Yet another front on which the anti-imperialist strategy biases thinking is on the question of forms of struggle. During the 60’s when the main struggles were among blacks and other third world people, and the .students, the main forms of struggles were demonstrations, militant confrontations, and even “armed struggle” of a certain sort. These forms of struggle came to be regarded as militant and revolutionary. And with certain exceptions, they were not inappropriate for the times. These various struggles involved only a minority of the population, and sharp struggles by a minority even for very limited aims require militant tactics if they are to catch the attention of the majority, and raise the issue they are concerned with.
But in the 70’s things have changed. Now much broader sections of the populace have the potential of becoming involved in the struggle – namely the white working class. The economic and political attack is bound to begin waking this sector up to political life of one sort or another. As of yet, there is no movement as spectacular and open as that of the 60’s, but when it does burst forth, it has every prospect of being far broader and deeper.[1]
But the discontent of these new and broader sectors cannot be expected to channel itself into the same forms and directions as the movement of the 60’s. Without doubt, the broadening of the movement to these new forces is going to have to be accompanied by a search for forms of struggle and propaganda which are amenable to the new forces. And without doubt, these forms of struggle will not generally be so militant in form as those that characterized the 60’s.
Where do these considerations land us? We are confronted with the necessity of reconsidering electoral work and the electoral form of struggle as one of the chief forms that might be acceptable to these new sectors that we must attempt to draw into the movement. This method of struggle has been long hallowed as the “American” way of expressing discontent. The historians and patriots of all stripes have long boasted of American democracy and free elections. If the time has arrived for Marxists to start reaching Middle America, then what better than to take up this historic challenge. Let us see what these “free elections” are really like. Let us use the electoral platform to bring the issues to the people.
On top of this, elections have the added benefit over many other forms of struggle in that in an electoral platform it is possible to do very broad propaganda, not just on a particular issue, but on a whole gamut of issues and their interconnection. And in view of the way the militancy and anger of Middle America can be so great on particular issues, and yet so confused and even reactionary on the whole picture, there is a very great need to do propaganda of a very broad nature.
But elections are reformist, electoral work is not revolutionary work, some will say. Or, it is not mass struggle, or, as an old R.U. pamphlet says, “victory through struggle, not through elections.” What is the concrete meaning of this? Demonstrations, strikes, militant confrontations, etc. are struggle, but electoral work is not? What was the purpose of the anti-war demonstrations? To express opposition to the war, to show the strength of those opposed, to rally opinion against the war. The purpose was not and could not be to bring down the system, nor even to immediately bring an end to the war. No particular demonstration had that purpose, but rather to muster and educate more forces, to build the movement against the war.
And with strikes or militant confrontations, demonstrations generally, it is sometimes their purpose to win a particular point or concession or reform, but very often such struggles serve more as a rallying point in a longer and larger battle, and are not the decisive struggle or form of struggle in and of themselves. Further, when it comes to revolution, demonstrations, strikes, militant confrontations – none of these can be considered the decisive form of struggle. No genuine Marxist can have any doubt that the rulers will resort to all the armed forces at their disposal to defy the will of the people. Quite obviously, in such cases, demonstrations, strikes, militant actions, cannot be the ultimate form of struggle, and those who believe so are but reformists. But is this any argument against those other forms of rallying and educating the people short of revolution, short of the decisive struggle? Of course not.
But then, by identical logic, elections, electoral work are also forms of struggle for rallying and educating the people – not a form for the decisive struggle, but still a form of struggle. Moreover, although it is not as militant as some other forms, it may well be a much broader form of struggle than many others, and an avenue whereby to influence and bring in new sectors of the population.
And of course, the use of elections in no way contradicts other forms of struggle, nor means that they should be abandoned.
It is necessary to mention one more advantage of electoral work. In these times, and most especially since the Nixon regime, the ruling powers have been making greater and greater offensives against all our rights and liberties, and not the least against the right to “free” elections – even bourgeois elections. We must defend both the right to free elections, and not only to defend the right to them, but also make use of them; and, in the long run we shall also show the inadequacy and hollowness of bourgeois elections and freedom, as shown by what happened in Chile. Hopefully, we will be able to show the hollowness of bourgeois democracy with fewer illusions, and at a smaller price than in Chile – but this is far from certain, or even likely.
Revolutionaries do not differ from reformists on the question of whether or not to do electoral work, but rather on its overall importance and how to do it. Revolutionaries are not concerned about winning offices or positions. We are concerned about using elections as a forum to reach people, to expose the system and the conditions it breeds. We cultivate no illusions among the people about being able to change things fundamentally by elections, but use elections to further educate and organize the people – and in particular, educate them to the limits of bourgeois elections.
[1] There have been various articles and editorials in the N.Y. TIMES and other places expressing surprise at the relatively tame response of the workers to the developing crisis. Even they acknowledge, however, that it can’t last.