First as Tragedy, Then as Farce: The Legacy of the Revolutionary Communist Party’s Revisionism in the US “Maoist” Movement Today - 2 - for debate

 2

On Avakianism in the US

Avakian and the Revolutionary Communist Party attempted to defend Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and the left line in the CPC in a period of retreat and the restoration of capitalism in former socialist countries. But they misunderstood a lot of the lessons from the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution and deviated immensely — eventually becoming an outright revisionist cult of personality around Bob Avakian that rejects Marxism. Ex-cadre from the Revolutionary Communist Party who are training the new generation in the US still carry over the same mistakes of the Revolutionary Communist Party and Bob Avakian. The confusing and off-putting secrecy policies inherited from the Revolutionary Union serve to isolate the leadership of each present “Maoist” sect from criticism and accountability. This has led to the US “Maoist” movement’s inability to learn from attempts to constitute a Communist party in the US and to individuals mechanically applying the Revolutionary Union’s strategy for party building.

The Maoist Communist Union document Growing as a Pre-Party Organization and the Development of MCU’s Political Line calls Maoist Communist Union a “pre-party organization” in the title, but in the body of the document they say:

“On the last point, we must develop an extremely clear and concrete understanding of the popular revisionist and opportunist theories and trends so that we can critique them and win over those who otherwise might be swayed by these trends. Lenin and other early Russian Marxists waged a pitched theoretical battle against Narodnism, to win as many potential revolutionaries to Marxism as possible. To do so they developed a very sharp theoretical critique of Narodnism and its specific analysis of Russian society. This was essential to win over those who might otherwise have been convinced of the correctness of Narodnism. Therefore, we must not limit our theoretical work to critique of various negative trends—especially the most popular and influential—but also carry out extensive Marxist-Leninist-Maoist analysis of contemporary events and developments. Lenin’s Development of Capitalism in Russia is a crucial example of just how important this sort of analysis is in the growth and development of a pre-Party formation.”

Maoist Communist Union is clearly articulating an Avakianite revision of how parties are historically constituted. No Communist party has been successfully constituted with the idea of a “pre-party formation” because this idea is simply two combines into one applied to party-building. The idea of “pre-party formation” attempts to force together a revolutionary organization with a mass organization in the hopes of commanding underdeveloped cadre into the revolutionary organization. The “pre-party formation” concept explicitly demands the premature creation of a democratic centralist organization to use as a means for developing correct strategy and tactics. The hope is to lure a section of the spontaneous mass movement, “Bolshevize” them, and turn their opportunism into an organized, material force.

Every “Maoist” group in the US has articulated this “pre-party formation” line at one point or another — The Red Guards and their various splits, Maoist Communist Group and Brooklyn Revolutionary Collective, Maoist Communist Party, Organization of Communist Revolutionaries (who previously tried to build a US-Canada Communist party – two combines into one again), and now Maoist Communist Union. All are guided by ex-Revolutionary Communist Party cadre who still hold onto these ideas after leaving the Revolutionary Communist Party. What this appears to be is petit bourgeois careerism disguised as anti-revisionist politics. It is raising the red flag to oppose the red flag for the 21st Century.

Beyond Avakianism: Communist Party-Building in the US

Rather than the Avakianism that has passed for “Maoism” in the US thus far, a national network of organizations with an organ for debates around the correct Communist party-building line in the US must be formed and it must struggle to win over members to the correct MLM line on burning questions of revolutionary forces and the working class in the US. Different views of party-building must be published by the organ and struggled with so that we may unify around the correct line of party-building. We must struggle over what to do while uniting those willing and able to do it here in the US. At the same time we must recognize our international line to be important for principled struggle during the party-building process and should not be criteria for membership in the party-building network. What is principal is unity in aims and means here in the US — Communist party-building and effectiveness at correctly raising workers’ revolutionary consciousness. Our efforts must go to uniting around party-building so that we can struggle through theory and common practice for a Communist party. Two lines will struggle in party-building and it is only through the course of united, open democratic struggle can the correct line be centralized and a party be built. Unity-struggle-unity is the method for Communist party-building, not struggle-unity-struggle.

Lenin — in the context of many different circles, localism, and disunity in the working class movement of 1900 Russia — said it was premature to form the Communist party at that moment. Circles must first unite around party-building and certain important questions of Marxism in the context of Russia before a party can be formed. Only once this initial step in the unity-struggle-unity process is undertaken can we begin drawing lines of demarcation and proving them in social practice. To quote Lenin fully in Declaration of the Editorial Board of Iskra:

“...We Russian Social-Democrats must unite and direct all our efforts towards the formation of a strong party...What plan of activity must we adopt to revive the Party on the firmest possible basis?

The reply usually made to this question is that it is necessary to elect a new central Party body and instruct it to resume the publication of the Party organ. But in the period of confusion through which we are now passing, such a simple method is hardly expedient.

To establish and consolidate the party means to establish and consolidate unity among all Russian Social-Democrats, and, for the reasons indicated above “an ideological wavering...an infatuation with the fashionable ‘criticism of Marxism’ and with ‘Bernsteinism,’ the spread of the views of the so-called ‘economist’ trend such unity cannot be decreed, it cannot be brought about by a decision, say, of a meeting of representatives; it must be worked for. In the first place, it is necessary to work for solid ideological unity... and to this end it is, in our opinion, necessary to have an open and all-embracing discussion of the fundamental questions of principle and tactics raised by the present-day “economists,” Bernsteinians, and “critics.” Before we can unite (in a party), and in order that we may unite, we must first of all draw firm and definite lines of demarcation. Otherwise, our unity will be purely fictitious, it will conceal the prevailing confusion and hinder its radical elimination.”

Practical unity around the necessity of Communist party-building and Marxism is needed before lines of demarcation can be drawn around the methods of getting to the Communist party. The purpose of demarcation is to clear up questions facing the party-building movement in order to win over forces to the correct line and overcome the incorrect line through social practice. There is no ability to demarcate without unity. Walling ourselves off in prematurely “democratic-centralist” sects acting as “the party” with no common social practice through which methods can be widely analyzed and determined correct leads to a whole host of problems including sectarianism, commandism, and degeneration (see all “pre-party formations” of the New Communist Movement in the US — most notably Revolutionary Union/Revolutionary Communist Party). If we fail to learn from history, we are condemned to repeat it.

To first unite around party-building, we look to the advanced (meaning Marxist-Leninist-Maoists) and the intermediate (those who are not clear on MLM but support socialist revolution and see the need for a Communist party in the US). Both must be united and struggled with to win the intermediate over to the correct program. MLM must be constantly elaborated and introduced into the working class movement until the working class movement understands socialist revolution and Communism as the only solution to the problems facing them and the masses. The working class movement in the US since the descent of the CPUSA into Browderism has failed to rise above spontaneity and trade union consciousness. It is the Communists’ job to raise the working class movement to revolutionary consciousness and unite revolutionaries around a program for revolution in a Communist party. This will take nationally-coordinated efforts to investigate the concrete conditions of the US and analyze all classes and contradictions in society to come to an all-round understanding of the situation facing revolutionaries. Only through exposures in social practice and effective agitation and propaganda can Communists convince the proletariat and masses of the need for a Communist party.

It is helpful to revisit Lenin in Where to Begin? on how to get to a Communist party:
“With the aid of the newspaper, and through it, a permanent organisation will naturally take shape that will engage, not only in local activities, but in regular general work, and will train its members to follow political events carefully, appraise their significance and their effect on the various strata of the population, and develop effective means for the revolutionary party to influence these events. The mere technical task of regularly supplying the newspaper with copy and of promoting regular distribution will necessitate a network of local agents of the united party, who will maintain constant contact with one another, know the general state of affairs, get accustomed to performing regularly their detailed functions in the All-Russian work, and test their strength in the organisation of various revolutionary actions. This network of agents will form the skeleton of precisely the kind of organisation we need—one that is sufficiently large to embrace the whole country; sufficiently broad and many-sided to effect a strict and detailed division of labour; sufficiently well tempered to be able to conduct steadily its own work under any circumstances, at all “sudden turns”, and in face of all contingencies; sufficiently flexible to be able, on the one hand, to avoid an open battle against an overwhelming enemy, when the enemy has concentrated all his forces at one spot, and yet, on the other, to take advantage of his unwieldiness and to attack him when and where he least expects it... If we join forces to produce a common newspaper, this work will train and bring into the foreground, not only the most skillful propagandists, but the most capable organisers, the most talented political party leaders capable, at the right moment, of releasing the slogan for the decisive struggle and of taking the lead in that struggle.”

Building a party follows once local and national work in the aforementioned network around a theoretical organ creates a “skeleton” of what a Communist party should be — an organization capable of propagating the proletarian vanguard’s ideas and experience in successfully leading struggles nationwide. Only after this network and organ has created the necessary conditions for a Communist party can one be built. Once the “skeleton” has been built and its work has reached a qualitative level that it outgrows this “skeleton,” this organization must dissolve itself and constitute itself as a Communist party as was the case with Iskra and the formation of the CPSU. Bitter struggles over concrete lines will occur in the party-building process, but only in this process can a Communist party be built. When certain conditions are met, the “skeleton” created in this process must cast off its old organizational form and create a new form historically suited for waging revolution — the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist (Communist) party.

The method of building this Communist party is not absorbing other groups and their leadership around a vague unity of ideas in “study groups” and isolated, substandard practice, but struggling for concrete unity in ideas and action — meaning successful application of correct ideas in social practice. This takes many forms, but must be principally concentrated on the advanced (mostly industrial proletariat, but other sections of the proletariat and masses too) and intermediate (petit bourgeoisie and other vacillating forces) while isolating the backwards (misleaders in petit bourgeois sects, bourgeois unions, and the bourgeoisie).

Contrary to the “pre-party formation” concept (or “intermediate organization”), the process of party-building is not a quantitative accumulation of forces by fusion with other groups that leads to a qualitative development into the Communist party. Instead, it is a process of unity-struggle-unity that develops qualitatively before quantitatively. A Communist party is not a party because it declares itself so or it meets a certain threshold of members — a Communist party is only a party when it has unity around aims and means, a program, democratic centralism, a constitution, and the form capable of successful local and national work. It must be able to concretely explain the exploitation of the working class, the oppression of all classes under capitalism, and the need for revolution through all-round political education that inspires action. Quantitative expansion of the Communist party is based on qualitative development. Membership in Communist parties has historically vacillated until contradictions in society sharpen class struggle to the point where more and more masses are won over to Communism. We will start small in number and at many times be small, but as we are able to successfully seize on openings to expose the contradictions of capitalism on a local and national scale and chart a path forward in the interest of proletariat, we will grow in size until we can achieve our goal of revolution.

In Lenin and Mao’s time, the party-building network’s theoretical organ was a revolutionary newspaper. Many people do not read newspapers today. Many people listen to podcasts and read blogs. A podcast/blog with contributors who have proven themselves revolutionary in theory and practice should be the goal today. The contributors engage in local work across the US and regularly summarize/analyze their efforts via this theoretical organ. The correct analysis of conditions in the United States and the correct strategy and tactics for a Communist party must be openly struggled for in the network and its organ. Podcast episodes and blog articles from this organ contribute to the formation of the “skeleton” party-building network that leads to a Communist party based on Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. This organ and “skeleton” party-building network will eventually dissolve itself when a qualitative leap has been made that necessitates a new form of organization. In this process, the “skeleton” must be careful to avoid opportunistic fusion with groups or individuals. The “skeleton” maintains its principles and unites around aims and means and ability to successfully apply theory in social practice. Sacrifices on principles for political expediency in party-building must be avoided at all costs. There is no shortcut to building a Communist party, only protracted and arduous struggle to convince a large section of the US of Maoist aims and means in practice.

Final Thoughts

My hope is that in writing and distributing this article widely I can help scattered forces in the US party-building movement better appraise the situation in the US and avoid making the mistakes of the Revolutionary Union and Revolutionary Communist Party. The “Maoist” movement in the US today is nothing but a funhouse mirror reflection of the New Communist Movement of the late 1960s to 1980s. In the US there has been no genuine Communist party clearly and correctly articulating a line for socialist revolution since before the Communist Party USA turned to Browderism — but many groups, circles, cadre organizations, and “pre-party formations” are heavily influenced by the Revolutionary Communist Party’s revisionism. Avakian’s ideas persist in all aspects of the US “Maoist” movement because certain ex-Revolutionary Communist Party elements continue to have sway in a number of “Maoist” organizations in the US. When using concepts such as “pre-party formation,” “intermediate organization,” and “mass perspective” these organizations are articulating a sly imitation of Marxism — a “New Synthesis” of Trotsky and Althusser in place of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. Simply put, it is revisionism. We in the US need to make a complete break with revisionism, but in particular Avakianism as it manifests in the “Maoist” movement today.

The revisionist philosophy of “two combines into one” has prevented forces in the US from constructing a genuine Marxist-Leninist-Maoist party after the collapse of the Communist Party USA into revisionism and reformism with Browderism. The Revolutionary Union was not able to centralize the correct ideas from the Report to the Ninth Party Congress of the CPC in The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China and has degenerated into a revisionist cult of personality around Bob Avakian and his rejection of the science of the proletariat — Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.

The US “Maoist” movement since the Revolutionary Union has failed to form a Maoist party and continuously elaborate and introduce Marxism-Leninism-Maoism into the working class movement. It is up to genuine Marxist-Leninist-Maoist forces in the US to come to terms with the fact that the “Maoist” movement here is neither “Maoist” or a movement, but a small sect of petit bourgeois academics using a revisionist distortion of Marxism from ex-Revolutionary Communist Party cadre to gain influence and promote their ideas for internet clout and donations. The effect is suppression of the correct understanding of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and the inability of forces in the US to constitute a Communist party based on Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.

Our task today is to form a nationwide Communist party-building network with an organ for continuously waging line struggle around party-building and the working class movement. Only once this network and organ develop to a level of quality can a Communist party be built. Our guide should principally be the Russian experience of the party-building, as it took place in a capitalist country and the US today is an imperialist country. The Chinese Revolution also offers many lessons, but the Chinese party was formed under semi-feudal, semi-colonial conditions much different than the US today. Either party-building experience must not be mechanically copied and pasted onto the US situation. The process of party-building requires creative application of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism to our present conditions in the US. We cannot revise or shortcut our way to a Communist party.

i Althusser is an eclectic French academic who came up with his own unique brand of revisionism by “revisiting Marx” and associating himself with Maoism while preaching “social anarchism.” One of his most pernicious ideas is the “epistemological break” he claims exists between young Marx and old Marx. He says young Marx did not advocate for a party, while old Marx said we need a party. Althusser uses this to say we need to go back to ”young Marx,” revising Marx on the basis of having discovered a “new epistemological break” and inserting all kinds of idealism like “Ideological State Apparatuses,” “formations,” “conjuncture,” etc. Similarly, Avakian says he has made an “epistemological break“ from Marxism-Leninism-Maoism with his “New Communism.” Althusser (Avakian and J. Moufawad Paul too) uses the Marxist concept of “apparatus” incorrectly to say there is a plurality of “apparatuses”: a “repressive state apparatus” and many contending “ideological state apparatuses,” putting ideology on the same plane as the State when ideology is a tool used by the State — not the State itself. Althusser separates ideology from the superstructure’s relation to the economic base so that “superstructure” becomes a plurality of “autonomous apparatuses” on the same plane — completely distorting the Marxist concept of the State. This is an idealist muddle of the relation between base and superstructure. Althusser says the realm of ideology is the site of class struggle, rather than social practice — specifically in the struggle for production. This is idealism and rationalism, or divorcing theory from social practice. Furthermore, his idea of “formation” is so broad and meaningless it is used to describe everything from a locale in town or countryside to the nation and a political party (Communist or otherwise). Even more puzzling is Althusser’s claim that Communism exists in interviews, churches, and futbol games. All of Althusser’s sloppy and anti-Marxist ideas come together in what he calls a “problematique.” Maoist Communist Union does not even hide their adherence to Avakian, Lenny Wolff, and Badiou, who all uphold Althusser’s ideas.