The first basic pre-requisite to the development of a political movement must be a scientific analysis of the present state of class forces. In order to develop a political movement, the left has to be able to come to grips with the weakness and confusion in the working class movement at this time. How can we overcome that weakness?
Most of the communist tendencies however, do not start from a realistic appraisal of the present state of the working class struggle.
First, there are the new Marxist-Leninist party or pre-party formations such as the RCP or OL. These groups do not start from a sober, scientific analysis of the present conditions in NYC. From reading their newspapers, one would get the idea that the masses in NYC are advancing in the struggle. For example, in the October 15, 1976 issue of Revolution, an article on NYC headlined, “Big Advance in the NYC Crisis” states,
The situation is ripe for the working class to take up the struggle around the city crisis in a big way...This is the direction in which the struggle in NYC has been moving. August saw the first major walkout by city workers (hospital workers) since the sanitation strike of 1975. (emphasis added)
The October League, echoes the same unreality. In discussing the level of working class consciousness in the July 1975 issue of The Call, the OL states,
In sharp contrast (to the labor leaders, ed.) the rank and file understands the need for the broadest unity and for a policy of no sacrifices on their part...
Most of the ruling class propaganda about NYC’s bankruptcy is easy to see through, such as the assertions of the Daily News that the cause of the crisis is “high wages” of city workers.
In fact, the struggle has not been advancing, except for isolated instances. It is important to understand this not in order to be defeatist, but because a scientific analysis must start from reality, no matter how grim and bleak it is, and develop a correct path forward.
In fact the rank and file in many cases does not “understand the need for the broadest unity and for a policy of no sacrifices on their part.” Most of the ruling class propaganda on NYC’s crisis is not easy to see through.
It is not our intention to criticize these groups in order to engage in polemics with them. Our purpose for understanding what these groups are doing is to help us answer the question of why the developing communist movement is failing to develop political struggle in NY.
Let us look at how the Communist Party views the NYC reality. In the June issue of the trade union newspaper linked to the CP, Labor Today, an article appeared on NYC. While starting off presenting the weakness of the working class movement, the article then goes on to discuss the two major strikes we have discussed here, the sanitation and teacher strikes. The article states,
Third, there were two strikes; one by the sanitationmen in July and another by the teachers in September. Both of these strikes were the result of rank and file pressure and willingness to fight. Both were 99% solid. Both received strong community support...The immediate result of both of these strikes, neither of which lasted more than a week or received full support from the union leadership was inconclusive. However, both were moral victories. Their effect among other public employee’s was like a spring wind blowing away defeatism. (emphasis added)
In fact, just the opposite occurred. It is true that the sanitation and teacher strikes were the result of rank and file pressure. It is true that they were both militant. However, one has to be in a world of self delusion to say that “their effect among other public employees was like a spring wind blowing away defeatism.” One only has to ask a sanitation worker or a teacher what they think the effect of their strike was to understand how it was the failure of these strikes which accentuated the defeatism and demoralization in many sectors of the working class. People began to feel that what was the use of striking, of struggling, nothing could be won.
Furthermore, this is not an isolated instance of CP unreality. Political Affairs, the theoretical organ of the CP had an even more telling article by Gus Hall in its Dec. 1976 issue. Summing up the recent Presidential election campaign the article begins,
I believe we can all agree the our Party has conducted the most successful, most effective election campaign in history. Our achievements are extraordinary; the “centerpiece” has become a political landmark.
We have taken a historic step in creating a new political and ideological framework for tens of millions of our people. From now on they will view and weigh all developments within this new framework.
Tens of millions now see the Communist Party differently. We have a new status in the political spectrum. In their eyes we are now a valid, legitimate, legal, political party with a viewpoint that cannot be ignored. That, by itself is a historic achievement.
Tens of millions now see monopoly capital, racism, the two old parties, socialism, the ultra-Right, the class struggle, the military-industrial complex, detente, democracy and many other questions and issues differently. This is a seed that will continue to sprout. From now on these millions will view all developments with a new understanding. Millions are now more alert to class divisions in our society. We can and should feel a sense of deep pride on our Party. The Party demonstrated a new power. The election campaign was proof that the Party can influence the course of events.
Either we have missed something or this article, from the leader of the Communist Party is basking in self-delusion. Where are the tens of millions who now see the CP differently? We can’t seem to locate them in NYC. How was the election campaign “proof that the Party can influence the course of events”?
It may seem strange that both the Communist Party and the Marxist-Leninist parties or pre-parties like the RCP and the OL both start out from a distorted sense of reality. What is the basis for this similar unreal starting point? We must begin to examine why the left ignores the NYC reality. Why have people who have been involved in struggle, who are trying to develop struggle, blind themselves to the real situation? The answer to this question leads directly to the heart of the problem of why the left is failing to develop a political movement.
The philosophical roots of this idealistic view of the present struggle is economic determinism. It is economic determinism which lies at the root of the inability of the left in NY to develop a political movement.
Economic determinist thinking views the objective economic conditions in NYC which now are clearly an immense hardship for working people, and immediately assumes the political consciousness and political struggle will develop. In NYC it is true that objective economic conditions have deteriorated to the point that there should be massive struggles. But the subjective conditions; the workers’ political consciousness, their political unity, the development of the left are at a very low level.
But if one is operating under an economic determinist philosophy, it follows deterministically that whenever there is economic chaos, the political struggle is activated. Thus, many groups look at NY and their ideological framework forces them to portray the working class as if it was ready to revolt. Minor skirmishes become major battles. Defeats become advances. Insignificant electoral campaigns influence “millions of voters.”
Again, the Communist Party gives a clear picture of this economic determinism which underlies their inability to grasp the real situation. As Gus Hall writes in his book entitled The Crisis of U.S. Capitalism and the Fight Back,
So what is in the cards for the U.S. in the coming period? Serious economic problems, both short term and long term; continuing set-backs on the world scene, efforts of monopoly capital to cut down on the standard of living...etc. This will lead to a sharpening of all contradictions, especially the main class contradiction. This will continue to place the economic question in the very center of all struggles. This will obviously (!!!) lead to a growth of mass militancy, to mass action. It will further stimulate the process of radicalization. The words “tranquility and stabilization” do not appear in our cards. (emphasis added) p 47-48
First, we notice that after laying out the objective problems facing U.S. Capitalism, Hall states that this will obviously lead to a growth of mass militancy and radicalization. But what about the situation in NYC? Here the objective contra-dictions are very sharp. Yet this has not led to a growth of mass militancy, to mass action. In fact, just the opposite has occurred.
One way out of this obvious fallacy in their theory is to postulate that mass militancy has grown even if one has to ignore reality to do so. Thus we read of mass battles or successful election campaigns. Reading Revolution (the RCP paper) or the Call (OL’s paper) shows the exact same process.
The other way out is to say that the crisis isn’t severe enough yet but as it gets worse mass militancy and radicalization will surely rise. Then people will pick up the left’s ideas even if the left now is isolated from the masses of people. The corollary of this is that many people on the left see that without economic crisis, there can be no revolutionary movement. When people are starving, only than will they develop revolutionary politics.
The clear tendency is to always be predicting greater and greater crisis with its concomitant increase in mass militancy. We see the crisis mentality constantly reappearing.
As Hall states,
For capitalism, there are no periods of economic stabilization left. That is one of the new features of the new stage of the general crisis. The Crisis of U.S. Capitalism
As we will show later, this “new feature of the general crisis,” this inability for capitalism to stabilize, has been predicted since the early 1920’s. Basically, the crisis mentality which can be seen in both the CP and RCP and OL is a response to the contradiction between a theory which states that the working class will become radicalized through economic crisis and the reality which is the backward state of the working class movement.
To summarize, this economic deterministic outlook, which sees that capitalist collapse and crisis will bring about a political revolution leads to either of two conclusions, both of which are destructive. The first is to continually postulate an advancing working class movement in a time of crisis even when the reality is different. The other alternative is to continually be predicting the final collapse, the breakdown of Capitalism breakdown which in fact will never take place. For as we have shown before, no crisis under Capitalism is final. Every crisis contains the mechanism wherein the system is stabilized. The NYC crisis is no different. Capitalism does not breakdown under economic collapse. Only a conscious political movement, which can utilize a crisis to overthrow the State can bring about socialism. That is why for Communists, the political struggle is fundamental. If that movement does not exist, or is too weak, than the crisis, far from being the springboard to Socialism, becomes the mechanism wherein the capitalist class beats the working class into submission, forcing wage cuts, service cutbacks, planned shrinkage. In this way the crisis lays the conditions for a rise in the rate of profit, bringing with it a new boom.
We come now to the last step of our argument. We started with the fact that many left groups blind themselves to reality and ensconce themselves in a self-delusive dreamworld.
From that we showed that the roots of this phenomena lay in an economic deterministic outlook which led to a crisis mentality.
Now we must go back to the concrete. How concretely, does this economic determinist framework prevent the left from developing a political movement? In other words, what forms does the economic determinism take in the day to day activity and struggle of the communist movement in NYC?
The first form that this economic determinism and crisis mentality takes is one of ultra-leftism and dogmatism. Recently many people in the independent and developing communist forces have criticized the Marxist-Leninist formations such as the RCP and OL as being dogmatists. This is an absolutely correct criticism and a positive start. Dogmatism is a key error of groups such as the RCP and OL. However, where does this dogmatism come from? Why do these groups organize and see reality from such a dogmatic perspective? The people in these groups are not naturally dogmatic.
If we do not understand the roots of dogmatism we are doomed to repeat the same error. It is not good enough to say that a new Marxist-Leninist movement will not be dogmatic. It is our position that this economic determinism and crisis mentality underlies their ultra-left and dogmatic politics.
Let us take as an example the question of Communist work in the trade unions. How many times have we observed that these ultra-left groups refuse to form alliances, either with other independent leftists, or with social democratic and revisionist trade union leadership. They will take an extremely sectarian and dogmatic outlook towards trade union bureaucrats and liberals, preventing temporary tactical alliances. Furthermore, in bringing political issues to workers, many times their style is dogmatic and rhetorical, making it impossible to rally masses of people behind their political programs.
These groups are continually predicting never-ending economic crisis. Capitalist stabilization is out of the question. From the economic crisis, their determinist thinking as we have seen predicts political instability and advances in the struggle.
How does this affect their day to day work? The economic crisis to these groups mean that the rule of the bourgeoisie is becoming very unstable. Naturally!, the labor bureaucrats are becoming more and more exposed and are losing their hold on the masses of people. These ultra-left groups grossly underestimate the hold of bourgeois ideology and reformism on the working class. Even if they realize that the labor leaders still have a hold on millions of workers they see that the coming crisis or coming economic collapse will dramatically shake that hold and bring the workers out from the grips of reformist and social democratic ideology.
Some groups like Workers Viewpoint even see that fascism is around the corner. This flows again from an outlook which sees political instability as flowing mechanistically from economic crisis. Therefore, they see that as the economic crisis deepens, bourgeois democracy will be impossible to maintain and fascism will be the only solution.
With this kind of framework sectarianism and dogmatism logically follow. From a communist perspective the whole point of developing tactical alliances with other left groups and certain labor leaders is to advance the workers struggle and in the process of the struggle to expose the labor bureaucrats. However, the ultra-left groups see that the labor bureaucrats are already discredited and the crisis is deepening the political struggle without them. Thus it becomes unnecessary and even harmful to tie down the working class with alliances with sell-out labor bureaucrats, or liberals. The kind of careful maneuvering and tactical alliances necessary to advance the struggle and discredit the labor leaders is harmful because the workers are already becoming radicalized and reacting against the economic crisis.
Many of these ultra-left groups see developing extra-union workers’ organizations to lead the political struggle. They have the advanced workers they win to their position develop these extra-union organizations as their main task. They made their cadre’s main task the building of their organization, i.e. the building of their communist party or pre-party formation.
Again, economic determinism and crisis mentality is at the root of this error. If the economic crisis is bringing about an upswell of radical struggle among the masses of people, the main question becomes organizational. Each group than sees the task of attracting these radical workers. As the RCP states, in December 1975 issue of Revolution,
Among city workers in particular, the struggles have lacked organization... The road forward in the struggle lies in spreading organization and understanding. Already a number of committee’s have been formed by Communists, advanced workers and others which point in this direction.
The problem is that their fundamental assumption, that economic crisis inevitably radicalizes the working class and produces working class struggle is not true. Thus, the organizations these groups create, supposedly containing the now-radicalized sectors of the working class are simply paper organizations divorced from the masses of people.
The roots of this ultra-left analysis lie deep in the history of the American communist and International communist movement. This same process and same errors plagued attempts by the communist party throughout its history to develop political struggle. It is for this reason, that it is so important to root it out of our movement.
In 1928, the Sixth World Congress of the Comintern was held. The Comintern predicted an impending economic catastrophe; severe economic crisis would hit the capitalist world. That prediction, as we all know, was historically correct.
From there, deterministic thinking took over. This crisis was to be the final crisis of Capitalism. The force of economic collapse was to propel the working class to revolt. The old reformist and social democratic leaders would lose their hold on the workers. There would be no way for the bourgeois to maintain political stability and bourgeois democracy. The choices for the capitalist world were only socialism or fascism. This analysis is in essence the same being put forward today by the ultra-left groups. The conclusions as to the way forward were the same then as they are today.
The communist parties were not to make alliances with the Social Democrats. In fact the social democratic leadership was labeled social-fascist (see Workers Viewpoint and the October League today). At every turn, the communist parties were to expose the social democrats and denounce them as social fascists.
In practice, work in the reformist trade unions was neglected. The CP’s directed their attention to building up their own workers organizations (see Red Papers and Revolution on Intermediate Workers Organizations). In Germany, the Communist Party refused to unite until the very last moment with the Social Democratic Party against Hitler. They claimed that the Social Democrats were social-fascists. If Hitler were to gain power he could not stabilize the situation, since the economic crisis is unsolvable. Therefore, revolution would quickly come and socialism would follow Hitler’s downfall. In the U.S., Roosevelt was labeled a social-fascist when he first ran in 1932. The Communists furthermore discontinued most of their work in the major unions such as the mineworkers, setting up their own organizations like the Progressive Miners of America to replace the UMW.
Again, the key problem was that their deterministic and crisis oriented theory led to underestimating the political stability of Capitalism. Thus, the CP tried to develop political struggle based not upon a reformist working class, but based on a working class which they saw as being ready for revolution. As with today the policy and strategy failed. In this country, in many of the major unions and industries, the CP was isolated and relegated to a negligible political force. Excepting notable struggles such as the struggle of the unemployed, trade union strugglestagnated in the first few years of the depression.
Finally, by 1934-35 reeling under the rise of Fascism in Germany, and the failure of the CP’s to move forward elsewhere, the Comintern position swung in the other direction, to economism and reformism which we will discuss later.
Today, many of the dogmatist positions are directly transplanted from this so-called “third period” between 1928-1935. The word social-fascism used for revisionist trade union leaders comes from this period. For example, the RCP, when it was the RU, called for the establishment of a TUUL (Trade Union Unity League) which was the CP’s workers’ organization from 1928-1935.
Again, after World War II, with the expulsion of Earl Browder, who was a thoroughgoing revisionist as head of the Party, the CP tried to break with revisionism. In the process, they again fell back on the same ultra-left theoretical foundation.
William Z. Foster, who was the anti-revisionist leader of the CP in the late 1940’s and early 1950’s stated as a theme of the 1948 convention,
The general crisis of Capitalism is deepening, the world capitalist system is in a very shaky condition and is highly unstable. The relations before the capitalist world, as we know are in a very tense condition.
Consequently there will be no stabilization (of capitalism) following the war, not even a temporary stabilization. We face the perspective of an acute war danger and the practical certainty in the near future of an American economic crisis that will shake the Capitalist world. The implication of this is that there will be a sharpening mass struggle all along the line. The workers will fight, the people will fight.
Again, the CP predicted economic crisis followed by war, fascism and a growing radicalization of the masses of people. In logically acting upon that economic determinist and crisis analysis they again made the same errors they had in the past. They acted in a sectarian fashion in many cases in the trade union movement. The ill-fated third party candidacy of Henry Wallace for President, was launched. The CP continued supporting the Progressive Party into 1952, when it was clear that the Party did not have any mass support. They alienated much of their trade union support in the process. While clearly the main reason for the CP isolation during the 1950’s was the intense Government attacks on it during the McCarthy period, the CP, although fighting back bravely, helped seal its own fate by its own sectarianism. Capitalist stabilization did take place in the 50’s, and the workers did not revolt.
In 1945, 1949, 1951, 1954, the Party predicted a major economic crisis. It overestimated the rise of fascism, equating it with the outlawing of the Communist Party. In 1950, seeing fascism as the inevitable outgrowth of economic crisis (political instability leading to fascism automatically follows economic crisis) they made conscious efforts to reduce the size of the party (1956 Central Committee Report). As was summed up later by everyone, including Foster, there was an overestimation of the tempo of radicalization of the masses, with resulting mistakes in tactical approaches to United Front relations, especially in the trade unions. Eventually, as in the 1930’s, the Party faced with the failure of their ultra-left policy, turned to revisionism.
To summarize, economic determinism and the crisis mentality is deeply imbedded historically in left theory and practice in this country. It hinders and destroys efforts to develop the political struggle by underestimating the political strength of the bourgeoisie and its agents in the trade union movement. It leads to ultra-leftism and is at the root of the failure of the left todevelop a political movement in NYC.
We have seen how the CP also starts from an unreal view of the NYC reality. Furthermore, we have seen how the CP has the same essential underpinnings as the ultra-left forces, that of economic determinism leading to a crisis mentality. However, with the CP, economic determinism takes a different form. It primarily takes the form of economism and reformism.
Economism, which is one of the main theoretical props of the modern day Communist Party says that the key struggles to wage at this time are economic struggles. Out of communist work in the economic struggles, political ideas and political struggle will develop. Economism sees political consciousness developing naturally out of the economic struggle. The basic problem with the view held by the CP is that it is economic determinist, albeit in a different form. It assumes political consciousness develops out of economic struggle against employers. But in fact political consciousness generally does not develop out of the context of economic struggles. This is why with all their influence in the trade unions in the 1930’s,the CP did not build up a corresponding political influence as a communist or revolutionary force (although they were able to develop a political influence by supporting democratic candidates) Politically, they did a flip flop in 2 years. In 1934 the New Deal was labeled a fascist plot. In 1936, the CP tailed behind the New Deal and Roosevelt. Thus, the CP, in the heyday of the CIO, had little political support as Communists in the trade unions, only support as militant economic fighters. When they were politically attacked as Communists during the 50’s their support in the trade unions began to erode.
The problem is that while the CP in 1936 and again in the 1950’s changed their tactics and strategy they kept the same economic determinist philosophy which said that only through economic collapse would radicalism develop. The CP used this theory in a reformist fashion, acting as though the way to Socialism was through economic struggle.
Today, this economic determinist thinking permeates their outlook. In Political Affairs we find statements such as,
The economic issues will provide the key link in the struggles and pressure on the Carter administration.
It is clear that the economic questions will remain on center stage for this period of time.
It is certainly not as clear as they would like us to believe. What would happen if a major war broke out between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. in South Africa or the Middle East, which is not merely an abstract possibility? Aren’t questions of racial and sex discrimination a key link in the present struggle, always threatening to explode? What about the rule of the EFCB in NYC? For example, the United Federation of Teachers in NYC, put forward the program of the CP group in the Teacher’s union in the Daily World. (Feb. 19, 1977) The principle demands were mainly very narrow demands related to the teacher’s needs in the classroom. Lower class size, adequate supply of books, a program to prevent dropouts, more counselors, a central role for the teacher in education, greater involvement of parents, an end to racist tracking, a fully enriched curricula, and a bilingual system are highlighted.
Then the Daily World article lists other demands, which seem to be simply tacked on; an end to all policies and practices to promote racism, rehiring of every laid off staff member, etc. Some of these broad political demands are clearly unrealistic and lead people to illusions such as that racism per-se can be outlawed under Capitalism. More generally, all of the political demands seem to be tacked on to a program whose main thrust is not political but simply to develop the economic struggle of the teachers. But without focusing on the political demands, those economic demands, such as lower class size don’t present a real alternative to the program of the reformists.
Revisionism, therefore is no alternative to ultra-leftism. Both stem from the same philosophical and theoretical roots, roots which deterministically see the economic crisis as bringing the workers to revolution.
Finally, we come to the stagnation of theory the inability of the left to develop theory to guide the political struggle. It is certainly impossible to develop political struggle if theoretical development is not taking place. The development of theory guides ones strategy and tactics. It would have been impossible for the Russian Revolution to have taken place without the development of theory which provided the framework for the growth of the Bolshevik party.
In the left today, both in NY and nationally there has been a stagnation of theoretical development, the inability to come up with theory to explain the crisis or to point the road forward. For the ultra-left groups theory is very cut and dry. It is something which is used in polemics. For them, the question is how well does one understand Marx, Lenin, Mao in order to be able to prove one’s point. They do not develop theory based on the concrete conditions existing in NYC but instead impose the quotations of Marx, Lenin, Mao in a dogmatic and mechanistic manner upon the concrete conditions.
For the Communist Party, there is the same stagnation of theory. For them, it is not a question of the development of theory but of revising Lenin’s theory. Once, they have made their reformist changes, such as the principle of peaceful transition to socialism, they believe that they have solved the theoretical problems facing the movement. In fact, as we have tried to show, they do not understand that their revisions do not develop theory one bit, but simply resurrect old social-democratic conceptions such as economism.
Why is there such a stagnation of theory? Again, the roots go back to economic determinism and the crisis mentality. In order to develop theory on how to move forward, one has to start by accepting the given reality that the left is failing. One has to explain that failure, and what would be a correct road.
But as we have seen, many groups do not see themselves as failing. Instead, they see the struggle advancing steadily. Furthermore, to the extent that they admit that the left is not moving forward as rapidly as they would like it to, their economic determinist framework explains away the problem. The determinst explanation is that the objective conditions have not ripened to the point where the movement can succeed. When the crisis becomes more severe the people will become radicalized and the communist movement will grow rapidly.
Thus, if you asked many leftists why the left has historically failed to develop a mass political movement in this country and is presently failing they would tell you that it is because objective conditions have not yet matured. The American workers are too highly paid; Imperialism has allowed the ruling class to create a huge labor aristocracy. When the crisis gets really severe, and people are starving, then they will turn to Socialism.
However, the question still remains, given the fact that the objective conditions have not been revolutionary and people aren’t starving in the street, why is the left as isolated and insignificant as we find it today. Why hasn’t the Communist movement developed into a real force in American political life? While the economic conditions do explain the fact that there has been no revolution in the U.S., it doesn’t explain the incredibly weak nature of the American left. Today in NY the objective conditions are ripe for a mass political movement, yet the left is failing to build one. The determinist explanation does not provide a theoretical explanation of the failure of the left, or the way forward.
What kind of theoretical development is needed to provide that analysis and chart a new path forward? Many people on the left today see the error of the dogmatists. They see that the dogmatists simply spout Marxist-Leninist but do not apply ML principles to the concrete conditions in the United States. They say that what is needed is to apply the works of Marx and Lenin in a non-dogmatic way to the specific conditions in the United States.
This new anti-dogmatist understanding of the need to apply theory to the actual conditions is a correct start. But it is still missing something important.
The problem is not simply that of applying basic ideas of Marx and Lenin to the real conditions of the U.S. Nor is it as the Revisionists claim, to revise some of the basic propositions of Marx and Lenin. The problem is to develop a theoretical framework of how to develop a communist movement in an advanced capitalist country. Lenin began such work in his writings on State and Revolution, Imperialism and Left-wing Communism. But while the basic propositions of Leninism are absolutely correct, there are gaps particularly in how to create a revolutionary movement in a developed, relatively stable capitalist country. It is not simply a matter of applying Lenin to the immediate conditions. It is a problem of developing, starting from the basic methodology of Marx, Lenin and Mao, the broad theoretical principles for doing work in an advanced Imperialist State.
The difference is that one view states that all the basic foundations are there, it is simply a matter of applying them to the concrete conditions in the United States. We feel that certain theoretical guidelines and methodology exist, such as the need for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, the dialectical-materialist method, the necessity to work within the unions and not be dual-unionistic, the need for a Communist Party, from Lenin’s Marx’s and Mao’s works. However, major theoretical questions have still not been adequately resolved, such as how to develop a revolutionary movement out of reform struggles; what the relationship is between reforms and Socialism; what is the relationship between electoral campaigns and revolution. At the root of these problems lies the theoretical question of how revolutionary class consciousness develops in an advanced Capitalist country. Only a communist party can fully answer these questions. These questions can only be resolved in conjunction with practice. But we must begin to address these theoretical problems.
We see this need because of the objective reality that the left is failing and has failed in this country and other Western countries, to build strong revolutionary movements. Since we don’t think that it is simply a matter of objective conditions changing, we think that there are major questions facing the communist movement which neither we nor the rest of the left have really addressed systematically. The problem with the dogmatists, and with the revisionists is that because of their economic determinist thinking they can sidestep coming to grips with this lack of theory. Thus theory stagnates and major questions remain unanswered.
To summarize, the answer to the question posed at the beginning of this section: Why has the left failed to develop a political movement, is that the left has been imbued with an economic determinist and crisis thinking which sees economic crisis as the force propelling revolution. Until that crisis comes, the revolutionary movement will be weak. When that crisis comes the revolutionary struggle will automatically greatly intensify.
This thinking has plagued the communist movement in all aspects of its tactics and strategy. Dogmatism, left rhetoric, dual unionism, lack of theory, neglecting the electoral struggle, focusing in on economic struggles can be traced to this root error. It is the link between dogmatism and revisionism. Until we thoroughly root this error out of our movement we will never begin to develop mass political struggle.