2006/04/29 - LeftSpot: FRSO [Marxist-Leninist] is Not Revisionist

This essay first appeared in April 2006 as a comment on Potawatomie Creek blog. It was written in response to Nelson H's post, FRSO's Descent into Revisionism. I'm reprinting it here because it has become buried deep in the archives on its original website and I think the debate brings out some important points in addressing questions relating to revisionism in the US communist movement as well as clarifying some differences between the two groups that go by the name Freedom Road Socialist Organization, the Left Refoundationist group and the Marxist-Leninist group.

I'd like to get back to the original question posed in Nelson's post: is FRSO [Marxist-Leninist] "descending into revisionism"?

I think the answer is unequivocally 'no'.

For the sake of clarity, I'm going to refer to the two FRSO's here as FRSO [Marxist-Leninist] and FRSO [Left Refoundationist]. FRSO [ML] is the one at www.frso.org and FRSO [LR] is the one at www.freedomroad.org. I put [ML] and [LR] in brackets since I am adding that; neither group uses these as part of their name. I'm writing this as a supporter of the politics of FRSO [Marxist-Leninist]. I don't speak for them, and any misstatements of their line or errors here are mine.

What evidence does Nelson garner to try to make the case that FRSO [ML] is 'descending into revisionism'? First, that that FRSO [ML] does not uphold the Crisis of Socialism statement. Second, that FRSO [ML] refers to north Korea and China as socialist countries. And third, that FRSO [M-L] refers to the 1989 Tiananmen Square student uprising in China as an attempted counterrevolution.

Nelson raises some other issues (position on 2004 election, 'teleological posturing') that I'll address after these main ones.

First, I'd say that it's interesting that a supporter of FRSO [Left Refoundationist] would accuse FRSO [ML] of 'revisionism'. Because 'left refoundationism' itself is about as textbook a case of revisionism as one could think of. Left refoundationism fundamentally negates ('revises') the Marxist-Leninist view of the revolutionary party, in favor of a hazily-defined amalgam of socialist groups and individuals. Left refoundationism is eclecticism defined.

I have heard of the Left Refoundationist supporters refer to FRSO [ML]'s politics as 'Stalinist' and 'orthodox', but before Nelson's post I don't remember having heard supporters of Left Refoundation make the claim that they are the true anti-revisionists and that FRSO [ML] is revisionist. I don’t think they have much ground to stand on, organizationally or politically, in throwing the charge of 'revisionism' around.

The Crisis of Socialism

It is true that FRSO [ML] does not uphold the statement on the Crisis of Socialism. Nelson seems to think this statement embodies anti-revisionism, and therefore FRSO [ML] not upholding it is evidence of revisionism. While the statement makes some good points, its overall verdict on socialism in the 20th century is defeatist and is fundamentally wrong. The worst error of the Crisis statement is that it sums up all the efforts of socialist revolution in the 20th century as an overall failure. I quote:

"overall the experience of building socialism in the Soviet Union must be summed up as a failure. All subsequent socialist revolutions have drawn to a great extent from the Soviet model, and the crisis of socialism is not confined to the Soviet Union."

This is straight-up wrong, and is drenched in the confusion and defeatism that much of the U.S. left succumbed to around 1991 when the statement was first adopted. This line writes off as a failure all the gains that were made and new ground that was broken in the experience of almost half the population of the world in building socialism in the 20th century.

The Crisis statement also puts forward this odd formulation: "Generally speaking, while the world's peoples hate imperialism, they fear socialism." Do the folks in FRSO [Left Refoundationist] really believe this to be true in 2006? Even if one claims it was true for a brief historical moment in the early 1990s, it is clearly untrue in 2006 (as large sections of Latin America move sharply left, as 'socialists' get elected in various countries, as the CPN(M) verges on revolution in Nepal, etc.) The Crisis statement doesn’t show any way out of the supposed crisis of socialism; followed to its logical conclusion, the only way out is to reject Marxism-Leninism and adopt a different kind of ideology. Indeed, Left Refoundationism was originally pitched inside FRSO as a post-Leninist theory (see www.frso.org/about/theses.html)

Socialist Countries?

Nelson also points to FRSO [Marxist-Leninist]'s line that Cuba, China, north Korea, Vietnam and Laos are socialist countries as supposed evidence of FRSO [M-L]'s revisionism.

Well, as 'lao hong han', who I believe is a supporter of FRSO [Left Refoundationist] wrote in a comment on Comrade Zero's blog (see www.comradezero.blogspot.com/2006/04/on-anti-revisionism-and-unity-in.html ), "It is not the case that the Freedom Road Socialist Organization / Organización Socialista del Camino para la Libertad--as distinct from FRSO [Fight Back]--argues that there are no actually existing socialist countries. FRSO/OSCL adopted a resolution at (IIRC) its 1997 Congress upholding Cuba as a socialist country. This has never, to my knowledge, been rescinded."

So, if FRSO [Marxist-Leninist] is revisionist for upholding Cuba, then FRSO [Left Refoundationist] is too. (or as I believe, they are both correct in upholding Cuba as a socialist country).

And if they believe that Cuba is socialist, I would ask what FRSO [Left Refoundationist] sees as the distinction between the political economy of Cuba and that of, say, Vietnam, and why one is allegedly socialist and the other is allegedly capitalist. But I don't imagine that FRSO [Left Refoundationist] has a worked out organizational line on such questions.

I think it's one of the drawbacks of a 'left refoundationist' type of approach, that it can easily end up in eclecticism, rather than having a coherent line that can be proven right or wrong in practice. So for example Cuba is called 'socialist' in a resolution at one Congress, but all countries that drew on the Soviet model are summed up as an overall failure in the 'Crisis of Socialism' document. So is Cuba a socialist country to be upheld, or is it an overall failure that therefore provides mainly negative lessons, or is it an overall failure that is to be, for some reason, upheld anyway?

As for north Korea, China, and Laos, does FRSO [Left Refoundationist] have a line on these countries? Or does it have no organizational line but individuals have a range of views on them?

As for Tiananmen in 1989, would anyone deny that there were forces prominent, including some of the leadership, in the 1989 student movement that were aiming for Western-style capitalism? And that forces within the Chinese Communist Party that supported moving toward Western-style capitalism were working very closely with, and supporting, the protests? Clearly there was more to Tiananmen than that, and I don’t claim to do justice here to the complex and contradictory nature of all the forces involved. But it’s not incorrect to say that those events were supported by powerful forces (within and outside the CCP, and within and outside of China) that were aiming toward the overthrow of the Communist Party and toward the adoption of Western-style 'democracy' and capitalism. In other words, counterrevolution.

What is Revisionism?

Revisionism is the revision (in fact the negation) of the revolutionary core of Marxism, while still claiming to uphold Marxism. The main revisionist attacks on Marxism have historically been attacks on proletarian internationalism (support for one’s own ruling class during World War I); denial or revision of the Leninist theory of imperialism (Kautsky and 'super-imperialism', for example); denial of the need for communist organization, and denial of the need for a Leninist party (various anarchist, Trot and social democratic critics); the belief in peaceful transition to socialism (Second International, Khrushchev, etc), and also very importantly, the negation of the necessity of the dictatorship of the proletariat (myriad social democrats and right opportunists claim to be Marxists but are against the dictatorship of the proletariat).

Is FRSO [Marxist-Leninist] guilty of any of these things? The answer is 'no'. In fact FRSO [Marxist-Leninist] is notable in clearly opposing all of the above revisionist dangers. Unlike the left refoundationists, FRSO [ML] clearly upholds the Leninist model of a party. And FRSO [ML] is working toward the creation of a new Communist Party based on Marxism-Leninism that can lead revolution in the U.S. I don’t think anybody familiar with it can deny the exemplary internationalist solidarity work that FRSO [ML] participates in and leads, around Iraq, Palestine, Colombia, the Philippines, and anywhere that the people are fighting for liberation. That work is done on a consistent, anti-imperialist basis. FRSO [ML] clearly supports a revolutionary road to socialism – and actively supports the forces around the world fighting for liberation and socialism.

FRSO [ML] correctly identified the revisionist potential in the Crisis of Socialism statement. While the statement itself still uses the term 'dictatorship of the proletariat', the line there can be easily interpreted to in fact be a negation of the dictatorship of the proletariat that is virtually indistinguishable from earlier social democratic or anarchist critiques of Marxism-Leninism. And that is where some ultimately went with it – the need to "refound" based on something besides Marxism-Leninism.

For example, the Crisis of Socialism statement says this: "The dictatorship of the proletariat is at heart the ever-expanding organization, expression and, when necessary, enforcement of the popular will at all levels of society, in order to gradually eliminate classes and exploitation. Strengthening this class dictatorship--and not the state apparatus itself--is the essence of the socialist transition, and mass socialist democracy--not state repression--must be its linchpin. We identify socialism first and foremost not simply with public ownership of the means of production, but with the cultivation of mass participation in and control over economic, political and social institutions and structures."

On the one hand, the general sentiment expressed here is good – socialism is about the people themselves taking control over their lives and over all aspects of society. Right on. But the vague pro-people sentiment of anarchism is also good in general; the line put forward here is virtually indistinguishable from 150 year old anarchist and idealist critiques of Marx. This line sounds good but doesn't provide any new insight about how to deal with the real, difficult contradictions that communists have faced and will continue to face in fighting for power and when they are in power. It sounds intriguing, but what does it really mean to "strengthen the class dictatorship and not the state apparatus itself"?

The second part of this quote is carefully worded, but it comes dangerously close to removing Marxism from it's historical materialist basis. By saying that socialism is not first and foremost identified with the economic base (such as public ownership of the means of production) but instead primarily with "cultivation of mass participation and control..." (superstructure), it borders on placing itself outside of 150 years of Marxist understanding of the historical development of productive forces and production relations, and how the development of productive forces and changes in production relations creates the basis for proletarian revolution and socialism. I don’t think this is necessarily what the statement intends, but I think it’s an ultraleft position (identifying the superstructure as essentially primary over the base under socialism), which they share with the RCP.

Mao deepened the Marxist understanding of how under certain conditions, changes in the superstructure can reflect back on and help bring about changes in the base. That can work both ways – pushing things forward to advance socialism, or driving things backwards toward capitalism. But it is taking things too far and is an error to then identify socialism primarily as a question of superstructure. Yes, errors and revisionist policies in the superstructure can cause great damage and are a great danger to socialism, paving the way for the restoration of capitalism. And it will not be possible to advance from socialism toward communism without the broad masses (not just the party) actively participating and pushing things forward. No doubt. But when socialist countries make mistakes or follow erroneous (and even revisionist) lines, or even follow policies that are erroneously repressive, they do not immediately become capitalist countries because of it.

So does upholding Cuba, Vietnam, China, north Korea and Laos as socialist make FRSO [Marxist-Leninist] guilty of revisionism? No.

They are countries that had socialist revolutions, and that exist in a world surrounded by imperialism. FRSO [ML]'s view on the socialist countries recognizes that there is class struggle under socialism, and that there are serious contradictions within those societies (like in all societies). Two documents put out by the Workers Party of Belgium (with which FRSO [ML] generally shares a good deal of unity) addressing the questions of revisionism and the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union, "Proposal for the Unification of the International Communist Movement" (see www.wpb.be/icm/95enprop.htm) and "On Certain Aspects of the Struggle Against Revisionism" (see www.wpb.be/icm/2005/selected_reading_list/Dir95_India_Seminary_LudoM_1995_EN.doc), make clear that Khrushchev and those that came after him generally advocated and implemented revisionist lines and policies that weakened socialism in the USSR and weakened and divided the international communist movement (with some nuances and complexities of course). The above-named documents correctly identify revisionism as the main danger to the international communist movement. What happened in the USSR and Eastern Europe bears that out.

But there is a difference between on the one hand recognizing that there is revisionism inside a party and that there is a two-line struggle within a party for the capitalist or socialist road, and on the other hand claiming that the economic base of the society has reverted to capitalism or that the law of value dominates in a country that claims to be socialist. And there is a responsibility to overall defend the gains of socialist revolution from attacks that would overturn those gains entirely and hand the country over to imperialism and bring about Western-style capitalism, as happened in the Soviet Union.

That is not revisionism. That is carrying out an internationalist duty to defend the gains of socialist revolution, even in cases where they have been seriously compromised and weakened by revisionism.

'Teleological Posturing'

Nelson doesn't like the language in some recent FRSO [ML] statements, referring to 'teleological posturing'. I had to look up what that meant. Here's wikipedia's definition: "Teleology: (telos: end, purpose) is the supposition that there is design, purpose, directive principle, or finality in the works and processes of nature, and the philosophical study of that purpose." Nelson uses as examples the following quotes from recent FRSO [ML] statements: "victory [over the Bush agenda] is certain" and "time is always on the side of the oppressed - and time is an enemy of all systems heading for extinction." Well, if you want to throw out anything with 'teleological' tinges, with 'revolutionary optimism' that proclaims that history is moving toward socialism and then communism, you’d have to throw out Marx, Lenin and Mao entirely. There’s not even a need to cite quotes from them – if you've read them you know what I mean. And by the way it's true, capitalism is heading for extinction -- either through socialist revolution or through the extinction of the human species that capitalism may bring about.

The 2004 Election

Nelson says he agrees with FRSO [ML]'s "Dump Bush" line on the 2004 election, but he expresses surprise that FRSO took this line. First I think it's important to say that an organization claiming to want to lead a socialist revolution should be reasonably expected to take a coherent position and provide some leadership to mass movements on key questions of the day. Not necessarily on every question, but at least on the big ones.

The 2004 election was certainly a "key question of the day" for the left in the US. Every group I know of took some position or approach to it, except FRSO [Left Refoundationist]. Why didn't the Left Refoundationists put out a public position on the election? I can only figure it's because they don’t have political unity. Nelson expresses agreement with FRSO [ML]’s line of "Dump Bush". Meanwhile another prominent person associated with the Left Refoundationists publicly and repeatedly took a sharp line against voting for Kerry to dump Bush.

To me this drives home the problem with the Left Refoundationist approach for a revolutionary organization, as opposed to democratic centralism and other basic M-L organizational principles. If your members and close supporters are putting out different positions on such a key question of the day, how are you providing leadership that the people can even understand, let alone take up? A "Dump Bush" line may have been correct or incorrect (I agree with Nelson that it was correct), but at least it's a coherent position that can be carried out and summed up afterward. FRSO [Left Refoundationist]'s inability to carry out a coherent approach on the 2004 elections is not a good sign.

Nelson is surprised that FRSO [ML] took a "dump Bush" line on the 2004 elections, since I guess he expected a more dogmatic or ultraleft approach. All I can say is that FRSO [ML] is using Marxism to assess time, place and conditions. I think it's clear in retrospect that FRSO's line was basically correct. They didn't campaign for Kerry (and thus spread illusions), but they were able to see that a defeat for Bush in 2004 would have been a good thing for the people's movements. To me FRSO's "dump Bush" line speaks well of the group’s ability to use the mass line, to unite with the anti-Bush sentiment among the advanced while refusing to spread illusions about Kerry and the Dems. FRSO put out the "dump Bush" line consistently throughout it's work. To me that is a good sign that FRSO [ML] is using the basic tools of Marxism-Leninism to guide their work.

Conclusion

I think Nelson is wrong that FRSO [ML] is revisionist. FRSO [ML] has successfully steered away from the many varieties of revisionism that have confounded many other groups. I think that compared to the alternatives, FRSO [ML] is the most advanced revolutionary organization in the US. FRSO [ML] is grounded in proletarian internationalism and Marxism-Leninism, incorporating key contributions of Mao Zedong and the Chinese revolution. FRSO [ML] engages in dynamic mass work using the mass line better than anyone else on the US left (to be fair, FRSO [Left Refoundationist] has some mass work I’m familiar with that is also very good). FRSO [ML] maintains a regular bilingual publication (Fight Back Newspaper www.fightbacknews.org) that highlights advanced experience in mass struggles around the country and world. And FRSO [ML] sees the need for Leninist organization and is building toward a new communist party to lead revolution in the US. That is not revisionism – that is Marxism-Leninism.

Posted by leftspot
4/29/2006 03:09:01 AM