Issued as an unpublished document: November 1978.
Transcription, Editing and Markup: Paul Saba
Copyright: This work is in the Public Domain under the Creative Commons Common Deed. You can freely copy, distribute and display this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit the Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line as your source, include the url to this work, and note any of the transcribers, editors & proofreaders above.
The debates between Irwin Silber and Clay Newlin are a positive development In the ADARCM (anti-dogmatist, anti-revisionist communist movement); they indicate that a large number of people are dealing with the pressing questions before our movement on a national level. Although many important points are being discussed within the context of these debates, the basic differences and underlying problems of our movement have not been identified or placed in a framework within which they can be resolved. At the S.F. debate, as well as in various polemics and position papers, the main difference has been presented as that between a fusion line and a theory line, represented by an emphasis on the development of political line. Both of these positions are essentially the same in that they deal with manifestations of our movement’s theoretical poverty rather than its fundamental lack of theory. This theoretical poverty is the underlying reason for the incorrect fusion and bourgeois political line of our movement.
By dealing with manifestations rather than root causes, Silber, Newlin and their respective organizations have engaged in ideological obscurantism: the use of ideological formulations that obscure the theoretical basis of phenomena.[1] An example of how both positions (fusion, political line) obscure the essential theoretical tasks facing our movement is seen in how they deal with the errors of the CPUSA. Both positions maintain, in essence, that the CPUSA was a revolutionary vanguard party until 1957 when revolutionary principles were openly abandoned. In fact, these principles had been abandoned in practice far earlier. It was due to the lack of theoretical development that party cadre were unprepared to analyze or challenge the role of bourgeois ideology in the party.
The CPUSA and the international communist movement was, and still is, to a large degree, trapped within the dogmatic-revisionist problematic. This represents the relationship between dogmatism and revisionism: in which they appear to be in contradiction, but are actually two elements of a contradiction, united in opposition to Marxist-Leninist theory and practice. Because dogmatism, the sterile, mechanical application of theory, cannot provide workable solutions to the movement’s pressing questions, revisionist practice and theory fill the void.
Until the relationship between dogmatism and revisionism is grasped and resolved, the same flip-flop between dogmatic theory and revisionist practice, which leads to revisionist theory, will continue. This is why we maintain that the fusion/political line formulation as put forward by the Guardian and OC (Organizing Committee for an Ideological Center) represent our movement’s entrapment in the same theoretical errors that have plagued us for the past fifty years or more.
Of course, Marxist-Leninist political line must be developed for fusion to take place correctly. Otherwise, what occurs is merely integration of communists with the working class, or worse, the fusion of the working class to bourgeois ideology in the guise of socialism. The same effects occur if political line is formulated on a basic theoretical weakness. Without the necessary tools (Marxist-Leninist theory and methodology) incorrect bourgeois ideas make their way into a party’s program and practices. Therefore it is imperative that the ADARCM come to grips with the nature of theoretical practice and what is meant by the primacy of theory. This does not mean the blind acceptance of theories from an earlier period tainted by dogmatism, economism and other deviations. What is needed is a critical study of these earlier theoretical works with the goal of developing a correct methodology, dialectical materialism, with which we can proceed in our theoretical tasks of developing a political line capable of uniting our movement and leading the working classes.
The question of theoretical tasks is closely related to our political practice, because political errors are a manifestation of theoretical errors. The opposite is also true, i.e., correct practice is the result of correct theory. Theoretical errors develop in the practical sense before they are enunciated in theory. Therefore, it is important to analyze an organization’s political work to draw out its theoretical essence and see if it corresponds to its proclaimed theories.
Political practice takes an internal and external form. Externally, political practice involves working with the masses and their organizations. It is essential, since this is where social theories are put into effect and tested. Deviations such as sectarianism, and economism make it impossible to develop political line "from and to" the masses. Internal political practice deals with a communist party’s organization and internal functioning. Historically, the principal inner-party errors have been ultra-democracy and bureaucratic centralism. Both of these errors create a situation in which cadre can have little or no effect on organizational questions or theoretical tasks, and the knowledge gained in external work cannot be utilized organizationally.
Without correct Marxist-Leninist theory, political practice will continue to make the same mistakes that it has in the past. On the other hand, without correct political practice, theoretical development is severely flawed. This relationship between theory and practice is one of the key theoretical questions that must be resolved if the U.S. communist movement is to move ahead, Correct fusion and development of political line both depend on the resolution of this question. The rectification of our theoretical weakness and past political errors depend upon clarifying the tasks before us and developing the theoretical basis necessary to move toward the formation of the anti-dogmatist, anti-revi3ionist communist party.
Chico [California] Collective
November 1978
[1] For further reading on ideological obscurantism see On the Transition to Socialism, Sweezy and Bettelheim, p. 20.