The formulation of fusion in general, whether conceived as the essence of party-building, or as the general task of M-L’s, consists of the notion of the merging (fusion) of the communist movement with that of the spontaneous working class movement. As stated, this concept is incomplete and misleading, since it is not a class analysis. A class analysis would formulate the question as the merging of a segment of the petty bourgeois intelligentsia (“the communists”) with a segment or strata of the working class (the “advanced workers”). It should be understood that the petty bourgeoisie is a social class.[1] Under the conditions of monopoly capitalism, a major function of this class is the production of bourgeois ideology. As such, this class is socially occupied with the intellectual tools and training to produce theory, As a result of the contradictions of monopoly capitalism, a segment of this class becomes radicalised and begins to produce, or engage in, M-L theory. This class, being a minority of the population, requires the proletariat in order to achieve its own emancipation as a class. Hence, the objective necessity for the fusion of the M—L’s with the working class movement. This is determined not only by the internal needs of the PB intelligentsia as a class (in terms of its own emancipation), but also in terms of the objective needs of the proletariat (in terms of its emancipation). This is the result of capitalism’s, and particularly monopoly capitalism’s, progressive division of labor and the corresponding social removal from the direct producers of the knowledge and intellectual training necessary for the reproduction of the means of production and the creation of an independent proletarian ideology, as well as the specific forms through which that knowledge is socially articulated (e.g., the educational system, specialisation, etc.). Hence, the Question of fusion can only be understood from the standpoint of a dialectical materialist analysis of modern monopoly capitalism, the class forms corresponding to it, and particularly the form it assumes in the U.S.
On the other hand, the class character of fusion must be theoretically distinguished from the actual process of fusion. This process consists of the merger or fusion of the revolutionary, or potentially revolutionary, strata of the two classes in question. In concrete terms, this means that the radicalised PB intelligentsia brings to the advanced workers (the potentially revolutionary strata of the working class) the knowledge of M—L (its content as historically construed) and the socially determined intellectual tools of independent theoretical production. As a result, not only do the advanced workers accept M—L as their theory and world-view, but begin, from the standpoint of the class as a whole, its own independent theoretical development. The winning of the advanced workers as a whole or in part results in the class putting forward, as it were, a segment of the class in the role of communist theoreticians, or as Gramsci put it, “organic intellectuals” of the working class. This represents the initial, and utterly critical, step in the process of the development of the proletariat as a class—for—itself, i.e., as a conscious revolutionary class, a class capable of being, in fact, a ruling class! For the PB intelligentsia, the question of genuine proletarian class stand translates into facilitating this process.
I think it is important here to go more deeply into the question of what constitutes an intellectual. For Gramsci, there are two types of intellectuals, the “traditional” intellectual (the ideological functionary of the ruling class, e.g., the bourgeoisie); and the “organic” intellectual (the intellectual of the insurgent class, e.g. the proletariat). Gramsci describes the former in the following way:
What we can do, for the moment, is to fix two major superstructural “levels”: the one that can be called “civil society”, that is the ensemble of organisms commonly called “private,” and that of “political society” or “the State”. These two levels correspond on the one hand to the function of “hegemony” which the dominant group (i.e., the ruling class, J.M.) exercises throughout society and on the other hand to that of ”direct domination” or command exercised through the State and “juridical” government. The functions in question are precisely organisational and connective (my emphasis, J.M.). The intellectuals are the dominant Group’s “deputies” exercising the subaltern functions of social hegemony and political government.[2]
On the other hand, the “organic intellectuals” are the “thinking and organising elements” of a fundamental social class, i.e., the working class. The organic intellectual articulates the needs and aspirations of a particular class, while remaining a part of that class. In a certain sense, both types of intellectual are “organic intellectuals” of a particular class. The question is, which class and whose interests do they articulate?
These are also questions for the radicalised PB intelligentsia. It is obvious that the working class requires its own “organic intellectuals” for its own emancipation. It is only the organic intellectual of the working class that can provide this “organisational and connective” function described above, as well as the ideological articulation of the aspirations and goals of the working class as a class-for—itself. Without the development of the working class as a class—for—itself, it must necessarily remain under the tutelage of another class whose own long term interests may or may not be in the interests of the working class (one result of this is that the possibility of the development of full-fledged communist society is indefinitely postponed). The development of the organic intellectual of the working class is the key to the self development of the class as a class—for-itself. It is this conscious element which truly brings to the historical stage the question of genuine working class emancipation, Therefore, the failure to correctly nose the problem of theory before the advanced workers on the part of the radicalised PB intelligentsia, means that the development of the organic intellectual of the working class will be crippled from the start. And as a result, the historical progression of the proletariat into a class—for—itself will be setback.
The majority’s concept of theoretical struggle nines together two distinct ideas: (l) theoretical production, as such; (2) the process through which theoretical production occurs. Theoretical production refers to the actual devising or creation of communist theories by communist theoreticians. This creation of theory is the end product of a process. The elements of this process include research (historical and theoretical), cognition, and concrete social investigation. From a general fusion perspective (i.e., fusion conceived as the general task of M-L’s) this social investigation of the communist theoretician is an integral part of that theoretician’s practical work within the class, i,e,, an integral part of his/hers efforts to fuse M-L with the class. In this sense only, the majority is correct. That is, the advanced workers participate in the theoretical process, in the course of their day to day struggles, as sources of information, experiences, etc., or as agents of empirical investigations. In this’ sense, the advanced workers, as simply advanced workers, are a critical factor in the “theoretical struggle.” However, while advanced workers in general may participate in the process of theoretical production, they can only produce theory to the extent that they are communists. In other words, the production (creation) of communist theory, regardless of the class origin of the “theorist,” requires an a priori understanding of M—L sufficient for the independent elaboration of that theory (this is not to say that participation by advanced workers in this process will not improve their theoretical understanding. To the contrary. But this is not the same as being a theorist). To suggest otherwise is to put oneself in the ludicrous position of advocating that communist theory be produced by non—communists! Such a conception is antithetical to the principles of M-L.
In addition, by confusing the issue of “theoretical struggle,” the majority position actually hinders the development of organic intellectuals of the working class. By confusing theoretical production -with the process by which theory is produced, the majority position goes a long way towards negating the possibility of the working class grasping M—L as its own. This is so because the creation of a communist current is more than simply the dissemination of socialist ideas among the advanced workers (even when they accept communist leadership), The very existence of a genuine communist current presupposes a much more significant process, namely, a qualitative advance in the self development of the working class, the development of the class into a class-for-itself. In order for this process to be a socially significant reality, the development of organic working class intellectuals is absolutely key! The majority view, by muddling the question of theoretical production in its formulation of “theoretical struggle,” fails to put to the working class the real extent and scope of our theoretical tasks, as well as the correct role of theory in communist practice. This objectively downplays the question of theory before the class, and thereby mitigates against the development of the organic intellectual of the working class. To put it another way, the PB intelligentsia fails in its historical mission of bringing to the working class the intellectual tools and training necessary for its (the working class’s) emancipation and development. In effect, the majority would bring the wrong tools and training to the advanced workers, thus further mystifying the revolutionary process for the class as a whole. As a result, the question of the essential content of the fusion of M—L with the working class is obscured. It is perhaps only coincidental that this formulation also reinforces, objectively, the hegemony of the PB intelligentsia within the communist movement, by downplaying the process by which the organic intellectual of the working class is created.
In practice, the way in which the majority poses this question is integrally connected to its concept of “theoretical struggle.” However, for the purposes of clarity, I will deal with this question separately.
What, if fact, is the objective content of this term? It does not mean that the advanced workers (who are mostly non-communist) strictly speaking, pose theoretical questions as each. This would require a sophisticated knowledge of M-L. It can only mean that the advanced workers, in the course of their day-to-day struggles, pose questions that must be “answered” (dealt with, analysed, etc.) by the communists from the standpoint of M-L theory, in order for the communists to lead these struggles and advance them to a higher level. This formulation is pretty straight forward. However, the question is not who poses the questions, but how the communists answer them. The ability to answer these questions correctly, and therefore to lead the struggle forward, depends upon the level of theoretical, development of the communist forces, so as to be able to correctly interpret these questions. It is the correct interpretation of these questions that in fact enables the M-L’s to lead the struggle In the proper direction. Conversely, without a sufficient level of theoretical development, the M-L’s will be incapable of leading these struggles forward.
This leads us, once again, to the question of the relationship between theory and practice. The majority, by tying the theoretical agenda so closely to the questions posed by the advanced workers, in practice limits the level of theoretical development among communists. This follows because, in fact, the questions posed by the advanced workers are equivalent to the questions posed by the spontaneous struggles of the working class in general. And comrades, these questions, by and large, are not communist questions. They are the questions that a working class dominated by bourgeois ideology put forward in their day-to-day struggles with capital, i.e., economism. Our ability to lead the working class out of this ideological trap necessitates that theoretical work go beyond the questions the working class is currently capable of posing. If we do not do this, we cannot lead the working class, except further into the swamp of bourgeois ideology.
On a more general level, the majority fails to grasp the point that the character of the theoretical questions posed by the advanced workers or the working class as a whole, is dependent upon the general level of communist and class consciousness within the class. More concretely, the theoretical questions posed by the working class are determined by: (a) the acuteness of the class struggle in a given period; (b) the extent of communist and class consciousness within the working class in a given period. So, as an example, during the current period class consciousness is at a minimal level while revolutionary consciousness is virtually non-existent. Therefore, the type of theoretical questions that the mass working class movement poses are fragmentary, and ambiguous. By way of contrast, the working class of Russia in 1917 bad a high degree of revolutionary and class consciousness, so the theoretical questions they posed were of a high order, i.e., the seizure of power and the creation of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Hence, the theoretical questions the working class movement poses for the communists, at any given period, is determined by the level of communist and class consciousness of the class during that period. Given the extremely low level that exists within the U.S. working class, the questions that it poses are necessarily limited. To so closely tie the theoretical agenda of M-L’s to the current level of development of the class, as the majority does, means that our own theoretical development will reflect this character, After all, theory is not simply a random collection of concepts, theory is a systematic, scientific world-view. To correctly understand any element of this system requires a deep and profound understanding of the system as a whole. Unfortunately, the majority view means that in practice, we deal primarily with the elements of a theoretical system, and only those elements posed by the advanced workers! In the absence of a process to develop this general theoretical system, we cannot correctly answer even those limited and fragmentary questions posed by the working class as it is presently constituted, let alone lead it to a higher level. (Of course, the theoretical development of the M-L’s is severely limited as well, thereby further hindering the process). Theory is a system and must be approached as such, that is, as an all-sided, creative theoretical elaboration. The advanced workers cannot do this for us. It is a responsibility that only communists can assume.
This automatically raises the question of what is the primary task during a given period: theoretical production or practical work, This becomes a judgment that the communists must make, based upon an analysis of the concrete situation. This is not simply a theoretical quibble; it is on important practical question for communists as it involves the division of labor within the communist forces. Of course, a situation might arise in which this division of labor is symmetrical in character, that is, the division of labor between theory and practice is about even. However, even if this is the case, it must be arrived at as the result of an analysis of the concrete situation, It cannot be an a priori formulation. Such a formulation would be idealist, not materialist. It is one thing to say, in general, that theory and practice exist in a relation of dialectical interdependence (which is what I think the majority means to say). It is quite another to suggest that the two are in a state of mutual equilibrium, that is, proceeding in tandem.
The major problem with the formulation of the communist current in embryo as the precondition to party formation is that there are no objective criteria for determining that the precondition in question has been reached. That is, fusion conceived as the general task of communists in all periods presupposes that a certain level of fusion will exist at the time of party formation. This is not a precondition, but a consequence of correct communist activity within the class. Obviously, the extent to which this activity is correct will have a direct bearing on the degree of fusion the is achieved prior to the formation of a party. But what has this process to do with preconditions for party formation? To suggest that a certain level of fusion must exist prior to the formation of a party, that is, a particular form of communist practice (fusion) must achieve a certain level of success, is to misunderstand the function of organisation in M—L practice. The function of organization, at whatever level, is to develop the communist forces such that they are capable of moving the struggle on to a higher level. This is true whether we are talking about a party, a pre-party organisation, or the OCIC. To put it another way, organisation cannot be conceived as a goal in itself, but as a tool, a social mechanism to advance the struggle. This is equally true for the fusion process. To put forward the view, a priori, that a “communist current in embryo” must be created as a precondition to party formation, is to objectively deny the role of organisation in M—L practice. In objective terms, the concept of a “communist current in embryo” can only mean a degree of fusion achieved with the class. It is not a quantifiable “step” or stage, with objectively determinable characteristics and boundaries, but is more correctly understood as an extremely fluid or elastic phase in a qualitatively distinguishable process. This “qualitatively distinguishable process” refers to the historical development of the working class as a class—for—itself, with the function of theory and political line clearly understood in their proper relation to this development. To pose this goal as a precondition to achieving a certain level of organisation (a party), is to deny the function of organisation in facilitating this goal. It is, whether the proponents of this view intend it or not, to downplay the role of organisation in communist political practice. At the same time, this error presupposes a more fundamental error: namely, the role of theory and political line in building communist organisation, and the role of communist organisation in facilitating correct (fusion) work within the working class.
But there is another problem here. The formation of a party is a determinate act, with definite characteristics. On the other hand, the “communist current in embryo” is not a definite concept, but is ill defined and vague. In fact, it is defined as a certain qualitative level in a relationship, So, in order for a party to be formed, a judgment will have to be made as to whether that level has been reached. Unfortunately, the criteria by which that judgment will be made is unclear. It has not been defined theoretically. Hence, there is a lot of room for subjectivity in that judgment. And given the fashion in which the fusionists downplay theory, I have doubts whether that judgment can be made in a principled way, even assuming that the concept of a “communist current in embryo” is a sufficient basis upon which to make the judgment to form a party. Personally, I don’t think so.
[1] An all-sided, dialectical materialist analysis of the contemporary petty bourgeoisie, its specific features, inner dynamics, etc., is an absolutely critical task and beyond the scope of this paper. However, I would like to raise a few points for consideration. Namely, that in the course of the development of the capitalist mode of production, along with the separation of the direct producers from the means of production, there also occurred, through the progressive division of labor, another separation, that is, the separation of the knowledge of the production process (as such; from the direct producers. In addition, this process presupposes the absence of the means to develop and extend this knowledge, and therefore the intellectual tools and training necessary for the creation of an independent proletarian ideology on the part of the direct producers. As a result, this “knowledge,” as well as its concurrent elaboration and development, has been socially situated in a specific social strata, the PB intelligentsia. Hence, the historical cause for the absence of the moans for independent theoretical production from the direct producers, as well as the fundamental motivation on the part of the radicalised PB intelligentsia for the fusion of M-L with the working class. In other words, the historical mission of the PB intelligentsia is to return to the direct producers the means, which it alone possesses, for the independent production of a proletarian ideology, which in turn is the fundamental “missing ingredient” in the transformation of the working class into a class—for—itself.
[2] All quotes in this section are taken from “The Intellectuals,” Selections From the Prison Notebooks, by Antonio Gramsci, p.5—12; International Publishers. 1975.