First Published: Theoretical Review No. 3, January-February 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.
For a while now the anti-dogmatist, anti-revisionist communist movement has been engaging in sporadic, yet often intense, debate over the process of party building. The two sides have come to be summed up as theory[1] versus fusion. While much of the struggle has helped to clarify certain distinctions between these two positions, the debate has mainly remained at a low ideological level and trapped within a problematic which limits further clarification of the positions. The Tucson Marxist-Leninist Collective’s (TMLC) recent pamphlet, Party Building Tasks in the Present Period – On Theory and Fusion, aids us in taking a giant leap forward and they ought to be congratulated for their efforts to demarcate the critical issues. However, we would like to add to one aspect of the discussion focusing on the recent organizational advances on the “theory wing”; advances which we fear may simply signify only an organizational and not a theoretical consolidation, unless there is thorough struggle and debate on the tasks facing us and how they must be approached. Our reference of course is to the Guardian Clubs.
No doubt, on the organizational level, the Guardian Clubs can represent a real advance in the struggle towards a new party. While much due must be given to collectives like the TMLC and the Ann Arbor Collective(AAC) for their efforts in theoretically clarifying our path forward, the fact is that the Guardian, a national force with a strong national voice, is the leading organization that has recognized the primacy of theory. After its many years of excellent reporting of peoples’ struggles throughout the world and its present leading role in party building, the consolidation of its organizational base must be welcomed by all in the anti-dogmatist, anti-revisionist communist movement.
The Guardian Clubs’ formation, however, cannot be taken in a vacuum; it must be seen in the context of the relation of forces within our movement. Moreover, the Clubs are coming into existence at a time when the limits of the generalities of party building strategy are sorely being felt. It is to the Guardian’s credit that it is asking its supporters for aid in advancing our position. With the recent struggle over the primacy of theory, the Committee of Five (consisting of the Philadelphia Workers Organizing Committee, El Comité, Detroit Marxist-Leninist Organization, the Socialist Union of Baltimore and the Potomac Socialist Organization) has been forced to recognize the need to incorporate some remedy to our theoretical impoverishment into its position. While this is a welcome addition in one sense, it has also served to blur the still existing lines of demarcation between the theory and fusion advocates. The result is that many comrades honestly feel that the two sides are merely caricaturing one another in a bout of organizational chauvinism.
Hence, it becomes incumbent upon the Guardian to elaborate its position on the primacy of theory in order to clear up the confusion. As yet, the Guardian seems at a loss to do so and often falls back on a mere organizational distinction instead of locating the difference at the theoretical level.
Clay Newlin of the PWOC and comrades within the Guardian have both focused on organizational differences as the essential aspect of the debate between the two organizations. The Guardian, in order to support its position, has been heard to say that we must not simply write off the experience of the dogmatist sects, as we have much to learn from them on the party building issue. And indeed we do; they provide a negative example of how theory has been approached in a dogmatic and mechanistic fashion, and how fusion has been tackled in a purely economist and empiricist way. Yet this is not what the Guardian points to. Instead, focusing on the organizational aspect, it praised them for their national, as opposed to the localist or what is referred to as a “federationist”, perspective.
This criticism presents a bit of difficulty, since no one as yet has offered a definition of a federation or thoroughly explained why it is incorrect at the present time. However, in order to deal with what we feel to be an already incorrect overemphasis on organizational differences, we assume it to mean local organizations acting together in a loosely knit, non-democratic centralist formation.
Yet certainly every member of the Committee of Five would agree with the Guardian that federationism is not the goal. Both the Guardian and the Committee of Five profess to ultimately strive for a democratic centralist national party formation.
One must remember that we cannot simply plug one era into the historical conditions of another. The Revolutionary Communist Party (formerly the Revolutionary Union), Communist Party Marxist-Leninist (formerly the October League), and Communist Labor Party (formerly the Communist League) all grew out of the ebbing tide of the 1960’s when national contacts abounded from the student movement, the anti-war movement and the civil rights movement. Localism was not nearly as much of a problem with Marxist-Leninists in that era because of the national scope of the immediate goals, and the high visibility of the movements.
In addition, we simply are not living in an era distinct from the dogmatist sects. On the contrary, we are deeply affected by their sectarian legacy, not to mention (for the moment) their essentially “fusionist” approach to party building, which the Committee of Five has followed. This legacy has sown mistrust of centralization among all Marxist-Leninists, and localism was the reaction to these new “parties” ultra-left activity. It is only natural then that groups in the Committee of Five are going to struggle as independent organizations prior to their dissolution into a national one, in order to build trust and cut away the possibility of the chauvinism that characterized the RCP’s national Liaison Committee, the CLP’s National Continuations Committee, and the CP M-L’s Organizing Committee. It is idealist (in both the bourgeois and the Marxist-Leninist sense) to simply assert that the Committee of Five should not begin as a loose federation. It is how they proceed, and on what basis they eventually unify, that is key.
The above demonstrates the essential point that it is not the mere “federationist” approach to beginning organizational forms per se which is incorrect. To locate the difference between the Guardian and the Committee of Five at this organizational level alone leaves the Guardian open to a charge they are sorely trying to avoid – that of hegemonism (in the sense of undermining other fraternal Marxist-Leninist organizations). If the Guardian asserts that we must be national, and not federationist, right away, who but the Guardian has the potential to do so? If there are truly no differences other than those of present organizational forms, why would the Guardian need to set up separate party-building organs if not because it wanted to play a more dominant role in the Committee of Five’s party building activities? We really don’t think the Guardian means to imply these things, but a shallow organizational critique of the Committee of Five has led many to feel that this is the case. Here the movement is in great need of the Guardian’s elaboration of its position.
Therefore, if the crucial difference with the Committee of Five is not to be found at the organizational level, where then must we locate it? The answer to this begins to appear when we look at what PWOC characterizes as the main obstacle and what the Guardian has guardedly put forward (and which the TMLC has stated explicitly) as the main obstacle in the present period. PWOC states it as the isolation of communists from the workers’ movement; the Guardian and the TMLC see it as the lack of a theoretical base, without which we cannot begin ”fusing communism with the workers’ movement” in the Leninist sense of the term.
The Guardian has had little trouble laying out the position that genuine fusion is not possible without: 1) a national party formation, and 2) the necessary theory. What the Guardian has not been able to do as yet, however, is to elaborate on the crucial implications of this position: l) If the need for theory is primary in the present conjuncture, then what does this mean in terms of realistically allocating our limited resources in the newspaper and the clubs, and 2) What is this “theory” that we lack? Is it a mere addition of empirical data onto given Marxist-Leninist principles? If not, what then is the nature of theory, and how do we begin to gain the tools with which to produce it?
As mentioned above, since the PWOC has also raised the banner of the “centrality” of theory, the Guardian’s position must be clarified in order to extricate ourselves from the presently confusing situation. For if there is no difference between the two groups on the meaning of the centrality/primacy of theory and what that implies for our practice, then there is little to divide us and we should all be acting in a common organizational form. Yet, by its own actions, the Guardian does not seen to believe that they share the same views with the PWOC; but because of the Guardian’s failure to elaborate its position, many Guardian supporters and readers are lost on the issue. The effect of this is to leave these supporters reading the paper for its news coverage and not to raise them to the level of active party building elements with a thorough understanding of the positions that face us.
With the initiation of the clubs, the Guardian has committed itself to the building of Marxist-Leninist cadre equipped with theory and with the ability to further the development of that theory. We offer the following as points of departure upon which we may begin to define and deepen our position in the clubs.
We must recognize that the mere “independent elaboration of Marxist-Leninist principles”, proposed by the Committee of Five, will only perpetuate the present empiricist view of theory which plagues us. That is, the Committee of Five position assumes two critical points: 1) that the principles of Marxism-Leninism already exist and all we need to do is “elaborate” them to our specific conditions, and 2) that we already grasp the scientific methodology, the tools, with which to elaborate those principles.
While many Marxist-Leninists abhor empiricism when it is manifested by a string of data loosely connected with the ideas constructed from the data, they ignore the basis of empiricism: approaching a subject without an already specified theoretical context within which to place it. Empiricism begins with the premise that certain facts and phenomena are “given”. But the “apparent” is not always the most important; in fact, what is apparent is frequently only so because it has become apparent due to the influence of bourgeois ideology. For example, prior to Marx, what was apparent in the realm of the relations of production was a wage bargain between the worker and the capitalist – a contract like any other. A scientific approach (Marxism) was required to recognize what was not so apparent, but nonetheless critical: the worker’s selling of his/her labor power as a commodity, thus providing the basis for the surplus value in capitalist expansion.
If we are not well grounded in this scientific methodology, we are in no position to separate the purely apparent aspects – those obvious due to the prevalence of bourgeois ideology – from the fundamental and often hidden aspects of modern capitalism. Another example of empiricism in recent analyses is the proliferation of texts and polemics on the nature of the Soviet Union. Most of these analyses accept the capitalist social formations of Western Europe and the USA as the model by which to determine if the Soviet Union is capitalist. They have rejected the necessity of creating concepts applicable to the Soviet social formation, and have failed to focus on the actual relations of production as they are articulated in that formation. (This criticism is over and above the basically economist approach these texts utilize, i.e. looking primarily to unemployment figures and consumer prices.)
In this undertaking of analyzing pressing issues from a more scientific standpoint, it is important to remember that we are not simply “elaborating” Marxist-Leninist principles. The principles we now have are actually only first steps in a long path toward the development of Marxism-Leninism as a science. Principles and concepts are created in the process of theoretical labor. Monopoly capitalism, and transitions to socialism have advanced tremendously since the stagnation of theory began in the late 1920’s. We are no longer in a period in which we can fall back on only the basics of the labor theory of value and the dictatorship of the proletariat to serve as the “theory” guiding our practice. Thus the study of Marxist Leninist methodology becomes key to any position that theory is primary in the present period.
In order to avoid empiricist errors, in both their revisionist and dogmatist forms, we must better understand what theory is. We must begin by rejecting the old dogmatic conception of theory as a mere summation of past experiences or the “general experience of the working class”, which in fact some groups in the Committee of Five accept. The development of theory is a long and laborious process. Theory cannot become primary merely by desiring to make it so. There are numerous examples of this last point which are apparent when we look at groups like Workers Viewpoint Organization, which praises theory endlessly, yet is shackled by a sterile and dogmatic approach. They proceed on the basis of the conclusions of the classics and not on their scientific methodology, and produce the most shallow and mechanistic of “theory”.
The need for a sound theoretical base is especially apparent in what is ultimately our primary task - fusion. For example, at present we lack even the basic analysis of the role the trade unions are playing in the US social formation. This analysis is crucial to any Leninist strategy for work in the trade unions. Yet our theoretical guide remains Lozovsky, the Soviet trade unionist of the 20’s, and the generalities of the “left-center alliance” and the “advanced elements”. While we may have summed up our experiences, we have yet to scientifically critique the history of the CPUSA in the trade unions, an analysis without which we can have no historical perspective on our present tasks. This leaves us wide open to repeating the same fundamental errors, and locks us into a purely pragmatic approach to our practice.
It thus becomes of the utmost importance to study modern theoreticians and their methodology in a critical manner. Good starting points would be Bettelheim for his approach to history and the socialist transition, Poulantzas and Balibar on the state, Hindess and Hirst on modes of production and Althusser for an understanding of the critical nature of epistemology in overcoming empiricist approaches to theory. This is not to say that the works of these theoreticians do not have some problems, only that they are of the most advanced in the present period and have much to offer.
The history of the Chinese Communist Party prior to the liberation of China provides a good example of the recognition of the primacy of theory and methodology at particular historical conjunctures and the dedication to transform this understanding into reality. After having relied in large part on the Comintern’s strategy, the Chinese Communist Party’s urban base was decimated in 1927. With the movement to the rural areas in the south, the Party built base areas which they maintained until 1935. The history of this period is one of merging with the peasant masses, but also one of political and economic policies which vacillated from ultra-left, to right deviations, especially in their dealings with the Kuomintang and the national bourgeoisie.
It was only after the Long March and the establishment of the new base areas in Yenan that the primacy of theory for the whole body of cadre was understood. Consequently, a two year rectification campaign was undertaken; the purpose of which was to raise the level of each cadre so that they were fully equipped with the existing Marxist-Leninist theory and capable of furthering its developments. Only this rectification could assure that the Party would lead the masses and not merely merge with them as better organizers of a spontaneous democratic movement.
As a beginning step, we must comprehend the difference between scientific analysis and ideological explanation. Schematically, ideology is a non-scientific, and therefore non-theoretical, understanding of the world. It can be understood in two senses here; a positive and a negative sense. Positively, ideology is a popularized explanation of an underlying complex scientific analysis. It is meant more for mass consumption and capsulizes theory at the sacrifice of some of the specificity and exactness of the theoretical position upon which it is based. It is the task of this last point which are apparent when we look at groups like Workers Viewpoint Organization, which praises theory endlessly, yet is shackled by a sterile and dogmatic approach. They proceed on the basis of the conclusions of the classics and not on their scientific methodology, and produce the most shallow and mechanistic of “theory”.
The need for a sound theoretical base is especially apparent in what is ultimately our primary task - fusion. For example, at present we lack even the basic analysis of the role the trade unions are playing in the US social formation. This analysis is crucial to any Leninist strategy for work in the trade unions. Yet our theoretical guide remains Lozovsky, the Soviet trade unionist of the 20’s, and the generalities of the “left-center alliance” and the “advanced elements”. While we may have summed up our experiences, we have yet to scientifically critique the history of the CPUSA in the trade unions, an analysis without which we can have no historical perspective on our present tasks. This leaves us wide open to repeating the same fundamental errors, and locks us into a purely pragmatic approach to our practice.
It thus becomes of the utmost importance to study modern theoreticians and their methodology in a critical manner. Good starting points would be Bettelheim for his approach to history and the socialist transition, Poulantzas and Balibar on the state, Hindess and Hirst on modes of production and Althusser for an understanding of the critical nature of epistemology in overcoming empiricist approaches to theory. This is not to say that the works of these theoreticians do not have some problems, only that they are of the most advanced in the present period and have much to offer.
The history of the Chinese Communist Party prior to the liberation of China provides a good example of the recognition of the primacy of theory and methodology at particular historical conjunctures and the dedication to transform this understanding into reality. After having relied in large part on the Comintern’s strategy, the Chinese Communist Party’s urban base was decimated in 1927. With the movement to the rural areas in the south, the Party built base areas which they maintained until 1935- The history of this period is one of merging with the peasant masses, but also one of political and economic policies which vacillated from ultra-left, to right deviations, especially in their dealings with the Kuomintang and the national bourgeoisie.
It was only after the Long March and the establishment of the new base areas in Yenan that the primacy of theory for the whole body of cadre was understood. Consequently, a two year rectification campaign was undertaken; the purpose of which was to raise the level of each cadre so that they were fully equipped with the existing Marxist-Leninist theory and capable of furthering its developments. Only this rectification could assure that the Party would lead the masses and not merely merge with them as better organizers of a spontaneous democratic movement.
As a beginning step, we must comprehend the difference between scientific analysis and ideological explanation. Schematically, ideology is a non-scientific, and therefore non-theoretical, understanding of the world. It can be understood in two senses here; a positive and a negative sense. Positively, ideology is a popularized explanation of an underlying complex scientific analysis. It is meant more for mass consumption and capsulizes theory at the sacrifice of some of the specificity and exactness of the theoretical position upon which it is based. It is the task of communists to move beyond the level of ideology and develop a theoretical understanding, but we must always be able to provide an ideological explanation of that theory in order to communicate at a mass level. Our need for these mass ideological pieces is critical. He possess virtually nothing for newcomers to Marxism-Leninism to read that explains communism in a popular fashion in the context of the USA. Many of the old mass works are loaded with economist and humanist[2] errors, which only hold us back in the struggle for a higher level of consciousness.
But before we can produce such mass pieces, we must have the underlying theoretical formation from which to popularize. This is what Althusser has stressed as the need for prior theoretical formation in order to correctly carry on the ideological struggle which is the basis for party building and fusion.
The negative aspect of ideology arises when non-scientific, intuitive analyses (that is those without any prior theoretical formation) pass for Marxist-Leninist theory. Much of what comes off the presses today as “Marxist analyses” are merely ideological pieces, utilizing bourgeois concepts and generalities as their mode of analysis. These are not at all what Lenin meant when he recognized the need for revolutionary theory.
This is not to say, however, that all these ideological works are totally worthless; on the contrary, they may have some seeds of important concepts, and may even arrive at some politically correct conclusions. However, they must be recognized for what they are, and not substituted for a genuine theoretical basis.
Therefore, our present lack of a prior theoretical formation is at root the cause of the severe limits under which the theory-fusion debate is being carried on. Recently, the debate is stagnating at a low ideological level. It is incumbent upon those who recognize the primacy of theory at the present time, especially independent collectives and the Clubs, to deepen he debate through study and theoretical practice. While the Guardian has a relative advantage, and is correct in attempting to create a national base from which to start, an organizational form insures nothing without a correct theoretical approach – a major lesson to be learned from our national dogmatist predecessors.
Hence, a more correct formulation of the present differences with the Committee of Five would incorporate both the organizational and the theoretical distinctions: “fusion” on a local scale versus theory on a national scale. In other words, to correctly combat the localist “fusion” line, a national perspective is not enough. What is required is a national perspective which has as its content a recognition of the vital necessity of theoretical development and practice.
However, locating our differences with the Committee of Five at the theoretical level, as opposed to the organizational level, is not to simply write them off as a potential ally. To get to the roots of a debate, to delineate our position more carefully, will not necessarily make our differences antagonistic. Although the Committee of Five seems presently dominated by strong empiricist/economist tendencies, we are all at such a low theoretical level that changes in positions and new alliances within the anti-dogmatist, anti-revisionist communist movement are not to be counted out based on present differences. The more we clarify our position, the easier it will be to raise the level of debate, and hopefully win people over.
The Guardian has recognized the primacy of theory in the present period. It is now incumbent upon the Guardian and the Clubs to define what that means programmatically. Given that a certain level of mass work is already built into the Clubs with the production and activities around the newspaper, that program is all the more crucial if the Clubs are to avoid being side-tracked from our primary task. The emphasis on education and raising the level of the Club members with the view toward theoretical production has to be worked out concretely.
The Clubs, however, can hardly be expected to make all these advances on their own. In fact, the only way the Clubs can really advance the movement as a whole is to combine the above tasks with those of building ties with independent communist collectives and individuals. These independent groups have had a great deal of experience, theoretically and practically, that the Clubs can and should take advantage of. If unity is to really mean uniting Marxist-Leninists, then those contacts must be made now and built up in order to create a skeletal national network.
To carry out these responsibilities, the Guardian as a newspaper must also move forward. While not sacrificing in any way their coverage of world events, the Guardian has to advance as an organ for party building. A regular section should be devoted to the needed polemics and struggle over our strategy. This is indispensible if we are to reach a large independent Marxist-Leninist community as well as established collectives. The development of an internal debate organ is also vital for the growth of the Clubs and their members.
It is this dedication to struggle towards unity that can realize the potential of the Clubs as a national force. The national organizational basis, while not key in defining our differences with the Committee of Five, is certainly not to be underestimated as a great advantage once we begin to deepen our position and raise the Clubs to a higher levels.
In summation, the Guardian Clubs do have an organizational advantage with the ability to create a national presence; yet this is merely a potential. For it is not the present organizational form which is the key determining factor, rather it is the theoretical basis upon which the organization advances. We feel it is crucial that the Clubs recognize the above tasks and positions and deepen their content. The Clubs must begin to struggle over the various party building positions and the meaning of the primacy of theory. In order to do this, the Clubs must focus on cadre building – raising the theoretical level of every member. We have already witnessed members’ excellent practical skills; the potential for the development of these people into theoreticians, as well, is encouraging. The challenge need only be accepted.
Education, then, becomes a critical factor in the progress of the Clubs. This includes an analysis of the weaknesses and strengths of the Guardian itself and its past party building positions. The ability to constructively criticize our leading ideological organ is central in order to avoid political stagnation and complacency. Our goal is that this study should lead to the ability to produce and disseminate theoretical pieces.
The debate must center itself within the Clubs, but the input of independent collectives is indispensible; the Guardian ought to more fully open its pages to the needed polemics and take the lead in this struggle.
The path forward is clearer than before and the Clubs can provide an important vehicle on that path. The short term goal is a clarification and a deepening of a position we have only begun to define. This is a must if we are to begin to ponder our long term goal; the creation of a genuine communist party and the fusion of communism with the working class.
[1] Some forces describe the debate as unity versus fusion. We prefer the use of the term theory, since “unity” can often lead to an organizationalist conception of unity rather than a unity of Marxist-Leninists on common theoretical understandings and priorities.
[2] Humanism is a specific bourgeois deviation within Marxism-Leninism which focuses on the idealist/classless aspects of Marx’s early works, such as the emphasis on “alienation” and the “essence of man”. Marx dropped these concepts in his works from The German Ideology forward, and instead developed the scientific concepts of modes of production, social formation, and forces and relations of production.