saith I: > >to my mind, RS involves a commitment to not just winning reformist > >(and defensive) demands but also trying to promote the > >self-organization and collective consciousness of the working class > >and other dominated groups in society, in order to progress from > >reforms and defensive efforts to the replacement of capitalism by a > >socialism characterized by a more profound form of democracy than > >that of previous societies, so that the dominated groups can > >dominate.
respondeth Doug: > Well, yes, sure, but how? Union organization? Party organizing? > Parliamentary strategies? Armed cells? how? what a question! If I knew that, I'd be head of the Central Committee and be sending certain "comrades" off to do some work for a change. ;-) ha ha: neither an all-powerful CC nor work-camps are part of my vision of RS. What is to be done? Hey, that's a good title for a book! Seriously, I think that tactics should be guided by strategies which should be guided by long-term goals (in this case, by RS), Obviously, the tactics and strategies actually advocated and/or applied would depend on the specific (concrete) conditions faced -- such as the extremely anti-socialist (anti-RS) consciousness of the working class in the US (not to mention the anti-RS views of the rest of society). The key questions here have to be: (1) does tactic X or strategy Y have the potential to raise working-class understanding of what's going on in this society? (2) does it help them widen working class organization and to deepen democratic control over such organizations? Union organization? most unions allow workers some ability to defend themselves against the capitalists. As such, they deserve defending. If unions disappear -- as they seem to be doing in a lot of places in the US -- then this potential is lost (at least for awhile). The defensive struggle promises to allow people to get a greater understanding of capitalism and maybe more organization. If workers lose (as with the grocery workers here in southern California), then they may have a greater understanding, but it's linked with cynicism. Successful struggles can undermine cynicism at least for awhile. So I'd say that an advocate of RS would support union organization (most of the time). Party organization? if the "Party" is the standard type of the CP, the Trotskyists, or the Maoists -- forget it. Those are substitutionist organizations; that is, the Party as a means to an end (revolution of whatever sort) becomes an end in itself (promote and defend "the" Party). These Parties typically become barriers, not facilitators, especially when the working class is poorly organized and demoralized and can't keep the "Party" in line. (Substitutionism isn't simply some bad idea that infects some Party leaders. Rather, the "success" of substitutionism is a symptom of the bad situation these organizations face. When the CP-USA was part of a mass movement, it was much better.) Some political organization is needed, but not of the CP/Trotskyist/Maoist sort. Parliamentary Struggle? this too is typically substitutionist, with the leader or the party apparatus becoming an end in itself. "Dump Bush and forget all other issues" is a classic case. That doesn't say that I might not vote for people like Kerry (in despair). The question is whether or not his election would allow for growth of a movement and its consciousness. But voting is a pretty pitiful act, changing almost nothing. Armed cells? I can see why these might be required in some situations, but not in the US. Armed cells tend toward substitutionism pretty quickly, with those having arms dominating those without. It's a good way to get a new ruling class, which might be adequate to revolutionary nationalism. at this point, given the specific conditions of the US, I'd say that journalism, public speaking, and the like may be as good as someone like me (an isolated intellectual, if I may use that word) can do. It's not adequate, but it's better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. Jim D.
