Dear comrades and friends, First, my brief observations on the nature of the SLP. I think that the comrades from Lalkar are correct in saying that the SLP is not a social-democratic party. It is true that its program does not go beyond a general call for socialism without any discussion of the need for a revolution, the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc., so it is definitely not a Marxist-Leninist party. But what distinguishes it from a social-democratic party seems to me to be the fact that it allows Marxist-Leninists to not only work in it but to take leadership positions in it. It seems to me that the SLP is thus more of a broad workers' party, one that is open to revolutionaries but also to workers who are still at the level of trade union militancy. I do think there is a need for such a party as well in the United States, and other of the advanced capitalist countries where the MLs are still very weak and have negligible influence among the workers. What is important is that such a party really have or develop a mass character, that it shows by its activity that it can defend the rights of the workers, and that it be open to genuine revolutionaries. Then comes the question of the tasks of MLs in such a party. They must certainly not dissolve themselves in such a party, but use it to influence the most advanced workers and bring them to see the need for revolution. It follows that the MLs must have their own organization. But this also does not mean that the MLs should try to "transform" such a broad workers party into an ML party. That would lead it to narrowing the base of the workers party, and in the end undercut the influence of MLs on the workers. I would like to quote from Lenin's "well-known" (I am being facetious here - it is almost unknown, short but quite valuable; it is in Vol. 42, pp. 360-361, of the Collected Works from Nov. 5, 1921) "Talk with a Delegation of the Mongolian People's Republic." Leniin is aked by the Mongolian delegation: "Ought not the People's Revolutionary Party [then the leading party in Mongolia] be transformed into a Communist Party?" "Comrade Lenin's reply: "'I should not recommend it, because one party cannot be "transformed" into another.' Comrade Lenin explained the essence of a Communist Party as a party of the proletariat, and said: 'The revolutionaries will have to put a good deal of work in developing state, economic and cultural activities before the herdsman elements become a proletarian mass, which may eventually help to "transform" the People's Revolutionary Party into a Communist Party. A mere change of signboards is harmful and dangerous.'" There follows more discussion on the particularities of Mongolia, which are obviously quite different from the U.S. and other advanced countries. However, the attempt to "transform" one kind of party or organization into another has been tried here in the US in the late 1960s and early 1970s, with negative consequences. At that time there were a number of organizations, particularly among the oppressed nationalities but also among the mostly Anglo students, many of whose members were developing some elementary revolutionary and Marxist ideas. They decided to try to "transform" these organizations into ML organizations. Such happened with the change of the Young Lords (a Puerto Rican revolutionary mass organization) into the Puerto Rican Revolutionary Workers Party, and similar attempts among the Chicano-based August 29th Movement, the Chinese-based I Wor Kuen, the Black Workers Congress, etc. (The developments inside the Black Panther PArty where much more complex, and I won't include them here.) In general, though there were for a time some good attempts at trying to do genuine propaganda and agitation based on some understanding of ML, the attempts at "transforming" these organizations led to isolation of the groups from their mass base. It would probably have been much better if the MLs inside these organizations had united across organizations, and formed a revolutionary ML group that was separate from these other organizations but carried out work inside them. There were somewhat similar developments inside SDS, the mass Anglo-based student organization in the late 1960s. THose who saw themselves as MLs tried to win the organization to their understanding of ML, and in the end also isolated the organization from the mass of students. The problem was compunded by the fact that the those who saw themselves as MLs were extremely factionalized, with neither side having more than a superficial understanding of ML. One faction, influenced by the Progressive Labor Party, held extremely economist views and wanted to use SDS to gain influence in the workers movement, while the other (the so-called Revolutionary Youth Movement) tried to tail the national liberation movements (in essence therefore to hide behind these movements). Both recognized the limitations of a strictly student movement, but had little understanding of what to do about it. I didn't really mean to digress so far into history, and this is certainly not meant as some kind of summary of the attempts at forming an ML party in the US in that period. I mainly meant to point out some of the dangers of trying to "transform" a broad workers party into an ML party, and to raise the need for MLs to organize themselves independently while they work in such a party. fraternally, George _______________________________________________ Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
