1) None of these modern revolutions was made without the party which led the revolution having made a class analysis of the society concerned; without having a concrete understanding of concrete conditions within that society; without it having on the basis of its class analysis, united and concentrated all the allies of the leading force – the working class – against the main enemies of the working class and its allies, by drawing up and implementing political programmes, which were themselves were based on an analysis of classes and their historical development.
2) None of these modern revolutions was made without the party which led the revolution having a scientific analysis of its friends and foes internationally.
3) None of these modern revolutions was made without the party which led the revolution having a scientific understanding of its national question.
4) None of these modern revolutions was made without the party which led the revolution having recognised in its practice the leading role of the working class, and the special historic mission of the industrial proletariat as the dynamo of revolutionary struggle; this was so even though in each of the above revolutions the working class, especially the industrial proletariat, was only in the early stages of development.
5) None of these modern revolutions was made without the party which led the revolution having creatively applied Marxism-Leninism to a wide range of problems peculiar to conditions, and to a wide range of situations at different stages of the fight for revolution; these problems centred on the question of working out strategy and correct tactics at different stages of the struggle. Tactics are the means by which the political programmes, based on an internal and external class analysis, were brought to life and given meaning at every twist and turn of the class war. None of the modern revolutions was made without the party which led the revolution having scientifically characterised each distinctive period and stage of the struggle and successfully working out the appropriate tactics to carry it through that stage. Different stages determined that, tactically, different parts of the basic programme were given emphasis.
These are the principle Theses and conclusions to be drawn by Marxist-Leninists from the extensive study of the living practice of the above successful revolutions, which have changed the face of our planet, given hope to millions of working and oppressed peoples everywhere, and scared reactionaries everywhere, who know that their turn is but a matter of time.
Let us first turn to the book: The History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolshevik), which is a great Marxist-Leninist classic and should be read closely by all who want socialism. At the same time it is a record of how the leader of the Soviet people after Lenin, Joseph Stalin, analysed the Russian revolution which shook the world.[1]
What follows are statements from this book, which clearly refer not merely to the correctness of their message for the period of struggle in which they were made, but go much deeper, reflect in fact the basic laws of social development and political struggle and the motive forces of revolution. Let anyone study this text for themselves to see that the following quotations decisively evidence the above Theses and conclusions. Such a study will also show that we could have included many more such quotations to back up the point, had we the space.
Statements evidencing or relating to Thesis (1) above, regarding the need of a genuine party to have a concrete understanding of concrete conditions, an analysis of class forces to distinguish friend from foe, and political programmes based on such an analysis which must in turn incorporate an understanding of historical development, are as follows:
“It is easy to understand how immensely important[2] is the extension of the principles of the dialectic method to the study of social life and the history of society, and how immensely important is the application of these principles to the history of society and the practical activities of the party of the proletariat.”
“If there are no isolated phenomena in the world, if all phenomena are interconnected and interdependent, then it is clear that every social system and every social movement in history must be evaluated not from the standpoint of ’eternal justice’ or some other pre-conceived idea, as is not infrequently done by historians, but from the standpoint of the conditions which gave rise to that system or to that social movement and with which they are connected.” (p 109-10)
“Everything depends on the conditions, time and place!”
“It is clear that without such a historical approach to social phenomena, the existence and development of the science of history is impossible ,for only such an approach saves the science of history from becoming a jumble of accidents, an agglomeration of absurd mistakes” (p 110)
“It is easy to understand how immensely important is the ex-tension of the principles of philosophical materialism to the study of social life, of the history of society, and how immensely important is the application of these principles to the history of society and to the practical activities of the party of the proletariat.”
“If the connection between the phenomena of nature and their interdependence are laws of the development of nature, it follows, too, that the connection and interdependence of the phenomena of social life are laws of the development of society, and not something accidental.”
“Hence social life, the history of society, ceases to be an agglomeration of ’accidents’, and becomes the history of the development of society according to regular laws, and the study of the history of society becomes a science.”
“Further, if the world is knowable and our knowledge of the laws of development of nature is authentic knowledge, having the validity of objective truth, it follows that social life, the development of society, is also knowable, and that the data of science regarding the laws of development of society are authentic data having the validity of objective truths.”
“Hence, the science of the history of society, despite all the complexity of the phenomena of social life, can become as precise a science as, let us say, biology, and capable of making use of the laws of development of society for practical purposes.”
“Hence, the party of the proletariat should not guide itself in its practical activity by casual motives, but by the laws of development of society, and by practical deductions from these laws.”
“Hence Socialism is converted from a dream of a better future for humanity into a science.
“Hence, the bond between science and practical activity, between theory and practice, their unity should be the guiding star of the party of the proletariat.”
“Hence the source of the formation of the spiritual life of society, the origin of social ideas, social theories, political views and political institutions, should not be sought for in the ideas, theories, views and political institutions themselves, but in the conditions of the material life of society in social being, of which these ideas, theories, views, etc, are the reflection.”
“Hence, in order not to err in policy, in order not to find itself in the position of idle dreamers, the party of the proletariat must not base its activities on abstract principles of human reason’, but on the concrete conditions of the material life of society, as the determining force of social development ”
“The fall of the utopians, including the Narodniks, Anarchists and Socialist-Revolutionaries, was due, among other things to the fact that they did not recognise the primary role which the conditions of the material life of society play in the development of society and, sinking to idealism (became) divorced from the real life of society.”
“The strength and vitality of Marxism-Leninism is derived from the fact that it relies on an advanced theory which correctly reflects the needs of the development of the material life of society...” (pp 109-117)
“The programme of a workers’ party as we know is a brief, scientifically formulated statement of aims and objects of the struggle of the working class. The programme defines both the ultimate goal of the revolutionary movement of the proletariat, and the demands for which the party fights while on the way to the achievement of the ultimate goal. The drafting of a programme was therefore a matter of prime importance.”
No more needs to be said by way of stressing time and again the fundamental importance of the relationship between knowing conditions, and changing them, of having to know them before being able to change them, and only being able to get to know them in the process of struggling to change them. The relationship between theory and the material life of society and the acid test for determining whether a theory is correct, i.e. scientific, or not, lying precisely in ascertaining whether it accurately reflects the material life and conditions of society and condemning it as erroneous if it does not also needs no further stress. The massive and unassailable truth that unless a party knows conditions, has an advanced theory that reflects those conditions and employs that theory, based on facts, not smatterings of unsystematised knowledge, as its sole guide to all “practical activities” is then, that this party, whatever else it may be, is for sure not a genuine party of the proletariat but a counterfeit, a forgery, a doomed-to-die passing phenomenon. Hence, it can be seen that we are concerned here not with idle abstractions, but with taking the kernel of truth from the above passages, which is that we must start to function in a scientific way or the working people of our country will labour unnecessarily long under the exploiters, because our muddle-headed approach fails again and again to lead to class clarity, a correct interpretation of the need of revolutionary forces in the present period, a correct and creative, living programme which will guide the overthrow of the enemy.
The History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolshevik) records that the work undertaken over years leading to the formation and building of the Bolshevik party was characterised by serious on-going analyses of the classes in that society. It is important to note in this connection that unlike the case of the celebrated article, “Analysis of classes in Chinese society”, by Mao Tsetung, which takes pride of place in the first volume of his ’Selected Works’, analysis, or rather analyses of classes in pre-Soviet society are scattered in a number of different articles, books etc. Hence, although there is no single, all embracing article which does the whole job in one go, as it were, there was in fact central importance paid to analysing classes and important strata in pre-Soviet society and that this analysis cleared the path and paved the way for the revolution in October 1917.
Once again, it cannot be stressed enough that this investigation and analysis of classes and their movement has nothing to do with abstract book worship. Many workers in our country have a contempt for analysis, study, theory and instead stress, in a one sided way, the need for action. It is their material conditions, of course, which drive them to spontaneously demand action. We communists are also for action, but understand that action is aimless, even negative, if it is not based firmly upon a concrete understanding of who our enemies, and who our friends are. If this has not been investigated thoroughly, as a guide to action, then we will lose battle after battle, and the capitalists will rejoice, as more generations are condemned to work for them.
The book illustrates the fact that class analysis guided the work and policies of the victorious Bolshevik party. One or two examples only are required here.
“In his celebrated work, “The Development of Capitalism in Russia”, Lenin cited significant figures from the general census of the population of 1897,which showed that five- sixths of the total population were engaged in agriculture, and only one sixth in large and small industry, trade, on the railways and waterways, in building work, lumbering and so on.”
“This shows that although capitalism was developing in Russia, she was still an agrarian, economically backward country, a petty bourgeois country, that is a country in which low-productive individual peasant farming based on small ownership still predominated.”
“Capitalism was developing not only in the towns but also in the countryside. The peasantry, the most numerous class in pre-revolutionary Russia, was undergoing a process of disintegration, of cleavage. From among the more well-to-do peasants, there was emerging an upper layer of kulaks, the rural bourgeoisie, while on the other hand many peasants were becoming ruined, and the number of poor peasants, rural proletarians and semi-proletarians was on the increase. As to the middle peasants, number decreased from year to year.” (pp 5&6)
If one checks the numerous articles of significance leading to the formation of the Bolshevik party one can see that central attention was being paid to analysing classes in Russia and that these penetrating analyses, including the above mentioned Development of Capitalism in Russia, in fact laid the whole basis (together with other texts concerning ideology, theory, politics and organisation) for the Russian revolution.
Moreover, this was a process which not only characterised the preparation of the Party and the revolution but characterised the methods employed to solve all the big problems confronting the Bolshevik party once the revolution had been accomplished.
We are here looking only at what the History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolshevik) teaches us, not specifically at Lenin’s own immortal contribution, though it is referred to. As to Lenin’s view on the need to make class analysis the basic plank of the development of correct programmes and tactical policies, more on that when we come to the section dealing with study of the essence of major theoretical teachings of tried and tested socialist revolutionary leaders. In the present section we are concerned to glean the kernel of truth from the official histories of each of the successful parties referred to.
Hence, as to the role of class analysis and deep study of concrete conditions and the essential relationship to the drawing up of genuine programmes, which led to revolution the CWLB(M-L) challenges anyone to say that an analysis of classes, concrete conditions and their historical development did not constitute the very basis which enabled the Bolshevik party to be a real, living party and enabled it to make the revolution, enabled it to consolidate power and work out solutions to all pressing and complex problems. We dare any organisation or person to challenge this fact!
What does the book teach us about the need to analyse not only domestic class forces, but the international situation in order to locate who are our friends and foes, whom we might call upon for help and solidarity and whom we might have to defend ourselves against, using possibly military as well as political and economic aggression?
The book tells us that the history of the Bolshevik party is in great part a history of carefully looking at the international situation, a history of rallying friends and routing foes. Once again this was a feature of pre- and post-October 1917.
“On July 14 (27, New Style), the tsarist government proclaimed a general mobilisation. On July 19 (August 1, New Style) Germany declared war on Russia.
Russia entered the war.
Long before the actual outbreak of the war the Bolsheviks headed by Lenin, had forseen that it was inevitable. At international Socialist congresses, Lenin had pct forward proposals the purpose of which was to determine a revolutionary line of conduct for the socialists in the event of war.
Lenin had pointed out that war is an inevitable concomitant of capitalism, Plunder of foreign territory, seizure and spoilation of colonies and the capture of new markets had many times already served as the causes of wars of conquests waged by capitalist states. For capitalist countries war is just as natural and legitimate condition of things as the exploitation of the working class” (p 160)
Thus the history book teaches us that the Bolshevik party studied the world situation as well as analysing classes and class struggle within Russia, and that paying close attention to analysing the global situation in order to assess friends and foes was most certainly another basic feature of the correct development of the victorious Bolshevik party.
Hence, as to the importance of carefully analysing the international situation and its movement as the searchlight to pinpoint friends and foes in the international arena, and as the main means whereby friends can be mobilised and their solidarity relied on, while foes can be watched, their movements, plots and plans discovered and guarded against, the CWLB(M-L) challenges any individual or organisation to deny that the history of the Bolshevik party is largely a history of careful analysis of the international situation and its movement. We dare anyone to challenge this fact!
What does the book teach us about the need to scientifically work out correct and just answers to the national question in countries where this is a problem?
It teaches that one of the cardinal tests to employ in finding out whether an organisation is a genuine Marxist-Leninist party is to find out how much real attention it has paid to the national question of its own country. The working out of a scientific line on the national question was another major feature of the development of the victorious Bolshevik party.
“To culminate all, the Mensheviks[3] also proved bankrupt as far as the national question was concerned. The revolutionary movement in the border regions of Russia demanded a clear program on the national question. But the Mensheviks had no program, except the ’cultural autonomy’ of the Bund[4], which could satisfy nobody. Only the Bolsheviks had a Marxist program on the national question, as set forth in comrade Stalin’ article, Marxism and the National Question and in Lenin’s article, The Right of Nations to Self-Determination and Critical Notes on the National Question.” (p 157)
A scientific approach to solving the national question, opposing national oppression and supporting the right to self- determination, uniting all who could be united on the basis of consent and common interest was a major achievement of the Bolshevik party. It singled it out once again as a party inevitably destined to lead a great revolution, and provides us in this country with another yardstick for assessing whether any organisation is a genuine Marxist-Leninist party. Differences on the national question in our country exist. Some argue that Britain is a nation. Others argue that England, Scotland and Wales are nations. What is the scientific truth on this important issue?
Which classes of which nation are enemies of revolution? Where are the politically legitimate geographical perimeters for organising struggle? The CWLB(M-L) challenges any individual or organisation to deny that the history of the growth of the great Bolshevik party, pre- and post-revolution, is not in major part the history of concretely, scientifically and thus justly working out a solution to the national question. We dare anyone to deny this truth!
What does the History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolshevik) teach on the subject of bringing Marxism- Leninism, scientific socialism to the working class, what does it teach about the dynamic, leading role of the industrial proletariat? In its page one introduction, the book provides the answer.
“The CPSU (B) grew up on the basis of the working class movement in pre-revolutionary Russia; it sprang from the Marxist circles and groups which had established connection with the working class movement and imparted to it a socialist consciousness.”
The book reminds us that:
“Marx and Engels taught that the industrial proletariat is the most revolutionary and therefore the most advanced class in capitalist society, and that only a class like the proletariat could rally around itself all the forces discontented with capitalism and lead them in the storming of capitalism. But in order to vanquish the old world and create a new, classless society, the proletariat must have its own working- class party, which Marx and Engels called the Communist Party”(p 9)
This basic communist thesis on the central, leading and dynamic role of the industrial proletariat guided the victorious Bolshevik party in all its work. This pioneering, scientific thesis is as correct, as relevant and as fundamentally true now in this country as it was in Russia in the years leading up to and after the historic October revolution. Indeed, the history of the CPSU(B) is essentially a history of, on the basis of a concrete understanding of concrete conditions, the working out of programme, policies and tactics to politically educate, organise and mobilise the working class especially the industrial proletariat in the big towns and major industrial centres, sectors and factories, while at the same time uniting the allies of the working class around it under its leadership. In the case of Russia this main ally was the hard-up peasantry.
“In 1895, Lenin united all the Marxist workers’ circles in St. Petersburg (there were already about twenty of them) into a single League of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class. He thus prepared the way for the founding of a revolutionary Marxist workers’ party”
“The course of events was corroborating the view which the Marxists had championed against the Narodniks, namely that the working class was to play the leading role in the revolutionary movement”
“Under Lenin’s guidance, the League of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class linked up the struggle of the workers for economic demands – improvement of working conditions, shorter hours and higher wages – with the political struggle against tsardom. The League of Struggle educated the workers politically.”
“Under Lenin’s guidance, the St Petersburg League of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class was the first body in Russia that began to unite Socialism with the working class movement. When a strike broke out in some factory, the League of Struggle, which through the members of its circles was kept well posted on the state of affairs in the factories immediately responded by issuing leaflets and Socialist proclamations.” (pp 16 & 17)
“The St. Petersburg League of Struggle gave a powerful impetus to the amalgamation of the workers’ circles in other cities and regions of Russia into similar leagues.”
“The importance of the St. Petersburg League of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class consisted in the fact that, as Lenin said, it was the first real rudiment of a revolutionary party which was backed by the working-class movement. (p 18)
Talking of the coming revolution Lenin stated, the book tells us
“We must capture this fortress; and we shall capture it if we unite all the forces of the awakening proletariat with all the forces of the Russian revolutionaries into one party, which will attract all that is alive and honest.(p 34)
And of the need for the working class struggle to put politics in command and fight against reformism and economism, especially in the factory fight, the book tells us:
“Lenin showed that to divert the workin8 class from the general political struggle against tsardom and to confine its task to that of economic struggle against the employers and government intact, meant to condemn the workers to eternal slavery.” (p 36)
Hence, a genuine Marxist-Leninist party must not just make noises about mobilising the industrial proletariat; it must make and implement real fighting programmes, give a lead to all by supplying a crystal clear industrial programmatic stance to deal with general and specific problems of winning the most advanced, the only possible leader, of the fight for socialist revolution. Hence, this is another cardinal yardstick which must be used when deciding if any organisation really is a genuine Marxist-Leninist party, or if it is a cipher.
Again the book tells us that: “...the fundamental Marxist thesis that a Marxist party is a union of the working class movement with socialism” (p 38). That is the main challenge, the main task, the target for which any organisation that’ is a real party will set all its sights on working out detailed programmatic solutions for.
“The Party is an embodiment of the connection of the vanguard of the working class with the working class millions. However fine a vanguard, the Party may be, and however well it may be organised, it cannot exist and develop without connections with the non-Party masses, and without multiplying and strengthening these connections. A Party which shuts itself up in its own shell, isolates itself from the masses, and loses, or even relaxes, its connections with its class is bound to lose the confidence and the support of the masses, and, consequently, is surely bound to perish.“ (p 49)
And there can be no doubt that by “connections” with the working class the CPSU (B) concentrated first and foremost on winning the young industrial proletariat to Marxism-Leninism. For this reason, even during the last quarter of the 19th century, before the Party really came into being, the book tells time and time again of the pride of place that was given to establishing and uniting circles of industrial proletarians, which paved the way for the victorious Bolshevik party to come into existence and make revolution, thus liberating millions and showing the workers of the whole world the way forward for their own salvation.
The core of the history of the CPSU(B) is the recognising of the leading role of the working class, especially the industrial proletariat, the formulation of programmes for winning the industrial proletariat to Marxism-Leninism, the working within it, and accepting that it and it alone could constitute the dynamo of the Russian revolution. The CWLB (M-L) challenges any individual or organisation to dispute the correctness of the essence of this truth. We dare anyone to try to say that this is not how it actually was!
What does the book tell us about the question of tactics?
It tells us that unless an organisation can scientifically characterise the various and complex stages through which a revolutionary struggle passes over the years, unless it can decide when to advance and when to withdraw, when to attack and when to go onto the defensive, when to push to the front in its propaganda this set of points from its basic programme whilst putting into the background, though not abandoning, other points, then such an organisation is not a genuine Marxist-Leninist party. A genuine party must also have a clear understanding of the tactics of the enemy at each stage of struggle.
“The revolution had set in motion all classes of society. The turn in the political life of the country caused by the revolution dislodged them from their old wonted positions and compelled them to regroup themselves in conformity with the new situation. Each class and each party endeavoured to work out its tactics, its line of conduct, its attitude towards other classes, and its attitude towards the government. Even the tsarist government found itself compelled to devise new and unaccustomed tactics.”
“The Social-Democratic Party, too had to work out its tactics, this was dictated by the growing tide of the revolution. It was dictated by the practical questions that faced the proletariat and brooked no delay ...The Social-Democrats had to work out for themselves carefully considered and uniform Marxist tactics.” (p62-3)
“In his historic book, Two tactics of Social-Democracy in the democratic Revolution Lenin gave a classical criticism of the tactics of the Mensheviks and the brilliant substantiation of the Bolshevik tactics.”(p 65)
Thus, firstly making a scientific analysis of classes, their movement and the concrete conditions, while engaging simultaneously in struggle, secondly on the basis of such a class analysis working out a genuine revolutionary programme containing the ultimate goal and demands to be achieved on the way to achieving the ultimate goal; then correctly characterising each major stage of the struggle and working out what tactics are relevant, which programmatic demands should be pushed to the front to mobilise the working class and its allies ...this, the book tells us, is the meat, the kernel of the history of the CPSU(B).
The CWLB (M-L) challenges any individual or organisation to say that this is not true. It challenges anybody to say that a correct understanding of tactics during each complicated stage of revolutionary struggle is not necessary for the successful outcome of the class war!
The second successful party we shall now turn to is the Communist Party of China. Unlike the example of the CPSU (B), there is no single text detailing the whole course of its historical development. Material concerning our five main theses is to be found by referring to a large number of articles, footnote references, etc. In this document we will mention specifically only a very limited number of examples, though any comrade will be able to locate many more by, for example, going through the four volumes of the Selected Works of Mao Tsetung. In this section as in the case of the CPSU (B), we are at this point concerned with the history of the development of the party, and theoretical matters are concentrated upon later in this document (though, of course, the two are intertwined).
What, then, can be gleaned for our purpose from the material available on the history of the CPC?
Concerning the need for a class analysis and concrete understanding of concrete conditions. and their relationship to the formulating scientific programmes to win people to revolution. we must immediately refer to the first article in volume one of the Selected Works, An Analysis of Classes in Chinese Society, written by Mao in March 1926. This article is one of the great classics of Marxist-Leninist methodology.
There is no need to repeat long sections from this readily available, well-known article. In the opening paragraph there appears the following statement which encapsulates the importance of investigation to the growth and development of the CPC:
“To distinguish real friends from real enemies, we must make a general analysis of the economic status of the various classes in Chinese society and of their respective attitudes towards the revolution.”
The article then goes on to answer the question “What is the condition of the classes in Chinese society?”
The history of the CPC is in large measure the history of time and again struggling to gain clarity on the existence, composition, movement and relative strength of the classes in Chinese society. Reading between the lines of the Selected Works it can clearly be seen that article after article in period after period is aimed at keeping the party on the correct line, combating left and right deviations, keeping things healthy. The Analysis of Classes in Chinese Society also shows how domestic reactionaries (the comprador bourgeoisie in particular) are linked to enemies on the international plane, i.e. imperialist forces. All should read (and re-read) this classic and then ask themselves is there anything like it in this country. The answer is, of course, that no such basic investigation exists here for the work has not been done.
Other articles also amount to important landmarks in the historical development of the CPC. Some such articles are: Report on an investigation of the Peasant Movement in Hunan; How to Differentiate the Classes in the Rural Areas; A Single Spark Can start a Prairie Fire: all in Volume one. In Volume two the following articles also evidence the vital need for class analysis, not as a static thing in itself, but as a weapon for guiding the work at each and every complex stage, as a living tool of revolution: The Chinese Revolution and the Chinese Communist Party, in which the CPC states:
“Only when we grasp the nature of Chinese society will we be able clearly to understand the targets, tasks, motive forces and character of the Chinese revolution and its perspectives and future transition. A clear understanding of the nature of Chinese society, that is of Chinese conditions, is therefore the key to a clear understanding of all the problems of the revolution” (p 315)
The position of the CPC on the decisive importance of knowing conditions in order to change them is evidenced in dozens of passages and there can be absolutely no doubt that it played a basic and continuing role in the history of the CPC. In the article The Chinese Revolution and the Chinese Communist Party, the line of the CPC is put again:
“We have now gained an understanding of the nature of Chinese society, i.e. of the specific conditions in China; this understanding is the essential prerequisite for solving all China’s revolutionary problems.” (p 326)
In short, without such a concrete understanding the Chinese revolution would not have been made. Time and again this “prerequisite” of knowing conditions and mastering policy (i.e. formulating scientific, living programmes on the basis of such knowledge is put to the reader of the history of the CPC.
In Volume three, articles such as Preface and Postscript to Rural surveys and On Coalition Government again reiterate the position of the CPC on the need to know conditions as the only scientific basis for drawing up programmes that would defeat the enemies of the revolution. In the former of the two articles just mentioned, for example, it is stated:
“Many of our comrades still have a crude and careless style of work, do not seek to understand things thoroughly and may even be completely ignorant of conditions at the lower levels, and yet they are responsible for directing work. This is an extremely dangerous state of affairs. Without a really concrete knowledge of the actual conditions of the classes in Chinese society there can be no really good leadership.“
“The only way to know conditions is to make social investigations to investigate the conditions of each social class in real life. For those charged with directing work, the basic method for knowing conditions is (to make) a plan, use the fundamental viewpoint of Marxism, i.e. the method of class analysis, and make a number of thorough investigations. Only thus can we acquire even the most rudimentary knowledge of China’s social problems.”
“To do this, first, direct your eyes downwards, do not hold your head high and gaze at the sky. Unless a person, is interested in turning his eyes downwards and is determined to do so, he will never in his whole life really understand things in China.” (p 17)
“I should like to repeat that the main purpose of publishing this reference material is to indicate a method for finding out, the conditions “
“Although my assertion ’No investigation, no right to speak’ has been ridiculed as ’narrow empiricism’, to this day I do not regret having made it; what is more, I still insist that without investigation there cannot possibly be any right to speak. There are many people who the ’moment they alight from the official carriage’ make a hullabaloo, spout opinions, criticise this and condemn that: but, in fact, ten out of ten of them will meet with failure. For such views or criticisms, which are not based on thorough investigation, are nothing but ignorant twaddle!’ (p13)
Again in Volume four there is evidence that the history, the ongoing practice of the CPC revolved around knowing conditions and mastering policy. For example in the article The situation and our Policy After the Victory in the War of Resistance against Japan it is stated in the footnote on page 12 that the conclusions reached are “Based on the Marxist-Leninist method of class analysis...” The same article (page 15) attacks a leading personality as an opportunist because he rejected the need to investigate. It states:
“Chen Tu-hsiu made no investigation and study and so did not understand this (the need to take up arms against the class enemies), hence we, called him an opportunist. He who makes no investigation and no study has no right to speak, and accordingly we deprived Chen Tu-hsiu of that right.”
In other articles in volume four, such as the Present Situation and our Tasks, Methods of Work of Party Committees, On the People’s Democratic Dictatorship, and elsewhere, the history of the CPC is conclusively shown to be a history of investigation of class conditions, the formulation of programmes on the basis of such investigation which won the masses to revolution.
We challenge any organisation or individual to state that the history of the CPC is not along these lines of investigation and study of conditions.
We need not labour the point by evidence that investigation was also a cardinal feature of the development of the CPC as far as the international situation was concerned. To point to but a handful of important articles should be enough to guide comrades, who themselves wish to be further convinced of the line of the CPC on obtaining a firm grasp of the international situation. Such articles are: Analysis of the Classes in Chinese Society, (although this concentrates on internal conditions it explains the relationship of these to the international situation at that stage); On Tactics Against Japanese Imperialism, (see especially the section on ’international Support’; The Tasks of the Chinese Communist Party in the Period; of Resistance to Japan, especially the section entitled ’The present Stage of the Development of China’s External and Internal Contradictions), all in Volume one. Volume two of the Selected Works deals entirely with the war of resistance against Japan and contains many articles showing that the history of the CPC was a history of carefully analysing not only the internal conditions but the situation in the world at large. In Volume three which also deals with the anti-Japanese wart articles such as On the International United Front Against Fascism, The Turning Point in World War II, the section in On Coalition. Government headed The International and Domestic Situation. All deal with the line of the CPC of analysing friends and foes on the international level and the relationship between the international and national balance of class forces.
In Volume four in the article the Present Situation and our Tasks the line of the CPC is put quite clearly. Talking of the turning point in the war against imperialist forces and their chief domestic servant Chiang Kai-shek it is stated:
“The Communist Party of China, having made a clear-headed appraisal of the international and domestic situation on the basis of the science of Marxism-Leninism, recognised that all attacks made by the reactionaries at home and abroad not only had to be defeated but could be defeated.”
So it is that the history of the practice of the CPC and the Chinese revolution is in large measure a history of paying close and scientific attention to the international situation.
The CWLB(M-L) challenges any individual any organisation to dispute that this is so.
What can we glean from the history of the development of the CPC as far as the national question is concerned. In a document of this nature which does not set out to deal at length or primarily with the national question it is not possible to devote a great deal of space to the role it played in China’s revolution.
It is necessary however to prove that the national question was given great importance by the CPC. This is evidenced for example in a section of On Coalition Government entitled The Problem of the National Minorities. On page 255 (Volume 3) the CPC attacks the Kuomintang reactionary policy which denied “that many nationalities exist in China” and supports Dr. Sun Yat-sen’s policy on the national question which was:
“first the liberation of the Chinese nation and second the equality of all the nationalities in China”.
The CPC stood for Sun Yat-sen’s policy of:
“the right to self-determination of all the nationalities in China and that a free and united republic of China (a free union of all the nationalities) will be established when the anti-imperialist and anti-warlord revolution is victorious”.
Thus the history of the practice of the CPC is one of taking a scientific and just attitude towards the national question based on the right to self-determination and the choice of free union within the framework of a peoples’ republic.
A clear line, based on scientific investigation of the national question, is yet another hallmark of the practice of the CPC and one that further sets it apart as being a genuine communist party.
Can any individual, any organisation in our own country dispute that such is the case or that this provides us with a definite lesson from which we can draw guidelines for solving our own problems?
What does the history, the practice of the CPC and the Chinese revolution tell us of the importance attached to the leading role of the working class, the industrial proletariat especially. It tells us this: in article after article, time and time again, the history is one of not only recognising the leading role of this class, but of concretely setting about the task of winning it to Marxism-Leninism. In the first article of the first volume, Analysis of the Classes in Chinese Society it is stated:
“Though not very numerous, the industrial proletariat represents China’s new productive force, is the most progressive class in modern China and has become the leading force in the revolutionary movement.”
If the industrial proletariat, which was “not very numerous” in China at the time (1926) was the “leading force, then there can surely be little doubt that in the highly industrialised Britain of the 1970’s the industrial proletariat is also the leading force, and that when, therefore, communists talk of “practising a mass line”, as is always talked about, then this, in, our situation can only mean practising a line based on the most advanced class the industrial proletariat with the main aim of winning it to communist politics. (See the CWLB (M-L) draft document Building Revolutionary Communist Bases at the Place of Work for further discussion of the importance of the industrial proletariat).
But the CPC did not only verbally acknowledge the leading role of the industrial proletariat. It in practice accepted the implications of its own line as evidenced in footnotes at the end of the above mentioned article. Footnote 13 states:
“Immediately after its founding in 1921, the Chinese Communist Party set about organising the railway workers. In 1922-23 strikes took place under the Party’s leadership on all trunk lines.“
The notes also imply that the CPC was involved in the strike of coal workers in Kailan and Tsiaots, both areas being under British imperialist administration. Also it is implied that strikes in Shanghai and Hong Kong in 1925 involved members of the CPC.
So, the history of the practice of the CPC was one of both recognising the leading role of the industrial proletariat and, very importantly, actually doing something about it, namely setting out to work within it in a planned way. Hence regarding the industrial proletariat, the CPC put its feet among the workers and organised them politically and economically.
This is the lesson taught by the history of the CPC regarding the working class and especially the industrial proletariat.’ It is not enough to harp on about “The working class is the leading class”, as is not uncommonly heard here: it is necessary, if such phrases are to amount to anything more than phrases, to make a plan, undertake the work, get things moving ...and that means being in the factories, among the proletariat. It cannot be done from outside the factory gates. All who try to “shout over the walls” will fail.
What does the history of the CPC teach us of the importance of correctly characterising the different stages of the struggle, about the need to work out accurately the tactics of the fight at each and every stage?
It can be put in a single nutshell: the history of the CPC and the Chinese revolution amounts to just that: a history of – as evidenced in article after article – knowing conditions and mastering strategy and tactics. It is necessary only to pick up, for example, the Selected Works and pick out articles in any volume, to see that this is so.
The following articles all deal with the relationship between strategy and tactics and constitute the evidence to support the conclusion that the CPC’s history is largely one of working out the correct strategy and then deciding on the tactics which at each stage are necessary to bring that strategy forcefully into the real life of the period of struggle concerned: On Tactics Against Japanese Imperialism, a brilliant analysis and survey of the prevailing situation which acted as the foundation for working out the successful tactical line of the national united front against Japan; The Problem of Strategy in China’s Revolutionary War (Volume 1); The Role of the Chinese Communist Party in the National War; the Question of Independence and Initiative within the United Front; Problems of War and Strategy; Current Problems of Tactics in the Anti-Japanese United Front (volume 2); on Coalition Government especially the tactics advocated in the section our specific programme in volume three; Strategy for the Second Year of the War of Liberation “Tactical Problems of Rural Work in the New Liberated Areas”; all in volume four. The actual list is very long, but these texts evidence beyond any reasoned doubt that the CPC had as another feature the consciousness and capacity to bring the basic strategy to life, in all the various complicated stages of decades of struggle, by applying the correct tactics, based on an understanding of conditions and the twists and turns of the Chinese revolution.
Can any individual or organisation in this country deny this truth?
The history of the Workers Party of Korea provides further evidence of the features of a genuine communist party.
Korea provides the only example of a successful revolutionary struggle being achieved prior to the formal coming into being of a communist party. Korea was liberated from Japanese imperialism on August 9, 1945.
In 1946, the Communist Party merged with the New Democratic Party and developed into the Workers Party of Korea. This was due to a number of reasons which need not be detailed here in this draft. However, it is necessary to combat the notion that this is an example of how revolution can be made without creative communist leadership and organisation. The Korean experience does not establish this. The liberation of Korea from Japanese aggression and US and British imperialism was accomplished under communist leadership at every stage. Strategy, tactics and all major offensives were initiated by the Korean communists under the leadership of Kim Il Sung, leader of the North Korean Workers Party and people.
For a detailed account of the development of the struggle, And the role of communists and the coming into being of the party, the CWLB (M-L) suggests the following texts for study: Kim Il Sung (three volume biography); A Brief History of the Revolutionary Activities of Comrade Kim Il Sung; and Kim Il Sung, Selected Works. These texts have been studied by the CWLB (M-L) and we urge other comrades to study them also. In this document the CWLB (M-L) will confine its comments to the following conclusions, reached in a detailed research paper produced by the organisation:
1) Despite the destruction of the Communist Party of Korea (the first communist party formed) by factionalists in the 1920’s, throughout the long fight it was communists who gave the lead in the social, political and the military fields. In commenting on the failure of the first communist party and the need to bring a party into being after liberation, Kim Il Sung states on page 563 of volume one of Selected Works:
“If the Communist Party of Korea organised in 1925 had not been destroyed owing to the manoeuvres of factionalists and saboteurs but had continued in existence, our party would have greeted the August 15 liberation as a party with its own organisational system and its leading core would have been formed solidly from the first days of liberation.”
Hence, unique problems that confronted the Korean communists created a situation which prevented the party formally coming into being as a stable organisation until after liberation. However, the point must be repeated that communist clarity and leadership albeit without the formal existence of a party, was the main factor, together with the determination of the Korean people, in the victory that was won.
Communists gave the lead in the formation of an anti-Japanese guerrilla army. They gave the lead in the forming of the Association for the Restoration of the Fatherland; helped bring into being a variety of organisations, such as the Democratic Youth Leagues; in all main fields communist nuclei worked hard and achieved results.
2) These texts explain that analysis of classes and concrete conditions was part of the revolutionary process and guided the work. For example, in 1926, Kim Il Sung formed the Down-With-Imperialism Union which stood for:
“...struggle for building socialism and communism in Korea in the future and. for the present to defeat Japanese imperialism and achieve the independence of Korea...” (page 10, Brief History)
Kim Il Sung:
“clarified that the character of the Korean revolution was of an anti-imperialist, anti-feudal democratic revolution, and gave a scientific definition of its motive force and objects.”
And in class terms he analysed the situation as follows (this was in 1930):
“He said that the basic motive force in the anti-imperialist anti-feudal democratic revolution consisted of the working class and the peasantry, its most reliable ally, and the petty bourgeoisie, and an alliance could be formed with the national bourgeoisie, too. And he made it clear that the objects of the revolution were Japanese imperialism and its accomplices- landlords, comprador capitalists, pro-Japanese elements and traitors to the nation, and clearly pointed out that our revolutionary task was to overthrow Japanese imperialism, liberate the country and build socialism and communism subsequently to the anti-imperialist, anti-feudal democratic revolution in our country and, further, to carry out the world revolution.” (page 21, Brief History)
Hence, even in the absence of a formally constituted party, communists, under the leadership of Kim Il Sung, made an analysis of the international scene and understood the main enemy they had to overthrow; made a class analysis of concrete conditions within the country and knew who were the enemies and friends of the revolution. They also understood the key role of the working class although it was quite small in number. The importance they attached to it being evidenced by the following statement of Kim Il Sung, when, discussing the reasons for the failure of the first communist party in the 1920’s:
“The disorganisation of the Communist Party in the 1920’s resulted, among other things, from its failure to root itself deeply in the broad working masses. The Communist Party of Korea at that time only had an upper structure and failed to organise its cells in factories and rural districts. In other words it had failed to become a mass political party.” (page 563 Kim Il Sung, Selected Works, Vol I)
The National question remains one of the most burning of all questions confronting the Korean people, due to the interference of US imperialism and the collaboration with it of traitorous domestic servants, headed by the puppet regime in the South. In several documents in the Selected Works, Vol I, the national question is scientifically summed up, once again on the basis of a clear grasp of concrete conditions.
As for Korean Communists and the task of obtaining and practicing scientific clarity on strategy and tactics, once again, as was the case in China and in all countries where revolution has been actually achieved, the history of the communists is largely a history of working out correct strategies and the tactics which at each and every turn and major stage are necessary to bring the basic line to life and move the fight forward to the next stage.
The CWLB (M-L) knows that evidence of this is contained in the texts mentioned and will thus not unnecessarily extend this draft by citing them chapter and verse.
Thus, when we examine closely the struggle of the Korean people and the development of the North Korean Workers Party, we can see that analysis of concrete conditions, the formulating of program goals (see in particular the Ten Point Programme of the Association for the Restoration of the Fatherland, drawn up personally by Kim II Sung – page 64, Brief History – which reflects the concreteness of understanding and the way in which a real fighting programme stands on a basic, scientific class analysis; and also in this connection, the transcript of Kim II Sung’s Radio Address of March 23, 1946, which constitutes another important programmatic statement. (Selected Works, volume two, page 32), strategy and tactics on the basis of such analysis; the recognition of the leading role of the working class and the making of plans to build bases within the proletariat; the paying of attention to the national question, coupled with an analysis of friends and foes on the international plane all of these features were present as part of a moving, continuous process, which resulted in liberation and will surely eventually result in the unification of Korea and the construction of a modern social state a prelude to the building of a communist Korea in the future.
The CWLB (M-L) challenges any individual or organisation to deny that the above features are not the principal ones of the Korean revolutionary process and the role of the Korean communists.
We must now turn to the lessons of the struggles of the Party of Labour of Albania and then to the Viet Nam Workers Party, for each of these parties have much to teach in terms of their scientific methodology to us in this country. Once again it is stressed that the purpose of this draft is not to set down detailed historical accounts but simply and importantly to take from the experience of other revolutions the inner kernel of universal truth that can, we believe, help sort out the present bad state of affairs here.
The most important reference text here is the History of the Party of Labour of Albania published on the authority of the Central Committee of the Party of Labour of Albania.
In the section dealing with the foundation of the party there appears the following statement (page 92):
“The political line of the party was embodied in the political tasks which the Meeting of the Communist Groups worked out. The strategic aim for the party for the historical period which the country was passing through was expressed in these terms: ’To fight for the national independence of the Albanian people and for a people’s democratic government in an Albania free from fascism.’”
On the following page the basic features of a class analysis which gave rise to the above strategic formulation of the tasks of the Albanian revolution are spelt out, with emphasis on explaining the main contradiction in Albanian society. It is stated:
“This strategic objective was dictated by the basic antagonistic contradiction existing at the time in Albania which demanded an urgent solution in order to clear the way for national, social, economic and cultural development, namely, the contradiction between the people and the fascist invaders. Another contradiction existed also between the masses of the people and the exploiting classes, but at this time this was of second importance. Under the concrete conditions, this contradiction could not be solved apart from the primary antagonistic contradiction because the landlords, chieftains and the reactionary bourgeoisie constituted the social support of the invaders in our country.
“The Italian fascists were the plenipotentiary rulers in Albania and, as a consequence, they were also the principal enemies of the Albanian people at the time.
“The principal force and those most interested in attaining this strategic objective (liberation) were the workers and peasants who bore the main brunt of the fascist oppression.” (page 93)
Hence the Albanian communists possessed a clear class analysis of their enemies and friends, had a clear view of the strategy required to liberate their land and tactically, which enemy had to be defeated first and which enemy could be left to a future date to be reckoned with.
There was also clarity about friends and foes on the international level:
“The Party made a very correct assessment of the alliance of the Soviet Union with Great Britain and the USA as a military alliance dictated by the circumstances in order to save the world from the menace of fascist bondage. At the same time it made different assessments of these allies and maintained a differentiated stand toward them.” (page 96)
“The Communist Party of Albania (it changed its name to the Party of Labour of Albania later) considered the Soviet Union as the loyal and sincere ally of the Albanian people Whereas Great Britain and the USA were only temporary allies in the war against the fascist states.”
The new party was armed:
“..with a clear political programme that responded to the demands and aspirations of the broad masses of the people, of the fatherland and of socialism. This programme was far from complete and the tasks had not been worked out in detail, for such a thing required a much wider experience of the revolutionary work and struggle of the party and the masses. But this programme was built on Marxist-Leninist scientific foundations.” (page 98)
So, the party grasped clearly the international situation and prepared for its inception by investigation all matters of importance to the level required by the science of socialism, Marxism-Leninism, while simultaneously engaging in the class struggle. Much was yet to be done at that stage, but, as the last paragraph clearly states, it “was built on Marxist-Leninist scientific foundations.”
And what of the attitude of the Party to the working class?
The above quoted section evidences the party’s view of the leading role of the working class and the need for an alliance with the peasantry. Industrial work was, also another definite feature of the orientation of the party in Albania.
As early as 1935 Albanian communists were working within the industrial proletariat. The History tells us that:
“In the fall of 1935, the movement started at the most important work centre of the country, namely Kucova (now Stalin City) run by the AIPA Concessionary Company (the Italian oil company in Albania). About 1,600 Albanian workers were employed in extracting oil and in the auxiliary sectors of the oil field. As far back as 1934,a clandestine nucleus to organise the trade union of the oil workers had been formed on the initiative of the communists. In October 1935 it formed the ’Puna’ Association. It was at once turned into a revolutionary anti-Zog and anti-fascist workers’ organisation.” (page 41)
“(It)..presented to the government and parliament a petition requesting the establishment of the eight-hour workday, measures to improve the conditions of lodgings, food and hygiene, as well as certain measures of social insurance. The workers also demanded that they should not be compelled by the foreign proprietors to give the fascist salute.
Communists also formed the “League of the Private Employees of Korca” with members of various trades, including baking, restaurant workers, bank workers etc.”
Communists organised big strikes of the oil and electricity workers which were suppressed. The book describes this industrial and political activity as having had ”..a major significance. It was a revolutionary school for workers.” (page 42)
“The communist fractions of the builders’ “Puna” Association, of the association of shoemakers, tailors and others, got busy in organising the movement, in making it a more compact movement of the masses and directing it against the Zogite regime.”
Thus the history of the Party of .Labour of Albania is most certainly also a history of communists working within the industrial proletariat, being at one with industrial men and women, organising them, teaching them, learning from them and winning them to revolution. Once again we can see that even in countries where the industrial proletariat was so much smaller than the same class in this country, nevertheless history teaches that there could not have taken place revolutions, had the communist parties concerned not emphasised being in the factories, setting up, often under the most difficult conditions, communist cells, fractions and other types of organisations. So we can see evidenced in the History of the Party of Labour of Albania, the fact that, in great measure, its development, its success, its ability to win the masses, was due to being at the very centre of proletarian activity inside the factories and elsewhere that workers congregated.
Not only did the national question occupy major importance for the Albanian people when it was a question of defending their nation against the Italian fascist aggressors. Modern revisionism, in the form of the designs of the Titoites, represented it and once again the Party of Labour of Albania had to struggle to defend its national rights.
Between pages 305 and 326 there is described the attempts of Tito and his crowd to take over Albania and reduce her to a colony of Yugoslavia. The attempt failed. It was a great test for the Marxist-Leninist leadership of the party and resulted in even greater ties between the genuine leaders and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union under the guidance of comrade Joseph Stalin.
The Titoites treated Albania:
“..as if it were a Yugoslav republic... Albania should not create and develop its own national industry, but should confine itself only to the production of agricultural and mineral raw materials, which would be processed in Yugoslavia.” (page 310)
The Titoites:
“..submitted to the Central Committee of the CPA its plans for the ’union of Albania with Yugoslavia on a federative basis’. The other peoples of the Balkans and, particularly Bulgaria, were also to be included in the federation.”
“’The union of armies in a single army would also be carried out. Eventually the creation of a single state, which would be allegedly the ’will of peoples and parties’ would be examined.”
So, the national rights of the Albanian people were once again threatened, not this time by old style fascism of the Mussolini type, but by the Titoite revisionists, whose line in reality amounted to just the same thing, national subjugation of Albania and her people.
Hence the experience of the Albanian revolution is also definitely characterised by its capacity to clearly identify different varieties of threats to her right to self-determination. Clarity on the national question played a very important part in the struggle first to win, and then defend the national rights of the Albanian people.
All of the above comments accurately describe, the CWLB (M-L) considers, the essence of the development of the fight in Albania.
We now turn finally in this section to the lessons of the world respected Viet Nam Workers Party.
In The Vietnamese Revolution – Fundamental Problems, Essential Tasks, Le Duan, current leader of the Viet Nam Workers Party states on page 21:
“In the light of Marxism-Leninism, our Party, as soon as it came into existence, had a clear and complete conception of the necessary path of development of the Vietnamese revolution. Its Political Theses of 1930 (year of party formation) pointed out that the Vietnamese revolution must go through two stages: first, the national democratic revolution; then a direct passage to socialist revolution, bypassing the stage of capitalist development. The ultimate aim of the party remains the realization of communism. Guided by this programme, the Party has worked out a concrete line for each period and has led the people through successive stages – each beset with difficulties, hardships and complexities – to the present stage of glorious triumph.”
Thus from the beginning, under the leadership of comrade Ho Chi Minh, the party was clear about the stage the revolution was at, of its main enemy, and the path to follow. This was due greatly to the painstaking work of investigation and analysis carried out by Ho Chi Minh in the years before 1930. At the Fifth Congress of the Communist International, held in Moscow in 1924, comrade Ho Chi Minh, as a representative of the French Communist Party and the French colonies, made a Report on the National and Colonial Question. In it he produced facts and figures analysing the oppression of the colonies by metropolitan countries. Applying the teachings of Leninism, the speech showed clearly that even in those early years the future leader of the Vietnamese people based his political views on solid investigation, not only of the situation in the colonies and his own country, but the international situation as well. His speech (contained on page 24 of his Selected Writings) is one of many which evidence his living concern for getting at the truth through facts.
In his historic Appeal Made on the Occasion of the Founding of the Indo-Chinese Communist Party, February 18. 1930, Ho Chi Minh briefly analysed enemies and friends on a world scale, traced the plots of the imperialists, acknowledged the leading role being played by the Soviet Union in the struggle against world reaction, analysed the French role in IndoChina of paying the factory workers starvation wages, plundering the peasants’ land, levying huge taxes and the like. He recorded that:
“..the revolutionary movement has grown stronger every day; the workers refuse to work, the peasants demand land, the students go on strike, the traders stop doing business. Everywhere the masses have risen to oppose the French imperialists.” (page 40)
And in the same speech he went on to make his famous Ten Point Programmatic appeal, which in effect was the document that represented the policies of the new Party. (page 41)
It is well known that the national question in Viet Nam has occupied an extremely important position in the line of the Viet Nam Workers Party. Right through to final liberation from US imperialism the Vietnamese have struggled to unite their land and defend their national right to unity, freedom and independence. The National problem in Viet Nam was able to find solution only through the liberation of the southern half of the country, and that revolutionary target is embodied in the programmes and every major statement dealing with national salvation.
Even though the working class was small, the Vietnamese communists firmly understood the leading role of workers. Le Duan, in the above mentioned text states (page 28):
“The first crucial problem of the revolution is correctly and fully to assert the leading role of the working class. Because of its economic, political and historical position, the working class has become the representative of the progress of human society in our epoch – the only class capable of making the toiling people masters of their own destiny. Although young in age and small in number, the Vietnamese proletariat is a very resolutely revolutionary class, Born before the Vietnamese national bourgeoisie came into existence it had hardly grown up when it absorbed the revolutionary light of Marxism-Leninism and quickly became a conscious political force, unified throughout the three parts – North, Centre and South – of the country, Its close ties with the pauperised toiling peasantry, from which it sprang, created favourable conditions for the setting up of a firm worker-peasant alliance. Furthermore, the Vietnamese working class entered the political arena at a time when the Great Russian October Revolution had scored a triumph which reverberated throughout the five continents.”
The Vietnamese working class, Le Duan tells us, won:
“the pre-eminent position and (took)over the leadership of the Vietnamese revolution after the failure of the Yen Bai insurrection (organised by a nationalist party in 1930).”
As to the party basing itself on real knowledge of real conditions, having a clear grasp of strategy and the tactics appropriate to each stage of the struggle, there can be no doubt whatsoever that the party correctly characterised each twist and turn and kept the line steady and scientific. In all major programmatic documents, for example The Party’s Line in the Present Period of the Democratic Front, contained in the Selected Works (page 42), there is laid down the tasks and tactics for the period, and incidentally, a most militant attack on Trotskyites describing them as “agents of fascism”. This scientific approach to strategy and tactics characterises the party line right through the fight against Japanese, French and finally US aggression.
As for the early years, those comrades who wish to investigate further are advised to read all the articles contained in Ho Chi Minh on Revolution, edited by B. Fall, sections I and II, and the first part of section III in particular. There, the CWLB (M-L) is sure, the reader will find satisfactory evidence that the Vietnamese communists had a clear understanding of the international and national situation prevailing at that time; understood the basic classes and balance of class forces within the country; understood their national question; understood the leading role of the workers and the need to organise them; understood the main stages that the Vietnamese revolution would have to go through. Solid investigation of all matters of importance to the people’s needs was most definitely a feature of the work of the communists and without this real know- ledge, history would not have been able to unfold as it has in Vietnam.
Can any individual who has studied the struggle of the people and party of Viet Nam; can any organisation who has made such a study of the available material, challenge the above summing up of the course of events in Viet Nam?
It should be added here that extensive notes exist resulting from two long conversations held between a representative of the Vietnam government and a member of the CWLB(M-L) three years ago. These notes support the above conclusions, but have not been referred to in detail because only material that all can verify is being used in this draft.
We conclude this section by pointing out that these studies of the above successful parties provide evidence for the five Theses presented above.
We must now turn, albeit briefly, to the theoretical positions of the great, tried and tested communist leaders, namely Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung, Kim Il Sung, Enver Hoxha and Ho Chi Minh.
First, we must see what in essence they have taught on the question of scientific methodology. Then we must see what weight they attached to the need to know the domestic situation by analysing classes and their movement, and the relationship of this to the formulating of programmes; the need to know the international balance of class forces; the need to know the national question; the need to know that the working class alone can lead the fight for revolution and the consequent need to organise that class, especially within the industrial proletariat; and also the need to know matters concerning strategy and the correct tactics.
We will keep our comments brief and stick to the essence of the points.
The very essence of the life-long endeavours of Marx and Engels amounts to a massive statement of the need to have a concrete understanding of concrete conditions, without which revolutions cannot proceed and will be unduly held back.
Marx’ mammoth work Capital, often called the ’bible of the working class’ is living testament to his scientific methodology.
The Communist Manifesto is another example of a concrete understanding of conditions and dialectical and historical materialism. Marx, in virtually everything he wrote, applied the scientific methodology of investigation of facts, their relation to other phenomena, both current and historic. It almost becomes absurd to point this out, for it is so elementary to everything he lived for, that only in a document such as this, which, because of the problems that exist concerning methodology in this country right now, has to take the argument about methods of work back to fundamentals, is it appropriate and necessary to register the fact.
Of the reliance of communists on drawing revolutionary truth from the struggle of classes, Marx and Engels state in the Manifesto (page 47, 48):
“The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement. The theoretical conclusions of the communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented or discovered, by this or that universal reformer.
They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes.”
Marx’ great friend and collaborator, Frederick Engels, also, it should go without saying, spent his life analysing the concrete conditions in a multitude of places and in periods of decades of hard work, work that, like Marx’ was directly linked to the practice of the workers’ movements here in Britain and in other countries. All this is elementary for anyone with the slightest knowledge of communism, and for those in this country now who have not yet even reached that stage of elementary knowledge, then there should be no difficulty in getting hold of the major texts of Marx and Engels and seeing that their loyalty to scientific methodology was boundless.
Engels himself, at an early age, before he had reached political maturity, wrote his celebrated The Condition of the Working Class In England in 1844, itself a towering testament to his desire to seek truth from facts by analysing the conditions of society, especially those of the proletariat.
If further proof is required, then, for example, the collected articles and letters that were written by Marx and Engels contained in On Britain are readily available.
Marx and Engels constantly attacked the ’socialist’ dreamers and utopians of all sorts, for their lack of understanding that socialism is a science and that therefore no work, no text, no article and no individual can be scientifically socialist if it or he, in practice, in methodology, rejects the need to investigate and apply creatively to every situation, historical and dialectical materialism. It is not necessary to add anything more here about the scientific methodology of Marx and Engels, for we are talking of the very founding fathers of modern scientific socialism.
Lenin based all his work on the Marxist methodology, and because of that was able to develop Marxism to a higher level. In his work Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, Lenin had the following to say about Marx’s theory:
“The sole conclusion to be drawn from the opinion of the Marxists that Marx’ theory is an objective truth is that by following the path of Marxian theory we shall draw closer and closer to objective truth... but by following any other path we shall arrive at nothing but confusion and lies.” (page 142. 1952 Moscow edition)
Time and again Lenin drove home the need for scientific methodology. In his work On the Party Program, on page 439 of the Lenin: Selected Works, two volume edition, he states the case in a nutshell:
“We must state what actually exists; the programme must contain what is absolutely irrefutable, what has been established in fact. Only then will it be a Marxist program.”
In a burning attack on ’petty bourgeois revolutionism’, contained in his great work ’Left-Wing’ Communism; An infantile Disorder (page 581 of the aforementioned text immediately above). Lenin states that the petty bourgeois socialist
“...rejecting Marxism, stubbornly refused (or rather was un- able) to understand the need for a strictly objective estimate of the class forces and their interrelations before taking any political action.”
Lenin further stated:
“Our programme is entirely based on the scientific, that is, the materialist world outlook.” (page 5, Lenin on the Revolutionary Proletarian Party of a New Type)
Also he said:
“As we see it, the task of Social-Democracy (read communism) is to organise and help carry out the class struggle, to point out its essential ultimate aims, and to analyse the conditions which determine the methods by which this struggle should be conducted.”
By applying the methodology and teachings of Marx, Engels and Lenin, Stalin further developed scientific socialism and his work, too, bear irrefutable testimony to adherence to Marxist-Leninist methodology in the pursuit of problem-solving.
Returning to the article Dialectical and Historical Materialism, which constitutes a part of the History of Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolshevik),we can see at first hand what importance Stalin placed on scientific methodology (for he drafted the article).He states:
“It is easy to understand how immensely important is the extension of the principles of the dialectic method to the study of social life and the history of society, and how immensely important is the application of these principles to the history of society and to the practical activities of the party of the proletariat.”
“If there are no isolated phenomena in the world, if all phenomena are interconnected and interdependent, then it is clear that every social system and every social movement in history must be evaluated ...from the standpoint of the conditions which gave rise to that system or that social movement and with which they are connected.”
“Everything depends on the conditions, time and place.” (p 109-110)
He goes on to state:
“Hence the source of formation of the spiritual life of society, the origin of social ideas, social theories, political views and political institutions should not be sought for in the ideas, theories and views and political institutions themselves, but in the conditions of the material life of society, in social being, of which these ideas, theories, views, etc., are the reflection.” (p 115)
“Hence, if the party of the proletariat is to be a real party, it must above all acquire a knowledge of the laws of development of production, of the laws of economic development of society.”(p 121)
Hence Stalin’s development of the method of Marx, Engels, and Lenin in his important text Dialectical and Historical Materialism leaves no doubt whatsoever that he regarded concrete investigation and understanding of concrete conditions to be the acid test as to whether or not a party was genuine.
Mao Tsetung states:
“The only way to know conditions is to make social investigation, to investigate the conditions of each social class in real life.”
The method he advocated was to work:
“According to a plan, and, using the fundamental viewpoint of Marxism, i.e. the method of class analysis, make a number of thorough investigations. Only thus can we acquire even the most rudimentary knowledge of China’s social problems.”
“Certainly no all-round knowledge can be acquired merely by glancing this way and that and listening to hearsay.”
“No investigation, no right to speak.” (all quotes from Preface to Rural Surveys)
“We should get our comrades to understand that the two-fold basic task of the leading bodies of the Communist Party is to know conditions and to master policy; the former means knowing the world, and the latter means changing the world. We should get our comrades to understand that without investigation there is no right to speak, and that bombastic twaddle and a mere list of phenomena in 1,2,3,4, order are of no use.” (from Reform our Study)
“Marxism-Leninism is a science, and science means honest solid knowledge; there is no room for playing tricks. Let us then be honest.”
The articles Preface to Rural Surveys, Reform our Study and Rectify the Party’s Style of Work, together with Oppose Stereotyped Party Writing should be studied by all, concerned with scientific method and good style in working out solutions to problems.
Kim Il Sung also attached vital importance in his writings to knowing conditions. The line that had guided the work of Korean communists over the decades, concerning opposing dogmatism and relying on an understanding of conditions, was summed up in part of a speech made by Kim Il Sung in December 1955(see pages 183-4 of the Brief History referred to above):
“The establishment of Juche (the spirit of the people of Korea solving the many problems of the Korean revolution) means holding fast to the principle of solving for oneself all the problems of the revolution and construction in conformity with actual conditions of one’s country, and mainly by one’s own efforts. This is the realistic and creative stand opposed to dogmatism and applying the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism and the experience of the international revolutionary movement to one’s country in conformity with its historical conditions and national peculiarities. This is an independent stand of discarding dependence on others, displaying the spirit of self-reliance and solving one’s own affairs on one’s own responsibility under all circumstances.”
This passage mirrors the stand taken which. as in the case of other communists in other countries where the revolution was successful, rested firmly on a concrete understanding of the reality of class conditions both within and without the country, i.e. depended on the communists concerned practising the scientific method of investigation and analysis.
Enver Hoxha, too, is another example of a great communist leader who practised this impregnable scientific method. In the Foreword to the Selected Works of Enver Hoxha it is stated:
“In Enver Hoxha’s Works stands out the mastery of the CPA in implementing Marxism-Leninism in a creative way in the concrete internal and international conditions.”
He states:
“Lack of knowledge causes grave elementary errors in our work and this is to some extent the reason why the spirit of groups still exists.” (p 9. Selected Works)
“We must convince the masses and explain to them what is most essential. We should know how to approach them, to discuss with them openly, and listen carefully to the most immediate and concrete problems.” (p 28, Selected Works)
Speech after speech, article upon article in the Selected Works of Enver Hoxha, denote his concrete understanding of all the important problems, both for the internal progress of the Party, and the problems of the people of Albania of all classes and important strata. The CWLB (M-L) invites comrades to read, or re-read as the case may be, these Selected Works, should they, require further evidence of this truth.
The spirit of Marxist-Leninist scientific methodology permeates the writings and speeches of comrade Ho Chi Minh, too. We referred, in speaking of the history of the Workers’ Party of Vietnam, in several places to the investigation of the international and national peculiarities which surrounded communists in the early days of trying to get a genuine party off the ground in Vietnam. In a special way, comrade Ho Chi Minh’s political style was somewhat unique, and although his political line was from the beginning Marxist-Leninist, it appears that brevity and simplicity of presentation took precedence over unnecessarily long or complex statements. Because of this, and because, especially for the early period, there are published rather few articles of a highly theoretical nature, there is not an abundance of comment concerning specific references to the need to apply Marxism-Leninism to the concrete conditions, to investigate and to formulate programmes on the basis of such investigation. Such, it appears, was the writing style of this great Marxist-Leninist leader. However, as we noted above, when we briefly reviewed the history of the development of the Party in Vietnam, its very essence, its close and continuous and painstaking attention to -in practice and theory -making a concrete investigation of concrete conditions, leaves no room for thinking that such was not in fact the very life-blood of the style of comrade Ho Chi Minh. Once again we would urge any individual or organisation to turn to the books we have named above for further and, we believe, conclusive proof of this truth.
Comrades, so far we have looked, albeit briefly, at the histories of successful parties, and at comments from tried and tested communist leaders, and have seen that in each history, and in the case of each leader of each successful party and revolution, there are living examples of paying attention to analysing classes in their countries, and drawing up programmatic policies on the basis of such analysis, itself part of a continuous, living process of organising and carrying out revolution; we have seen that parties and leaders have paid close attention to the international situation, its every twist and turn, and have gained a clear understanding of friend and foe at the international level; we have seen that these parties and leaders have developed correct lines, based on concrete conditions and the spirit of communist love for justice on the national question, whether it has been a matter of defending national rights against invaders, or protecting the legitimate national rights of minorities, or a matter of doing both; we have seen that parties and leaders have a history of recognising the leading role of the working class, and have made plans and placed special emphasis on setting out to integrate with and win the industrial proletariat, in particular; finally we have seen that parties and leaders have paid scientific attention to the question of, on the basis of a clear understanding of class forces, the issues of strategy and tactics. The Theses at the start of this document are, the CWLB(M-L) argues, evidenced by the massive weight of historical experience and the theoretical positions adopted and applied time and again by tried and tested leaders, the geniuses of modern revolution.
The CWLB(M-L) challenges any individual, any organisation to say that such was not the course which led to revolution in these parts of the world, that such a description fails to accurately characterise the essential methodology of these leaders of millions.
We could go on and produce a large book full of further evidence, further quotations, further sections of this or that text, speech or document. There is no shortage of material. To the contrary, there are hundreds, literally hundreds of quotes that could be incorporated into a much longer document. We could, for example go through the hundreds of brilliant writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao Tsetung, Kim Il Sung, Enver Hoxha and Ho Chi Minh and break them down into sections which would relate quite specifically to support for the five Theses. Such evidence is available and we will produce it if need be.
However, we think that, certainly for the honest, reasonably well-read Marxist- Leninist in our country, there will be no need to unnecessarily lengthen this document for that purpose. In order, on the other hand, to give some brief pointers to the type of texts we are talking of, texts that have been studied in preparation for this document, we would mention the following as being related to evidencing the five Theses put forward above.
On the question of the need for class analysis and the development of real programmes based on such analysis, we would draw comrades’ attention (once again. in some cases) to The Communist Manifesto, described in footnote (1) of the 1968 Peking edition as “the greatest programmatic document of scientific communism.”; Lenin’s Collected Works, especially volumes 1, 2, 3, 6, in which appear a number of articles which are analyses of conditions in pre-Soviet Russia, and which gave rise to the programmatic position of the CPSU (B), among there being: New Economic Developments in Peasant Life, in which Lenin reviews statistics and provides a penetrating analysis of the situation within the Russian peasantry. Also the article called On the So-called Market Question in which Lenin again uses statistics to answer the question: ”Can capitalism develop in Russia and reach full development when the masses of the people are becoming still poorer? Again this is another concrete example of Lenin’s preparatory investigation which led to the programmatic stance of the CPSU(B). Also Lenin’s article What the Friends of the People are is important.
These are all contained in volume I. In volume 2, the article ’The Handicraft Census of 1894-95 in Perm Gubernia and General Problems of ’Handicraft Industry’ is also important. This article, as Lenin explains its purpose, is:
“To acquaint the reader with the material of the census, the methods by which it has been analysed and the conclusions to be drawn from the data relative to the economic realities of our ’handicraft industries’. We understand the words’ economic realities’ because we only deal with what exists in reality, and why that reality is what it is, and not something else.“
In connection with this article, comrades should look, for example, at the table of statistics produced on page 364, statistics which comrade Lenin analysed in order to help obtain a clear view of the concrete conditions in this area of Russian social life. In volume 3 there is the celebrated article The Development of Capitalism in Russia. One only has to read such an article to understand the absence of authentic investigation of conditions here in this country. On page 33 Lenin states:
“The essay here presented to the reader is devoted to an analysis of the pre-revolutionary economy of Russia.”
In volume 6 there is the article To the Rural Poor. In this important article, Lenin analysed class groups according to land distribution figures, and the position of landlord, rich peasant, rural poor etc. It cannot be stressed enough that these great works of social investigation were the forerunners of the development of programmatic stances that paved the way for the revolution in 1917. They were not at all academic exercises; they were the necessary investigation of the realities of pre-Soviet society which had to be completed in order to know the enemies and allies of the forces organising for revolution in Russia, whilst simultaneously the early Bolsheviks engaged in continuous struggle to prepare conditions for the overthrow of Tsarism.
Other texts that relate to class analysis and the formulation of programmes which mobilised millions of people for revolution are to be found in the four volume Selected Works of Mao Tsetung, some of which have been mentioned earlier.
On the international situation there are texts such as Lenin’s brilliant Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, together with a multitude of articles by him and other great communist theoreticians, which are easily located. On the relationship between external international forces and internal class relations, the works of comrade Mao Tsetung must again be mentioned, and also the History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolshevik), which contains incisive summing up of the international situation and its relationship to the struggle to consolidate the Russian revolution, as well as to the fight of progressive mankind in other countries to oppose the threat of fascism.
As for the national question, Lenin’s The Rights of Nations to Self-determination and Stalin’s Marxism and the National Question are very important.
As to the leading role of the working class, the need to put politics in command of the struggle to mobilise the industrial proletariat, and the need to avoid economism Lenin’s What is to be done? is the classic here.
All great communist theorists have stressed the central role of this question of the working class being the dynamo of revolutionary struggle, and it is referred to time and again in the writings of all of these leaders.
On the question of strategy and tactics, Mao Tsetung has written a great deal, for example his Problems of Strategy in China’s Revolutionary War in volume 1 of the Selected Works. Also Lenin’s Two Tactics of Social Democracy should be read in this respect.
We understand well that many comrades will have already read these texts. Our point is twofold. First, although they have been read, it is clear from the state the M-L movement is in, that reading is not synonymous with understanding clearly the relevance of their message for communists in this country. Second, these texts are specified in order to give guidance to comrades new to communist literature.
In preparing to provide an answer to the question “What is a genuine revolutionary communist party?”, we have now gone through a brief examination of the historical practice of several successful revolutions and the parties which led them: and we have gone through each of the tried and tested leaders’ theoretical writings concerning the party question, have seen the essentials of their views on the areas covered, and have gleaned the essence of their teachings.
Now we can reply to the first question for only now, after investigation, are we able to.
Study of the actual practice of successful modern revolutions and the parties that led them, and study of the theoretical writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao Tsetung, Kim Il Sung, Enver Hoxha and Ho Chi Minh reveal to us that a genuine revolutionary communist party is one that, in a living way (in addition to the essential characteristics referred to in the Foreward)
knows well the conditions in its own country because it has made a scientific class analysis of those conditions and knows therefore, the existence, characteristics and development of all classes and important intra-class strata, and thus the friends and foes of the revolution; and has, based on this analysis, a programme or mass work;
knows well the conditions in the world because it has made a scientific analysis of those conditions and knows, therefore, its friends and foes in the international arena, those Who it can rely on for support, those who side with the enemy of its own revolution and who might intervene on that enemy’s behalf;
knows how to solve its national question because it has investigated this question with a spirit of being scientific and being just and can thus pave the way for self-determination for those who are entitled to it, and for the unity of nations based on consent and proletarian principles;
knows, really comprehends down to its very roots, that the working class, especially the industrial proletariat, is and can be the only vanguard of the struggle for revolution, and knows, bas worked out in a very concrete way bow to educate, agitate and organise the proletariat and put it, under its leadership, on the high road to revolution, and bas actually won workers to its ranks and leadership;
knows, because it bas conducted a scientific analysis of class forces and their continuing development, bow to scientifically characterise each and every major turn of events, each and every distinct stage of the tortuous battle for class supremacy, and bas a clear view of what strategy and tactics are correct at each stage.
This is the general shape and definition of a genuine revolutionary communist party; this is what the words Marxism-Leninism boil down to; the CWLB(M-L) invents nothing by insisting that this definition is scientifically valid, it merely records the facts of modern revolution and the kernel of modern theory, scientific socialism; Those who reject this true definition are not involved in merely challenging the scientific line of the CWLB(M-L), they are involved in the impossible task of overturning the facts of modern history, overturning the massive and impregnable truth of the universal theory of scientific socialism, Marxism-Leninism.
All who have tried this in the past have failed. All who try this now will fail. All who try it any time in the future will fail. This is a law. Anyone who rejects this is not a Marxist-Leninist.
The process of building a genuine communist party can only be in a living, moving way at all stages of its growth and development, a continuous process – based on scientific methodology – of striving honestly to fulfil the above tried and tested primary definitional characteristics.
This then is the scientific general definitional shape of a genuine communist party and one that draws attention to the specific requirements of party building in our country during the present period. This is our only reliable yardstick in assessing organisations in our country. Of course, there are other essential but secondary features possessed by a genuine communist party such as those we refer to in the Foreword History bears this out as well. But the above are the basic features and characteristics. Other areas of investigation and work must of course also be undertaken. These other questions will be referred to later.
But if an organisation gets the above problems under its belt it can certainly move on to solve every other big and small problem of making the revolution.
We can now scientifically answer the second question: “Does a genuine revolutionary communist party exist in our country?”
Application of the above general definition, given birth by real history, and substance from its foundation in the theory of scientific socialism, Marxism-Leninism, proves that the objective answer is:
in Britain today there does not exist a genuine revolutionary communist party. The working class, made up of many millions of men, women and children, daily exploited by the ruling class of capitalists, is without a party in the class struggle, without real leadership.
The CWLB (M-L) has spent much time spread over four years taking the trouble to investigate organisations in the Marxist-Leninist movement in Britain. It has also investigated other organisations which claim to be ”for the working class”. Extensive material has been gone through and detailed research papers exist on the following organisations:
Appeal Group
Association for the Realisation of Marxism
Association of Communist Workers (Marxist-Leninist)
Birmingham Communist Association
Black Unity and Freedom Party
Brent Workers Association (Marxist-Leninist)
British and Irish Communist Organisation, so-called[5]
Committee for a Socialist Programme
Committee for the Defeat of Revisionism and Communist Unity
Communist Federation of Britain (Marxist-Leninist)
Communist Organisation of the British Isles
Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist)
Communist Party of England (Marxist-Leninist)
Communist Unity Association (Marxist-Leninist) and its forerunners the Communist Unity Organisation and the Marxist-Leninist Workers Association
East London Marxist-Leninist Association and its forerunners the London Alliance and the North London Alliance
Finsbury Communist Association
Marxist-Leninist Organisation of Britain
Revolutionary Marxist-Leninist League, so-called[6]
South West London Study Group
Workers’ Institute of Marxism-Leninism- Mao Tsetung Thought
Workers Party of Scotland (Marxist-Leninist)
Working Peoples Party of England
The group in Coventry under the leadership of Henderson Brookes
We are conscious of the fact that there are M-L orientated organisations of national minorities, e.g. Greek and Indian organisations. The M-L orientated Indian Workers Association, based in Birmingham, was on the original list of organisations to be investigated, but due to it forwarding very little information it was impossible to produce a research paper on it. Other M-L orientated organisations of national minorities were not thoroughly investigated because they are not party-building organisations.
It is important for all the comrades in these organisations to know that these investigations have been done to help the movement overcome its problems, that they have not been fleeting affairs but serious studies, that the research papers cover a number of specific questions and that the CWLB (M-L) is honestly sure that it has missed nothing of significance. The research papers had the following questions to investigate:
(a) Does this organisation recognise the need for a class analysis to scientifically Work out who are the enemies and friends of the working class; does it claim to have made one; does it reject the need to make one or just pay lip service to the task?
(b) Does this organisation have a programme; if so where did it spring from, the sky or from a scientific class analysis; if it doesn’t have one, why not? If it does, is it a revolutionary programme including minimum and maximum goals? If so, what are they?
(c) Is this organisation revolutionary, i.e. does it work for the revolutionary overthrow of the ruling class, does it support the dictatorship of the proletariat? If not, what is its line on the transition from capitalism to socialism? Does it try to substitute Moscow or Trotskyite revisionism for Marxism-Leninism?
(d) Does it see the need to organise the working class in industry, at the place of work? Does it agree with or oppose the line of the document of our organisation on this question? (e) What is the main class content of this organisation? Does it have a social base in the working class?
(f) What is its brief history, i.e. when did it come into being, how, why, what does it do in practice, what are the important dates in its development? A brief chronology only is required.
(g) Does this organisation practise in the spirit of unity, or is it splittist, or arrogant, or in other ways sectarian?
(h) What is its position on the national question? (material for this should be gathered now in preparation for the forth coming analysis of the national question in Britain)
(i) Does it scientifically and militantly fight deviations from Marxism-Leninism?
(j) What is its line on political education and cadre training? Are just a few books read, or is there broad and deep attention paid to the study of socialism?
(k) Is it an honest organisation or does it mischievously handle its politics? Does it elevate secondary questions to the level of major questions? Is it mature, skilful, helpful, or disruptive?
(1) Does it have a publication, or more than one? What are they? Are they lively? Do they deal with the objectively important questions, such as the ones listed here, or are they abstract, left or right in character, and do they lead or tail? Do they take into account the level of the people, do they deal with issues that are important to the people, or are they ”way ahead of the masses”?
(m) Do they possess a reasonable knowledge of the history of capitalism and the working class?
(n) What is the position of this organisation on what we have described as “growing fascism” in our partial investigation of this question? What is its programme on racism?
(o) Where does this organisation stand on the world situation? How does it characterise the age we are living in and the tasks before workers and oppressed people? How does it view the role of the Peoples Republic of China? How does it view revisionist Russia?
(p) Does this organisation have a M-L ideology and M-L organisation; and respect for democratic centralism. M-L tactics, style of work, and programme or approach to the question of programme M-L theory and. tactics?
(q) Are there other points about this organisation, apart from the above, which have a relevance to its political role in the task of workers fighting for revolution? What else, apart from the above, if anything, should we know of in relation to this organisation?
Of course, it was not possible to obtain knowledge of every little detail on every question. However, comprehensive research papers were produced and a great deal of information was gathered. Only four of the above organisations claim to be genuine revolutionary communist parties: the CPB(M-L), the CPE(M-L) and the WPS(M-L). The WPPE appears also to claim to be a genuine communist party. In several years existence they have not, in reality earned their titles.
We apply the above definition creatively, have looked deeply and state with all the force of scientific evaluation that none of these organisations fulfil the requirements, as history demands and theory dictates, for being described as a genuine communist party. This is a fact. The CWLB (M-L) is very conscious that these organisations are different in certain respects.
To these organisations we say:
On the basis of the teachings of history and the theoretical principles underlying the definition of a real communist party we openly challenge you, individually, to reply to the most serious charge that you are not what your names imply, real parties. It is imperative that you not ignore this challenge. The whole movement must struggle for clarity on this central question. You must enter the debate in a scientific and honest and modest spirit. If the Theses in this document are false, are unscientific, then
YOUR CLEAR DUTY IS TO EXPOSE THAT NUT-AND-BOLT TO THE WHOLE MARXIST-LENINIST MOVEMENT AND THE WORKING CLASS!
If it has been wrong to turn to the history of the practice of the above revolutionary parties, to the kernel of theoretical teaching of tried and tested revolutionaries, or if we have failed to correctly interpret history or this theory then
IT IS YOUR CLEAR DUTY TO THE WHOLE MARXIST-LENINIST MOVEMENT AND TO THE WORKING CLASS TO EXPOSE THAT!
If, on the basis of history and theory, we have constructed a false definitional shape of a genuine communist party then
IT IS YOUR CLEAR DUTY TO THE WHOLE MARXIST-LENINIST MOVEMENT AND THE WORKING CLASS TO EXPOSE THAT!
If we have got it wrong, and you really do possess the characteristics and inner essence of a genuine communist party, then you will enter into open discussion of these issues, will not act as though they are beneath your organisation, and will work to put the movement and all who desire the democratic dictatorship of the working class on the right road.
People who look down on the rest of the M-L movement, who have no ambition to seek ways of uniting on a principled basis, see others as rubbish, should say so loud and clear.
The work has been done. The material examined in a responsible way. And we repeat that these organisations which lay claim to being genuine communist parties are NOT genuine communist parties.
If we are wrong, let each of them show the movement concrete evidence of having made thorough investigation of the classes in our society, or let them deny its importance!
Let each of them show the movement the evidence of their scientific investigation of the world balance of forces! or let them deny its importance! Let each of them show the evidence, the concrete foundations of their positions on the national question!
Or let them deny its importance! Let each of them show evidence of, in reality, accepting in practice the truth that the working class, especially the industrial proletariat, is the leading force; by showing, proving, that as genuine communist parties they have formulated scientific and creative programmes for actually winning the working class to Marxism-Leninism and are implementing those programmes! Or let them say that this is not a requirement of a genuine communist party! Let them make a clear statement accepting or rejecting the need to get down to do this work.
Let each of them prove to the working class and the movement that they have scientifically characterised the present stage of the class struggle and have a real, concrete understanding of what strategy and tactics, what demands must be adopted, what must be done in the present period! Or let them deny the need to properly characterise the present stage and work out correct strategy and tactics for the class struggle!
The CPB(M-L) does not possess the characteristics of a genuine communist party.
The CPE(M-L) does not possess the characteristics of a genuine communist party.
The WPS (M-L) does not possess the characteristics of a genuine communist party.
The WPPE does not possess the characteristics of a genuine communist party.
We fraternally call on members of these organisations to give the greatest consideration to these points and to put them on their agendas for discussion and debate. They are not real communist parties. We maintain we have proved this in these Theses.
There is no evidence of broad authentic scientific investigation of social conditions.
Equally, we understand that there are good and sincere comrades in these four organisations. We hope this comment is accepted in the spirit in which it is made, for we do not patronise. Hence, our contradiction with these organisations and especially all honest comrades in them is non-antagonistic, and we regard all such comrades as just that – comrades!
But, just as we will never accept that white is black, that night is day that valleys are mountains, we do not, can not and will not accept that you have done the necessary preparatory work, possess the features, or have the scientific orientation in methodology or style of a genuine vanguard party of the working class.
An organisation can call all the meetings it wishes, can produce all the papers and pamphlets it pleases, repeat a million times over that it is a genuine communist party – paper will not refuse ink and air will not refuse to carry any sound – but all of that means absolutely nothing if in reality that organisation objectively is not what it says it is.
The other organisations do not claim to be parties, but most of them claim to be party-building organisations, or concerned about the party-building question. The CWLB(M-L) has taken them all seriously, the tiniest of them and the largest of them, for it is with line not numbers we have been concerned.
Although not parties, these organisations, in varying degrees, have one important thing in common with the above four organisations: they have by and large failed to give leadership – one of the vital qualities of Marxism-Leninism as a living guide to action. We repeat, the documents and papers (where organisations produce papers) have been researched. Some organisations have made attempts in this or that important area. All is by no means negative and different organisations have different achievements. But, in essence, and this is the important factor, none of these organisations has located the key to unlock the door, to untie the knots of the Marxist-Leninist movement’s tangle, we acknowledge thus, that some organisations have tried, have done some serious thinking, and there is no doubt that much effort has been put in. But in the field of problem-solving, in the field of showing the way forward, these organisations have not been able, for one reason or another, to come to grips with what needs to be done to put the movement on the right road, to make an overall plan, to unite the unitable and prepare the way for the coming into being of a genuine revolutionary communist party.
The CWLB (M-L) has shared some of the problems experienced by other organisations but has, it honestly believes, studied and struggled hard to help rectify this bad situation.
The CWLB (M-L) challenges any organisation or individual to deny the above truths relating to the weaknesses of the M-L movement; to deny the fact that, since the early sixties, when the open polemic between Marxism-Leninism and revisionism broke out, that is about sixteen years ago that the organisations which have described themselves as Marxist-Leninist, by and large have failed to discharge their solemn duty to the working class. They have failed to solve problems, failed to give a lead, failed to give scientific socialist leadership, failed to analyse the way forward, failed to create a genuine communist party. In looking at the orientation of the older organisations and the newer ones this indictment stands.
The evidence for this lies not only in a detailed examination of the organisations concerned, but before our very eyes, namely in the tendency towards stagnation, the fragmentation, the isolation of these organisations from the force they all admit is the vanguard, the working class; the flowering of more and more groups, the petty and often unprincipled nature of “polemics”, the failure of orientation...all in all the product of failing to be Marxist-Leninist in method and style, the failure to point out clearly what the movement must concentrate on and what methodology it must put into practice to solve all the big problems, especially the party building problem.
To every honest and serious Marxist-Leninist organisation throughout Britain!
To every honest and serious individual Marxist-Leninist throughout Britain!
To every person who wants the overthrow of capitalism and the state political power of the working class millions!
We say this: Yes, we have not done so well in recent years, have not discharged our solemn duty in a scientific and problem-solving way, have not carved out the path that will lead us to uniting the unitable on the high road to socialist revolution, the overthrowing and dispossessing of the oldest and one of the vilest (if not the vilest!), most blood-stained ruling class in the world.
But having studied the struggle of workers and others in various countries which have actually achieved revolution, thrown off their oppressors, achieved liberation, we understand that in a certain sense the period we have been going through was inevitable, all the more so since this is an imperialist country in which there are so many pressures and temptations to make mistakes, even of an important character.
But others have solved their equally complex problems AND IT IS UP TO US TO SOLVE OURS. WE HAVE ONLY OURSELVES TO RELY ON. WE MUST DO THE JOB. OTHERS WILL COME IN THE FUTURE, BUT FOR THE PRESENT WE CAN ONLY DRAW ON OUR OWN RESOURCES TO GET THINGS MOVING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
COMRADES, we can solve our problems, we must and WILL solve them!
Let us make a concrete start now!
Let us not quibble over minor matters, this or that formulation of a point. Let us honestly and sincerely chart a course out of the present wilderness of confusion.
The CWLB (M-L) puts forward the following resolutions aimed at turning the present bad situation into a good one.
Strategically the CWLB (M-L)’s proposals are aimed at creating the conditions for a great unity of all the unitable and the bringing into being of a genuine communist party.
Tactically, in order to achieve this unity of the most profound and scientifically clear type the CWLB (M-L) calls for a formal split of the most profound and scientifically clear type in the movement that describes itself as Marxist-Leninist.
Why a split? In order to formally draw a crystal clear line of demarcation between two opposing forces, the two opposing lines within the movement that have, in fact, remained within its body politic for years.
Which lines? What split?
The bourgeois school of assertion, metaphysics, subjectivism, empiricism and dogmatism, on the one hand, and on the other hand the proletarian revolutionary line of historical and dialectical materialism, of investigation, evidence, scientific analysis and the lively and mass implementation of programmatic solutions to all the major problems of actually making a revolution in this country.
The movement that at present calls itself Marxist-Leninist must formally be split in a most fundamental, clear-cut and profound way – it must be split up into two camps: the camp of science and the camp of anti-science. Only in this way can the present confusion as to who really stands for what be ended and clarity achieved, leading to a real solving of the major problems and challenges confronting all who are prepared to face up to reality.
How can such a clear split be made?
By the honest and serious organisations and individuals reaching agreement, which must be real and of substance and sincerely entered into, to undertake the work, that must be done to clear the way for the coming into being of a real revolutionary communist party.
What precisely does that mean?
It means unity of all real Marxist-Leninist on the specific basis of agreement to:
1. Undertake the making of a class analysis of our country leading to the production of a programme;
2. Undertake the making of a scientific analysis of the international situation;
3. Undertake the scientific investigation of the national question;
4. Undertake the making of a clear assessment of the role of the working class, and especially the industrial proletariat; and undertake the working out of specific programmatic courses for winning the proletariat to Marxism-Leninism; and to commence industrial struggle.
5. Undertake the making of a scientific characterisation of the present stage of class struggle and working out a clear and correct strategical and tactical course.
This is what all successful revolutions have required of the leading participants. This is what the time-tested theory of Marxism-Leninism teaches on the party question. And this is what our revolutionary responsibilities are to the working class and all who want socialism and hate capitalism and imperialism.
There is no by-passing these tasks. Sooner or later they will have to be undertaken. Why should we not make a start now, end the confusion and get on the right road, and move the work in each and every area of class struggle forward on the basis of such investigation and analysis. Let us elevate ourselves to this level of work and end the petty and often unprincipled “struggles” that have characterised the past years.
It boils down to this: for the past sixteen years or so there has been little real progress. What do we want from the next sixteen years? Do we want more of the same, more confusion, fragmentation and isolation from the working class, especially the industrial proletariat; or do we, want real progress?
The CWLB (M-L) calls for the bringing into being of an organisation of a new type! It could well be called
THE MARXIST-LENINIST WORKING COMMISSION ON PARTY BUILDING PREPARATORY WORK.
What is meant by “an organisation of a new type”? It is proposed, that the following be its main aspects, so that there will be no confusion:
Tasks of the Commission are
(a) To investigate all matters concerning the existence, characteristics and development of classes and important strata in society in terms of the teaching of Marxism-Leninism, and to take this investigation to the stage of the production of a draft class analysis to locate the actual enemies and any friends of the working class, recognising that this is the only proper basis for the drawing up of a programme by the Commission, to be eventually put before the working class and any allies;
(b) To undertake all the investigation necessary for the drafting of a scientific statement on the international situation in order to locate enemies and friends on a global scale;
(c) To undertake the necessary investigation of all relevant matter concerning the national question and to produce a scientific draft;
(d) To spell out precisely in a draft document the role of the working class and any important strata that may be located, and to produce a draft programme, dealing with the specifics of educating, organising and mobilising the industrial proletariat against the ruling class for making revolution;
(e) To undertake the making of a scientific assessment of the present stage of the class struggle and a draft statement on the correct strategy and tactics for the present stage.
If conducted properly the camp of science will have in its possession five crucial weapons for the solving of many problems.
Genuine – as opposed to formal and insincere – agreement to fully undertake this work and produce the goods is the political basis for affiliation to the Commission. Affiliated organisations must work systematically and responsibly and get the work scheduled done on time, unless there is good reason for delay.
The Commission should have a Commission Committee whose job it will be to see that the work is done on the above questions, that documents are circulated efficiently, that check-ups are made to sort out problems and that nothing is allowed to divert the work.
Each organisation, regardless of size, should have one vote on the Committee. Voting cannot change the founding policy but only decide how the tasks above are to be organised.
The Commission must have on its agenda ONLY the matters outlined above and immediately related issues. It should not organise any other political work. If organisations wish to coordinate political activities, e.g. demonstrations, they must find means outside the commission to do so. In this way the Commission will not get embroiled in discussions about matters which are not within its terms of reference.
There should be a sober, efficient atmosphere. Documents must be properly distributed, time provided for their study, considered comment made and there should thus be no question of “out of the blue” resolutions on important questions. To the contrary all should work in an atmosphere of professional investigation and the step by step collective discussion and adoption of the drafts.
The commission must watch closely to see if all affiliated organisations are practising the terms of reference sincerely. It is not at all impossible that organisations may pay lip service to the idea of the Commission, affiliate, but in practice carry out the activities of the other camp, the camp of anti-science.
If this happens, they should be criticised. If they persist in violating the rules of the Commission and its work there must be no bones about it: they must be exposed and expelled from the Commission with Stalinist determination. For its part, the CWLB (M-L) wishes to state that it is not going to play around.
The work is too important. Hence it will fight to the full with all weapons at its disposal any attempt by any organisation to in any way sabotage the work of the Commission. We start from a desire for unity but we will not hesitate to struggle to expel any organisation which has sneaked into the Commission. It will view any such organisation as properly fitting into the other camp and will do everything it can to boot it off the Commission and into the other place. We feel sure all serious organisations understand the importance of combating liberalism in this matter.
The Commission should work honestly. Nothing good can come from conniving. What each organisation wants to say should be said in the open. Problems should be put on the table. Naturally, as the affiliates retain their autonomy the Commission has, for example, no right to stop organisations meeting separate from the Commission. However, in the spirit of being above board when such meetings take place on matters concerning the Commission’s work the Commission should be notified of the nature of the discussion and any decisions formal or informal.
Matters of finances, work schedules, check ups, printing frequency and location, of meetings should be decided by the Commission Committee and carried out efficiently.
The Commission should see if there is any basis for non-aligned Marxist-Leninists to attend its meetings and participate in its work. Ideas on this can be submitted later. A complete record, taped or otherwise must be kept of all Commission meetings.
There should be a check on credentials[7] – this can be one of the functions of the Commission Committee – for organisations and for any individuals, if provision is made for the latter. Individuals could be recommended by two organisations in order that they be “known” to the movement.
The Commission should not be a slanging chamber. It should be a professional revolutionary body getting on with its work.
Decisions should be by simple majority, discussions should be calm, there should be a bar on unprincipled struggle. There should be strong chairing to guard the work of the Commission, and the chair should rotate. The CWLB (M-L) will, if there is agreement, chair the first meeting of the Commission.
The Commission will lay down the methodology to be practised which must be based on scientific procedure, M-L procedure.
The details can be gone into when the Commission meets.
The Commission should consider closed and open sessions.
There should be working parties on each question with all affiliates having the right to work on all questions. Each working party would have a chairman and possibly other officers.
The Commission members should be delegates not representatives. On each area being investigated the CWLB (M-L) will collectively wish to decide its views after a proper examination of arguments and proposals.
It is important to know what the Commission will be and what it will not be. It is not a Party, or a new federation, or a new M-L executive decision-making centre. It is a working Commission to produce drafts on the above questions.
The CWLB (M-L) has a view on the future developments this work might lead to.
The five drafts should be circulated to every interested person and organisation throughout the country when agreed as draft lines by the Commission.
The Commission should set a target, timetable of one year for the completion of the drafts.
After the widest discussion of the drafts, after their implications have: been fully discussed and thought through, with any amendments coming from discussion and agreed by the Commission, the drafts should be considered, upon formal adoption, the PLATFORM OF THE COMMISSION.
On the basis of its own PLATFORM the Commission should undertake two tasks: despite the working out of scientific statements on the five key areas it would be inappropriate for the Commission and its affiliated organisations to immediately dissolve, themselves and reconstitute themselves as a Communist party. The Commission should first and foremost undertake programmatic work along the lines of its PLATFORM documents, especially giving priority to industrial work, so that from its inception any new party would have a worker-base, a worker-orientated leadership (possibly a formula of precise numbers of workers in ratio: to other comrades on the leading Committee should be worked out). Also, some nation-wide membership should be won by the Commission for its drafts to avoid the danger of any new party having only a few people here and there, and no nationwide representation. We will fight any notion of the Commission rushing to set up a party without substantial practical work, simply on the basis of the drafts.
The second task the Commission should undertake is a deep discussion on the question of the methods and timing of the coming into being of a new party. It is not possible at this point in time to see the exact date, if the circumstances come about, on which such ’a party might be brought into existence. We have stated there must be clarity and agreement on the Commission’s PLATFORM STATEMENTS, that there should be serious practical work, especially within the industrial proletariat, and that there should be some nation wide base, and that deep and thorough discussion should take place as to the timing of the dissolution of the Commission and its affiliated groups, and that there should be ideological and political unity. As to the exact date, with these conditions fulfilled, we would hope that the maturity, honesty and dedication of all the communists concerned would enable them to, with wisdom, choose the date.
Of course, there will be other questions, serious, but nevertheless secondary to the above ones, that will require discussion. Provision should be made for this.
This is the only way to properly prepare the conditions for the coming into being of a real Party of the Proletariat. IT CAN AND MUST BE DONE.
In the meantime we must watch the games of those who refuse to support the Commission, the games of the futureless anti-science camp. We must expose them as anti-scientists, attack them time and again on every issue of importance, hit them harder and harder, SMASH THEM BY DISCREDITING THEIR MEANINGLESS MOUTHINGS, POINTING OUT THE MARXIST-LENINIST TRUTH OF “NO INVESTIGATION, NO RIGHT TO SPEAK”!
Those who stubbornly refuse to join the work of the Commission have no future and will end up as agents – conscious or unconscious – of the ruling class.
The CWLB (M-L) earnestly proposes that all organisations put the Theses on the agenda of their discussions, concentrate on the essence of them, and do not get bogged down by detail. If organisations or individuals find themselves in no basic contradiction with the primary aspect of these Theses and proposals but only, say in contradiction with secondary aspects of its contents, then IT IS THEIR SOLEMN DUTY TO AFFILIATE AND HELP BREAK THE STAGNATION IN THE M-L MOVEMENT AND HELP PREPARE FOR A GENUINE PARTY. The CWLB (M-L) earnestly urges all organisations not to elevate secondary issues relating to these Theses and Conclusions to the primary level, to see its proposals in an all-round way and decide in favour of affiliation, so that we can, on the above basis, get together and do the work.
The CWLB (M-L) earnestly urges the CPB (M-L), the CPE (M-L), the WPS (M-L) and the WPPE not to remain outside the Commission.
We have stated our view of your organisations. But we do not regard you as antagonistic enemies. If you insist, your organisational names will be adhered to. We want you in the commission. The movement will want to know your views. We view it in the following way. If you are confident, and are putting nothing before the progress and unity of the movement, then come in and say what you have to say on all the above five questions. Here, surely, is a golden opportunity, before the whole movement, to show, to prove that you have in fact done the preparatory work we believe you haven’t done. What have you got to lose? To remain aloof, to refuse to comment, will only endorse the belief that you have not really tried to seek the principled unity of the M-L movement, that you are indeed not parties and that you in fact have not done the necessary preparatory work and are, to put it bluntly scared of entering scientific discussion for fear of thorough exposure.
We use strong words, but if these Theses and conclusions can be shown to be wrong we will be the first to eat them ...AND PUBLICLY.
The CWLB (M-L) is not concerned to gather organisations on the negative basis of just being anti-CPB (M-L) or CPE(M-L) or WPS(M-L) or WPPE. Its concern is positive and is aimed at trying to find a principled way forward. We stand for one Communist Party, but a real one.
The CWLB (M-L) will wish to submit to the Commission statements which, it is confident, will, for example, provide concrete evidence to show that the approach of the CPB (M-L) to the question of the existence of classes in society is based on an erroneous methodology.
The CWLB (M-L) believes that this can be a turning point in the movement and that many comrades in other organisations as well as our own are very concerned at the state of things, want to find a way forward and will hope, as we do, for a positive response to the proposal for the Commission.
We may be excused for anticipating some possible arguments for opposing the Commission. For example, “The Communist Party of China didn’t have a class analysis when it was founded in 1921, so why do we need one?” We must benefit from the experience of the CPC. It was the analysis of classes in Chinese society which, theoretically, to a great degree paved the way for the success of the Chinese revolution many years later. The point is, surely that without a scientific class analysis the Chinese Revolution could not have been made and that is the main lesson for us, namely, that, especially in view of the number of false starts in our country, we need to possess clarity, right from the start, about the class structure and the relative strength and movement of classes in this society. We understand very well that the making of a class analysis is not a one-off task, but is a constant process. We understand that Mao’s class analysis, made five years after the formation of the Party, was necessitated by, in addition to a general need for clarity on the class structure of Chinese society, the serious setbacks inflicted on the CPC by its class enemies when workers were massacred and other wise suppressed. Mao’s class analysis was made to combat both right and “left” opportunism which had hold on the Party between 1921 and 1926 and between them contributed to the above serious setbacks which cost many lives. The CWLB (M-L) is opposed to any more false starts on the Party building question in our country, wishes to end the confusion as to the precise class structure we are confronted with, and does not wish to waste the life of a single worker because the movement still cannot see clearly who are its enemies and who are its friends. Now is the time for the movement to gain clarity on this basic issue. We must learn from the mistakes as well as the successes of other great parties. We must recognise that for us to avoid mistakes we must make a scientific class analysis, even though it will tax us and take a little time. It will be well worth it and is the safest way to achieve real unity and avoid more false starts. Unity based on real agreement between the unitable on the basis of a scientific class analysis is a unity that will be hard to sabotage.
WE NEED TO UNITE NOW AND SET ABOUT THE MAKING OF A CLASS ANALYSIS OF OUR COUNTRY WHICH WILL, IN TURN, CREATE THE FIRM FOUNDATIONS FOR A REAL, SUBSTANTIAL AND SCIENTIFIC UNITY OF ALL HONEST AND SERIOUS COMMUNISTS.
“The CWLB (M-L) wants to divert us into book studies.” We would reply: comrades, if this sort of work is mere bookishness, then every tried and tested M-L leader was also guilty of book worship:
“The CWLB (M-L) is taking us away from mass work”. We would reply: comrades, there need be no contradiction between being on the Commission and doing your mass work. It will not step us, just as the lengthy preparatory work for these Theses has not stopped us doing mass work. We have been involved in concrete struggle on the anti-fascist front. We have been involved in the cultural field encouraging the Voice of the People Folk Group, one of the leading people’s singing groups in the country. We are associated with the production and selling of what is probably the most widely distributed M-L paper in Britain, the Voice of the People. We are, as you know, doing mass work inside factories and are associated with the bringing into being of factory programmes and factory newspapers of a new type. So when you say that the CWLB(M-L) wants to turn you away from mass work, we reply: we hope you are doing what we are already doing and will continue to do. It hasn’t stopped us, and it needn’t stop anybody else. The practical organisation of mass work and all political activity should go on side by side with the work of the Commission and one will surely enrich the other, as we ourselves have found.
“The CWLB (M-L) is trying splittist tactics, is making trouble, we would reply that such a charge is groundless. The splits already exist and were not created by us. The trouble is already with the movement. The CWLB (M-L) is putting forward concrete proposals to overcome, not prolong, the splits and other troubles.
“The CWLB (M-L) is proposing the impossible, we can’t set about doing all this work, we are not big enough, we’ll stick to doing what we’ve been doing.” Such defeatist, liquidationist arguments have no bearing on the true capacity of a determined, honest and united Commission. It definitely can be done.
What’s more it will have to be done. Those who argue in the above way are, by definition, fodder for the anti-science camp and we will be happy to help them in that direction if they persist. Their lack of backbone, their anti-communist liquidationism is the exact opposite mistake of that made by those who think that the necessary preparatory work has already been accomplished.
“The CWLB (M-L) is trying to make a name for itself. This is all aimed at building its prestige. We can’t have any part in that.” The CWLB (M-L) is not concerned with this at all. It has things to say, just like other organisations. And believes thoroughly and honestly that the proposed Commission is the way forward and the proper place where all can say what they wish within the terms of reference. We urge all comrades in other organisations to judge the CWLB (M-L) on the basis of getting to know on the Commission, just as it wishes to get to know you. Subjective ideas, slanders or pettyness, should be eradicated from comrades’ minds when considering the Theses and proposals. “This work doesn’t need to be done.” Any organisation or individual who takes this view, and stubbornly sticks to it, it ignoring the lessons of history and Marxist-Leninist theory, is fit only for the other camp, for they, too, have no future.
“The CWLB(M-L) is being pedantic, we already know more or less about these things, let’s just get on with the struggle.”
Comrades, with all due respect we do not know enough at all. Your can’t cross the river unless you can build the bridge and the only way we are going to bridge the gap between the confused and fragmented position we now find ourselves in, is to do the above work which will constitute the planks of our bridge to socialism.
“The CWLB (M-L) is getting at other organisations unjustly. Comrades, we work from a desire for unity, but real unity. The very fact that the CWLB (M-L) has paid so much attention to other organisations and what they stand for over the years is positive proof of our real concern for the whole movement. We are concerned about uniting the good, honest and would-be scientific. We are equally concerned to attack with every means at our disposal the rotten, the splitters, the anti-science gang of fakes and washouts.
“The CWLB(M-L) wants to use other organisations as investigation fodder.” Comrades, we couldn’t give a damn who gets at the truth of these big questions as long as that is done.
Earlier on in this draft we stated that, in addition to the questions raised by the above five Theses, there were other questions, important yet secondary to the above, which Marxist- Leninists should pay attention to, and would be equipped to pay attention to, upon having solved the aforementioned primary questions.
These questions are, the CWLB (M-L) believes: the possible threat of fascism and the problems of fascism and national minorities; the struggle in Ireland ( on this, our organisation is in touch with groups in Ireland, and believes that any analysis of the struggle should involve serious Irish organisations as well as Marxist-Leninists in this country, leading to the establishment of a joint working party); the woman question; the youth question; cadre training and political education; the revolutionary press, also covering aspects such as technical independence; revolutionary culture; the question of history (allowing for the necessary historical dimension to the primary questions being investigated by the Commission). The CWLB (M-L) has also published a document on the need for political honesty; has worked on the question of deviations and diversions from scientific socialism, and believes in addition that a brief yet scientific document answering the basic questions: ”What are communists for, against, and how can their goals be achieved?” is a useful tool with which to develop people politically.
The organisation stresses that scientific answers to the questions raised by the five Theses would enable the Commission to make general progress, simultaneous to steps that could be taken to bring into being a genuine party, in the direction of working out programmatic stances on each of the above important fronts.
In other words, the solving of the questions raised by the five Theses would constitute the context for setting out to solve other important, yet secondary, questions. The CWLB (M-L) would not insist that programmatic solutions to these secondary, yet important, questions were worked out before, in its opinion, the conditions existed for the bringing into being of a real communist party. This comment must not be interpreted as in any way detracting from earlier comments concerning the work that must be accomplished and the stage that must be reached, relating to the Theses areas, before a party could be brought into being.
As progress is made on all of these questions by the camp of science the camp of anti-science will become further and further bogged down in the swamp of opportunism and confusion.
The above proposals border on the third question posed at the beginning: if there is no genuine party (and we have seen that there is not) “How can a genuine revolutionary, communist party be brought into being?”
We emphasise that they border on this third question. We also wish to stress that if in its work the Commission is to successfully fight against right and left opportunism, there must be initiated an honest struggle against erroneous ideas which permeate the thinking of some organisations. The CWLB (M-L) will make no further comment on this issue now. It wishes to state. However, that it views the answering of the third question as a matter of dealing with such erroneous ideas within the Commission as part of the Commission’s on-going work. This will be done in a fraternal way, in the spirit of a desire for unity and will strengthen the Commission’s ability to discharge its tasks. Hence the CWLB (M-L) will be producing other statements concerning question 3 above and will submit these to the Commission for its consideration.
This will be a natural part of the deliberations of the Commission as, no doubt, will be the submissions of other organisations. In no way must this impede the coming into being of the Commission, which will be the natural arena for such discussion among communists.
TO EVERY HONEST AND SERIOUS MARXIST-LENINIST ORGANISATION THROUGHOUT BRITAIN!
TO EVERY HONEST AND SERIOUS INDIVIDUAL MARXIST-LENINIST THROUGHOUT BRITAIN!
TO EVERY PERSON, EVERY PERSON WHO WANTS THE OVERTHROW OF CAPITALISM AND IMPERIALISM.AND THE POLITICAL POWER OF THE WORKING CLASS!
The CWLB (M-L) makes the following appeal:
LET THIS BE THE TURNING POINT!
Let us now do what has to be done in order to know our friends and foes in the long and tortuous and complex fight to throw off the parasites that bleed us white each day of our lives, that prevent millions of working class men, women and children ever developing into fully-fledged human beings, fully developed and liberated and in control of their own destiny!
There is no reason to feel defeated in the face of these big tasks of scientific investigation and class, mass struggle! We definitely can do it and there definitely is going to be a revolution in our country!
To ourselves, to future generations we have a solemn, most profound responsibility to seize the time and solve our problems! The CWLB (M-L) formally requests organisations and individuals to arrive at decisions on the proposals contained in this draft and to inform the CWLB (M-L) of such decisions at the end of three months from now, if not before. By 26 September 1976 all decisions should be forwarded.
To deny these tasks is to assist the class enemy which would dearly like to see us labour for many more years to come in a quagmire of ignorance, disunity, fragmentation and political squalor!
You say these tasks have already been accomplished is to fly in the face of facts – for these tasks have definitely NOT been accomplished!
It’s up to us! We have only ourselves to rely on. Let us stop the era of petty, unprincipled squabbling. Let us bring in a new morality, a new and higher level of conduct to the M-L movement. Let us become professional, scientific and serious!
COMRADES: WE NOW HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY OF SOLVING THESE PROBLEMS IN A PERIOD IN WHICH IT IS POSSIBLE TO WORK OPENLYAND LEGALLY AS COMMUNISTS. THAT MAY NOT ALWAYS BE THE CASE. IF THE MOST REACTIONARY SECTIONS OF FINANCE CAPITAL WERE TO SUCCEED IN ANY PLAN TO BRING INTO BEING A FASCIST SYSTEM. OUR TASKSWOULD BE ALL THE MORE DIFFICULT, AND WOULD STILL HAVE TO BE ACCOMPLISHED. IS THERE NOT IMPOSED BY THIS THE MOST SERIOUS RESPONSIBILTY TO GET ON THE RIGHT PATH NOW. SET THE REVOLUTIONARY TRAIN IN MOTION. SOLVE THE BIG PROBLEMS. UNITE THE UNITABLE AND GET RID OF THE BAGGAGE!
COMRADES! SUPPORT THE THESES, CONCLUSIONS AND PROPOSALS!
SUPPORT THE PROPOSAL FOR A COMMISSION. LET US EXPOSE THE ROTTEN AND ANTI-SCIENTIFIC CANCER WHICH TO DATE HAS HELD THE MOVEMENT BACK. LET US NOT PUT OURSELVES IN THE POSITION WHEREBY, WHEN THE HISTORY BOOKS OF OUR COUNTRY’S CLASS STRUGGLE ARE WRITTEN, IT IS WE WHO ARE CONDEMNED AS THOSE WHO FAILED TO FIND A WAY!
COMRADES: LET US FIND THAT WAY. WE HAVE A FORMULA. LET US ALL ACT LIKE MARXIST-LENINISTS. ACT HONESTLY AND PUT OUR SHOULDERS TO THE WHEEL!
LET US, EACH AND EVERYONE OF US FORMALLY DECIDE NOW WHICH CAMP WE WILL JOIN!
[1] The CPSU(B) degenerated after the death of Stalin and throughout the document all references to it being a genuine Party refer to its earlier period.
[2] In some cases italics are as in the texts, in others they are ours, if important, comrades can check with the texts which are all named.
[3] A counter-revolutionary tendency which split from Revolutionary Social Democracy (the Bolsheviks) headed by Lenin.
[4] An organisation, associated with the Mensheviks, which demanded the right to be the sole representative of Jewish workers.
[5] On the basis of its knowledge of the B and ICO’s activities, the CWLB (M-L) regards it as a disruptive group.
[6] The clique that calls itself the RMLL is run by A. Manchanda, a thoroughly dishonest degenerate. It is clear from its practice that the CWLB (M-L) genuinely seeks unity with organisations that really want to solve the movement’s problems. However, although it consciously casts a broad net in this connection, it draws a line of demarcation when it comes to organisations which it believes are thoroughly bad. It will not waste time discussing them and will not in any way be party to such a diversion.
[7] The CWLB (ML) will, in keeping with the statement earlier on in this document, oppose credentials being afforded to the B and ICO, so-called and the Manchanda clique. We will exert every possible pressure to ensure they disrupt the movement no longer.