Two-Line Struggle, the Heart and Driving Force of the Party

Document summarizing the view of the Two-Line Struggle from the Central Comitee of the Communist Youth of Denmark Juli 2023 annotated October 2024

They move to the left and end up on the right”

Stalin

The Inevitability of Two-Line Struggle

In a world with competing classes, it is inevitable that in a communist organization, two or more political lines will periodically emerge. The struggle between these lines represents the fight between a correct communist policy and a policy that, in the end, serves the bourgeoisie through either leftist or rightist deviations.

Deviations arise not only due to bourgeois influence within the party but also from comrades’ subjective and relative understanding of reality. Theory and practice that seem true in the short term can prove wrong in the long term. Not only petty-bourgeois individuals can hold opportunistic positions; the working class can also adopt wrong stances due to flawed analysis. The bourgeoisie will naturally promote this development, both through petty-bourgeois influence within the party and the influence of the bourgeois society externally.

There is one objective reality, but our understanding of it is incomplete. This means that there is only one correct policy on any given issue, not two or three. Thus, the two lines will inevitably clash when decisive questions of class struggle are debated within the organization.

The Function of Two-Line Struggle

By presenting different analyses and political positions in party discussions, the party evaluates objective reality and tries to identify the correct policy. This is the main driver of the party’s development, whether positive or negative. It is therefore vital for the party to understand the laws governing Two-Line Struggle and the threats to it.

A correct handling of the Two-Line Struggle will transform the party into a force capable of leading the revolution. Conversely, mishandling it will turn the party into yet another pillar supporting capitalism. Therefore, we will critique three tendencies we have observed in the discussion around the Two-Line Struggle.

A Critique of the Petty-bourgeois Line Peace Tendency1

The petty-bourgeois individualist view of Two-Line Struggle is that it is purely negative. It sees any attempt to create unity in the line as an infringement on the individual and a threat to unity. This view is popular in a country like Denmark, which has significant petty-bourgeois influence. The petty-bourgeois individualist will not accept collective discipline and instinctively resists submitting their opinion to the majority. Individualists fear that ideological minorities will not respect common decisions and will leave the party the moment they don’t get their way. What they see is actually a reflection of themselves. Those who sound alarms about the dangers a given policy poses to unity are often the same ones unwilling to submit to the majority’s decisions.

Subjectivism and Stagnation

The Line peace tendency is inherently subjectivist. This is because it upholds the metaphysical idealist claim that there is a plurality of truths. The logic is that it is impossible to rationalize social reality; such questions can only be assessed through the individual’s experience. Scientific socialism rejects this, asserting that material reality is governed by natural laws independent of human consciousness, including social issues. Materialism teaches us that there is a single objective reality, and thus, there must be one correct policy in relation to it. This must be implicitly accepted in all party discussions to avoid falling into subjectivism.

Line peace tendency advocates that the majority must pander to the individual. This is diametrically opposed to collectivism and democracy. Democracy cannot exist without centralism. There is nothing democratic about a federation of conflicting viewpoints. True democracy consists of open and free debate internally, aimed at common action. If the collective decision must avoid stepping on anyone’s toes or can only be implemented by those who are willing, then it is not democracy.

By denying Two-Line Struggle and its resolution, the line peace tendency creates pure stagnation. Problems, conflicts, and factionalism pile up. The Two-Line Struggle is the party’s natural immune system against its own inherent defects. Without the victory of one line over another, there is only room for compromise. The actual policy implemented will naturally shift to the right because any left-wing initiative must be watered down so that the right doesn’t scream “Two-Line Struggle.” Permanent compromise is equivalent to submission to the right. This functions in the same way that multi-party bourgeois parliaments use political pluralism to secure reactionary policies.

Short-Term vs. Long-Term Interests

Another effect of such line peace is that the organization naturally veers towards opportunism, where “day-to-day” tailism prevails. Opportunist policy is characterized by harming the long-term goal for short-term gains. How can a correct long-term course be set when the organization’s different visions for such a course cannot reach a collective decision? In its attempt to preserve organizational unity, line peace instead fosters unrestrained, though unofficial, factionalism. Line peace doesn’t stop different political groupings from trying to implement their ideas. In an organization where disagreements cannot be resolved politically, the only form of struggle is organizational factionalism. Members will seek positions not to carry out communist work but to gain power for their faction. The struggle for power within the organization replaces the struggle for socialism. Ironically, line peace often leads to the party’s fragmentation.

A Critique of “Total Unity Policy”2

Another stance on the Two-Line Struggle is viewing it as an exceptional state that should be avoided. The mindset here is that the defeated minority in an organizational debate must either renounce their views or leave the organization. There might be a differentiation between strategic and tactical issues, where tactical differences are allowed, but strategic ones are not. Even if such an organization claims to have democracy, the internal party debate will inevitably be stifled by the fact that comrades must renounce their views if they are in the minority. Often, comrades simply hide their views from the organization. But what if the decision taken is wrong? In that case, the organization loses its ability to correct its mistakes.

Strategic vs. Tactical Disagreements

The differentiation between strategic and tactical questions doesn’t help, given the relationship between the two. Strategy will affect tactics, but tactical changes can also be part of a larger strategic shift. Let’s take two examples: DKP/ML had a discussion leading up to the crucial congress in 1997 about whether union wages from union comrades should go to the party. This was clearly a tactical question, yet behind it was a strategic difference.5 Another example is the question of material incentives in China’s people’s communes during the Cultural Revolution. Again, this was a tactical issue with a strategic difference behind it—a strategy that later led to China’s capitalist restoration. What can we learn from this? That differentiating between strategy and tactics is insufficient, and forbidding strategic differences will only lead to real differences being hidden behind tactical questions.

Unity Facing Outwards

Another facet of this same mindset is the tendency to forbid members from sharing their personal views externally. This has the same effect of turning the Two-Line Struggles within the organization into secretive undertakings. It doesn’t make the line differences disappear. It is good to let comrades share their views with the masses, as criticism from the masses can help shape comrades’ positions, and if a policy is wrong, the masses can help correct it. One must trust the masses—not by being workerist and merely accepting what is easiest to sell as the right solution but by recognizing that the masses outside the organization play a key role in testing and sharpening communist policy. This lack of openness to the masses has often led many large communist movements to implode in factional struggles within central committees, hidden from the masses.

Stagnation

Total unity politics leads to stagnation, as the organization will become a small group of veterans, though with high unity. Two-Line Struggles will eventually cease as everyone who doesn’t align with the established leadership will be expelled. This might sound ideal, but it’s actually counterproductive, as left opportunism always is. The comrades may be unified, but their real mastery of Marxism will diminish because it is through Two-Line Struggles that the whole organization is forced to take a stance on communist theory and sharpen its understanding. Moreover, new members who join will be hindered in their growth because they have to pretend to be more aligned than they are, and their real views, which they keep to themselves, will not be challenged. This creates the basis for a right-wing faction within the organization.

There is no vaccine against revisionism. Even if we silence the bourgeois line, it will still be there. We see this repeatedly, regardless of whether the line hides itself. The correct stance is to openly attack wrong ideas within the organization through principled criticism and ideological struggle. If you can’t defeat right- and left-wing deviations openly, you won’t be able to defeat them through other means either.

The tendency of “Smashing”6

Some organizations claim to practice a correct Two-Line Struggle policy but undermine it in practice. We will call this method “Smashing.” It involves personally driving out comrades with minority views, which can take the form of dishonest criticism, bullying, exclusion, or other ways of pushing them out. Or it can involve criticizing with the goal of wearing out the comrade rather than improving them. It’s like imagining you are a Red Guard during the Cultural Revolution every time you debate a minority-opinion comrade, treating every contradiction as antagonistic.

The Result

This practice throws away all the benefits of a correct Two-Line Struggle policy and ends up in the same place as “Total Unity Politics”—with a small group isolated from the masses, with stunted growth both in quality and quantity. It becomes just a small group that formally recognizes the inevitability of Two-Line Struggle but not in practice.

The Communists’ Position on Two-Line Struggle

Democratic Centralism4

Democratic centralism means that all decisions must be discussed as much as possible within the relevant organs of the organization. It means that lower bodies are subordinate to higher ones. This means that members and organs must obey the decisions made by the committees above them and fully work to implement the decisions, whether they agree with them or not. In other words, democracy in discussion, unity in action.

Comrades are welcome to share differing views both within and outside the organization.7 However, when this is done externally, it is a requirement that they clearly state what their differences with the organization’s ideas are. They must also make clear what the organization’s policy is and why it is that way. Such sharing of views must be done in the spirit of comradely debate and not in a way that agitates against the practical implementation of the policy.

The Party Debate

The lifeblood of the organization is the party debate, where correct ideas are presented, and incorrect ideas are rejected. This is done by the organization constantly striving to raise the practical and theoretical level of comrades so that they are equipped for the task. It is essential that members are honest about their positions and views in the debate; keeping secrets about one’s real opinions is factionalism in embryo. The party debate should always take place in a comradely tone, and just as a defeated minority must abide by the decision, they should not be marginalized or excluded for having held the stance they did.

Our most important tool in the party debate is criticism and self-criticism. Such criticism should be based on the actual situation and not on assumptions or subjective suspicions. When applied correctly, criticism can cleanse the organization of many diseases. Good criticism should aim to improve the comrade, policy, or organ it is directed at. Once criticism is raised, the criticized should assess its validity and either self-criticize or reject the criticism depending on the conclusion. Even if the criticism is partly incorrect, made in bad faith, or comes from reactionary sources, it should not be blindly dismissed. It should still be honestly and scientifically assessed. In this way, criticism becomes a strengthening factor. If the criticism is correct, it’s not enough to simply acknowledge it; one must take steps and make efforts to consciously transform oneself and correct the problem.

Quality vs. Quantity

A mistaken understanding of the relationship between quality and quantity exists among left opportunists who view the contradiction one-sidedly. They believe that quality must always take precedence over quantity and that any “concession” to quantity is a betrayal of the line. This is a flawed understanding. It’s true that the leading aspect is quality, but a 30-person organization cannot make a revolution. If we only valued quality, why would we ever accept new members? A new member will almost always lower the average quality of the organization.8 No, a correct policy is to take in new members and prioritize growth to the extent that the organization expands as quickly as possible without losing its revolutionary line. The organization’s ability to grow depends on how effective the training of new members is, as well as the development of the existing membership, partly through principled Two-Line Struggle. The Two-Line Struggle educates the broad membership better than anything else in Marxism by forcing them to engage in the fight for it.

Purges as a Natural Part of Development

Purges are a desirable and productive part of a communist organization’s development, but they are not a goal in themselves. As the political level of the membership grows and certain opportunistic ideas are exposed, some people who represent those ideas will occasionally leave the organization. In other words, they are ideologically displaced. It is essential to distinguish between this and driving someone out who could have been an ally.

It is crucial to be able to get rid of those who have become so politically isolated that they begin acting hostile towards the organization. This could be by systematically breaking unity or otherwise acting against the organization. There is no room for such people in a communist organization. Distinguishing them from those who are willing to adjust is a key part of navigating the Two-Line Struggle.

  1. This document was written following a few years of relatively intense Two-Line Struggle in the early years of our organization. The observations of the line peace tendency are primarily based on these experiences, but the Line peace tendency is very prevalent on the Danish left in general.[][]
  2. The DKP/ML was a Hoxhaist party which was overthrown by a right-wing line in the leadership in 1997. Our studies of it and similar groups have led to some of the conclusions in this section.[][]
  3. This tendency is not different in essence from the "Total Unity policy" but differs instead in form. It could be considered a subcategory of it for this reason. It is observable in the two-line struggle policy of modern gonzaloist groups, where social pressure, rather than organizational discipline is more used to enforce the "Total Unity policy"[]
  4. This is by no means an exhaustive exposition of democratic centralism[][]

  5. In the leadup to the decisive congress there was controversy on whether or not the party’s labor union functionaries should be allowed to keep the full wage they were payed by the union, a wage significantly higher than that of the average worker in the union. The event is described briefly in the book “kampen for arbejderklassens kommunistiske parti, fra DKP/ML til APK” 2022 on page 107:
    https://apk2000.dk/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/kampen-for-partiet-oktober-bogen-2022.pdf
    []

  6. This tendency is not different in essence from the “Total Unity policy” but differs instead in form. It could be considered a subcategory of it for this reason. It is observable in the two-line struggle policy of modern gonzaloist groups, where social pressure, rather than organizational discipline is more used to enforce the “Total Unity policy”[]
  7. This is not a universal policy and could never be practiced in clandestine conditions. There is also a problem of the statements of party members functionally casting doubt on the implementation of party policy. In our current situation where the theoretical development of our organization is the central task at least, It is a correct policy, but the text makes no distinction and could be read as claiming universality.[]
  8. This isn’t exactly true as more advanced members than the organization average can join an organization, but this would be the exception rather than the rule. Furthermore the quantitative growth of the organization does affect it qualitatively for several different reasons. One is the fact that new people joining have their own particular skills, knowledge at connections which add to the collective. There is also a qualitative change which arises from both simple cooperation and division of labor within the organization increasing with size.[]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *