Study Group 4 - Reform Struggles

8/8/2019 Study Group 4 - Reform Struggles

1/62

1a. Social consequences of neoliberal capitalism

John Bellamy Foster, The Paradox of Wealth: Capitalism andEcological Destruction

Alan Sears, "Queer in a Lean World"

Kevin Pyle and Craig Gilmore, Prison Town: Paying the Price

Michael Zweig, Six Points on Class David Bacon, The Political Economy of Migration

1b. October 10, 2010: Understanding capitalist exploitation & crisis

Leo Panitch, Sam Gindin, and Greg Albo, Capitalist Crisis, RadicalRenewal? [2010]

Ernest Mandel, "General approach and influence to Marxs EconomicTheory" [1970s]

Ernest Mandel, "Marxs Labour Theory of Value" [1970s]

Ernest Mandel, "The Laws of Motion of the Capitalist Mode ofProduction" [1970s]

Charlie Post, "Exploring the Roots of the Crisis" [2008]2. October 24, 2010: What kind of socialism do we want?

Audre Lorde, Learning from the 60s [1984] David McNally, Johanna Brenner, Socialism From Below [2000s]

Robin Kelley, The Negro Question- Red Dreams of Black Liberation"[2003]

Nancy Holmstrom, The Socialist Feminist Project [2003]3. November 7, 2010: Reform and revolution, dynamics of socialchange

1. Peter Camejo, "How to Make a Revolution in the UnitedStates" [1970]

2. Robert Brenner, The Problem of Reformism [1991]3. Sol Dollinger, chapters Not Automatic: Women and the

Left in the Forging of the Autoworkers Union [2000]4. Dianne Feeley, Labors Disaster at American Axle

[2008]4. November 21, 2010: Socialist activism and organization

Solidarity, "Regroupment and Renewal of a US Left" [2008]

Solidarity, excerpts from "Founding Statement" [1986]

Freedom Road Socialist Organization, Unity Statement [1992]

Jo Freeman, The Tyranny of Structurelessness [1970]

David Finkel, Then and Now: Another Look at What is to be Done?[1982]

5. December 5, 2010: The Democratic and Republican parties and

independent political action. Joanna Misnik, excerpts from "The Rainbow and the Democratic Party:

New Politics Or Old?" [1988]

Bill Fletcher and Danny Glover, "Visualizing a Neo-Rainbow" [2004]

Peter Camejo, "The Avocado Declaration" [2004]

Mike Davis, excerpts from "Obama at Manassas" [2008]6a. December 19, 2010: Race, national oppression, and self-determination

Cynthia Kaufman, Theorizing and Fighting Racism [2003]


2/62

Jeff Corntassel, To Be Ungovernable [2006]

Glen Ford, "The Black Struggle Under Obama" [2009]

Robert Allen, The Social Context of Black Power [1969]

Adolph Reed, Tokens of the White Left [2000]6b. January 2, 2010: Race, national oppression, and self-determination

Betsy Esch and David Roediger, One Symptom of Originality: Raceand the Management of Labour in the History of the United States[2009]

Bob Wing, "Crossing Race and Nationality: The Racial Formation ofAsian Americans 1852-1965" [2005]

Mike Davis, Buscando America [2000]

Elizabeth Martinez, Seeing more than Black and White [1994]

Kim Moody, "Harvest of Empire, Immigrant Workers in the US" [2007]7. January 16, 2010: Challenges for the labor movement

Mark Brenner, After a Year of Disappointment and Defeats, Where arethe Pitchforks? [2010]

Lee Sustar, "US Labor in the Crisis: Resistance or Retreat?" [2009]

Erin Small, Feminism At Work [2007]

Steve Downs, Book Review: Solidarity Divided [2009]

Jane Slaughter and Mark Brenner, "The Lay of the Land for Labor"[2008]

Dianne Feeley, "Labor's Disaster at American Axle" [2008]8a. January 30, 2010: Feminism, identity, and womens self-organization.

bell hooks, Sisterhood: Practical Solidarity Among Women" [1984]

bell hooks, Men: Comrades in Struggle [1984]

Sheila Rowbotham, "What do Women Want?" [1993]

Sheila Rowbotham, "Women, Power, and Politics" [1993]

Sheila Rowbotham, "Origins of Women's Liberation in Many Countries"[1993]

8b. February 13, 2010: Feminism, identity, and womens self-organization.

Sheila Rowbotham, "Personal Politics: Changing Politics ThroughAction" [1993]

Sheila Rowbotham, "Knots: Theoretical Debates" [1993]

Sheila Rowbotham, "The Protests Without a Name: Women inCollective Action" [1993]

Combahee River Collective, The Combahee River CollectiveStatement [1977]

9. February 27, 2010: Gender oppression and sexual liberation, LGBTQidentity and social movement.

Chloe Tribich, "Gay Marriage: End of the World?" [2010] Peter Drucker, "The New Sexual Radicalism" [2010]

15th World Congress of the Fourth International, "On Lesbian/GayLiberation" [2003]

Donna Cartwright: "Transgender Activism After Falls City" [2000]

Daisy Hernandez: "Becoming a Black Man" [2008]10. March 13, 2010: Imperialism, and internationalism

Ellen Meiksins Wood, chapters from "Empire of Capital" [2005]


3/62

Isaac Deutscher, "Internationals and Internationalism" [1971]

Salvatore Cannavo, The International Becomes a Perspective [2010]

John Bellamy Foster, foreword to Latin America & Twenty-FirstCentury Socialism: Inventing to Avoid Mistakes [2010]

Olivier Bonfond, Eric Toussaint, Will Capitalism Absorb the World

Social Forum?" [2010]11. March 27, 2010: 21st century socialism

Joanna Misnik, The Future of Socialism: Under Construction [1991]

David McNally Building Toward the Next New Left [2008]

Marta Harnecker, "Programmatic Crisis & the Crisis of Credibility"[2007]

Marta Harnecker, "The Organic Crisis" [2007]

Marta Harnecker, "The Theory Underlying this Concept of Party" [2007]

Marta Harnecker, "Politics as the Art of Making the Impossible Possible"[2007]

Marta Harnecker, "Why We Need a Political Organization [2007]


4/62

Peter Camejo, Liberalism, Ultraleftism or MassAction

The purpose of this meeting is to have a discussion about the presentpolitical conjuncture in this country following the May events, how we

have to relate to what is happening, and what we have to do to buildthe antiwar movement and the revolutionary movement.

The main questions I want to deal with are some of the argumentsbeing raised within the radical movement against the orientationprojected by the Socialist Workers Party and the Young SocialistAlliance. I want to try to deal with these arguments in a theoreticalway. That is, deal with what is basically behind the differences thatnow exist in the radical movement and what they represent in terms ofthe problems before the left in the United States.

I want to start by talking about Cambodia. If you read the newspapersof the last few days you will notice that theres a very interesting thinghappening in Cambodia. The papers say that the guerrillas are winningground. Now, you have to be very careful whenever the Americanpapers say that the communists are winning, because sometimes thatis done simply to justify sending more troops or more arms.

But when the papers start saying it every day, over and over again,and then they start telling you what areas the communists haveconquered, after a while you begin to suspect that its true. And Imreally getting very suspicious that the people in Cambodia are starting

to win.

But, theres more to it than just that. Theres something elsehappening. The United States is not sending in any troops to stop theiradvance. Well, you may say: obviously, we all know about that.Nixon says the US isnt sending any more troops. The troops aresupposed to be withdrawn from Cambodia by the end of June.

But Nixon is pulling them out just when the United States is losing inCambodia!Now, thats very unusual. We have to stop and think: whats stoppingthe United States from sending hundreds of thousands of troops intoCambodia right now, to take over the capital and secure all those littletowns and cities and roads and everything else they claim theyrelosing? They certainly dont wantto lose Cambodia. Nixon has theairplanes, he has the ships. Whats stopping him? Russian troops?Chinese troops? Whos in the way?


5/62

If you cant answer that question, you cant understand either what ishappening in this country or what has to be done. Because if you wantto deal with politics, you have to understand that theres some realforce stopping the war-makers. Its not just some psychological quirk ofNixon. And its not because of some resolution thats being debated by

the Senate. The power of a class, like the American ruling class, is notdetermined by some kind of legal paper. Its determined by arelationship of certain forces. In other words, theres a certain powerthat is stopping them from going full steam ahead with the war. Whatis that power?

Many of the so-called radicals, or people who call themselves radicals,cant answer this question. Some of them used to say that the reasonthe United States is not doing more in Vietnam, and is actually startingto withdraw some troops, is because the US has lost the war.Remember that explanation? These radicals used to keep announcing

that the NLF had won. Ive always asked them to notify the NLF aboutthis, since the NLF undoubtedly isnt aware of it. You dont say youvewon a war when there are still 500,000 enemy troops occupying allyour major cities.

The fact is, the United States has not lost the war militarily. The UnitedStates could put millions more soldiers into Vietnam from a militarystandpoint.

The US had an army of 15 million in the Second World War, with apopulation then of some 140 million. With the present population of

220 million, the US could put an army of 22 to 24 million in the fieldnow if it wanted to mobilize on the scale it did for World War II. Whichmeans it could put 10 million into Vietnam.

And it would be economically possible too, if the government waswilling to pay the price, in terms of the standard of living of theAmerican people, that it paid in the Second World War.

That is, there is nothing militarily stopping them from escalating. Thenational liberation forces of Indochina couldnt physically stop themfrom landing two, three, or five million soldiers.

Its true that one thing the US has to consider in deciding whether ornot to send more troops is how China and the USSR would respond tosuch an escalation. That is a real consideration, because China and theSoviet Union represent real powers.

Up until now, however, all the Chinese have done when the US stagedmajor escalations is issue their 1829th final warning, saying that


6/62

they take it very seriously and that the US will have to be responsiblefor the consequences. The Russians have also put out their warnings,different only in their wording.

So the restraint on the US government is not mainly due to a direct or

immediate fear of China and Russia. Thats one consideration based onreal power, but it is not the decisive consideration at this momentbecause the US has already had a higher number of troops in Vietnamthan they have right now. And theyve bombed further and moreintensively than they are right now.

Whats stopping them from moving right now into Cambodia?

Another explanation advanced by some is that the ruling class isreforming itself, changing its mind about how imperialist to be. Butthats not what is happening at all. The American ruling class from

McGovern and Kennedy right on down to Nixon would love to have afree hand, a situation where it would be acceptable to send howevermany soldiers would be necessary to take control of Cambodia andsecure Vietnam. The war makers havent had any change of heart.

The real explanation is that the masses of people in this country havebecome a force that enters into the balance on a world scale. There isa change taking place in the consciousness of the people of the UnitedStates, and this change is altering the relationship of forces. Anunderstanding of this fact is crucial for deciding our strategy andtactics. You cant work out tactics for how to affect the course of the

war unless you understand what is affecting it at this very moment.

Failure to understand this leads to all types of dreams, schemes andfantasies which Im going to discuss.

But first lets consider why this is true. Why is it that the antiwarconsciousness of the masses of people can be such a powerful forceaffecting what the government can do? The reason is very simply this:contrary to what many people in the radical movement say, themasses of people have different interests than the ruling class andthey have independent power.

The ruling class can, of course, influence the working class throughthe leadership of the trade unions for instance. But the potential powerof the working class, that independent power which was concretelyreflected in the postal workers strike and the GE [General Electric]strike, is a power which is so strong that the ruling class has toseriously reckon with it in figuring out its strategy.


7/62

The working class in this country, if it so chose, could physically endthe war in Vietnam. Thats a pretty fantastic power. Students cannotend it by themselves. Soldiers could conceivably end it, but you cantconsider the GIs in isolation from the rest of society.Theres a general shift taking place in which masses of workers are

becoming more and more sympathetic to appeals to stop the war.

Now people say: What do you mean? Theres no sign of that. Howmany workers have gone on strike against the war? How many workershave thrown their bodies in the way of tanks? How many workers haveburnt their draft cards, or even joined a demonstration?

Such arguments are used to prove that mass antiwar sentimentobviously cant be the power restraining the war-makers. But if youlook at it this way youre forgetting how this society functions.

You see, if you walk into a store thats selling refrigerators, theresnobody in that store to stop you from wheeling out a refrigerator. Howmany guards do they have at the door? Probably zero. They have somesalesman who walks up to you. It wouldnt take much to get him out ofthe way. You could wheel out four or five of them.

Now, the reason you dont go wheeling refrigerators out of storesevery day of the week is because theres a certain power ensuring thatthat refrigerator stays inside the store unless they get money for it.There are things like the police, the courts, and jails behind it. But thispower isnt apparent when you look at the refrigerator and at the little

salesman saying: Youd better not take that.

In a similar way, when a union bureaucrat gets up at a rally and says,Youd better stop the war, it isnt some helpless little guy on thestreet talking. Theres a lot of power behind that plea.

If you dont understand the relationships which exist in this society,because theyre not apparent at first sight, you can make some tragicerrors.

The working class and the oppressed nationalities are mass social

layers, and they can only realize their potential power when theyorganize as a massive social force. The ruling class can deal with anyone individual or any small group; its only masses that can stand intheir way. So the potential power of the working class to stop the waris a big threat.

Now, the people who run this country are not stupid. They are notgoing to continue blindly along a course when they know there are


8/62

dangers ahead. No one has to go up to Nixon or Kennedy and say: Ifthe mood that exists among students were to spread to the workers,and instead of a general student strike there was a general strike ofthe working class, well, then you would lose more than Vietnam andCambodia.

No one has to tell them that. They know that. And thats why theydont just keep pushing ahead, saying to hell with the students andworkers, send in another million soldiers and invade Cambodia. Sendtroops into Cuba, send them into Indonesia and into China. Drop thebomb on China.

They know better than to just keep pushing ahead. What they have todo is get rid of that danger, the danger that actions will bring aresponse from the masses who actually have power to stop them.Theyre not so stupid as to just go blindly forward. Because where

theres real power, and real stakes, people dont play games.

You see, you can take 200 or 300, or even a few thousand people andfight in the streets, throwing rocks at windows, and putting on a bigshow. You can play revolution, not make revolution. But when youretalking about 15 million workers who control basic industry in thiscountry, you dont play games. Because they dont run aroundthrowing things at windows. They do things like stop production,period.

The postmen, for instance all they had to do to tie up the economy

was to go home. Thats all. Just go home. Thats power.

A question thats very important in this relationship of forces Ive beenspeaking of is the question of whos got the majority, Nixon or theantiwar movement. The polls are going wild trying to establish this orthat, and there are demonstrations and claims and counterclaims backand forth.

But what the liberals and the ultra lefts dont understand is that whatthe majority thinks can be decisive. Such things as where the troopscan be sent and whether bullets can be fired or not, can be determined

by what the mass of the people think. Because their ability to resist,and the potential, the danger of their resistance, is dependent on whatthey think.

The May events

Now in May we witnessed the general student strike. We should lookcarefully at what the governments policy, the ruling classs policy, was


9/62

toward this upsurge because its instructive.

The answer to the antiwar upswing in the fall was Nixons claim tohave a silent majority behind him. That was the gist of thepropaganda campaign by the ruling class to try to minimize the impact

of the demonstrations on October 15 and November 15.Then came the general student strike of May, and the massiveincrease in conscious hostility towards the war in Vietnam, and theinvasion of Cambodia.

This strike swept the United States like an ocean wave. It was clearthat this time the student-based protest reflected the thinking ofmillions and millions of Americans, including huge sections of theworking class. This time when the students came out, they all cameout. When virtually 98% of the student body is striking in many schoolsand three-quarters of them are showing up for the mass strike

meetings, you know that the movement reflects moods prevalent inthe entire population. They are being expressed visually by the studentlayer.

What was the response to this upsurge by the ruling class? Thenumber one point which they understood perfectly was that decisivepower does not lie within the student movement, but that the studentmovement is a direct danger because it can act as a catalyst,spreading ideas and setting other forces into motion.

If you were to look at the students in isolation, you would say they

dont have any real power. But put the students into the actualnetwork of society the interrelationship with their parents, theinterrelationship with society as a whole, the interrelationship betweeneach university and other universities and schools and the communityaround it and the ruling class can see an immediate threat.

The goal of the ruling class was to prevent this strike this infection,as they saw it from spreading beyond the campus throughout thepopulation as a whole.

They saw the student strike taking place, and they didnt want it to

spread because they saw that the student strike was starting toweaken the fibers of this class society, and that if workers got involvedin this movement and it began to spread, this whole society might betorn apart. So they were consciously trying to save their system, whichthey think is the most wonderful thing of all creation.

What did they say in the newspapers? Its terrible. America is divided.We have to come back together. And then they started saying: Its


10/62

too bad that our children are this way. You see, its just the kiddies.Its the generation gap. On television they say to the workers: Youreolder, and this strike isnt for you. Its just our kids, and weve got totry to understand them.

Or: Its a white strike. It has nothing to do with black people. And itcertainly has nothing to do with unions or workers! Thats the generalcampaign they put on.This campaign was expressed, for instance, by Roy Wilkins, who madehis famous statement about how the student strike has nothing to dowith black people. And also in the way the papers played up the May20 pro-war demonstration in New York organized by the trade unionbureaucrats and the bosses.

The May 20 demonstration

I want to say a few things about that demonstration. There are veryfew demonstrations that take place in the United States where peopleare paid to show up. Well, these demonstrators were paid to come out.They got a days pay only if they turned up. So this was ademonstration financed by the bosses and organized by the tradeunion bureaucracy for the purpose of trying to pose the working classagainst the antiwar forces. They wanted to make a dichotomy betweenthe two because they understood the danger.

Of course, they had to pick a section of the working class from thearistocracy of labor, among the most highly paid and conservative. But

I will make a prediction here that the trade union bureaucrats and theruling class will live to regret the day they called that demonstration.Because those construction workers and other workers in New YorkCity realized something important in the course of that demonstration.That is, they saw their own power.

Now, its a basic rule that you shouldnt show people their own powerwhen youre trying to rule them. But the ruling class was so desperatethat they had to do this.The reason I say theyre going to regret that demonstration is that asthis inflation continues and real wages start dropping for construction

workers some are bound to get up in a union meeting and say: Hey,remember what we did a year ago? We all went out on that bigdemonstration and threatened everybody in the world. Why dont wedo that again demanding better pay? Why dont we go down and beatthe hell out of the mayor? If youre a ruling class, its a verydangerous thing to play with masses in motion.In fact, we saw the response to this pro-war demonstration the verynext day, when trade unions organized their first antiwar


11/62

demonstration. What was new in May was not pro-war attitudes amongthe trade unions but a split in the union movement with unionsbreaking from Meany and declaring against the war. Its verydangerous for the ruling class to encourage any kind of massmobilizations of workers, because when they see how they can exert

their power through demonstrations they will begin demonstrating intheir own interests.

The general policy of the ruling class is to divide the movement, dividethe students from the workers and the blacks, and conquer it that way.Keep it divided. Keep it from spreading until the spontaneous upsurgeand the student strike eventually cool off.

The responsive image

Now, while the ruling class was trying to prevent the movement from

spreading, they launched a gigantic campaign to convince the studentsthat the government was listening to them, that the government wasresponsive.

This was a very important aspect. They told the students over and overagain: We are listening, were listening, we hear you, we hear you.More and more of the politicians announced that they were against thewar. Nixon said hed get the troops out by the end of June. He even gotup at 5 am on May 9 to speak to the students, remember?Meanwhile they were campaigning to tell all the young people: Getback into the system! This system works! Look, were listening. They

launched a gigantic campaign to co-opt this movement, saying: Comeback into the fold. Thank you so much for striking. Thank you, but nowwere past that stage. Were past demonstrating and striking. Werenow at the stage for knocking at doors and getting votes for me, andIve just discovered that Im against the war. Were all Americans;were going to pull our country back together. Our system is veryresponsive; it will correct itself. That was the position they took.

Now, keeping this whole framework of the relationship of forces inmind, lets look at the various orientations that are being presented tous for what to do next. There are basically three of them. One is what I

call liberalism. Another one is ultraleftism. The third one is what I callindependent mass action.

Orientation number one

First the liberal approach. Liberals reject the concept that there is arelationship of forces between classes. They cant understand it. If youwalk up to a liberal and say, Right now the working class is protecting


12/62

your civil liberties, he would break out laughing. Hed roll over on thefloor, saying: What are you talking about? Meanys for the war; theunions never do anything! They dont understand the fact that theAmerican working class believes in its civil liberties. If the ruling classtried suddenly to take all civil liberties away, the American people

could physically stop them.

So then you ask the liberal who is protecting his civil liberties? He willsay: Well, its because our system allows it. Our system works to acertain degree. Since they have confidence that the system basicallyworks, the only problem is to find members of the ruling class who areresponsive and will help protect civil liberties, and get them in power.They continuously look for a more liberal wing within the ruling class tosupport.They dont at all see that the way to change society or affect thecourse of events is to go to the masses. On the contrary, they accept

the general bourgeois ideology of deep cynicism toward the masses.The average person in the street according to them is stupid. He canbe easily manipulated. Look, the average person in the street believesthe politicians are corrupt, yet he votes for them every year. Isnt thattrue? Haw, haw, haw, he says.

And all the liberal intellectuals read the New York Times, and theysay: Look at what the masses read, the Daily News! How can youpossibly expect anybody who reads thatpaper to be an effective forcefor social change?

So the liberals dont look to the masses. They look directly to the rulingclass and try to affect the course of events by relating to anydifferences within the ruling class.This ideology of liberalism, finding a politician whos responsive,represents the ideology of the overwhelming majority of the studentmovement. Most students on the campus are suspicious because ofthe war in Vietnam and because of the radicalization thats affectedthem. Nevertheless, theyre still willing to give the politicians theMcGoverns, the McCarthys and the Kennedys another chance.

Orientation number two

Theres another point of view, and that is ultraleftism. This representsa small section of the student movement, but a much larger proportionof those who call themselves radicals or socialists.

Now basically an ultraleft is a liberal that has gone through anevolution. What happens is this. They start out as liberals, andsuddenly the war in Vietnam comes along. Now, what does a liberal


13/62

believe? He believes that the ruling class is basically responsive to hisneeds. So he demonstrates.

You know, in the beginning when the antiwar movement first startedthere were very few ultraleftists. Most of the ultraleftist leaders of

today were people who were organizing legal, peaceful demonstrationsback around 1965.

But after they called a few demonstrations against the war, theynoticed something was wrong. The ruling class was not beingresponsive. Not only that, they understood for the first time that the USwas literally massacring the Vietnamese people. This frightened them.It was as if you all of a sudden found out that your father was really theBoston Strangler. Thats what it was like for these people. They wereliberals, who believed that Johnson was better than Goldwater, whohad worked and voted for him only to find out that he was the Boston

Strangler.

Now, since they had no confidence in the masses as an independentforce that could stop the ruling class, since they had no confidencethat the stupid worker was actually a force protecting their civilliberties, they said: Wait a minute. If the government is being run bywild maniacs and butchers, what is stopping them from killing metomorrow?Then you started hearing them all talk about imminent fascism. Theunderground papers discovered that there were concentration campsites in this country, and that some of them were being cleaned up and

gotten ready. They would say to each other: See you next year in theconcentration camps. This was a very common attitude, because theycouldnt see any force around that was protecting their civil liberties.

Then what they began to develop was the thesis that civil liberties,elections, courts, all bourgeois democratic forms are a gigantic put-on,a fantastic manipulation. That it is all a ruling class trick. So, thesepeople concluded that the elections and civil liberties are unreal, andthe people who run the country could call them off tomorrow. Electionsand civil liberties, they said, have nothing to do with reality.

Then came the instant fascism theory. We are about to have fascismany moment now. But this is a very confusing theory. Somehow therallies and demonstrations continue year after year. They dont put usin the concentration camps.

This theory is actually a mixture of deep cynicism, thinking that theruling class is all-powerful, but it always is combined with a last hopethat maybe they arent completely bad. Maybe there is still someone


14/62

who will listen.

Sometimes a liberal becomes frustrated not getting the ear of theruling class, and he concludes that hes been using the wrong tactics.So he adopts a lot of radical rhetoric. He says this ruling class is

apparently so thick headed that what weve got to do is really let loosea temper tantrum to get its attention. The politicians wont listen topeaceful things, but if we go out and break windows then Kennedy willsay: Oh, I guess there is a problem in this society. I didnt realize itwhen they were just demonstrating peacefully. I thought everythingwas OK because they were in the system, but now theyre goingoutside the system, theyre breaking windows, so weve got to holdback.

These liberal-ultraleftists think thats what moves the ruling class.Actually they come close to a correct theory when they say that if

people start leaving the system the ruling class will respond. But theydont believe that the masses can be won. They think it is enough forthem to leave the system themselves, small groups of people carryingout direct confrontations.

For example, let me quote a thing from the New York Times thatillustrates how this type of idea develops. A girl from Kent [StateUniversity], after the killings there, was asked what she thought couldbe done about Cambodia and what she thought about the use ofviolence. This was a person who is just radicalizing, a liberal, justbeginning to oppose the war.

She says: Im really dead set against violence. Thats also a cop out.But its the only way to get the governments attention. What youredoing is drawing their attention to you, by using the same methodsthey use. Im really against that. Its horrible that the only way you canget people to listen is to have four kids killed. There was really noblow-up over Cambodia until four kids were killed. You can have all thepeace marches that were peaceful and quiet, and everyone would patyou on the back and say good little kids, but nobody would doanything.

Now, whats in her mind? She doesnt see any independent, mass forcethats standing in the way of the ruling class. Shes looking at theruling class and asking: Are we affecting them or not? Are they beingresponsive? And if not, maybe the way to get them to pay attention isto go out and break some windows and use violence. Its a very naturalconclusion when you dont understand that theres a class struggle, aclass relationship of forces.


15/62

Having given up on the masses, the ultraleft super-revolutionaries arereally trying to influence the ruling class. A classical example of thisunity between the liberal and the ultraleft approach was the Chicagodemonstrations at the 1968 Democratic Party convention. The leadersof the demonstration came from the National Mobilization Committee.

They were revolutionary. Jerry Rubin, Tom Hayden, Dave Dellinger andRennie Davis were on hand, and their rhetoric was as radical as youcan get.

But while the militant demonstrations were in process, Tom Haydenand Rennie Davis were apparently closeted with McCarthys supportersworking out an agreement to help McCarthy.

According to an article in the Jan. 22, 1970 Washington Post: [Sam]Brown [Vietnam Moratorium Coordinator] said [Tom] Haydensuggested that if McCarthy appeared to have a good chance by

Monday or Tuesday and if that chance might be hampered by publicactivity [demonstrations] then we could meet to decide whether togo ahead with the public activity. Hayden has never denied thisaccount.

Another example of this type of ultraleftism was a full-page ad whichappeared in the New York Times June 7. It was placed by the NewMobe and signed by guess who? Rennie Davis, Dave Dellinger, et al.This ad announces in big letters at the top of the page: Its 11:59.11:59 to what? Its 11:59 to 1984. Fascism is due in one minute.This is another thing that these ultraleft-upside-down-liberals have: the

panic button. Since they dont see any countervailing force, they thinkat any moment the whole country could just go BANG! At any momentthe ruling class can make a move to the right, and they dont see anyway to stop it, so they throw in the towel, they just panic. The ad says:If youre reading this dont kid yourself any longer. Big brother ismaking his list.And youre on it. Can we stop 1984? Its 11:59 pm now.The clock is ticking loudly. What in hell are we going to do about it?

Well, what solution do these ultralefts have? What do they projectshould be done to stop imminent fascism? In this ad they have a fivepoint program.

Number one, sit in at your congressmans office. With just one minuteuntil 1984! Really effective! I guess their reasoning is that if youre inyour congressmans office when 1984 arrives at least maybe theyll bea little more lenient with you!

The second point is you should sit in at your draft board and turn inyour draft card.


16/62

Number three is a standard paragraph that you find in all the leafletsput out by ultraleftists, which simply says: Do something quick.Organize antiwar actions where you work, each week. Interrupt thework day for peace. Wear black armbands. Wear peace buttons. Hold adiscussion or teach-in. Have a work stoppage, a campus strike!

Anything! Just do something, everybody! For Christs sake!

Point four, they announce a demonstration is going to be held on June19 by the Black Panther Party.

And in point five they tell you about a conference in Milwaukee, butthey assure you it wont be thousands of people; just several hundredcommunity activists will meet to plan future actions. I suppose thisfuture action will take place under fascism, unless they think two sit-ins, a conference and a rally will stop fascism.

Anyway, thats their program of action and their analysis of what to do,because they believe the invasion of Cambodia isnt a tactical move,limited by a relationship of forces, but a deliberate and final plan. Afinal solution has begun.

Now, you can see very clearly that theres nothing very different aboutthis; its just classical stuff like Martin Luther King did: have a sit-in orsome sort of civil disobedience confrontation to try to affect the moralconscience of the ruling class.

Were not opposed to sit-insper se; many of us in the SWP and YSA

have participated in sit-ins, such as during the early stages of the civilrights movement. Were not opposed to any specific tactic. But we lookat the whole political context, the relationship of forces, what ispossible, what potential exists for mass action, and we decide on thatbasis what tactics we should use at the moment.

Orientation number three

Let me go on to the third choice: independent mass action. What Imean here is a general strategy of trying to build movements whichreach out and bring masses into motion on issues where they are

willing to struggle against policies of the ruling class, and through theirinvolvement in action, deepen their understanding of those issues. Thisis the fundamental strategy were after.

Were not interested in moving 20 or 200 or several hundredcommunity organizers to engage in some sort of civil disobedience,window trashing, or whatever. We say that is a dead end, because itdoesnt relate to the power that can stop the war the masses. You


17/62

cant ask the 15 million trade unionists to sit in at a congressmansoffice. There just isnt enough room. Of course, the ultralefts know that15 million workers arent going to do that, so that call is clearly notaimed at involving workers.

This is the key thing to understand about the ultraleftists. The actionsthey propose are not aimed at the American people; theyre aimed atthose who have already radicalized. They know beforehand thatmasses of people wont respond to the tactics they propose.

They have not only given up on the masses but really have contemptfor them. Because on top of all this do you know what else theultralefts propose? They call for a general strike! They get up and say,General Strike. Only they dont have the slightest hope whatsoeverthat it will come off.

Every last one of them who raises his hand to vote for a general strikeknows its not going to happen. So what the hell do they raise theirhands for? Because its part of the game. They play games, they playrevolution, because they have no hope. Just during the month of Maythe New Mobe called not one but two general strikes. One for GIs andone for workers.

That is the big difference between the perspective of the ultralefts andour perspective, because we DO want a general strike. We DO want areal strike. We do believe you can win the workers, so therefore wedont just raise our hands in games, we raise our hands for what really

can be done, for what can begin to move masses of people.

The independent mass action concept does not just meandemonstrations against the war. Its a general strategy with manyaspects to it.

One aspect is to build a mass independent black political party. It alsomeans, for instance, organizing to mobilize masses of women againstthe institutions, social norms and practices that are used to oppressthem. Its a strategy that calls for doing things like building theChicano Raza Unida Party, which is growing in the Southwest.

This is the concept of getting people into motion, into action. Nottalking down to them, but organizing actions which are able to giveexpression to the mass opposition to the policies of the ruling class, atthe level of understanding that people have reached about whatshappening in this society. Its the concept of bringing masses intomotion, but at all times keeping the movement independent of theruling class.


18/62

Now, what is the best way we can implement this orientation at thispoint? We follow a general organizational type strategy which is simplythis. You get the issues around which people are moving against thegovernment and create a unified movement around them, in order to

maximize the numbers that will come into motion.

This is the same strategy which is used by a union when it carries out astrike. When a union calls a strike, it calls it on certain demands.Higher pay, better working conditions, whatever the demands happento be for that struggle. If a majority of the workers agree, they take avote, and then everybody strikes together, and they put a very heavyemphasis on keeping it together.

The workers dont say: Why dont we also take a stand on the ArabIsraeli conflict? Or on housing, or on the last bill passed in Congress?

as a prerequisite to participate in the strike.

Youve got to deal with people where theyre at. When a woman comesalong and says, Im against the abortion laws; I want to see themabolished, and she wants to join a demonstration for free abortions ondemand, but she still has illusions about the war in Vietnam, stillsupports Nixon, what is our attitude? Do we say: Youre an imperialistpig! Dont you know whats happening in Vietnam? You cant go on thisdemonstration. Keep away from us. We understand these things were the elite. We dont want to taint ourselves by letting someonewhos for the war in Vietnam join this demonstration.

The way people radicalize

Our concept is to unite people in action around the issues on whichtheyre moving. Not because were single-issue fetishists. Our aim, infact, is to move people around broader and broader issues, but wevegot to deal with reality, not with abstractions.

We advocate many things, but we try to put into practice those thingsthe masses are prepared for. We advocate general strikes, but wedont call them, because were not fools. We know there cannot be a

general strike, on any issue right now, given the present level ofconsciousness. And you wont get to the point where there can begeneral strikes unless you put people in motion, precisely becausewhen they start to move on any one issue, whether womensliberation, the war or racial oppression, people begin to question thewhole society, and to see the interrelationship between the differentissues. In fact, it is the way people radicalize.


19/62

People dont suddenly understand everything at once. Think aboutyour own political development. Theres always one issue or another,depending on the objective conditions, which tends to wake a personup. As weve said over and over again, at the present stage the mosteffective weapon to stop the ruling class from moving to the right is to

get masses of people in motion. The most effective way to do this, atthis stage especially, is mass, peaceful, legal demonstrations in thestreets.

Now, if we want to build a movement against the Vietnam war, it cannot, by definition, be multi-issue. Thats like saying we want a singleissue movement thats multi-issue. The multi-issue antiwarmovement is the trick which is the key to how the liberals and theultraleftists can get together organizationally, politically, socially, etc. get married, and live happily ever after.

The trick is to make the issues non-issues. Make them so nebulous thatthey have nothing to do with concrete realities. Instead ofdemonstrating to bring the troops home from Vietnam now, which isvery concrete, they call for Stop imperialism. Nothing like anabstraction. Even Nixon can say: Im against imperialism too thatswhat Britain and France and Holland did in the 18th and 19thcenturies. But Nixon cant say: Bring all the troops home now.

Or they say we should raise the demand End racism. Isnt Nixonwilling to say End racism? Dont black Democratic politicians sayEnd racism? So they make a real multi-issue program: end racism,

end repression, end imperialism, end male chauvinism.What we want is to call for concrete demands and mobilize people towin them. Demands like Get Out of Vietnam, or Black Control of theBlack Schools, or concrete campaigns around specific cases ofrepression. But thats not what the liberal-ultralefts do. What they calla multi-issue program is a list of abstract reforms.

Slogans like end racism and end male chauvinism are not only abstractin their political meaning, they are also abstract because the antiwarmovement cannot organize the struggle to win them. The antiwarmovement cannot replace or substitute for an independent black

liberation movement, or an independent womens liberationmovement, for instance. Black people and women not the antiwarmovement must decide which concrete demands will best furthertheir struggle and how best to organize around them.

Many students may agree with the slogan End Racism, but how manyof them understand the right of black people to self-determination, theneed for an independent black political party, and the demand for


20/62


21/62

aware for the first time of the repression against the Black Panthersand raised concrete demands to free the jailed Panthers.

At the University of California at Berkeley during the strike, a massmeeting of 12,000 voted to set up a child-care centre on campus and

to institute a womens studies program. Many campuses adopted andattempted to institute concrete demands raised by the black students.All types of radicalization took place within the context of the strikes.

Just think of a strike situation. When there is a strike for higher wageswhere a big struggle takes place, masses come into motion and peoplebegin to question all types of things. Whats the response among theworkers, after a single-issue strike, to someone who says: Look, noneof the Democrats and Republicans supported our strike. Yet we votedfor them last year.

Obviously in the context of struggle many possibilities for radicalizationopen up, and who is going to the masses with a concrete program ofaction around all these issues? The YSA and SWP. Whos pushing anindependent mass black political party? Whos helping build a Chicanoparty? Whos building the womens liberation movement? What otherorganization is working in all these fields with the aim of mobilizingmasses in struggle against the ruling class?

Our Socialist Workers Party election campaigns are going to be verymuch a part of this whole radicalization and especially of the antiwarmovement. The alternatives we create through our socialist election

campaigns are going to be a part of the antiwar movement, a part ofthe whole context in which the antiwar struggle is taking place.

So we have to launch an offensive. The Socialist Workers Partycandidates are going to get a bigger hearing than ever before, becausethere are now tens of thousands of young people who are looking forantiwar candidates. Many of them, its true, will support peacecandidates from the Democratic or Republican Party, but with a certainfear and suspicion. Many young people will start out supporting aDemocratic Party candidate, and when their candidate makes one slipand takes a bad position theyll quit the campaign and be ready to turn

to socialist candidates.

In our election campaigns weve got to emphasize that its not theindividual candidate that is decisive but his or her party and whichsocial layer the party serves. That is the real question: which sociallayer, which class, rules? And the Socialist Workers Party campaignswill be saying clearly: Dont vote for the parties of war! We in theSWP, our program not the Democrats represents the interests of


22/62

the masses of people.Our campaigns speak for the full program necessary to mobilize peoplein struggle to do away with war, poverty, racial oppression and theoppression of women. They point the way to the goal of our struggle:socialism.

But at the same time we will unite on any issue around which peopleare willing to struggle against the ruling class, no matter what theirlevel of understanding of this society. This is the way to move massesin this country, to build a revolutionary party, and not only playbut make a revolution.


23/62

Bob Brenner: The Problem of Reformism

I WAS ASKED to talk about the historical lessons of revolution in thetwentieth century. But since we are primarily interested in historicallessons that are likely to be relevant to the twenty-first century, I think

it would be more to the point to consider the experience of reform andreformism. Reformism is always with us, but it rarely announces itspresence and usually introduces itself by another name and in afriendly fashion. Still, it is our main political competitor and we hadbetter understand it. To begin with, it should be clear that reformismdoes not distinguish itself by a concern for reforms. Bothrevolutionaries and reformists try to win reforms. Indeed as socialists,we see the fight for reforms as our main business. But reformists arealso interested in winning reforms. In fact, to a very large extent,reformists share our program, at least in words. They are for higherwages, full employment, a better welfare state, stronger trade unions,

even a third party.

The inescapable fact is that, if we want to attract people to arevolutionary socialist banner and away from reformism, it will notgenerally be through outbidding reformists in terms of program. It willbe through our theory-our understanding of the world -and, mostimportant, through our method, our practice.

What distinguishes reformism on a day-to-day basis is its politicalmethod and its theory, not its program. Schematically speaking,reformists argue that although, left on its own, the capitalist economytends to crisis, state intervention can enable capitalism to achieve

long-term stability and growth. They argue, at the same time, that thestate is an instrument that can be used by any group, including theworking class, in its own interests.

Reformism's basic political method or strategy follows directly fromthese premises. Working people and the oppressed can and shoulddevote themselves primarily to winning elections so as to gain controlof the state and thereby secure legislation to regulate capitalism and,on that basis, to improve their working conditions and living standards.

The Paradox of Reformism

Marxists have, of course, always counterposed their own theories andstrategies to those of reformists. But, probably of equal importance incombating reformism, revolutionaries have argued that both reformisttheory and reformist practice are best understood in terms of thedistinctive social forces on which reformism has historically baseditself-in particular, as rationalizations of the needs and interests oftrade union officials and parliamentary politicos, as well as middle-


24/62

class leaders of the movements of the oppressed.

Reformism's distinctive social basis is not simply of sociologicalinterest. It is the key to the central paradox that has defined, anddogged, reformism since its origins as a self-defined movement withinthe social democratic parties (evolutionary socialism) around 1900.That is, the social forces at the heart of reformism and theirorganizations are committed to political methods (as well as theoriesto justify them) that end up preventing them from securing their ownreform goals-especially the electoral-legislative road and state-regulated labor relations.

As a result, the achievement of major reforms throughout thetwentieth century has generally required not only breaking with, butsystematically struggling against, organized reformism, its chiefleaders and their organizations. This is because the winning of suchreforms has, in virtually every instance, required strategies and tactics

of which organized reformism did not approve because thesethreatened their social position and interests-high levels of militantmass action, large-scale defiance of the law, and the forging ofincreasingly class-wide ties of active solidarity-between unionized andun-unionized, employed and unemployed, and the like.

The Reformist View

The core proposition of the reformist world view is that, though proneto crisis, the capitalist economy is, in the end subject to stateregulation. Reformists have argued-in various ways-that what makes

for crisis is unregulated class struggle. They have thus often contendedthat capitalist crisis can arise from the "too great" exploitation ofworkers by capitalists in the interests of increased profitability. Thiscauses problems for the system as a whole because it leads toinadequate purchasing power on the part of working people, whocannot buy back enough of what they produce. Insufficient demandmakes for a crisis of underconsumption" - for example (according toreformist theorists), the Great Depression of the 1930s.

Reformists have also argued that capitalist crisis can arise, on theother hand, from "too strong" resistance by workers to capitalist

oppression on the shop floor. By blocking the introduction of innovativetechnology or refusing to work harder, workers reduce productivitygrowth (output/worker). This, in turn, means a slower growing pie,reduced profitability, reduced investment, and ultimately a "supply-side crisis" -for example (according to reformist theorists), the currenteconomic downturn beginning at the end of the 1960s.

It follows from this approach that, because crises are the unintended


25/62

result of unregulated class struggle, the state can secure economicstability and growth precisely by intervening to regulate both thedistribution of income and capital labor relations on the shop floor. Theimplication is that class struggle is not really necessary, for it is in thelong term interest of neither the capitalist class nor the working class,

if they can be made to coordinate their actions.

The State as Neutral Apparatus

The reformist theory of the state fits very well with its politicaleconomy. In this view, the state is an autonomous apparatus of power,in principle neutral, capable of being used by anyone. It follows thatworkers and the oppressed should try to gain control of it for thepurpose of regulating the economy so as to secure economic stabilityand growth and, on that basis, win reforms in their own materialinterests.

Reformism's political strategy flows logically from its view of theeconomy and the state. Workers and the oppressed shouldconcentrate on electing reformist politicos to office. Because stateintervention by a reformist government can secure long-term stabilityand growth in the interests of capital, as well as labor, there is noreason to believe that employers will stubbornly oppose a reformistgovernment.

Such a government can prevent crises of underconsumption byimplementing redistributive tax policies and prevent supply-side crisesby establishing state regulated worker-management commissions in

the interest of raising productivity. On the basis of a growing,increasingly productive economy, the state can continually raisespending on state services, while regulating collective bargaining so asto insure fairness to all parties.

Reformists would maintain that workers need to remain organized andvigilantespecially in their unionsand prepared to move againstrogue capitalists who won't be disciplined in the common interest:ready to take strike action against employers who refuse to acceptmediation at the level of the firm or, in the worst ease, to rise enmasse against groups of reactionary capitalists who can't abide giving

over governmental power to the great majority and seek to subvert thedemocratic order.

But presumably such battles would remain subordinate to the mainelectoral/legislative struggle and become progressively less commonsince reformist state policy would proceed in the interest not only ofworkers and the oppressed, but of the employers, even if the latter didnot at first realize it.


26/62

Responding to Reformism

Revolutionaries have classically rejected the reformists' politicalmethod of relying on the electoral/legislative process and state-regulated collective bargaining for the simple reason that it can't work.

So long as capitalist property relations continue to prevail, the statecannot be autonomous. This is not because the state is always directlycontrolled by capitalists (social democratic and labor partygovernments, for example, often are not). It is because whoevercontrols the state is brutally limited in what they can do by the needsof capitalist profitability ... and because, over any extended period, theneeds of capitalist profitability are very difficult to reconcile withreforms in the interest of working people.

In a capitalist society, you can't get economic growth unless you canget investment, and you can't get capitalists to invest unless they can

make what they judge to be an adequate rate of profit. Since highlevels of employment and increasing state services in the interest ofthe working class (dependent upon taxation) are predicated uponeconomic growth, even governments that want to further the interestsof the exploited and the oppressed-for example social democratic orlabor party governments-must make capitalist profitability in theinterest of economic growth their first priority.

The old saying that "What's good for General Motors is good foreveryone," unfortunately contains an important grain of truth, so longas capitalist property relations continue in force.

This is not of course to deny that capitalist governments will ever makereforms. Especially in periods of boom, when profitability is high,capital and the state are often quite willing to grant improvements toworking people and the oppressed in the interests of uninterruptedproduction and social order.

But in periods of downturn, when profitability is reduced andcompetition intensifies, the cost of paying (via taxation) for suchreforms can endanger the very survival of firms and they are rarelygranted without very major struggles in the workplaces and in thestreets. Equally to the point, in such periods, governments of everysort-whether representative of capital or labor--so long as they arecommitted to capitalist property relationships, will end up attemptingto restore profitability by seeing to it that wages and social spendingare cut, that capitalists receive tax breaks, and so forth.

The Centrality of Crisis Theory

It should be evident why, for revolutionaries, so much is riding on their


27/62

contention that extended periods of crisis are built into capitalism.From this standpoint, crises arise from capitalism's inherently anarchicnature, which makes for a path of capital accumulation that iseventually self-contradictory or self-undermining. Because by nature acapitalist economy operates in an unplanned way, governments cannot

prevent crises.

This is not the place for an extended discussion of debates over crisistheory. But one can at least point out that capitalist history hasvindicated an anti-reformist viewpoint. Since the later nineteenthcentury, if not before, whatever type of governments have been inpower, long periods of capitalist boom (1850s-1870s, 1890s-1913, late1940s-c.1970) have always been succeeded by long periods ofcapitalist depression (1870s-1890s, 1919-1939,c.1970 to the present).One of Ernest Mandel's fundamental contributions in recent years hasbeen to emphasize this pattern of capitalist development through long

waves of boom and downturn.During the first two decades of the postwar period, it seemed thatreformism had finally vindicated its political worldview. There wasunprecedented boom, accompanied by-and seemingly caused by-theapplication of Keynesian measures to subsidize demand, as well as thegrowing government expenditures associated with the welfare state.Every advanced capitalist economy experienced not only fast-risingwages, but a significant expansion of social services in the interest ofthe working class and the oppressed.

In the late '60s or early '70s, it thus appeared to many that the way to

insure continually improved conditions for working people was topursue "class struggle inside the state-the electoral/legislativevictories of social democratic and labor parties (the Democratic partyin the United States).

But the next two decades entirely falsified this perspective. Decliningprofitability brought a long-term crisis of growth and investment. Underthese conditions, one after another reformist government in power-theLabor Party in the late '70s, the French and Spanish Socialist Parties inthe '80s, and the Swedish Social Democratic Party in the '80s-founditself unable to restore prosperity through the usual methods of

subsidizing demand and concluded that it had little choice but toincrease profitability as the only way to increase investment andrestore growth.

As a result, virtually without exception, the reformist parties in powernot only failed to defend workers' wages or living standards againstemployers' attack, but unleashed powerful austerity drives designed toraise the rate of profit by cutting the welfare state and reducing the


28/62

power of the unions. There could be no more definitive disproof ofreformist economic theories and the notion of the autonomy of thestate. Precisely because the state could not prevent capitalist crisis, itcould not but reveal itself as supinely dependent upon capital.

Why Reformism Doesn't ReformIt remains to be asked why the reformist parties in power continued torespect capitalist property rights and sought to restore capitalistprofits. Why didn't they instead seek to defend working class living andworking standards, if necessary by class struggle? In the event thatthat approach led capitalists to abstain from investing or to capitalflight, why could they not then have nationalized industries and movedtoward socialism? We are back to the paradox of reformism.

The key is to be found in the peculiar social forces that dominatereformist politics, above all the trade union officialdom and the social

democratic party politicos. What distinguishes these forces is that,while they are dependent for their very existence on organizationsbuilt out of the working class, they are not themselves part of theworking class.

Above all, they are off the shop floor. They find their material base,their livelihood, in the trade union or party organization itself. It's notjust that they get their salaries from the trade union or political party,although this is very important. The trade union or party defines theirwhole way of life-what they do, whom they meet--as well as theircareer trajectory.

As a result, the key to their survival, to the fluctuations in theirmaterial and social position, is their place within the trade union orparty organization itself. So long as the organization is viable, they canhave a viable form of life and a reasonable career.

The gulf between the form of life of the rank and file worker and eventhe low level paid official is thus enormous. The economic position-wages, benefits, working conditions-of ordinary workers dependsdirectly on the course of the class struggle at the workplace and withinthe industry. Successful class struggle is the only way for them todefend their living standards.

The trade union official, in contrast, can generally do quite well even ifone defeat follows another in the class struggle, so long as the tradeunion organization survives. It is true that in the very long run the verysurvival of the trade union organization is dependent upon the classstruggle, but this is rarely a relevant factor. More to the point is thefact that, in the short run, especially in periods of profitability crisis,class struggle is probably the main threat to the viability of the


29/62

organization.

Since militant resistance to capital can provoke a response from capitaland the state that threaten the financial condition or the veryexistence of the organization, the trade union officials generally seekstudiously to avoid it. The trade unions and reformist parties havethus, historically, sought to ward off capital by coming to terms with it.

They have assured capital that they accept the capitalist propertysystem and the priority of profitability in the operation of the firm.They have at the same time sought to make sure that workers, insideor outside their organizations, do not adopt militant, illegal, and class-wide forms of action that might appear too threatening to capital andcall forth a violent response.

Above all, with implacable class struggle ruled out as a means to winreforms, trade union officials and parliamentary politicians have seen

the electoral/legislative road as the fundamental political strategy leftto them. Through the passive mobilization of an election campaign,these forces thus hope to create the conditions for winning reforms,while avoiding too much offending capital in the process.

This is not to adopt the absurd view that workers are generallychomping at the bit to struggle and are only being back by theirmisleaders. In fact, workers often are as conservative as their leaders,or more so. The point is that, unlike the trade union or party officials,rank and file workers cannot, over time, defend their interests withoutclass struggle.

Moreover, at those moments when workers do decide to take mattersinto their own hands and attack the employers, the trade unionofficials can be expected to constitute a barrier to their struggle, toseek to detour or derail it.

Of course, trade union leaders and party officials are not in every caseaverse to class struggle, and sometimes they even initiate it. The pointis simply that, because of their social position, they cannot be countedon to resist. Therefore, no matter how radical the leaders' rhetoric, nostrategy should be based on the assumption that they will resist.

It is the fact that trade union officials and social democratic politicianscannot be counted on to fight the class struggle because they havemajor material interests that are endangered by confrontations withthe employers that provides the central justification for our strategy ofbuilding rank and file organizations that are independent of theofficials (although they may work with them), as well as independentworking class parties.


30/62

Reformism Today and Regroupment

Understanding reformism is no mere academic exercise. It affects justabout every political initiative we take. This can be seen particularlyclearly with respect both to today's strategic tasks of bringing together

anti-reformist forces within a common organization (regroupment) andthat of creating a break from the Democratic Party.

Today, as for many years, Solidarity's best hope for regrouping withorganized (however loosely) left forces comes from those individualsand groups which see themselves as opposed from the left to officialreformism. The fact remains that many of these leftists, explicitly orimplicitly, still identify with an approach to politics that may be roughlytermed "popular frontism."

Despite the fact that it was framed entirely outside the camp oforganized social democracy, popular frontism takes reformism to the

level of a system.

The Communist International first promulgated the idea of the popularfront in 1935 to complement the Soviet Union's foreign policy ofseeking an alliance with the "liberal" capitalist powers to defendagainst Nazi expansionism (collective security"). In this context, theCommunists internationally put forward the idea that it was possiblefor the working class to forge a very broad alliance across classes, notonly with middle class liberals, but with an enlightened section of thecapitalist class, in the interest of democracy, civil liberties, and reform.

The conceptual basis for this view was that an enlightened section ofthe capitalist class preferred a constitutional order to an authoritarianone. In addition, enlightened capitalists were willing to countenancegreater government intervention and egalitarianism in order to createthe conditions for liberalism, as well as to insure social stability.

Like other reformist doctrines, the popular front based itself, ineconomic terms, on an underconsumptionist theory of crisis.Underconsumptionism was in fact receiving a wide hearing in liberal,as well as radical-socialist, circles during the 1930s, receiving aparticularly strong boost with the promulgation and popularization ofKeynes' ideas. In the United States, the implication of the popular frontwas to enter the Democratic Party. The Roosevelt administration,containing as it did certain relatively progressive establishment types,was seen as an archetypical representative of capitalism's enlightenedwing. And the imperative of working with the Democrats was verymuch increased with the sudden rise of the labor movement as apower in the land.

The Communists had originally been in the lead in organizing the CIO,


31/62

and had, in fact, spectacularly succeeded in auto largely by virtue oftheir adoption, for a very brief but decisive period (1935-early 1937), ofa rank-and-file strategy much like that of Solidarity today. This strategyhad, at the start, found its parallel in Communist refusal to supportRoosevelt.

But by 1937, soon after the adoption of the popular front with itsimplied imperative not to alienate the Roosevelt administration, the CPhad come to oppose labor militancy (sitdown strikes, wildcats) in theinterest of the classically social democratic policy of allying with theleft" wing of the trade union officials.

The implication of this policy was to reject the notion that the laborofficialdom represented a distinct social layer that could be expectedto put the interests of its organizations ahead of the interests of therank and file-a notion that had been at the core of the politics of theleft-wing of pre-World War I social democracy (Luxemburg, Trotsky,

etc.) and of the Third International since the days of Lenin.

Instead, trade union officials ceased to be differentiated in social termsfrom the rank and file and came to be distinguished (from one another)by their political line alone (left, center, right).

This approach fit very well with the Communists' strategic objective ofgetting the newly-emergent industrial unions to enter the DemocraticParty. Of course, much of the trade union officialdom was only toohappy to emphasize its political role inside the emergent reform wingof the Democratic Party, especially in comparison with its much more

dangerous -economic role of organizing the membership to fight theemployers.

The dual policy of allying with the "left" officials inside the trade unionmovement and working for reform through electoral/legislative meanswithin the Democratic Party (hopefully alongside the progressive tradeunion leaders) has remained to this day powerfully attractive to muchof the left.

A Rank-and-File Perspective

In the trade unions during the 1970s, representatives of tendencies

that eventually ended up inside Solidarity were obliged to counterposethe idea of the rank-and-file movement independent of the trade unionofficials to the popular front idea of many leftists of supporting theextant "progressive" leadership.

This meant, in the first place, countering the idea that the progressivetrade union officials would be obliged to move to the left and opposethe employers, if only to defend their own organizations.


32/62

Revolutionaries contended that, on the contrary, precisely because ofthe viciousness of the employers' offensive, trade union officials wouldfor the most part, be willing to make concessions in the interest ofavoiding confrontation with the employers. They would thereby allowthe bit-by-bit chipping away of the labor movement virtually

indefinitely.

The latter perspective has been more than borne out, as officials haveby and large sat on their hands as the concessions movement hasreached gale proportions and the proportion of workers in trade unionsdropped from 25-30% in the '60s to 10-15% today.

Equally to the point, revolutionaries in the trade union movement hadto counter the popular front idea that the trade union leaders were "tothe left of the rank and file." If you talked with many leftists in thatperiod, sooner or later you'd get the argument that the rank and filewere politically backward.

After all, many "progressive" trade union leaders opposed U.S.intervention in Central America (and elsewhere) more firmly than didthe membership, stood much more clearly than did the membershipfor extensions of the welfare state, and, even, in a number of cases,came out for a labor party.

Our response to this argument was to contrast what "progressive"trade union leaders are willing to do verbally, "politically, whererelatively little is at stake, with what they are willing to do to fight thebosses, where virtually everything may be at risk. It cost the well-

known head of the IAM William Winpisinger virtually nothing to be amember of DSA and promulgate a virtually perfect social democraticworld view on such questions as the reconversion of the economy,national health care, and the like.

But when it came to class struggle, we pointed out, Winpisinger notonly came out clearly against Teamsters for a Democratic Union, butsent his machinists across the picket line in the crucial PATCO (aircontrollers) strike.

Over the past decade or so, many leftists have broken with the SovietUnion or China and become open to re examining their entire political

world view. But this does not mean that they automatically move inour direction. For their popular front political strategy corresponds incentral ways with a still (relatively) powerful and coherent politicaltrend i.e. social democratic reformism.

If we are to win over these comrades, we will have to demonstrate tothem, systematically and in detail, that their traditional popular frontstrategy of working with the trade union "lefts" and penetrating the


33/62

Democratic Party is in fact self-defeating.

Independent Political Action

At various points in the election campaign, important elements withinthe leaderships of the Black movement, the women's movement, andeven the labor movement proclaimed that they would like to see aviable political alternative to the Democratic Party. Their statements ofintent seemed to make the IPA project suddenly much more real.These people are indispensable, at this point, for any practical thirdparty effort for the simple reason that the great majority of Black,women, and labor activists look to them, and no one else, for politicalleadership. But are they serious about IPA?

In one sense, it is obvious that all these forces need independentpolitical action. The Democratic Party has long been seeking to do evermore to improve capitalist profitability and progressively less in the

interest of workers, women, and oppressed minorities. It has thereforebeen of decreasing use to the established leaderships of the union,Black, and women's movements who, after all, work inside the partyprimarily so that they can win something for their constituents.

The official leaderships of the movements would thus no doubt love tohave in existence a viable third party. But it is the paradox of theirsocial stratum and their reformist politics that they are unable to dowhat is necessary to create the conditions in which such a party couldcome into being.

It is difficult to see how these conditions could be achieved exceptthrough the revitalization of the social movements, above all the labormovement the growth of fighting militancy and fighting unity withinthe union movement and beyond. Newly-dynamized mass movementscould provide the material base, so to speak, for the transformation ofpolitical consciousness that could bring into being an electorallysuccessful third party. But such movements are just what theestablished leaderships are afraid to create.

On the other hand, in the absence of a massive break in the activityand consciousness of the mass movements, it makes absolutely nosense to the established leaderships to break with the Democrats.These elements take the electoral road extremely seriously; for it is themain means for them to secure gains for their constituencies. And thesine qua non for gains through the electoral road is all too self-evident:it is electoral victory. Without electoral victory, nothing is possible.

The problem is that, for the foreseeable future, no third party wouldhave a chance to win. The political consciousness is not yet there.Moreover, third parties are especially disadvantaged here by the


34/62

winner take all electoral system.

In this situation, the established leaderships of the trade union, Black,and women's movement are in a double bind: they cannot break fromthe Democrats until the conditions are present that can promiseelectoral victory for a third party; but they cannot create the conditionsfor a third party without forsaking, probably for a substantial period,their established methods of winning gains via the electoral road.

It is, unfortunately, not at all surprising that the most serioussupporters of a break toward a third party within the establishedleaderships of the movements-to be found within the women'smovement-showed themselves much less interested in "their own"Twenty-first Century Party than with the Democratic Party candidaciesof Carole Moseley Braun, Barbara Boxer, and even Dianne Feinstein.

Just as any revival of the labor movement, the social movements, and

of the left will have to depend on a break from-and confrontation with-the social and political forces that underpin reformism, so will theproject of building a new party to the left of the Democrats.


35/62

The Toledo Auto-Lite Strike, 1934

Rise like Lions after slumberIn unvanquishable numberShake your chains to earth like dew

Which in sleep have fallen on youYe are manythey are few.Shelley, The Mask of Anarchy

By 1934, the worst Depression in United States history had entered itsfourth year. It was a period of tremendous hardship for working people.Record unemployment and the resulting economic deprivation hadproduced suffering and social dislocation on a scale hithertounimagined. The conditions for successful strike action in theautomobile industry could not have been less auspicious. Nevertheless,against all the odds, in the spring of that year the workers at the

Electric Auto-Lite factory in Toledo, Ohio, won a historic partial victoryover the company, following a bruising six-day struggle that involvedhand-to-hand combat with the Ohio National Guard.

The ferocity of this struggle was a warning that the auto empire wouldnot surrender control without great sacrifice by the union workers. Theauto industrialists could rely on strong financial reserves, police forces,private detective agencies, and the undisguised support ofgovernment courts and committees, This formidable combinationconfronted the newly organized Toledo auto union, which had emergedwhen small groups of workers from City Auto Stamping, BinghamStamping, Dura, Spicer, and Logan Gear received a charter for federalLocal No. 18384 from the American Federation of Labor (AFL). The localwas at the forefront of historic strikes in 1934 that led to the foundingof the International Auto Workers Union (IAWU).

The auto industry had experienced sporadic labor conflicts throughoutthe Depression, attended by wage reductions and speed-ups, thenotorious system introduced by Frederick Winslow Taylor. Speed-upswere a stopwatch timing method that increased productivity withoutnew mechanical processes, simply by increasing the assembly-linespeed with incremental adjustments.

Attempts to organize had occurred in six different states. In 1933,Briggs, Motor Products, Murray Body, and Hudson had plant shutdownsin Detroit; Fisher Body was struck in Flint; Nash and Seaman Body inWisconsin; General Motors in New York, Ohio, and California. Theimmediate cause of the strikes was employees' resistance to theefforts of the corporations to increase productivity beyond endurance.The previous four years of the Depression had seen autoworkers'wages severely reduced. Unfortunately the auto workers had no


36/62

experience of dealing with great corporate institutions: they lackeddirection, basic resources for sustaining pickets, knowledge of publicrelations to counter hostile company propaganda, and awareness ofelementary procedures of negotiation.

The Lessons of the 1933 Briggs StrikeThe Briggs strike of 1933 had exemplified these problems. As in mostof the strikes in that year of labor discontent, spontaneous action arosewhen the corporation attempted to cut the wages of the hourly andpiece-rate workers. Six thousand workers marched out of the plant. Aninexperienced committee-which included members of the SocialistParty (SP), the Proletarian Party, the Industrial Workers of the World(IWW), and the Communist Party (CP)-found it necessary to seek helpfrom the Automobile Workers Union (AWU), asking Phil Raymond, thesecretary, who had previous strike experience, to provide direction.

With the assistance of the AWU, Raymond directed the establishmentof the Briggs strike committees. The strikers demanded unionrecognition, the restoration of the previous wage scale, and a moretolerable line speed. The company's response was to withdraw thewage, cuts but also to launch an attack on the Communist leaders ofthe strike. Briggs had an easy target, linking the AWU with the TradeUnion Unity League (TUUL), which the Communist Party hadestablished in 1929 to help build unions in industries independent ofthe AFL. Under unrelenting attack, the strike committee of twenty-fiverequested the removal of Raymond and his CP assistants. After twomonths the dispirited Briggs workers trickled back to work.

Briggs workers learned that accepting aid from the AWU cut them offfrom the mainstream of the union movement in the United States,which still flowed through the AFL, the country's major union. The AFLsstrength resided in the craft unions, a fact that weakened their appealto the large concentration of autoworkers in factories where skilledcraft workers were only a small part of the workforce. In the fewinstances where the auto workers established local unions-as they didin Cleveland, Ohio; South Bend, Indiana; and Kenosha, Wisconsin, localunion leaders opposed AFL efforts to split the skilled workers into thevarious crafts.

The AWU leadership stood for industrial unionism and counterposedtheir program to that of the AFL, but the superiority of a program couldnot overcome the prejudice of workers toward the leftwing leaders.The average worker chose a union to deal with basic shop problems ofwages and working conditions. Redbaiting was a divisive attack by thecorporations that successfully divided the union ranks. Workers soughta trusted, untainted political leadership. Some turned to company-


37/62

dominated unions, influenced by Father Charles E. Coughlin. The AWUand the company unions remained paper organizations.

In the period following the 1929 stock-market crash, the record ofperiodic rebellions reveals that labor did not accept the pain of wagecuts, intensified speed-ups, and short hours in the industrial plantswithout resistance. At this time, millions of workers wandered thecountry in search of jobs. Their experiences on the road broadenedtheir political horizon so that many lost faith in the capitalist system.

In the subsequent period of the New Deal, the upturn in employmentand the policies of a reform government-introduced by politicalrepresentatives who feared the possible destruction of the capitalistsystem and a redress of the balance between capital and labor-inspired workers to seek change in the workplace itself.

Some of the strikes took place because the strikers incorrectly thought

the government had provided a legal basis in the National RecoveryAct (NRA) for workers to join unions of their own choice withoutinterference from industry employers. These autoworkers sought outthe AFL, even though AFL strength was in craft unionism and itsleadership under William Green was conservative. Although Greenspoke from a national pulpit for labor, in most of the country the AFLhad been reduced in size and influence; it nevertheless represented astarting point for organization. As things developed, however, inDetroit and other centers of the auto empire the Green representativesled the auto industry to repeated defeats. The half-hearted assignmentof organizers by the AFL, failure to mobilize strike support, and the

policy of relying on government boards in union organization, were allfactors disarming the incipient movement to unionism in Detroit.

Federal Local No. 18384

Toledo, the center of an auto parts and glass industry, depended onthe larger auto companies for its prosperity. When the large companiessneezed, the auto parts companies caught pneumonia. The largestmanufacturing company in Toledo, Willys-Overland, had employed28,000 workers before the stock-market crash. In 1932 it closed itsdoors. This in turn forced the closure of the Ohio Bond and Security

Bank: thousands of depositors lost their life savings.

The manager of the Ohio Bonds and Security Bank was one ClemMiniger. It later emerged that before the default, key depositors fromthe parts industry had shifted their funds to secure repositories. Thecitizens of Toledo would subsequently vent their wrath on Miniger. Theviolent middle-class reaction against the rich financier, an admiredfigure before the Depression, illustrated the precipitous decline in the


38/62

reputation of the capitalist class nationwide. For decades the publichad believed that the prosperity of the country had been produced bythe captains of industry, and unlimited praise was heaped on theMellons, Duponts, Morgans, and Rockefellers. Following the creditdefault and economic collapse, the richthe mighty industrialists, the

millionaires, Americas sixty familieswere seen as damaged goods.

Clem Miniger was also the head of the Electric Auto-Lite Company,which, under his leadership, had become a major force in the partssector. The plant manufactured ignition, lighting, and electrical partssystems for the auto industry and supplied Chrysler, Ford, Willys,Packard, and Nash. It employed 1,800 men and women, with 400 inthe stamping division. A relation of interlocking ownership existedbetween Auto-Lite, Bingham Tool and Stamping, and Logan Gear.

High unemployment in Ohio, at a record 37 percent, and in Toledo, at80 percent, did not deter workers at the Electric Auto-Lite Company

from attemptin

Study Group 4 - Reform Struggles

Documents

Transcript of Study Group 4 - Reform Struggles