STRATEGY OF THE CPUSA
While perusing the website of the CPUSA I decided to read an article by
Sam Webb, National Chair of the CPUSA, entitled Discussion on Strategy
and Tactics. Although much of the document is commendable I must
respectfully
disagree with an important assertion that is repeated several times.
Nearly halfway through the writing he makes the following statements,
"Let me try to illustrate this point with a single example: our
strategic approach in present circumstances isn't identical with our
approach, say in the late 1950's and early 1960's, but it hasn't changed
greatly either. Its thrust then and now is against corporate domination
of our nation's political and economic life."
Later he says,
"The policy rests on the fact that large corporations and banks
dominate the political and economic life of our country as well as form
the structural underpinnings of the system of capitalism. With their
economic and political power, these corporate behemoths determine the
fate of hundreds of millions of people at home and around the globe.”
And he also states,
"Stagnating wages and income, high energy costs, rising unemployment,
skyrocketing rents, privatization of public services, the wage gap,
strike breaking, persistent racism and discrimination, the corruption of
our political process, the erosion of our democratic rights,
anti-immigrant bashing, environmental degradation, persistent and
growing poverty, and militarist aggression - all of this and more can be
traced in one way or another to monopoly corporations and banks and
their relentless search for maximum corporate profits. That's their
bottom line."
And finally he contends,
"The anti-monopoly strategy is our path to socialism."
To that which is implied by these comments I say, No it is not our path
to socialism, nor has it ever been. This is a petty bourgeois
ideological approach that is quite acceptable to a large segment of
capitalist society. An anti-monopoly strategy does not equal an
anti-capitalist strategy and it is certainly not equatable with a
pro-socialist philosophy. Sam’s philosophy in this regard is not only
quite acceptable to the petty bourgeois class but lies at the core of
many of their preachings. In fact, Sam implies as much when he says,
"Even some segments of the capitalist class feel the pinch of its
policies."
Exactly, and that is why these segments are the strongest advocates of
anti-trust laws and similar legislation, but theirs is neither an
anti-capitalist or pro-socialist program.
Later Sam says,
"It [the program he is advocating] aims to unite millions of our
nation's working people and their allies to radically curb the political
and economic power of the biggest monopolies. It is at once a class and
a democratic struggle."
This comment is misleading because it implies a pro-socialist
orientation is present when, in fact, it is not. Yes, it is a class
struggle, but a struggle of the petty bourgeois against the big
bourgeoisie, not of the proletariat against the capitalists, both big
and petty. Yes, it is a democratic struggle but a fight for democracy
for which class. The petty bourgeois or the proletariat. Being
exploited by the petty bourgeois is no less exploitation than being
exploited by the big bourgeoisie. Exploitation is exploitation.
Sam states, "We believe that in the course of this struggle to reign in
corporate economic and political power, the working class and its allies
will not only gain in experience, unity, and organization, but also come
to see the necessity of socialist transformation of society."
That could very well be but were that to occur it would be in spite of
Sam’s approach, not because of it. If proletarians follow his strategy,
realizations will come to them through their own experiences and not
through any information or data conveyed to them by the M-L vanguard,
because the latter will have been concentrating its energies and
intentions on convincing the proletariat that the road to financial
justice lay through curbing monopolies, oligopolies and cartels rather
than through their abolishment and the institution of socialism.
And finally Sam states,
"Furthermore, we have to find and seek out those features that are
peculiarly American and that have to be taken into account in
elaborating a strategic path to anti-monopoly democracy and socialism.”
Again he is equating the anti-monopoly struggle with the struggle for
socialism. They are not identical and one can quite easily engage in
the former while having no interest in, and providing no support to, the
latter.
For the cause,
Klo
_______________________________________________
Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
