====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
2009/12/17 S. Artesian <sartes...@earthlink.net: "My claim was that there was not a single word in Sam Webb's piece that distinguished it in content as Marxist from any of the pieces we can read daily from liberal or conservative supporters [or critics] of the Obama regime. Do you have evidence that refutes that claim?" To this I reply that one has to take the program of CPUSA as the basis to understand its current tactical move. Without this it does not make a sense to discus anything further. To document that the move of CPUSA is "distinguished ... in content as Marxist from any of the pieces we can read daily from liberal or conservative supporters [or critics] of the Obama regime" a document below a bit from Sam Webb's report. I suggest you read in particular the bit entitled "A new emphasis". The support of Obama by CPUSA may seem to be the same in form with his "liberal or conservative supporters" but in content it is entirely different and strategically aims at fundamental change. In the bit I mentioned it states clearly that the working class must become the main drive of this change. I do not know any liberal and conservative supporters of Obama who offers such a perspective. Am I wrong? * Adjustments in strategic policy* With the foregoing in mind, what changes/adjustments if any in our strategic policy are warranted given the new landscape? On the one hand, the strategic thrust of last year — to defeat the ultra right at the polls — doesn’t exactly fit the new conditions, but as mentioned earlier the right danger can’t be underestimated; it remains a considerable political, ideological, and mass mobilizing force. On the other hand, we are not yet at a consistently anti-monopoly/corporate strategic stage of struggle either, given the challenges facing the country and the world, the continued presence of the extreme right and its reactionary corporate backers, and the level of consciousness of the American people. Thus, our strategic policy is neither one nor the other. It’s an unstable mixture of both. This isn’t surprising given the fluid and transitional nature of this period. And yet as the process of democratic reform (democratic ownership of the financial sector or a worker/community base industrial policy, major expansion of union rights, for example) deepens, the class, anti-corporate, anti-transnational nature of the struggle will come to the fore more and more at the economic, political, and ideological level. All of which goes to show that the struggle for democracy doesn’t dilute, postpone, or bypass the class struggle, but brings it into bolder relief, extends the ground on which it is fought out, and brings in fresh voices and leaders to the every field of struggle. Just as the struggle to elect President Obama was at once the leading edge of the class struggle as well as the struggle for democracy in 2008, the struggle to deepen democracy (understood broadly — right to a job or income, peace, equality, health care, day care, and so on) particularly in the economic realm is the main form of the class and democratic struggle in today’s conditions. With this in mind, our strategic policy seeks to extend and deepen a coalition of political actors that stretches from President Obama to the core forces of the people’s movement, and also includes small and medium sized business, working-class people who are influenced by the right, big sections of the Democratic Party and even sections of corporate capital. The notion of only the capitalist class on the one side and only the working class on the other may sound radical, but it isn’t Marxist and doesn’t exist in the real world. Lenin once remarked, *“To imagine that social revolution is conceivable without revolts by small nations in the colonies and in Europe, without revolutionary outbursts by a section of the petty bourgeoisie with all its prejudices, without a movement of the politically non-conscious proletarian and semi-proletarian masses against oppression by the landowners, the church, and the monarchy, against national oppression, etc. — to imagine all this is to repudiate social revolution. So one army lines up in one place and says, “We are for socialism”, and another, somewhere else and says, “We are for imperialism”, and that will be a social revolution! Only those who hold such a ridiculously pedantic view could vilify the Irish rebellion by calling it a ‘putsch’.”* * “Whoever expects a ‘pure’ social revolution will never live to see it. Such a person pays lip service to revolution without understanding what revolution is.”* It would be a profound mistake to distance the working class not only from the other core forces, but also from temporary and even unreliable allies. In fact, this diverse alliance is the strategic cornerstone for progressive and radical reforms. Separately, neither the president nor the people’s organizations nor the working class can win. But united, they pack a wallop! Many get this, especially labor and the other core forces. And the African American people have always practiced it, as have other racially and nationally oppressed peoples. Needless to say, the right wing — along with the corporate class — also gets it and is doing everything possible to bust it up. So again, the challenge is to fully activate and maximize the unity of this very diverse, multi-class, and fluid coalition in the course of concrete struggles. There will be tensions, contradictions, and competing views, and the opposition will be ferocious and clever. All of us who want to live in a more just, peaceful, and equal society must master the art of fighting for unity while, at the same time, stretching the boundaries of the possible and deepening the role of the core forces. At this moment, advantage lies with the people’s movement as mentioned earlier, but it is a fragile advantage. Neither side is yet able to gain hegemony in a political and ideological sense — that is to say, neither side’s views can claim to be the accepted common sense of millions. The political balance of forces doesn’t yet overwhelmingly favor the forces of progress. The main elements of the New Deal, for instance, were not passed in Roosevelt’s first year in office, but in 1935-1937. Nor did the popular insurgency arise in full bloom at the depression’s outset. The New Deal victories were the fruit of a many-layered struggle of a motley group of social actors. The next decade(s) will be much the same. *A new emphasis* For some time we have accented the importance of breadth of the movement, but for this discussion another emphasis is warranted. Because the people’s coalition is broad in scope and varied in political outlook, it is all the more imperative to step up the activity and enhance the leadership role of the main core forces, and especially the working class and its organized sector. Without an enlargement of the role of the working class and the other core forces the reform process will lose its focus and its political weight. Allies are critical in any struggle, but the core forces are indispensible. Any movement that hopes to make major changes in the political and economic landscape requires at its center the working class and its strategic allies (racially oppressed, women and youth). Absent the tight unity of these social groups, we will be tilting at windmills. Luckily, the core forces — all of whom interpenetrate with one another thereby giving them a deep community of interests and enormous power — are in motion, but — and it is this that we should note especially — not yet to the degree that is necessary to enact a progressive agenda. How to increase the role of precisely these forces is the key task for every activist. *Our role* The new opportunities to be part of mass movements make it urgent that communists act, that we take initiative, that we bring and join a crowd. The doors are wide open! If we aren’t a part of the immediate struggles — for health care, jobs, and relief, against foreclosures and utility shutoffs, then we are nowhere. Some, however, say that it is not enough to be a part of a crowd, a broad coalition, and a bigger mix. They ask, “Shouldn’t we make a contribution that distinguishes us from Democrats and other activists? Don’t others advocate for health care and worker’s rights, for ending the wars? So what’s our role, what makes us different? Shouldn’t we get something organizationally out of our activity — public acknowledgement, new members, speaking engagements, clubs?” Fair questions and we should all try to answer them. Communists are an organic part of the working class and broader movements. We share in the hopes, dreams, and joys of these movements (remember when the First Family walked onto the stage in Grant Park on election night?), as well as the hurt that comes with setbacks. We desire the same things — jobs, peace, equality, democracy, education, and so on. We make the same mistakes and have the same warts as others. We are neither perfect nor all knowing. Sometimes we stumble; sometimes we grow weary, but we get back up and fight. We feel anger at the injustice and immorality of capitalism. Our opposition to racial, gender, and other forms of oppression and our insistence on equality and unity is a matter of principle. Our sense of solidarity is worldwide in its reach. Action is at our core and Marxism is our guide to action. And our enduring commitment is to peace and socialism. The above distinguish us from others — although we don’t have a patent on radical thinking and politics — but what makes us unique at this moment is our strategic insights and our struggle to practically apply them. Those who say we are no different from Democrats, other activists, and others on the left reveal a simplistic understanding or no understanding of our strategic policies — not to mention other features of our Party. Because of our strategic orientation, we are not building just any kind of movement. Rather we work to help build a particular kind of movement that comprises a particular set of class and social forces which when activated and united can strike a blow at a particular set of opposing class and social forces. To be more concrete, our strategic orientation gives us to: - An understanding of the primacy of broad unity; - An appreciation of the profound importance of the struggle for democracy (understood in the broadest sense — the right to job, housing, health care, equality, etc.); - A determination to build the widest possible “impure” movement while at the same time struggling to enhance the leadership role of the working class, the racially oppressed, women and youth; - A path along which a movement of millions can traverse from one stage of struggle (say against the ultra right) to another stage (like today) and eventually to socialism; - An understanding of how divisions among our enemies can be utilized in the struggle for social progress; - And an appreciation of a perhaps-overlooked fact — that there is no substitute for practical activity. Our strategic policy is a concrete guide to understand and change the neighborhood, workplace, city, state, country and world that we live in at this particular moment. It is the tool in our political toolbox that allows us to lead struggles and movement. If we leave it home, our ability to lead will limp. In sum, our strategic insights are what differentiate us from other currents, including many on the left, at this moment. Others may share one or more of our insights, but few embrace and employ them all. --------------------- Dogan Göcmen (http://dogangocmen.wordpress.com/) Author of The Adam Smith Problem: Reconciling Human Nature and Society in The Theory of Moral Sentiments and Wealth of Nations, I. B. Tauris, London&New York 2007 ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
