“Left Unity”?
The “left wing” is pretty poorly defined in most media. The American capitalist superstructure tends to exaggerate how leftist people are, and this has been the case since neo-liberalism became the popular capitalist ideology here; with the drive to privatize social services, eliminate concessions to workers, and increase their rates of profit, America’s financial bourgeoisie was successfully able to call previously-mainstream views “radical, leftist, socialist, communist, and anarchist”. Other countries had this as well, but America’s rightward shift was extreme compared to theirs. That is why social democrats like Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and others claim to be “socialist” and are condemned as “radical communists”.
This issue of who counts as “leftist” is one of a plethora of problems with calling for “left unity”. Bourgeois forces that seek “reform” and “progressive” policies are nothing new, yet they are lumped with proletarian groups that work for revolution. There are other related problems regarding the definition of “leftism”, and many of them go beyond American borders. Like social democrats, a wide variety of opportunist currents are considered “leftist” simply because they claim to support “socialism” and “communism”. They include right-opportunists—syndicalists, Titoites, Khrushchevites, Dengists, etc.—and left-opportunists—Trotskyites, “left communists” (including both “council communists” and Bordigists), autonomist “Marxists”, other “libertarian Marxists”, anarchists, etc. This motley of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois deviationists cannot seriously be combined with genuine communists, for their role in the class struggle is against the proletariat, not for it. Stalin explained this in “Industrialisation of the country and the Right Deviation in the C.P.S.U.(B.)”:
It may be said: if the “Left” deviation is in essence the same thing as the Right opportunist deviation, then what is the difference between them, and where do you actually get two fronts? Indeed, if a victory of the Rights means increasing the chances of the restoration of capitalism, and a victory of the “Lefts” would lead to the same result, what difference is there between them, and why are some called Rights and others “Lefts”? And if there is a difference between them, what is it? Is it not true that the two deviations have the same social roots, that they are both petty-bourgeois deviations? Is it not true that both these deviations, if they were to triumph, would lead to one and the same result? What, then, is the difference between them?
The difference is in their platforms, their demands, their approach and their methods.
If, for example, the Rights say: “It was a mistake to build the Dnieper Hydro-Electric Power Station,” and the “Lefts,” on the contrary, declare: “What is the use of one Dnieper Hydro-Electric Power Station, let us have a Dnieper Hydro-Electric Power Station every year” (laughter) , it must be admitted that there obviously is a difference.
If the Rights say: “Let the kulak alone, allow him to develop freely,” and the “Lefts,” on the contrary, declare: “Strike not only at the kulak, but also at the middle peasant, because he is just as much a private owner as the kulak,” it must be admitted that there obviously is a difference.
If the Rights say: “Difficulties have arisen, is it not time to quit?” and the “Lefts,” on the contrary, declare: “What are difficulties to us, a fig for your difficulties—full speed ahead!” (laughter), it must be admitted that there obviously is a difference.
There you have a picture of the specific platform and the specific methods of the “Lefts.” This, in fact, explains why the “Lefts” sometimes succeed in luring a part of the workers over to their side with the help of high-sounding “Left” phrases and by posing as the most determined opponents of the Rights, although all the world knows that they, the “Lefts,” have the same social roots as the Rights, and that they not infrequently join in an agreement, a bloc, with the Rights in order to fight the Leninist line.
That is why it is obligatory for us, Leninists, to wage a fight on two fronts—both against the Right deviation and against the “Left” deviation.
But if the Trotskyist trend represents a “Left” deviation, does not this mean that the “Lefts” are more to the Left than Leninism? No, it does not. Leninism is the most Left (without quotation marks) trend in the world labour movement. We Leninists belonged to the Second International down to the outbreak of the imperialist war as the extreme Left group of the Social-Democrats. We did not remain in the Second International and we advocated a split in the Second International precisely because, being the extreme Left group, we did not want to be in the same party as the petty-bourgeois traitors to Marxism, the social-pacifists and social-chauvinists.
It was these tactics and this ideology that subsequently became the basis of all the Bolshevik parties of the world. In our Party, we Leninists are the sole Lefts without quotation marks. Consequently, we Leninists are neither “Lefts” nor Rights in our own Party. We are a party of Marxist-Leninists. And within our Party we combat not only those whom we call openly opportunist deviators, but also those who pretend to be “Lefter” than Marxism, “Lefter” than Leninism, and who camouflage their Right, opportunist nature with high-sounding “Left” phrases.
Everybody realizes that when people who have not yet rid themselves of Trotskyist trends are called “Lefts,” it is meant ironically. Lenin referred to the “Left Communists” as Lefts sometimes with and sometimes without quotation marks. But everyone realizes that Lenin called them Lefts ironically, thereby emphasizing that they were Lefts only in words, in appearance, but that in reality they represented petty-bourgeois Right trends.
[Source]
While Stalin focused on the situation in the USSR in the beginning of its first five-year plan, general conclusions from the passage here are still correct. There are two main wings of opportunism: “left” and right. Both are bourgeois in essence, but they take on different appearances as the “left” appears to be “truly communist” while the right clearly abandons genuine communism for “pragmatism” (even when they are not practical in any way). Since they serve the bourgeoisie, they cannot be united with the proletariat. The proletarian party has no choice but to struggle against their bourgeois line; it must radicalize and win over any workers that fall for that line, and it must purge the capitalists that infiltrate the party and refuse to adopt the proletarian line even after immense struggle. That is why we cannot unprincipally “unite” with said opportunists.
This is not to say we oppose all types of unity, or that we must necessarily split due to minor differences in ideology. We are not sectarians or factionalists (unlike Trotskyites, who surely love splitting parties and attacking centralism), and we are certainly not opposed to the unity of communists, of the proletariat, of the broad masses. In fact, the unity of communists and the entire revolutionary movement is what we propose against both sectarianism and unprincipled “united” opportunism. Vladimir Lenin clarified this in his short essay, “On Unity” (all italics are his, and all bolds are ours):
There can be no unity, federal or other, with liberal-labor politicians, with disruptors of the working-class movement, with those who defy the will of the majority. There can and must be unity among all consistent Marxists, among all those who stand for the entire Marxist body and for the uncurtailed slogans, independently of the liquidators and apart from them.
Unity is a great thing and a great slogan. But what the workers’ cause needs is the unity of Marxists, not unity between Marxists, and opponents and distorters of Marxism.
And we must ask everyone who talks about unity: unity with whom? With the liquidators? If so, we have nothing to do with each other.
But if it is a question of genuine Marxist unity, we shall say: Ever since the Pravdist newspapers appeared we hive been calling for the unity of all the forces of Marxism, for unity from below, for unity in practical activities.
No flirting with the liquidators, no diplomatic negotiations with groups of wreckers of the corporate body; concentrate all efforts on rallying the Marxist workers around the Marxist slogans, around the entire Marxist body. The class-conscious workers will regard as a crime any attempt to impose upon them the will of the liquidators; they will also regard as a crime the fragmentation of the forces of the genuine Marxists.
For the basis of unity is class discipline, recognition of the will of the majority, and concerted activities in the ranks of, and in step with, that majority. We shall never tire of calling all the workers towards this unity, this discipline, and these concerted activities.
[Source]
Mao also said, “Let a hundred flowers bloom; let a hundred schools of thought contend,” so we are not opposed to a diversity of thought. There are inevitable differences that arise between people’s views; it is undemocratic to have everyone uphold the exact same positions on the same issues, and it is unscientific because it does not allow theories’ levels of accuracy to be questioned. That is why we are fine with debates among Marxist-Leninist-Maoists; because of the basic proletarian unity that exists, finer debates can take place to form higher unity. “Uniting” with the deviationists that distort Marxism with their petty-bourgeois or bourgeois ideas and myths devolves into the abandonment of the proletariat. Only Marxism, which is now Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, can lead the proletariat to its liberation.
With regard to other “leftist” parties, we do not agree with them, for they are opportunist and end up serving the bourgeoisie, even if unintentionally. These parties are revisionist, dogmatic, ultra-leftist, etc. Their theories, and by extension their praxis (for praxis and theory are in a dialectical relationship), end up hurting the proletariat. Still, we can engage in temporary unity with such forces when necessary; remember, they are not correct in theory, and they might not even be correct in most practice, but in dire circumstances, unity is necessary. In the case of anti-fascist unity, we must unite all anti-fascist forces to create a large anti-fascist front. When combating imperialist invasion, anti-imperialist forces must have some sort of unity; the Chinese united front that formed in Japan’s invasion of the country is an example of this.
The type of unity that exists between such “leftist” parties is tactical unity, so it is definitionally short-lived and only used for certain purposes, namely single issues. The united front of the people through the communist mass organizations is strategic unity, longer-lasting and used for many activities. Any alliance that we may forge with anarchist, Trotskyist, revisionist “Marxist-Leninist”, etc. groups is of the former type, and the unity among the organizations that genuinely aid, lead, and represent the people is of the latter type. Regardless, “left unity” is generally naive, and we do not work with opportunist organizations for long. Instead, we build mass organizations within a united front of the people; these receive ideological guidance from the party, and they will also help the party in formulating policies via the mass line.
Speaking of the mass line, that method of leadership and the overall commitment to and use of democratic centralism in organizations are what let a communist party, people’s army, and united front hold correct ideas and generally avoid incorrect ones. As Mao said, “Where do correct ideas come from? … They come from social practice, and from it alone; they come from three kinds of social practice, the struggle for production, the class struggle and scientific experiment” [Source]. This includes the study of theory and history, which come from and develop with social practice, but it also includes implementing the most advanced theory we have thanks to the history of the proletarian movement. Opportunists do not use the mass line; their “practice” is based on incorrect theory, and so they do not go to the masses to learn from and teach them. To avoid following a similar path, our communist party must maintain the mass line. We must go to the masses, see what they really need, learn from their experiences, teach them the basics of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, and eventually get them agitated and organized in mass organizations; we must also recruit the advanced proletarians in our party to expand our operations. We must also continue to study Marxist-Leninist-Maoist theory and history, for we cannot fall for the opportunist betrayals or the reactionary lies about our class’s ideology. We must struggle against revisionism; we must win over the masses that are fooled by revisionists and ultra-“leftists”, and we must fight for policies that the masses really support as we educate them!
At the same time, we will not actively expend energy attacking organizations with opportunist ideologies. That is, we will not engage in physical fights with most of them, for they are merely appendages of the entire capitalist-imperialist system. Attacking them instead of winning them over is adventurist and ultra-“leftist” in its own way, and it only scares the masses. The only time such conflicts are necessary is when opportunists, often coming from the bourgeoisie or its hired agents, actively cooperate with the state in oppressing the people and sabotaging the development of proletarian dictatorship; in those instances, force and authority are needed. That is why we do not attack anarchists in Antifa, but conflict is inevitable with anarchists that disrupt our mass work. We do not attack CPUSA cadres, but we do condemn their revisionist leadership.
To conclude, “left unity” is impossible and dangerous, we must only tactically unite with opportunists while strategically winning them over, we must promote the unity of Marxist-Leninist-Maoists and the masses, and we must avoid using force against opportunists unless it is absolutely necessary. We must educate ourselves and the people, and we must learn from the people in our practical work. We must wage a relentless struggle against bourgeois deviations from Marxism and active attacks against it, including those that distort history.
Uphold Marxism-Leninism-Maoism! Down with revisionism, ultra-“leftism”, and all other forms of opportunism! Maintain proletarian leadership, and do not capitulate to petty-bourgeois or big-bourgeois saboteurs!
