Is a Marxist-Leninist party needed? by Danny Rubin This article is extracted from a larger work, Lessons from the Past and Our Choice of Directions, which is available on the CoC electronic bulletin board, accessible at (510) 654-2223. Suggested referencing to this work is designated here by the symbol -. Is it still the case, now and as far as we can see into the future, that a party is needed to win socialism, a party that seeks consciously to base its policies on scientific socialism, a science of society in the sense discussed?- Is it still necessary that it be a party of the working class, based on internationalism and democratic centralism? I think yes, if each of these is seen in the terms discussed before -, but it is not nearly so absolute a proposition as it was in 1902, when Lenin first discussed it or as it was seen up to the late 80's by the parties of the world. The ideas of socialism are abroad in the world today and will be even more so in 15 to 20 years when there are clearly successful examples of socialist countries in the world - successful in an efficient economy of constantly improving living standards, with really democratic and humane superstructures to fit their economic base. That economic base will utilize a variety of forms of social ownership (and even private ownership without big capitalists) where that fits the particular forces of production. As a result of changes in the forces of production (the scientific and technological revolution and the information age, mass media, and education), working people will not be dependent solely on the Party for the knowledge of the world necessary to produce class consciousness and socialist consciousness. And undoubtedly there will be more than one party or organization that is for socialism and will show, both by its daily deeds in democratic struggles, and its mass and inner education, the need for socialism and steps toward it. -. If the Party develops the science of society, if it avoids dogmatism, arrogance, elitism, sectarianism, cultism, and develops close and deep ties with the working class, the nationally oppressed, women, all working people, and understands working-class orientation,- it can make a special contribution. This will make the road easier and surer, but none of these aspects will be exclusive to such a party. However, by combining all these aspects in one organization, and by learning from others, it will be able to make special contributions. As to "democratic centralism", the term itself is not worth arguing about. There must be a constant search for maximum democracy, embodiment of safeguards (such as limited terms for top leadership), room for widely different views, all as a way of life to reach the most scientific conclusions. And it must be a Party of mass action. Decisions on questions of mass action and tasks, once reached, may not be acted against so as to impede practice.[See the Constitution of the CPUSA adopted at its 16th Convention, 1956 and continued until its 18th Convention in 1966. It provided that "members must not act against" decisions but did not compel them to carry out majority decisions.- DR] Minorities may put their views before the party but no one may organize factions for the purpose of undercutting democracy and minority rights, or to thwart actions the majority has decided on. The composition of membership, and especially leadership, from the beginning, must be working-class, of the nationally oppressed and of women, if theory, policy, organization, and mass relationships are to be based on science and capable of growth. How to Get There n A mass Party of this type is needed - one that can seriously run for office and contribute to mass struggles and the movement toward socialism. The question is how to get to that from where we are at. Where we are now is - a tiny party, the CPUSA, with terrible weakness in composition has split; and immediately in and around the Committees of Correspondence are about a thousand people and the CPUSA is left, perhaps, with maybe one or two hundred more. Though we, in the Committees of Correspondence, have some outstanding working-class, African American, Puerto Rican and many women leaders, somewhat fewer Mexican American, Native American Indian, Asian Pacific and Caribbean American leaders, great weakness in composition remains, especially in overall membership. This is a period in which we, along with all other Marxist, socialist and left people in the U.S., are taking a new look at basic theoretical, strategic, tactical and organizational views and experiences with great uncertainty about our answers. There is a new fluidity, exploring and searching - and that is as it should be, given recent events and how they relate to the history of much of this century. At the same time, there is a pressing need of action, of mass struggle which occurs spontaneously among millions of democratic-minded people in our country who fight for their needs against the power of the transnational monopolies. We can not just discuss, think and, study. We must act, among other goals, to achieve greater and greater clarity on the questions we examine and reexamine. The old approach was to jell, however few there might be, who were "Marxist-Leninists" into a Communist Party, with the perspective that, slowly, or maybe not so slowly, more would be added to it until it became a sizeable Party. As we know, in the CPUSA's 73 years of existence, that did not happen. After its birth it declined to about 10,000 members by the start of the Great Depression. It then grew to somewhere between 80 to 100,000 by the end of WWII - just before the Cold War got going. It then steadily declined with some small pauses until it reached 2,500 members at the time of the December. 1991, 25th Convention, and then it split and declined to not much more than 1,000 . OTHER APPROACHES n But there have been approaches, other than just forming a Party and adding to it. In many of the developing countries, radically-led national liberation movements included a Marxist-Leninist current in national fronts and national freedom parties. In a number of these cases, some of the top leadership considered themselves Marxist-Leninists and the currents gradually grew in strength until they became accepted by the entire organization. The currents expressed themselves in different ways but always with concern for internal unity. Sometimes they centered around an institute, publication or both. Not many years ago, the Communist Parties of Mexico, the Dominican Republic, and Ecuador merged with other leftist parties and now consider themselves Marxist parties. The Communist Party of Columbia and several other CP's differentiated between "militants" and those nominal members who went along with Marxism-Leninism but never really embraced it and did little more than vote for the Party. As we know from the histories of the CPSU, of the CPUSA, and many others, in their formative stages, people came from many different backgrounds - some did not really accept Marxism, for example, the Mensheviks of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party. In the differentiation in the world Communist movement that has been taking place for the last few years, there are some parties that refuse to change the old ways. In these cases there have been splits and new formations of various kinds, or they have been replaced by new parties. Given the fluidity of the situation, the new has included more than "reform Communists", conscientiously seeking to creatively develop Marxism, for example: the party that grew out of the Socialist Unity Party of the GDR includes people who have come from the Green movement, etc. In addition there have been some CP's that have been flexible enough to undertake self-examination and changes, and so far, they have, in the main, held together and show some gains. Whether the changes have been enough and what will happen organizationally will require more time to be clear. MORE THAN ONE POSSIBLE WAY n Events could easily convince me that other alternatives may be quicker and surer. Where I want to go is to a Marxist party, - not of the old type, but one which is sufficiently large and such a center of attraction of the left that it can seriously seek to become a mass Party of 500,000 to a million members or more and with a vote commensurately larger. That is not achievable in the near future no matter what may be done. But, if the 50-100,000 socialist-minded people in the U.S. (organized and mainly unorganized in left forms) are brought together in one organization or in close association with it, the ways to begin to build such a mass party begin to come into view. But no matter what is done, bringing the currently socialist-minded together will take time, much discussion, study and experience of joint action. It will involve more than one organizational form and step to accomplish. There is no way to do it directly and in one step. There is history, subjectivities, differences to overcome, especially for the 20,000 or so in and around organized forms. If there were only 25 people in the whole country now ready to join a "reformed Communist Party," not many of us would suggest doing that. We would want to participate in some kind of larger grouping of advanced-thinking people. To go ahead now and form a new "reformed Communist Party" of 600 to 1,000 initially in our huge country is, in my present judgment, not the quickest and surest route. Some of those now around us will move away, not into hostility but toward other avenues, or disperse into the general progressive forces in the country. Others, both the many individuals and organizations who are showing interest or could be interested by another approach, will slow down their movement toward us, their cooperation with us, on one level or another. We should form a national organization that is for a newly defined socialism that grows out of U.S. conditions that looks positively toward Marx, Engels and Lenin and also to other trends in U.S. history, so that socialist-minded people, who are not Marxists, can feel at home and not like second class citizens - where even some on the left who are against capitalism but are not so sure now that socialism is the alternative, will also feel at home. It should lay heavy stress on the interests of labor and the working class, of the nationally oppressed, and of women and all working people. Its composition, especially in leadership and in mode of operation, should reflect this emphasis. It should be internationalist in outlook and stress the importance of democracy. It can embrace a program of immediate demands and strategic concepts, where the sharpest edge is against the most reactionary sector of monopoly - and so forth. It will have to combine effective organization for mass struggle on the issues of the day with a lively internal life of discussion on questions of theory, strategy, policy, organization, and the maximum of democratic functioning. It will need constantly to seek to strengthen its relations with socialist-minded organizations and individuals, especially those who are involved in the mass democratic struggle and develop relations of mutual trust and cooperation, whether or not they decide to affiliate. It must also develop relations of respect and cooperation with as broad an array of democratic movements and forces as possible, but with special emphasis on labor and the working class, the nationally oppressed and women. If done successfully over a period of time, this will prepare the way for a new formation (or formations) of the currently socialist-minded in our country. In founding these, many others will have to have a fully equal place with us. It will not come about by everyone joining what we form, even though what we form now is broadly socialist in its content and approach, and although quite a few will have joined us. THE FIRST STEP n As the first step for now, we will have to see what will fit best for the on-going development of scientific socialism, of Marxism, within it. I am not for a political party now, whether Communist or Socialist. Lenin's argument for why a political party, that we seek political power as a decisive turning-point goal, does not mean you always have to start with that particular organizational form. Marx as we saw, did not; nor did Lenin start a political party with the Emancipation of Labor group. In U.S. conditions, a party means an organization, a major purpose of which is to contest elections. A thousand people are not taken seriously as an electoral party. Whatever its exact form and whatever it is called, it can still initiate candidacies with other forces or alone, where appropriate, without being a "political party". Lastly, some have the view that we should try and encompass the widest possible range of progressive struggle, thought and individuals, and that this should constantly grow broader until it eventually embraces a majority of the people in given localities and in the country as a whole. This is a view that has arisen many times in the history of the left in the USA, and it is quite natural. The distinctions among the spontaneous democratic mass struggle, the left, socialists, and distinctions among those who are socialist-oriented, are not considered that important in figuring out what kind of organization to build. But there is necessarily a mass democratic movement that is not at all socialist in its orientation and that has its own forms of expression from such more permanent organizations as trade unions, the church in the African American community, to ad hoc formations and movements. In the main, it will advance in its understanding through its own experience in struggle and through its own organizational forms but also with the help of the left and socialists, especially Marxists, participating through these same forms and through their own organizations, in coalition with non-left, democratic organizations and movements. Forms of unity that develop in the course of struggle will include coalitions of groups fairly defined, and looser forms along parallel lines rather than toward one all-inclusive organization. The mass democratic movement needs the special contributions of the left and its socialist and Marxist sectors, if in proper relationship. The Marxist and non-Marxist socialists need their own forms to maintain and develop their identity and special contribution. They will make special contributions to the mass democratic movement if they avoid sectarian and dogmatic dangers and are able to learn from the mass movements and avoid elitist arrogance. Any attempt to combine the two in one organizational structure will fail in two respects. It will be too narrow to encompass most of the mass democratic forces and it will be unable to develop its own special contributions of constant help for the advance of the mass movement in a progressive direction and toward the socialist objective. It will be neither here nor there. That doesn't mean there isn't room for broad left formations but they are not a substitute for the mass democratic and the mass democratic movement will not gradually and eventually join the broadly-left formation, even though some day they will come to its politics through their own experience and organizational forms. This is especially so if the broad left properly relates to the mass, and if the socialists and Marxists have their own forms and properly develop relations with all the rest. No one can tell now - there is no scientific basis for knowing - what exact organizational path will be followed and whether it will be the optimum one. But, given the natural desire in the current situation to look around and consider both basics and the more immediate, it does appear that the following steps are likely: 1 l a form, is open to all socialist-minded people and with a Marxist current; 2 l the next step is to open up possibilities for the bulk of the socialist-minded to come together; and 3 l to lay the basis for a mass socialist movement with an increasingly large and influential Marxist current within it. An "increasingly large and influential Marxist current" is not a matter of taking a decision or fiat, only if it proves and re-proves its value every day. As a matter of fact Marxism in the U.S. as it now stands requires cross-fertilization with non-Marxist socialists and progressives to find its way out of dogmatism, isolation and stagnation. These other advanced forces have been more fully involved in democratic mass struggles. By the July Conference, we will not have had the time and opportunity to reach a consensus along the lines suggested. An attempt either to push through this as the path of development, or the immediate establishment of the "reformed CP" type of organization would be without a consensus and would lead to dispersion. Therefore, we should agree to what we can find a consensus on which seems to me to be: 1 l An immediate program of demands and an organizational structure capable of helping us become involved in the main mass struggles and contributing an advanced outlook and commitment while pursuing democratic decision-making; 2 l An agreement on principles for the time being, until there is a consensus for a longer-term approach. Such principles would include those necessary for a socialist-oriented organization, significantly influenced by Marxism; 3 l A reaching out for cooperation with other socialist- minded organizations and individuals, especially those in labor and the nationally oppressed and women's movements, as well as with the broad left and all .democratic forces. 4 l Organization of continued discussion and explorations that can help us arrive at a consensus in a reasonably short time on what remains open as to basic character of organization. There are many other questions that need early consideration, no matter what path is taken. On what basis should primary organizations be formed and how should they function? The CPUSA approach of a meeting every two weeks, mainly to discuss work within other organizations, and the "open face" of the Party, needs major rethinking. Our relations with others should be upfront organization-to-organization and not as a super-executive committee privately operating within other groups. Perhaps a public forum or symposium a month, and a business meeting a month would be more appropriate. There is a need for careful discussion and experimentation because wholesale shifts from what people have been used to may lose many people along the wayside. While city-wide forms and forms fitting areas of interest should be flexibly undertaken, the idea of building a grass- roots neighborhood base remains sound. The impact of city-wide forms must be figured out so that neighborhood- oriented primary organizations do not become lifeless. These and many other such questions need a lot more thought in the process of building the July Conference and the organization that comes out of it. Whatever comes out of July, we will all need to be patient and tolerant of differing views for the sake of unity and building on a different, more lasting basis. o. Danny Rubin