WeeklyWorker

04.04.1996

The common theoretical programme for communists

As the communist rapprochement process develops debates around programme are taking a central place. A seminar series to open the debate to groups on the revolutionary left is being launched in May. The discussion begins in this week’s paper with a contribution from Open Polemic. We welcome others

Communists all over the world share with others the vision of a future society of relative material abundance in which people will be enabled to live in peace and work together in a free association of producers. Unlike the competitive and exploitative class society of capitalism, it is a vision of a classless society to which all can contribute according to their ability and receive according to their needs. Communists have this vision, but what distinguishes them from all others who share this same vision is their understanding that such a society, which they define as the higher phase of communism, cannot be brought about other than through a revolutionary, transitional form of society which they define as the lower phase of communism.

The world revolutionary process for opening and maintaining this lower or socialist phase of communism demands the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism in successive countries and the replacement of the political power of the capitalist class, the bourgeoisie, by the political power of the working class, the proletariat. Bearing to a greater or lesser extent many features of previous capitalist society, these countries can be regarded as relatively immature nation states of the lower phase of communism. As national dictatorships of the proletariat, they are not only placed in immediate and possibly protracted conflict with the power centres of imperialism, they also face the constant prospect of counterrevolution until such time as the lower phase can begin to mature following the overthrow of the capitalist system worldwide.

The proletariat

The proletariat is created by capitalism itself. Its self-emancipation can only come about with the termination of the capitalist system. It is therefore, historically and objectively, the revolutionary class under capitalism. It ranges from those sections of the class that suffer horrendous exploitation and oppression under imperialism to those sections within the imperialist countries themselves that are granted, when politically necessary and economically possible, the right to enjoy a far higher standard of living and a certain level of bourgeois democracy consequent to that exploitation and oppression. The working class is therefore deeply differentiated economically with a sectional political consciousness, which denies it the possibility of realising its own international, revolutionary potential spontaneously.

The revolutionary potential of the international proletariat can only be realised through the united, conscious leadership of its most resolute and politically advanced elements, that is, through the communists of individual countries who exercise their national, leading roles through single, ideologically and highly disciplined parties that are unswerving, disciplined sections of one communist international.

In achieving its own emancipation, the international proletariat also carries the potential to create the conditions for the protection of the planet which is the necessary prerequisite for the survival and liberation of all humanity. This is why communists refer to the present epoch as the epoch of the revolutionary transition from capitalist society, which can destroy humanity, to communist society which can liberate humanity.

Yet today, while communists have this common understanding, they are deeply divided in their views concerning the world revolutionary process and the essential features of this transition period. Across the communist movement, nationally and internationally, there exists the most widespread ideological confusion and theoretical disorder. The resultant political and organisational fragmentation embraces first and further generational splits, as well as the remnants of parent organisations that have managed to avoid complete liquidation. Some generational splits maintain complete independence; others maintain that they are merely factions of the parent organisation; and yet others, after the liquidation of the parent organisation, claim the right of inheritance. Factional splitting has now reached the proportions of an epidemic, to such a degree that there appears to be every prospect of even further fragmentation, exacerbated by the leader centralists of scores of vanguardist internationals and hundreds of national vanguardist organisations.

Particular programmes for the class

Notwithstanding the divisions in the communist movement, there is now some recognition that there is a need to elaborate upon fundamental theoretical questions, in order to draw out the universal lessons from our history. However, in general, the different leader centralists, who still dominate the communist movement, elaborate guiding theories that run in the ruts of particular historical interpretations and the historically specific.

In presuming that they have resolved the main theoretical questions, the leader centralists move prematurely towards the elaboration of particular programmes, setting the one against the others.

Each of their programmatic postulations, without exception, is accompanied by the claim that their particular programme, or something like it, has not only resolved fundamental theoretical questions but also meets the needs of the working class and therefore is non-sectarian. In reality, these postulations are sectarian towards the communist movement for the inevitable result is that they each place the interests of one section above the interests of the whole and further divide the class. It is a form of sectarianism which creates a result opposite to that intended. Ultimately, it works against the needs of the working class for, above all else, the proletariat needs the political and organisational unity of its most advanced elements.

The need at this historical juncture is a non-sectarian polemic between comrades, aimed at the creation by degrees of a common theoretical programme that meets the needs of communists. The formation of a single, future party of a new type in every country - and in this instance this is where the national necessarily precedes the international - must be viewed within the context of this paramount, international task. Whatever the level of communist leadership that may be achieved through action in common among the class, ultimately the needs of the class can only be realised through the leadership of communists who are, firstly, politically organised around their own common theoretical programme. Out of that, and only out of that, will flow the programmes for the class as a whole at the international and national level.

What the programmists in the leadership of the various vanguardist organisations cannot accept is that they are the heart of the problem. Indulging in the production of particular programmes for the class, they routinely satisfy the constant, political demands of practical activism, and thereby, emasculate the theoretical struggle to satisfy the overall needs of the most politically advanced elements of the communist movement.

The attainment and maintenance of their own unity through theoretical struggle still remains as the unavoidable, first task for communists. Without their own unity, communists cannot achieve the position, as first advanced in the Communist Manifesto, where they, theoretically, have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the “line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement”.

Ideological demarcations

We now understand that, in essence, the main demarcation experienced by the First International was between the ideology of Marxism and the ideology of anarchism. This ideological demarcation was, politically and organisationally, finally resolved with the expulsion of Bakunin and his followers from the International. Occurring under particular conditions at a specific historical juncture, it was a demarcation however that carried universal, ideological implications.

The expulsion of the anarchists from the First International was a historically specific act that occurred within a particular historical context. There is now no necessity to refer to the historical specific in order to determine that anarchism has no place within Marxism, for it has been long been theoretically established that anarchism is a revolutionary trend with its own ideology. Our concern today must be primarily with its manifestation in the form of anarcho-communism, which refutes the leading role of the party both prior to and within the national dictatorship of the proletariat.

In essence, the main demarcation in the Russian Party was between the ideology of Marxism-Leninism and the ideology of social-democracy, although these were not terms used in that way at the time. Again, this ideological demarcation occurred under particular conditions at a specific historical juncture but it, also, carried universal, ideological implications that remain pertinent to this day.

The departure of Lenin and others from the Second International was a historically specific act that occurred within a particular historical context. Again, there is now no necessity to refer to the historical specific in order to determine that social democracy has no place within Marxism-Leninism for it has long been theoretically established that social democracy is a reactionary trend with its own ideology. Our concern today must be with the right-revisionist manifestation of Marxism-Leninism which seeks to nullify the leading role of the Party and the necessity for the dictatorship of the proletariat.

In answering historically specific questions concerning the Bakuninists in 1872 and the Mensheviks in 1912, we now do so in the knowledge that, in essence, they were tendencies that represented ideologies in opposition to the ideology of Marxism-Leninism. So before we can answer any subsequent, historically specific question, we must firstly resolve questions concerning the ideological demarcations of today.

Ideology and present demarcations

The solution to the profusion of demarcational complexities that have arisen lies in the development of a strategy for open polemic and communist rapprochement that is directed towards the establishment of a future party through the formulation of a common theoretical programme for communists. As such, it is a strategy that stands opposed to programmist strategies directed towards the establishment of parties through the formulation of particular programmes that will, supposedly, meet the needs of the class. The prerequisite for particular programmes that meet the needs of the class is a common theoretical programme aimed, firstly, at meeting the needs of communists worldwide.

The single, future party of a new type must necessarily be multanimous and historically non-specific but it cannot be non-ideological. Indeed, the lesson to be drawn from the major developments in the history of the international communist movement is that such a party must be thoroughly ideological. It is the revisionists of both the left and the right who seek to liquefy the revolutionary party through non-ideology and thereby, objectively, put into motion the process that leads to its liquidation either prior to or within the dictatorship of the proletariat.

The future party can only be established through the most difficult theoretical struggle for a common theoretical programme determined within the parameters of one revolutionary ideology. The way to resolve ideological confusion and theoretical disorder therefore still lies in the development of open polemic between all comrades within which all questions are addressed with reference to the outlook and fundamentals of the ideology of Marxism-Leninism.

The world revolutionary process

The lower phase of communism is developed through proletarian internationalism and constitutes the necessary transition from capitalism to the communism of the higher phase. It is characterised by the class struggle between the capitalist class and the working class in different countries being internationalised into a world revolutionary process.

By virtue of the absolute law of the uneven political and economic development of capitalism, revolutionary practice inevitably entails the overthrow of the various national dictatorships of the bourgeoisie in different countries and the establishment of a variety of national dictatorships of the proletariat in their place. Marx in his time referred to this aspect of revolutionary practice in terms of the working class in different countries firstly settling accounts with their own bourgeoisie and Lenin in his time referred to it in terms of the victory of socialism occurring in several or even in one country alone.

Today, this process of the national proceeding, while, at the same time, being part of and yet subordinate to the international, requires that the communists of each country need to achieve their own national unity in order to lead their own proletariat into settling accounts with their own bourgeoisie. It is a unity that must be established on a principled internationalist basis if they are not only to settle accounts with their own bourgeoisie but also to establish a national dictatorship of the proletariat which is fully a part of the world revolutionary process.

Marx and the ‘early’ communists as well as Lenin and the ‘early’ Bolsheviks envisaged that national dictatorships of the proletariat, being international in content, would be part of a catalytic, revolutionary wave leading to the complete overthrow of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie internationally. History however took a different turn, to such an extent that communists today are faced with an entirely new situation that had not been foreseen by the founders of Marxism.

Firstly, communists, theoretically, have to deal with the complex and manifold problems concerning the essential features of and the revolutionary role of relatively isolated, national dictatorships of the proletariat within the world revolutionary process and within the context of the global domination of imperialism.

Secondly, communists, theoretically, have to deal with the fact that in the technologically advanced imperialist countries, where the existing material and cultural levels are relatively more advantageous for socialist political and economic development, the working classes have attained a highly privileged political and economic position relative to the rest of the international proletariat. Imperialism is a qualitative development arising from the absolute law of the uneven political and economic development of capitalism. Imperialism is therefore able to generate this privileged stratum of the proletariat within its sphere of influence and use that division to combat the revolutionary process across the world and lay siege to national dictatorships of the proletariat.

The universal and the historically specific

The essential features of national dictatorships of the proletariat, as compared with the international dictatorship of the proletariat and the relationship of the former to the latter, is a pressing and fundamental theoretical question that cannot be resolved around the narrow confines of past, historically specific demarcations. Sectarian attempts to do so work against the possibility of it being resolved.

To advocate a future party of a new type that is historically non-specific does not entail avoidance of the historical lessons that can be drawn from studying the development of the communist movement internationally. On the contrary, it involves studying development in order to draw out the universal lessons, those that have the most pressing relevance for us today. To be historically non-specific therefore does not mean a descent into historical idealism, conciliationism and opportunism. It means focusing upon the historical universal in order to make progress. This raises the question of how historical progress in the revolutionary movement is made.

Firstly, historical progress in the revolutionary movement is not made by simply identifying decisive demarcations between different political perspectives. That is a crucial step, but still only a first step. Progress is made and can only be made through correct political perspectives gaining ascendancy. But it can never be assumed that a political perspective that gains ascendancy must, by virtue of that ascendancy, be correct.

Conversely, decisive demarcations may be identified, but an incorrect political perspective may gain ascendancy and the movement is held back until further demarcations are identified. It follows that a dominant political perspective at any given time may be largely or wholly incorrect, that the key to further progress may lie within a political perspective that is less dominant. Within the democratic centralist party this problem is politically and organisationally resolved through the practice of united action around emergent majority perspectives, around proving, or disproving, theory in practice.

Secondly, the dialectical method in the study of history involves the analysis of the theoretical differences at the centre of past demarcations at particular historical junctures, precisely in order to reveal universal features. A universal thus revealed may, as it did with both anarchism and social democracy, be of such fundamental ideological significance as to necessitate a permanent political and organisational break. It follows that a political perspective that is claimed by its opponents to represent an ideology that is alien to the ideology of Marxism-Leninism must be substantiated by them as such. Crucially, they must substantiate it as an alien ideology independently of the particular conditions pertaining at the specific historical juncture that may have given rise to it. The reverse may also hold true, that certain demarcations may not reveal universals. These are demarcations that are of their time, arising at certain historical junctures under particular conditions that may never appear again, either in form or content.

The common theoretical programme

In the first instance, the origins of the various particular programmes being advanced are generally located in specific interpretations of developments in the international communist movement since the revolution of October 1917. Particular programmes are a general feature of the present period of ideological confusion and theoretical disorder. They tend towards permanency through the discipline imposed by leader centralists whose first concern is to ensure that their particular programme to meet the needs of the class will gain ascendancy. Generally, the role of the members of the vanguardist organisations is to propagate the line of the organisation, not to engage in serious polemic concerning the future of the communist movement; polemic, when it does take place, becomes the prerogative of leader centralists.

Overcoming unnecessary permanency of demarcations does not lie in enabling the present competitive, programmatic struggle to persist but in perhaps a more democratic and orderly fashion. Fundamental demarcations among advanced workers, among communists, among Marxist-Leninists cannot be resolved by any premature attempt to elaborate a particular programme to meet the needs of the class.

All particular programmes aimed at meeting the needs of the class assume particular views concerning the foundational outlook and fundamental principles of the revolutionary party and, most importantly, every particular programme unavoidably takes a particular theoretical view concerning the essential features of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Likewise, the attempt to achieve agreement between certain vanguardist organisations on a particular programme to meet the needs of the class through the notion of non-ideology will persistently flounder upon theoretical questions that remain unresolved.

Objectively, all attempts to achieve the political and organisational unity of communists through the notion of non-ideology act against the revolutionary interest, for they avoid the overriding need to elaborate a common theoretical programme for communists.

The need in this period is to devise political and organisational structures to enable Marxist-Leninists to elaborate a common theoretical programme as the basis for the eventual establishment of the future party of a new type. This requires the effacing among Marxist-Leninists of differences which are purely vested in historical specificity.

Many will be unable to accept this and will continue to cling to their past. Those that are prepared to accept this are already being joined by others who have no personal links with our past. Together they can constitute the core of a new generation of communists who will be capable of generating action in common to meet the immediate needs of the class while they continue with the formidable task of elaborating a common theoretical programme as the basis for establishing a historically non-specific and multanimous, future party of a new type.

Elaborating a common theoretical programme

The collective responsibility for the elaboration of a common theoretical programme for communists as the basis for establishing a future party of a new type lies with those who understand the necessity for such a programme. It lies with those who reject sectarian, premature postulations of particular programmes to meet the needs of the class, whether they stem from single organisations or groups of organisations.

In the struggle against the left and right revisionism that is permeating a disintegrating communist movement, the common theoretical programme must openly affirm the universal applicability of the ideology of Marxism-Leninism and, in this context, it will need to:

The programme will need to recognise that capitalism represents uneven economic development and that the lower phase of communism ultimately represents the struggle to even out of economic development. This will entail the planned conservation and use of the world’s resources in order to achieve the material abundance necessary for the higher phase of communism and the realisation of the liberation of humanity.

Alongside the further elaboration of the foundational outlook and the fundamental principles in the universal and international context, there is a need to address fundamental matters concerning the overthrow of the capitalist class in the union state of Britain and the particular features of the dictatorship of the proletariat here. Other fundamental matters may also need to be introduced into the polemic around a common theoretical programme.

However, the premature introduction of other matters, specifically those that pertain to the question of a particular programme and which can be resolved by majority vote following the establishment of the party, can actually hinder the process of communist rapprochement. Given our present fragmented state, such matters are best introduced as proposals into the process of communist action in common.

The first task for Marxist-Leninists in Britain is the elaboration of their common theoretical programme, for it is that which constitutes the foundation of the revolutionary programme for the class.

Open Polemic