Present space does not allow for a full analysis of the work, Two Roads, nor of other material put out by J. Scott or the PWM. Such an analysis is important, if for no other reason than to tie down all the loose opportunist ends that have been unravelled during our movement’s development. That Mr. Scott could be responsible for such a work and yet retain the ’respect’ of many who claim to be Marxist-Leninist only testifies to the absolute confusion our movement suffers on questions of principle. It should be clear that unless such ’Marxist’ anti-communists as Mr. Scott are fully exposed and isolated, the further development of a truly Marxist-Leninist movement will be impossible.
On its front cover, Two Roads boldly asserts that it is going to trace out the “Origins of the Sino-Soviet Dispute”. But rather than an analysis of the origins and development of modern revisionism, the split in communism, and the struggle of the CPC and PLA, we are instead given an unbelievably distorted account of the “form” and the “circumstances” of the development of the CPSU(B), the Russian Revolution and the exposure of revisionism as having stemmed from, of all things, the Russian soil. In Mr. Scott’s view, the “two roads” are not at all between Marxism-Leninism on the one hand and modern revisionism on the other, but between the Russian Revolution in its entirety, “Russian communism”, as it were, and the Chinese revolution, “Chinese communism”. While this may be expected from any academic anti-communist worth his salt, to have it penned by someone who pretends to Marxism-Leninism is both disgusting and laughable.
In Al Birnie’s foreword to Two Roads,a foreward whose contents Mr. Scott no doubt has ’basic unity’ with, the objective conclusions of Scott’s “incomplete” analysis are stated with precision. On the content of the Bolshevik revolution, Mr. Birnie remarks that
The CPSU...after a virtual armed coup by a relatively small band of Bolsheviks, was forced to incorporate a host of former Czarist officials and pseudo-revolutionary opportunists into its power structure which eventually helped to promote this development of an elite bourgeois class not unlike the administration of a capitalist business enterprise, save only for the Soviets version’s more complete monopolistic control over resources and production. Jack Scott Two Roads: The Origins of the Sino-Soviet Dispute New Star Books and Canada-China Friendship (!) Association p. viii
On the question of Soviet foreign policy, Mr. Birnie adds that
Except for an interlude of one month at the founding of the state, the Soviet Union simply carried on Czarist imperialist policies concerning at that time, a weak and divided China; policies which included seizure of territories, armed attacks to preserve economic interests, collusion with the Japanese during their invasion of China, and looting of Manchurian industry following World War Two. Ibid. p.vi
And so, concludes Mr. Birnie, the Russian Revolution was from the very beginning so rot ten ripe, such a ’betrayal’, that at best it can be summed up as “...the Soviet experience being a rich but relatively uptapped source of mistakes to aid in the education of socialists throughout the world.” (Ibid, p.vii)
“Relatively untapped”! Perhaps Mr. Birnie and Mr. Scott are not satisfied with the campaign waged by Trotsky and the Fourth International and the Trotskyists’ efforts to ’educate socialists’ of the innumerable ’mistakes’ of the Russian Revolution that stamped it with “betrayal” from the first day of the “coup”. Evidently our authors think that not enough has been said, too few ’socialists’ have been ’educated’. And this is understandable. With so much garbage concentrated in their own hands, Mr. Birnie and Mr. Scott are of course anxious to spread it around some. And it is also understandable why they are attempting to spread it around within the new communist movement. Such pamphlets as Two Roads are a dime a dozen in academic circles, and are chronically over-produced by the Trotskyite press. It would be impossible for Mr. Scott to find a suitable ’market’ in such areas. But the new communist movement is a “relatively untapped source”, and it is still possible for someone of Mr. Scott’s calibre to deal in such trash profitably.
What Mr. Birnie serves up with such brazenness, Mr. Scott chooses to cloud behind a front of practiced sophistry. Scott’s basic thesis is that the historical development of the Russian nation, and all that sprung up within it, was such that the revolution was doomed to failure and that the revolution itself, overall, thus set the stage for revisionism. There are many peripheral arguments throughout the book, but they all spring from this basic line. With his extensive use of the honeyed phrase and milktoast innuendo, Mr. Scott prepares us with such ’profundities’ as “The past puts its stamp upon the present and the imprint is carved well into the future.” (Ibid. p.20)
Mr. Scott does not employ such banalities simply to amuse the reader, but, like all sleight-of-hand, to keep one occupied with nonsense while the cheap tricks are done. Who has ’stamped’ whom with what and thus carved up the future? Not wanting to shock us outright with too bold a slander on the Bolsheviks, Mr. Scott drones on that
How we act at any given moment can influence events for years to come. In the light of that understanding, the external policy of the Soviets required an abrupt break with past practice not just in theory but in actual practice. Failure to develop an external policy with a revolutionary content that keeps pace with internal revolutionary objectives will, in time, turn inward and deflect the nation from its original aims. Ibid p.20
Mr. Scott follows this mealy-mouthed equivocation and temporizing with a reminder that “one cannot afford to equivocate or temporize”. But at least Mr. Scott sees fit to ’afford’ an insinuation that whatever it was that went ’wrong’ with the Russians, it has something to do with “external policy”. In addition,
– the act of liberation, the soil from which it sprang and the methods employed in reaching the desired goal will play an important part in future developments. In this regard, there are some important differences between the course of revolutionary development in China and that of Russia. Ibid. p.20
So now we have something to work on: the past carves the future; we must be careful of how we act “at any given moment” lest it have disastrous effects; one needs “abrupt breaks”; watch for “external policy”; regard the “act of liberation” and “the soil”; and, there are differences between China and Russia. On the mark! Quite right! But where Mr. Scott has meant his double-talk to soften up our heads, we should be all the more vigilant for the rot that follows.
But what are these world-historical ’differences’ Mr. Scott observes? Whom is he stamping with what?
The Soviets rose to power in an imperial Russia which was the oppressor of other nations. ...
China...had, several centuries before, ceased to be an oppressor nation and had itself become a nation oppressed.
And Mr. Scott’s conclusion from this:
...China was more closely attuned to the fears, anxieties and problems of the oppressed, more knowledgeable of the strengths and weaknesses of the oppressor. Ibid. p.21
Classic! Rather than an objective analysis of objective conditions within each country, including the relations of class forces, the specific nature of the revolutions, the history of each Party, the objective conditions worldwide influencing the organization of the respective movements, the degree of industrial development, proletarianization of the peasant masses, degree of development of the working class, or a thousand other factors necessary for a truly scientific investigation, rather than posing such factors as obligatory for a comparative study of the two revolutions, ’our’ Mr. Scott has chosen an area a little closer to home. He has chosen something that his subjective outlook automatically gravitates towards, that is, “fears, anxieties and problems”. If it was “fears, anxieties and problems” that accounted for “China’s” (“China...more knowledgeable...”? Perhaps China was not composed of classes after all, but thought en masse?) superior sensitivity to “the oppressed”,then we can be sure that Mr. Scott, given the “fears, anxieties and problems” he reveals in his book towards the subject of proletarian revolution, is himself “more knowledgeable” about the ways and means of the oppressor. He is, in any case, ’knowledgeable’ enough to employ them, even if only in the realm of subjective sociology.
The Russian communists made their revolution in an imperialist country, whereas the Chinese communists made theirs in an imperialized country. But what does any of this have to do with ’stamping’ and ’carving up’? Why is it that Mr. Scott sees such factors as the deciding ones, and shows such little regard for the fundamental principles of Marxism-Leninism, including proletarian internationalism? Perhaps Mr. Scott does not believe that communists live and act on firm and definite principles, or that such principles cannot withstand the ’inevitable’ path generated by “the soil”. Mr. Scott does not, after all, criticize the Bolsheviks for deviating from principle, for failing to apply the national question correctly, and so on. Not at all. He does not advance Marxist-Leninist principles in his arguments, but simply pretends they do not exist, or at least have little to do with what is “carved well into the future”. The Bolsheviks, it turns out, were simply ignorant, victims of “circumstance”, whereas Professor Scott ’understands’ how the “past puts its stamp upon the present” and how ’differing conditions’ determine everything.
But that is not all. We must also consider the “act of liberation” and the “methods employed”:
Whereas Russian conditions had dictated the armed seizure of the political and administrative power centres, to be used as a fulcrum for social revolution, the dynamics of the Chinese revolution, on the other hand, demanded the mobilization of the popular masses for the conquest of the power centres. As a consequence the Russians have come to place an excessive reliance on administrative methods, while the Chinese have tended to put more reliance and confidence in the masses of the people and place their trust in methods of persuasion. Ibid p.22
Mr. Scott evidently hopes that his readership cares as little for historical reality as he himself does. But the world was not created in your own image, Mr. Scott: the world is not populated by ignoramuses who would take such anti-communist nonsense as the gospel truth! Imagine! The ’Sino-Soviet Dispute’ has nothing at all to do with modern revisionism, has nothing to do with the bourgeoisie hiding behind ’Marxism-Leninism’ . Not so, according to Mr. Scott. It simply has to do with ’coming to place excessive reliance upon’ technique, or ’tending to put more reliance on’ the people. And all this ’coming to place’ and ’tending to rely’ stems, not from two world outlooks, not from ideological struggle, but simply from “conditions had dictated” and “dynamics ...demanded”. It is all a matter of some vast planetary motion, something completely out of our reach! But this is an utter distortion of the truth. If Mr. Scott had possessed the competency of a truly professional anti-communist, he would have known that such a flimsy argument could never stand on its own. But then, if Mr. Scott were that competent, he could hire himself out at a decent salary to some university political science department rather than be reduced to peddling his shoddy wares to the ’left’ petty bourgeoisie. Anyone who has studied the Russian and Chinese movements knows that in fact the Bolsheviks relied upon and organized the masses of workers and rallied the lower peasant masses. Both revolutions had to rely on “administration”, given the low level of production in both industry and agriculture, and that both Parties subordinated, against the wishes of the Rights, administration to political line. Had Mr. Scott bothered to consult a city library, he could have discovered that the collectivization campaign of the early 1930’s was precisely an expression of “confidence in the masses”, that is, the lower peasants, and “trust in methods of persuasion”, to encourage the peasants to collectivize. Whether or not “excessive reliance” was put on “administrative methods” has nothing at all to do with the “seizure of power”, the “act of liberation” or “methods employed” or any other stupid catch-phrase Mr. Scott may wish to place “excessive reliance” on. It has to do not with the “act of liberation”, but the act of Right opportunists who wish to reverse that liberation. Trotsky, for example, on every single question. Bukharin, for example, on the collectivization campaign. Or Liu, Lin or Teng, for examples, on the question of industrial development. It is not “conditions’’ which, unbeknownst, lead to “mistakes”. It is precisely the task of communist leadership to become aware of those conditions and bring them under control. It is precisely the task of communist leadership to reduce spontaneous mistakes to a minimum. And it is precisely the task of communist leadership to ruthlessly oppose those who defend and advance “mistakes”, and to expose those who attempt, on the pleas of “conditions” or “mistakes” or “dynamics”, to conceal the role and consequence of Right opportunism. There are, to be sure, differences in the development of the Chinese and Russian revolutions. But such differences must be studied seriously, and their influence accurately accounted for. But they cannot, unless one rejects science, be employed to draw such superficial and crassly distorted conclusions as Mr. Scott has drawn.
In a slightly bolder form, Mr. Scott ’links up’ the effect of all these “conditions” and the nature of each Party’s work:
These divergent experiences and profound differences in background and historical development of the two parties, the differences in strategy by which power was conquered and the methods afterwards employed, have produced different ideological climates, different forms of inner party life and different styles of work. Ibid. p.22
Thank you, Mr. Scott, you have at last begun to get down to business. “Different ideological climates”; what a ’nice’ way to put it. ’Climates’, after all, implies a very pervasive atmosphere, permeating and affecting all that lives within it. And if there were “different ideological climates” then we can well expect that there were ’different ideologies’ as well. The Chinese and Russians had “differences in strategy by which power was conquered”, and so on. It is a small matter to Mr. Scott that such ’differences’, generated by ’different conditions’, were still well within the same, Marxist-Leninist ’climate’; that they were both in fact Communist revolutions, following very much the same basic strategy of winning proletarian political power. No. Mr. Scott did not set out to trace the unity of communist strategy, or the similarities between the Chinese and Russian revolutions. Not at all. From the beginning he has searched for ’differences’, and if he is forced to create differences where there are none, if he finds ’differences’ even in the fundamental principles of Marxism-Leninism that guided both revolutions, then “differences” there will be. There is not, after all, any law forbidding Mr. Scott to so distort history. At least not under bourgeois rule. And Mr. Scott has ’found’ “different ideological climates”. These ’climates’, in Mr. Scott’s view, were generated not at some later point, but bytthe very conditions which had given birth to each revolution, that is, by “the soil”. From this it follows that the foul air of revisionism was inherent in the Russian revolution, and if Mr. Scott would only be a little bolder, inherent in Leninism. After all, it was Lenin who developed the strategy of the Bolshevik revolution and the “methods employed”, it was Lenin who established the norms by which “inner party life” and “styles of work” were conducted. And since Mr. Scott has revealed to us that the “past puts its stamp on the present” and that how one “acts at any given moment can influence events for years to come”, it should be clear that when we set out to examine those “events” some years later and trace their origins, we must ’inevitably’ trace things back to Lenin himself.
Mr. Scott will not state this outright. It is far too obvious an attack. So rather than attack Leninism outright, Mr. Scott chooses to utter vague generalities about “conditions dictated” , “dynamics demanded”, and top it all with “different ideological climates”. By making it all appear to be a completely spontaneous ’historical’ process, beyond the grasp of mortal man, Mr. Scott is able to excuse himself from any open attacks against Marxism-Leninism, while slandering and heaping “soil” upon everything communism stands for and has accomplished.
Having got off to such a bad start, we can imagine that the Russian revolution would soon generate such a different “ideological climate” that it would simply fall apart. Mr. Scott does not disappoint us:
“Evidence at hand” and in your hands, Mr. Scott, everything is ’evidence’, “indicates that, after the first flush of victory, uncorrected errors and difficult conditions caused a drift away from revolutionary perspectives in Russia. No forces sufficiently strong and influential emerged to halt the drift, and in a time of crisis, marked by the death of Stalin and an inevitable crisis of leadership at a time when external pressures were mounting, the drift soon became a 180 degree turn.” (Ibid p.22)
The ’pressure’, you see, was just too much. Let’s see if we have it right: the past is stamping the present, and this is carved somewhere in the future; acts, in general, no matter how small, “at any given moment” are influential “for years to come”; the “act of liberation” for the Soviets was spoiled from the beginning, what with it occurring in an imperialist country; the Russians were not as “closely attuned to the fears, anxieties and problems” such as Mr. Scott suffers from; in Russia “conditions dictated” whereas it would have been far better if the “dynamics” had “demanded”; all these “profound differences” gave rise to “differences in strategy” and “methods” and thus produced “different ideological climates” and so on; and the sum total of these factors + post-first-flush blues + “uncorrected errors” + “difficult conditions” + “drifting away” + a time of crisis + Stalin’s death + “inevitable” crisis of leadership + external pressures mounting and so on, resulted in: Revisionism! Can’t we say of this Mr. Scott, as Lenin said of Kautsky, that “It sounds indeed as if he were chewing rags in his sleep!”
What utter and complete stupidity! For a man who prides himself on his ’self-education’, it is glaringly obvious that Mr. Scott is not self-educated at all. He has learned all this stupid opportunist rubbish, surely not by his own doings, but at the knee of pasty-faced bourgeois academics and liberals a la Issac Deutscher. But Mr. Scott’s stupidity is stupidity with a purpose. It is only by making such an eclectic stew out of history that Mr. Scott can attempt to so befuddle the reader that the reader will not notice just how unpalpable Mr. Scott’s own ’unique’ contributions are. If, as Mr. Scott would have us believe, the Russian revolution was rotten from the beginning, was ’tainted’ by ’conditions’, then we should not look for any contradiction between Marxism-Leninism and revisionism. Revisionism, after all, is only the outcome of historical “drift”, something that was “stamped” long ago in the past, in the foundations of Leninism. And if that is the case, then we must look elsewhere, perhaps, to Mr. Scott. And then, of course, Mr. Scott will only be too glad to have our attention and to ’educate’ us with this “untapped source of mistakes” he was so gracious to discover. Do not we all owe something to Mr. Scott for his ’tremendous contribution’?
But it is a sorry statement on our movement that when Mr. Scott has actually only earned himself a drubbing at the hands of the working class, he is given ’polite’ due in the form of accommodation. While it is not the central task of Marxist-Leninists to engage in polemics with die-hard anti-communists or concealed Trotskyites, it is at least our task to expose them as such. And anyone who has familiarized themselves with the content of Two Roads, with Scott’s defense of revisionism via obscuring its origins, his attack on Marxism-Leninism via “conditions”, and his hiding behind China via “friendship” in order to wage his attack, must conclude that Mr. Scott’s political burial is long overdue.