The most controversial trend within the Marxist-Leninist Movement is the finding fault with Comrades Lenin, Stalin and Mao and deploying of the multi-party System. Com.Mike Ely’s writings slander the achievements of Com.Stalin to a considerable extent ,and even deride Com.Lenin and Com.Mao on many an occasion. The Kasama trend almost reduces Com Stalin to a non-Leninist and all Mao’s contributions achievements as an anti-thesis of Stalinism..True, Kasama project is one of the greatest ever Marxist-Leninist efforts to create a forum for debate, which has been lacking in the history of the Communist Movement .and made a historic contribution by launching outstanding debates on Maoist polemics .
However such forces are forgetting the important contribution of Lenin on the dictatorship of the Proletariat and the revisionist character of parliamentary democracy.Infact it was Trotsky who promoted the multi-party system and the institutions of bourgeois parliamentary democracy. By promoting multi-party system the proletarian revolutionary centre of power is denied and infact a Socialist State can be toppled. Let us remember the experiences of the Communist Movement in Nazi Germany or worldwide. It was the Leninist Party that promoted the building and consolidation of Socialist Societies in Soviet Union and China. Whether the Bolshevik Revolution,the civil War, the collectivization era, the Soviet World War Victory: all these achievements were the result of the foundation of the Leninist Party. Similarly in China although Mao called for continuous Revolution under the dictatorship of the Proletariat he called for a revolt within a proletarian party Structure. The sweeping victories of the Socialist Revolution,The Great Leap Forward, the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution were unprecedented in history and can be attribute to Comrade Mao’s persistence with upholding the Leninist Principles of the Dicatatorship of the Proletariat. True there were opposing factions of revisionist nature like Lin Biao ,Liu Shao –Chi Etc ,but the struggle against them through mass campaigns was led by the proletarian party. It was the revolutionary trend within the proletarian party that fought the Lin Biaost forces politically and the rise of Lin Biao or Liu Shao Chi cannot be attributed to the lack of a multiparty System. True ,it was defeated by Deng Xiaoping’s rightist forces, but a multi-party Sustem may have promoted such forces much earlier. In Soviet Union Comrade Stalin violated democratic Centralism to a considerable extent and any dissent was put down .Comrade Mao, tried to correct this by initiating a broad mass Movement of the Chinese masses against the reactionary Forces, and got several members of the party to go through self-criticism and reform. It was historic that a mass Movement was led within the very Communist Party ,unlike in the Soviet Union. Mao had learnt from the Stalin era that a revolutionary Movement was required even within a socialist System.Below I am reproducing a debate between Mike Ely and Joseph Ball . on the multi-party System.
Debate is a very important factor in the Communist Movement ,but it is needed to develop Marxism, Leninism as a Science and not to distort it. True forces like Kasama have created a platform for debate and healthy mutual exchange but have also been rather loose in their criticisms of Leninist Polemics. 2 crusaders in for the correct International Proletarian Revolutionary line were the late Shansmughtan of the Communist Party of Ceylon (He made a mistake in supporting the R.I.M,but was a crusader in fighting against Trotskyism and upholding the banner of Com.Stalin and Mao TseTung Thought) and the late Com.Harbhajan Singh Sohi(the best theoretician within the Movement) who refuted all those who found mistakes with Comrades,Lenin,Stalin and Mao and upheld proletarian polemics like carrying a red torchlight.

Quoting a revolutionary Journal the Comrade(1991 after the collapse of U.S.S.R and revisionist East European regimes )“A section of Communist revolutionary forces is getting engaged in analyzing and debating the historical experience of the dictatorship of the proletariatand the cause of capitalist restoration in the erstwhile countries ,and is ending up with he verdicts of the alleged mistakes of Comrades Stalin and Mao. That is tantamount to affirming in practice the very link between the recent developments in revisionist countries and he past practices of Socialism which need to be refuted, and so lends credibility to the propaganda plank of the bourgeoisie.
These comrades have hardly thought over what the alleged mistakes were of Stalin and Mao and the relevance of their reviews of the available theory and practice of Socialism to heir task of countering the bourgeois propaganda. It is not clear which target group they have in mind- ,which can hardly be the common masses of the people. Analysis and debate concerning the Theory and practice of socialism amongst Communist Revolutinary forces s necessary. However open debate is for correcting or refuting ideological deviations and not for seeking unanimity of views between contending sides.A so called friendly public debate serves only to add to the confusion of the people. It actually hides the character of the conflict of views behind it’s friendly signboard thus lowering the guard of the revolutionary masses against hostile ideological tendencies, secondly it invariably projects a lot of loud-thinking and tentative stands of the participants. Organised Communist Revolutionaries are expected to provide reliable leadership to the democratic revolutionary movement o he India people, can not afford too such a thing.
The current offensive of the bourgeoise is against the concept of the Leninist party, especially the class distinctive politics and the democratic centralist organization of the party.The Communist revolutionaries should come out in defence of the party concept, but give greater attention to the building o the party. That would be he most appropriate step in countering the bourgeoisie propaganda offensive.
The class enemy would train it’s guns at the dicatatorship of the proletariat, the party and the great revolutionary leaders. The class enemy’s frenzied attacks should make the Communist Revolutionaries better appreciate these precious assets and prompt them to grasp, defend and promote the same vein more firmly.They should never look back and only The criticism of the revolutionary masses, for the advancement of the revolutionary cause, should prompt Communist Revolutionaries to analyze and ponder over any faults and defects and where it lies.”

“Look at the diversity of capitalist rule: constitutional monarchies, fascism, military juntas, presidential democracies, parliamentary democracies, religious theocracies, racial apartheid, revisionist-style state capitalism and more….. Why would we assume that socialist societies won’t have its own remarkable diversity of forms, reflecting both some inherent dynamics of socialist transition but also very particular histories and conditions producing various revolutions?”

To this Bill replied:

“This is a mistaken view. The essence of socialism is proletarian dictatorship, which is proletarian internationalism and proletarian democracy.

“This is a distinction between essence, form, content and phenomena that seems to escape some comrades. Some forms are not in accordance with essence, and thus must be discarded. “constitutional monarchies, fascism, military juntas” might be forms that accord with the essence of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, but they are in sharp discord (antagonistic contradiction) with the essence of socialism.

“Equally, the content of bourgeois democracy (whose essence is the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie) is at odds with the content of proletarian democracy (the council system of power, be it Soviet, or the three-in-one of armed forces, Party and workers’ representatives). Form and content must be in synch with the essence of the socialist state – which is, as Lenin taught, a body of armed people in search of communism.”

At the risk of restating my original point:

The rule of capitalists (and before them of feudals, or the rule by alliances of capitalists and slaveowners) was marked by a multiplicity of forms.

I see no reason why we will not see a multiplicity of forms for socialism.

And (in fact) we already have — since who can miss that the Paris Commune is different from the Soviet councils of 1918, or from the Soviet state during world war 2, and also different from say the variety of Chinese forms during the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution.

Bill seems to think that I am suggesting that socialism will have the same forms as capitalism — which seems an odd idea, and something I have not said.

I don’t believe that socialism is likely to have (for example) a fascist state as its form (for obvious reasons).

There is (as Bill is arguing) some relationship between form and content — and when (for example with the rise of Lin Biao in China) there is a danger of a militarist government emerging under socialism, I suspect it will pretty directly also imply a challenge to the existence of socialism.

Socialism will have its own forms. Not simply or mainly carry over forms from capitalism.

There was a phenomenon where capitalism was able to adapt and adopt forms that had emerged from feudalism in some cases: the capitalist “constitutional monarchies” were developments out of feudal monarchies. The capitalist parliaments were developments out of the far weaker parliaments that advised monarchs in the European middle ages. Even the German fascist rule of Hitler lifted (in many ways) forms and symbols from the earlier Wilhelmian Kaiser state (which had its roots in the earlier feudal Prussian state). Hitler’s Nazi symbolism and forms were adaptations (in many ways) of the monarchist past, under new conditions and with new twists (including the absence of a hereditary Kaiser, and in its place a non-hereditary Fuhrer figure).

There are reasons why forms are often lifted from the past — often with new content and new meaning, while maintaining historical continuity. In Hegel’s discussions this phenom is called “aufhebung” — (It can be translated as a “lifting up” of forms and structures from one period to another, different period. Some people use “sublate” as a translation — but who knows that word? Nobody.)

An example is the lifting up of many different cultural symbols from “classic” Greek and Roman slave society for reuse in the modern slave society of the American South (the mansion columns being just one obvious and superficial example).

There are reasons why the forms of feudalism were often relatively adaptable to capitalism — with changes of course. Both were oppressive class societies with an effective dictatorship of a small minority ruling class. And there was often (as in Britain or Prussia/Germany) a great deal of continuity politically and socially between feudal society and capitalist society.

But even with socialism, I believe we will find aufhebung and already have.

This is not in contradiction to Bill’s point that capitalism and socialism are radically different cultures, and there are certainly forms useful for capitalism that are unlikely to fit with socialism. (The example being a hereditary monarchy — despite the pretenses of the Kim Dynasty in Korea today and despite the fact that Kampuchea’s still reigning Prince Sinhanouk participated in the broad United Front against U.S. imperialism in Indochina in the 1970s).

But even here, i think we should ask whether there were similarities and continuities between the traditional Russian state (of the nineteenth century) and the revolutionary Soviet state that emerged in the twentieth century. Clearly there were major discontinuities (which were principal) — and those differences were rooted in the fundamental difference in the nature of society. But reading Soviet history it is hard not see continuities as well — in the ways the centripetal forces of a diverse continental power tended to require (and produce) a strongly centralized and aggressive state (including features like internal passports which seemed “normal” in Russia during both its capitalist and socialist periods).

The Russian state historically emerged (out of the Moscow principality) because of the pressures of invasion. Is it accidental that the Soviet state went through jolting processes of centralization in the 1930s in part in response to the growing danger of German invasion? Or that these changes would evoke cultural echoes from the past (including Eisenstein’s film portrayals of Alexander Nevsky and Ivan the Terrible)?

Part of the point is: The fact that the Soviet state emerged with particular structures, institutions, habits and assumptions does not mean that a universalized socialist form had been uncovered.

Or, for example, isn’t it likely that some forms of legality (jury trials, habeas corpus, etc.) might be adapted and adopted in a socialist state of North America — even while the essence of the legal and court system was being revolutionized?

For example, Bill writes:

“Equally, the content of bourgeois democracy (whose essence is the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie) is at odds with the content of proletarian democracy (the council system of power, be it Soviet, or the three-in-one of armed forces, Party and workers’ representatives).”

Yes, the content of bourgeois democracy is at odds with the content of proletarian democracy. We agree.

However, this is also a bit complicated — because some features of the two are not inherently opposed: There is an extensive discussion to be had about the impact of a socialist state needing to uphold forms of bourgeois right during the transitional period, including wages, lingering class differences, operations of the law of value etc. And in some ways, there are operations of a bourgeois state within the functioning of a socialist state — in ways discussed with some subtlety by both Lenin and Mao.

Yes, capitalism and socialism are different. And the kinds of state serving one system are different (inherently and deeply) from the kinds of state that serve the other social system. And changes of state have accompanied major changes of social system throughout history (even when, in some cases, there were elements of “aufhebung” in the continuity of form and symbolism.)

But what does exactly does this really say about forms? How exactly do we know which forms from the past are incompatible with socialism? Can one deduce from that (quickly and automatically) that contested elections are impossible under socialism?

I’m always suspicious at the idea of deducing reality’s details and limitations from general inherited principles and assumptions — since we often deceive ourselves that way.

Obviously I think we can all agree that the Fuhrer system of Nazi Germany is incompatible with socialism (which in its militaristic authoritarianism and leader worship is deeply contrary to the need for critical thought, broad consultatoin and popular ferment under socialism). Or the hereditary monarchy of Tsarism (which in its hereditary nature if particularly tied to feudal property forms and a whole ideology of social patriarchy).

But, if capitalist democracy in the U.S. has nominating conventions, can we assume that this is anathema to socialism?

Here is an example: In the United States (a large and diverse country) there has always been a complex layered decentralization of power. Some matters (say speed limits and urban zoning) are decided at the local level, others (say marriage procedures) are decided at the state level, while others (like environmental laws or broadcast regulations) are decided at the federal level.

Is it inherently capitalist to have such a federal system? I don’t think so.

In North America, such a federal system could help allow for different rates of revolutionary change in different parts of the country (the way having an autonomous zone tried to do for Tibet in the 1950s in China).

I think several things (in conclusion):

1) socialism and capitalism are radically different societies (even though socialism, because of its transitional nature, has capitalist elements within it).
2) Forms of politics and state do (as Bill points out) need to be compatible with the character and nature of socialism.
3) There will inevitably be both continuity and discontinuity in political and legal forms — some forms can be adapted and adopted, some must be discarded. There are elements of “aufhebung” in the political changes — where things may reappear, but have new meaning in a new context. And there will be (at the same time) “socialist new things” that do not have obvious previous antecedents.
4)We can’t deduce which forms of continuity are incompatible with socialism simply from a few general principles or previous assumptions. Life will surprise you.

In challenging this correct observation, B Clinch fails to understand that the socialist state not only contains a coercive equivalence to the capitalist state, it can also contain features of capitalist democracy, precisely because socialism is in transition from capitalism.

The main feature that it can carry is the anti-collectivist, bourgeois form of political centralism, which constantly evolves around the concept of government and opposition, leadership and opposition, all acted out by celebrity leaders.

This is why walking the revolutionary road means taking the way of revolutionary democracy for socialism, that is, to win the battle for democracy across the revolutionary socialist movement

This is a mistaken view. The essence of socialism is proletarian dictatorship, which is proletarian internationalism and proletarian democracy. This is a distinction between essence, form, content and phenomena that seems to escape some comrades. Some forms are not in accordance with essence, and thus must be discarded. “constitutional monarchies, fascism, military juntas” might be forms that accord with the essence of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, but they are in sharp discord (antagonistic contradiction) with the essence of socialism. Equally, the content of bourgeois democracy (whose essence is the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie) is at odds with the content of proletarian democracy (the council system of power, be it Soviet, or the three-in-one of armed forces, Party and workers’ representatives). Form and content must be in synch with the essence of the socialist state – which is, as Lenin taught, a body of armed people in search of communism.

“Mike,I just wished to confirm that your views on a Socialist Multi-party System?Does Bob Avakian formulate the view of a Socialist multi-party State?I really wanted to confirm the viewpoints.Do you not feels that such aset up would oppose Leninism or Maoist Ideology?Do you have any assesment of the R.I.M?”

I wrote a piece on this called Socialist Democracy, Snowflakes & the Restoration of Capitalism which takes up this issue.

Among other thins it says:

“….in some ways, I think that the one-party state emerged from the particular conditions of that Russian revolution…. conditions that also framed the decline of forward revolutionary energies, and produced conditions in which capitalism was restored (without visible resistance within the party or the population)….

And looking at that process, first Mao and now we have understood that somehow — through various decisions, preparations, modifications, changes in our forms of organization and work etc. — we need to develop a revolutionary polarization in which far broader sections of the population can be engaged (actively and over time) in the process of socialist transformation. And the polarization of a revolution has deep roots in the pre-revolutionary developments. (Example: the initial decision of the early social democrats in Russia to focus almost exclusively on urban workers, had long range implications for their lack of later post-revolutionary roots among rural and peasant people).

With that in mind, the Nepali Maoists have chosen to alternate military and political offensives — and give time and attention ( before the seizure of power) to broadening the base of the revolution. I think they believe if they seize power with too narrow a base, they will effectively be forced to continue to rule by pointing the gun at large sections of the population — with all the implications that has for the revolutionary process.

We have had two major socialist revolutions (Russia and China), and a number of smaller attempts at power (Vietnam, Cuba, etc). And, in ways that seem rather obviously mechanical, some communists say there are two models for revolution (i.e. a Soviet-style October Road, and a Chinese-style protracted peoples war). However I suspect that each future socialist revolution will be startlingly different (in its forms of approaching power, and perhaps in its forms of wielding new state power) — and so, while learning from the October Revolution and the Chinese revolution, I don’t think we should universalize their paths, or their forms of state power.

(Look at the diversity of capitalist rule: constitutional monarchies, fascism, military juntas, presidential democracies, parliamentary democracies, religious theocracies, racial apartheid, revisionist-style state capitalism and more….. Why would we assume that socialist societies won’t have its own remarkable diversity of forms, reflecting both some inherent dynamics of socialist transition but also very particular histories and conditions producing various revolutions?)”

more to come

There has been a tendency among communists to take historical experiences and turn them into an ossified models.

Up to September 1917, Lenin was still open to a socialist coalition government. When it became clear that no arrangement could be agreed upon with necessary urgency, the Bolsheviks took the lead in the revolutionary overthrow. The ensuing process of state formation was not pre-planned. As for the Chinese Revolution, the Communist Party initiated an early alliance with the Kuomintang when it was still headed by the greatly respected Sun Yat-sen. He died in 1925. I’m not sure if the CPC had a definite view of a future revolutionary polity at that point, but in power struggle within the Nationalist Party the reactionary clique around Chiang Kai-shek won out, no other political organization emerged with any significant mass support by 1949 making a multi-party system a non-issue. My point is that these practices were practical solutions to concrete problems, not just something that simply arose from ideologies.

In Nepal, the UCPN[M] are proceeding from a critical reading of the historical experience of communism to help inform their practice. In the process they have stated the obvious: a one-party state is no guarantee against capitalist restoration, and places serious restrictions on the political development of the masses as it has been practiced. They have opened up the question of revolutionary power and mass participation to a necessary re-thinking. Lenin once argued for a “concrete analysis of concrete conditions.” What could be more anti-Leninist than to pose an abstract form as a concrete solution?

As for Avakian’s or RCP’s views, they do not support the notion of a multi-party socialist state and have criticized the UCPN[M] for it. This pamphlet collects their polemics on this. For a more, I’d advise you to go to RCP’s site and see for yourself