ORGANIZATIONAL CRISIS OF MARXISM-LENINISM IN THE USA
SOURCES OF THE IDEOLOGICAL CRISIS IN THE CPUSA The Communist Party of the United States of America (CPUSA), the only organization of any significance in the United States that ever considered itself Marxist-Leninist, survived shortly after World War II perhaps the worst period of bourgeois terror to which any party in a developed capitalist country has been subjected. With some 80,000 to 100,000 members in 1945, the Party was a major influence in progressive politics and the trade-union movement. About one-quarter of the trade-union membership was in unions that were led by Communists or left- progressive trade-unionists allied with them. This indeed was the principal reason behind the repressive measures taken against Communists and other progressives starting with the Taft-Hartley Law in 1947 that, among other things, essentially outlawed unions with Communists in elected office. By 1959, when Gus Hall became its leader, the CPUSA was down to 8,000 members. The Party emerged strongly united ideologically through two major ideological crises, in 1945 and 1956, resulting from temporarily unsuccessful efforts to turn the Party into a political association so that the priority of Communists could be the consolidation of a left wing within the Democratic Party rather than the forming of an independent labor-based left- progressive party in which Communists would openly participate, while retaining their membership in the Communist Party. This latter strategy had been adopted because of the weakness of the socialist tradition in the U.S. working class, a consequence, in turn, of the relative weakness of class identification among U.S. workers. The relative weakness of this left tradition in the United States is often attributed to the absence of an indigenous feudal heritage and the availability of free land for U.S.- born Euro-American or European immigrants through a good part of the nineteenth century, resulting in a greater class mobility (or the illusion of it) than possible in Europe. Some people (including a few leading cadres) left the Party in 1968 over the use of Warsaw Pact forces in Czechoslovakia, but those events did not in fact produce a major crisis in the Party. Moreover, the Eurocommunism of the 1970s and 1980s did not draw significant support even among the intellectuals in the CPUSA. The class character of the state, the relative freedom with which the U.S. bourgeoisie periodically suspended the civil rights protection supposedly guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution whenever it felt its interests threatened, the use of the state to enforce the racist divisions in the country and preserve the social inequities resulting from racist practices left little room for illusions about the possibility of a social partnership between capital and labor or the class neutrality of the state. This history of ideological resilience has not been able to shield the Party from the devastating effects of the current ideological crisis that has now engulfed Marxist-Leninist movements worldwide. On the eve of its 25th National Convention in December 1991, the membership was less than 2,500, but since then the membership has fallen to about 1,000. This debacle cannot be attributed to a single event, such as the Khrushchev revelations about Stalin, or even to the collapse of socialism in Europe. The crisis came into the open at a meeting of the National Committee (formerly the Central Committee) in August 1990 when Charlene Mitchell, a leading African American member of the National Board (formerly the Political Committee of the Central Committee), over the objections of the majority of the 23-member National Board, but with the eventual support of nine (including five of its six African American) members reported on "differences that have existed over a long period and have had less and less opportunity to be expressed in the National Board." Mitchell criticized the pretense that the leadership was completely united when, in fact, "because of the bureaucracy, many differences are not even presented in the meetings of the Board." "This situation has come to such a point," she continued, "that the report presented today by Comrade Hall has not received any collective discussion, with the exception of electoral work. . . . Our Board has yet to hear a membership or dues report on the status of our Party, its composition, what unions and mass work its members are part of." She stated that these differences already existed at the time of the National Convention in 1987, but "we sought to cover them over by appealing for Party unity without a discussion of the differences." Particularly disturbing was Mitchell's assertion that "for almost two years, we have raised the question of influences of racism in our Party, yet the Review Commission . . . has not seen fit to deal with these racist influences in our Party and its leadership." By May 1991, the differences over the draft of the main convention resolution led to the emergence of two clear groups, one headed by the national chair, Gus Hall, and the other led by Charlene Mitchell. In October 1991, the group headed by Mitchell issued a document entitled "An Initiative to Unite and Renew the Party," which by the time of the national convention had been endorsed by some 900 members. The composition of the Initiative supporters (as this group came be known) included a high proportion of members active in trade unions and other mass organizations and an especially high percentage of the African American members. The split centered around opposing positions largely on three closely linked ideological questions: (1) How does a party of some 2,500 members deploy its meager resources to become a mass party of the working class capable of significantly affecting a transition from capitalism to socialism? (2) How should the Party deal with racism, which monopoly capitalism uses to weaken the united struggle of the people against its domination? (3) How is the democratic content of Party organization and administration to be realized in practice? This last question was related to another: Was it the gross distortion of socialist democracy and of the Leninist principle of democratic centralism by the leadership of most of the Communist parties in both socialist and capitalist countries (including the United States) that weakened the socialist system to the point where imperialism could mount a successful counterrevolution? Or was the crisis of socialism caused mainly, as Gus Hall still argues "Political Affairs," May 1992), by Gorbachev: "The crisis is caused by introducing capitalism into the structure of socialism." The answer to question (1) given by Gus Hall and his supporters is to concentrate on building blue-collar shop clubs in industrial enterprises, with special focus on basic industry. They argue that, despite changes in the composition of the working class, in 1987 "the 500 largest industrial corporations, . . . employing only 11 percent of the U.S. workforce, accounted for 55 percent of total corporate profits" (Sam Webb, "Political Affairs," May 1991). "Surplus value is generated at the point of production. . . . Workers in basic and mass production industries carry on the class struggle at the point of production daily. . . . They are closest to the fire of exploitation" (Gus Hall, Speech to the CPUSA National Conference on the Working Class, 29-30 June 1991, Chicago). "Industrial concentration . . . [is] the concentration of our small workingclass Party's resources on moving the strongest, most advanced, most compact, strategically placed section of our class in order to most effectively move the entire class in an anti-monopoly, revolutionary direction" (Bruce Grant, "Political Affairs," December 1991). Critics of this viewpoint argue that Marx was quite clear that industrial workers were not the only source of surplus value, and he even cited situations in which teachers and singers were producers of surplus value. These critics support organizing industrial blue-collar workers, but point out that the overwhelming majority of the U.S. labor force is involved in the production of profit for the capitalists. One need not debate who is exploited more, the underpaid hospital workers, or the undocumented farm workers (mostly Mexicans without legal immigration documents), or the workers in basic industry. Communists should pay particular attention to those sectors of the working class in which there is the greatest opportunity to develop militant revolutionary class consciousness, whether in industry, trade, or services, in the private or public sector. In reality, some of the most militant working-class struggles are now emerging where there are the greatest concentrations of the most oppressed sections of the working class, particularly African Americans, Latinos, and women. A strategy with its focus in fact narrowed down to basic industry was not only left- sectarian, but gave the Party's industrial-concentration policy an effectively racist and sexist character. Apart from doctors, for instance, health-care workers are predominately both female and workers of color. When Party members in Seattle began to support activities to organize hospital workers, they were told to stop their activity and concentrate on Boeing, the aircraft manufacturer. In New York, the participation of Party members in the building of the health-care workers Local 1199, a large, militant trade-union organization, was belittled by the national Party leadership. The debate around question (2) was similar. In the United States, the bourgeoisie, especially its most right-wing sectors, appeals to racism to split the working class and deflect it from the struggle for its class interests. Less than ten percent of African Americans can be considered to be outside the working class. The CPUSA, until its 1991 convention, had put forth the concept of "centrality of African American equality," based on a labor-Black alliance. This concept was described as follows by Henry Winston, an African American who was CPUSA chairman (while Gus Hall was general secretary) until his death in 1986: "What is . . . not being posed is to put the question of Black liberation as a self-contained entity in opposition to the labor movement, and this is not, and must not be considered anything other than a welcoming of Black leadership in the struggle based upon a scientific outlook which sees the necessity of solidarity within the labor movement and a firm alliance between labor and Afro-Americans which can strengthen the fight against the corporations. These two processes are regarded as integrally related. . . . In short, the unity of Black and white is the pivot around which class unity becomes possible" (speech at the meeting of the Central Committee, 29 May 1983). Tensions between the African Americans in the Party leadership and Gus Hall developed when Winston was not replaced after his death as chair by another African American (the post of general secretary was abolished and Gus Hall assumed the title of chairman), and by Hall's opposition to the Party's giving significant support to Jessie Jackson's Rainbow Coalition in 1988. Jackson was the first candidate for the Democratic Party presidential nomination to raise issues sharply in a class context and adopt the slogan of "organize the unorganized and register [to vote] the unregistered." Large numbers of African Americans and progressive whites joined together in this unprecedented movement. Hall labeled as right opportunist the demands that Communists actively support Jackson and give more attention to unionization of workplaces with high concentrations of workers of color because, as he recently reiterated, they de-emphasize the class struggle "by reducing the Party's commitment to independent political action and by de-emphasizing the focus on the industrial working class and elevating the importance of national struggles across class lines" ("Political Affairs," May 1992). Here one should note that the principal strategy of the Party since the mid-1930s, except for the period of 1943-45, has been to work toward a popular, independent labor-based left- progressive party in which Communists could openly participate, while retaining their membership in the CPUSA. Such a coalition is particularly important in the United States because of the absence of proportional representation. Political movements can only gain elected office in national, state, and local bodies if their candidates receive more votes than any other candidates. Jackson's campaign was for the nomination as presidential candidate of the Democratic Party, hence Hall did not see this as independent political action. The result was the Party did not contribute in a meaningful way to significant independent political activity and in reality stood outside mass struggles for African American equality. The urgency of the Party's dealing with this issue was expressed dramatically by Kendra Alexander, then chair of the Northern California District, CPUSA, "I'm the mother of a 15-year-old Black son. Each time my child is a little late coming home, I am scared to death that he's been shot or he's in jail. It is my nightmare. This is true for almost every African-American mother and father. It's a level of anxiety you live with constantly. We have to understand the anxiety that exists in African Americans about the welfare of their children. Our babies are dying. Our youth are in jeopardy. . . . The oppression of African Americans is central to every question of progress in the nation. . . . The working class is the motor of history. . . . For the class to play its role--leading the country out of this mess to socialism--it has to understand this question to move forward." The narrow and sectarian character of setting industrial concentration in opposition to the centrality of African American equality is clear from the utter failure of the Party's industrial-concentration policy. After years of a primary focus on establishing shop clubs in the steel industry, the Party, at the time of the 1991 convention, had one shop club in the steel industry, at a USX plant in Ohio, with a half dozen blue-collar workers actually working in the mills, while the entire district of Ohio had only one or two African Americans in the Party. In Illinois, another major industrial-concentration state, a state with the third largest number of Party members (after California and New York), the Party could count only two industrial workers in its ranks among some 190 members. As these conflicts developed, question (3) took on increasing importance. When it became clear to a large number of Party members that the principal strategic line of the Party needed to be analyzed realistically, the absence of mechanisms in the Party for effecting any change became evident. The African Americans found themselves blocked from putting the issue of the centrality of African American equality on the agenda for discussion by the National Board, whose function was increasingly reduced to listening to a weekly summary of events by Hall. The day-to-day affairs of the Party were put in the hands of a small group of people close to Hall within the National Board. In attempting to isolate internal opposition, the Hall forces used tactics that were the very ones the Party had always criticized as racist: bypassing African Americans who were in positions of responsibility. At one point the offices of all National Board members except Charlene Mitchell were moved to the eighth floor of the Party headquarters. The criticism of the Party's lack of democratic procedures took the following form: The National Board functioned as a self- perpetuating bureaucratic faction with an internal discipline standing above the Party, and not accountable to the body that elected it. It alone determined the agenda of the National Committee, what issues were to come before it and what its "decisions" were to be. This control was perpetuated from one convention to the next by control over the convention procedures by the "outgoing" National Board. The selection of district leaders by the higher Party bodies led to the de facto control of the lowest Party bodies by the higher ones and ultimately determined the ideological character of the delegates to the national convention. In this way, the Leninist principles of democratic centralism: elected leadership, accountability of those elected to those that elected them, decisions by the higher body binding on the lower body after adequate discussion, and minority accepting decisions of the majority were deformed. The self-perpetuating higher body, in fact, dictated its decisions to the lower bodies. In the preconvention discussion it was further argued that this deformation of the principle of democratic centralism had been introduced into most Communist parties in the Stalin period through the Comintern, and this absence of accountability of the highest levels of the Party to the Party membership ultimately laid the basis for the collapse of the socialist countries, since it prevented recognition, discussion, and solution of the socioeconomic and political problems by people who were competent to deal with them. Gus Hall, on the other hand, blamed only Gorbachev and imperialism for the collapse. Victor Perlo, head of the Economic Commission of the CPUSA, even maintained that the Soviet economy was basically in good shape until Gorbachev brought it down. The Initiative forces demanded that the leaders of the Party should stop falsifying reality just as they should not have falsified the reality of what had been going on in the socialist countries. Party members resented having been told that Party membership was as high as 20,000 when it was no more than 3,000, that the results of industrial concentration were never disclosed so that the policy could be evaluated critically, that the social composition of the Party was kept secret. It turned out that real size of the membership had not only been withheld from the membership, including the National Committee, but even from members of the National Board. No accounting was ever given of the Party's finances, specifics of which were even withheld from the National Board. Gus Hall was charged with propagating a cult of the individual around himself. He was criticized for surrounding himself with toadies (people who would never disagree with him), for not presenting his reports to the National Committee meetings for collective discussion by the National Board, for reducing Party theoretical literature on the situation in the United States and abroad largely to his own speeches, and for his general anti- intellectualism. I recall his criticism of the Marxist Educational Press for publishing an English translation of Andras Gedo's important critique of contemparary bourgeois philosophy, "Crisis Consciousness in Contemporary Philosophy," "Why do you publish books on philosophy that not even philosophers can understand?" (Many consider this Hungarian Communist to be the most outstanding living Marxist philosopher). Hall shocked many when he stated on 17 December 1991, "I only read 5% of the preconvention material. I made a conscious decision not to read much of the propaganda, but only the headlines" (Remarks to the first meeting of the Interim National Board on the 25th National Convention). Unfortunately, rather than deal with the ideological issues in the preconvention discussion, the Hall leadership called its critics right opportunists, factionalists, and FBI agents. The Initiative supporters were not a monolithic group. Many were committed Marxist-Leninists, seeking to restore the Party's Leninist content, ideologically and organizationally. Others were moving away from Leninism, no longer certain of what was valid in Marxism-Leninism, and hence no longer certain of Marxism. Still others were in the process of abandoning Marxism altogether. The boundaries between these currents were by no means sharp. The Initiative supporters focussed largely on their critique of Hall's position, and with a few exceptions, the Marxist-Leninists among them neglected a principled defense of Marxism-Leninism in order not to weaken the cohesiveness among the Initiative supporters. This error laid the basis for an incompatible ideological alliance between Marxist-Leninists and those who were ready to abandon Marxism, strengthening the latter in the process. The Committees of Correspondence, which emerged from the split at the convention, were thus set on a path that ultimately led to the abandonment of Marxism as their ideological basis. THE 25TH NATIONAL CONVENTION OF THE CPUSA By July 1991, with the convention five months away, it appeared that the Party membership was divided into three groups of approximately equal size: one group supporting Gus Hall's leadership; another supporting the Initiative to Unite and Renew the Party; and the third group supporting whatever forces were in the leadership, since this was the concept of democratic centralism that had been ingrained in them. Despite a clear majority of about sixty percent, the Hall leadership decided on a purge. In January 1991 the National Committee had recommended that each of the clubs choose its delegates to the national convention on the basis of one delegate for every five members. Implementation of this decision was sabotaged in a variety of ways. In my district, Minnesota- Dakotas, the district convention took place in the city of St. Paul immediately following a snowstorm which prevented the rural delegates, mostly Hall supporters, from attending. Those attending were all Initiative supporters. A resolution was passed that the delegates to the national convention would be those nominated by the clubs. This would give the Hall forces, whose base in our district was in rural Minnesota, where Hall comes from, almost half of the delegates. The national leadership ruled this convention invalid, convened a new one at a time when not all the Initiative supporters could attend, and, after rejecting a motion that the delegates be those chosen by the clubs, removed all but one of the twelve delegates chosen by the clubs in Minneapolis and St. Paul (with more than half of the members in the district). The ruthlessness of this action ruled out any possibility of organizational contact between the two groups after the convention. Similar actions were taken elsewhere. Nationally, the Initiative supporters were replaced by Hall supporters in all districts under control of the Hall forces. Some thirty percent of the delegates, all supporters of the Initiative, were denied their seats on spurious technical grounds. Nevertheless, in the June/July 1992 issue of "Political Affairs," Victor Perlo writes that "never has our Party been more democratic in its organizational methods and operations, . . . overcoming the disruptive tactics of the factionalists, especially their attempts to interfere with the unprecedented democratic procedure giving each club the right to choose the delegates to the Convention." Perlo obviously chose to ignore Gus Hall's frank comment in his closing remarks to the convention, "We had to cut corners on democracy to save the Party." At the convention itself, a single slate of nominees to the new National Committee was presented to the delegates. Procedures were adopted that made it mathematically impossible for anyone nominated from the floor to be elected. The purge was completed. Not a single supporter of the Initiative was put on the slate. While the convention was in progress, delegates who were denied seats met in a hall across the street to consult with one another, being joined periodically, during breaks in the convention, by the Initiative supporters who had been seated. The unseating of thirty percent of the delegates had already formalized a split. The main question of remaining in the Party was to depend on what happened at the convention itself. The answer came quickly. Not a single supporter of the Initiative was put on the National Committee. As soon as the convention adjourned, the Initiative supporters met and decided to form the Committees of Correspondence (CoC) and to meet again in about six months to decide on a future course. Many had been convinced that the confrontational tactics used to reduce the number of Initiative delegates, even though they would have been in the minority, had the aim of driving the Initiative supporters out of the Party so as to avoid the more difficult process of mass expulsions after the convention. The two largest Party districts, New York and Northern California, as well as the District of Columbia (Washington, D.C.) subsequently voted to withdraw from the CPUSA and affiliate with the Committees of Correspondence. Most of the members in Oregon, Wisconsin, Alabama, and members under the age of 75 in Minnesota and many other states left the Party. Veteran Communist leaders like James Jackson, Angela Davis, Charlene Mitchell, Herbert Aptheker, and Danny Rubin found themselves, in Angela Davis's words, to be "Communists without a Party." In the days immediately following the convention, the editor of the Party's weekly paper, the "People's Weekly World," was removed and the majority of the editorial staff was replaced. The editor of the Party's monthly journal, "Political Affairs", was also replaced. The CPUSA subsequently reconstituted its districts in Northern California, New York, the District of Columbia, and other states with the members that remained. One can only speculate about why Hall felt it necessary to drive his opposition out of the Party. An answer perhaps can be found in the extent to which Hall's support was based on his personal history and the cult-like atmosphere that he built around himself. In the mid-1930s the Party assigned Hall and two other Communists to the Steel Workers Organizing Committee at the request of the (non-Communist) leaders of that union. The three Communists played key roles in the successful unionization of the steel workers, which, in turn, sparked the organization of the auto workers, and the consolidation of the Committee for Industrial Organizations (CIO) as the basis for industrial unions in the United States. During the postwar period of anti-Communist hysteria, Hall spent eight years in prison. This history has earned him great respect among Communists and their supporters. None of those around him today share this history or respect. None of those in the leadership around him have contributed to the formulation of his ideological position nor to its reasoned defense in any significant way. As an octogenarian, he must have been concerned about the re-emergence of the ideological debate when he is no longer able to remain at helm, and this may have led him to drive those opposing his policies out of the Party while he was still in control. Therefore it was not sufficient to win the battle for delegates, but to win it such a way that the opposition would feel compelled to leave. The CPUSA has released no information about the number of people who have remained in the Party. With the Party still in control of an estimated seven million dollars, it is using its publications to maintain the faade that it has emerged from the convention stronger than before. A reasonable estimate is that about 1,000 members continue to pay dues. The Committees of Correspondence In July 1992, the Committees of Correspondence held a nondelegated national conference in Berkeley, California, at which was adopted a declaration of principles that was to guide the organization until a national founding convention is convened late in 1993. At the end of August 1992, the Committees of Correspondence had 1364 members, about 500-600 not having been members of the CPUSA at the time of the Party convention in 1991. I shall give below selections from the declaration of principles that best reflect the ideological thrust of the document. GOALS AND VISION. We are motivated by the profound conviction that our country needs a humane alternative to the anti-human system of capitalism. . . . We believe that there must be a fundamental realignment of the political system, new electoral initiatives and the creation of new vehicles to attain political empowerment. Our vision has an international dimension, seeking ties and cooperation with popular movements and working-class organizations in all countries. We view socialism as the struggle for democracy carried to its logical conclusion. This vision is not a utopia, but a practical response and solution to the contradictions of capitalist society. We will continue to participate in the ongoing public discussion of how to define socialism in light of contemporary realities. We will continue to assess the experience, including both achievements and failures of the first sustained attempts to build socialist societies in Europe, Asia, Latin America and Africa. We welcome all those who would like to participate with us in this exploration, while we struggle together to address the immediate problems of our people. We suggest the following characteristics for U.S. socialism. A society where the promise of democracy is fulfilled by the practice of self-government. A society of social justice, which guarantees employment, housing, education and health care as human rights. A society which preserves and builds upon all previous economic and scientific achievements, and which redistributes the vast wealth and power now held in a few hands. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK. The initiators of the Committees of Correspondence are predominantly people with a socialist vision and a Marxist view of history. Yet we are convinced that we can and must build an organization that is pluralist, embracing members who have theoretical frameworks other than Marxist. . . . The continuing distinct contributions of liberation theology, environmentalism, feminism, theories of non-violent resistance and multiculturalism, non-Marxist socialism and others cultivate the common ground for struggle. We impose no ideological litmus tests. People with diverse views are necessary and welcome in this organization on an equal basis. Therefore we are both Marxist and pluralist. We believe different strands of socialist and democratic thought can coexist and enrich each other within the context of a shared political program and practice. While the document was still in draft form, the Minnesota Committee of Correspondence objected that the statement does not distinguish socialism from social welfare under capitalism. It does not mention the essential content of socialism, namely, the ownership and control of the means of production by the working people. The Minnesota committee also objected to the organization being "both Marxist and pluralist," which it felt undermines its supposedly socialist orientation by ideologically weakening the struggle against state monopoly capitalism and imperialism by separating theoretical analysis from political practice. It proposed instead to state that the organization's "socialist outlook is based on the ideological heritage from the philosophical, political, and economic studies of Marx, Engels, and Lenin, and others inspired by them." These amendments received no support from the leadership of the CoC despite the fact that this leadership was still dominated by those who had been the most active, committed Marxists-Leninists in the CPUSA. To explain this phenomenon, I draw on articles in CoC publications and many discussions for the following summary of the prevailing ideological character of the CoC: (a) Our understanding of socialism was shaped by what we had called "real" or "existing" socialism as described in the Party publications and the publications of the socialist countries. The shocking revelations of the falseness of this description, the economic breakdown of the socialist economies, and the apparent need to introduce some level of market forces mean that we no longer know what socialism is other than some vaguely just distribution of wealth. (b) Marxism-Leninism is a term that was introduced in the Stalin period. The bureaucratization of Party life, the absence of the most elementary democratic practices in the Party, the military-type command style of the central leadership, and the absence of accountability of the leadership to the membership were all part of what was demagogically called democratic centralism as practiced by parties that called themselves Marxist-Leninist. We no longer want this type of party. The introduction of democratic centralism as the organizational basis of Lenin's party of a new type was dictated by the conditions of czarist repression and is not an appropriate form for a working- class party in a bourgeois parliamentary democracy. (c) The CPUSA, under its present leadership, remains committed to the discredited Stalinist model of socialism and the Stalinist model of the Party. It was therefore impossible to remain in it. If we were to try to form a new Marxist party of a Leninist type with a few hundred members we would amount to nothing more than another insignificant left sect. (d) The CPUSA called itself a vanguard party. By this it meant that it alone had the correct answers on all important questions and all other groups on the left were what Gus Hall always characterized as "the phony left." Much of the criticism others had of the Communist movement--dogmatic rigidity and lack of democratic procedures--now turns out to be valid. In my view, one should not view the CoC as an alternative to a Marxist-Leninist party of the working class, even if it constitutes itself as a party at the projected founding convention the toward the end of 1993. Nor should one be too quick to label it reformist or social-democratic. Our country has a tradition of non-Marxist, nonsocialist, progressive, "third" parties in which Communists participated openly as members of the CPUSA: the American Labor Party in New York and the Farmer-Labor Party in Minnesota in the 1930s and 1940s, and the national Progressive Party in the late 1940s and early 1950s, among others. These parties were in no sense right-opportunist or social-democratic. They were antiracist and anti-imperialist, and did not advocate policies of class collaborationism in the labor movement. The CoC is unique on the left in its multiracial character. All five of its co-chairs are people of color (four African Americans and a Puerto Rican--Charlene Mitchell, Kendra Alexander, Carl Bloice, Manning Marable and Rafael Pizarro), the majority of its members, nevertheless, being Euro-Americans. It is necessary to note, however, that most former members of the CPUSA in the CoC who still consider themselves Marxists are comfortable in the CoC, feeling neither a need to sustain a Marxist political presence in an organized way, within or outside of the CoC, nor a responsibility for the organization of Marxist education and Marxist publications, nor even for ensuring the continuing availability of the Marxist classics. We are reaping the consequences of many years of neglect of ideological and theoretical work within the CPUSA: absence of study groups and meaningful Party schools, continual substitution of unsubstantiated predictions of economic collapse for scientific analysis of the U.S. economy, inhospitable atmosphere for theoretical research, dogmatic rejection of support for the women's movement as bourgeois feminism, and bigotry toward homosexuals, among others. Though we have had Communist philosophers, historians, and economists, Party support for the production of basic Marxist-Leninist textbooks in philosophy, U.S. history, or political economy written on the background the U.S. experience was not forthcoming. Consequently the Party's political agenda during the post-World War II period never went beyond progressive politics, no conscious effort being made to inject a Marxist content into our day-to-day political activity. In brief, the implementation of the Party's program was reformist in content and sectarian in form. There were two exceptions: our solidarity with the USSR and the other socialist countries and our recognition of the centrality of African American equality as a class question. Our unscientific, uncritical approach to the former undermines this first exception. The CPUSA's abandonment of the concept of centrality of African American equality, in face of the increasing acceptance of its importance by many non- Marxist progressives, weakens the Marxist contribution to this area as well. WHAT LIES AHEAD? The strength of the Communist movement and its ability to survive the extreme repressive measures taken against it by capitalist and feudal governments throughout the world have in large measure been due to its Marxist-Leninist outlook. This article is not the place for a detailed discussion of what is meant by Marxism-Leninism. A detailed description of its essential content is given by the German Communist philosopher Hans Heins Holz in his "The Downfall and Future of Socialism" ("Nature, Society, and Thought" 5, no. 3 [1992]). I list here, in abridged and slightly modified form, Holz's ten theses of Marxism-Leninism. 1. Marxist-Leninists distinguish themselves from other supporters of socialism in that their conceptions of the future social order and the path leading to it are based upon a theory of history, historical materialism, the essence of which was worked out by Marx, Engels, and Lenin and enriched by practical political experience, especially from working- class struggles. 2. As a theory of history drawing upon a dialectical- materialist understanding of the relationship between nature, society, and thought, Marxism-Leninism is not to be viewed as a dogma but as theory that assimilates past history and present history as it unfolds. 3. The basis of its scientific analysis of historical processes is the understanding that the decisive driving force in history is the development of the productive forces and their corresponding production relations, and that the development of productive forces proceeds in continual contradiction with the stable, institutionalized production relations. These production relations are the basis of class relations. A basic understanding of Marxist-Leninist theory is that social consciousness is determined by social being, that the contradictions in social being, that is, in society, express themselves in social consciousness so that human beings confronted by the contradictions of social being arrive at their various individual positions on the basis of their interests, traditions, experiences, and understanding, and, finally, that basic contradictions manifest themselves in class positions. 4. Human beings are not the helpless objects of a fatalistic historical process, but are always the active subjects of history. Nonetheless, human behavior, when guided exclusively or primarily by private interests and personal motivations, can have unanticipated results. The desired change in society, whether through planned reforms with the final goal of revolutionary transformation or through a revolution, requires a theoretically guided organization, that is, a political party sustained by the collective will of its supporters. In order for the will of all to become a common will capable of being translated into action, individual members must subordinate themselves to the organizational form, but not without prior participation in forming that common will; this principle of discipline is a simple condition of survival and effectiveness for all revolutionary parties. 5. The class interest of that class at whose expense and against whose self-interest social wealth is created lies in the alteration of property relations--and, because it is the only class that is opposed to these structures of appropriation, the establishment of a new social order is its historic mission. The opposition between capital and labor establishes the identity of the working class (regardless of the differences in the character of the work performed) as the class that is in a position to abolish the capitalist relations of production. To materialize itself in activity as a class (and not just a sum of individuals) and thereby become the subject of this historical mission, it must acquire consciousness of the situation in which human beings in general and members of the working class in particular find themselves, that is, a class consciousness. Various levels of class consciousness will obviously arise from different experiences and not at all solely through theory; but class consciousness must always be grounded on the theory of class society and class struggle. 6. A new qualitative element in the development of the productive forces emerges in connection with the scientific and technological revolution. On the one hand, science and technology can today guarantee a generally high material standard of living if a just system of appropriation and distribution were institutionalized. On the other hand, science and technology also make possible the destruction of the human species and large parts of nature. The capitalist form of production relations cannot solve, but only intensify, this contradiction. Only a socialist society provides the perspective of a human future worthy of humanity. 7. The perspective of communism connects the objective laws of history, which are the laws of reproduction of human conditions of life, with the subjective striving of each person toward self-realization and happiness. Self- realization, however, is not conceivable without reference to and consideration of fellow human beings; self-realization has its foundation in the understanding that the individual can only be himself or herself in solidarity with others. Solidarity and consciousness of the social nature of human beings, that is, a socialist morality, is what underlies the program of the "Communist Manifesto," "that the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all." In capitalist societies the new attitude toward life is formed in the struggle for socialism, and in socialist societies, in the struggle for construction of socialism. This struggle requires an organization form: the theoretical understanding of the social and political processes of the present and the proposal of goals for the future must be worked out collectively by the members of an organization, mediated by them, and translated into political action. A Marxist-Leninist party is the appropriate organization for fulfilling these tasks. As the place where the conception of a socialist future is projected and systematically discussed and the strategy for the present worked out with this long-range conception in mind, it becomes the revolutionary vanguard of the working class (even in a nonrevolutionary period). 8. The historical mission of the working class and the task of a Marxist-Leninist party therefore has two aspects: first, the abolition of private ownership of the means of production and thereby of the private appropriation of surplus value brings about the changes in the relations of production that have become necessary because the development of the forces of production in the scientific and technological revolution can no longer be sensibly controlled by the private interests; a comprehensive plan for the entire society is required. Second, the working class, in its struggle for self-determination against exploitation, oppression, and injustice, brings about the goal of establishing a society in which free and equal citizens can develop their talents in full; only such a society, a communist society, can guarantee human rights. 9. The construction of socialism, and communism that emerges from it, will be a long and contradictory process even after the abolition of capitalist property relations. Presocialist forms of consciousness and behavior persist long after the institutional changes, some for several generations. Class positions do not disappear in one fell swoop; that is, the class struggle also continues, most of all the struggle over the new socialist worldview; accordingly, theoretical work and ideological clarity acquire great importance, especially since the paths to socialism will vary from country to country and initially under conditions in which the imperialist centers of capitalism will be economically stronger. Thus the construction of socialism essentially depends upon a Marxist-Leninist party giving leadership to the process of socialist transformation and development. This leading role must not be permitted to solidify into bureaucratic mechanisms. 10. It is well to remember the insight of Karl Marx that "no social formation is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society." Capitalism today, in the development of its productive forces, begets external contradictions to the point of threatening the extinction of humanity--in this respect it prepares in its womb the transition to socialism. However, capitalism is still capable of organizing within its own framework the continued development of the forces of production, even though with increasing deterioration of the quality of life. For this reason, the struggle against capitalism is still the main task of Marxist-Leninists throughout the world. I think it is necessary to add here some comments about the concept of a vanguard party, since this concept has been deformed in the practice of many Communist parties in both socialist and capitalist countries. Lenin's concept of a vanguard party is two- fold. On the one hand, it concerns the necessity of the party drawing into its ranks, above all, the most class-conscious, socially responsible members of the working class, to sustain and develop this consciousness further, and to take the initiative in developing strategies that have as their ultimate goal the socialist transformation of society. This aspect of the vanguard role can be fulfilled even if the vast majority of the working class does not acknowledge the leading role of the party in relation to its interests. On the other hand, the vanguard concept would be essentially without meaning if the vanguard party isolated itself in practice, for example by alienating other class-conscious workers, or socially conscious activists in general, who were not ready to join the party by attempting to force its "leading role" on them. Members of the Communist Party of South Africa participate actively in the African National Congress, but they avoid the left-sectarian error of caucusing as Communists and then acting as a disciplined caucus in the ANC. It is not that members of a vanguard party active in a broader mass organization should not caucus or otherwise meet to analyze developments in such mass organizations. But, generally speaking, they should not be bound by a discipline that stands above the mass organization in which they are participating; they must be open to changing their positions and modifying their activities in discussions and meetings involving nonparty people who may, at times, have a clearer analysis and more convincing arguments. A sectarian concept of vanguard can be particularly self-destructive in the case of mass organizations in which members of a Marxist-Leninist party have considerable influence. The process of rebuilding a Marxist-Leninist movement in the United States will be a very slow and difficult one, as the experience in Great Britain has shown. The CPUSA leadership continues to see Gorbachev as the principal cause of the collapse of socialism; it remains committed to a concept of democratic centralism according to which a member of one club cannot give written matter of a political character to a member of another club; it continues to set concentration on industrial workers against the struggle for African American equality. The inability of its leadership to engage in any serious self-criticism is reducing the Party to an anachronism. A number of good Communists have nevertheless chosen to wait out an eventual change in leadership and have remained in the Party. What policies will be adopted if a change in leadership takes place is an open question. Within the CoC are many who still consider themselves "Communists without a Party"--as individuals and as well as entire former Party clubs. The process of establishing contact with one another is now beginning. The first step will most likely be to set up a channel for exchange of information and views. Particularly useful would be information on discussions that are taking place in Communist movements in other countries. The fields which should have been plowed with the Marxist scientific outlook have been allowed to lie fallow too long. We must vigorously resume the plowing. Erwin Marquit 2 October 1992 Kamran Heiss
I was reading this more about the CPUSA CCDS split in the early 90s and looked up "Sadie Doroshkin who is 94, a charter member of the Party" and found this from the 1930s, the original Trevor Loudon
https://archive.is/gfptC https://books.google.com/books?id=A19bA ... &q&f=false Kamran Heiss
|
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
|
||||||