Almost all of the various left tendencies and groups in the U.S. are composed of mostly well intentioned revolutionaries. The sectarianism, idealism, dogmatism, reformism and tailism of the various groups is a product of the failure of the left to be fully integrated into mass struggles and the resultant intellectualized polemics and religious sect like enthusiasm that are its consequence. When practice can’t decide, when the mass line is not operative, when ex-student cadre are unable to get real feedback and criticism from the struggles of working people, a mess like the one we have today is the inevitable result. The failure of all lines in the mass struggle turns us inward to blame each other and faculty lines for our problems, thus promoting splits and ultra-sectarianism.
The development of splits and the evolution of sects has produced a parallel evolution in the different traditions. When the SWP first broke off from the CP the differences between the two groups were as clear as the differences between the SP and CP when they went their separate ways. However, as groups broke off both the SWP and the CP and splits within each split developed, groups with very different histories tended to converge on similar lines. This parallel evolution is very similar to the parallel evolution of Australian Marisupals and mammals in the rest of the world. Even though the two animal phylum have long evolved separately the similar environment of Australia, and much of the rest of the world resulted in the development of similar species more or less equally adopted to their ecological niches in similar environments. Thus, out of the history of splits in the SWP emerged the Spartacus League which in virtually all things is identical to the PLP which emerged out a split from the CP. About the only principled difference between the two groups is that the first hangs pictures of Leon Trotsky on their walls while the second hangs pictures of Stalin. Both are ultra-left purest groups which refuse to work with or give support to progressive movements and Socialist countries because they are allegedly not revolutionary enough. Both have an ultra-left standoffish line on all existing progressive nationalist, feminist and trade union movements. Even the CP and the SWP itself have taken a parallel course in focusing their work on reformist non-militant mass organizations such as the peace movement, liberal trade unions (the CP) and the women’s movement (the SWP) rather than presenting a revolutionary face. The ultra hostile sectarianism of the tiny grouplets which have broken off from the SWP and from the various break-offs from that group is more or less exactly paralleled by the ultra-sectarianism of the various groups which have developed in the “Maoist” movement. Outside of the OL and the RCP, the two more or less Maoist groups in the U.S, with more than a miniscule following, the primary focus of their papers and polemics is attacks on the OL, the RCP or oh each other. The product of these ultra-dogmatic Maoist groups who fight about who really represents the true thought of Mao Tse-tung is thus identical to that of the ultra-Trotskyist groups that focus their venom on the SWP, or their various parent splinters from the SWP. Here the primary fight is on which group really represents the true Fourth International. Just as the various Trotskyist grouplets condemn each other for deviating from true Trotskyist principles, the various ultra Maoist groups accuse each other of “revisionism” – which means absolutely nothing more than deviating from their interpretation of Mao Tse-tung and Stalin’s thought. In neither the ultra-Trotskyist groups or in the ultra-Maoist groups does practice or scientific investigation of concrete conditions play the slightest role in settling disagreements. All polemics and further splits (issues are never settled in an amicable way so as to produce unity) are handled in a purely idealist and rationalist manner with quotes being thrown back and forth as weapons to legitimate or delegitimate various positions, each as unsubstantiated by practice as the other. The futility of the whole exercise is apparent to everyone but the handful of participants. Differences are maintained for historical reasons and because of personal and organizational hostilities and jealousies and continue to exist because of the lack of rootedness in mass struggles. A working class mass revolutionary movement would not stand for the narrow minded sectarianism of the ex-student left and would force all honest revolutionaries into one organization forcing the resolution of differences on the basis of practice, criticism, democratic centralism and mutual respect.
Groups like the MIR in Chile should serve as a model of what the development of a revolutionary left in the U.S. would look like. Young people who had been militants in the Socialist Party, the Communist Party and the Trotskyist movement joined with pro-Chinese and pro-Cuban activists and other independent revolutionaries to form an organization devoted to assuming leadership of mass struggles, learning from all of the revolutionary traditions (including Trotsky, Stalin, Fidel and Mao), without identifying with any single historical tradition. They developed their theory and strategy on the basis of practice and mutual respect for the traditions of each of its components. The maxim of the organization has been to learn what can be learned from the experience of each and apply these lessons to the special conditions of Chile as determined through the practice of the organization. The MIR thus represented a radical break with the ever increasing irrelevance and sectarianism of both the Trotskyist and Maoist traditions. In good part it was inspired by the struggles of the Cubans; but by no means did it mechanically accept ideological guidance from Cuba. In spite of its insistence that positive things could be learned from the writings and experience of Trotskyism, the MIR represented a radical break from the essentials of Trotskyism (idealism, ultra-leftism, hostility to national liberation movements) and in no-sense of the term can be called “trotskyist.” Likewise, although it gave critical support to the Allende regime, it can in no way be called “revisionist” since it actively combatted the illusion sometimes encouraged by the Popular Unity government that a gradual transition to socialism would be possible without military hegemony. Although great admirers of the accomplishments of the Chinese, the MIR clearly has not tailed their foreign policy and in no sense is Maoist.
The reconstitution of the U.S. revolutionary left would very likely include a merger of individuals, organizations and, small groups dropping out of the existing sects joining with independent individuals and local collectives to form a new organization somewhat on the model of the Chilean MIR, an organization which would start with a moderate level of unity and discipline and gradually tighten up on the basis of its Involvement in mass struggles and sum ups of its own practice (as the basis on which to resolve the political differences which obviously will be imported into such an organization).
The major thrust of the student movement of the 1960’s which gradually developed into Maoism: the RCP, the OL and the myriad of tiny ultra-Maoist groups is likely to in good part disintegrate, with many of its highly energetic and revolutionary members increasingly realizing the dead-end of the policies that have developed since the beginning of the 1970’s. The hyper optimism of these groups which have believed that they would rapidly grow and integrate themselves into the working class, as well as in the imminent awakening of the mass revolutionary struggle, should be expected to more or less quickly dissipate with the stagnation of their movement. The resultant demoralization should force many of the members of these grouplets to reevaluate and drop out as individuals or groups. Many will be looking for a non-dogmatist revolutionary approach which does not, require isolation from most progressive and revolutionary struggles. These people should mostly develop non-dogmatic anti-reformist politics.
The consolidated sect like nature of the PLP and most Trotskyist groups is not (yet) characteristic of the Maoist groups (as sectarian as they might be in their polemics and relationship to other progressive and revolutionary forces). Maoist groups are still new and are composed mainly of young highly energetic people with very optimistic Expectations about short term successes. Their membership is consequently considerably more open to changing positions as a result of failures in practice, as well as to actively rooting themselves in struggles from which they can learn from the working class and thus break out of their sectarianism. They also have the important advantage of looking to China and the thought of Mao Tse-tung rather than to Leon Trotsky or even Stalin for leadership. Such works by Mao Tse-tung as On Practice, On Contradiction, Where Do Correct Ideas Come From, On Rectifying the Party’s Style of Work, etc., as well as the whole history of the Chinese Communist Party’s coming to power (with the ongoing and sharp struggle waged by Mao Tse-tung against dogmatism and sectarianism) can not but have a positive effect helping to defuse dogmatism and sectarianism in at least those Maoist groups that are rooted in the working class. Thus many Maoists can be expected to turn away from a dogmatic: Maoism and back towards a non-dogmatic/anti-revisionist path.
Major developments have already occurred among Maoists over the last two years which shows the potential for reversing their course towards complete isolation and consolidated sectarianism. The key event in this trend has been the opposition of the Guardian newspaper, the most influential pro-China Marxist periodical in the U.S. to Chinese foreign policy (especially in Angola and Cuba). Other important developments in this trend have also been the similar opposition of the influential journal Monthly Review to the same Chinese positions and the evolution of the Communist Labor Party, away from support of Chinese foreign policy and towards a more independent line supportive of Cuba, Vietnam, etc. As significant has been the formation of the Bay Area Communist Union, which while supporting Chinese foreign policy emphasizes anti-dogmatism in everything else, and the development of an anti-dogmatic/anti-revisionist national tendency in good part initiated by the Philadelphia Workers Organizing Committee and supported by a number of local independent Marxist-Leninist groups formerly identified as “Maoist.” Indeed the initiative for and kernel of a non-dogmatic/anti-reformist Communist movement and party in the U.S. will almost certainly come from these tendencies which are now in the process of separating themselves from Maoism.
Another input into a reorganized and unified revolutionary left might well be the youth group of the Communist Party – the Young Worker’s Liberation League (or a major split from it) together with some of the younger more energetic and least mechanically pro-Soviet CP (especially younger Third World) members who would leave the CP out of frustration with its reformism, accommodating liberal attitudes, general lack of energy and discipline, and its apologistic attitude to the Soviet Union and knee-jerk hostility to China. Such a major split from the CP would most likely be motivated by the involvement of its younger members in working class and Third World struggles, and their resultant realization of the bankruptcy of CP policy as a revolutionary line. It is important to realize that the CP has been recruiting young Third World workers as well as ex-student radicals who can not relate to the sterile sectarianism of Maoist groups and want to do political work, but have no strong commitment to defending the Soviet Union or to reformism as a matter of principle. These people are likely to be the basis of a split to the left in the CP, as well as a continuing source of recruitment into a non-dogmatic/anti-reformist organization. There should thus be a convergence of these folks with those that are becoming disillusioned with Maoism.
We should expect some participants in the Trotskyist tradition to likewise converge on a anti-dogmatic/anti-reformist politics. The most promising organization in this tradition other than the Worker’s World Party/Youth Against War and Fascism is the International Socialists who are fairly well integrated in working class struggles (as left groups go), and in spite of their general condemnation of all socialist regimes as “bureaucratic collectivist” show a certain openness, seriousness, flexibility and, willingness to learn from practice absent among most Trotskyist groups. The youth group of the SWP, the YSA, should also be expected to provide some individual recruits to a non-dogmatic anti-reformist position, if only because its rather loose nature and absence of hyper sectarian polemics (which set the SWP as well as the IS and WWP off from the rest of the Trotskyist groups) attracts many serious youth new to Marxism, who then tend to go on to other things as they realize the isolation and bankruptcy of the SWP. The YSA/SWP has and may continue to serve as a transmission belt of students from liberalism to Marxist-Leninism.
The dissipated remnants of the “new left” tendencies of the late 1960’s: the Weather underground, Prairie Fire, Venceremos and the various groups attracted to “Third Worldism,” the romanticism of guerrilla warfare and the revolutionary potentialities of Youth Culture, have all shown a substantial evolution towards Marxist-Leninism, and a growing appreciation of the leading role of the working class over the last few years. These groups have tended to avoid the sectarianism and polemics of the Trotskyists, Maoists and the CP, in part because reacting more on an emotional level to give support to, oppressed people they never bother to learn the fine points that divide the left, and in part because they sense the futility of it all, being somewhat more rooted in the real struggles of Third World peoples in the U.S. and around the world (and in many cases of having had recent experience as leaders of a mass student movement as well). While the Weather Underground Organization/Prairie Fire seems to have virtually disappeared the National Labor Federation, an outgrowth of the old Venceremos which renounced the romantic and adventurist tendencies of that organization in favor of patient organizing in the poorest segments of the working class, is growing, and shows promise of becoming an important force on the revolutionary left. The dedication, enthusiasm, flexibility and non-sectarianism of these tendencies may well prove to be a valuable contribution to the development of an anti-dogmatist/anti-revisionist movement if the last remnants of romanticizing guerrilla warfare, Third Worldism and optimism about youth culture are left behind. It can be expected that the mainstream of these tendencies and groups will for the most part go into such an organization, with only a minority refusing due to the stubborn persistence of “New Leftist” ideals.
A major source of recruits for an anti-reformist/anti-dogmatic trend is to be found in the Marxist-Leninist currents among Third World people – this current may prove in the intermediate run to provide the greatest single source of energy and recruits. During the 1970’s there has been a considerable turn among Blacks, Latins and Asians in the U.S. away from nationalism and towards Marxism-Leninism, e.g., the Black Panthers, Amiri Baraka’s African People’s Congress, the Black Workers’ Congress/League of Revolutionary Black Workers and their successor organizations and influences, the August 29th Movement, La Casa, The Puerto Rican Socialist Party, the KDP, El Comite, etc. Indeed it is only among segments of Third World workers that Marxism-Leninism has any real working class roots in the U.S. in the 1970’s. Unfortunately, for the most part, the Third World revolutionary trends are as divided, sectarian, and dogmatic as those based in the ex-student and predominantly white M-L groups. As some of these groups grow they will experience greater and greater pressure from their constituencies to work together and to unify with each other as well as with the movement outside of Third World communities. A revolution is impossible only among Blacks or Chicanos, and requires the leadership of a multiracial Communist Party. It is absolutely essential that any developing revolutionary party/pre-parties in the U.S. keep the closest relations with the various groupings arising among Third World workers and intellectuals. Likewise, it is essential that Third World revolutionaries seek out the closest of ties with the rest of the revolutionary left.
A sixth stream of recruits for a non-dogmatic anti-reformist tendency can be expected to be found in the Marxist-Feminists and the Marxist gay movement. These two closely related movements have adamantly rejected the dogmatist currents which mechanically interpret and apply what they see to be the Chinese line on the family and homosexuality. They insist on central attention being given to interpersonal relations within a generally Marxist revolutionary framework which sees the working class struggle as key and China, Vietnam and Cuba as inspirations. The sectarian and dogmatic attitude of most of the rest of the revolutionary left towards these people (the policies of much of the Trotskyist left being an exception) has kept these tendencies separate from the rest. These people are increasingly realizing their impotence as long as they remain isolated and insist on the primacy of their sexual concerns. They are increasingly realizing the correctness of a working class perspective and the need for a Leninist party as well as the necessity of merging their movement into a broader working class based force. We can thus expect much of this movement to become part of the non-dogmatist/anti-reformist current, although undoubtedly many of the current participants in this current will draw back because of their unwillingness to de-emphasize what has been seen as the primacy of sexual freedom, flaunting gayness and mechanical attacks on male chauvinism.
A seventh stream of people can be expected to join from the vaguely revolutionary and weakly organized social democratic movements of which NAM is the most prominent, but which also including groups like the Wisconsin and Northern California Alliances.
Many members of these groups will probably end up consolidating behind a reconstituted social democratic organization and party, but many can be expected to see the futility of the new left organization and strategies which have been part of NAM since its founding. NAM is not a consolidated social democratic organization, which as a matter of principle condemns all Communist led movements and organizational forms and strategies. NAM generally is a strong supporter of China, Cuba and Vietnam, for example, and many of its members consider themselves to be “communists.” NAM people also almost universally consider themselves to be hostile to the Social Democratic Parties of Europe, although recently there has been considerable interest generated by the reformist developments in the French and Italian Parties. Excitement has been generated by the “Gramscian” development of the Australian Communist Party (which has been emphasizing a policy of mass struggles which challenge the hegemony of the bourgeoisie, rather than piece meal parlimentary reforms). NAM being a very loose organization contains a wide assortment of people which include an anarcho-syndicalist/anti-Leninist current (represented by people such as Stanley Aronowitz) and a mere traditional center social democratic tendency which emphasizes electoral campaigns and work in mass organizations (represented by many associated with Socialist Revolution, and James Weinstein), as well as those generally oriented to watered down Leninism, It is unlikely that either the anarcho-syndicalist (Aronowitz tendency) or the center social democratic tendency whose ideal is reconstruction of the pre-1919 Socialist Party would merge into a hew anti-dogmatic/anti-reformist organization, but the Gramscian tendency and other vaguely Leninist orientations are a likely candidate, since they converge with the other currents on a flexible revolutionary strategy and more disciplined organization form.
The recent adoption of a Leninist organizational form by the Wisconsin Alliance seems to indicate that groups like this are likely to converge with the other currents. Many independent Marxist (non-anti-Communist) intellectuals such as much of the membership of the URPE, NACLA, HEALTH-PAC, etc., can also be expected to be attracted to a non-dogmatic anti-reformist organization once it is created.
The Progressive Labor Party (as well as most explicitly Trotskyist groups) is unlikely to provide recruits to a non-dogmatic non-reformist trend since having been around for so long the people that have remained in it seem to be pretty consolidated and isolated from outside influences. The major split from the PLP which occurred a few years ago in New England, with the formation of the Party for Worker’s Power, which took most of PLP’s New England cadre, took many of the more rooted, flexible people out of the organization. The PWP although it still shares much of the idealistic and sectarian line of the PLP is a more likely candidate for merger into a new anti-dogmatic current. By this time most PLP members have undoubtedly internalized the classical Trotskyist syndrome characteristic of groups like the Spartacus League as well as of the ancient Socialist Labor Party, of isolation from mass struggles, inner directedness, and impermeability from outside criticism or the failure of practice. In other words, like the SLP and the Trotskyists before it, it has hardened into a religious type sect content with preserving the purity of doctrine instead of leading revolutionary struggle. Such groups can be expected to be unaffected by any developments in the rest of the left up to and including an actual working class revolution, an event they’ll undoubtedly dismiss, only to be in turn dismissed by it. Only a few individuals within the hardened Trotskyist organizations can be expected to be won over once the future revolutionary party has clearly established a leading role in mass struggles.
The model presented here of a convergence among seven different tendencies differs fundamentally from that put forth by all sectarians. The sectarians, whether OL, RCP, CLP, CP, SWP, PLP, IS or whoever, think that the line of their own small group will sooner or later prove its correctness, and that large numbers of working class and other oppressed peoples will then join their respective organizations. They each see the members of other organizations as pretty much hopeless and irrelevant to the revolutionary process. In fact just about all tendencies are just about equally relevant/irrelevant at this point, each more or less reflecting the real material conditions, i.e., the class basis of their participants and the non-crisis conditions of American capitalism. As a revolutionary crisis develops and the left grows, we will find that in the short run most of the existing sects will grow more or less equally, i.e., that no sectarian group will clearly emerge as the leader of the working class. Instead, the practice of honest revolutionaries of all tendencies will lead them to see the serious blocks that sectarianism and dogmatism are putting in the way of revolutionary leadership in the working class and among other oppressed peoples. The awakening of worker’s struggles will furthermore force honest revolutionaries, of various tendencies to unite in one serious revolutionary organizations, or into a few such organizations which work closely together. Thus the honest revolutionaries, who are today found in many different mutually hostile tendencies will find themselves in the same organization(s) in the future. (We should keep this fact in the forefront of our consciousness when we engage in polemics.)
An attempt to call a conference of all revolutionary tendencies (i.e., the seven forces listed above) would at this point be absolutely futile, and result in nothing more than polemics, divisiveness and demoralization. Even the suggestion of a merger of these tendencies would-today be regarded by the majority of all of them as ludicrous. But even now in all these tendencies (in some more than others) individuals and subgroups are beginning to have doubts about sectarian and dogmatic approaches, and as their various messianic expectations prove to be groundless many should become increasingly open to an anti-dogmatic/anti-sectarian analysis. Within a short time many can be expected to either force their organizations to reverse course or individually drop out and then join the growing anti-sectarian/anti-dogmatic current which is the most likely candidate for giving birth to a revolutionary party, with a real chance of winning leadership of workers’ struggles. It is clear that more practice, and specifically the successful practice of a non-sectarian/anti-dogmatic trend (i.e., the actual acceptance of it by working class people) is the necessary condition for the majority of honest revolutionary cadre, currently scattered among a great many tendencies, recognizing the correctness of the position developed here.