The key task before the left in mass work is the development the political struggle. We have seen how an economic determinist and crisis framework makes it impossible for the so-called communist groups which exist now to develop a political movement. However, people will now correctly ask, how can political struggle be concretely developed in this country? How are political demands to be raised in a meaningful way, especially when the political level of white workers is so low and the left is so weak.
The task of this paper is not to provide all the answers to the questions posed above. In fact, we do not believe that we or anyone else has those answers. That is why we see major theoretical breakthroughs on the strategy for American revolution as necessary before a real communist movement can be formed in this country. However, here we can begin to develop the methodology and framework for answering the question of how to develop revolutionary political struggle.
The framework upon which we feel it is possible to begin to start communist practice and a new communist trend rests on three basic points. All of these three points begin to break with the economic determinist and crisis framework criticized above.
First the struggle must be developed around the political issues facing the masses of people. As mentioned earlier, most groups, including the revisionist and dogmatists begin from the propositions that daily struggle is basically waged around economic issues while political ideology and political issues primarily involve such questions as socialism, or international issues such as Angola, or Soviet Social-Imperialism, etc. Thus, political ideology on the nature of Capitalism is seen by these groups as being brought to the day to day (read economic) struggle of the working class. In this way these groups see bridging the gap between reform struggles and revolutionary struggle, of developing revolutionary consciousness out of the economic struggle.
We see that this economic determinist philosophy does not lead to developing revolutionary consciousness out of the economic reform struggles. Invariably, what happens is that either the Communists get mired in the economic struggles (e.g. CP) or the Communists are able to win a few workers to a revolutionary position and in the process isolate themselves from the masses of workers (e.g. RCP, OL, Workers Viewpoint). These two outcomes are just two sides of the same process; an incorrect attempt to develop revolutionary consciousness predominantly out of the economic struggle.
How is either socialist, anti-imperialist ox revolutionary consciousness to be developed among the masses of workers? It will not come primarily from introducing political ideas in the course of economic struggle„ At this time political struggle will primarily come out of the day to day political issues and outrages faced by the working class.
Specifically, in NYC, issues such as lack of democratic rights (EFCB control of the Govt.), the Government’s inability and lack of real willingness to do anything about the crime problems, affirmative action, education and abortions for poor women, are immediate issues out of which mass political struggle can be developed. These issues are immediate concerns to working people, as are economic issues such as wage increases, and working conditions. The fact that they are uppermost in the minds of many can be seen by the ability of conservatives and reactionaries to whip up mass sentiment and mass struggle on these issues, e.g. busing, crime, Big Government, etc.
The primary focus for the development of revolutionary and socialist ideas is the day to day political struggle. This is because in political struggle around these issues, people come face to face against the Government and learn from their practice the nature of the State in a way that they can’t in economic struggle. With the aid of communists, workers will begin to understand that the Government represents capitalist interests and is incapable of being reformed. They will learn who their friends and allies are among other strata and classes.
These political perceptions will gradually be deepened many times in the course of political struggle. If Communists are working and helping to lead those efforts and in the course of those political struggles are raising questions of socialism and imperialism, the worker will learn that the Government must be overthrown and socialist relations of production replace capitalist ones. As Mao states, in On Practice,
As social practice continues, things that give rise to man’s sense perceptions and impressions in the course of his practice are repeated many times; then a sudden change (leap) takes place in the brain in the process of cognition, and concepts are formed.
How the concept of Socialism and Revolution will be formed in the process of the worker’s gaining perceptual knowledge as to the nature of the State we do not have an answer for. In fact, we believe that the key theoretical question which has to be answered is: Under what conditions does the leap to conceptual knowledge about socialism and revolution take place in the workers’ mind?
How does the left help facilitate that leap? As can be seen from On Practice, merely reading Mao does not answer the question as to how that sudden change from perceptual to rational or conceptual knowledge is to be accomplished. The dialectical process wherein that leap takes place in advanced countries, of course was never developed by Mao. Nor do we have an answer to that question.
While we do not have the answer, we do know where the starting place is. The starting point out of which socialist ideas can be developed is perceptual knowledge gained by workers confronting the State. While the process wherein perceptual knowledge could lead to logical knowledge is still not understood, the social practice leading to perceptual knowledge about the State is predominantly practiced in the political arena., It is for that reason we put forward developing political struggle around the concerns of workers as the main task of Communists in the work place and communities.
The issue of national oppression is a concrete example of why political struggle is key. At present, the working class is strongly divided along racial lines. Racism runs rampant among white workers. Without uniting the class, it is impossible to even conceive of a strong communist movement.
How will class unity develop? How will the racism of white workers be overcome? While propaganda around racism, and the ideological struggle around racism are important, by themselves propaganda and ideology won’t convince the masses of white workers. Nor will left rhetoric convince white workers. The way to combat the racist consciousness of many white workers lies in their social practice.
In the course of the economic struggle (practice) it is sometimes possible for white workers to grasp the idea that unity between blacks and whites is important in order to win concessions from the employer. They can perceive through their practice that unity between blacks and whites is necessary in order to win a strike. However, those same white workers will oppose busing, or oppose affirmative action, or will see that blacks and not the Government is responsible for crime. What is really lacking among the working class is not economic unity (although in many cases such as in the construction industry, or around the question of layoffs even economic unity is lacking) but political unity.
Political unity can only be developed out of political struggle. It is only through political struggle that white workers will come to perceive that black and Latin people as a whole (not just black and Latin workers) are their allies in their own struggle against the Government. Only through political struggle will white workers realize that they must support the demands of the black and Latin people against national oppression and not simply unite with black and Latin workers in the shop.
Take the issue of crime. It is not of great use to merely explain to white workers that the root of crime is the capitalist system and the evils that it engenders. While important, the way forward does not primarily lie in explaining to white workers that blacks are not the cause of crime and that they must fight their own racism. Why should the white worker listen to the left?
It is much more important for the left to begin to develop a political program around crime which exposes the Government’s role in bringing about crime. For example, concrete demands should be developed (and here is not the place to do that) which demand that the Government take some action around the drug problem. The right wing forces develop their own programs around drugs, albeit phony and reactionary, such as the Rockefeller plan. The left must respond with concrete programs.
If such a program was developed which really spoke to the needs and emotions of white, black and Latin people collectively, it could be raised in such a way as to win support (see next section). White workers and black and Latin people as a whole certainly have the same interests in demanding that the Government attempt to solve the crime problem. Demands exposing the Government’s plans of putting more cops on the street and restoring the death penalty could win support. In the process of struggling against the Government around those demands, the role and the inability of the capitalist State to solve the crime problem would be exposed. Moreover, white workers would begin to see who was really responsible for crime and overcome the racist notion that oppressed nationalities cause crime.
In its deterministic view that unity is accomplished through economic struggle the left has not placed enough importance on political struggle around these types of political issues. It is that struggle which is crucial in this period.
The second principle which we think distinguishes our position from the ultra-left viewpoint is that in developing this type of political struggle the main thrust of communist activity must be toward winning over the mass working class organizations to support the communist position and not toward setting up independent anti-imperialist or separate workers organizations. To try to develop this political struggle outside of the present institutions of bourgeois society leads to political struggle being confined to a handful of advanced workers. But this is precisely what the ultra-leftists, blinded by their economic determinist theory, in fact do.
The main form of political struggle waged by communist groups takes place independent of and outside of bourgeois mass organizations such as trade unions. The trade unions are held to be simply economic organizations of the working class. It is true that in a revolutionary period it is crucial for the working class to develop its own mass political organizations to wage revolutionary struggle. We do not agree with the revisionist position that holds that the working class can seize power from within the institutions of bourgeois society such as the bourgeois parliaments. The Soviets in Russia, the Red Army and liberated areas in China, were both mass independent working class forms for waging revolutionary struggle. Of course during any period it is crucial for the working class to have a Communist Party, but that is not a mass organization of the class, but an organization of its advanced elements. The development of the American form of mass working class organizations, independent of bourgeois institutions is crucial for a successful revolution. These forms become important instruments of power under the Proletarian Dictatorship.
However, in the long historical period in which revolution is not on the agenda, utilizing the forms presented by bourgeois society, i.e. trade unions, elections, tenant unions, consumer groups, block associations, Black Churches, PTA’s, become crucial. Our position is that utilizing these bourgeois institutions is the main method for developing political struggle at this point. Political action taken by a communist party or organization, outside of and independent of these forms are by and large doomed to failure.
The usual left strategy around an issue such as crime or the EFCB is to get a group together (i.e. NY Committed to Fight the EFCB), hand out thousands of leaflets, put in a huge amount of energy and sacrifice, only to find out that 50 people, mainly adherents of the communist group initiating it, come to the demonstration. However, since political struggle must be growing, the newspaper of a particular communist group behind the action will write a whole story on it, stating that it is a step forward in the struggle against the crimes of the EFCB.
Instead, we believe that the predominant strategy to follow is raising issues in the trade unions and mass organizations, such as housing groups, PTA’s, etc., and attempting to force, by means of political struggle, these groups to take a position and mobilize around the issue. This does not mean getting pro-forma endorsements, but collectively engaging the rank and file in a process of attempting to win the union or other organization solidly to that position.
In some cases, the correct path will be for the left to attempt to initiate mass organizations. This is particularly true in places where no mass organizations now exist. For example in housing which is in the process of being abandoned no mass organization now exists to fight that process of abandonment. Communists might correctly attempt to set up a mass organization among tenants to fight abandonment. However, two conditions must be fulfilled in order for such a group to be a success. First, no reformist groups should have a solid base among those tenants. If a reform group with a solid base does exist however, it would probably be better to attempt to work with that reformist group. Second, the organization should really have the potential of attracting mass participation and not just a core of advanced tenants.
In some cases, particularly in the community struggles, the left can set up its own mass organizations. However, in general left must do political work inside of the old reformist organizations. This is particularly true of the trade unions, where except in those cases where the union ceases to represent any significant sector of workers, political work must start from within the unions.
Furthermore, one of the most important forums to utilize in bourgeois society is the electoral process. The electoral struggle has been almost totally ignored by the anti-revisionist movement. Means must be found, even if on a very local level to run candidates who present a perspective and platform independent of the Democratic and Republican parties. Support for such candidates should be raised within the trade unions and other mass organizations.
In many cases, the left will now be too weak to run local candidates. For example, in the NY Mayoralty election any left candidates would not now be taken seriously. However, even in those cases where the left is too weak to run a candidate, it is important to utilize the electoral process.
For example, in the NYC Mayoralty campaign, communists within the unions should attempt to expose the various candidates and to mount a campaign to get the union to refuse to endorse them. One concrete way such a campaign might be raised is around the question of workers’ dues money going into the coffers of democratic primary candidates. Many workers feel angry that thousands of dollars of their dues money is spent to support the likes of a Koch or a Cuomo, Beame, or an Abzug. This is done by a few bureaucrats, often without the approval of the rank and file. A demand that union money should not go to support Democratic or Republican Party candidates since they run on programs which are antagonistic to the workers’ interests would be one way to introduce political ideas through an electoral campaign.
The point is that the electoral process has been almost completely ignored or relegated to a secondary status by all except the Revisionists and Social-Democrats who see it as the road to Socialism. It is, however, one of the primary ways of raising political ideas and of demonstrating the fallacy of reformist notions of reforming the State or bringing about Socialism through elections.
Finally, in order to utilize the forums presented by bourgeois democracy, it is important to be able to make tactical alliances with even the most hated bureaucrat or politician. The anti-revisionist left has again either ignored or never explored these possibilities. Many times, the only way to be able to reach masses of people with political ideas is through some type of alliance. Furthermore, as put forward in previous sections, people learn from their practice. People will not learn about the limitations of Leon Davis or Bella Abzug except through understanding their practices. Sometimes, in order to expose these reformists it is necessary to, as Lenin put it, give them the rope with which to hang themselves.
For example, recently in the taxi union in NY there was a split in the top leadership. The vice-president of the union broke with the president (Harry Van Arsdale) and decided to run for president on his own. At the same time there was a rank and file group in the taxi union, which had respect among cab drivers.
While both the president and vice-president were equally reactionary, the left forces within the union might have gained much through a temporary tactical alliance with the vice-president. This is particularly true since the vice-president had a certain support, particularly among black and Latin workers, which at that time the rank and file group could not reach. An alliance with the VP, as reactionary as he was, would have allowed the left to reach many more workers with political ideas than they formerly had.
Secondly, at that point the VP needed and in some ways was looking for left support. The rank and file groups, while not as strong as the VP or the president, had a strong base, particularly among young drivers. In that position, the left would have been able to raise political issues, and even force the VP to half-heartedly accept some of its program. The point is not that the VP would have become progressive, but that the left had enough independent strength to not be totally subsumed in such an alliance. If the left enters into an alliance, where it is very weak, it usually gets pushed under the rug, and is not able to raise its own independent political programs. This is what invariably happens when the CP makes alliances with bourgeois politicians and adopts a liberal program. However, in cases where the left has some strength, it is possible to utilize these tactical alliances tremendously. The anti-revisionist movement, in its fear of being tainted with revisionism has generally ignored or refused to entertain such alliances, even when the conditions are ripe.
To summarize, not only must the forums society, i.e. electoral, legal, trade unions, community groups, be utilized to develop political struggle, but at the present time, in general, they must be the primary means for the development of that struggle. Here we feel that one example should be developed more fully. The example is the role of the trade unions in the development of revolutionary political struggle.
The common conceptions, both among rank and file workers and leftists, is that the trade union exists solely to win economic concessions from the employers. Political struggle is the realm of political parties such as a Communist Party and not the realm of trade unions. The only type of political struggle that the union can engage in is political struggle which arises out of the economic struggle against the employer, such as health and safety laws, or the struggle for labor legislation-minimum wage laws, etc.
What happens to communist work in the trade unions starting from this framework? On the day to day level, Communists act as militant economic fighters, sometime leading the economic struggle. According to this conception Communists must also introduce political ideas into the union. But what becomes of those ideas?
The purpose of introducing political ideas into the union from both a revisionist or ultra-left view is not to get the union as a whole to consciously take up revolutionary political struggle. That is theoretically impossible due to their conception of the role of the union. The purpose of introducing political ideas into the union from the economic determinist perspective is to win adherence to the political organizations of the working class. Thus, the RCP sets up intermediate workers organizations, which are supposed to attract the advanced workers who are politically active. Since the union as a whole is limited to economic struggle, if a Communist wins leadership in the union he or she must predominantly fight to make the union take a militant economic stance. He or she can introduce political ideas, but the union as a whole can not take up these revolutionary political ideas0 Thus, the political struggle must be developed primarily outside of the unions.
Our position is that not only must political ideas be introduced into the unions, but a struggle must be waged to turn the unions into organizations which support the revolutionary political struggle which is led by the party. Concretely, what is meant by this?
On each of the burning political issues of the day the Communists must critique and develop an alternative to the program put forward by the bourgeoisie and particularly its liberal sector, which has an ideological influence over many progressive workers. This program should be diametrically opposed to that of the labor bureaucracy, in that it would have to expose the underpinnings of the State, and the liberal politicians, which the labor bureaucrats are unwilling to do.
What must really be exposed about the labor bureaucracy is not merely its sell-out economic policies. The labor bureaucracy as a major prop of the State must be exposed. In NYC, for example, the role of a Shanker or Gotbaum in the financial manipulations of the state is important. Likewise, their relationship to the Democratic Party and the policies it puts forward must be critiqued.
Although at some points, as shown above, it is crucial to form alliances with these bureaucrats to expose the State to masses of workers when the left, although weak, has some independent strength to put forward its own program within that alliance, the long run struggle must be to kick these bureaucrats out of office on the basis of a political program. If the Communists win a majority of support around ideas such as affirmative action, abortion, democratic rights and the struggle for true democracy and not bourgeois democracy and, in the process, demonstrate the inability of the State to be reformed, they will win power in unions not as economic militants, but as political leaders. In this long historical process both economic demands and political demands will be put forward in the union. At the point Communists are able to win power, the union as a whole will be both objectively and subjectively following a revolutionary line. For example, it is that the trade unions as a whole support the political demands of the Black and Spanish communities and that the leadership of those unions consciously embrace those demands. This is clearly not possible without waging a long battle within the unions and ousting the present leadership.
If this position, which calls for the revolutionizing of the trade unions, is correct then what is the difference between the trade unions and the party?
The difference is not that one is concerned with revolution and the other is only concerned with reforms. The difference is that one is (trade unions) a broad form of organization which includes every worker who at the minimum is willing to unite to struggle against the employers for better living and working conditions. The left in DC37 must eventually kick Gotbaum out of office on the basis of a concrete political program which includes, for example, support for a Labor Party instead of the Democrat or Republican parties, However, that would not mean that die-hard Democrats, or Republicans would leave the union. They would be encouraged to stay in the union and to democratically struggle for their point of view, even though the majority of the union had voted against them.
The case is different with the Communist Party. There, the minimum unity is around questions such as Socialism and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Those who don’t agree with the general political program of the Communist Party’s minimum basis of unity, are not encouraged to stay and struggle for their ideas, but to leave the organization. The Communist Party is an organization where a high degree of unity is essential in order to lead the political struggle.
Furthermore, this position that the unions can and must be won to revolutionary positions which support the political demands of the Communist Party is supported by the writings of Marx and Lenin. Many people superficially read What Is To Be Done to say that unions are only capable of struggling around economic issues and that the Party is the organ for political struggle. It is true that the trade unions can never lead the political struggle. The leadership of that struggle and eventually the revolutionary overthrow of the capitalist State must come from the Party. However, since the Party is not a mass organization, the question is, are the mass organizations of the working class capable of consciously taking revolutionary positions. In fact, not only are they capable of taking revolutionary positions, but the struggle to oust the labor bureaucrats in favor of revolutionary political and economic leadership is an essential element of the American road to revolution.
Lenin, in his essay on Trade Union Neutrality, decisively attacks the view that the unions are economic organizations designed to fight to improve conditions and should not and cannot fight for a revolutionary political program. The Mensheviks put forward a theory of trade union neutrality which started from the assumption that “the task of the Social Democratic Party is to establish the socialist system and abolish capitalist relations; the task of the trade unions is to improve working conditions within the framework of the capitalist system, so as to secure for labor advantageous conditions for the sale of its labor power” (quoted by Lenin from a Socialist Revolutionary magazine (Collected Works, Vol. XIII, p 460-9). Lenin counters by saying that “We must always and everywhere stand for the alignment of the unions with the Socialist Party of the working class...The class interests of the bourgeoisie inevitably give rise to a striving to confine the unions petty and narrow activity within the framework of the existing social order to keep them away from any contact with Socialism; and the neutrality theory is the ideological cover for these strivings of the bourgeoisie... This point of view is not accidental but is essentially connected with the neutrality theory, which puts in the forefront unity of the workers for the improvement of their conditions and not unity for a struggle that could promote the cause of proletarian emancipation.” Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. XIII.
Lenin’s position followed the conception of the trade unions laid down by Marx. Marx put forward that the unions developed originally as spontaneous attempts of the workers to do away with the competition existing among them which forced wages down. The immediate aim of the unions historically was to wage the economic struggle against the employers. However, Marx clearly saw the need for the unions to go far beyond this original purpose and to take a revolutionary position. Marx as author of the resolution on trade unions, adopted at the Geneva Congress of the First International, in 1866 states,
If trade unions have become indispensible for the guerilla fight between Capital and Labor, they are even more important as organized bodies to promote the abolition of the very system of wage slavery.
The resolution continues,
The trade unions hitherto concentrated their attention too exclusively on the local and direct struggle against Capital. They have not yet completely realized their power to attack the very system of wage slavery and present-day methods of production. This is why they kept aloof from social and political movements. However, lately they are evidently awakenening and beginning to understand their great historical mission, as can be seen, for example, from their participation in the recent political movement in England...
Furthermore, Marx and Engels encouraged the trade unions to join the First International, which many in fact did. While 100 years later, the merging of the trade unions and a Communist International is clearly not the form revolutionizing the trade unions must take, it is obvious that the position put forward in this paper in no way contradicts the teachings of Marx and Lenin.
Today, the unions are clearly not politically neutral. They support the capitalist state and its policies. It is not our job to make them neutral, but to turn them into organizations for revolutionary change.
Finally, the third basic point around which we see uniting is the need to do in depth theoretical analysis to move the struggle forward. This takes two forms. First, as has already been developed in Part III, theoretical breakthroughs on the strategy for American revolution must be made in order for the left to move forward. Also, we must thoroughly understand the roots of ultra-leftism in the communist movement.
In addition to developing political struggle, analysis of the political issues facing the working class, the role of the liberals, the reformist solutions etc. must be done. The left must be able to refute the reformist solutions to the political problems facing the workers. It is not enough to issue a call to action. For example, around the issue of the EFCB, one must understand what forces in the bourgeoisie support it, why it became necessary now, how it function, etc., in order to develop a political program around which mass struggle can be waged. By and large, this is precisely the type of questions that the Communist movement leaves unanswered.
Particularly important is study around the role of the liberals and analysis exposing their solutions„ This is because the liberals have a good deal of support among progressive workers, who see their solution as correct. For example, why is it that the solution of the NY Democratic Party for the city crisis, namely calling for more federal aid, will not work? Most of the left, in their preoccupation with economic struggle, or their belief that the crisis will in and of itself expose the liberal solutions do not engage in this type of analysis. In order to develop political struggle it must be done.
What we have presented above is only a sketch of some of the basic problems which have to be taken up by the developing Communist movement in order for the left to grow and develop into a powerful revolutionary force. We do not have the answers. However, we feel that the points brought out by this paper begin to establish a framework for the development of a correct communist tendency and for the road to the establishment of a strong anti-revisionist communist party which would learn from the errors of the past.