Date: Tue, 20 Aug 96 09:55 BST-1
From: sumo-AT-cix.compulink.co.uk (Ian Nicol)
Subject: == No Subject ==              


Re:OP Broadsheet 5 Part 1
Advance from Vanguardism

Organise Communist Rapprochement


When it was established in 1990, the Editorial Board of Open Polemic 
unequivocally adopted what it understood to be the scientific ideology of 
Marxism-Leninism, in the recognition that the communist movement as a 
whole and not just particular segments of it, was in a deepening state of 
ideological confusion and theoretical disorder. If the revolutionary 
movement was to advance, the resolving of demarcations across and within 
the various segments, leading to the eventual integration of the 
movement, was essential and this demanded the development of an open 
polemic between communists at the highest possible, theoretical level.


Polemic and Marxism-Leninism


To have attempted to initiate an open polemic among all those who simply 
called themselves communist, would have been a quite pointless exercise 
on the part of Open Polemic. If polemic around a communist, scientific 
ideology was to take place at the highest possible level, that ideology 
needed to be defined and objective criteria established. This was 
necessary in order to determine who were qualified to participate. It 
could not be left open to possible opportunist manoevering. 

Perhaps the main problem with using the term Marxism-Leninism is that 
certain revolutionaries claim it is a scientific ideology that is 
exclusive to them, with the consequent response that certain other 
revolutionaries disclaim it. The term Marxism-Leninism however does 
indicate that it is not a fixed ideology, that it  can be further 
developed through its scientific methodology. It is not simply a 
composite of the TtruthsU of this or that outstanding personality. If the 
term itself needs to be discarded and replaced with something else, and 
there may well be a case for that, it is a matter for the movement to 
decide at the appropriate time. Our scientific ideology remains our 
common property.

>From its inception, OP therefore asserted that:

Tin order to build the unity of Marxist-Leninists we must first define 
Marxism-Leninism and distinguish the Marxist-Leninists.U

At present Open Polemic puts forward its own basic definition of the 
communist, scientific ideology. Firstly, we see it as encompassing the 
further elaboration of the foundational outlook of dialectical and 
historical materialism. Secondly, as encompassing the further elaboration 
of fundamental principles including, the political and organisational 
principle of democratic centralism, the principle of the leading role of 
the party both prior to and within the dictatorship of the proletariat, 
and the principle of proletarian internationalism.
       
Polemic between Comrades
During the widespread confusion of the 1890's, and here we refer 
theoretically and principally to Russia, Lenin had insisted on a Tpolemic 
between comradesU in order Tto explain the profound differences that 
exist, to obtain a comprehensive discussion of disputed questionsU. 
Lenin's strategy was aimed at reforging the Party. Consequently, while 
giving space in his paper Iskra to polemics between comrades, he 
discussed all questions according to his particular line.

Open Polemic however was concerned that, unlike the more fluid situation 
prevailing in Russia at the end of the 19th century, the communist 
movement at the end of the 20th century, both nationally and 
internationally, was transfixed into a variety of vanguardist 
organisations, each advancing their particular, revolutionary programmes 
for the working class.
The strategy of Open Polemic, being empathetic to but nevertheless 
distinct from that of Lenin's, is aimed at integrating the movement. 
Consequently, while giving space in Open Polemic to polemics between 
comrades, it endeavours to discuss all questions according to its general 
line as opposed to a particular line.

Vanguardism
During the present time of ideological confusion and theoretical disorder 
among communists, the revolutionary, vanguard party cannot exist. What 
does exist is a variety of vanguardist organisations each assuming that 
it has resolved fundamental theoretical questions. 

In general, the vanguardist organisation approaches open polemic, if at 
all, with the aim of settling demarcations with its victory over the 
others, whereas Open Polemic advocates developing rapprochement among 
communists by collectively resolving demarcations. Any open polemic that 
the vanguardist organisation does allow is therefore contained as far as 
possible within its own press, in order to ensure that its particular 
line prevails. It is the prevalence of this approach to communist unity 
which  constitutes the historical phenomenon  of vanguardism. And it is 
the discipline of the organisations making up this phenonemon which 
maintains the communist movement in its present state of fragmentation. 
The single communist party is not established and, although subjectively 
unintentional, when taken together we have objectively a betrayal of the 
revolutionary interest. 

Contrary to the extraordinary claim that some make, Open Polemic is 
obviously not against the organisation of the vanguard party. Quite the 
opposite. Open Polemic's case for communist rapprochement around the 
elaboration of a common theoretical programme was not Tpresented as an 
alternative to the CPGB draft programmeU. Drawn from OP's strategy, it is 
a definite rejection of the TLeninistU tactics on the question of 
programme. The elaboration of a common theoretical programme for 
communists is the only possible basis for the establishment of the future 
party of a new type and, in fact, is not the Tsubstitute forU but the 
alternative to the continuation of fragmentation in the form of 
particular, vanguardist programmes. Open Polemic goes further in 
envisaging that such a programme would affirm that the revolutionary, 
vanguard party of the future will be multanimous, and will therefore be 
historically non-specific, within the outlook of the scientific ideology 
of what OP at present refers to as Marxism-Leninism. But let us repeat - 
Marxism-Leninism is just a label. It is the content behind the label that 
is all important for the Open Polemic project.

The Multanimous Party
A multanimous party is politically and organisationally capable of 
sustaining many collective and individual views. This not only involves 
members more completely in its democracy, it enhances its theory and 
practice. Most importantly, it enables the party to contain differences 
within Marxism-Leninism wherever and whenever it is possible to do so and 
thereby avoid damaging splits and fragmentation.

Since the Russian revolution and its immediate aftermath communists, 
individually and collectively, have generally defined other communists 
according to their attitude towards the Soviet Union. Bearing upon the 
character and outcomes of the world revolutionary process, these 
definitions were particularly contemporaneous to the continued existence 
of the Soviet Union and therefore the subject of the most bitter disputes 
among revolutionaries. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, in their 
specific sense, these definitions have become matters of historical 
interpretation.  To advocate a multanimous party that is historically 
non-specific simply means that we need to focus increasingly upon the 
historical universal in order to make progress.
        
Leader Centralism
The practice of leader centralism in the guise of democratic centralism 
is incompatible with a multanimous party that is structured to ensure 
equality of opportunity in the independent collective elaboration and 
articulation of ideas.

Open Polemic has determined that the seeds of leader centralism are to be 
found in class society itself and is particularly manifest in bourgeois 
class culture, but its universal practice in the communist movement 
developed essentially within the political organisation of democratic 
centralism. It gained its strength from a tradition that bestows upon the 
central committee of the party the right to collectively elaborate 
theory, programme and strategy. This elevates the central committee above 
the party centre, its congress. It encourages not only the tactical 
formation of covert factions intent on gaining the vantage point of the 
central committee, it also fosters the cult of the personality.

The universal practice of leader centralism is not simply associated with 
parties in power, i.e., those with a special relationship to the state 
under the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is also associated with 
parties that are not in power. Neither is its practice to be associated 
only with the Soviet Union for it was developing prior to the October 
revolution and is continuing in all vanguardist organisations since its 
collapse. Neither is its practice to be associated only with one 
tradition in the communist movement for it is practised in all 
traditions. And neither is leader centralism to be associated only with 
the cult of the personality for its practice is generally of a collective 
character.
Open Polemic



     --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---