Carroll: "none of those posts ever bothered even to hint that perhaps we should ask Lenin's question (even if we didn't accept his answers, which fit 1905): WITBD."
"The absence of interest in this question; in fact the absence any hint that the question existed, pretty much convinced me that the list was only concerned with daily movement for its own sake (a la bernstein), with hopes for the future occasionally thrown in for decoration." Those of us that have been around for a while have all had occasion, often many, to hear and perhaps even participate in formulating very self-assured and categorical responses to the question of What Is To Be Done. While some may disagree, blaming the vicissitudes of their particular sect or current on objective circumstances, the perfidy of the bureaucracy (whether of the misnamed "socialist" countries of unhappy memory or the almost as misnamed U.S. "labor" movement), I believe the fault lies not in the stars, but in ourselves. Never mind not believing his answers a century ago apply to our situation, Lenin posed the question WITBD at a specific time, when the Russian labor movement was mature enough to make possible the drawing together of scattered elements into a genuine workers party. The conditions that would make possible the drawing together of such a party do not exist in the United States nor have they for many decades. (I leave aside the question of whether the Henry Wallace Movement, the Peace and Freedom Party, the Greens, the Nader campaigns or similar could have eventually opened the door or led to such a party. At any rate none of those efforts were a labor party, not even in embryo because they lacked any real or organic connection to the class movement, and that mainly because there is no politically independent class movement.) All the myths about "Leninist party" notwithstanding, WITBD is not about organization at bottom but rather about the relationship between the nascent party and the working class movement of which the party is the political expression. That is why despite his insistence on the need for skilled conspirators working underground ("professional revolutionaries") he did not treat the RSDLP as a closed circle with only members allowed access to "internal" debates but rather these were carried out in public through articles in the periodical press and special pamphlets. That is because in Lenin's conception, which is the Marxist conception, the party is rooted in, grows out of the actual class movement when it reaches a certain level of development. That sort of class movement is precisely what we lack. The most eloquent testimony to the lack of conditions anything like those that led Lenin to pose his famous question is that with all sorts of socialist groups in the U.S. adopting policies of colonization of factories, industrial concentration, making their home in the working class, turning to industry, or whatever phrase the specific outfit chose in order to claim they were doing something different from everybody else, when in reality they were all doing pretty much the same thing, none of them recruited a single genuine hereditary proletarian from all their union and workplace focus, or as close to as makes no difference. Instead, the union work "recruited" socialists by the score into dropping their work as socialists. This is not just a question of people adopting a mask or being discrete to protect their livelihood or approaching their coworkers at a level they can understand. I believe rather it is a function of the kind of labor movement that we have, what Lenin called "a bourgeois labour movement." (See "Imperialism and the Split in Socialism" here: <http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/oct/x01.htm>.) Attempts by socialists to seriously lead current unions have led to some more militant, combative or honest union leaderships, but has not meant a break with the bourgeois labor movement, and cannot do so under current circumstances because it is not a question of ideas in someone's head but rather social realities. Bourgeois forces are completely hegemonic in the organized labor movement. So for example, arguments in favor of political independence from bourgeois parties in unions today have a completely theoretical and unreal character, because a real party of working people does not exist. And even if you had been able to convince some local or other body to back Nader in one of his presidential campaigns, or McKinney, the real meaning of that position is that the union is trying to pressure the bourgeois parties, usually the Democrats, into making more concessions. And for all the other positions involved in the election, for Congress, state legislature, city council, etc., the unions will back the Democrat or if s/he is particularly repugnant, abstain in the given race, which has pretty much the same meaning as voting for Nader, a move to pressure the Democrats, not a break with them. A similar statement could be made about the Black community and Black organizations. Among Latinos things are a little looser because of the large number of non-citizen immigrants and especially the undocumented. That said there is no alternative there either. And I think there is a reason why we have a "bourgeois labour movement," which is the relatively privileged position of working people in the U.S. compared to the world as a whole. This is what Lenin pointed to about the proletariat of imperialist countries that had led to the emergence of opportunist bourgeois labor parties or trends in one country after another. Lenin cites Engels, and what Engels said about a tendency in Britain in the 1850's is true about the United States a century and a half later. >From Lenin's article: "In a letter to Marx, dated October 7, 1858, Engels wrote: '...The English proletariat is actually becoming more and more bourgeois, so that this most bourgeois of all nations is apparently aiming ultimately at the possession of a bourgeois aristocracy and a bourgeois proletariat alongside the bourgeoisie. For a nation which exploits the whole world this is of course to a certain extent justifiable.'" Lenin emphasizes that Marx and Engels followed for decades this opportunist current born from the privileged position of many workers in England. "In a letter to Kautsky, dated September 12, 1882, Engels wrote: 'You ask me what the English workers think about colonial policy. Well, exactly the same as they think about politics in general. There is no workers' party here, there are only Conservatives and Liberal-Radicals, and the workers gaily share the feast of Englands monopoly of the world market and the colonies.'" Although the position of the U.S. in the world economy has slipped over the decades, it is still by far the richest and most powerful imperialist country, "first among equals" by a huge margin. (And the main imperialist countries taken as a whole also have enormously privileged populations, but that is a subject for someone else). I do not believe that this situation is *absolutely* deterministic. Both because lived experience contradicts it: the sixties were a period that culminated an extraordinary quarter-century rise in living standards but were also a period of intense radicalization in the United States, and also because in general such vulgar materialism is clearly wrong. But just as clearly the bourgeoisification of the US Labor Movement is rooted in that reality. And we should keep in mind that even a radicalization as widespread and powerful as the 60's, which threw into motion layer after layer of victims of specific types of oppression, did not lead to a "workers movement" comparable to, say, the Black movement or gay movement. And for all the criticism of "identity politics" among Blacks or women or whoever, it hasn't occurred to anyone to complain about working class identity politics. The working class is not cohered even at the most primitive level. So what has kept socialist groups alive? The truth is that since the late 1950's U.S. socialist groups have been attracting primarily by young people from the campuses, i.e. the intelligentsia or those headed in that direction. The group that has been (relatively) more successful in recent times --the ISO-- has the campuses as their main arena, as the SWP/YSA did during their period of greatest success decades ago. In the 60's and early 70's, some groups also recruited among younger Blacks outside the university arena and milieus, but that was due to the intense radicalization and the Black struggle which had been sustained for more than a decade. As it turned out, the bourgeoisie was able to re-establish its hegemony over the Black community although not without substantial concessions, not just abolition of Jim Crow and other legislative measures, but also including extensive Black political representation and the creation of a qualitatively larger and much more privileged Black middle class from which some genuine bourgeois have begun to emerge. And, of course, a savage wave of repression first against radicals and now sustained against the bulk of the Black community as such. I do not believe there has been in the more recent decades significant Black affiliation to radical groups that is fundamentally different from that of the general population. I believe there is a straightforward explanation for this. The basic idea is explained in the Manifesto of the Communist Party: "Finally, in times when the class struggle nears the decisive hour, the progress of dissolution going on within the ruling class, in fact within the whole range of old society, assumes such a violent, glaring character, that a small section of the ruling class cuts itself adrift, and joins the revolutionary class, the class that holds the future in its hands. Just as, therefore, at an earlier period, a section of the nobility went over to the bourgeoisie, so now a portion of the bourgeoisie goes over to the proletariat, and in particular, a portion of the bourgeois ideologists, who have raised themselves to the level of comprehending theoretically the historical movement as a whole." Obviously, at least in the United States, we aren't nearing "the decisive hour" but that isn't true on a world scale. The decisive hour, considering the world as a whole, has been with us for more than 90 years. And it is certainly true that "the ... dissolution going on ... within the whole range of old society, assumes ... a violent, glaring character." The injustices, abuses, absurdities, and most of all the chasm between what is and what could obviously be given existing technology if only society were organized differently is what radicalizes young people who are focused on ideas and social and political questions. I think that is enough -- unless I misread Marx and Engels, "comprehending theoretically the historical movement as a whole" doesn't mean having Marx and Engels's understanding but rather an overall vision that sees the kind of society we have and should have. And it is a much broader layer than the Manifesto suggests, as a result of the social changes since then. In those days, the number of people who devoted themselves to studies of ideas, etc., even if only for a time, was very small and obviously therefore drawn from the thinnest upper crust of bourgeois society. Today it is a much broader and much more substantial layer. I think it is time that the socialist left accepted this reality, and reoriented accordingly. It would be ideal if the better, non-sectarian or at least less sectarian largely dispersed older cadre that has drawn at least some lessons from our experiences cohered to transmit those insights to new generations. However, the chances of this happening are not encouraging, nor do I have any realistic plan to achieve it. Does this mean that I consider union or community work to be worthless, a waste of time? No I don't, for two reasons. At some point there will be a resurgence of the class movement, at which point exemplary struggles or activities or organizing will acquire tremendous importance. And in the meantime such work can play a big role in the development of cadre. But we should not pretend that our organizations today are mainly about being the precursors or clearing the way to or planting the seed of the future genuinely proletarian labor movement and eventually party. We can't possibly know whether that will be true but more importantly, deciding what we do today on the basis of what we imagine might or must be the course of development far into the future ("far" in terms of political distance and evolution, not necessarily in years, in time) is precisely one of the things experience has shown to be a mistake. Organizational forms and activities should be determined by the needs of the day, current political objectives geared to current political realities. And the current political realities are that the youth/student milieus are the primary audience and source of potential recruits of the socialist movement. It was Engels who said that in times of reaction, even sects play a progressive role, for they keep alive the ideas of socialism. This doesn't mean going out of our way to set up one or more sects. But in a certain sense any socialist organization in the U.S. today will be at least a semi-sect: of necessity it will be isolated from the genuine class movement, since the latter is precisely what we haven't got. What we should draw from Engels's comment is that keeping socialist ideas, the U.S. socialist movement, alive is --or should be-- a central priority. This is not an attempt to write a modern WITBD for that was not only an argument rooted in the relationship of the party to its class but a practical plan to cohere that party, the elements of which already existed but were scattered. I have no practical plan -- not one that seems to have any chance of working. What is needed is for the different socialist groups to come together in a reasonable, i.e., non-"Leninist" organization. Why not "Leninist"? And why "Leninist" in quotes? Because what's come down to us as "the Leninist Party" is largely a post-Lenin creation rooted in an attempt to mechanically replicate the Russian experience and then corrupted by the emerging Soviet bureaucracy. (For a fuller treatment of this, see "Critical Comments on Democratic Centralism," originally written as an article for Solidarity's Discussion Bulletin. That article is here: <http://www.marxmail.org/DemocraticCentralism.pdf>. Yet although the evidence is overwhelming that history will dissolve them, or worse, turn them into monstrous caricatures like happened to the main Trotskyist groups (but not only them) in post-WWII Britain, United States and Argentina (at least twice there), none of our Leninist groups have shown any inclination to abandon this cult of the organization that originated with the Comintern. One of the main reasons to abandon Comintern-descended "democratic centralism" is that in all its variants it has proved unable to contain differences. Whenever serious divergences, even on strictly tactical questions arise, or worse, purely theoretical/"political" questions that affect only articles in the group's newspaper, there is a strong tendency for a split to take place. Another is that you wind up creating not self-reliant cadre able to analyze and think things through for themselves but people who pretty much automatically accept whatever revelation the group's top leader or leaders have had. But the most important reason is that history has rendered a verdict on the "Leninist Party" schema. And that is that it doesn't work. After nine decades, no one has replicated the "classic" Russian model. Nothing I'm saying here is new and probably there is nothing here that hasn't been explained better by others. But so strong a hold does the "Leninist party" tradition have that even the most obvious things -- like that the Bolsheviks didn't have "internal" discussions and that their leadership was a half dozen people, way too small to try to micromanage local party units -- leave them unaffected. This is one reason why I have tended to shy away from these discussions in recent years -- there isn't much point to them because most of the time the "Leninists" will not seriously take it up. Joaquín ________________________________________________ YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com