Historical Background
(Where does “Tailism” come from?)
In the second chapter of his 1902 text, What is to be Done?, V.I. Lenin writes:
But what else is the function of Social-Democracy if not to be a “spirit” that not only hovers over the spontaneous movement, but also raises this movement to the level of “its programme”? Surely, it is not its function to drag at the tail of the movement. At best, this would be of no service to the movement; at worst, it would be exceedingly harmful. Rabocheye Dyelo, however, not only follows this “tactics-as-process,” but elevates it to a principle, so that it would be more correct to describe its tendency not as opportunism, but as tail-ism (from the word tail). And it must be admitted that those who are determined always to follow behind the movement and be its tail are absolutely and forever guaranteed against “belittling the spontaneous element of development.”
In this specific context, Lenin is referring to the outlet Rabocheye Dyelo, a competing social democrat newspaper in Russia at the time, who advocated a permissive attitude towards the wider mass-movement. The Rabocheye Dyelo proclaimed the question of mass-leadership to be a “new” one, and, according to Lenin, responded with indignance to Iskra, Lenin’s paper, for highlighting their errors.
Here, then, Lenin gives us a very brief definition, and a very popular term that remains a persistent fixture of Marxist “discourse” in the present. Specifically, tailism, as Lenin states here, is the elevation of “tactics-as-process” to a principle in-and-of itself; determination to follow behind the movement.
In his later text, Foundations of Leninism (1924), J.V. Stalin, once more, synthesizes Lenin’s formulation and provides further clarity:
The theory of worshipping spontaneity is decidedly opposed to giving the spontaneous movement a politically conscious, planned character. It is opposed to the Party marching at the head of the working class, to the Party raising the masses to the level of political consciousness, to the Party leading the movement; it is in favour of the politically conscious elements of the movement not hindering the movement from taking its own course; it is in favour of the Party only heeding the spontaneous movement and dragging at the tail of it. The theory of spontaneity is the theory of belittling the role of the conscious element in the movement, the ideology of “khvostism,” the logical basis of all opportunism.
While Lenin differentiates tailism from opportunism, which was already a well-understood phenomenon, Stalin further elaborates that tailism is derived from the same basis as opportunism, as a belittling of the role of the conscious element in the movement.
Since this inception, tailism has remained a go-word within Marxist criticism; wherever one looks, they will find countless examples of individuals, actions, organizations, and even whole movements, derided as tailist for any number of (often conflicting) reasons. Here, however, we may grasp the real content of the matter with greater clarity, and precisely how the error of tailism is fundamentally separate from, but also fundamentally connected to, opportunism.
The Crises of Tailism
(What does “Tailism” look like today?)
It may be said that there are two primary trends of tailism in the context of the contemporary Marxist-Leninist movement.
The first, and most prominent trend of tailism that we see today, is that of tailism-as-a-floating-signifier; that is, of tailism being described in terms that are much different from the foundational conceptions laid down by V.I. Lenin and J.V. Stalin above, and employed mechanistically as a slogan of criticism against real (or imagined) deviation from an equally vulgarized image of Leninism. In this context, the conception of tailism is subverted, opportunistically, and deployed for the sake of performativity rather than critical analysis. Rather, in the vast majority of these cases, the conception of tailism is deployed as a rhetorical tool, and a floating signifier, by “Left” opportunistic forces who, from their basis in vulgarity and revisionism, grasp at tailism as a synonym for capitulationism; a vulgarization and revision of both concepts. Specifically, here, we see the clear delineation between tailism and capitulationism arise, in that tailism, in truth, refers specifically to the abdication of leadership by the revolutionary force, generally in some anarchistic populist turn, while capitulationism, used by Lenin to describe the liquidationists, asserts an even more egregious position of turning over that leadership to bourgeois forces entirely. Further, the opportunistic character of tailism arises from its usage for the sake of short-term advantage of a singular individual, or small sectarian sect, over and above the long-term interests of the working and oppressed classes.
This first trend is thus fundamentally a vulgar, revisionist, and Left-opportunistic one*;* of confusing the content of Marxism (whether intentionally or not) in order to find “solutions” to problems that have already been answered, much like our friends at the Rabocheye Dyelo some one-hundred years ago. This Left-opportunist trend of tailism is thus fundamentally concerned with reducing Marxism to a kind of insulated cult: isolated, idealized, and dogmatized beyond anything that would be remotely useful to the real-world movement of working and oppressed peoples. It is, rather, at its core, a kind of petit-bourgeois tendency towards idealism and self-servicing pageantry.
The second, and most fundamentally destructive trend of tailism that we see today, is the genuine implementation of, as V.I. Lenin said, tactics-as-process. There is, indeed, a most unfortunate and ongoing infatuation by some (primarily Right-opportunist forces) with the degeneration of Marxism into a kind of anarchistic populism. This trend arises, likewise, from the degeneration of sloganeering being taken in the place of coherent understanding or study of the content of Marxism or real-world class forces; primarily, that of vulgarizing and revising the slogan of meeting the masses where they are, and of the necessity to build a united front against fascism and war. This Right-opportunist trend of tailism is thus fundamentally concerned with reducing Marxism to a kind of liberal populism: diffuse, groundless, and impotent in the face of the real-world crises of the time.
It is thus that our two trends of contemporary tailism may be summed up as opportunistic, and working, simultaneously, in equal-and-opposite directions of revisionism; coalescing as a combined downward force of opportunism and revisionism against the ideological center of Marxism-Leninism.
Overcoming Tailism
(What is the solution to “Tailism”?)
As fundamentally rooted in opportunism and revisionism, these two trends of contemporary tailism share the same underlying grounding:
Opportunism, as we have seen, rests on the subjugation of the long-term class interests of the working and oppressed to the interests of the ruling class, for the sake of some short-term, immediate concession or advantage. In speaking specifically of its Right-wing form and relationship to social-chauvinism, which, most notably, arose as the killing blow against the Second International, V.I. Lenin writes:
The economic basis of “social-chauvinism” and of opportunism is the same, namely, an alliance between an insignificant section at the “top” of the labour movement, and its “own” national bourgeoisie, directed against the masses of the proletariat, an alliance between the servants of the bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie, directed against the class that is exploited by the bourgeoisie.
V.I. Lenin further clarifies that temporary alliances with certain bourgeois forces may at times be desirable if and when they are oriented towards the interests of the working and oppressed, and that it is precisely when such collaboration is carried out in opposition to those interests that Right-opportunism emerges.
We may thus understand its Left-wing iteration as a variant of that same phenomena; that it is the subjugation of the long-term class interests of the working and oppressed to the short-term interests of asserting a malformed dogmatization or vulgarization of Marxist “purity.” This appears, most acutely, in the present infatuation with “discourse” that is fundamentally destructive to both the forging of broader unity among political forces, as well as to the class interests of working and oppressed communities.1
In each case, then, the answer to the crises of tailism begins with the implementation of Democratic Centralism in the organization itself, and finds its fulfilment with its enforcement, alongside other disciplinary and developmental interventions to inoculate the members from those errors; and to equip them with the ideological clarity and discipline necessary to spot and reject opportunistic impulses wherever they arise. Specifically, this appears in the grass-roots, community, or mass-orientation of Marxist-Leninist organizational development, and in the implementation of mandatory education for Comrade-leaders that is rooted in the ideological clarity of Marxism-Leninism as a living science.
In this way, as well, the fundamental revisionist element is likewise dealt with, as the majority of revisionist deviation arises, as it were, as a function of either ignorance or opportunism.
While further investigation and elaboration on the subject is necessary, this shall serve as a sufficient basis for understanding and combating the crises of tailism in our time.