Quite often revolutionary movements have had their beginnings among students and intellectuals. Because of the greater access of these sections to ideas and to familiarity with intellectual and historical trends, because of less family and job responsibilities, and because of the greater openness of youth to grasp what is new and changing and to struggle for it, reaction to the contradictions in society sometimes comes more quickly and explosively among these sections.
Like many other youth movements, the anti-imperialist movement of the ’60s had important political effects of its own and provided many of the cadre for the newly developing revolutionary movement today.
Enough Marxist influence existed within the movement of the ’60s for most to understand or sense that no revolutionary transformation would take place without the participation of the working masses. This conviction was based, however, more on the historical experience of revolutionary struggle than on any familiarity with the working class and its conditions in our own country. (In fact, a revolutionary working class outlook could not have been forged, based on the struggle and consciousness of the class in this country and this period alone.)
In most cases, when ex-student cadre did go among the workers, they were impressed with what they found, especially considering the exaggerated stereotypes of workers, consciously fostered by the ruling class to promote an image of backwardness. They found workers very perceptive of the class cleavages in society, contemptuous of the wealthy and the politicians who represent the wealthy. Most workers had come to be strongly against the Vietnam war and cynical about American motives in war and foreign policy (for many this awareness had begun with the Korean war). They found the workers are disciplined when involved in a struggle and willing to fight seriously for what they consider to be in their interests, have contempt for those who compromise in the midst of a struggle, for phonies and self-seekers, and are quick to understand the need for solidarity and class unity. While racism and sexism is strong among many workers, and while there exists a general level of cynicism about the effect of rank and file organization, and about communism being any preferable and workable alternative to capitalism, a greater open-mindedness exists even on these questions and headway has been made at times when approached patiently, persistently and from the clear standpoint of the interests of the workers (correct class stand).
The new movement has begun to realize from its own experience that the working class is the class whose real interests are most consistently opposed to the existence of the capitalist system and that the working class can best recognize, through countless skirmishes for its survival, the need for class unity and organization to overthrow the power of the capitalist class.
However, the understanding of these questions among movement cadre, limited still by a small amount of experience, has had aspects of superficiality that provide the basis for quixotic moods and one-sided extremes.
Correcting the movement’s initial cynicism toward workers, several organizations and collectives have gone through periods of tending to idealize the workers, exaggerating breakthroughs made, excusing or even imitating backwardness. Then, becoming fearful of “tailing behind the workers”, losing confidence in their own common sense altogether, they become uncritical “line-pushers” for their organization’s unrealistic schemes (“3O for 40”, “build political workers’ organizations”, etc) no matter what response they get among the workers. The patronizing liberalism toward the workers and third world people that developed in the earlier “integrate with the workers” period has often become a habit and is often used opportunistically (“so and so is a worker and he agrees with this”), but does not necessarily reflect any ability to learn from the approach of the workers or to have patience and confidence in the workers’ ability to learn from their own experience.
The earlier period of “becoming like the workers” at least has the virtues of investigation being done about the concrete conditions of workers, time being spent socially with workers, and learning the contract or the shop steward’s job.
In the later period the tendency is to “get down to business and show some results” by concentrating on bringing those who will come to demonstrations, picket lines, workers’ committees or study groups (depending on the line of the respective organization). The theoretical justification for such abrupt changes most often arises with a “struggle against economism”.
Economist mistakes are often made in the period of “integrating with the workers”. They are usually, however, more a reflection of the inexperience and lack of direction of cadre, than of any deeply based rightist trend.
In fact, the extremes to which fears of being economist have driven some people is the best indication that petty-bourgeois “Leftism” in all its forms (purism, dogmatism, sectarianism, adventurism) is still the greatest danger to the new communist movement. We will continue to analyze this trend in relation to the question of trade union work.
Virtually nobody today would argue that communists should stay out of the reactionary led unions. To do so would act against the clear position of the communist movement since Lenin’s writing of “Left-wing Communism”. The accusation of “dual unionism” is mentioned in today’s polemics, and with justification in our view, because in describing the “dual unionist mentality” Lenin was combatting an entire approach toward political work, the approach of seeking pure “Left” forms of struggle rather than fighting to transform the forms that arise naturally and necessarily from among the masses, regardless of their drawbacks, borne of the existing trends today, however, seem to feel that if they work along with workers and hold membership cards in their unions, they have avoided the mistakes of the “Left-wing Communists”.
The Revolutionary Union-RU (now called Revolutionary Communist Party), for example, developed a line of building a “revolutionary workers’ movement” by placing primary emphasis on uniting advanced workers into “political workers’ organizations” rather than fighting for control of the trade unions. (We are not picking at words. The RU itself has emphasized this dichotomy by opposing the “move the trade unions to the Left” view of October League-OL. The RU “draft program” is very clear on this.)
Reality tends to break through however. RU, despite its Leftist mistakes in theory (which do have their consequences in practice), ends up in much of their practice, trying to “move the trade unions to the Left” or whatever they choose to call it.
Another line that recently enjoyed popularity, a dogmatist tendency within various smaller organizations and collectives which refers to itself as the “party building trend”, says (our paraphrase).“struggles will develop on a trade union level and that’s fine but for us communists to get too deeply involved in these struggles, instead of winning the advanced by propaganda, amounts to economism”.
Common to both the “political workers’ organizations” line and the “party building trend” line, is the too minimal understanding about trade unions that ”here is an arena, undesirable as it may be, that we must work within”.
There are some significant distinctions, however, between these two incorrect lines. The “party building trend” seems to have had little enough experience that they think communists can do their “propaganda” work pretty much in ignorance and disregard of the union and job conditions around them. This trend criticizes the RU essentially for not leaving the work of trade unions to the trade unionists and reflects a real non-struggle, “economist” if you want, neglect of the subjective factor, i.e. that the leadership of and direction of the workers’ struggles can play a very decisive role (positive or negative) in developing the consciousness of the working class.
The RU does not make this Leftist (but Right in essence) error of refusing to take responsibility of the workers’ movement in so obvious a way. They do not consistently, however, take responsibility for the direction of the workers’ movement or else they would not come up with such a one-sided non-strategy for the tasks within the trade unions.
The RU’s strategy is something like this: the attention should be focused on spontaneous outbursts of rank and file workers or particularly hard fought union struggles where communists can more immediately and directly (if only temporarily) play a role (particularly this is possible if the union is weak or local ties with an especially corrupt local are weak), and, through militant support, gain the political friendship of some of the more advanced elements and recruit them, at least into a political workers’ organization.
Difficult strikes and spontaneous struggles such as wildcats can be important opportunities for political alliances if handled correctly. RU, OL, and others have done some of their best work in these situations, e.g. Farah, Onietta, La Tolteca. RU, however, has used this limited experience to develop a theory that these “single sparks”, given the proper organizational form, will provide a strategy for the work in the trade unions.
These high points of working class struggle do offer, again, the best opportunity for the development of the entire struggle, on every level. However, after nearly any of these struggles the question comes, “where do we go from here?”. RU’s inclination would probably be to say something at that point about their May 1st Workers’ committee or, for the time being, mention another picket line somewhere. That would only be, at best» a very partial answer. We should be able to say, “Let’s use the energy that’s gotten into motion here and the things we’ve learned to start an on-going movement in this union to eventually replace these misleaders and build a union that protects the workers’ interests on the job, fights the strikebreaking, repressive, anti-working class plans of the government and courts, as well as the employers, and whose strength is the democratic participation and control by the membership”. (The communist should also look for the opportunity to add, “In my view the interest of workers is in ultimately overthrowing this capitalist class and the politicians who front for them. That’s the only long range solution and the union itself should help people to understand that, not support illusions about the fairness and workability of the capitalist system.”)
To build shop and local-wide, and eventually union and industry-wide rank and file movements is not easy. It will take both great skill and hard work by rank and file workers and communists. The organizational and political hold of the misleaders is very strong. For that very reason, to think we could simply step in to capitalize on the “single sparks”, and to continue to operate that way is both very naive and, in fact, elitist, because it is only the organization of the workers themselves into a powerful progressive force within the unions that can change the character of the unions and provide the mass base for the development of a working class communist leadership.
Lenin pointed out that the spontaneous tendency of workers is toward trade unionist ideology, i.e. ideology that accepts the framework of the capitalist system. He taught that for communists to confine their politics to trade unionism in hopes that spontaneously the workers would address the question of state power was incorrect and opportunist. He also taught that unions are essentially defensive and broad organizations under the capitalist system that cannot, in themselves, lead in overthrowing the capitalists. However, Lenin also taught (in such articles as “Trade Union Neutrality”, Col. Works, vol. 13 p.400) that the leadership and the color of the trade unions should not be left to the pro-capitalist opportunists; that the communists should fight to openly give leadership to the trade unions. Lenin also taught that the workers will only be convinced of communist ideas when their own experience has taught them that trade unionism, parliamentarism, and the reformists who would restrict them to these channels have not provided the solutions.
The masses must participate in reformist struggle, and for communists to encourage and lead them in doing so is not economist. Not to attempt to lead people beyond the misunderstanding that reforms will solve their problems is economist. What then, should a trade union strategy look like?
Communists participate in and attempt to give direction to trade unions and trade union level economic struggle and other progressive mass struggles in order to develop the revolutionary consciousness and organization of the working class. Communists must show not that trade unionism, per se, but the organized struggle of the working class can and will succeed and must be guided by Marxist-Leninist principles to become offensive and take state power in order to realize its aims.
In order to merge our socialist perspective with the workers’ own movement, communists must take seriously the struggle to improve and democratize the unions, make them into fighting organizations for the rank and file that aggressively take up issues of anti-imperialist and class solidarity, as well as shop or industry-wide issues. Rank and file movements should be encouraged if they are or can be built on even a partial recognition of the above, e.g. greater union militancy. Likewise they should not be encouraged if their main thrust consists of narrow, divisive factional interests, the spread of a racist, chauvinist or otherwise backward mentality, or merely represent the designs of individuals toward their careers.
Where progressive rank and file movements can develop, they must be given organizational form. As struggle develops within various industries, industry-wide and union-wide organization should develop (but not artificially initiated by communists when no nation-wide base exists, at least in key areas). District, city or state-wide organization on some level within a particular union can also play an important role. City-wide workers’ organizations might also play a role in uniting the more advanced workers from various industries and taking up strike support or class-wide issues. (However, this is the easiest level of organization for the communist groups that have a worker here and there and can become merely front groups with the workers outnumbered and smothered by cadres.)
Black and other third world caucuses or women’s caucuses should be established where a need exists based on discrimination or racism in that union or shop or where a strong separatist tendency exists. For third world communists and women communists working within such organizations, opposition to the development of a narrow “self-interest group” mentality is important. Many advanced third world and women workers will demand themselves that negative attitudes toward other workers be opposed.
A greater level of political unity can often develop in third world caucuses because of the common dual oppression as workers and oppressed minorities. Greater solidarity, political unity and easier participation by members can also develop within women’s caucuses where the need exists. In most cases however, multinational and particularly men and women’s caucuses will be possible, arise naturally (because of the tendency of workers to recognize the need for broad unity), and, if a clear stand against national and women’s oppression is fought for, multinational unity can develop that can have a positive effect on the entire struggle in that plant or union. The special demands of minorities and women workers must be taken up. Communists should struggle for multinational unity, do proper educational work and use their brains so that issues of special demands do not come up divisively, though even short-term divisiveness is sometimes necessary in order to lay the basis for long-term unity.
The issues may vary considerably according to industry, even local conditions, and the economic and political situation and mood at any particular time. Programs should develop in locals and eventually in industries (particularly as issues arise in contracts, union elections and conventions), which differentiate l) long-term union level priorities, 2) immediate issues of significance, 3) political issues that directly relate to the union’s stand and 4) issues emphasized that can facilitate and show the need for a democratic, militant, rank and file run union movement. Independent communist propaganda should be done which develops and goes beyond the outline above, as this outline suggests only a projected level of rank and file unity.
The above is only the broadest outline of an approach. Questions remain to be answered (some of which can only be answered for a particular local situation), such as: How broad or minimal should the level of unity for a caucus be? Should we, and if so, how should we relate to a very broad reform slate or caucus headed by opportunist forces? How soon should newsletters or newspapers be initiated and how large a role should agitational leaflets play? Under what circumstances should election slates be initiated and what role should communists play? When are walkouts, wildcats, demonstrations against the company, political demonstrations, demonstrations against the union and in general, when are methods of confrontation with the union leadership advisable? Which workers should be relied on? Which issues have the potential of gaining support? How can we raise certain political ideas in an effective way? etc.
The Right tendency can take the form of not struggling with racist, sexist or anti-communist ideas, with non-struggle defeatist ideas, cynicism toward other workers, opportunist or careerist tendencies (e.g. the “foot in the door approach to the union office”), or with other incorrect attitudes. Also failing to encourage militant struggle against opportunists, union bureaucrats and the bosses, sacrificing principles in hopes of winning over individuals, or failing to struggle for the acceptance of communist ideas and principles. Right errors may occur when we are very weak but are even more likely to occur when we represent a force within a union.
Left tendencies occur very often when we are isolated and inexperienced. These mistakes include isolating the caucus by projecting an unrealistically high level of political unity, concentrating only on internal education or consolidation in isolation from the broader tasks within the union, concentrating too much on secondary or “outside” political issues that override the more primary issues and sabotages the level of unity that ought to be achieved, overestimating the level of support so that adventurist tactics are employed leading to defeat and demoralization, or so that we are isolated by maintaining a level of struggle against either the bosses or union leadership that the masses are not willing to support. The adventurist mistake hinges on forgetting that the determining factor in our tactics is always our relationship with the broad masses, not a small part of the masses.
Study groups should be organized for the training of communists and the development of political unity. They should be a priority from the earliest stage, and at the same time, should not be seen as a separate stage before work on a broader level is attempted. If study groups are postponed until work is more developed, chances are this task will continue to be neglected as activity becomes more feverish, and the work will suffer from lack of correct political unity among the more advanced and leading elements. The opposite “left” mistake of concentrating almost entirely on political education can encourage a sectarian and cliquish style of work, where particular questions of Marxism or movement polemics may become primary when workers have not really seen the value of applying Marxism. Workers often have a gut-level understanding that if Marxism is something to use in changing the world and we do not seem very capable of using it, then something must be wrong with our Marxism.
A good organizer should encourage and check up on individual study where study groups are not possible or are not adequate.
Communist propaganda should be attempted in an imaginative and forthright manner through independent leaflets, articles in caucus newsletters, pamphlets, city-wide or organizational newspapers and, when we can do it, books that explain and apply Marxism to the present American conditions.
Trade unions are the broadest form of working class organization and they are the form corresponding to the situation at the point of capitalist production. While unions once represented mainly the skilled trades, they now include the workers of most large scale industries (since the ’30s, CIO period).
Still, only about 25% of the work force is unionized - a drop even from the World Warn period that reflects the particularly decadent period of post WWII union leadership and some increased attacks on union conditions, e.g. the runaway shop to areas of low unionization. Many jobs that women workers hold are particularly unorganized (clerical, sales, service), as are the more labor intensive industries that employ mainly third world people or women.
Union organization should be attempted in these unorganized industries with the basic approach, as outlined above, toward unions and economic struggle. Newly organized units sometimes have more opportunity for democratic participation because of less perfected bureaucratic machinery and less encrusted leadership. Communist work will, by and large, be most effective, especially in winning people to a revolutionary perspective, among the most oppressed, most poorly paid sections of the working class. (Other factors enter in as well, such as the size of plants and industry and the militancy of union traditions. These factors may be primary in certain cases and around the particular needs of certain periods, e.g. in exercising a broad influence on the union level struggle.)
Many and varied types of mass organization have occurred and are occurring in the community. These include the organization of unemployed, youth, welfare recipients, tenants, school parents, and neighborhood improvement groups. Also many political campaigns operate on a community level, such as defense committees aimed at curbing city police powers, or around ballot propositions or electoral campaigns.
In periods of economic crisis, many of these off-the-job issues gain far greater importance-, and periods of economic crisis are becoming more frequent and more serious. Unemployment insurance and welfare services, along with the individual nature of being unemployed, have cushioning effects against organization until the crisis reaches a certain point.
Another feature of the present period is an expanding and contracting but continually larger margin of unemployed. This is particularly true among the workers who have had the most oppressive low-paying jobs and who have the most oppressed conditions of life; and a very large percentage are minorities.
Organization of unemployed or poor, at least in minority communities, may provide a spark to ignite a more class conscious workers movement that would have its effects inside as well as outside the trade unions. (This happened in the late ’60s to a certain extent, with such groups as the Panthers, and it happened in the early ’30s with organization of the unemployed on a large scale.)
Our present task is to achieve more of a base among the people, both in trade unions and the communities, and to develop a more correct and real revolutionary theory on the basis of our experience in the people’s struggles and in the historical experience of class struggle. In this way a basis can be provided for a Party that can lead the class to complete victory.