Preparatory work for the Theses on party building contained in this statement commenced in October 1973. Since then this question has been investigated in accordance with a scheduled plan.
Work on this question was conducted simultaneously with detailed work on other important issues, especially fascism, building revolutionary communist bases at the place of work, and other questions of key significance for the M-L and working class movement. Much of this work was done in 1974.Intensive efforts on the factory front, among other tasks, have prevented finalisation of these Theses before now. The CWLB (ML) regards the party building question as the central challenge facing all who want socialism, the state political power of the working class.
The scope of the preparatory work is enormous. It is probably the case that no statement on party building appearing in this country since the open split in the early sixties between Marxism- Leninism and revisionism has been preceded by the same volume of investigation. Every member of the organisation during this period has been involved in the preparatory work and in discussions leading to the adoption of these Theses. We now wish to share the experience and our conclusions with all serious Marxist-Leninists and all who genuinely want socialism, since we have spent much time studying what others have had to say.
Of all questions confronting the Marxist-Leninists concerning the party building subject, three stand out as being at the centre of the problem to be solved. They are
1) What is a genuine revolutionary communist Party?
2) Does one exist in our country at this time?
(and if the answer is negative)
3) How can one be brought into being?
Preparatory work centred on the need to scientifically reply to questions one and two, above. In its procedure it worked through the questions strictly in the above order. There was collective agreement that this process demanded that no objective comment could be made concerning the third question unless we were scientifically sure of first having the answers to questions one and two. We adopted this procedure to combat subjectivist thinking and to stick to facts.
It is important for all to understand that any comments on the party building question that have appeared in previous statements and documents of the CWLB (ML) were made on the basis of partial knowledge available to the organisation when they were made. However, the present document alone represents the position of the CWLB (ML) on party building, covering questions one and two. Hence, although statements have been previously made about the party question, the above-mentioned process of investigation which has led to the publication of these Theses was conducted in a spirit of challenging even our own previous statements, and of being quite prepared to change previously held and partially formed views if that became necessary. Hence, the organisation has throughout waged an honest fight against subjectivism, against a- priorism and has set out not to justify previous statements, but to do one thing only -get at the truth of this central issue, even if that involved overturning everything we had previously thought and said.
It is appropriate here to define briefly the concept of partial knowledge, which has allowed the CWLB(ML) to proceed and put forward solutions to several questions, for example that of industrial base building, and now that of party building and other questions also being worked upon by the organisation, which are listed later in this document.
There is a right opportunist and a “left” opportunist position on the question of knowledge. Right opportunism, in effect, denies the importance of getting to know the facts of a problem and proceeds to make assertions without proper investigation and without providing evidence to substantiate a point of view. This tendency refutes the M-L truth that to solve a problem, it must be investigated in all its related aspects and its history be taken into account.
The “left” opportunist position on knowledge amounts to saying that nothing at all can be done in practice, and no steps taken to work out the problems of the movement until we are in possession of every iota of information, until every particle of a problem has been gone into to the Nth degree.
The right opportunist line creates the conditions for organisations to say anything about any thing, and leads obviously to all sorts of chaos and subjective errors of confusion. Sooner or later, an organisation practising this anti-science methodology becomes, consciously or unconsciously, a tool of the class enemy.
The “Left” opportunist line on knowledge leads to the stagnation of its practitioners. For, frightened of the need of daring to struggle, daring to win in the field of knowledge, they make a life-long job of sterile “investigation”, divorced from any significant (significant, that is to the masses) practice. Divorced from the real struggle, this tendency is also bound to end up in the camp of anti-science, for their “investigation” becomes a way of life, life itself, and nothing ever gets off their tidy, but irrelevant drawing boards. The end result for such bookworms is that they too, end up, consciously or unconsciously as tools of the class enemy.
The right opportunists blaze on in grand ignorance of all and sundry, making assertions about all and sundry, the “left” opportunists are scared too say anything about anything, are scared like hell of taking a stand, doing anything that might actually lead somewhere, because they want to make sure that they make no mistakes. As Stalin said, it’s only in the graveyard that you make no mistakes. The only difference between the right opportunists and the “left” opportunists is thus, that the rightists, in their glorious ignorance, open the cemetery gates for themselves, while the “leftists”, quietly and divorced from the living, having assembled their own hearse in the peace of their abstract tranquillity, have then to be towed away, when, through lack of movement their academic soul finally expires.
The destiny of both is thus the same.
The concept of proceeding to try to solve problems, employing the scientific tool of partial knowledge is the only way to avoid both right and “left” opportunism. To practice partial knowledge is to insist that preliminary conclusions be drawn up on the basis of honest and substantial investigation and interpretation of the main facts of any problem. It is to insist that these conclusions or theses then be put to the test in practice, and that the results be summed up, and, by combining theory with the acid test of practice, knowledge is taken to a higher level in a never ending spiral of the active pursuit of solving the problems concerned.
This procedure avoids making assertions without having made substantial investigation. It therefore ensures that to the best of the ability of the movement at each stage of its development and capacity, that lines on this or that problem – often urgent problems – are based as firmly as possible on substantial investigation. This procedure also avoids the “left” error on knowledge because it insists that on the basis of substantial investigation, ideas and theses then be put to the test in practice and the results studied. The line can then be modified, or abandoned completely if necessary, to be replaced with another line. This process starts from objective matter and leads to subjective consciousness, from existence to ideas, and then working back from consciousness to matter so as to test the ideas in practice. Through practice ideas, theories, and plans can, when the process is repeated sufficiently, be seen as being good and sound, i.e. scientific, or bad and unsound, i.e. unscientific.
The concept of partial knowledge accords with the M-L tried and tested standpoint of knowing the world in order to change it. It is a translation into real life of the central theme of Mao Tse-Tung’s article Where do Correct Ideas come from?
On this basis, the CWLB (ML) avoids making statements that are purely (and ever so vulgarly) assertions, and on the other hand avoids the death-bed “purity”, the stagnation of those who never actually make any mistakes, because, just as actually, they never do anything.
The scope of this statement is to provide scientific answers to the first two questions, namely: What is a genuine revolutionary communist Party? and, Does one exist in our country at this time? Comments relating to the third question appear later in this document. The second question cannot be answered unless we have the proper answer to the first, which we can then use as a scientific yardstick, with which to proceed.
This document fulfils a commitment to state clearly our views on the party question made in footnote three of the CWLB (ML)’s statement: What do Revolutionary Communists Really Stand For?, published in 1973.
The M-L movement must concern itself with getting to the inner kernel of this problem, should stick to essentials and accomplish this as briefly as possible. The essence of this statement is thus limited to a matter which for genuine communists is of major and literally unlimited significance, namely the matter of scientific method, the matter of the very nature of socialism. IS SOCIALISM A SCIENCE OR NOT? Can any organisation describe itself, or be described as a genuine M-L party if in practice it rejects the time-tested, internationally-insisted upon basis of M-L ideology and politics namely that a CONCRETE UNDERSTANDING OF CONCRETE CONDITIONS is a prerequisite, the cornerstone, of the working out and implementing of programmes that will receive mass support and lead to revolution?
Can any organisation that has in reality made massive concessions to anti-science (metaphysics and its attendant diseases of subjectivism, dogmatism, idealism and empiricism) on fundamental matters of importance, be accurately regarded as a Marxist Leninist Party, a real party of the working class?
Can any organisation that has in practice rejected historical and dialectical materialism as its guiding light be accurately regarded as truly Marxist-Leninist? Can any organisation, which regards as no longer applicable the statement, “No investigation, no right to speak”, be regarded as a genuine Marxist-Leninist Party of the working class? Or is all that is required of an organisation is that it assert this and that, and speak with the phrases of M-L terminology, plod on from day to day, taking positions on a variety of questions important to the working class and the fight for socialism, without bothering to carefully investigate concrete conditions, without bothering to provide real i.e. scientifically established evidence, to prove its case?
It is to these questions, this kernel, that the Marxist-Leninists in our country must turn in order to be able to answer the above two questions. If we can really answer them, then other questions of a more secondary status can be answered correctly as well.
Hence the contradiction we are setting out to resolve here is the contradiction between ignorance and knowledge, knowing and not knowing what we mean when we talk of a genuine communist Party, knowing and not knowing whether one exists. This contradiction must be resolved in favour of knowledge in order for us to move forward and solve the other problems which stand in our way as barriers to overthrowing the capitalist/imperialist system in our country.
The following Theses invent nothing. They didn’t have to. The answers to the questions stare us in the face once we learn to differentiate between the forest and the trees. The M-L movement can solve the party question only by creatively studying, carefully interpreting and drawing out, and applying the essential messages from three sources. These Theses are based on doing just that. It is based on: (1) A study of the history of the practice of successful parties; (2) A study of the essence of major theoretical teachings of tried and tested socialist revolutionary leaders; (3) A study of the Marxist-Leninist movement in our country as well as other so-called socialist organisations. Only by undertaking this work can we solve the party question in our country. That work has been done. It is the foundation of this document and the only thing that legitimises, in scientific terms, he making of a statement.
Before proceeding further we wish to state what this document is and what it is not and should not be. It is not an academic exercise based on book worship. The CWLB(ML) does not practise abstract “theorising” and insists on integrating theory and pratice. It is not, need not and therefore should not be an unnecessarily long, or rambling statement going into every little aspect. It is not the end of the road, or the “last word” on the party question, though it goes right to the roots. It is a substantial presentation of the main conclusions found from closely studying the practice of successful revolutionary struggles in several countries, which contain lessons that will, if we correctly take out their inner kernel, definitely guide us and help us avoid pitfalls and big mistakes. This is the road to ending the present bad state of affairs in the movement. Therefore the study of the practice of the history of successful revolutions and the parties that led them is nothing to do with abstract “theorising” divorced from practical matters. To the contrary, it is a question of getting to know revolutions and the world in order to make revolution and change the world.
As for ensuring that it is reasonably digestible and not unnecessarily long the organisation presents the principle conclusions from its studies, presents brief and reliable evidence to support those conclusions, together with some bibliographical information, so that others can make further study if they wish.
The statement sticks to what the organisation believes is the kernel of the question, the important aspects, and asks other comrades to do the same, thus discarding the dross and gaining clarity on what is vital if we are to solve our problems. Lengthy research papers going into the important aspects of each of the above questions exist. To publish them would require a book or two, and would defeat the purpose of drawing out the kernel of truth and relevance on the various points. Of course, the research papers will be drawn upon if challenged on any point of major importance.
The organisation earnestly seeks principled unity of all genuine M-L organisations and individuals, has to the very utmost of its ability carefully looked at what others are saying, and doing, and makes concrete proposals later aimed at giving such comrades a real basis for unity that will lead to a solution of the party question.
Naturally there is an overlap at certain points between theoretical comments from tried and tested Marxist-Leninists and statements taken from authorised histories of successful parties, as the former led these parties during certain periods of their struggle and development.
On the question, “What is a genuine revolutionary communist Party?”, conclusions rest on extensive study of first the history of the practice of successful parties; second, the essence of major theoretical teachings of tried and tested revolutionary leaders. The party histories studied were: The history of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolshevik); The history of the Communist Party of China; the history of the Workers’ Party of Korea; the history of the Party of Labour of Albania; the history of the Viet Nam Workers’ Party.
Tried and tested socialist revolutionary whose works were studied are: Marx, Engels, Lenin. Stalin. Mao Tsetung, Kim Il Sung, Enver Hoxha and Ho Chi Minh. Additionally, works by other writers were studied where they could throw extra light on the issue, for example Edgar Snow’s, Red Star over China. In all dozens of books and a host of articles have been studied, all with a view to solving the party question for the workers of this country and in the interests of the whole of progressive mankind. No text was studied aimlessly or without our own party question in mind. The dogmatic and mechanical regurgitation of passages in these works has been guarded against and only the kernel of those revolutionary truths which we need to grasp and apply to our own conditions was regarded as being of value.
These parties led the struggles which through revolution, liberated millions of oppressed people. These parties delivered the goods, and although the concrete conditions in which these revolutions took place are different to our own conditions ,it is to these parties, mainly that we must turn for the secret of making revolution here, liberating millions of people in our country from the capitalist/imperialist ruling class which exploits us every day, every year. This is why the M-L movement must turn its eyes in the direction of these parties, precisely because they have for millions, supported by millions, delivered the goods of freedom from exploitation and oppression of various types. What better source to learn from!
These tried and tested leaders are the geniuses of successful revolutionary struggle, who more than any others solved all the big and small problems over decades of struggle against the most determined of class enemies. Their ideas and teachings we turn to because they worked in practice and practice is the acid test of whether an idea or teaching is reliable or false. Their ideas stood the test of practice and time. What better source to learn from!
So, to the worker or honest intellectual who reads this statement, but who is just starting to seek political clarity, just “seek truth from facts”, but who has a naturally low level of political understanding, we say: be patient, follow the arguments, question the conclusions, read further if you wish (but don’t, like some, make reading a lifetime’s activity while getting down to nothing in practice!). If you generally support the conclusions then come to the movement, and help it, and it will help you.
To those, on the other hand, who because of their hardened revisionism and Trotskyism, say “Ah, look at where they go for their answers...look at the parties they say have been successful, look, look at them. .!,”we say this: “Not only, our friends, have we made a careful study of the writings of the above leaders and parties, we have also made a careful study (more careful than your own, we guess) of revisionism and Trotskyism, of all the big and (some of the smaller) groups who masquerade as being “for the working class” in this country. Therefore, laugh if you wish, but know that we have the material you and your predecessors churn out to mislead people; that you have been well studied; that you are known for what you are – rotten, phoney and futureless appendages of the futureless ruling class and bourgeois ideology, whose politics have never led to a revolution anywhere in the world.
The CWLB (ML) has investigated the following organisations and detailed research papers exist: The Communist Party of Great Britain, revisionist; The Labour Party; The Workers Revolutionary Party; The International Marxist Group; International Socialism; The Socialist Party of Great Britain; Workers Fight; Militant; Big Flame; the ’Solidarity’ organisation; the various Anarchist organisations which produce ’Freedom’, and the ’Libertarian Communist’ Group; and the Workers Socialist League.
But to those honest yet confused comrades in the revisionist and Trotskyite groupings we say: think carefully about the matter raised here and fight against preconceived ideas and prejudices. Try to fault the conclusions by all means, ask questions, study and get in touch for discussions if you wish. We do not regard you as being forever enemies. But, to make a real contribution to the fight for socialism you must break away from the bad and join with the good and scientific.
Let us proceed!