(From Commentary on pamphlets by LRS and RWH by D. McFarland, Somerville, MA, March 21, 1982)
1. The process of discussion is constructive – . . . All those sincerely participating should be commended. Perhaps some of my comments will be helpful; if not, my commentary should at least be taken as a token of support for this constructive process.
2. The tasks of the Marxists-Leninists – Party building must be the primary task in the current period. History shows that without a communist party, the bourgeois parties can’t be defeated and the revolution can’t be won. Party building is a step-by-step process and must be based on a clear and correct Marxist-Leninist line.
3. Democratic centralism – The question of democratic centralism seems to be one of the chief topics of the discussion. One of Lenin’s greatest contributions was to develop the correct organizational principles for a communist party.
It seems that more comrades question this today than some years ago. Perhaps they are reacting to certain misapplications of democratic centralism in the U.S. movement. Further, it seems to me that the people of the U.S. (the national majority in particular) have a certain predisposition toward individualism and distrust of centralized authority .... The most important cultural source for the U.S. national majority is the 17th-18th century British bourgeois culture and this emphasis on individual freedom is an important theme in U.S. history.
This emphasis was in my opinion connected to what Stalin criticized as “unprincipled factionalism” and “the disease of factionalism” in the CPUSA in 1929. Stalin clearly pointed to factionalism as the main problem in the CPUSA. Can this be related to the difficulty in organizing a Marxist-Leninist party today? . . .
4. The focus of mass work – Correct orientation of mass work is one of the most important tasks of Party building. The RWH pamphlet strongly emphasizes work in the anti-Reagan coalition, even seeking to steer this alliance. But one should not give such an exclusive emphasis on a work area without a clearer idea of how this would develop the Marxist-Leninist forces ....
The LRS has made a most helpful suggestion in pointing to a strategic concentration ’focusing especially on the lower stratum of the working class and the oppressed nationalities’. Concerning the oppressed nationalities, the importance of this aspect is revealed by a look at U.S. history ....
Concerning the multi-national working class, ... I have three comments on the LRS suggestion:
1. Marxist-Leninists should strive to organize the great majority of the working class and certainly all sectors whose economic and political position is deteriorating. While striving to become trade union leaders, Marxist-Leninists should recognize that their influence is a direct expression of the strength of their efforts among the “rank-and-file”, i.e. the lower stratum.
2. The strategic alliance of the working class and the oppressed nationalities is most likely to find mass support in the lower stratum of the multinational working class .... First, a relatively high proportion of these workers are oppressed nationalities. Second, the ruling class is unable to back up its racist appeals to the white workers of this stratum with handouts and bribes (e.g., higher wages, skilled jobs, etc.). Therefore the lower stratum white workers have no vested interest in the system and are most likely to act according to their objective interests and unite with the oppressed nationality workers.
3. A flexible attitude should be maintained regarding the absolute level of concentration on the strategic focus. My feeling is that the U.S. revolution will be particularly multi-faceted in its issue orientation ....
5. The question of the intellectuals and the importance of Marxist-Leninist literature – Mao summed up the role of the intellectuals in the international experience when he said that the intellectuals were usually among the first to be drawn to new and revolutionary ideas, but often were more vacillating than the workers or peasants who would fight the revolution to the end. Perhaps this tendency to vacillation is part of what LRS terms “intellectual’s disease.” But it is necessary to offer a more developed “prescription” than the single word “reality.” Why is it that some intellectuals from middle class backgrounds turn out to be a Marx or a Lenin, whereas others turn out less well? That is the question that needs to be answered.
Noting the importance of literary work in the processes leading to the organization of Communist Parties abroad, and noting the lack of development of this in the U.S. movement, I suggest that the more energetic development of Marxist-Leninist literature is also a worthy goal at this time.