Perhaps the biggest sin to MLOC has been a party-building plan that calls for any temporary or even partial retreat from emphasis on the practical tasks of the mass movement. To this MLOC replies, “Only isolation from the working class movement could result in a proposal which calls for a retreat from the class struggle.” Here MLOC counterposes the various calls for study, polemics, and other coordination of theoretical tasks to “the class struggle”. But we have news for you, MLOC. The Leninist view sees these tasks as equally part of the class struggle. Here is what Lenin said about the theoretical struggle in What Is To Be Done?;
Engels recognizes not two forms of the great struggle of Social democracy (political and economic), as is the fashion among us, but three, placing on a par with the first two the theoretical struggle. {Peking ed., p. 29-30, emphasis original)
But to MLOC this is wrong, since they attack the carrying out of the theoretical struggle as “a retreat from the class struggle”. They totally miss the Leninist point that revolutionary theory is required if there is to be revolutionary, and not reformist, practice. As Lenin also said:
Without a revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary movement. This thought cannot be insisted upon too strongly at a time when the fashionable preaching of opportunism goes hand in hand with an infatuation for the narrowest forms of practical activity. (Ibid., p. 28)
The history of the formation of the Bolshevik Party confirms the necessity of the primacy of theory at certain times. In writing of the development of Russian Social-Democracy in What Is To Be Done?. Lenin distinguished between different periods of the movement. The first was from 1884-94, the second 1894-1898, and the third began in 1897-98.
Later, he wrote:
In the second period, in contrast to the third, we see no disagreements among the Social-Democrats themselves. At that time, Social-Democracy was ideologically united, and it was then that an attempt was made to achieve the same unity in practice, in organization (the formation of the RSDLP). At that time, the main attention of the Social-Democrats was centered not on clearing up and deciding various internal Party questions (as was the case in the third period), but on the ideological struggle against the opponents of Social-Democracy, on the one hand, and on the development of practical Party work, on the other. (Preface to the Second Edition of the Pamphlet, “The Tasks of the Russian Social-Democrats”, CW vol. 6, p.210)
In other words, the second period was characterized by primary attention to practical tasks because the basic theoretical prerequisites had already been fulfilled. In writing about this second period, Lenin said:
At the present time (the end of 1897), the most urgent question, in our opinion, is that of the practical activities of the Social-Democrats. We emphasize the practical side of Social-Democracy, because on the theoretical side the most critical period–the period of stubborn refusal by its opponents to understand it, of strenuous efforts to suppress the new trend the moment it arose, on the one hand, and of stalwart defence of the fundamentals of Social-Democracy, on the other–is now apparently behind us. Now the main and basic features of the theoretical views of the Social-Democrats have been sufficiently clarified. (The Tasks of the Russian Social-Democrats, CW vol. 2, p.327-8)
But when the dominance of economism emerged, this situation changed, and the main attention was thus on “clearing up and deciding various internal Party questions.” It was during this time that Lenin said regarding the tasks of Communists and the errors of the opportunists, “First of all, they should have made efforts to resume the theoretical work that the period of ’legal Marxism’ had only just begun....” (What Is To Be Done?, Peking ed., p.23)
Lenin went on to say that with the defeat of economism, the tasks in late 1902 began to resemble those of 1897, when the practical tasks predominated. He said:
The variance between our theory, programme, tactical tasks, and practical activities is disappearing in proportion to the disappearance of ’economism’. We can and must boldly call again for deeper and more widespread practical work, since the theoretical premises for this work have already been created to a large extent. (Preface, op. cit., p.211)
But is this the case with our movement today? Do we already have “the main and basic features of the theoretical views” of our movements, our “theoretical premises”, to signal a return to emphasis of the practical side of our tasks? Have we achieved such ideological unity that we can no longer, as the Bolsheviks did in the third period, give “main attention” to “clearing up and deciding various internal” questions of our movement? Let us very briefly review the recent history of the US communist movement to answer this question.
Most of our movement came out of the mass upsurge of the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. By 1971-72, a new communist movement appeared on a national scale, consisting of many groups, circles, and individuals claiming opposition to Soviet revisionism, support of China and Albania, and dedication to building a new Marxist-Leninist party since the old CPUSA had gone revisionist and none of the attempts at re-establishing a party had been successful. But beyond these points, which themselves were not sufficiently understood or grounded, there was tremendous confusion and disagreement over how to go about these tasks, about how to apply Marxism-Leninism to the US, whether party-building was even the principal task, and about what were actually the principles of Marxism-Leninism (was What Is To Be Done? the ideological foundation for a Marxist-Leninist party, Stalin’s teachings on the era of imperialism and also on the national question, etc.). Instead of placing main attention on these theoretical questions, instead of summing up the practical experience of the past years, most of the movement at that time rushed to the factories to focus on the trade union struggle. The line of “practice, practice, practice”, most exemplified by OL and RU, dominated. This immersion in narrow, economic activity, this general reformism, would prove to be only a short step away from the outright counter-revolutionary and class collaborationist “theory of the three worlds”, which the majority of the so-called “anti-revisionist” communist movement soon embraced. Acceptance of the “three worlds theory” was the price these groups had to pay for their years of belittling theory. Thus, the whole period of this movement was characterized by two tendencies: first, the dominance of economism and bowing to spontaneity and the utter failure to fulfill the burning theoretical and practical tasks, and, second, the struggle against economism and bowing to spontaneity by various forces, even though this struggle was all too often waged on an inconsistent and wavering basis, and many of those who said they were opposed to economism later ended up capitulating to it.
With the struggle against the “three worlds theory” and Chinese revisionism, the need to fulfill these theoretical tasks re-asserted themselves even more sharply and urgently. The previous movement passed over from reformism and economism into open class collaboration and counterrevolution. This must be analyzed so it does not happen again with the new forces. The key to this is eliminating the ideological root of all opportunism, the bowing to spontaneity. While many forces have raised this theme before, the facts show that the struggle against the theory of spontaneity has never been carried out to the end in our movement, and that the majority of those who raised it, including members of BWC, PRRWO, and others, wavered in this struggle, veered off in various wrong directions, and eventually capitulated to one form of opportunism or another. It was only a minority of these forces that, despite errors, continued to struggle against the theory of spontaneity. In talking of the theory of spontaneity, Stalin said, “It scarcely needs proof that the demolition of this theoretical falsification is a preliminary condition for the creation of truly revolutionary parties in the West.” (Foundations of Leninism, Peking ed., p.26). Clearly the movement in the 1970’s did not fulfill this “preliminary condition” for building a genuine Marxist-Leninist party.
But in these conditions, when the theoretical work in general and the struggle against the theory of spontaneity in particular assumed such great importance, what has been MLOC’s orientation? Did they follow Lenin’s teachings that for communists to lead the movement out of the crisis created and intensified by economism that first of all they should have made efforts to resume the theoretical work? At first MLOC did make some attempts at theory, mostly through a series of reprints of old articles, including several little-known but important critiques of the CPUSA by ex-members. While these reprints were in themselves valuable and informative, what was required was not mere repetition of what had already been said, or a general “affirmation” of the historical experience of the working class movement and the general laws of Marxism-Leninism (as the revolutionary wing argued), but application of these general laws of Marxism-Leninism to the concrete conditions of the US, and, as Lenin taught, “the ability to treat this experience critically and to test it independently.” (What Is To Be Done?, Peking ed., p.29). Now, as Stalin said, “Of course, theory becomes purposeless if it is not connected with revolutionary practice, just as practice gropes in the dark if its path is not illuminated by revolutionary theory.” (Foundations of Leninism, Peking ed., p.22). For MLOC, their theory did become purposeless because they did not connect it with revolutionary practice by applying it to the conditions of the US. Soon they abandoned this theoretical work and changed the focus of their literary work to mass agitation. It was a typical example of the petty bourgeoisie flipping from one extreme to the other, after experiencing some failures and not achieving immediate success.
More recently, MLOC has taken precisely the same path as their mentors and forerunners of the past, OL and RU. Listen to what MLOC has explained: “As a policy we have stated that trade union work is the most important work of the organization.” (Political Report to the 1st Congress of MLOC, “Class Against Class” #10, p.24) In other words, the theoretical struggle is put in last place. In fact, this formulation even places the political struggle below the economic struggle. This is nothing but an admission of lowering the activity of communists to mere trade unionism. Compare MLOC’s view to Lenin’s teaching about:
the fundamental error that all the Economists commit, namely, their conviction that it is possible to develop the class political consciousness of the workers from within, so to speak, their economic struggle, i.e., making this struggle the exclusive (or, at least, the main) starting point, making it the exclusive, or, at least, the main basis. Such a view is fundamentally wrong. (What Is To Be Done?, Peking ed., p.97)
Clearly, MLOC commits this same fundamental error of all economists, for clearly they are economist to the bone.
MLOC further attacks any talk of emphasis on theory and the idea of any national plan to carry out ideological struggle. They write:
It is quite amazing that such proposals could be made in the face of escalated attacks upon health and safety, the living standard, the democratic rights of the working class; when imperialist war preparations are being stepped up; when opportunists and reformists are consolidating their forces to attack the working class. Such a plan can only be considered a betrayal of the working class.
Nonsense and demogogy! MLOC’s problem is that they are bowing to the pressure of the sharpening objective conditions, that they are following the path of least resistance instead of preparing to meet this situation head on in a revolutionary way. This was the same appeal as OL, which in 1975-76, used the growing danger of war as an excuse to go ahead and form their “party” without first ensuring it would operate in a strictly revolutionary way.
MLOC here appeals to moralism, trying to play on “concern” for the well-being of the masses. But their economism actually reduces the fundamental interests of the working class to mere reforms, for the main “concern” of MLOC is to add “a kopek to a ruble”, for economic reforms. But for all genuine Marxist-Leninists, our chief concern must be the emancipation of the working class, the proletarian revolution and how to organize it, for that is the only solution to the sufferings of the masses. As Lenin said, “The interests of the working class movement as a whole are higher than the interests of a separate section of the workers or of separate phases of the movement.” (A Draft Programme for Our Party, CW vol. 4, p.236) If we really take the interests of the masses to heart, then we should focus on fulfilling our revolutionary tasks first, and not raise up the immediate struggle for reforms in order to liquidate the work necessary to create a vanguard party.
The whole purpose of all this theory, the sole reason it is so essential, is precisely that we need such a guide to keep our practice on a revolutionary course, to guarantee that it does not veer off into reformism and revisionism. How many more movements must we tail, how many more years must we wait, how many more important opportunities must we pass up until this most crucial lesson is learned? More, how many more years must the working class suffer from the terrible health and safety, no democratic rights, etc., etc., before the opportunists who have been preventing the formation of a genuine party and. holding back the revolution are defeated? It has been all this reformism, all this economism, that has been the real betrayal of the working class, a betrayal MLOC seems fully prepared to continue.
The sharpening of the spontaneous movement is not at all a cause for downplaying our theoretical tasks. Lenin taught otherwise:
And so, we have become convinced that the fundamental error committed by the ’new trend’ in Russian Social-Democracy lies in its bowing to spontaneity, and its failure to understand that the spontaneity of the masses demands a mass of consciousness from us Social-Democrats. The greater the spontaneous upsurge of the masses, the more widespread the movement becomes, so much more rapidly, incomparably more rapidly, grows the demand for greater consciousness in the theoretical, political and organizational work of Social-Democracy. (What Is To Be Done?, p.64)
But to MLOC, the greater the spontaneous upsurge of the masses, the less consciousness, the less theoretical work is required. Instead, they want a retreat from the theoretical demands of the movement.
MLOC tries to get around all this by insisting that ideological confusion is only the problem of the small collectives, and not of the US communist movement as a whole. They say that there is no confusion on the “theory of the three worlds” and its proponents, or about the strategy for revolution in the US as laid out in their Draft Program. MLOC concludes, “The widespread ’confusion’ of these groups stems from their own isolation from the industrial proletariat and their own conciliation with opportunism, not because the conditions for confusion exist in the real world.” Here we are presented with a riddle. All these other circles are apparently hopelessly confused, yet the confusion does not “exist in the real world.” How is this? Perhaps these circles are not in the real world. Or perhaps still, it is MLOC that is not in the real world to see this confusion. The only way out of this dilemma is to conclude that since there is no or little ideological confusion in the US communist movement, those forces who are still “confused” are no longer part of the US communist movement. Thus, with a stroke of a pen, MLOC has written all these circles out of the communist movement–and for the crime of “confusion”!
But in the “real world” which MLOC is so fond of invoking while understanding so little about, the plain truth is this: among those forces opposed to the “theory of the three worlds” and Chinese revisionism, it is none other than MLOC that is the worst proponent of ideological confusion and the greatest spreader of opportunism. In order to end this state of ideological confusion, it thus becomes essential to unmask MLOC’s party-building plan, since this is the most concentrated form of its opportunism. Both MLOC and CPP have written a great deal about the failure of other circles to comprehensively respond to MLOC’s plan. While there have been several written and verbal criticisms of aspects of MLOC’s line, including by us, it is true that there has been no overall exposure of their plan. This itself is testimony to the backwards state of our movement, a situation we do not justify but categorically deplore. Nevertheless, all of our criticisms of this plan have been expressed by us in one way or another before, and will be amplified in general in our forthcoming work on OL-CPML. For now, we will sum up the main errors of MLOC’s five-point plan, point by point, as formulated in their September, 1977 “Unite”.