The Two-Front Fight for a Correct Political Line
The communist movement within the United States suffers from a general lack of unity. We can observe a necessary but insufficient degree of unity in how many communists engage with the mass movement. The radical tenant movement is a clear example of comrades from a variety of different tendencies proving that unity within mass work is possible. However, while communists have unity as organizers within the mass movement, communists lack unity *as communists* within our political work.
This isn’t a new observation or even a controversial one. There are deep disagreements on basic questions of both theory and practice that prevent any effective “unity of Marxists.” Each camp within the broader, US-based revolutionary movement views the problem differently. So, the perspective of the problem and guidelines for a solution that I will put forward in this article won’t make sense to everyone. However, as I argued in an earlier article, Marxist-Leninists should be able to find common ground on the perspective that we can find both right wing and ultra-”left” wing tendencies within our movement.
Principled unity with the comrades currently holding these tendencies cannot be done with a big-tent organization that ignores internal contradictions until they lead to a total collapse. Instead, principled unity with these comrades requires winning them over from the mistaken tendencies to the correct position. This begs the question of how exactly we do this.
I intend to answer this question by placing it within the context of our specific material conditions and drawing on Marxist-Leninist theory. This article’s line of reasoning will, first, put forward a general theory of right and “left” errors within a specifically American context. Then, I will use that model to derive what I believe is the only strategy that can adequately handle this problem.
Before we finally begin, I want to clarify that the work I am doing here is not original theoretical work. I am not developing an original theory based on original observations. Rather, I am going to summarize and explicitly articulate work that has already been done by previous communist theoreticians that have operated within the United States.
Although there are several revolutionaries that I am ultimately drawing from, I am relying heavily on William Z Foster’s History of the Communist Party of the United States. It is an excellent overview of the Marxist movement within the United States from the birth of the working class on these shores to the 1950s. I highly encourage others to read this text and study how the patterns I discuss here were seen across the entire history of our movement.
The Sources of Right and “Left” Errors in the American Communist Movement
I go into more detail about the main ways that right and “left” errors are produced and re-produced within the context of the US-based Communist movement in a previous article but I will summarize the general thesis here. Right and “left” wing errors come from two separate sources that relate to two particular characteristics of the American working class.
Our working class, like any other, shares some universal features with other sections of the international working class but also has particular features that derive from our particular material conditions. The most relevant particular features include:
- An outsized influence of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois views within the United States due to the stunted development of the US working class. More specifically, this development was stunted by the twin forces of chattel slavery and settler-colonialism, each of which was responsible for both political-economic and ideological factors that left the development of the American working class in the lurch relative to European sections of the working class.
- A low level of theoretical development among the advanced sections of the US’ working class. This is caused by a number of factors, discussed in detail by Foster in Chapter 37 of his history.
The right wing errors that plague our movement ultimately stem from a combination of our especially reactionary ruling class combined with the outsized ideological influence they have on our own class. This causes a number of right wing mistakes but most commonly occurs in two specific forms: American Exceptionalism and white chauvinism. These two right errors have repeatedly occurred in various forms throughout our movement’s history on these shores and have played a central role in almost every defeat and setback we have suffered.
On the other hand, “left” errors generally occur due to the strength of right wing errors like opportunism and revisionism, both of which are core components of American exceptionalism, combined with our generally low level of theoretical knowledge/skill. Foster summarizes this most clearly when he states that ultra-”left” errors are “basically an immature political reaction to” right wing errors. “Left” wing errors come in many different forms but the most common is “left”-sectarianism. This tendency causes revolutionary collectives to distance themselves from the masses and completely nullify any influence they might have otherwise had on the development of our class toward revolution.
The Strategy for Combating our Specific Right and “Left” Errors
In Chapter 10 of his history, Foster highlights how Lenin’s approach to “fighting for a correct political line” among Russian revolutionaries was to fight “on two fronts” to “combat both the right danger and all forms of pseudo-leftism.” Foster further observes that “[t]his two-front fight [is] particularly necessary in the United States, with its ingrained historical right weakness of American exceptionalism and its long affliction of “left” sectarianism”. In short, there is no serious answer to the question of how we can fight for a correct political line within our movement today that does not start from the premise that we must wage a “two-front fight”.
The next question we must ask ourselves is what this two-front fight looks like. Do we simply fight two different trends using the same method? No. Mao was correct when he claimed that “qualitatively different contradictions can only be resolved by qualitatively different methods.” The contradictions that a correct political line has with right and ultra-”left” tendencies are not the same. They are qualitatively different and, thus, require qualitatively different methods.
The right and “left” tendencies differ in three important respects. First, they differ in their ultimate sources. The source of the right is bourgeois influence within our movement which, in turn, enters through two different pathways: (1) bourgeois ideology that we all pick up from society at large and (2) the direct introduction of bourgeois influence by particular right wing revisionists and opportunists. The source of “left” errors is a low level of theoretical development that causes a politically immature reaction to right errors. This trend is exacerbated when the leadership of an organization is or is perceived to represent a right wing tendency.
The second difference between the tendency is how the movements, organizations, and internal factions representing each tendency can evolve over time. Many comrades can be won over from either kind of mistaken tendency to a correct political line that demonstrates its correctness through practice. However, both tendencies will have a “core” of people that cannot be won over.
In dialectical terms, there is an antagonistic contradiction between the correct line and these mistaken tendencies. There is also an antagonistic contradiction between ourselves and *the core* of these tendencies. However, the contradiction between ourselves and the vast majority of comrades who currently hold these tendencies is *non-antagonistic*. We must be careful to always make this distinction when thinking through and applying the strategy we discuss here.
The appropriate way of dealing with this core of people as we win over comrades that can be won over constitutes the second important difference between right and “left” errors in the US context. Throughout time, the core of right wing tendencies has proved itself to be more aggressive, pernicious, and hostile. They successfully capture the leadership of socialist organizations more frequently than “left” wing tendencies. They are far more likely to collaborate with state enforcers such as local police and FBI agents. They also have a much easier time surviving.
As we defeat right wing tendencies within our movement, the core of these tendencies simply slips further to the right where they can capture less radicalized members of our class and prepare for a counter-attack. As we defeat “left” tendencies, their sectarianism causes them to self-isolate into smaller and smaller grouplets until they fade into obscurity. The differing tendencies of retreating to consolidate and counter-attack vs self-isolating into non-existence change the cost-benefit balance of the different tactics we may use against them.
The final important difference between the right and “left” tendencies relates to the rhetorical styles they use to attack a correct political position. We refer to “left” wing tendencies as “left” because their rhetorical style is to attack a correct political line “from the left” as if the correct line was a right wing error. Due to the low level of theoretical development in the US, these attacks largely focus more on rhetoric and how “left” a position “sounds” than theoretical substance. Thus, the rhetorical style of the “left” wing tendency tries to sound different than a correct political line they believe is mistaken.
The rhetorical style of right wing tendencies works in just the opposite way. American exceptionalism is, ultimately, a form of revisionism. From a rhetorical perspective, revisionists put forward non-Marxist positions in Marxist language. They try to “revise” the core of Marxist theory, not in the sense of scientifically advancing theory but in the same sense that historical revisionism involves re-writing history to fit an agenda. Generally speaking, they do not claim that Marx was wrong but that everyone else is wrong about what Marx said. Their rhetorical style seeks to build legitimacy by claiming to have the only correct interpretation of Marx.
Rather than trying to sound as different as possible from a correct political line, right wing tendencies take great pains to sound as similar as possible to a correct political line. They sneak right wing political practice into the movements by putting it into a Marxist costume. The rhetorical similarity that right wing tendencies seek out is what makes a low-theoretical level such a major cause of “left” wing errors within our movement. The less capable a revolutionary is of distinguishing between the substance of a right wing error and a correct political line, the more likely it is that they’ll reject a correct political line as a “right wing error.”
Our discussion of these differences in underlying cause, development, and rhetorical style should clearly indicate that we need qualitatively different methods to resolve these qualitatively different contradictions. The next and final step will be to identify distinct strategies for fighting on each front of this two-front fight. We can do so by answering the following list of questions:
- What are the essential features of the right wing tendency?
- What are the essential features of the “left” wing tendency?
- How do we win people over from the right wing tendency?
- How do we win people over from the “left” wing tendency?
- How do we deal with the core of the right wing tendency?
- How do we deal with the core of the “left” wing tendency?
1. What are the essential features of the right wing tendency?
Right wing errors come from bourgeois ideology innate in all of us and right wing opportunists that have been historically effective in taking leadership of organizations. They seek to put forward their line in a way that makes it as rhetorically similar to a correct position as possible. As we win people away, they will fight even harder. If we decisively defeat them, they will retreat to gather strength before launching a counterattack.
2. What are the essential features of the “left” wing tendency?
Left wing errors are a “politically immature reaction” to the prevalence of right wing errors within a movement due to the low theoretical level that plagues US-based communists. They seek to sound rhetorically different from both right wing tendencies and the correct political line due to the inability to distinguish between the two. As we win people over to a correct political line, they will self-isolate into obscurity and eventual non-existence.
3. How do we win people over from the right wing tendency?
We must win people over from the right wing tendency by differentiating ourselves from the right wing, revisionist line. We can do this by theoretically exposing and discrediting the bourgeois ideas about politics this tendency’s core seeks to hide. This difference, although theoretical, must be expressed centrally within our rhetoric and propaganda. If it is not, it is absolutely no different in practice than making no distinction at all when it comes to winning people over.
Additionally, due to the strength and tenacity of this tendency’s core, it is likely that we would also need to directly address and discredit its leadership and central figures as the distorters they are. However, it would be a “left” wing error to make no distinction between the core and our comrades that can be won over.
4. How do we win people over from the “left” wing tendency?
We can win people over from the “left” tendency by directly addressing its causes. We must work to raise their theoretical level. Most immediately, we do this through our attacks on the right wing tendency. When we distinguish ourselves both theoretically and rhetorically, fewer comrades are misled into throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Additionally, we can directly address their concerns and educate them on how the correct line addresses these concerns while an ultra-”left” line fails to.
Second, we must reduce the influence and presence of the “core” of right wing tendencies within our movement and organizations. Even where a comrade lacks the theoretical sophistication to distinguish between the correct position and a right wing error, they are less likely to have a “politically immature reaction” when there is less to react to in the first place.
5. How do we deal with the core of the right wing tendency?
When thinking through how to deal with the core of the right wing tendency, we must not lose sight of the fact that this is a serious and dangerous enemy. There will be few surface-level differences between a member of this tendency’s core and a comrade holding the correct political line. This makes it incredibly easy to forget that these people have been at the center of almost every major failure that has stifled the development of revolution in the United States.
Even where openly right wing forces have dealt incredibly severe blows, as the US government did during the McCarthy era, right wing opportunists were largely responsible for creating the vulnerability that was exploited in the first place. The first principle for how we deal with the core of this tendency is to not forget for a single second who our history has shown them to be. If we do not have widespread knowledge of the history of right wing opportunism and revisionism within our corner of the Communist movement, we will have virtually zero chance of success
Second, we must engage them aggressively and tenaciously. Their leadership must be discredited and, where it is actually necessarily, driven out of the movement. This may require some balancing, however, as these people often maintain connections within the mass movement and still may be part of a united front. However, this is a consideration for determining our methods rather than a reason we ought to be tolerant of such a dangerous influence.
6. How do we deal with the core of the “left” wing tendency?
The short answer is: we don’t. This isn’t to say that we should never address the core of a “left” wing tendency. We should, especially when it comes to ideology. However, the extent to which it’s helpful to engage with them is often very limited. The tendency of this core to self-isolate as their base shrinks means that, the more we win people over, the more aggressively they will take steps to ensure their own demise. In extreme cases where such a faction may be putting people at risk with certain initiative or may be eroding inner-Party democracy, there’s no denying that action ought to be taken. However, ignoring them to allow the natural process of self-isolation to occur is often more productive than a very active approach that may be rhetorically spun in a way that consolidates their support in response to perceived “persecution.”
Summary
If we are to build “unity among Marxists” around a correct political line, what is the strategy we ought to apply? We can simply look at the answers we gave to those strategic questions and summarize them here in a four general points:
- Refute the ideas of the right error and explain exactly where and how we must go further in order to win over comrades from the right to a correct line
- Theoretically distinguish the correct position from the right error and reflect that clearly in our rhetoric/propaganda in a way that increases people’s ability to identify and reject revisionism without rejecting the correct position it seeks to mimic.
- Combat the influence of right errors and the presence of its core forces, forcing them to retreat from the revolutionary movement as open reformists
- Allow the core forces of the ultra-”left” fade into obscurity as they self-isolate into non-existence.
This, like any strategy, is a general framework for action that must be creatively adapted as each situation calls for it rather than being mechanically applied. There are undoubtedly many questions related to its application, effective tactics, and additional strategic principles that ought to be developed further as we learn from practice. Until then, we should begin by adopting the tested approach of the two-front fight for a correct political line with an understanding of how this fight plays out in our own specific conditions.
