I would happily plead guilty to Stalinism if I weren't sure that
Stalin was more of a Trotskyist than and Leninist...but Elaine is right that
the debate in THESE terms is moot until the next revolutionary upheaval.
In fact it obscures the truth which my story of the strike was meant to tell
--the working class, upon which constituency I believe any genuine political
indepenendent movement must arise, will in th main reject left sectarianism
whatever its name. Its one of the interesting points of unity between
skilled, unskilled, African-American, Mexican - American, Asian - American,
women and men workers. Sectarianism is not radicalism. I have seen
many shops adopt radical tactics, measures and positions, when convincing
arguments are presented tht they promise a better result for the sacrifice
of struggle.
I cannot agree with Elaine, however, that a "culture of debate" is
precisely what the labor movement needs to advance political independence.
I think there has been an abundance of debate but a shortage of programatic
work, especially in the area of economics. Maybe Elaine views the purpose
of the culture of debate as serving this end. If so, then, yes I too am
for more of such "culture". But much of the debate I read and hearskirts the key
challenges to organizing workers today, such as:
**how to frame the economic demands of the unorganized workers in political
terms--since under current labor law these workers have no right to
organize into tradtional unions.
**a new analysis and program of workers'control of workplace that confronts
directly and CORRECTS the weaknesses of the Soviet workplace culture
which in my view contributed greatly to eht collapse of socialism.
The issues raised by the ongoing quality circle--team concept in the
context of modern production are important, even though the bosses raise
them mostly in an anti-union framework (how else would THEY ever raise
them?).
In my experience with the New Party its weaknesses stem from vagueness
on program. Its clear in most campaigns what their against, but not what
they're for. But the same can be said of most of us on the left. I was
interested in the responses to my assertion that I knew of no party
that did not arise out of (at least in large part) an internal struggle
within an old party or parties. The Black Panther Party, to the extent
it engaged in POLITICAL as opposed to strictly DEFENSE activety was
INTIMATELY connected to the Democratic clubs and committees in the
African American communities of Buffalo and Cleveland (the cities where
I lived during the Panther's life). I have no knowledge of the Canadian
formation mentioned (at least its origins), but will investigate.
It occurredto me that the African National Congress was the most
recent notable exception to my statement, which should at least be
changed to state: "I know of now new political party that has arisen
EXCEPT from a struggle within an older party--unless it arose upon
a base previously wholly disenfranchised."
In any event, no emergent party can ignore the divisions among Democratic
voters or candidates if it seeeks to win any election. Any campaign
run on ISSUES especially in local areas will find common cause with
thousands of voters who will in other races vote Democratic (and should
be able to do so). The TEST of independence will not be the presence or
absence of opportunists somehwre in the ranks or leadership (this is
inevitable in any mass movement) -- but in the credibility of the
program to deal with the issues, and if elections are won, the abilty
to mobilize the base to defend itself against the certain and
ruthless counter-offensive of the corporations. Unfortunately thisis
where liberalism falls apart. Only whether the working poepole are
sufficiently organized and united to FORCE the issues can bring
a positive conclusion. Whether or not the culture of debate is
adequate to satisfy intellectuals will not affect the outcome at
all once the battle is joined. Which brings up (for me) the next biggest question.
It is
undebatable to me that the actual battles for power require a high
degree (ALMOST military degree) of discipline inorder for workers
to effectively use the power that they have. Within workers organizations
prior to a decision being taken, it has often (not always) beentrue in
my experience that debate is fierce and plentiful. Were it not, then
the decisions taken to engage in a difficult struggle would have little
effect or meaning. If, during the struggle and before its successful
conclusion, debate is opened up again, the effect, almost without
exception, is to end the struggle. The boss wins. It doesn't make any
difference what the merits of opposing sidesin the debate may be insofar
as the instant strggle goes. This question is no new news to most
local unions who have ever been involved in a strike. The PROBLEM is
what happens AFTER the strike, struggle, seizing power, etc. The closure of
debate--necessary during combat--can create bureaucratic structures that
can perpetuate it into a period where debate is sorely needed.
I think a new version of Lenin's book on the Kautsky needs to be written.
It seems to me that rather than a "culture of debate"perse, theprincople
concern needs to be building workers organizations based on a credible
program, achievable program, and placing the maximum emphasis on them
having rank and file democracy. If enough democratic structures are
in place, the culture of debate and the discipline of combat can
both find their necessary roles.
J. Case
