Issued: September 18, 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.
EROL Note: The authors of this article subsequently went on to create, first the Boston Theoretical Review Editorial Board, then the Red Boston Study Group and later the Boston Political Collective (Marxist-Leninist).
Theoretical work is primary in our party building work today. (Fan the Flames, March 3, 1978)
This phrase, however often quoted and repeated, must be taken seriously as our guiding line. This theoretical work is not done by engaging in more and more mass work (external political practice), but rather by focusing on internal political practice, that is, cadre development and theoretical production. The Guardian has expressed this position in Fan the Flames during the past year and a half; the Clubs were founded to carry through and develop this line by putting it into practice. Yet, since the time the Guardian articulated this position, and after one full year of Club activity, where do we find ourselves in terms of either our input into the development of the party building movement or of the development of the cadre and theory needed for that movement?
“Theoretical work is primary in the present period” is not a mere platitude or theoretical premise to which we pay our dues; rather it is a political line, our guiding political line. This means that this line must guide our practice at all times during this period in determining the tasks confronting us, how they must be approached and the nature of the external political practice to be undertaken at the present time. We believe this line has not been put into practice; it is not functioning as our political line, either in the Guardian or in the Clubs.
There are a multitude of objective factors, many differences among comrades, and the prevailing attitude of liberalism in the Club that we believe have effectively blocked implementation of the tasks the Guardian and we ourselves have set before us. Consequently we are convinced that we must leave the Club in order to aid in carrying out this line. Naturally we are extremely reluctant to take this path, especially given this history of splits in our movement. Moreover we still believe we have a fundamental agreement with the line espoused by the Guardian. Yet as Lenin pointed out, people must be judged not by their words but by their deeds; that is, how the correct line has been (or has failed to be) carried out.
The Boston Guardian Club has functioned in a purely liberal manner dominated by an emphasis on mass work. To some, this is a harsh statement but we believe it to be accurate. From the beginning there has been no full discussion of our basis of unity as a communist organization. The Ten Points was assumed to constitute that basis, based on individual interviews with leadership prior to the Club’s formation. Yet, as some in leadership have even told us, these Ten Points (and even the 29 Points) do not include our guiding line on the primacy of theoretical work; i.e. even people who hold that mass work is primary in the present period can join the Club.
Complementing this was the failure to discuss each member’s reasons for joining the Club. As subsequent discussions and the few struggles have shown, different members still adhere to different reasons and priorities for the Club. For all of us simply to agree that party building is the main task is insufficient. From our viewpoint, it seems that some comrades simply agree with the line of party building in general; some agree with the theory as primary line although to varying decrees and with varying interpretations; some see mass work as the primary way to build the party. In addition, other people see the club primarily as a supportive affiliate of the Guardian as the best independent anti-imperialist newsweekly.
Each of these views would be fine and maintainable if the Clubs were not supposed to be a communist organization built on the concept practice of unity-struggle-unity. As stated above, the initial unity was assumed yet not really established. On that shaky foundation there has been an extreme aversion to struggle within the Club, despite serious differences on fundamental points.
For example, our discussion of Point 1 of the 29 Points demonstrates that some comrades hold to certain non-Marxist concepts related to Marxist science and philosophy. Those views were only minimally countered and agreement on these basics was not required before our higher “unity” was reached. Yet what kind of theoretical work can be accomplished with such different and incompatible views of the fundamental premises? Without such a foundation, a communist organization can not be built. If such a foundation does not exist, we must first struggle to build it before moving on to other issues. (This is not to be taken as an assertion of the need for agreement on modern advances on these issues, rather what we are talking about is basic Marxism.)
The objective basis and result of such a lack of struggle is pure liberalism as manifested in toleration – toleration of almost any political difference as long as one does the mass/support work. At various times quite different and contradictory views have been raised on a variety of issues. Nothing in the Club nor in our method of study or discussion required that these views be elaborated, explained or discussed in detail. They were seen as issues which were not important enough to be struggled over. Instead they were simply looked on as other views within our organization and then dropped as there were other more “pressing” matters to attend to. Unity was once again to be maintained at the lowest level.
This is an absolute abdication of the obligation to form a strong, coherent theoretical/ideological basis for a communist organization. “To touch on the matter lightly instead of going into it thoroughly so as to keep on good terms,” “to reject ideological struggle and stand for unprincipled peace,” “to hear incorrect views with rebutting them” are all manifestations of liberalism noted by Mao (“Combat Liberalism”). As he states, “The result is that both the individual and the organization are harmed.”
Most fundamentally it has been the lack of discussion and struggle to unity over our line regarding the primary of theory – a line which we feel many comrades do not agree with – that has been disturbing. The one or two sessions we have devoted to this have led us nowhere in terms Of our unity or even in terms of understanding one another’s position. Despite our constant pushing for such a discussion and despite our writing a 14 page paper, this discussion/struggle has not occurred. Our document was never replied to individually or organizationally and our discussions with leadership on the necessity of this struggle seem to have fallen on deaf ears. Whether we like it or not, the objective result of this has been to discourage theoretical production, debate and druggie not only on this issue but around almost every theoretical/ideological issue. Ultimately there seems to be little desire on most every comrade ’s part to even begin a thorough going discussion of the topic.
Part of the unwillingness to struggle can be attributed to liberalism in our organizational practice. Part of it may be due to the unequal level of development of the Club members. Yet another part of it lies in the differing conception of theory among the Club members. We have touched on the first point here, the latter two points will be discussed below.
Finally many comrades in the Club have failed to shoulder the discipline to fully and equally participate. (Hence any of our statements as to the views held by the various Club members are necessarily more speculative than concrete. If there had been a fuller expression of views in past discussions, we’d all be in a better position today to judge what path the Club is taking and whether or not we could reach unity.) Various members have raised this a number of times but a liberal rap group ethos has prevailed – the “talkers” should not oppress the “non-talkers” by imposing their style of participation. This is not a rap group; listening is only half of participation and the passive half at that. Important ideological discussions in the Club severely suffer when dominated and resolved on the basis of tie “talkers” opinions. Once again a basis for unity has been undercut.
Proceeding without this basis of unity and without this struggle over our line, an immediate need was felt when the Club was founded to “get involved” in mass work. One of the reasons for this push was the frustrating discussions we were having on methodology and ML principles. It was felt that by engaging in and leading mass work, we could unify ourselves. This view emphasizes localist practice instead of principled unity and the foundation of our organization; instead of unifying around principles and a program guiding the determination of our key political tasks, it was assumed that the struggle over how to work in the UMW support committee etc. would bring us together. It was also felt that we would not build any credibility as a political organization if we were not immediately visible. Further, aside from this pragmatic/spontaneist approach the quality of our intervention is mass organizations was more that of self-proclaimed ML’s than that of ML’s who knew how to lead in a communist way. Regarding this latter point, we should not be understood as condemning Club members for an underdeveloped leadership capacity; this is in fact a reflection of the state of virtually the entire communist movement. Naturally, then, the point is to scientifically develop ourselves as communist cadre and leaders; however, in this period, this is not to be accomplished primarily through pragmatic/spontaneist intervention in the class struggle at the mass level but through our ideological/theoretical development. As Lenin states, only the most advanced theory (and, we may add, advanced cadre): can truly lead the workers movement. (What Is to Be Done?)
The emphasis on mass work is built into our organization. The Guardian exists as a newspaper in great financial need. A newspaper as important to the Left as the Guardian requires that a certain amount of the Club’s time and energy automatically be devoted to support work. On top of this, Club members wanted to do “political” work in Boston (on contradistinction to theoretical work and support work which were not considered political). This meant that two large chunks of time, energy, and resources were already given over to external political practice before we even approached our “primary” task.
The result has been the denegation of the role of study, cadre development, and theoretical production, with Guardian support work objectively becoming our unifying principle and line. Thus circulation, fundraising, the Bureau, the 30th anniversary, and southern Africa work all pre-empt our determined primary emphasis. As Irwin Silber himself stated, “In its more subtle form, pragmatism acknowledges the importance of theoretical work but is constantly finding pressing political reasons for not taking it up or giving it only minimal consideration.” (Fan the Flames, May 17, 1978)
In fact, Club leadership has recently acknowledged this problem and is attempting to rectify it. It has been proposed that more emphasis be placed on study and less on mass work. This is definitely a step forward, and we support it. Yet what will this new emphasis mean? Would it mean spending more time on education at meetings and not considering a new area of mass work right away? If so, this is not enough. One, because Club members are already committed to a great deal of ongoing mass work which would continue along with new fundraising and circulation plans. Two, there would have to be a real commitment on the part of each member to participate more fully in discussions, and to struggle things out in order to reach a solid basis of unity. But most importantly, it doesn’t address the basis of our so-called theoretical work: the 29 points study plan.
We feel that the study guide itself has many problems and does not answer the needs of the club to build cadre, and to begin to do theoretical work.
By the time we finish the 29 points, two years will have passed since the Clubs were founded. We will then find ourselves having done much mass work, and having completed a quick run-through of almost every major question a party (or pre-party organization) will have to face on its founding. During this two year period the party building movement will have been proceeding basically without us.
In our opinion, the 29 points study guide is not the theoretical work required by today’s conditions. The reading materials provide a very incomplete and schematic basis for approaching the vast questions posed by the 29 points. While some of the readings are quite good, they consist mostly of excerpts from the classics and Guardian articles. Few contemporary documents from our own movement, the anti-dogmatist/ anti-revisionist trend (e.g. EL Comite, SUB, Ann Arbor, TMLC, etc.) are included in the required reading, whereas documents from groups clearly outside the party building movement (e.g. MPOC, NAM, PFOC) are included. While the latter documents are useful to study, it would seem at least as important to include many more documents from within our movement. Further, no modern theoreticians are even recognized as helping to provide some answers to our questions.
We seriously doubt that the study guide will advance us theoretically and/or practically. A dual problem is involved here—our own capabilities and the 29 points themselves. First, as shown by our discussion of point #1, the readings give no common basis for challenging the points or struggling out their implications. This is a very serious problem, especially giver, the uneven development of Club members. The study guide does not equip us as an organization to deal with the heaviest questions which confront our movement as our lack of unity has shown. The analyses which result are either based on individuals putting forth their own understandings of the issues based on prior readings or on “instinctual analyses” arrived at by common sense.
Moreover, the necessary pressure to finish each point within two weeks places severe limitations on the possible results of this study. As far as we have seen, discussions mainly center around registering individual opinions with limited tine for any struggle around controversial issues. While the discussions of the points have actually been the best we’ve had for a while, the emphasis has been placed on unity around what to tell New York to change in the principle. This, while necessary, is not the correct emphasis; instead, the emphasis should be on the development of each comrade’s abilities to engage in scientific analysis of these issues. Discussing each major issue in a cursory fashion cannot do this nor can the minimal readings.
We feel, and have previously suggested, that a much more comprehensive theoretical course of study can develop such skills. This would include texts on Marxist science and philosophy, and advanced theoretical texts on such issues as political economy, the socialist transition, party building, etc. While many comrades would agree that we are not capable of developing the needed analyses given our present level of development, we would maintain that we will be in little better position to do so once the study guide is completed.
We are also held back by an underdeveloped and often incorrect view of the nature of theory and theoretical production. These conceptions are manifested in a variety of ways, some of which coincide with the Guardian’s own deficiencies in its view of theory:
1) the view, as expressed by Irwin Silber, that the development of a “general political line” or lines on most positions can be developed in the immediate period without the necessary study of the types of theoretical works mentioned above. While we too feel that political line is key and determines our position within the movement, we maintain, in short, that political line is developed only through first producing the complex analysis of the concrete conditions of the issue. In order to do this, we must seriously prepare ourselves through advanced theoretical study and discussion.
2) an anti-intellectualist view evidenced by the impatient frustration with our discussion of historical and dialectical materialism. It was felt by some that these discussions were too abstract and would be useless unless directly connected to an immediate concrete issue.
3) an empiricist view evidenced by maintaining that our methodological capabilities advance spontaneously through immediate analysis of concrete issues instead combining such analysis with a study of Marxist methodology in its own right.
4) an incipient dogmatist view evidenced by a suspicion of modern theoretical advances in Marxism and their role in our development.
5) the Guardian’s own failure, coupled with #4, to recognize the dogmatist and sterile nature of much of Stalin and Kim Il Sung’s theoretical works, and further failing to not*Mao’s contributions as direct contradictions of many premises of these other theoreticians.
These conceptions remain and are reinforced in the Clubs and the Guardian through the failure to challenge our old conceptions of theory and theoretical production. In the Club, liberalism in struggle produced a general and fatuous unity around the position that theory is not a mere “summation” of past experiences; however, to agree with this without really drawing out its meaning and implications is only to maintain an old conception under a new cover.
This underdeveloped view of theory is also reflected in the 29 points which essentially represent an ahistorical set of principles. Every key question of our movement is given the same priority in the study plan and is to be dealt with in the same fashion. There is no context provided for any of these issues. Thus comrades are forced to take positions on issues such as the woman question or the national question without any background in prior theoretical work and debate in the area. For example, how are we to deal with point #14 on the national question without an understanding of why this thesis arose in the Comintern when it did, how it has been mechanistically applied to the US, and what its role has been in the history of the CPUSA and the new communist movement. Without at least some of this background, comrades can only approach this point from the most superficial level. Moreover, considerable time will have to be spent on placing these points in a conjunctural context (so as to distinguish ourselves much more fully from the dogmatists and revisionists) as this is almost entirely lacking in the points.
The primacy of theoretical work does not mean taking on all questions for which we need a political line at the same time, as the 29 points do. At certain points in time and in our movement, certain questions become dominant; some even require immediate political lines no matter how rudimentary they might necessarily be, given our level of development (e.g. the international question today). The priority questions, however, are determined on the basis of an historical and, more important, a conjunctural analysis of present conditions in the world and our movement. It is only through such an analysis that we can determine what is a priority issue, what is a dividing line, what is the level of unity possible at present, and what historical and theoretical work comrades must undertake to resolve these questions.
Involved in this process of confronting the key questions in the party building movement is the necessary practice of theoretical production. We feel we were incorrect in not raising this point when the Club agreed that our study was primarily geared toward “cadre development”. Encompassed within the concept of cadre development is the process of learning how to struggle collectively around the production of theoretical work. This was the process through which the Ann Arbor Collective was able to advance its cadre so rapidly and so far our experience shows it to be applicable to other organisations as well. Thus given the nature of the entire study plan and without this practice of theoretical production, we believe the dichotomy between the advanced and the less advanced will continue; in essence, we will not be able to collectively undertake the theoretical issues which confront us.
Finally, we feel if is important to note the status of the 29 points. While the Guardian has recently been equating theory solely with the development of political line, it should be recognized that the 29 points are not political lines. As even the introduction to the 29 points states,
They (the points) do not represent the full extent of the Guardian’s views on all political questions, nor do they represent a set of principles which can immediately be translated into political line or into a draft program for a new communist party.
They are, rather, a set of ideological principles... (emphasis added)
This fact should be kept in mind as there seems to be a great deal of confusion among comrades. The Guardian has stated that the development of a general political line is our main theoretical work. Leaving aside for the moment our view of the necessary precondition for developing such a line, the question arises as what the relationship is between our study of these ideological points which is so primary in the Club, and the Guardian’s determined primary task of the development of political line? What is the relationship of ideological points to political line? Finally, what is the relationship between the study of ideological points and theoretical work; are they the same? This all remains unclear yet we continue to proceed in the blind.
As we presently function, the Club is almost totally out of touch with the path taken by the Organizing Committee for an Ideological Center. We certainly have the most minimal organizational contact, and in fact most of our information comes through individual contacts. As an organization, we also have no sense of our movement’s own history and why we are where we are. In this case, our own external study group is more advanced than us, having completed a study of the new communist movement and the various positions within the anti-dogmatist/anti-revisionist trend. As in other areas, there is an assumed unity with the Guardian as to the trend and the main dangers within it. Despite calls from practically every member of the Club we still stand basically isolated from our own party building movement.
There exists in the Guardian a fundamental contradiction: On the one hand it in an important anti-imperialist newspaper in great financial need; hence it must conduct itself so as to maintain its readership and sustainers. On the other hand, it attempts to be a communist organ serving the needs of the party building movement.
This is not necessarily an irreconcilable contradiction, however it is one we believe has still not been resolved. Within the Guardian, as with the Cubs, there has been a capitulation to the financial/mass work needs at the expense of moving party building forward at a reasonable pace. This is evidenced by the fact that the paper has carried only three articles on party building in the past six months; there is as well a dearth of radical forums to spark debate in the movement. The few forums that have been run recently (on Bakke and abortion) have had little to do with party building as such and, moreover, once printed the issues were promptly dropped without any further discussion. The long awaited critique of the OC has finally arrived but adds little to what we already knew.
The money pressures and pressures for news have also contributed to New York’s apparent inability to lead the Clubs. The newsletter, the basis of political communication among the Clubs, has remained at a low level with the moot minimal political discussion. Although recent suggestions have been forwarded from Boston for its improvement, for the newsletter to really serve its function, it cannot be restricted to one column summaries of Club practice each month; rather, it must be able to distribute documents written by club members.
Beyond that, there is very little communication between Boston and New York, and even less among the various Clubs. For example, we still have not received the full story of the three members expelled from the San Francisco Club. The study guide is a year late. And despite two promises from both Irwin Silber and Bill Ryan there has been absolutely no response to our document on the Guardian and the Clubs, written last January.
Moreover, the Guardian has yet to show what it considers to be the theoretical work that is so primary for our movement. Fan the Flames and Viewpoints, while containing some good ideological positions, certainly cannot substitute for the complex and concrete analyses of7the conditions of any of the issues which are required. Yet the Guardian rarely prints or even reviews any major contemporary theoretical work being done around the world. Nor has it pursued opportunities to open itself up to theoretical debate. For example, it has failed to build any ties with the TMLC which also asserts the primacy of theoretical work. And further it has virtually ignored the Theoretical Review, a theoretical journal clearly within our movement. Finally, the polemics needed to move our movement forward are few and far between. In sum, the Guardian has failed to live up to its obligation to help lead both the Clubs and our movement.
We have made this decision to leave the Club after a long process of serious thought and with great reluctance. We do not put this document forward in any sort of antagonistic fashion nor do we imply that the Club leadership has failed to make any reforms whatsoever to improve on some of these deficiencies.
We sincerely believe that Club comrades are serious and committed Marxist-Leninists. Many comrades probably already recognize much of what has been said here and nay even be troubled by it. Some of these criticisms have been raised before and attempts have been made to deal with them.
Yet changes have only been minor. Liberalism in struggle still persists, the objective structural limits of the Guardian still exist, the limitations of the study guide still exist, and there is some question of the real desire on the part of many Club members to practice our guiding political line.
In addition, the three of us feel that in the past year we have not advanced theoretically or in terms of our political practice except by engaging in outside political work. Hence we cannot make the Club our primary work as is required. We have attempted to do both the theoretical/ideological work we feel is primary and Club activities, and we find that time commitments conflict.
Moreover, we feel that with the above disagreements it would be useless to stay and play an obstructionist role in the Club. Mass work has become the dominant activity by default; we have struggled against this and certainly have made many mistakes. In the early period, we raised issues in a somewhat theoreticist fashion, while more recently we sometimes failed to raise our views on the general course of the Club.
But we have constantly found that we were not in a position to raise all our disagreements lest we be seen as impeding the Club’s progress. (In fact, the prevailing attitude of non-struggle enabled us to keep quiet on some of these views as long as we did.) While we have expressed many of the above views to leadership outside of the Club meetings, there wore rarely places incorporated into the agendas to raise such issues.
Hence we are making our decision on the basis of an analysis of the present forces in the Club and the Guardian, with an understanding that our political intervention has been far from perfect. Ultimately, we have determined that our ability to influence the Club in a significant way is minimal and that to stay would serve little purpose.
Despite our leaving the Club, we reconfirm our support for the Guardian as the best anti-imperialist newspaper and for the key ideological role it plays on the left. We will support it financially as best we can and use it in our mass work wherever possible. We are committed to struggling with it over its role and practice in the party building movement in an effort to reach sound unity. At this point, however, we feel that this can best be done outside the Club.
We feel we have made a number of comrades and friends in the Club. With those with whom we disagree, we confirm our basic unity on Marxism-Leninism and the struggle for the Party. We will keep in contact, struggle with Club members, and where time permits, work on Club projects.
We leave on a comradely basis and hope the Club can make progress on a basis which it deems to be correct. We also hope that some of this critique will help to rectify Club practice and set it on a sounder course with a true unity among Club members.
As our movement proceeds, as party building becomes more of a reality in practice, we hope to work with the Guardian and the Clubs as comrades, eventually to rejoin forces in a solid and unified organization.