Party-building line is the line which guides the efforts of Marxist-Leninists in our efforts to forge a new vanguard party of the working class. This line must encompass the various theoretical, practical and organizational tasks which as necessary for party formation, and explain their relationship to each other. At present there are no fully developed party-building lines which express a strategic plan on all the different and complex aspects of party-building. There are however beginning party-building lines in our tendency. The fusion line on party-building is one such line, which originated with the Philadelphia Workers Organizing Committee, and is presently held by a number of Marxist-Leninists in our tendency. While it is not a full blown strategic plan, it does have views on many of the important questions of how the vanguard will be built.
The starting point of the fusion party-building line is the recognition that the communist movement and the workers movement stand in isolation of one another. The working class lacks a vanguard party and presently is incapable of waging the struggle for socialism. The communist movement on the other hand remains petty and fragmented, its theory unfused with the working class movement.
The fusion party-building line understands that fusion is the general task of Marxist-Leninists in all periods prior to the establishment of communism. Broadly speaking, we can delineate three stages of this fusion process. First, is the party-building stages which is characterized by our efforts to unite communism with the advanced workers. Second, is the period after the vanguard is forged, in which the party leads the working class and the broad masses in the struggle for state power. The third stage is the work of the communist party once the proletarian dictatorship has been established and socialism and communism are being built. Thus the fusion line sees party-building as one stage in the general process of fusion which characterizes the general task of communists.
The fusion party-building line sees the fusion of communism with the advanced workers as the essence of the party-building process.
Or to say it another way, the particularity of the fusion process in the party-building stage is the merger of communist theory, program, strategy and tactics with the advanced fighters of the class. The vanguard party emerges as a result of this new relationship, as a step forward in the fusion of the communist and workers movement. The party is then the advanced detachment of the class, armed with revolutionary theory and based in the leading sector of the working class.
The process of fusion in this stage encompasses two interrelated and interdependent tasks. First, is the development of revolutionary theory; the independent elaboration of Marxism-Leninism to U.S. conditions. This theory is expressed in program, strategy and tactics for the U.S. revolution. Secondly, is the task of winning the advanced workers to this revolutionary theory, so that it becomes their guide to action.
While the fusion strategy sees an interdependent relationship between developing theory and practice, it does target the theoretical struggle as the primary form of class struggle at this time. The other forms of class struggle are economic and political struggle, which are being waged simultaneously, but play a secondary role in the party-building period. The economic struggle is the spontaneous struggle of the working class to maintain and improve its basic living conditions (higher wages, more community services, etc.) The political struggle is the struggle of the working class against the whole capitalist class, and its state apparatus.
In the party-building period, the theoretical struggle is the struggle to forge a Marxist-Leninist perspective to guide the working class and to defeat the class collaborationist and bourgeois perspectives that currently dominate the working class. The theoretical struggle is the decisive link in the ability of communists to move the spontaneous struggle of the working class, the economic struggle, to a more class conscious political struggle against the bourgeoisie.
It is important to understand how the three forms of class struggle are interrelated in the fusion strategy of party-building. The fusion strategy demands that the theory it produces not be solely general principles of communism to propagandize the workers with. The fusion strategy understands that workers will he won to communism when they see Marxism-Leninism capable of developing a program to advance the workers struggles in the economic and political fields.
In order to advance the workers struggles, communists must show their ability to provide leadership for the development of the united front around the concrete program. We do not seek to win over advanced workers as individuals, isolated from the rest of the class; the fusion strategy seeks to develop a program and win over advanced workers so that the advanced stand at the head of the workers movement. As this united front develops, some advanced workers will be won over to particular organizations; but more importantly, the beginnings of a broad communist current in the working class will emerge. The development of this embryonic communist current, where communists are openly leading the united front, will be a qualitative step forward in the process of fusing Marxism-Leninism with the workers movement.
The tasks of winning the advanced to communism not only involve creating the theory necessary for the development of a program for the united front and developing revolutionary cadre; it also includes independent communist agitation and propaganda that exposes the nature of capitalism and of bourgeois ideology. This communist activity seeks to systematically expose capitalism as the root of the working class difficulties, and put forward the need for socialism. It is in the long, painstaking process of communist agitation and propaganda that the advanced worker is torn away from various forms of bourgeois ideology and becomes developed as a Marxist-Leninist, a worker intellectual.
One of the most important focuses of our agitation and propaganda must be the struggle against racism. The fusion strategy identifies racism as the central division in both the working class and communist movements. In particular, a much higher percentage of the advanced workers are minorities, owing to their predominance in socialized production and owing to their special oppression. Racism, and in particular white chauvinism, remains the key obstacle between minority and white Marxist-Leninists. Therefore any attempts to forge a vanguard party for the U.S. working class must give special attention to struggling against racism. Within the working class movement there must be a systematic struggle to win the white workers to take up the struggle against racism. Within the communist movement, a continual and vigilant struggle must be waged primarily against white chauvinism, and secondarily against any deviations of narrow nationalism. While the struggle against racism is an important priority in our agitation and propaganda, clearly this struggle must be a conscious part of our program in all areas.
The fusion strategy understands that the party cannot wait until it has won all the advanced workers to its side, or that a fully developed communist current exists. This of course will only be possible after the formation of a vanguard party. But the fusion strategy does make a precondition for party formation the winning over of a sector of the advanced workers, and the development of an embryonic communist current. What is important is not the quantitative advanced in the number of advanced workers, but a qualitative change in the character of both the communist and workers movement, and the partial validation of revolutionary theory through testing in the actual class struggle.
In addition to revolutionary theory and an embryonic communist current, the party must also be built on a sufficient group of revolutionary cadre. At present the existing bulk of Marxist-Leninists are from petit-bourgeois backgrounds, with few historical ties to the working class. This is a reflection of the isolation of the communist and working class movement. The fusion strategy sees the development of the existing cadre taking place in the context of the main tasks of developing revolutionary theory and winning the advanced. The cadre are formed through the process of taking up these tasks.
The fusion strategy puts special emphasis on insuring that the advanced fighters, as they are being won over to communism, are also developed as all rounded revolutionary cadre. The fusion strategy is based on the view that the advanced fighters are capable of grasping Marxism-Leninism, and that they bring particular strengths to the communist movement duo to their close ties with the class, their solid class stand and desire to fight, and the rich experience of the movements of the working class and oppressed nationalities. Therefore, the revolutionary party will draw its cadre from the most ideologically developed fighters from both the existing stock of Marxist-Leninists and the developing worker intellectuals.
The fusion party-building line was originated by the PWOC. They studied the historical experience of the working class effort to form a vanguard party and applied these general principles to the U.S. today. In particular the fusion strategy is drawn from Lenin’s experience of building the Bolshevik Party, The PWOC, along with most groups in the anti-revisionist movement, have utilized the principles of this experience extensively.
The view that fusion is the essence of party-building has its roots in the history of the struggle for socialism. First Marx and then Lenin developed this perspective on the process of the building of a movement capable of overthrowing the bourgeoisie and replacing it with the rule of the proletariat.
In discussing the role he and Marx played in the development of theory and of the political movement, Engels said: “It was our duty to provide a scientific foundation for our view, hut it was equally important for us to win over the European and in the first place the German proletariat to our conviction.” Marx and Engels elaborated the principles of communism and at the same time worked tirelessly to fuse communism with the workers movement. They recognized that the socialist and working class movements existed independently and that the two movements had to be brought together in order for either to meet its goals. This perspective is developed in the Communist Manifesto before any of the major works on capitalism or revolution were written. This view led them to found the Communist League and the International Workingmen’s Association as well as to develop the basic theory of proletarian revolution that still guides us today.
Kautsky, leader of the Second International and heir to Marx, sums this up by saying:
But socialism and the class struggle arise side by side and not one out of the other; each arises under different conditions. Modem socialist consciousness can only arise on the basis of a profound scientific knowledge. Indeed, modern economic science is as much a condition for socialist production as say modern technology, and the proletariat create neither the one nor the other, but the bourgeois intellegencia; it was in the minds of the individual members of this stratum that modern socialism originated, and it was they who communicated to the more intellectually developed proletarians who, in their turn, introduce into the proletarian class struggle where conditions allow that to be done. – quoted by Lenin in What is to he Done? pg.47.
In explaining that the workers organized strikes and unions while the intellectuals independently developed socialist theory, Lenin explains:
The separation of the working class movement and socialism gave rise to weaknesses and underdevelopment in each; the theories of the socialists unfused with the workers struggle, remained nothing more than Utopias, good wishes that had no effect on real life; the working class movement remained petty, fragmented and did not acquire political significance, was not enlightened by the advanced science of its time. For this reason, we see in all European countries a constant urge to fuse socialism with the working class movement in a single social democratic movement, when this fusion takes place, the class struggle of the workers becomes the conscious struggle of the proletariat to emancipate itself from the exploitation of the properties classes; it is evolved into a higher form of the socialist workers movement the independent working class Social Democratic Party. By directing socialism towards a fusion with the working class movement, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels did their greatest service; they created a revolutionary theory that explained the necessity for this fusion and gave socialists the task of organizing the class struggle of the proletariat. – A Retrograde Trend in Russian Social Democracy (p. 117 of Lenin on Building the Bolshevik Party)
Lenin applied his understanding of fusion in his efforts to build the Russian Social Democratic party, Marxism was brought to Russia by Plekhanov in the 1880’s. Small study circles for intellectually minded workers were established in the early 90’s which read various works by Marx, Plekhanov, and other scientific writers. By the mid-90’s, a wave of strikes shook Russia, as the Russian proletariat began to organize itself against the developing factory system. Small circles of social democrats carried out widespread agitation, and thus won a significant sector of the proletariat to socialist ideas.
By the late 90’s and early 1900’s, Lenin stressed the need for the working class movement to become involved in the political struggle to overthrow the Tsar, In doing so, he argued with the Economists of the day to continually raise political demands in their work. In addition, he called upon the social democrats to deepen their revolutionary theory, unite their small circles and lay the basis for an ail-Russian Social Democratic party.
What becomes clear in reading Lenin during the years of building the Social Democratic Party, is that he is very dialectical in his identification of tasks. His goal is to develop a Russian workers movement capable of challenging the Tsar, and building socialism. At various times he emphasizes the need for theory, the unification of social democrats, and at other times the need for various types of practice in the class. We can extract from this history that the two essential components of the Leninist party are a political program, or theory applied to concrete conditions, to guide the movement, and an organization of the advanced fighters of the class. The Leninist party emerges as a union of the advanced fighters and a revolutionary party program, and therefore is the advanced detachment of the working class.
In order to understand the fusion party-building line as it exists today, we must trace its development since its inception in the PWOC in 1971, through its deepening, shifts, strengths and weaknesses, to its formulation today.
The development of the PWOC fusion line can be divided into three stages: 1) 1971 to 1976. the founding of the PWOC to the resolution on party-building; 2) 1976 to 1978, the Committee of 5 to the debate with PUL and the Guardian; 3) 1978 to 1980, the founding of the OCIC, fractions, and the beginning of the discussion of a pre-party organization.
The first stage of the fusion line began when the PWOC was formed in 1971 out of a group of primarily petit-bourgeois people with some members having a background in Marxism, who were studying and doing trade union organizing in Philadelphia. The earliest elaboration of their party-building position can be found in the State of the Struggle documents from October 1973 and November 1974. In its earliest formulations, PWOC recognizes “the central task of the PWOC and the central task of the communist movement as well . . is the creation of a revolutionary vanguard party ...”
In general there are three prerequisites for the formation of a vanguard party. First, the party must have a revolutionary theory… Second, a general prerequisite for the party is a communist current in the working class movement. Because the party must be a working class party, it must be based on the revolutionary wing of the proletariat. It must be built with the fighters produced in the class struggle. However these revolutionary fighters must become communists, if they are to play a conscious role in building the party... The third and final prerequisite of the party is sufficient cadre. These cadre who will make up the ranks of the party must not only be present in sufficient quantity; they must also be of necessary quality. They must be schooled in revolutionary theory, trained in the workers movement, and steeled in the class struggle.
The PWOC identified three main forms of class struggle: the theoretical, political and economic, which communists participate in. In its earliest document, they state:
the primary (PWOC emphasis) struggle is the theoretical struggle. The theoretical struggle is primary in this period because the quintessential ingredient for a successful revolutionary movement is a revolutionary party…. a revolutionary vanguard.
They identified two main phases in the development of theory. The first is the development of theory, the second is the testing. Because as they say, “theory isolated from practice is sterile, practice isolated from theoretical guidance is pointless.” In another place they state: “We have consistently fought for the revolutionary principle that theory which is not concrete is not worthy of its name and that theory which is not based on firm scientific knowledge and developed into a balanced political doctrine is not theory at all. On the one hand we have demanded that the organization spend a major portion of its time in the development of theory, and on the other hand that this theory be developed in direct relation to practice.”
This conception of theory was developed in conscious opposition to the dogmatist approach to theory. As they say, “While it is indisputably true that the theoretical struggle is primary in this period, it is equally true that this struggle cannot be carried out abstractly in theoretical journals, in discussion groups, etc,” Instead, against the dogmatist conception of theory, PWOC argued that “Marxists understand theory as a tool, as an instrument in revolutionary production, if you will, that is to be used in the struggle for working class power.”
The PWOC began their work in the trade unions as the logical place to begin establishing their ties with the working class and the advanced workers. The development of the PWOC’s trade union question included an historical analysis of the trade unions, their basic relationship to capitalist society, a program for class struggle unionism today, and an article which described the relationship between communist work in the economic struggle and party-building.
Early on, as the report from ’73 indicates, PWOC identified a certain narrowness to their work, and a tendency towards rightism and tailism of the cadre. The narrow focus on the economic struggle bolstered this narrowness, and the PWOC waged a campaign against tailism and called for strengthening the political side of their work. Particularly important in avoiding economism was the emphasis which PWOC placed on taking up the struggle against racism. Following close behind the trade union question was the development of PWOC’s position on Black Liberation, and a basic pamphlet, “Racism and the Workers Movement.”
1975 and the publishing of the Organizer marked a qualitative breakthrough for the PWOC in developing the political side of their work. The newspaper presents a communist perspective in a popular style, on the varying political, economic, local, national, and international issues of the day. It is described in Using the Organizer:
The Organizer was conceived with the advanced worker in mind. The form and content of the paper are the concrete expressions of our political line on party-building. The Organizer is a weapon for winning over the advanced worker to Marxism-Leninism and for building the communist current in the workers movement.
During this early period, PWOC also took an active interest in the national development of the party-building movement. In 1975, the PWOC printed its basic articles on party-building. It emphasized the need to create a workers communism and to win over the advanced workers. In early 1976, the PWOC put forward a party-building resolution which represented the first statement on the need for an ideological center. In that plan, the national center was seen as the basis for developing a national pre-party organization.
The lessons of the early development of the fusion line are many, but a few key points should be highlighted. First, a strength of the fusion strategy was due to the emphasis placed on developing revolutionary theory as a guide to communist action. The history of the PWOC dispels any notion often raised by its critics that it downplays theory; in fact, the history shows just the opposite.
Secondly, a strength of the fusion strategy was also based on continuing attempts to develop the political side of the work, and the consistent struggle against tailism.
Thirdly, a strength of the fusion strategy was based on the continual development of communist agitation and propaganda which make the theoretical work a real tool to win the advanced workers.
Fourth, another strength was that PWOC recognized early on the centrality of the struggle against racism.
Finally, a strength of the fusion strategy was that it never saw itself in local isolation of a national movement to build a party, and therefore set national tasks as well as local tasks.
The central characteristic of the second period is that the fusion strategy for party-building goes from primarily the line of the PWOC in Philadelphia to a national line adopted by many of the emerging democratic centralist collectives. In addition, this is the period in which the PWOC along with three other groups on the Committee of 5 develop their views on an ideological center to take up theoretical tasks, and lead towards communist unification. Finally, it is during the second period in which the fusion line confronts three main deviations from its line, in the form of economism, voluntarism, and small circle spirit.
The PWOC’s experience in Philadelphia became well known nationally, especially after the publication of the 0rganizer. It stood out as one of the few positive examples of communist theory and practice in a period dominated by dogmatism, left opportunism, and sectarianism of the bulk of the anti-revisionist forces. In addition, PWOC played a leading role, along with the Guardian newspaper, in criticizing the ultra-lefts, especially for their class collaborationist line in Angola. It is no wonder that many young collectives and independent Marxist-Leninists looked to the PWOC for leadership.
PWOC’s national work took two forms. First, the PWOC began limited travel and shared their experiences with young collectives. In some cases PWOC was decisive in helping collectives form and begin trade union and other mass work, in others already existing collectives shared various experiences. This produced a group of forces nationally, located in many cities, who identified with the fusion strategy and were involved in trade union work. The development of the local collectives was generally very low, some groups implemented the strategy, others though they agreed with it, failed to implement the essential elements of the strategy. Nevertheless, the “fusion forces” emerged nationally as the dominant organized group in a budding anti-revisionist, anti-left opportunist tendency.
In addition, the PWOC along with four other local collectives, began a process of discussions called the Committee of 5. This group began to systematically share experiences and theoretical work with each other. Over time, more and more circles joined the process, which later became the OCIC.
The plan of four of the groups, including the PWOC, was embodied in a draft resolution. This proposal identified the local character of the movement, its amateurishness and theoretical underdevelopment. It called for the formation of an ideological center in order to take up the outstanding theoretical tasks facing the young movement. The draft proposal embodied a three stage approach, in which first an ideological center would be built, which would develop revolutionary theory and unite the bulk of Marxist-Leninists; on the basis of this a national pre-party would be formed, and later on the vanguard party established. Although this proposal was never adopted, it remained the main thinking of the forces at this time.
The fusion view, as well as the line of the leading groups, confronted two obstacles to the development of the ideological center. First, was the opposition by MINP to the formation of a national ideological center. Secondly, was the decision of the Guardian newspaper not to join the newly established OCIC. Both of these early struggles against localism and the small circle spirit were key in distinguishing the line of the OCIC, and the fusion view, from other incorrect lines in the party-building tendency.
MINP opposed the Committee of 4’s plans on the basis that it was premature to centralize the ideological struggle and theoretical work to a national level. They argued that at present the tendency should put primary emphasis on local development of cadre, through ideological training and integration into the working class struggles. As an alternative, MINP put forward that the tendency should work to develop local, regional, and perhaps a national center of coordination, cooperation, and communication. These centers would develop basic forms of common study and practice in each locality.
All of the groups in the OCIC discussed and debated the two positions and voted overwhelmingly to adopt the Committee of 4!s plan for developing an ideological center (although the specific resolution was not adopted). The bulk of forces who attended the February conference in 1978 felt that it was crucial to put at the forefront of our vision the development of a national theory, and a national leadership; thus the Organizing Committee for an Ideological Center.
What is important about this struggle, is that it represented the first confrontation between the OC’s line and a localist position, which has surfaced many times since. And at a deeper level, it represented the first clash between the fusion view of the PWOC, and the narrow fusion view, or economism, represented by forces broader than just MINP, but also to a certain extent other collectives among the fusion forces as well.
For the OC, MINP’s position failed to see the importance of developing a national theory and leadership for our future party. It put the local interests of cadre organizations above the developing national work. Further, since the development of the OC’s anti-federationist position, it is clear that MINP’s position guarded the circle integrity of organizations, instead of allowing members of cadre organizations to participate as individuals in the national theoretical work and ideological struggle. Unfortunately MINP’s plan condemned the least developed groups to their backwardness by stifling the development of a national process which could lead them. In addition, local centers of the OC’s variety held little hope for Marxist-Leninists in areas without other forces to coordinate with.
For the fusion view, MINP’s position held a much deeper antagonism. MINP’s position corresponded to a narrow view of fusion with the class that downplayed the struggle for revolutionary theory. By denying the importance of organizing Marxist-Leninists at a national level to centralize work on the theoretical tasks, MINP’s position denied the necessary development of program, strategy and tactics so integral to the fusion view. MINP saw the need for this work later down the road and was incorrect in not seeing the necessity to begin the process at the time. Other forces, such as PSO, SOC, who supposedly held the fusion view, were also under the erroneous view that fusion could occur at the local level, with the integration of communists into the trade union struggles of the class, without the necessary theory to guide them.
While the fusion view has historically placed much emphasis on the integration of the petit-bourgeois left into the trade unions as key arenas for working with the advanced workers and the broader workers movement, it has also seen the key importance of developing revolutionary theory to guide the work of communists, and the importance of developing the political side of its work. This has certainly been the practice of the PWOC, and the main reason for the importance and energy they placed on developing the OC.
MINP’s position represented a right deviation in party-building line, and would be characterized by the fusion forces as an economist deviation on party-building. Economism makes an error in regards to the relationship between the theoretical, political, and economic struggles. It is an outlook which believes that the working class can become revolutionary through its day to day struggle in the economic realm (the shops, local struggle against capital). It fails to emphasize that revolutionary consciousness develops as the result of conscious intervention by communists, and that the workers must attain political consciousness, which embodies the need to organize the class as a whole against the bourgeois state. While MINP, and other communists as well, would not agree with this characterization of their position, their downplaying of national theory objectively denies the ability of communists to bring a developed program to the class struggle. It leave s local circles involved in the narrowest forms of practical activity without a sufficient revolutionary theory to guide their work, particularly theory necessary to engage in communist agitation and propaganda.
The deviation of economism has been the main error in practice of the fusion forces nationally. In their positive efforts to root themselves in the plants, many circles have had a narrow conception of communist work. It is important to note that the material basis for economism is great in a young movement which is theoretically underdeveloped and local in character. Developing the political struggle in the absence of national theory and ties is very difficult. PSO for example exemplified this economist deviation early on in their party-building line, which downplayed the role of theory in the fusion of communism with the workers movement.
The OC was decisive in breaking many circles away from this narrow approach. On the whole, most of the fusion circles have gone beyond these original errors, having developed a deeper theoretical understanding of party-building, and a more varied political practice. The break is still occurring, and a few circles, such as SOC, still jealously hold to a view that fusion is essentially carrying out mass work in the class locally, and that national theoretical work is a diversion from this activity. What is important to understand is that economism is a deviation from the fusion view, and that economist errors and practice among fusion forces represent a deviation from the line developed originally by PWOC. The fusion view emphasizes a continual deepening of revolutionary theory, in the interests of winning the “advanced workers to communism and thereby strengthening the political struggle of the class.
The second main obstacle to the development of the ideological center was the small circle spirit of the Guardian newspaper in regards to the Committee of 5 process. The lessons from the struggle against the organizational opportunism of the Guardian are also instructive, for the small circle spirit has emerged again and again since the founding of the OC, and is now embodied in the party-building line of the NNMLC.
From the very beginning, the Committee of 5 invited the Guardian newspaper to participate in the process. The Guardian attended almost all of the meetings, and even played a central role in many of the debates and presentations. Yet it never joined. At first it put off the decision arguing that the Guardian was a newspaper, and had different responsibilities than most of the circles involved in the process. In addition, it argued that the circles did not give the Guardian the respect it deserved as a newspaper. Regardless, the Guardian did not join, although they participated even at the founding OC conference. It was only later that the Guardian announced its decision not to join the OC based on a number of political criticisms, none of which were raised to the Committee of 5. In place of the OC’s 18 points, Guardian put forward its 29 points. In place of the OC process, the Guardian process; in place of the OC Steering Committee, the Guardian Bureau was established which built its own process.
Clay Newlin, as a member of the Committee of 5, took up the struggle with the Guardian around joining with the Committee of 5 forces. The Guardian was reassured that the Committee of 5 was not based on a full-blown fusion line. In essence Newlin argued that the Guardian had offered no political differences with the Committee of 5 process, yet insisted on keeping a privileged status in relationship the rest of the Committee of 5 groups. The Guardian offered no differences yet set about forming its own network of clubs in competition with the Committee of 5 process, thereby splintering the first embryonic efforts to organize the tendency on a national basis.
The Committee of 5 on the other hand argued that it sought to organize forces on the basis of its 18 points, no more, and that this was in the best interests of the movement, rather than the development of competing processes. At the heart of the Guardian’s move was a small circle approach to the tasks of unification of the tendency. The Committee of 5 sought to organize the tendency on broad 18 points which everyone could agree with, while the Guardian organized on its explicit fully developed line. The Committee of 5 sought a common effort, while the Guardian sought to divide our tendency into competing centers.
These became the basic issues which were to divide the OC and the NNMLC later on. The NNMLC has argued that centers should be developed on the basis of fully developed party-building lines, and that competing circles, or centers, are preferable to an organized common effort to produce a single leading ideological center. Therefore early on, the struggle with the small circle spirit of the Guardian stood in stark opposition to the anti-sectarian line which guided the fusion forces and the Committee of 5.
We could not mention the second period of the fusion line’s development without looking at the first explicit critique of fusion leveled by Irwin Silber, and the Ann Arbor Collective. This initial critique forms the theoretical basis for the present line of the NNMLC, and the TMLC, and the underpinnings of their own left voluntarist lines on party-building.
Silber began his critique of fusion arguing that the fusion party-building line downplayed the development of theoretical tasks and political line, and instead made practice in the mass movements as primary. The fusion forces he argued, like the economists of Lenin’s day, were mired in the economic struggle. Further, he disagreed that at present communists have the task of winning the advanced workers to communism or building the communist current. This fusion became possible only after the unification of Marxist-Leninists into a vanguard party.
The Ann Arbor Collective, later TMLC and NNMLC, express similar critiques of fusion; each of these organizations see party-building as essentially uniting Marxist-Leninists around correct political line. This becomes the only precondition for the party, and only after the party is built is fusion a possibility. Each of these formations also deny the ability to test line in the class struggle, because any such attempts are empiricist without a national party, and a broader experience. Finally, each of these groups make practice in the class a secondary task, although their formulations around the role of practice differ somewhat and are generally vague. In his earliest formulations Silber spoke of practice as social investigation; more recently rectification argues that practice can be important for developing a communist style of work, bringing more people into the Marxist-Leninist movement, and testing lines in the most limited way. TMLC refers to work as pre-fusion mass work, hut we know little of what this means.
In turn PWOC responded to the opening salvo on the fusion line by arguing that it was incorrect to pose which came first, fusion or the party. Instead, they argued that party-building must be seen as part of the general task of fusion. PWOC argued that it was incorrect to argue that the vanguard party could be formed without a step forward in the fusion of communism with the workers movement, and that this would be expressed in an embryonic communist current. Moreover, PWOC argued against a view that the theory of the party could be tested primarily in the minds of the Marxist-Leninists, without its ability to aid in leading the actual class struggle. Finally, they argued that the winning of the advanced worker was crucial to lay a solid foundation for a real vanguard party.
The view expressed by the Silber critique, and now held by the rectification forces and TMLC, are hostile to the fusion strategy because they are based on voluntarism. A voluntarist strategy was embodied by the ultra-lefts. Here the party does not emerge as the vanguard of the class, but is a declaration of intent by a national grouping of Marxist-Leninists, with no real leading role in the class. Secondly, the role of the advanced workers are liquidated and primary is given to the existing stock of Marxist-Leninist intellectuals. Thirdly, the development of political line is taken out of the context of testing in the class struggle.
Such voluntaristic party-building lines show a clear “left idealism” characteristic of the radicalized petit-bourgeoisie. It is based on the impatience for the party without the necessary precondition of developing a higher level of fusion between the existing stock of Marxist-Leninists and the working class, without having communists proven their theory, without the advanced workers leading the class as communists. Such a party-building line violates the basic tenants of historical materialism, by narrowly emphasizing the existing subjective factor of communists, outside of the objective conditions and consciousness of the working class and broader society. Lenin warned against voluntarism, in his critique of the Narodniks, who viewed the activity of critical thinking intellectuals as everything, and the working masses as nothing. In addition, he warned against the idealist separation between theory and practice which characterized the voluntarists. He writes:
In thus emphasizing the necessity, importance and immensity of the theoretical work of the Social Democrats, I by no means want to say that this work should take precedence over practical work* - still less that the latter should be postponed until the former is completed. Only the admirers of a “subjective method of sociology” or the followers of Utopian socialism, could arrive at such a conclusion* Of course if it is presumed that the task of the socialists is to seek “different paths,” and conversely once these paths are discovered and indicated theoretical work ends, and the work of those who are to direct the “fatherland along the newly discovered different paths1 begins, the position is altogether different when the tasks of socialists are to be the ideological leaders of the proletariat in its actual struggle against actual and real enemies who stand in the actual path of social and economic development. Under these circumstances, theoretical and practical work merge into one aptly described by veteran Social Democrat Liebneckt as: Study, Propagandize, and Organization.
You cannot be an ideological leader without the above mentioned theoretical work, just as you cannot be one without directing this work to meet the needs of the cause, and without spreading the results of this theory among the workers and helping them to organize.
Such a presentation of the task guards Social Democrats against the defect from which socialist groups so often suffer, namely dogmatism and sectarianism.
There can be no dogmatism where the supreme and sole criterion of a doctrine is its conformity to the actual process of social and economic development; there can be no sectarianism when the task is that of promoting the organization of the proletariat, and when therefore, the role of the “intellegensia” is to make special leaders from among the intellegensia unnecessary.
*On the contrary, the practical work of propaganda and agitation must always take precedence, because, firstly the theoretical work only supplies answers to the problems raised by practical work, and secondly, the Social Democrats, for reasons over which they have no control, are so often compelled to confine themselves to theoretical work that they value highly every moment when practical work is possible. – Lenin: What the Friends of the People Are
Silber’s critique was also based on some clear distortions, and a good deal of faulty logic. It characterized the fusion position as practice in the mass movement without theory. By playing on some real right errors of some fusion forces, Silber sought to discredit the fusion line as a whole. Any real study of the PWOC would dispel any notions that PWOC had not emphasized theory in the development of its work. And it was difficult to understand why a force so mired in economism, localism, and anti-theory, would be at the forefront of the development of a national process leading to a national ideological center to take up the development of theory; or how a force which downplayed line struggle among communists had led the struggle against the left international line. Nevertheless, Silber’s critique found its following. This should be no surprise in a young movement, primarily of petit-bourgeois origins and moreover in a tendency extremely peripheral to the working class movement, and one which had only recently made its first baby steps away from an anti-revisionist movement characterized for the last 20 years by the most extreme forms of voluntarism, dogmatism, and sectarianism.
So in its second period the fusion line went national, creating a following of circles based on its line. So too did it contribute to the development of the OCIC. And in its birth as a national line, it was confronted with the struggle against various opportunist lines, including an economist deviation, a small circle spirit, and a voluntarist deviation; all of which form the basis for the main forms of opportunism which the fusion line and the OCIC are locked into struggle with to this day.
Fusion is now a national party-building line with national influence. Certain organizations are united solidly behind the fusion strategy, including BOC, SUB, FTP, TCWOC, and SWG [Boston Organizing Committee, Socialist Union of Baltimore, For the People, Twin Cities Workers Organizing Committee, Seattle Work Group – EROL]. Other organizations are less solid or developed, although in most localities a fraction of forces in an area are united solidly behind the fusion line, including Portland, the Bay Area, LA and Detroit.
As a group, these forces are involved in many different and varied forms of activity, both theoretical and practical. As a line, the fusion party-building line is contributing to a number of different initiatives, including the OCIC, national fractions, and local cadre organizations. To understand the development of the Fusion party-building line, we must trace the development of the various forms, their particular relationship to the fusion line, and to each other.
Although certainly not exclusively, the fusion forces have been centrally involved to the building of the OCIC. They have been active in the leadership, as well as the base of the OCIC. In fact, the fusion forces have put more energy into the OCIC than perhaps any other project. Why is this so and what is the relationship between the OCIC and the fusion forces?
The OCIC is primarily devoted to national theoretical work. It has as it goals the development of a leading ideological center and the elaboration of Marxism-Leninism to U.S. conditions, that is program, strategy and tactics for the U.S. revolution. The basis of unity are the OC’s 18 points, and a commitment to strive towards the building of a single ideological center, as embodied in the founding statement.
What is not as well known is that the OCIC is not united on a full fusion position which sees fusion as the essence of party-building.; which makes the development of a communist current a precondition for party formation, etc. The OC has a limited party-building line which focuses on how we should take up our theoretical tasks, how to build an ideological center, and a beginning theoretical agenda which makes primary the critique of ultra-leftism.
The reason for this is simple; it is not in the interest of uniting the broadest possible forces to take up the theoretical tasks, to tie the OC to a particular, more fully elaborated party-building line. This was certainly clear in the minds of the Committee of 4, and the first OCIC leadership, who have consistently struggled to involve forces such as the Guardian Newspaper, the NNMLC, etc. The OC should strive to involve the broadest possible forces who have a common interest in working on the independent elaboration, and centralizing the ideological struggle into a single center process.
The OC line and the fusion line are interpenetrating yet distinct. Both the OC and the fusion party-building line have agreement on the importance of developing a national theory for the U.S. revolution. Both lines coincide with the need for this process to take place in a single national center as the best way to give birth to a leading ideological center. But here the similarity ends.
The fusion party-building line is distinct from the OC line because it has much more developed views on the varied tasks of party-building, including the role of communists in the mass struggle, the need to win the advanced workers and to build the communist current. The fusion party-building line presents a more developed line on the essence of the party-building process and the relationships between the various tasks. Organizationally this distinction between the fusion line and the OC can be understood by saying that one need not have to agree with the fusion party-building line to be in the OC; but one needs to agree to much more than the OC’s basis of unity in order to be a member of an organization in the fusion camp.
The line of the OC is that the OC is a limited party-building formation devoted to forging theory and an ideological center. It recognizes that while the OC subordinates all circles to its national theoretical agenda, at the same time the OC must allow forces within it to pursue their varied practical and theoretical activities which flow from their more developed political priorities.
Secondly, the OCIC does not attempt to guide communist practice in the working class movement. The fusion forces consciously do guide practice. The OCIC has consciously separated the process of guiding communist practice off from its activity because it believes that an effort to guide practice would limit the purpose of the OCIC, which is to broadly organize ideological struggle and theoretical work.
How is this so and isn’t this an incorrect separation of theory and practice? The reasons for the OC’s position should become clear if one thinks about°& situation where the OCIC were to try and guide communist practice. The guidance of practice in the working class movement necessitates a fairly mature political line. For example, communist practice in the trade unions demands a position on the trade unions, and a general analysis of broader political questions which should be brought to the workers. It is clear that there are presently different views in the tendency on how to approach communist work in the trade unions, and more differences over the analysis of general issues. Yet it is precisely the goal of the OC to organize theoretical work around politic al line, and to centralize debate on the various questions which arise. Therefore if the OC guided practice and demanded unity in action of its members around a particular line, it would necessarily compromise the broad character and theoretical purpose of the OC itself.
What then is the general strategy of the OC for the role of the ideological center and theoretical work in the party- building process? Previously, during the Committee of 5 days, the ideological center was seen as a prior stage to the development of a national preparty organization. Since the founding of the OCIC, this conception has changed. The present view of the OC Steering Committee is that the ideological center will exist all the way until the formation of the party.
The previous conception had a number of errors, which were ultra-left in their conception. First, it would be incorrect to demand that all forces in the tendency join a national preparty prior to the full development of a party program. As long as there remain outstanding theoretical questions of party program, it would be sectarian to demand that all tendency forces unite in a single democratic centralist organization, guided by a single line. This previous approach contained aspects of the approach of the previous party-building attempts, where the OL and RU demanded that forces join each of their formations while all other forces were read out of the movement.
Secondly, this early conception prohibited the development of national democratic centralist organizations prior to the establishment of the leading ideological center. Under the draft resolution, forces would not be free to build practical centers at a national level as expressions of their more mature programs. This approach circumscribed the freest possible movement of tendency forces in pursuing the testing and implementation of their political line.
As a result of recognizing these errors in the early conception of the ideological center, the present draft plan reflects a change in its view. The draft plan argues for involving the broadest possible forces in a centralized theoretical process. It calls for the development of a national center at present, which would create the most favorable conditions for the emergence of a leading core. Its basis of unity is the 18 points. It does not seek to guide practice, but it does allow for participants in the OC process to pursue the testing of their particular lines. In particular, the draft plan looks favorably on the development of practical centers at a local, regional and national level, as forms to test and develop line.
The organizational expression of the OC party-building line is the principle of anti-federationism. Anti-federationism demands that each communist participate in the theoretical and ideological work of the tendency as an individual, without the discipline of binding instructions from his or her circle. At the same time, the OC does not interfere with the democratic centralism of cadre organizations or fractions which seek to implement a political line in a unified way in the working class movement.
To sum-up: the OC line is a limited line which seeks to organize the theoretical tasks of the movement. It’s based on anti-federationist organizational principles; it does not guide practice, and allows the free movement of those who do. The fusion line both interpenetrates and is distinct from the OC line. It shares with the OC line the perspective on centralizing theoretical work into a national center. The fusion line is distinct because it has a more developed party-building line which includes a perspective on work in the class, the essence of party-building, etc. The fusion line does guide practice, and uses democratic centralism in its work in the class.
What then will be the relationship between the centers which guide practice and the OC? At present this is difficult to fully answer because the OC is just in its formative stages; it is struggling to give birth to a national center which can begin the process of theoretical work. When we think of a mature theoretical center, it is clear that it could contribute the following things to cadre organizations and fractions:
1) A theoretical center will be a main arena for the development of political line which can contribute to the theory necessary to guide practice of the democratic centralist form. The center process will involve a much broader pool of theoretical resources and cadre than any local circle can draw on.
2) The theoretical center can provide an arena to test the theoretical work of the cadre organizations through broad ideological struggle. In this way the erroneous conceptions presently guiding local organizations can he corrected, and correct views can he deepened.
3) Third, the ideological center process will contribute to the development of cadre in the practical centers. By carrying out systematic debate and theoretical work, every practical worker will be developed as a participant in the national party-building process.
4) A secondary effect of participating in the ideological center process will be putting members of cadre organizations in contact with broader left forces. This will be an opportunity for cadre to see each other in action, and lay the basis for possible organizational recruitment.
Sometimes it is difficult to keep a long range perspective on what practical centers receive from the OCIC process, because it seems that we put so much energy into the OC, with little theoretical work coming back that can concretely guide our practice;, There is some material basis to this view; we are in a period when we are just struggling to get the center off the ground, and we are forced to develop our various theoretical work independently. However it is a one-sided assessment to negate the benefits ot the OC process for our local development.
We can see more concretely the benefits if we look at the present relationship between our own organization and the OC process. In two areas we can see how this embryonic relationship will function. For example, the OC study on the 18 points will be an excellent opportunity for our cadre to learn some basic fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism. The development of a national study guide is far beyond what our local capability would have been. Secondly, the struggle against racism that has been taken up in the OC is having direct impact on our ability to take up this issue in BAWOC. The OC is forcing us to look at our practice in this area, and is giving some concrete guidance on how to take it up.
We have to grasp that as the ideological center process matures, it will be taking up issues much more directly related to political line. Therefore there will be an increasingly close relationship between issues raised in our mass practice as communists and issues theoretically developed and debated in the OC.
What then do the practical centers contribute to the OC process? (By the term “practical centers” we do not mean to imply an undialectical separation between the OC doing theory and practical centers doing practice. Practical centers have a multitude of important theoretical tasks to guide their work; we do however see practice as being the distinguishing characteristic of these centers.)
1) The practical centers will contribute the theoretical work which they have developed in order to guide their practice.
2) The practical centers will be able to test the basic lines debated in the OC in practice. In this way, lines which cannot be tested by the OC, except through ideological struggle, can be refined in practice. This will enrich the experience in the ideological center’s theoretical work.
3) The practical centers, guided by fusion, if they are successful in winning over the advanced workers, can contribute to bringing the advanced fighters to the OC process, which will improve both the class and racial composition of the OC and the quality of theoretical work and ideological struggle.
More recently, plans for national fractions are being developed for health, education, and secondarily in other industries as well. Auto workers have had a fraction for over two years now. As with the OCIC, fusion forces have been central to providing leadership for both the conception and implementation of the fractions, although not exclusively.
The goal of the fractions is to unite Marxist-Leninists from the tendency on a national level to begin to develop program, strategy and tactics for a particular industry. Fractions are seen as a practical center which would guide the work of the cadre around the particular area of work. The fraction operates according to the basic principles of democratic centralism.
The party-building line which guides the fractions is a limited one, like the OCIC. It argues that the fractions should be developed for the purpose of building the communist current in the particular industry. It does not require unity on the essence of party-building or on forging a single center; Its basis of unity is the 18 points and willingness to develop theory to guide the work, and to implement majority positions in practice.
The members of the fractions participate in the organization on a non-federationist basis. That is they do not receive guidance or binding instructions from their local cadre organizations on issues of the fraction. In addition, the fraction, like the OC, is open to individuals.
The fractions are just getting off the ground so it is yet early to fully understand how they will relate to cadre organizations or the OC. But as practical centers, they will have a similar impact on the OC of bringing advanced theory and practice for discussion in the OC, and at the same time being capable of testing the various conceptions of political line developed in the OC. They will offer positive experience to the cadre of organizations in how to do communist work in the class, and address theoretical problems of trade union strategy which other d-c organizations can learn from.
Local democratic centralist organizations are a vital part of the fusion strategy of party-building, although their role has somewhat changed due to the development of the OCIC and national fractions. Prior to 1978, the local organizations were the focal point for the all-sided development of communist work, including the development of revolutionary theory, cadre formation, and the struggle to win the advanced worker to communism.
Each of these areas of communist activity were necessarily limited due to the low level of theoretical development of the circles, their isolation from the class, their primarily white composition, etc. Nevertheless, they formed an important network which was developing its theory and ties to the class.
The OC was central to breaking the circles out of the narrow approach which flowed from these conditions. While the ideological center will be a key form to centralize theoretical work and ideological struggle, and national fractions will be able to take practice to a national level, much work still remains to be done at the local level in cadre organizations.
Local cadre organizations remain key centers for the development of political line necessary to win the advanced workers. The theoretical tasks of cadre organizations must continue to develop program and strategy to guide the work of the cadre in the class. It is particularly important that fusion forces build off the more developed political line on trade unions, racism, and independent political action which have already been developed.
Secondly, cadre organizations are central to the fusion strategy because they are the main organizations which take up communist agitation and propaganda with the advanced workers. The special emphasis which fusion places on building the communist current depends on the development of strong practical centers in the localities. These organizations, by rooting cadre in the plants and community, can systematically develop ties with the advanced end carry out the agitation and propaganda.
Thirdly, the cadre organizations remain key centers for the development of communist cadre. While the OC and fractions will definitely contribute to cadre’s development, the local organizations are in a key position to provide more well-rounded development of cadres The organizations can contribute to developing a group of communists who are good agitators in the trade unions and communities, who are developing leaders in the mass struggles, and who are grounded in the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism.
Fourth, the local democratic centralist organizations aside from developing their own theory, will be key to the process of implementing and testing political line which is developed nationally in the fractions, and in the ideological center. While national fractions will take up some of this work, cadre organizations which meet regularly can he very effective in carrying out the ongoing work in the localities.
As practical centers devoted to guiding their cadre in communist mass work, local democratic centralist organizations will continue to make a contribution to the fusion strategy for party-building. In fact, the development of the OCIC and fractions pose even greater requirements on the type of theoretical and practical work which these organizations must now carry out.
These circles will make positive contributions so long as they clearly understand their role. A key deviation to avoid will be the tendency towards localism and narrow circle spirit which is fostered by such forms. Local organizations must understand the importance of the national processes, and allow their cadre to participate fully as individuals in the national theoretical struggle in the OCIC, and in the national fractions. A second manifestation of localism to avoid will be the desire of local organizations to substitute themselves for the national process, by posing tasks for themselves better taken up by other forms.
The fusion forces have seen the importance in qualitatively advancing the work of the circles, and have been preparing a conference for local democratic centralist organizations which will focus on helping them to develop their concentrations in the plants, their leadership and organizational principles, and the struggle against racism, all of which are key issues and obstacles which most local circles are facing.
Since 1978, the fusion forces have been continuing particular work on their political line development. The most important work in this area has been the PWOC’s developing position on independent political action. This is a continuation of the PWOC’s consistent efforts to develop the political side of their work. Much of their experience is drawn from their work on the Stop Rizzo campaign and the Black United Front. This experience has been combined with much theoretical work on the history of independent political action, including the past attempts at developing a third party.
This new line which is developing presents new possibilities for fusion forces, just as the original trade union line of the PWOC offered an important guide to work in the trade unions. It will be particularly important to aid local circles in developing broader political work, outside of the trade unions. It should be carefully studied, along with independent readings on this topic. In addition to the development of a line on independent political action work, PWOC has continued to develop the Organizer during the last two years. Most recently, the Organizer has shifted to more national coverage, with less emphasis on Philadelphia news. The PWOC has been actively soliciting articles from other parts of the country. In addition, they have been issuing monthly newsletters with the paper on how to use the Organizer for basic agitation propaganda work.
In addition to PWOC’s advances, other groups among the fusion forces have been developing their theoretical and practical work. In particular, SUB, BOC, and For the People have been producing more theoretical work, including newspapers, pamphlets, and various theoretical papers. Many of the fusion forces are maturing in their presence in the trade unions and community struggles.
We should look very favorably upon these recent developments, because they represent a distinct deepening of the fusion party-building line as a real national force. Recently in the Organizer, the PWOC has argued that the pre-party, that is a national democratic centralist organization, could make a positive contribution to the party-building process if conceived correctly. They argue that if the organization continues to operate in the OC and fractions on a non-federationist basis, that it could really advance the development and testing of line in the class struggle. In addition, a national organization based on the fusion line could be much more effective in carrying out the tasks of winning the advanced, which today are difficult to do given the local character of the fusion forces. PWOC offers no projection for such a plan, but clearly it is a consistent position if one views the tasks of party-building as not only the production of revolutionary theory, but the winning of the advanced fighters of the class to communism as well.