Any candid appraisal of the communist movement in the US must readily acknowledge the following realities:
• Marxism-Leninism is not a material force in US political life in general or in the class struggle in particular.
• US Marxist-Leninists are not united into a single party nor are they unified around a single leading political line.
• Marxism-Leninism is still a weak force in the communist movement itself, which remains dominated by a variety of opportunist lines.
These three features alone are sufficient to show that the US communist movement is in a state of crisis.
This crisis cannot be understood aside from the contention and crisis which characterizes the international communist movement. Any attempt to ignore this reality inevitably leads to the most parochial view of the problems of the US movement and, indeed, of the US revolution.
This is true on two counts. First, because the principal demarcations that have taken place within the US communist movement clearly correspond to the contending lines in the international movement. Second, because the problems of the US revolution in particular are inextricably bound up with the revolutionary struggles taking place throughout the rest of the world. In these struggles, the principal enemy encountered by the overwhelming majority of the world’s oppressed peoples is US imperialism. It is US imperialism which stands directly behind every capitalist ruling class in the world. Since one’s stand toward US imperialism–is it the main enemy, can it be united with against another “main” enemy, will it be defeated or defanged through a process of peaceful attrition, etc.–is clearly central to the international debate, then the question of how communists in the US view their own ruling class is surely of paramount significance.
The two currents which have dominated the US communist movement for the past quarter of a century–revisionism and “left” opportunism–correspond to the principal deviations within the international movement. Each represents an all-sided deviation from Marxism-Leninism; that is, they can be identified in terms of their respective ideological underpinnings, their political lines and their organizational forms and principles.
More concretely, each represents a definite trend in the communist movement. Each is a clearly defined sum of political ideas concerning the principal questions of our epoch–imperialism, socialism, the national liberation movements, the class struggle, the chief questions of the US revolution, the international communist movement and the role and function of the party. Moreover, each of these trends has established a significant base in the communist movement and a certain measure of influence among the masses.
(By contrast, the Marxist-Leninist trend in the US is still underdeveloped. While it has settled certain questions, particularly in its demarcations with revisionism and “left” opportunism, it remains divided over a number of others and can be considered a material force only in the most primitive sense of the term. Nevertheless, there can be no doubt that it is distinct from these other trends.)
The principal organizational expression of the revisionist trend is the CPUS A. (Modern social democracy, while definitely a revisionist trend, has for the most part placed itself outside the communist movement by its explicit rejection of Leninism, whereas the CPUSA speaks in the name of Marxism-Leninism.)
The “left” opportunist trend is represented by a variety of organizational forms and has several distinct political tendencies within it. The most organized force is the Communist Party (M-L), formerly the October League, which is in the process of developing fairly close ties to other “left” opportunist groupings, including the League of Revolutionary Struggle, the Revolutionary Workers Headquarters, and a number of smaller organizations. Several other organizations recognize a basic political affinity with these groups but still have certain ideological and organizational differences. The principal point of definition for this wing of the “left” opportunist trend is its absolute identification with the line, policies and personalities of the present leadership of the CPC. Other tendencies among the “left” opportunists include those who identify with the Albanian Party of Labor and an anarchist wing which identifies with the deposed “Gang of Four” in China.
While the developing Marxist-Leninist trend has clearly demarcated itself from modern revisionism and “left” opportunism in their principal political manifestations, the all-sided summations of these deviations remain as an incompleted theoretical task before us.
Why are these summations important?
The summation of revisionism is important, first, because the CPUSA is the oldest and most influential communist organization in the US, historically and in the present period. Therefore, a correct assessment of its history provides the basis for incorporating its experiences (both positive and negative) into our movement. Second, an inadequate and one-sided summation of the revisionist deviation characterized the emergence of the “left” opportunist deviation and, in fact, contributed to it. Finally, since the particular history of the anti-revisionist, anti-“left” opportunist trend is bound up with the break from “left” opportunism there is an almost inevitable tendency to swing back toward the revisionist deviation.
A correct and all-sided summation of “left” opportunism is likewise important, first, because the developing Marxist-Leninist trend emerged primarily from what was broadly called the New Communist Movement, which encompassed and was built upon many of the ideological and political assumptions which have come to characterize the “left” opportunist trend. Second, taken as a whole, the New Communist Movement did, for a period of time, defend Marxism-Leninism in the US. Only an objective, all-sided summation of that movement will enable us to distinguish between where it was Marxist-Leninist and where it was “left” opportunist. In the absence of such a summation, there is a tendency automatically to see every stand, line and organizational initiative of the New Communist Movement as ultra-left. This tends to leave the developing Marxist-Leninist trend in the unenviable and untenable position of rejecting or adopting views simply because they are either similar to or in direct contrast to those of the “left” opportunists. Finally, as the Marxist-Leninist trend becomes a material force among the masses, it will increasingly encounter the “left” opportunist forces with whom it may frequently find itself in objective alliance against revisionism. (The same is true, of course, in terms of the revisionists with whom we may often find ourselves allied in opposition to ultra-left forces.)
We do not propose to offer the definitive summations of these deviations here. Developing them constitutes one of the key rectification tasks of the communist movement. But demarcations rarely if ever wait for all-sided summations. In general, demarcations with deviations from Marxism-Leninism take place in life over questions of political line, since ideological differences only become manifest through their expression in politics, and organizational differences only become critical insofar as they affect the development and implementation of a leading Political line.
There is no contradiction, therefore, in noting the demarcations between Marxism-Leninism on the one hand and modern revisionism and “left” opportunism on the other, even though these demarcations have not yet been fully summarized. The failure to recognize that these demarcations have taken place represents a failure to recognize the centrality of politics and political line in communist work. For those striving to be Marxist-Leninists, this is a reflection of ideological ^bivalence, organizational opportunism–or both.
In addition, the fact of these demarcations is verified by certain initial summations which already exist and are the common property of the communist movement. It is in such a context–and because the communist movement as a whole clearly remains under the domination of one or the other of these deviations–that we offer the following appraisal of the present lines of demarcation in the US communist movement.
Marxism-Leninism was a material force in US political life for some 35 years primarily because of the political line and activity of the US Communist Party. Until the adoption of a general revisionist line at the party’s 16th national convention in 1957 and the further development and consolidation of that line at subsequent party congresses, the CPUSA–for all of its inadequacies, and there were many–represented Marxism-Leninism in the US. On all of the principal international questions, it stood with the other Marxist-Leninist parties of the world– in defense of the Soviet Union, in opposition to Trotskyism, in support of the united front and in solidarity with the main struggles against imperialism in the world.
The advanced experiences accumulated by the party during these years is an invaluable part of the communist movement’s legacy. No other US communist or socialist formation had ever won such a significant measure of influence in the working class or among the masses of minority peoples. Indeed, the CPUSA became known for and identified with the cause of industrial unionism and the struggle against racism. Its cadres and leaders played decisive roles in the building of mass democratic movements and movements of international solidarity, such as with the Spanish Republicans in the mid-thirties.
But the period was also characterized by sharp swings both to the right and the left, although right deviations were more characteristic. American exceptionalism erupted time and again, along with illusions about the tasks of the US revolution. Opportunist leaders such as Jay Lovestone and Earl Browder, building on the ideological weaknesses and vacillations of the party membership, were able to influence the direction of the party for lengthy periods. At one point, Browder was even able to dissolve the party (1944-45) and render it, temporarily, a mere educational society. Frequently taken in by US capitalism’s capacity to adapt itself to the intensification of its own contradictions, the CPUSA was also often disoriented by the bourgeoisie’s turn to repression.
In saying, therefore, that a qualitative change took place in the CPUSA in 1957 and the years immediately following, we are hardly arguing that the party was flawless before that time or that its ideological shortcomings were not pronounced. But we do assert that for some 35 years, the CPUSA was the organizational embodiment of the most advanced revolutionary line in existence in the US. We pose the question this way because to do otherwise is to depart from the materialist method and remove oneself from history.
Before 1957, no acceptable alternative line was in existence with a sufficient material basis to provide Marxist-Leninists in the US with an alternative to the CPUSA.
It is not acceptable simply to declare with historic hindsight that in 1937 the CPUSA “should” have done this or that, or that certain serious unrecognized deviations had earlier manifested themselves. The party cannot be snatched out of its historical context. Its shortcomings are as much a part of our collective history as are its accomplishments. When we call, therefore, for the rectification of the general line of the US communist movement, it is precisely from the standpoint not of glorifying every aspect of the CP’s history but assuming responsibility for it.
Looking at the CPUSA today, we assert that its ideological degeneration consists, in the first place, in its abandonment of the class stand of the working class. It is important to explain what is meant by such a statement since, for many people, it would seem to contradict reality. After all, the CPUSA actively supports the trade union struggles of the workers, it even backs certain rank-and-file caucuses directed against some reactionary union leaders, it takes up the defense of the everyday living standards and democratic rights of the masses and it advocates socialism.
But a proletarian class stand is not to be determined primarily by support to and defense of the immediate interests of the workers, for the real interests of the workers will be served only when the working class takes over and organizes society as a whole, eliminating those exploitative relations of production which comprise the essence of its oppression. Any subordination of the long-range political goal of the working class to become the ruling class of society to the immediate concerns of what can only be a section of the working class is opportunism–the abandonment of the proletariat’s class stand.
And merely to prattle about socialism does not change things. To hold out socialism as a long-range objective while actively misleading the working class as to the nature of the struggle which will be necessary to achieve it can hardly be considered in the interests of the working class– even if those who do so may honestly believe in what they are saying. As materialists, we can only judge political activity by its actual consequences in the real world and not by the intentions behind that activity.
The abandonment of a proletarian class stand by the CPUSA is expressed through its distortion and surrender of the most fundamental Principles of Marxism-Leninism. In the process, the CPUSA has attempted to rob Marxism-Leninism of its scientific character and reduce it to an eclectic grab bag of socially “progressive” ideas from which one may borrow anything that appears to be useful at any given moment.
Along with the degeneration of class stand has come the abandonment of the methodology of dialectical materialism. Empiricism now characterizes the CPUSA’s method of analyzing reality, the concrete expression of its pragmatic, mechanical materialist world outlook.
Further, no accounting of the ideological degeneration of the CPUSA would be complete without noting its ideological subservience to me CPSU. This is a deviation of long historical standing in the CPUSA, one whose political significance was not as negative in the period when the CPSU in general held a revolutionary line. But even in those periods, the flunkeyist relation of the party to the CPSU exacted a heavy price, leading to the lowering of the party’s theoretical level, the mistraining of cadre, and the abortion of democratic centralism.
With the adoption of a revisionist general line by the CPSU, however, the ideological deterioration of the CPUSA quickly became qualitative. There was no longer any check from the international movement on the strong tendencies toward reformism and opportunism within the party, and these tendencies rapidly flowered into a full-blown revisionist line.
The principal political feature of the CPUSA’s revisionism is its adoption of the “peaceful transition” thesis for the achievement of socialism. The strategic expression of this thesis is the “anti-monopoly coalition” which is conceived of by the CPUSA as the political vehicle through which a “democratically oriented” people’s government will gradually restructure the capitalist economy and establish socialism.
The aim of the anti-monopoly program, as advocated by the Communist Party, is to bring about a strategic breakthrough to a deeper and wider degree of democracy, one that would powerfully accelerate the revolutionary process, opening the way to Black liberation and socialism. Once this anti-monopoly strategy succeeds in breaking the control of state monopoly capital over Congress and the government, the forces exist, internally and internationally . . . that can prevent the betrayal of the struggle. There is such a perspective, and this is so, first of all, because the forces of class and national liberation, headed by the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries, have changed the world balance of power. (Henry Winston, chairman of the CPUSA, “Strategy for a Black Agenda.”)
We can safely ignore the invocation of seemingly militant and scientific words like “strategic”, “powerfully” and “revolutionary.” No matter what was being advocated, we would not expect it to be described as tactical, weak or gradualist. The real point is that the CPUSA believes it is possible to wrest political control over the state apparatus from the hands of monopoly capital step by step through what would be principally an electoral process and that the strength of the Soviet Union somehow would be used to thwart whatever resistance the bourgeoisie might be able to mount.
Aside from its ultimate reliance on Soviet military strength–and this must surely rate as one of the most irresponsible pieces of nonsense ever put before the working class movement in the US–the “revolutionary” strategy of the CPUSA is not substantially different from that of modern social democracy, which holds that Congress can be made into the “people’s branch” of the state. This confluence is not surprising, since all “peaceful transition” theses must ultimately advance a similar scenario.
The anti-monopoly coalition is a blatant trivialization of the tasks before the US working class. To maintain some semblance of internal logic, it must abandon the Leninist theory of the state, Lenin’s analysis of imperialism, the principle of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the political education and training of the working class. The CPUSA has not hesitated to see its thesis through to its logical conclusion, declaring: “We advocate social change by peaceful means, through political institutions and people’s organizations within the American constitutional framework.”
One may argue, of course, that there can be no harm in merely “advocating” a course of action. After all, who would not prefer a peaceful transition to socialism which could be brought about constitutionally? But if this “advocacy” itself serves to sow illusions in the working class as to what will be required for it to take state power and reorganize society, or if such “advocacy” provides the foundation for an actual strategy to achieve those objectives, then indeed more than a preference is being expressed here.
Naturally, this gradualist vision of the transition to socialism raises certain other troubling questions, such as how it may be possible for capitalism to enter into a “democratic” period in which, within the prevailing relations of production, the mighty wealth of capital is being used to dispossess itself both at home and abroad. Karl Kautsky, the revisionist leader of the Second International, saw the logic of this view and concluded therefore, in opposition to Lenin, that imperialism was not a system (monopoly capitalism) but rather the preferred policy of the monopoly capitalists and that, therefore, they could conceivably adopt (or be persuaded to adopt) another policy which might serve them equally well.
The supposedly “Leninist” CPUSA has exactly the same view. “It is possible under capitalism,” notes a leading theoretician of the party, “for the US to pursue a democratic foreign policy based on detente, respect for other countries, noninterference in other countries’ internal affairs, and conduct relations on the basis of mutual benefit.” (Conrad Komorowski, Daily World, June 21, 1975)
Logically, the CPUSA must hold to such a view for its “anti-monopoly coalition” to have any measure of credibility. But to hold that such a view corresponds to anything which might remotely resemble the political and social realities of US monopoly capitalism is to reduce science to the level of fantasy.
In reality, such a fantastic view of how socialism might come to the US is not a prescription for social change at all. It is the foundation for reformism, for when socialism is tabled to an agenda which never comes, all that is left is the struggle to modify the worst aspects of the capitalist system and make it more tolerable for the exploited.
Actually, the absence of a long-range revolutionary perspective even compromises the quality of the work done by the CPUSA in the reform struggle; for seeing no necessity to train the working class in revolutionary tasks, the party more easily falls into unprincipled alliances with trade union bureaucrats, bourgeois politicians and reformists of every stripe, holding back the self-actualization of the masses which is one of the indispensable preconditions for gaining revolutionary experience.
Organizationally, the CPUSA has become thoroughly corrupt. A reformist party has no need to be a party of professional revolutionaries, and so the CPUSA has abandoned virtually all ideological criteria and training for party membership. Nothing resembling genuine ideological and line struggle is to be found within the ranks of the party. It is dominated by an encrusted bureaucracy which rules through bureaucratic methods, cronyism, and conscienceless manipulation.
At the same time, the CPUSA is characterized by a profound sectarianism toward the rest of the US left demonstrating anew that sectarianism is not the exclusive property of the ultra-left. It rarely, if ever, participates in or mobilizes for mass activities involving other left forces unless it is in a position of organizational hegemony. Its press studiously avoids even mentioning other conscious left forces except for an occasional polemic based on some political atrocity which can be ascribed to ultra-leftism. But there is never a serious attempt to analyze its opponents on the left or to take up their theoretical challenges.
The ideological, political and organizational degeneration of the CPUSA is a great tragedy for the US working class. The positive aspects of its historical legacy will not easily be reclaimed by Marxist-Leninists because the passage of time has led to a break in the continuity of Marxism-Leninism in the US. We do claim that history, however, and intend to re-establish that continuity. But this can be accomplished only through the most thorough and far-reaching demarcation with the revisionism which has come to be the CPUSA’s dominant characteristic.
Efforts to rectify the general line of the US communist movement and reestablish a genuine communist party have been made ever since the adoption and consolidation of a general revisionist line by the CPUSA. The first attempts were initiated by former members of the CPUSA but failed for a variety of reasons. For one thing, the first groupings had little understanding of or appreciation for the mass political movements of the sixties. For another, they failed to grasp the dimensions or the particularities of the tasks they had undertaken. By and large they drifted toward one or another form of ultra-leftism.
But in the late sixties and early seventies a new anti-revisionist trend began to emerge. Like its predecessors, it was strongly influenced by the line and practice of the CPC. But the individuals leading it came primarily out of the mass movements of the sixties–the anti-war movement and anti-racist movements. A small measure of continuity was provided by a handful of former CPUSA members, but in the main this trend – soon to be called the New Communist Movement – had come to Marxism out of the radicalized student and minority youth, the “spirit of Che”, Mao’s “little red book”, the daring militancy of the Black Panthers and the Young Lords, and similar experiences.
For many, the first substantial encounter with Marxist-Leninist theory was – and it is not inappropriate to use the idiom of the period – mind-blowing. The very fundamentals of Marxism quickly explained so much about their own previous experience and the various political forces encountered that the entire world seemed instantly clarified, giving rise to a tendency to look at theory in an absolutist fashion.
While the New Communist Movement grew rapidly in the seventies, the seeds of its ultimate grief were already present in its theoretical dependence on and subservience to the CPC, pronounced tendencies toward voluntarism and organizational factionalism. In the period 1975-76, the period of the New Communist Movement came to an end. Within a brief span, the major factions within it formed separate parties. After the death of Mao and the overthrow of the “Gang of Four”, a variety of splits occurred–the majority staying with the new Chinese leadership, some off on an ideological tangent with the “Gang of Four” and some following the lead of the Albanian Party of Labor in upholding a “purer” ultra-left line than the followers of the CPC could maintain.
The most significant break, however, was made by those forces who saw that the majority of the New Communist Movement were bound together by a “left” opportunist international line which – whether the CPC’s Theory of the Three Worlds or some variant of it – constituted a retrograde trend in Marxism-Leninism. The firestorm provoked by the liberation struggle of the people of Angola led by the MPLA laid the foundation for a new and urgent demarcation within the communist movement, the demarcation with “left” opportunism.
As we have done with the CPUSA, let us now examine the “left” opportunist trend in the US more precisely in terms of ideology, politics and organization.
The “left” opportunist trend has always reflected ideologically an uneasy relationship between flunkeyism (the counterpart of the nationalist deviation in the CPC) and anarchism. Philosophically, both are expressions of the idealist world outlook. This uneasy marriage came apart with the victory of the Deng Xiaoping faction in the CPC, the repudiation of the “Gang of Four”, the line of the Cultural Revolution, and the now-mounting criticism of Mao ZeDong in China. This has divided the “left” opportunists in the US into two relatively distinct tendencies – one characterized mainly by flunkeyism to the CPC (or, in some cases, the PLA) and the other by anarchism and allegiance to the line of the Cultural Revolution.
By and large, the flunkeyists appear to be much more orthodox in their approach to Marxist tradition, including, unfortunately, the pathetic legacy of depending upon the CPSU which came to characterize many of the parties of the Third International. The modern flunkeyists have simply changed headquarters and become adept at adapting to the line and leadership changes in Beijing with barely the blink of an eyelash. In recent years, this has required some fancy gymnastics. The principal organizations in this sector of the “left” opportunist camp are the Communist Party (M-L), formerly the October League; the League of Revolutionary Struggle, a union principally of the I Wor Kuen organization and the August 29th Movement; and the Revolutionary Workers Headquarters, a split-off from the Revolutionary Communist Party. Several other organizations recognize a basic political affinity with these groups but still have certain ideological and organizational differences with them.
The “anarchist” tendency, on the other hand, has been exceedingly prone to revolutionary posturing, small-group violence, dual unionism and other typical manifestations of classical leftwing communism. The principal organizations in this sector of the “left” opportunist camp are the Revolutionary Communist Party, formerly the Revolutionary Union and at one time the largest of all the ultra-left groups; and the Communist Workers Party, formerly the Workers Viewpoint Organization. As might be expected among those who are at root anarchists, the prospects for unity among this section of the “left” opportunists is more remote than with the flunkeyists.
Until the death of Mao and the overthrow of the “Gang of Four” in China in 1976, the two wings of the “left” opportunist trend lived together in a peace so uneasy that it frequently resembled fratricidal war. The China loyalists were dismayed at the infantile leftism so frequently displayed by the “crazies” who swung dramatically back and forth between economism and adventurism. By and large, the China loyalists saw the principal danger in their trend coming from the “left” – except in the latter period when the international line struggle was forcing the demarcation between themselves and Marxist-Leninists, whom they dubbed “centrists”.
The “anarchist” tendency, on the other hand, was clearly loyal not so much to the CPC but to the “Gang of Four” and the ultra-left line of the Cultural Revolution.
Most of the political and programmatic excesses generally associated with ultra-leftism are principally the handiwork of the “left” opportunist trend’s anarchist-leaning wing. As might be expected, this grouping generally saw the main danger within their trend coming from the “right” – it was almost impossible to be to their “left” – and was much more prepared to stake out positions independent of those advanced by the CPC.
A significant reflection of the differences between the two tendencies was demonstrated in their varying analyses of the Soviet Union. Both upheld the capitalist restoration thesis, but for significantly different reasons. The flunkeyists first advanced a rather orthodox political economy analysis of the Soviet Union, marred unfortunately by a schematic methodology which crammed phenomena into previously designated categories, and wholesale disregard of any factual material which ran counter to the conclusion sought (see the work of Martin Nicolaus). The “anarchists”, by contrast, united in general with the views of Charles Bettelheim, whose emphasis on workers’ control at the point of production as the “proof of socialism – and the lack thereof demonstrating the restoration of capitalism – is riddled with the “anti-authoritarian” prejudices of the “New Left”. Like their counterparts in the CPUSA, the “left” opportunists have abandoned the class stand of the proletariat: the flunkeyists, by subordinating the revolutionary objectives of the US working class to the immediate concerns of the CPC leadership for an anti-Soviet alliance; the “anarchists” by substituting revolutionary posturing for the protracted task of preparing the working class politically, ideologically and organizationally for the revolution.
Methodologically, both tendencies are characterized by dogmatism, the chief feature of which is the denial of particularity. Determination of tactics and strategy, for instance, is made by the application of universal principles of Marxism-Leninism without a concrete analysis of the actual “circumstances directly encountered”. Dogmatists find great difficulty in distinguishing between tactical and strategic questions and, in the staunch tradition of medieval scholasticism, view theoretical work by and large as the interpretation of sacred texts rather than the effort to solve the real problems posed by the actual course of development of the class struggle. (To the flunkies, the sacred texts are Beijing Review and the communiques of whatever central committee heads the CPC.)
Errors typical of dogmatism among the “left” opportunists are the conspiracy view of history, which sees all contradictions within the ruling class as nothing more than elaborate charades designed to fool the masses, or the failure to see the distinction between fascism and bourgeois democracy.
The most pronounced ideological deviation of the “anarchist” wing of this trend is voluntarism, of which the principal feature is a tendency to substitute the consciousness of the communists for the consciousness of the masses. Voluntarists behave as though the desires of the revolutionaries are, in and of themselves, more powerful than any objective difficulties which may be encountered. True voluntarists frequently make great martyrs; but seldom do they become great (i.e., successful) revolutionaries. In its most extreme variety, voluntarism expresses itself as the theory of terrorism in which a small band of devoted revolutionaries make the revolution on behalf of the masses. Or to take another example: while it is true that a single spark can start a prairie fire, the voluntarist does not take into account that the prairie itself must be dry and ready to burst into flames in the first place. It is quite apparent, therefore, that voluntarism, like dogmatism, invariably expresses itself in ultra-“left” politics.
If the error of mechanical materialism can be summarized as one which undertakes to understand the world but not of actively trying to change it, idealism can be summarized as the attempt to change the world without understanding it. “Human beings make their own history,” notes Marx. “But they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past.” {The 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte.)
Revisionists, who are at heart mechanical materialists, downplay the first part of the above, the role of the subjective factor. The “left” opportunists, who are at heart idealists, have little patience with the rest of the statement, and negate the concrete conditions within which revolutionaries must conduct their work.
Politically, the two wings of the “left” opportunist trend are characterized by political lines which increasingly stand in contradiction with each other. This point has been insufficiently grasped by our movement, with resultant sweeping summations of the “left” deviation which simply do not correspond to the more complex reality.
The principal point of departure for the flunkeyists is their support for and application of the CPC’s world view to the struggle within the US over imperialism’s foreign policies. Completely tied to the class collaborationist logic of the Three Worlds Theory and the CPC’s strategic concept of an anti-Soviet united front, the flunkeyists have amassed a sorry record of aiding and abetting US imperialism at a number of key junctures and of egging it on at others.
A few examples here would be appropriate. In 1974, the October League (later to become the CP-ML) criticized the Iranian Student Association in the US and other left groups for advancing the slogans “Death to the Shah!” and “No Arms to the Shah!” on the grounds that the Shah of Iran was a staunch bastion against Soviet “social imperialism”. In 1975, the same organization denounced and worked to sabotage an international conference in support of Puerto Rico’s independence because the gathering was sponsored by the World Peace Council and was taking place in Cuba. In that same year and in 1976, all of the “left” opportunist groups distinguished themselves by supporting the State Department’s “solution” for Angola, in opposition to the revolutionary leadership of the MPLA. Since then, the “left” opportunists have outdone even the far right in warning that US national security is “menaced” by Cuba, citing Cuban aid to the Sandinistas as an example of this danger, while echoing Jimmy Carter’s blatantly spurious provocation concerning a “Soviet combat brigade” in Cuba. Naturally, when China invaded Vietnam with the tacit blessing of the US, the “left” opportunists led the applause, while their only concern with the Carter administration’s stand on Afghanistan is that it has been too weak thus far.
But further documentation is hardly required. A small book could be filled with similar examples relating to every revolutionary struggle in the world.
Until recently, however, the flunkeyists have cautiously avoided seeing the logic of their position through to the end. No doubt concerned with maintaining some “revolutionary” credibility within their own ranks and on the left in general, they continue to express nominal opposition to the swollen military budget and such proposals as the draft.
But already there are signs of a shift. Beijing Review (March 10) has issued a warning that “US capability to confront the Soviet Union should not be overestimated” and that ”the United States has to get prepared to fight several wars in different places simultaneously.” Citing US domestic opposition to the Carter Doctrine of a more militarist US posture in the Middle East, Beijing Review asks: “To whose advantage is it if one. . . describes resistance to aggression as ’a return to the cold war’? It may be beneficial to ponder over and start discussions on this question at this historical juncture.”
This issue of Beijing Review had barely reached the US before the CP-ML, in reporting on the major demands of a mass anti-draft demonstration, eliminated the slogan “No Cold War!” from its description of the event.
There are even more pronounced signs of how this dilemma might ultimately be resolved. One pro-China grouplet, the New Voice, has endorsed Carter’s proposal for reinstituting the draft while others are beginning to discover a shift for the better in the policies of US imperialism. One such force, the People’s Independent Coalition (PIC) of New Jersey, sees signs of “a positive foreign policy which has been somewhat reluctantly pursued over the past year with relatively good results.” The PIC view is that the US has to combat the Soviet menace but that it cannot do this alone and must, therefore, adopt a better attitude toward the “third world” countries it has traditionally exploited: “The US would have to show a willingness to give in to demands for self-determination. . . and to make concessions to democratic, progressive and even socialist forces in the world.”
And wonder of wonders, Jimmy Carter–“reluctantly” to be sure–has begun to see the light. “With this perspective in mind, the US has not only normalized relations with China, but has refrained from intervening against revolutions and on behalf of local dictators in Nicaragua and Iran; was critical of the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia in spite of its misgivings about the Kampuchean government; has continued economic sanctions against the racist government of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia and has encouraged talks with the liberations forces; encouraged aid to the Zairean government facing a Soviet-initiated invasion force; released long-imprisoned Puerto Rican nationalists; and has even begun to reorient its policy toward Israel and the Palestinians in the Middle East.” (All quotations from the PIC Times, Jan.-Feb. 1980.)
Now it is true that the overwhelming majority of “left” opportunist angels have not dared to tread where the PIC has rushed in so impetuously. But can anyone doubt the underlying unity of the positions?
Of course, calling this opportunist line ultra-“left” is becoming increasingly difficult. But since it emanates out of the struggle against revisionism and continues to use that critique as its rationale, we will for the moment maintain the designation.
The “anarchist” wing’s international line is quantitatively – but not qualitatively–distinct from that of flunkeyists. Resisting the most blatant expressions of class collaboration, they nevertheless objectively serve the interests of US imperialism by their own version of the “united front against the two superpowers” line. They hold to the view that the USSR is a capitalist, “social imperialist”, fascist country – but they oppose lining up with US imperialism in an explicit alliance against it.
But by echoing the political and ideological myths about the Soviet Union, Cuba, Vietnam and other countries directly engaged in confrontation with US imperialism, they help to reinforce the general anti-communist ideological atmosphere in the country and provide US imperialism a “left” rationale without taking responsibility for the political consequences of their positions.
Convinced that war between the US and the Soviet Union is inevitable – and possibly desirable – they completely abandon the struggle for peace, denounce opposition to the draft as “reformist” and bide their time awaiting the opportunity to preach “revolutionary defeatism” when the atomic bombs begin to fall.
Despite minor differences within their ranks, international line is actually the only consistent thread tying the left opportunist deviation together. Upholding the capitalist restoration thesis, the slogan of ”no united action with revisionists” and the policy of the united front against the “two superpowers”, the “left” opportunists all stand together. These lines, in turn, affect every aspect of the “domestic” line of these forces, leading inevitably – even if in a sophisticated fashion – to all-around class collaboration.
On other questions, the attempt to find a clear consistency among the “left” opportunists is very difficult. Generalizations concerning the “left” opportunists’ line and practice on such questions as the character of reform struggles or the question of racism and national oppression are increasingly difficult to substantiate as the flunkeyist/anarchist division becomes sharper. For example, “left” opportunism’s most typical domestic political expression in recent years has been the failure to handle the dialectic between reform and revolution correctly. Reform struggles tend to be equated with reformism, and empty revolutionary rhetoric is substituted for the necessary political training of the masses. Distinctions between non-Marxist forces are rarely made (such forces generally being consigned to the ranks of the “class enemy”) and whatever alliances may actually materialize in the real world are treated from the standpoint of all struggle, no unity. This historical generalization, however, does not accurately describe the practice of all “left” opportunists today, with forces like the Proletarian Unity League (PUL), for example, taking a relatively sophisticated approach to reform struggles and broad united fronts.
On the race/national question, some “left” opportunists make negative concessions to bourgeois nationalism among minority peoples (the theory of the Black Belt nation), others make concessions to the prevalence of white racist ideology in the working class (opposition to busing plans). Some “left” opportunists think fascism is already here, while others – as in the example of PIC cited above – are discovering that the US bourgeoisie may be a more reasonable lot and more democratic than had previously been thought.
Some in the flunkeyist camp, such as the PUL and the former Bay Area Communist Union (BACU), now part of the Revolutionary Workers Headquarters, have maintained a consistent critique of the ultra-left posturing and sectarianism in their trend. The Revolutionary Workers Headquarters (RWH) made it clear that differences over ultra-leftism in the reform struggle were an extremely important, even though secondary, factor in the split in the RCP. The CP-ML, while frequently dabbling in forms of leftwing communism, has by and large criticized the tendencies toward voluntarism, and in the recent past has considerably cleaned up its act in this regard. This is in stark contrast to the consistent ultra-leftism displayed by groups such as the CWP and RCP on virtually every political question.
The tendency on the part of some in the anti-revisionist, anti-“left” opportunist trend to oversimplify the analysis of the ultra-left deviation and critique it via caricature is thus not helpful to a scientific, all-sided assessment of the actual history of our movement or the concrete political contradictions it faces.
Organizationally, “left” opportunism is characterized by factionalism and sectarianism. The proliferation of parties and grouplets reflects the fact that line differences invariably give rise to competing factions and that these, in turn, tend to develop into competing parties. The relations between the parties are marked by ideological hair-splitting and political intrigue. Every disagreement is the basis for two-line struggle. This creates the centrifugal force to constantly splinter their ranks. Still, the external factor of pressure from the CPC is a force for unity among the flunkeyists, and indeed some organizational unity in the camp of the “Three Worlds” forces may very well be achieved. But this unity would be highly unstable, as it would be based principally on an external factor rather than principally on internally-achieved coherence.
The sectarianism within the communist movement is paralleled by the sectarianism of the “left” opportunists toward the masses. This is reflected in their refusal to build broad formations for the mass struggles. Rather, every “broad” formation is saddled with virtually the full program of the “communist” group behind it. The “mass line” is barely distinguishable from the party’s line.
The political and ideological bankruptcy of the “left” opportunist trend in the US communist movement becomes clearer with each passing day. Its dominant wing is rushing headlong into the arms of US imperialism, holding high the anti-Soviet banner. Its “oppositionist” wing is rushing headlong into permanent isolation from the masses because of its anarchist antics.
Because the emerging Marxist-Leninist trend has its immediate antecedents in the struggle against revisionism, we are particularly attuned to its errors. In addition, its blatant class collaborationist line is so revolting that even a faint and distant association with it may appear to be unduly compromising.
All the more reason, therefore, for the Marxist-Leninists to be on guard against a massive swing to the right, to an embrace of empiricism in response to dogmatism, to an embrace of mechanical materialism in response to idealism. In the long history of the working class movement internationally – and certainly in the US – by far the greater danger to the cause of revolutionary struggle has come from revisionism than from ultra-leftism. That danger must be underscored in a period when our movement is emerging from the shadow of its “left” opportunist deviation.