As conscious revolutionaries committed to socialist revolution in the US, we understand the general task of all M-L at all times, periods, and stages is to fuse scientific socialist: with the spontaneous working class movement. This general task occupies center stage of all communist activity throughout the entire course of the class struggle.
However, this understanding of our general task cannot provide us with a complete and focused picture of cur tasks in this particular period of the class struggle, i.e. understanding our general task is not enough. We must understand the primary or principal task in this period in which we find ourselves.
In order for the working class to overthrow the capitalist system and to become a conscious class force, the proletariat needs leadership–an advanced detachment which will provide the necessary ideological, political, and organizational leadership, i.e., a Marxist-Leninist party. Such a party has grasped the science of M-L, has elaborated program, strategy, and tactics for the US revolution. As an advanced detachment the party must strive to fuse its line with the spontaneous working class movement, because left to itself, that movement cannot rise to the level of socialist consciousness; likewise, the socialist movement left to itself is impotent..
Today, the working class has no such party. The CPUSA has sunk into revisionism and the recent attempts to form a viable anti-revisionist party have failed because of dogmatism and ultra-leftism. Thus, party building is the central task for M-L in this period.
In order to construct a genuine vanguard, we must break with the inherited legacy of the US communist movement–flunkeyism, dogmatism, and revisionism. Flunkeyism in the form of the CPUSA’s blind allegiance to the USSR and the “Three Worldist’s” allegiance to the CPC. Revisionism in the form of the abandonment of the revolutionary conceptual system and methodology in the name of “updating” M-L. And dogmatism–the process of transforming M-L into a lifeless abstraction; transforming M-L concepts and methodology from a living science into static and ossified platitudes, where experiences from one particular historical period are imposed on another. These deviations block the practice of M-L as a living science and continue to plague us today.
If we agree that party building is our central task in this period and fusion is our general task in all periods, them we must target our principal task that will lead to the formation of a genuine vanguard party. Such a party cannot be built in isolation from the class struggle; on the contrary, the party is built with the clear understanding that our general task is fusion and the party has only one purpose–to lead the class struggle of the proletariat.
The primary task for M-L which will both lead to party formation and push forward the fusion process is the struggle for revolutionary theory. “Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement.” Lenin’s words ring true. We cannot hope to break down the separation of the M-L movement from the spontaneous working class movement until the US communists “evolve” a theory of workers’ socialism applicable to the US.
With this understanding we propose the following party building line as an alternative to fusion–primacy of theory. By primacy of theory we mean that it is the lack of revolutionary theory which at this time is the key impediment to the party building process. Theoretical impoverishment and unclarity is both holding back the unity of M-L and the ability of the communists to demonstrate scientific socialism’s ability to lead and push forward the spontaneous movement.
Such a theory must be directed towards the concrete study of US society. It must speak to an overall conjunctural analysis of the crisis of Imperialism and it must show the way out of capitalism in the US.
By targeting the primacy of theory, this does not mean our work is a “subjective” process which takes place divorced from the actual class struggle or is based on Utopian conceptions. Theory, must speak to the actual needs of the working class movement. Hence, if we want to talk about the relationship between theory and practice on a philosophical level, of course for M-L (as opposed to idealists or Utopian socialists) practice is primary–or better stated, the theory must address the actual, practical realities or otherwise it is useless. Lenin stresses this point in his work What the Friends of the People Are and How They Fight The Social-Democrats. We will not bother to quote the last few pages of this work here, as it is quite lengthy. But we want to mention it here because this work is often cited to argue that practice is primary, not theory in this period. However, a careful reading of this section will show Lenin stresses the way theory and practice are part of a single process–that they cannot be separate from one another. He wrote this work as a polemic against the anti-Marxist intellectuals and Utopian socialists of the day who advocated theories which did not correspond to Russian reality.
Unless comrades want to make the argument that we are advocating Utopian socialism, we do not think comrades can argue that practice is primary in all periods. We are faced with a very practical question in this period–is it the lack of revolutionary theory or the lack of practice within the spontaneous working class movement that is primarily holding back the party building process? We think the answer is obvious. ot is in this sense that we say theory is primary. Our theory must address the concrete questions posed by the class struggle, but as Lenin says in What the Friends of the People Are...:
You cannot be an ideological leader without the above mentioned theoretical work, just as you cannot be one without directing this work to meet the needs of the cause, and without spreading the results of this theory among the workers and helping them to organize. (p. 3 On Building...; emphasis added)
We think this quote makes it perfectly clear. Theory must lead. Without theory, there is nothing to spread among the workers.
The development of program, strategy, and tactics for the US (or independent elaboration of M-L, if one prefers) is our primary task in this period of party building. We see the development of such a theory as having two aspects: 1) theoretical practice among the M-L and 2) the process of verification.
In order to develop a guiding theory, the M-L movement must develop the theoretical capacity of itself, equip itself with a working understanding of the science and method of M-L. It must critique the legacy of the international communist movement, particularly since the death of Lenin, in order to understand theoretically the various twists and turns of the international communist movement. This work is essential to breaking with revisionism and dogmatism. The M-L must make a conjunctural analysis of the national and international situation, and particularly a detailed class analysis of the US; we must also elaborate a concrete program, strategy, and tactics for the US revolution.
This process of theoretical practice is not a stageist or static process, but is more of a spiral process, with each aspect requiring and depending upon the other. Nor is our theory a series of disjointed positions on various questions such as the trade union question, race/national questions, etc. but rather comes out of an overall conjunctural analysis of the crisis of imperialism today.
If we are talking about making M-L a living science, any theoretical production must take place in the real, living world, as Lenin said. Otherwise, theoretical work becomes an intellectual and irrelevant exercise. But also, as Lenin said, we must “spread the results of this theory among the workers.” As such, as we develop our theories we must begin to test them in limited social practice–to ensure they correspond to the real world and are able to demonstrate their leading capacity. However, it would be idealist to think for one moment that our theories for the US revolution will be completely verified in the pre-party period, when no revolutionary conditions exist (as they did in Russia). To call for verification in the absence of a genera^ line and a party capable of putting it into practice is sheer folly. It will tend to limit our theory to pragmatic and immediate gratification. Unfortunately, the theoretical questions posed by the US are complex. It is our task to make a revolution in the heart of the world imperialist system and to win a working class which has a long history of anti-theoretical bias and an equally deep reformist tradition (paraphrased from Comrade Newlin’s Boston Speech). To call for our theory to be verified in direct practice before party formation establishes expectations which are unrealistic.
As such, we reject the notion of building a communist current as a pre-condition for party formation. As with fusion, the idea of a communist current has helped to combat the voluntarism of the dogmatist groups, but it has since turned into its opposite. It has falsely created a pre-condition. In attempting to combat the voluntarism of the dogmatist, it has created an over-reaction and established unrealistic pre-conditions. While the party cannot be built in isolation from the masses nor be based simply on the development of the “subjective” factor (the NNMLC has narrowly seen the “subjective” factor as referring only to the consciousness and organization of the present day communists. What is left out is the consciousness and organization of the working class.), party formation is necessarily a judgment–there will be no guarantees or assurances. The principal pre-condition is that our theory must be concrete an not abstract, and that it prove to be a beginning guide to action to both the M-L movement and the workers movement, i.e., that it begin to demonstrate its ability to lead and push forward the spontaneous movement in limited ways.
Our theoretical work is partially verified in the actual course of its production as it is rigorously evaluated in terms of M-L methodology and the summation of indirect experience of the international working class movement. In a period such as the one in which we find ourselves–a non-revolutionary period–a principal form of verification will be through the process of summation of indirect experience. Of course, work in the spontaneous movement is crucial, and we must “spread the results of our theory”, but testing of our theory for revolution is limited in the pre-party period.
While theoretical work is our primary task in this period, we see two important tasks also. While secondary, we give them importance because we see a dialectical relationship between our key task and other secondary tasks. These two tasks are 1) The struggle to bring M-L to the spontaneous working class and mass movements and 2) the development of M-L cadre.
We include this secondary task of bringing M-L to the spontaneous class struggle because even though we see theoretical work as the key task, we clearly understand that the struggle to develop influence and “spread the results of our theory”, even without a full theory and party, is crucial if we are to ground our theory in the actual class struggle and push forward the fusion process. Central to the struggle to making our theory a material force in the class struggle is the struggle to win the advanced workers to socialism.
We view advanced workers as having the following qualities:
a) advanced workers are those who play an advanced role in the class struggle; and b) advanced workers are those who have the beginnings of a broad class consciousness, who are able to see issues beyond their immediate situation, and who are potentially open to socialism. Advanced workers must have both qualities. A worker who just displays the first quality is simply a militant worker–someone with whom we work closely and try to move forward, but someone who is not advanced. A worker who only displays the second quality is not advanced, for what a person does in practice is a concrete test of their class consciousness.
Two final points on advanced workers. PWOC has put forward the notion that the advanced workers “lay the foundation” for our party, “raise the theoretical questions that our movement must address”, “are the prime verifiers of our theory”, etc. We reject these formulations. We find them to be a dogmatic application of Lenin’s writings. PWOC uses numerous quotes to back up these positions. Unfortunately, they leave out one crucial fact– advanced workers in Russia were already socialists! Advanced workers in the US will only play the role ascribed to them by the PWOC once they have been won to communism. What is true about the advanced workers in the US is that it is our task to develop theory which can demonstrate its leading character to the advanced and push forward their own process of development. We must struggle to win the advanced to socialism so they can play an integral role in the revolutionary process.
Connected to this point is the second point we would like to make about advanced workers. PWOC has stated that the theoretical struggle takes place among the communists an^ also in the class struggle, i.e. the theoretical struggle is primary over the economic and political struggle in the class. We disagree. Theoretical work takes place only among the conscious forces-the M-L. While theoretical work is not taken up in isolation from the actual class struggle and is tested in limited political practice among the masses, the theory itself is not developed by the working class. As Lenin said, revolutionary theory must be brought to the class from without:
We have said that there could not have been Social-Democratic consciousness among the workers. It would have to be brought to them from without. The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own efforts, is able to develop trade union consciousness, i.e. the conviction that it is necessary to combine in unions, fight the employers, and strive to compel the government to pass necessary labour legislation, etc. The theory of socialism grew out of the philosophic, historical, and economic theories elaborated by educated representatives of the propertied classes, by intellectuals...In Russia, the theoretical doctrine of Social Democracy arose altogether independently of the spontaneous growth of the working class movement... (What Is To Be Done?, IIA)
Lenin could, talk about the theoretical struggle taking place in the class because the advanced workers in Russia were already Social Democrats, as pointed out earlier. In the US, however, this is not the case and so the struggle to win advanced workers to M-L is essentially an ideological struggle–to win workers away from a bourgeois world outlook and class stand. Such a struggle is taken up in the course of the theoretical struggle of the conscious forces (i.e., the testing of lines and the struggle to bring M-L to the spontaneous struggle) but the struggle itself is ideological. As Lenin said, the task of the socialists is to be the ideological leaders of the proletariat. This struggle is waged through the spread of communist agitation and propaganda among the masses.
Promoting the incorrect notion that the theoretical struggle takes place among the advanced workers is dogmatism since advanced workers in the US are not already socialists. The theoretical struggle takes place only among the conscious forces. By muddling this point, the PWOC downplays the role of the conscious forces, incorrectly defines our theoretical tasks, and finally may lead to holding back the M-L to the immediate consciousness of the working class movement in search of pragmatic solutions.
The other secondary task in this period is the development of M-L cadre. In order to do communist work–both within the M-L movement and in the mass movement–cadre are the decisive factor once a political line ahs been elaborated. We cannot talk about party building without paying special attention to cadre development for our future party must be made up of “professional revolutionaries”.
The importance of this task is especially great for us here in the US who find ourselves in the most advanced capitalist country with the longest tradition of bourgeois ideology. As such, cadre must be rigorously trained to their greatest potential every step of the way–ideologically, politically, theoretically, and organizationally.
Cadre must be trained in the science and method of M-L. We must develop cadre with the ability to make independent analyses of situations. Cadre must be trained in combatting bourgeois ideology in both internal and external practice. Proletarian ideology and revolutionary morality must be developed and each cadre’s class stand pushed forward in every aspect of the work. Commitment and sacrifice to the working class and the revolution must be deepened every step of the way and cynicism and demoralization combatted.
Cadre must be armed with revolutionary theory as a guide to their action or otherwise they will fall prey to pragmatism and spontaneity. Cadre must be trained to be independent thinkers with the ability of actively contributing to the theoretical work of the movement and critique the work of the more advanced cadre. Cadre must also rigorously study the history of the international communist and working class movements.
Cadre must be developed to be political leaders of the class. This does not happen merely through the accumulation of experience in the class struggle. Conscious plans must be made to develop cadre as propagandists, agitators, and organizers–as communist leaders of the class struggle as opposed to reformist leaders, or mass activists concerned with the immediate situation, This includes the ability to develop independent analyses and become strategic and tactical thinkers, i.e., to get one’s bearings in the political struggle.
Cadre must be trained in basic forms of communist organization, with an understanding of the process of democratic centralism, i.e. how it facilitates the work of communists in both internal and external practice. This includes such things as criticism/self-criticism, discipline, accountability, unity of action, submitting to majority decisions, the role of leadership, etc. This also includes technical training, e.g. writing up reports, summarizing work etc.
In this period we are not advocating organizational training through the creation of mini-parties but rather training through some limited forms of communist organization. Local d-c organizations cannot supplant a national party and so the level of functioning is necessarily lower and more limited.
We are proposing an alternative party building line–primacy of theory–as a correct party building line for BAWOC . The line targets the primary task of theoretical work, and the secondary tasks of the struggle to bring M-L to the spontaneous class struggle and cadre development. We believe the line will lead to the formation of a viable party and ultimately the fusion of M-L to the spontaneous class movement.
As such, we do not see ourselves as abandoning the general task of M-L fusion. On the contrary, we think we are correctly internalizing the notion of fusion. We therefore reject the labels of “fusionists”, “rectifiers”, etc. We think pre-mature and false lines of demarcation are being drawn which is also helping to promote sectarian thinking in the ranks of the M-L movement.
Additionally, since we think all M-L who are striving to merge M-L with the workers movement are “fusionists”, we think a false dichotomy is being created which may lead to an unnecessary split in our movement–a split we can ill afford. What unites our movement is that we all define ourselves as party builders and we all say theory is primary, in one form or another. What divides us is our different understandings of what the primacy of theory means. We think we have begun to articulate a correct understanding in this paper.