To Louis Proyect and Heikki Sipila
The question of how to create world revolution is a compelling subject.
What kind of international body is necessary to halt
corporate-controlled organizations like the WTO, the IMF and the World
Bank from impoverishing and murdering the people of the world,
especially people of color, the poor, women and workers? Guerry
Hoddersen, of the U.S. section of the Freedom Socialist Party (FSP),
addressed this question in a thoughtful and optimistic article on how to
save the Fourth International (FI).
The FI began as a revolutionary organization founded by Trotsky after he
realized that the Stalinist Comintern (3rd International) could not be
turned around from its anti-revolutionary direction. Stalin squelched
revolutions in Spain, China, his policy in Germany was responsible for
the triumph of fascism, and then he made a deal with Hitler. Hoddersen's
article, therefore, deserves a thoughtful, respectful response, and not
just flip one-liners tossed off by Louis Proyect/Heikki Sipila.
Proyect/Sipila's inserts sound like a child's rant:
"Nah-nah-nah...you're wrong!" Name calling and jeers such as "pointy
headed Trotskyists" obviously won't change the world.
Hoddersen's main point is that a party needs a program that is firmly
revolutionary or it cannot create a socialist revolution capable of
overthrowing international capitalism. All-inclusive parties without a
clear program are fine as debating societies--if that is as far as you
want to go. However, a revolutionary group must have already decided
the answer to "reform or revolution?" Parties who still cannot say
"Yes" to revolution will stagnate at reform only--and the system will go
on and on and on--despoiling the earth and spreading racism, sexism,
poverty and war.
The fact that Stalinism failed in the Soviet Union needs to be
understood as a partly positive development. Stalinism was hellishly
undemocratic, ineffectual at serving workers' needs and
counter-revolutionary. It made deals with Hitler and the capitalist
rulers, and stalled movements at reform to serve a "peaceful
co-existence" ideology. But its failure emphasizes that the way to
communism is still open, based on the ideas of Marx, Engels, Lenin and
Trotsky, all of whom built a legacy that can lead us to a better world.
If we don't learn from our errors and our victories, we won't move
forward.
Hoddersen points out that a big error of the Left has been to ignore the
revolutionary importance of the issues of women and people of color.
WEB DuBois wrote in 1903 that "the problem of the 20th century is the
problem of the color line." We can say the same about women's status.
Both issues are still urgent because both remain unsolved. A
revolutionary movement must recognize that women and people of color
make up a potential revolutionary leadership that is essential to the
fight for a global socialist economy of sharing, equality and affluence.
>From their gibes and stereotypes ("they don't want to dirty their hands
with the living class struggle"), it is woefully obvious that
Proyect/Sipila know nothing about the FSP and Guerry Hoddersen. Setting
aside Hoddersen's years of work in the labor movement (Air Traffic
Controllers, Teamster's, Greyhound, Boeing, strike support, etc.),
childcare, welfare rights, police brutality, anti-war, and campaigns for
electoral office, etc., Hoddersen co-founded the United Front Against
Fascism (UFAF), a coalition which stopped the Nazis on Whidby Island in
1988 when no other groups were willing act. This bold demonstration was
reported around the world and was a turning point for anti-Nazi protests
in the Pacific Northwest of the U.S. It was the model for similar
demonstrations in California. UFAF also was part of the Coalition
Against Nazis (CAN) that protested the Aryan Nations in Coeur d'Alene,
Idaho in July 1999.
Hoddersen has helped create and define class struggle in the United
States and, under the leadership of Clara Fraser of the Freedom
Socialist Party, was part of pioneering the development of socialist
feminism internationally. The FSP has a record to be proud of in the
living struggle and in the trenches. And it has excellent leadership
theory, political analysis, and hard work to offer the national and
international movements. It seems to me that all Proyect/Sipila have to
offer is creaky old anti-communism and anti-leadership. What's to be
gained by sneering? It would be more valuable if Proyect/Sipila were
able engage in real debate with us on how to steer the FI back to a
revolutionary position--or at least seriously explain why they think
that the correct course is to abandon a revolutionary program.
There is a great deal to be done. If all they can offer is sneering and
defeatism, please excuse us while we get on with our work.
Adrienne Weller
FSP, Portland, Oregon
