Comrades,
Let me take this opportunity to throw in my two cents
worth regarding the question of ML and the workers'
movement.
A. George introduced this topic by rightly conceding
that:
> In particular, the Marxist-Leninist movement in the
> major imperialist countries has been rather weak for
> the last several decades, mainly because it has very
> weak ties with the working class. (There are many
> historical reasons for this, in the US in particular
> the role of US imperialism as the dominant
> imperialist country since World War II, its
> driving out the great majority of revolutionaries
> from the trade unions in the McCarthy period of the
> late 1940s and early 1950s, and the fact that the
> CPUSA succumbed to revisionism and has acted mainly
> as a tail of the Democratic Party and the union
> bureaucrats within the working class.)
George called for a sharing of experiences, positive
and negative, of MLs working in the working class
movement in other imperialist countries. I think that
is a good thing however, as positive as this question
is, I have one reservation with the way George put the
question. It is this: to be able to effectively
assimilate the experiences of other movements, one has
to be critical of the experiences of one's own
movement as well. Not that I am saying that George is
not critical of the US ML and workers' movements. Far
from it! I know George well enough to know that he is
critical. My point is that George's description of the
problems in the US in his first posting goes too
quickly over the most important points that have to be
considered for a genuine ML movement to set deep roots
in the US working class movement. It is these "many
historical lessons" that count. It is wrong of George
to be apologetic about going into history. If anything
it has been salutary. More of it is required. After
all, how can we understand what is right and wrong
unless we look into what was done under what
conditions. If anything, George and others familiar
with this history have to go more into it.
Take two things that George mentioned:
a) How was the US able to drive out the great majority
of revolutionaries from the trade unions in the
McCarthy period of the late 1940s and early 1950s?
What kind of resistance was offered against their
actions? Does not a proper answer to this question
reveal the exact weaknesses and strengths that these
revolutionaries had in relation to their links with
the US workers?
b) Why did the CPSU succumb to revisionism? Does not
this question properly answered tell us the strength
and weaknesses of party building in the US?
Yes, the US is the number one imperialist country but
that only creates the favourable conditions for the
isolation of revolutionaries and fertile ground for
revisionism. It does not make both a fact. It is the
actual practices of revolutionaries that �in the end�
determine the result. Not that I'm being idealistic.
My point is that counterrevolutionary activities
actions by the enemy are a given. What matters is the
response of revolutionaries to them. Sometimes a
defeat can't be avoided given the balance of forces,
but the extent and character of defeat can be
influenced by the actions of revolutionaries.
Let me give an analogy. The Philippines is a majority
peasant country. Its economic relations are largely
feudal. Local capitalist relations exist largely on
the periphery. Imperialist relations themselves rely
on the local feudalism as their social basis. In sum,
it is a sea of petty-bourgeoisie. These are poor
conditions for the creation of a strong communist
party with deep roots in the working class, yet that
is what has happened and is happening. Of course, the
economic crisis is a factor. But note that many
countries have worse crisis than the Philippines yet
have weaker ML movements. Note that the economic
crises in the 1930s in Germany led to the defeat of
the CP and the victory of the Nazis. Economic crises
do not necessarily lead to more struggle and victory.
It can lead to depoliticization, or to a wrong turn
and defeat. I am not bragging. My point is that when
the CPP was reestablished, the CPP did not
pessimistically wallow in the negative. It made
criticism of the old PKP and its actions and set about
to turn a negative into a positive.
One can focus on the negatives of the US situation but
that is debilitating. Instead it has many positive
characteristics. For one, it has an immense working
class. I wish we have such a large working class in
the Philippines. Two, despite the preponderance of
labour aristocratic control over the trade unions,
there is still remarkable militance in the working
class movement even if largely limited in many ways to
purely economic struggles and distorted by great
nation chauvanism. Three, there are MLs here and there
who are serious like George.
In my opinion, it seems to me that advance in the US
ML movement will happen once US MLs get to a
systematic and detailed criticism of the history of
the US ML movement and its links with the working
class that focusses on the ideological, organizational
and political errors and shortcomings, both left and
right, in relation to the situations faced; to an
analysis of the various classes and their
interrelationships, and to the determination of tasks
and their implementation.
B. On the question of sects, I think George is
mistaken to characterize it largely in terms of size.
A miniscule ML group is not a sect if it is miniscule.
Of course, one can't get deep roots by being a sect,
but one can be small because one is just starting. A
sect is better characterized by its qualities. For
example, a sect is characterized by its propensity to
engage in ideological struggles with little connection
to the actual needs of the political struggles facing
the movement. A sect, is characterized by
pontificating on everyone else's struggles even if
they have little experience with those conditions. A
sect is not interested in dialogue and in learning
from others or from its own shortcomings. A sect is
more interested in meeting others of like mind than in
doing the practical work to sink deep roots in the
working class movement. No, George, by your practical
work you do not belong to a sect. Brar may be right
that everything else in Britain but the SLP is a sect,
but surely not because the SLP is larger?
C. On the so-called concessions given by the
imperialists to the working class movements of their
countries that Charles mentioned, there is a frequent
failue amongst MLs to characterize this phenomena
correctly. They make it look like the imperialists are
actually generous. Point: These concessions were won
by the workers of those countries. They constitute a
victory, a step forward for workers. If they have
turned negative, it is only because a defeat was
snatched from the jaws of victory. A higher wage won
through struggle is a good thing. Who can say it is
bad? It shows that the working class has strength to
better its lives. It shows the potential for greater
things. Comrades, trade union struggles are not
necessarily economistic struggles. That depends on how
the struggle was carried out and for what purpose,
etc. They can be reformist or revolutionary. It is one
sign of MLs belonging to a sect that they frequently
disparage such struggles instead of making use of them
in a revolutionary way, that is infusing them with
revolutionary character, by undertaking communist work
amongst workers. This is a leftist disorder and leaves
the stage to the bourgeoisie and their labour
aristocratic tails. Trade unions in the imperialist
countries are largely reformist because of the absence
of communists. Communist consciousness can't arise out
of spontaneous actions. It is a science. A trade union
becomes revolutionary via the work of communist
militants in its ranks.
D. Charles is mistaken to speculate that the two-stage
revolution in the semi-colonies has the drawback that
once the first stage is accomplished the interest in
the second stage disappears. This is tantamount to
saying that success breeds failure so it is better to
have failure. An analogous view is the argument that
actually blames the workers of the imperialist
countries for not being revolutionaries because they
have higher standards of living than the oppressed
nations. The bourgeois democratic revolution clears
away the feudal chains that prevents the working class
from acting fully as a class. Whether it results in
transition to a socialist revolution depends however
on which class leads that democratic revolution. Is it
the bourgeoisie or the proletariat?
E. Jim questions why the Trots are so �numerous�. I
think that largely it is because the MLs are so weak.
The Trots feed on the sympathies of a few of the more
advanced elements in the working class and students
for more militant activity with their super-militant
talk. The Trots are the flip side of the Social
Democrats. They work in tandem. The Trots are the
pressure release outlet, one can say, that ensures the
safety of continuing social democratic control of the
workers� movement. MLs have the responsibility of
exposing ruthlessly all forms of opportunism that are
properly alien to the working class movement. Is this
what is happening?
F. The question: under what conditions should MLs work
in social democratic parties? is wrong. Of course, MLs
should work in them. The question is what kind of work
at any given time and for what purpose.
G. George is right that the Trots are alien to the
working class movement. It is true that they have few
recruits amongst workers. Alas, that is not their main
role. They function to disrupt and discredit MLs. They
give ammunition to the social democrats. Aside form
being spies, they turn off the more sensible workers
by their eye in the sky superrevolutionary verbiage.
H. In the current situation in the imperialist
countries, because many ML groups have little or
shallow roots amongst workers they are prone to two
deviations: From their anti-revisionist starting point
they deviate rightward or leftward. Deviating
rightward, usually with Hoxha-ite ancestry, they work
with workers but hardly distinguishable from social
democrats of leftist persuasion. They dismiss the
struggles of the semi-colonies as holding no lessons
for them. Deviating leftward, usually with Maoist
ancestry, they work with oppressed nationalities but
usually focus on lumpens and semi-proletarians. They
laud the struggles from the semi-colonies but do not
assimilate its lessons for the conditions of the
imperialist countries.
I. New York City Working Peoples Voice is a good
start. But why not start with a paper that has a line,
of course in appropriate form, that is without waving
the red flag for its own sake? The issues affecting
workers are their issues and the manifestation of the
various ways capitalism acts on them. These issues
have to be politicized. It has to be shown how they
result from capitalism and what the alternatives are,
of course, in good form. General and historical
questions are a good thing but they have little impact
if a paper has a dual personality: specific economic
issues on the one hand and general political issues on
the other. Specific and general issues are all
political in character and must be shown as such.
Otherwise the working class cannot learn to be the
ruling class but will act as a sector. also a paper is
not enough. All forms of literature like posters,
flyers, pamphlets ,etc., have to be pusued. Then they
have to be combined with the work of organizing
struggle mass organizations. I will go into the
experience of Filipinos more in a future posting.
J. Clarification: The CP of the Philippines (CPP) and
the National Democratic Front of the Philippines
(NDFP) are both banned. The NDFP is an alliance of
revolutionary organizations. It includes the CPP and
the New Peoples Army (NPA) plus other mass
organizations: a revolutionary women�s organization,
youth organization, an organization of christians
working for national liberation, a council of
underground trade unions, a peasant organization,
various organizations for national minorities and
muslim minorities, an organization for
semi-proletarians, for lawyers and government workers,
for scientists, for health workers, etc. These
organizations all have their programs but they come
together with the CPP and the NPA to work together to
fulfill the new democratic revolution. There is a
common NDF program. Of course, the CPP has its own
program. The NPA is under the CPP. Then there are the
revolutionary committees in the countryside and the
red militias attached to the NPA.
Of course, there is also a legal left movement with
various legal mass organizations. They differ from the
banned organizations in that they do not recruit
people for the armed struggle. That would get them
banned. There is also a new legal left party set up by
the alliance of these legal mass organizations. There
are militant NGOs also with close ties to legal
militant mass organizations. There are also overseas
migrant organizations and support groups. Then there
are various sectoral and issue based alliances with
less militant organizations. There are also likely
secret collectives within the state. But that is a
guess. Then there are allies from the national
bourgeoisie who provide resources to the people�s
movement because they chaffe under the joint
dictatoship of the comprador bourgeoisie and
landlords. Of course, the people�s movement links with
other movements in every possible way, pursues
diplomatic work, etc. this all flows from united front
work. All forms of struggles are pursued.
K. Tre�s contribution helped clarify matters. Without
denying the vibrancy and strength of the CPUSA in the
30s, how could its leadership have caused the wheels
to come off? What was the resistance of the
membership? Answers to these questions more than
anything reveal the real extend of the bolshevization
of the CPUSA.
L. Bravo to Javad on pointing out the importance of
theory! But, it must be theory strongly linked to
practice. Too often, theory becomes an excuse for
sectarian behaviour.
M. On the question of broadness: This should not mean
dilution of line, but of appropriate form. The broad
influence of the CPP comes not from diluting its line.
History has shown that diluting it line results in
loss of broad influence among not only workers and
peasants but even the petty bourgeoisie. The legal
people� movement wins people over not by diluting its
line, not even by just supporting struggles though
that is part but by being integral parts of the
struggles of workers and peasants, etc. It organizes
struggle organizations of all types from unions,
sectoral associations, consumer associations, producer
associations, neighborhood associations, prayer
groups, sporting associations, whatever, as long as it
has a struggle character. Flexibility in tactics,
firmness in principles. Unity of appropriate levels
with other political forces is reached through where
possible common goals and common struggles. For
example, during the Estrada presidency, the movement
was the first to expose Estrada and struggle against
him. Over time other forces joined in struggle until
Estrada was overthrown. The common goal was overthrow
of Estrada. Common struggles were undertaken.
Independent struggles were not abandoned. The
opportunity was used by the movement to organize
further its forces, to reach out to the unorganized
and to propagate its alternative. The resulting
overthrow opened up new space for struggle, the
parliamentary struggle that had previously been closed
off.
N. The problem of Trotskyism in the Philippines arose
out of degeneration of sections of the CPP. These
sections were isolated, exposed and expelled. Outside
the CPP they were further isolated and exposed.
Trotskyism still exists in the Philippines but is now
inconsequential. Broadness as flexibility of tactics
but firmness in line is not an encouragement to
Trotskyite shenanigan but blocks them off.
O. You can�t push union controlled by the bourgeoisie
or labour aristocrats unless you are also organizing
your own union which is an alternative. It is not just
the Trotskyites that are often guilty of entryism. If
an ML joins a union, then the ML thing to do is to win
the members over to change its leadership as best case
scenario. Failing that, breaking part of the union off
and having them join a militant union is also good
depending on the situation. In either and other cases,
one has to organize cells. Not all need to be open.
Fraternally,
RG
_______________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.ca address at http://mail.yahoo.ca
_______________________________________________
Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
