using such statements as, “In the present period the struggle for revolutionary theory plays a primary role”; “It is for this reason that we argue that political line is primary in party building. Without correct political line there can be no question of fusing communism to the class struggle of the proletariat.” By reading these, one might be lead to think Comrade Newlin agrees with primacy of theory. Regardless of what one thinks, we think the ambiguity of the fusion line is as clear as the sky is blue.). This formulation of the two tasks is not very helpful. As people who understand dialectics, we certainly are aware that all things are interrelated and interdependent–nothing exists in isolation. Such evenhandedness is exemplary, but fairly useless. As dialecticians, we also understand that in the development of a thing (be it a party or something else), there is always something that is playing a primary or leading role. This something is not permanent or static, but there is always something that plays a leading role. As such, the formulation “in tandem” does not provide us with a focused understanding of what’s happening.
This formulation is further flawed because PWOC is defining the word fusion one way while it is commonly used by revolutionaries, including Lenin in the quote above, in quite another way. PWOC defines fusion as the two tasks while Lenin used it to refer to the merging process of the two separate movements. He also clearly stated that it was only when the Russian socialists went forward, accepted Marx’s teaching, and evolved a theory of workers socialism applicable to Russia that it was possible to draw the two movements closer together in an effort to merge them.
By mushing the two tasks together, it has led to theoretical confusion and backwardness, exemplified in the lines of PSO, SOC and others. These comrades have not simply incorrectly applied a correct line, but the deviation is rooted in the line itself. The PSO’s pamphlet on party building is the most damaging when they articulate the following four key tasks in this period: 1) Deepen ties within the working class; 2) Develop communist cadre; 3) Initiate and activate local communist organizations; and 4) Build a national organization. The task of developing a theory of workers socialism applicable to the US does not even appear as a distinct and central task–only as a part of the work of building a national organization. SOC’s view towards the capabilities of a local d-c organization in this period also obviously shows a lack of understanding of our theoretical tasks. There are other examples of backwardness on the question of theory–SUB, BWM, etc. How many times will it take before it becomes clear that the backwardness on the question on the importance and role of theory is attributable to the fusion line?
While downplaying our theoretical tasks, the fusion line has played an important and positive role in combatting the key deviation on party building line by the dogmatists–voluntarism. The fusion line has served a very positive purpose by showing that party formation is not something separate from the actual class struggle or isolated from it, nor can party formation be reduced to an illusion whereby the consciousness of the “revolutionaries” is substituted for that of the masses. Used in this way, which is the way Lenin used it, the interjection of a correct understanding of fusion as the general task of M-L is invaluable in combatting voluntarism.
However, the positive effect has now turned into its opposite,. The formulation “fusion as the essence of party building” has incorrectly posed a pre-condition for the holding of a party congress. Ultimately, the vanguard party must include the advanced workers, but the formation of a party is not synonymous with a developed vanguard. Party formation in non-revolutionary conditions (as in the US) cannot be made synonymous with a fully developed vanguard. If the two are made synonymous, the party congress will have to wait until revolutionary conditions exist. How else will we know our theory is correct until it is tested in a period of revolutionary upsurge? This is the logical conclusion one must draw from the fusion line. However, we cannot dogmatically read the Bolshevik experience without noting the fact that a concrete analysis of concrete conditions shows a very different picture. We need to develop a theory of workers’ socialism applicable to the US and such a theory must begin to demonstrate its ability to lead and push forward the spontaneous movements. But to demand a vanguard relationship in the absence of revolutionary conditions as a pre-condition is to falsely create an illusion.
Given we think the key task for M-L in this period is the development of revolutionary theory (or an independent elaboration of M-L, if one prefers), our critique of the fusion line must address its contribution to pushing forward the theoretical development of the movement as a whole. Our view is that outside of some of the work of the PWOC, the fusion line has been unable to push forward the theoretical development of the movement–on the contrary, it has led to theoretical stagnation as “fusionists” tend to get submerged in the immediate class struggle.
The fusion line has also incorrectly posed our theoretical tasks. It has led to a narrowing and simplifying of our theoretical tasks with such formulations as “the advanced workers will raise the theoretical questions that our movement must address.” We disagree with this formulation. We think it is incorrect because theoretical tasks are posed by the class struggle and through the M-L’s understanding of the world based on a concrete analysis of concrete conditions. Unfortunately, because the PWOC tends to dogmatically apply the Bolshevik experience, it fails to maintain this basic view towards M-L theory. Why? Because it is one thing for Lenin to talk about the advanced workers posing the theoretical tasks in Russia--the advanced workers in Russia were already socialists!
Nevertheless, everyone knows that the working class movement of the nineties acquired an extensive political significance. This was due to the fret that the advanced workers, as always and everywhere, determined the character of the movement, and they were followed by their ability to serve the cause of the working class, because they proved able to win the full confidence of the masses. Those advanced workers were Social Democrats; many even took a personal part in the disputes between the Narodnaya Volya adherents and the Social Democrats they typified the transition of the Russian revolutionary movement from peasant and conspiratorial socialism to working class socialism. (p. 122 On Building...; emphasis added)
On the one hand, PWOC breaks with Lenin’s definition of advanced workers (correctly, we might add), but then maintains the same role for them as Lenin did. This is incorrect. Because the advanced workers in the US are not socialists, our tasks are different. For us, our theoretical tasks are posed by the international communist and working class movements which is analyzed by the M-L. To narrow our theoretical tasks to the advanced workers in the US is to dangerously pose our theoretical tasks in terms of the present consciousness dominating the working class movement. Such a view will tend towards empiricism and pragmatism.
We also think the formulation of the PWOC that the theoretical struggle takes place among the M-L and among the advanced workers is also incorrect for the same reason–it is dogmatically applying what Lenin said forgetting one crucial fact–the advanced workers in Russia were already socialists! Any sober, concrete analysis of concrete conditions would show that we cannot dogmatically duplicate the RSDLF experience. Of course, the struggle for revolutionary theory is an activity that takes place in the course of the actual class struggle and answers actual questions (i.e. it is not a matter of intellectual masturbation) but it is an activity that takes place among the conscious forces nonetheless. (More on this point later)
The fusion line has also tended to downplay the independent, creative, and protracted nature of our theoretical tasks. On the one hand, it has called for an independent elaboration while on the other it tends to dogmatically apply the Bolshevik experience (as shown above) and also borrows heavily from the CPUSA of the 30’s (as demonstrated in their Trade Union pamphlet), which was not a period of the struggle for party formation. The party already existed. (A former member of the CPUSA once told me the most creative thing about the Trade Union pamphlet was the cover!) The positive aspect of the fusion line is that it has stressed the importance of revitalizing the positive legacy of the US communist movement while the anti-revisionist movement to date has tended to separate itself from the past.
But instead of promoting independent theoretical work, the fusion line has promoted the building of numerous local d-c organizations which place their ties with the class primary over theoretical work and the effort to unite M-L. Anti-“intellectualism” has turned into an anti-theoretical attitude. Now the PWOC is trying to undue this situation through the creation of the OC, i.e. placing the task of uniting M-L and centralizing the ideological struggle at center stage. However, because the fusion line has been training cadre in the movement in such a way as to downplay the importance of this work, the OC has run into snags such as SOC and others, who are trying to implement the fusion line as promulgated by the PWOC. In fact, the initial view was that the OC would turn into a national fusion pre-party itself! Now the SC is unfolding the campaign against federationism to try to undue the work done by the fusion line which created the federationist mentality in the first place.
For all these reasons and more, which we will further elaborate in part C of this section, we reject the formulation “fusion is the essence of party building” as a viable party building line. Fusion is the general task of M-L while the struggle for “a theory of workers’ socialism applicable to the US is the particular and principal task for M-L in this period.