The district wide meeting held in LA to understand the differences between the majority and the minority positions ended with some amount of confusion about what the main differences were. Part of the difficulty may be that, up to this point, all of us shared similar goals and politics (actual practice) because we have all been members of the League. The two written proposals and some of the feedback represent new developments in the area of theoretical framework and organizational form. Here we will attempt to sharpen up the fundamental differences.
What has also become clearer in the last few days is that there exist two minority positions and one majority position.
The Majority rejects major aspects of M-L that it thinks are either not appropriate or intrinsically flawed. These include concepts such as the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, Democratic Centralism, the view of the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, the concept of a Vanguard Party and the M-L concept of the role of the working class. In essence, the Majority is rejecting ideas that are central and essential to M-L. In addition, the Majority is proposing that we no longer hold to a M-L theoretical framework, and that we free ourselves from all the “isms” that narrow and limit our perspective and practice.
The Majority position proposes that we go beyond M-L and develop an indigenous theoretical framework that includes other revolutionary perspectives on an equal basis with M-L. This is a difference with both minority positions. The Majority position believes that a M-L framework projects us into an unreal, inappropriate and unsustainable relationship with the masses. The Majority position believes that this is an arrogant position of superiority coming from the belief that only Marxist-Leninists can lead a revolution to socialism.
The Majority position believes that this stance of superiority is at the core of the actual practice of M-L’s throughout the world, and has created a distancing from the masses that has made it increasingly difficult to gain and sustain mass leadership. This has also affected our ability here in the U.S. to recruit and to carry out united front work. Even though the League has not been able to avoid all of the M-L trappings, it has for some time now felt the necessity to discard on a piecemeal basis some of the concepts holding us back, and now there is a proposal for a change of framework.
Instead of a M-L organization, the Majority position is advocating that the whole organization make an orderly transition into an open organization of activists with a vision of justice, equality, and an end to exploitation and oppression. This is the general outline of a socialist society to the point that it can be defined at this point. So our goal is the same as both minority positions, but the way the Majority believes it can be attained is different.
The Majority position also sees the rejection of the M-L framework as a worldwide phenomena that has actually occurred in different parts of the world before here: Mexico, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Colombia, Argentina, South Africa are a few countries where progressive people have been forced to deal with revolution. This approach is mainly a multi-party united front or revolutionary front, with communists as part of this revolutionary form and not necessarily the vanguard.
The Majority position sees that the working class has a special role and proposes to continue to emphasize its support and organization. It will also continue to have as a goal the development of a united front to enable the masses to make breakthroughs in broad democratic issues. It is the point of view of the Majority position that, at the very core of all democratic struggle, are advances in the development of the conditions that will allow the working class to be empowered.
The first minority position, which we will call the straight-up M-L Minority position, disagrees with the elimination and discarding of any of the Marxist-Leninist central precepts, i.e., the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, Democratic Centralism, Vanguard Party, revolution by overthrow, etc. It says that there are no intrinsic flaws to these precepts. This position states that these theoretical concepts are appropriate and sound, but have been tainted by FLAWED APPLICATION.
In Eastern Europe, they are Stalinist distortions, and in China, they are the result of a relatively young and inexperienced social system. The main point is that this position believes there is no intrinsic flaw with the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, the flaws are in the application. This position puts forward that it is because of this application that at this time, there is confusion and greater rejection of M-L and socialism, but that this is only temporary.
This position says that even though the masses may at this point be confused about socialism, throughout the world socialism is being reformed and will soon regain the respect it once had. It does not agree with the majority on making this an organization of activists and changing the M-L framework. This position therefore wants to continue the existence of a M-L organization. This position states that we should get out there and continue to win people over to M-L by good work and taking leadership, and that without explicit M-L as the guiding theory, we cannot accomplish a socialist society.
This position would like to open up most of its members, but feels that some members should still remain closed. In summary, this position would like to keep the type of organization that we have at this point.
As you can see, the Majority position and the straight-up Marxist-Leninist Minority position have fundamental differences in that they are advocating two different approaches to revolution and two different types of organizations. The Majority sees a M-L organization as restrictive and burdensome, given the world practice of socialism, inappropriate application and intrinsic flaws in the framework, and therefore proposes to set up an open organization of progressive activists who are fighting for fundamental change. The minority feels that M-L is the only theory that can lead the masses to socialism.
The Majority position feels that even though these differences are fundamental, they are not antagonistic. The Majority is proud of our history and work, does not propose to be anti-M-L, and would welcome M-Ls into its broader organization. Most of the M-L Minority see the possibility of developing an M-L organization that would have a friendly relationship with the new organization formed by the Majority.
The second minority position has been the one that is best known because it is in written form. This position represents an attempt to bring together the irreconcilable parts of both the M-L Minority and the Majority positions. At the same time, it is an untenable hybrid that is internally contradictory.
We will call this the Hybrid Minority position. This position, like the straight-up M-L position, holds that M-L is a superior ideology to all other revolutionary ideologies. This is a fundamental difference with the Majority, which sees M-L as one of several established and developing revolutionary ideologies.
If this internal struggle was all about compromising and both sides living with things that they did not want or believe, then this is probably the position that we would all take.
The Hybrid Minority proposes, like the Majority position, fundamental changes such as the rejection of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and the Vanguard Party, but at the same time, like the straight-up M-L Minority position, wants to hold onto M-L as a theoretical framework. This position says that it does not believe in the Vanguard Party, yet it wants to develop a M-L organization of and by the working class. The Hybrid Minority also wants to hold onto M-L as superior ideology, yet it says it has no problem with discarding the central M-L concept of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. According to Lenin in The State (p. 40, Foreign Language Press 1973 edition), “Only he is a Marxist who extends the recognition of the class struggle to the recognition of the dictatorship of The proletariat.”
Both the Hybrid Minority and the Majority believe in the goal of the equitable distribution of wealth. However, the Hybrid Minority has a preconceived notion that such end to inequality will take place through nationalization of major corporations and the expropriation of monopoly capitalists. This is in complete contradiction with the Hybrid Minority calling for a mainly open organization, in that to call for expropriation at this point is tantamount to calling for armed overthrow of the bourgeoisie. Calling for the expropriation of the bourgeoisie requires a mainly secret, not a mainly open, organization.
Both the Majority and the Hybrid Minority position believe in Historical Materialism. However, the Hybrid Minority’s interpretation is from a classical M-L perspective. Through the use of classical M-L Historical Materialism, the Middle Minority concludes that the working class will inevitably be the rulers of society. Doesn’t this presuppose the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and the vanguard role of the working class? But, once again, the Hybrid Minority says that it discards the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and the Vanguard Party.
The Majority interprets Historical Materialism in more general terms as a process of development of democracy and not necessarily the inevitable dictatorship (rule) of one class over another, in this particular case the proletariat.
In conclusion, there are clearly 3 stated theoretical positional the Majority position, the straight-up M-L Minority position, and the Hybrid Minority position. The majority wants a change in theoretical framework and organizational form. The straight-up Minority wants to keep the present theoretical framework and organizational form. The Hybrid Minority says it would discard essential parts of M-L, yet keep its framework, and haven’t really proposed a concrete organizational form.
We offer this analysis in the spirit of unity and hope it will clarify what has been a somewhat confusing situation. We hope this paper will help people decide what they are going to do in the coming weeks.
We understand that some of the M-L Minority and Hybrid Minority are made up of individuals who disagree with the Majority, but think it is best for the mass movement to try out the new organization, based on the proposal of the Majority, for a period of time. We agree with their thinking, appreciate their decision, and welcome their participation.
We also respect those holding Minority positions who think there is no point in joining an organization with which they have fundamental differences. Almost all of the folks who want to form a new M-L organization want to do it in a way that maintains an amicable relationship with the Majority. The Majority’s proposal in the third round of papers demonstrates that it will do all that is possible to help this part of the Minority set up their organization.