It is the duty of all Marxists-Leninists to study Marxist theory in its continuous development, as a living science and not as a lifeless dogma. Leninist thought continues to be an indispensable guide for a correct understanding and analysis of the present situation and the tasks that we as revolutionaries confront. Without this guide, we would be lost in a morass of contradictions, unable to build a truly revolutionary party of the proletariat.
That at this time –1977– we must still speak of building a revolutionary party in U.S. is a recognition that such an organization does not exist, notwithstanding the various formations at different levels of development which identify themselves as ”parties.” The non-existence of a party that correctly represents and struggles in defense of the interests of the North American working class is a reflection of the strength of the ruling class and, obversely, a reflection of the relative weakness of the working class and other oppressed sectors in the U.S.
The present movement toward the creation of a revolutionary party originated in the moral outrage of the anti-war movement of the 1960’s and in the struggle waged by oppressed nationalities. These events marked a rebirth of the communist movement and led to an embryonic development of proletarian ideology and revolutionary theory and practice. But this rebirth cannot be fully grasped without an understanding of several other significant historical factors, such as the crisis and degeneration of most of the Communist Parties emanating from the theses and formulations of the Third International; the rise of modern revisionism; the development of the nebulous Fourth International; the Chinese Cultural Revolution; and the emergence of independent socialist states like Vietnam, North Korea and Cuba. No less important were the effects of the defeat of U.S. Imperialism in lndo-China and the victories achieved by national liberation movements in Africa. These set the bases for social transformation in the former colonies and neo-colonics which, in turn, highlighted the crisis of World Imperialism.
Intimately related to these historical factors is the ever-increasing split in the camps upon which various party-building positions have been erected. In addition, we must not overlook the complete degeneration of the CPUSA into a bankrupt and bureaucratic organization, characterized by the politics of reformism and class conciliation. In this context, we recognize the valiant efforts of veteran fighters who struggled in vain and who continue to provide valuable lessons, in proletarian perseverance to many within the new revitalized communist movement.
Greatly influenced by these and other similar developments, this movement is now in search of the ideological and organizational alternative which will enable it to fight effectively against the conditions of oppression and exploitation confronting workers and all minority peoples in U.S. society. Originating essentially in a morally-outraged petty bourgeoisie consisting largely of students and young professionals, this movement assumed an anti-imperialist character and developed in clear opposition to reformism and class conciliation. Nevertheless, it bears strong remnants of the pervasive characteristics which it opposed. Its class nature, as well as the meager ideological and political inheritance bequeathed to it by the CPUSA, are formidable obstacles to its development. A consequence of the ideological impoverishment of this movement has been that the appeal of anti-imperialism is distorted to the extent that it often serves mainly to direct individual and joint efforts to the support of struggles outside of the country. This support is usually rendered not as a result of conscious acts of solidarity by an established movement, but as an easy escape from the frustration of finding no organized means of coping with domestic problems which require leadership and perseverance in struggle. Thus, internationalism and the particular responsibilities of revolutionaries in the U.S. towards the nations and peoples under the yoke of U.S. Imperialism are rendered ineffective.
Presently splintered into “parties,” organizations, groups, collectives, sects, etc., the movement is plagued by the divisiveness and sectarianism which, to a certain extent, are the characteristics of any revolutionary movement dominated by empiricism. Critical reflection based upon the concrete reality of the U.S. has not been one of its attributes.
The revolutionary party is one which synthesizes theory and practice. These essential components of the revolutionary process are always in contradiction. Today we must resort to theoretical reflection in order to elaborate the line that can guarantee a continuous movement forward in which social practice–guided by theory–does not develop, as has been our experience, blindly or without direction. The revolutionary party must be capable of resolving the contradiction, theory-practice, practice, theory.
At this time, when the non-existence of the party is a realty, the unity of these elements is very difficult to achieve. The contradiction unfolds spontaneously, without direction, and often without consciousness in the pre-party formations. As the recent history of the revolutionary movement in the U.S. shows, an inevitable result of this lack of consciousness is the degeneration of theory and practice. The rebirth of the communist movement has not resolved the contradiction of theory-practice. Ultimately, because of the existing separation between these two fundamental components of the revolutionary process, to a certain extent, neither theory nor practice has a revolutionary character.
Our revolutionary movement, still greatly influenced by empiricism and by sectarianism, in relation to each other and toward the masses, has not properly analyzed the experiences of the recent period of revitalized activity. Among the most outstanding deficiencies are: our overall lack of knowledge and understanding of the present situation in the national and international labor movement; our limited and minimal understanding of the history and structure of social formations in this country; and consequently, the movement’s ignorance of the balance of class forces today. These fundamentals of revolutionary theory cannot be gained solely through the abstract study of the classics, nor can these be replaced by directing our efforts to the “correct” adaption of the international line of a communist party in power to the conditions in the U.S.
The class nature of the new communist movement has played a major role in the emergence of various organizations with little political influence and prestige among the masses, each of which claims nonetheless to be the Party of the Proletariat. These existing “parties” and those soon-to-be formed will naturally deny this characterization, though it is clear that not one of them today has any significant influence in the working class. Relatively speaking, the revolutionary movement has neither credibility, prestige, nor authority among the masses it avowedly seeks to serve. How can a party–the organized detachment of the working class–lead without influence, credibility or prestige? In denying reality and falling prey to illusionism and subjectivism, these “parties” fail to realize that without a mass line we cannot lead the masses–for what is a mass line if not the unity of social practice and revolutionary theory. What is a mass line if not the effective programs growing out of the practice of “from the masses to the masses.” Until the revolution, it will be the succession of such programs which will reflect the material needs of the masses and their aspirations. These programs will be the basis for the continuing fight against capitalism upon which the struggle for socialism will b e built.
Rejecting revisionism only to accept abstractions and generalizations as their foundation, the new “parties” develop dogmatism and sectarianism, corrosive elements to any truly revolutionary movement. These groups and organizations have mistaken a sense of group spirit for the party-building process. Thus, the last few years have seen the development of the Communist Labor Party (CLP) from the Communist League; the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP) from the Revolutionary Union; and in June, 1977, the Communist Patty (M-L) from the October League. Similarly, the Workers Viewpoint Organization is already calling for a Party-Founding Congress; another group calls for the formation of a U.S. Bolshevik Party; while a number of collectives and study groups see themselves as the “leading circles” in the party-building process.
Without a mass line, these existing “parties” and those coming into being, bureaucratize themselves and remain isolated from the masses. They consolidate their political lines through the promotion of “ideological struggles” advancing the preconceived theses of each group, rather than engaging in critical reflection and principled discussions in search of clarity. As is to be expected, the differences which divide these groups are innumerable–some are of a clear political and ideological character, while others take the form of debate over abstract formulations. In general, they are united in their complete disregard for any concrete analysis of the revolutionary process in the U.S.
We thus encounter a situation in which various “parties” exist and others are in the process of formation. Yet the revolutionary movement in general has been unable to realize, or even seek, that detailed or objective understanding of the present stage of the revolutionary process, an understanding which is necessary to project the problems which will be confronting us in the period immediately ahead and for determining what we may be able to do about them. Some general understanding does exist of such aspects as: the crisis of imperialism, the class conciliationist practice of labor aristocracy, the development of reformism, and the role of armed struggle as the ultimate deciding factor in the class struggle, etc. In fact, these and other elements can be found in any of the “party programs” or “principles of unity” being circulated within the revolutionary movement. Yet, these generalities cannot be substituted for an analysis of the tactics and strategy needed today. Moreover, they do not provide an understanding or analysis of current decisive factors in the class struggle such as the reality that, to a certain extent, the rulers of the imperialist capitalist countries have found the means for temporarily stabilizing their political and economic situations by imposing the burdens of their crisis on the working class and oppressed peoples. Two recent experiences in the Northeast exemplify this reality.
1) During the development of the recession and the unemployment crisis in 1974, a massive drive began spontaneously among rank and file trade unionists in the NY-NJ area demanding prompt and effective action from the federal government. It climaxed in 1975 in a march on Washington so massively supported that the regional AFL-CIO trade union bureaucracy decided they had to take over and control it. They channeled it successfully into a mass meeting at a stadium safely distant from the White House, the capital and the center of the city. They prepared an agenda and speakers, directing them toward support of their favorite lawmakers–most notably, Senator Hubert Humphrey. They also tried, unsuccessfully, to limit the meeting to AFL-CIO members–that is, to keep out the Auto Workers, Teamsters, U.E., District 65, etc. Some 60,000 workers filled the assigned stadium seats, separated by the playing field from the speakers whose stand was equipped for a nationwide broadcast of the prepared speeches and of the anticipated cheers by the great audience. Everything was expertly prepared and staged.
But it didn’t work. As the preliminary speeches were being given, workers individually and in groups, left their seats to cross the field, confronting and demanding “Action Now.” The appointed security guards could not or would not confine them. By the time Humphrey addressed the mike, a nationwide audience could hear the demand for “Action Now,” and very soon they could hear it better than they could the suave Sir Hubert. The workers were separated by location into two groups, but press and media reporters who went to the stands to learn the reaction there to the actions of the workers on the field found that almost all of those interviewed supported the demands of their brothers and sisters, not the pleas of Humphrey and the labor bureaucrats for all to abide by the rules.
Before he abandoned the mike, as the meeting broke up, the Senator was heard to say that “they” had “destroyed” everything that “we” were trying to do for them.
According to those who content themselves by taking comfort from the crisis of capitalism and imperialism, this incident should have been followed by growing class consciousness, an increased mobilization of class conscious masses in action. But where were the Marxists-Leninists? Nowhere within the working class concerned. Perhaps some can report the recruitment of a worker or a few workers on the basis of this experience. But we would very much like to hear from any group that was able to organize an effective rank and file union–not just Marxists-Leninists, but much broader–on the basis of this experience.
The workers were led into a cul-de-sac by collaborationist and fearful union bureaucrats and politicians, thereby thwarting further effective protest. Disillusionment, disarming cynicism, was the result.
Clearly, we are provided here with another reminder of the lessons of class struggle: namely, that however critical the problems of capitalism may be and however seriously the foundation of the established order may be rotting, capitalism can and will overcome one crisis after another as long as it can impose the costs on its subjects–the workers and the oppressed masses.
2) In 1975, had there been any Marxist-Leninist group in N.Y.C. that could reasonably have undertaken party building, or sensibly have responded to a call for party building, surely it would have had the N.Y.C. financial crisis as fertile ground for grassroots organization among the working class, for rank and file organization in the trade unions and for developing rank and file unity among trade unionists in different unions, both within the municipal employees and between those and members of other unions in N.Y.C. The massive layoffs of its workers and the destruction of essential city services were taking place while Victor Gotbaum was channeling his membership’s protest to Washington. We have suffered two years of experience in N.Y.C. with a “financial crisis” generated by the greed of finance capital and the collusion of the labor bureaucracy in the several municipal workers’ unions. This crisis has enabled the banks and politicians to impose its cost on the city workers in the form of layoffs, a wage-freeze and speed-ups, and on all workers living in the city by the destruction or deterioration of such essential services as health, education, welfare and security. Could there be a more classic case of conflicting class interests city-wide? Racism was rampant in the selective imposition of cutbacks in payroll and in essential city services, cutbacks in funds to Black and Puerto Rican ghettos, and in the destruction of all of a decade’s hard-won gains by New York City’s national minorities. Could there be a more classic opportunity to further working-class unity, to lead a struggle for class conscious unity and to expose and defeat the divisive tactics of the ruling class.
Yet, this opportunity was wasted. Why? A major obstacle to the development of the struggle came from the so-called left itself. The proliferation of competing and immature Marxist-Leninist “parties” and groups, each seeking to establish itself as the true vanguard, played a divisive role in hindering and even destroying the rare efforts of organizing rank and file unity stemming from the workers themselves. For example, at an early stage of the city crisis, after a successful mass demonstration initiated by a rank and file group from one of the locals which was approved by the leaders of District 37 (because of the general rank and file support), a call was issued for a meeting of rank and filers from all the municipal locals. In response, over 70 workers appeared–surely an encouraging beginning. But it did not take long for the competing rhetoric of representatives of Marxist and left-wing groups and “parties” to emerge. Within an hour, about half the participants were locked in battle, each trying to impose its preconceived program or blue print, many, in the process, vilifying each other. The meeting soon broke up–an exercise in futility.
We could detail many such instances in which rank and file members have issued calls for meetings and have seen their efforts thwarted by the rhetoric of “Marxists-Leninists” and others, which, within moments, found its participants engaged in just such futile battles over preconceived programs and blue prints. For these experiences, we Marxists-Leninists must accept special responsibility. For isn’t it we, not all the left, but the Marxist-Leninists, who are uniquely distinguished by our avowed dedication to working for the organization of the working class and for the use of its power as a class in its own self-interest, immediately and in the long range?
The foregoing examples, it seems to us, highlight the contradictions between the revolutionary movement and the masses, a situation which is intimately linked to the question of mass line and the separation of theory and practice. This situation can only be resolved by developing the correct relationships of communists with the masses. Only when that is accomplished on a broad scale will we be able to establish the minimal elements of a mass line, in accordance with methods and styles of work. Then social practice will become the determining element in the revolutionary movement.
This process, totally ignored by the intellectual elite, revisionists and dogmatists alike, can be effected by sharing the experiences of the masses. Assimilating and analyzing these experiences through critical reflection will advance revolutionary theory, creating a relationship in which the party comes into being as an organized detachment of the working class whose cadres are part of the masses, sharing their lives and struggles on the one hand and bringing clarity to the movement through the application of the tools of Marxist analysis and ideological leadership.
Two important aspects of the contradiction between the revolutionary movement and the masses are the relatively low level of class consciousness existing among North American workers and the strength of the ruling class. Undoubtedly, latent class consciousness does exist among all workers, particularly in a society with a rich experience of class struggle as in the labor movement during the decades around the turn of the century and the 1930’s and early 40’s. However, the class consciousness of U.S. workers today is far from that of the 1930’s. Except in sporadic struggles, waged strictly for economic demands, the militancy of workers today rarely surfaces. Wildcat strikes such as those of the miners are notable exceptions. Furthermore, while past trade union movements tended to strive for greater economic equality within the working class, the post-war history of collaborationist trade-union policy has produced increasingly greater stratification within the working class and within organized labor, as well as between organized and unorganized labor. The growth of organized labor has been successfully thwarted by the combination of government legislation and administration–such as the federal Taft-Hartley Act and the statewide Right-to-Work laws–and the development of a labor bureaucracy which thrives on elitism and collaboration.
Moreover, the reactionary ideologies of white and male supremacy serve as divisive elements among the working class, condemning large sectors to lives of superexploitation, misery and intense social oppression.
Denouncing the labor-fakers, racists and sexists is not an adequate response. Revolutionaries have the responsibility of analyzing prevailing conditions within the context of the balance of class forces in the U.S. today, seeing how these bear on the conditions of the working class forces and what the implications are for our present tasks. In the process, we can begin to set a basis for overcoming the isolation of the revolutionary movement from the masses. In this process, however, it is essential that we avoid the common errors of those radicals who mechanically take comfort in the evidence that the foundation of imperialism is deteriorating and content themselves with declaring that capitalism no longer has any practical possibilities for advance and can barely hold to past levels of prosperity and that the system is doomed to a re-emergence of depression and crisis. Such propositions may afford hopes of ultimate victory but they cannot help us determine how we can contribute to, and hasten, the process. The revolutionary movement must understand the situation objectively: first, to learn what must be done to build class consciousness, working class unity and revolutionary spirit in workshops, trade unions, workers’ communities, etc.; and second, to learn how we can help to do it by participating in and, wherever possible, leading the struggles of the working class, serving its needs and aspirations, building the self-reliance of workers as a class and the independent power of their own organizations.
Some radicals seem to identify faith in the working class with an expectation that there will soon be a massive spontaneous uprising of workers in protest against the cumulative burdens being imposed upon them to accommodate capitalism’s way out of its crisis. We believe that, unfortunately, this is only wishful thinking. It is not that militant spontaneous protests will not occur, or that they will not spread, or that they will not sooner or later spread in violent forms. The last, as has been shown in the past in various minority communities, can almost be calculated as an inevitable product of the increasing frustrations and hardships, without an adequately organized movement for redress, that the masses face. But how can we then respond helpfully without first having established roots in the places of resistance? How, in fact, can we distinguish what is helpful from what is provocative? Do we go in with our slogans and profession of special wisdom as do the dogmatists today? How then would we be distinguished from the dogmatists?
Certainly, a time when workers are on the move in protest and resistance affords better opportunities for the necessary educational and organizing work of Marxists-Leninists and for broadening and deepening our relationships in the working class than in the prevailing times. But we cannot effectively work in a revived workers’ movement unless we are prepared with the necessary theory–based on social practice. This can be developed only by experience gained in the process of building contacts among the working class, together with constant Marxist-Leninist study of that experience and its lessons. Taking comfort in prophecies of workers’ uprisings is a trap just as much as taking comfort in the evidence that capitalism is in crisis. In both cases, capitalist solutions will prevail unless and until the working class is prepared to cope with the situation effectively. Before it can do so, the working class must be organized on the basis of class-conscious unity in its interest as a class; and our task is to build practical means for cultivating the necessary roots in the working class movements so as to help forge the class perspective, the strategy and tactics needed for victory.
History tests Marxist-Leninist not by their rhetoric in claiming leadership or in denouncing the ruling class and its agents, but by their capacity to recognize the real issues with which the working class is confronted as these issues emerge; by their capacity to educate the workers as to how these issues affect their welfare as a class; and by their capacity to mobilize and organize workers effectively to resist the depravations of their rulers. This is the essence of revolutionary leadership. The failure of Marxists-Leninists during the New York City crisis, for instance, are measures of how much we still have to learn about the significance of “objective conditions.”
The first requisite of the revolutionary movement today is to overcome the deficiencies reflected in the experience recounted here which, we believe, are evident throughout the country. Ours is not merely the task of not contributing to divisiveness; Marxists-Leninists must know how to overcome divisive tactics and how to help the masses unite in the common tasks before them. This cannot be learned by establishing an authority to issue directives. It can be learned only through voluntary association among those of us who understand that the objective cannot be the promotion of our own organization, but rather the promotion of its purpose. At this phase of our development, it is fundamental that we do everything possible to promote the growth of class consciousness, unity and a sense within the working class of its own power.