The anti-imperialist united front “internal” strategy has its roots in the 60’s, the late 60’s, in the heyday of the antiwar movement and the civil rights movement. It was something of a theoretical summing up of what was perceived to be happening at that time – namely the rebellion of both the external and internal third world forces against imperialism. We say theoretical, but actually it hardly ever amounted to a theory} in fact, it was something less than a theory and something more than a slogan. It exerted its influence on people’s thinking in a very loose and general way, and by no means uniformly.
Moreover, at the time, it was a progressive idea in certain respects because it combatted the developing chauvinism of PL, and their growing attacks on the third world movement both internally and externally. PL began “criticizing” (actually attacking the third world movements both within and without) in the name of the working class, a working class which in the 60’s was for the most part still asleep. The militant days of the later 60’s only very peripherally began to involve some of the workers.
But precisely what distinguishes the 70’s from the 60’s is the fact that the workers, and in particular the white working people, are beginning to come under very heavy attack too. This in no way contradicts the fact that black and other third world people are under far heavier attack, or are getting by far the worst of it. But what is new is the extent to which hard times are hitting outside of the ghettos.
Under these conditions, the white sector of the working class (and parts of the middle class, too) are bound to begin waking up and moving. The most significant and decisive thing happening in the country now is just this fact and not (as was the case in the 60’s) what’s happening in the ghettos (or with the students).
There is a powerful and important duality or contradiction in the awakening of this part of the population. On the one hand, if the white sector of the working class awakens and sees clearly its enemies – the rich, in brief – and is able to unite with its friends, namely the black and third world people inside this country, then of course the class struggle will sharpen and progress will be possible. On the other hand, this awakening can also lead to the white working people striking out at those “below” them, the black and third world people. The conditions of life of white working people plus the very structure (racist structure) of this society put the white sector of the working class into spontaneous conflict with the black and third world communities. And of course the powers that be by no means leave things to spontaneity, but endeavor by all means to portray to the white sector of the working class the blacks as the prime cause of their deteriorating conditions of life. The spontaneous conflicts and also the ruling class propaganda cover a broad range of issues, from schools to crime to welfare to the work ethic, etc.
It is by no means guaranteed that the first of these tendencies will prevail within any given time, and much less prevail spontaneously. The whites in South Boston have a certain degree of hatred for the rich, a certain glimmer of class consciousness. But this glimmer has been overwhelmed by a reactionary consciousness, and they have been but a plaything in the hands of the representatives of certain sections of the rich. Because of this, a united struggle is impossible for the time being, and they are both going to be all the more helpless in the face of the sharpening attacks.
Boston also shows the complete bankruptcy of the moral or liberal appeals to the white working people. It is the reactionaries who have appealed to the narrowest and apparent self interest of the working people, and won the day. To make inroads among the white sector of the working class is possible only by taking as a starting point their interests, and from there show they are the same as those of black and other third world people in spite of appearances and propaganda to the contrary. And, to show the identity of interests concretely requires not general or abstract talk about racism for starters, but talk about all the concrete issues that make their interests seem opposed to those of third world peoples.
One needs only to look at the programs of George Wallace. Wallace is far from being guilty of the economism described by Lenin. He is very skillfully propagandizing the white middle and working classes on a broad range of social and political issues. His appeal is racist, true. But it is not just simply racist.
The left has a great deal to learn from Wallace. It had better learn how to come up with answers to the same questions and issues that Wallace addresses, better and more convincing answers. Otherwise, large sections of the working class are lost to revolution until that changes.
Ironically, the “anti-imperialists” who take as their starting point the interests of third world people, in the end, actually fail to serve those interests, though guided by the best of intentions. Take Boston again. One wing of the anti-imperialists raised various slogans in defense of the black community, such as the right to self-determination (which is nonsensical), right to go to school of one’s choice, right of armed self-defense, etc. What was lacking were slogans and propaganda aimed at concretely showing whites how they were cutting their own throats – being suckered. The other wing raised the slogan “unite to smash the busing plan” – a capitulation to the reactionary sentiments among the white workers.
These two wings of the anti-imperialists seem to be polar opposites and to have nothing at all in common. But as a matter of fact they do. They both fail to appeal to the interests of the white sector of the working class in South Boston in a concrete way. The one wing has included the white workers in the anti-imperialist united front at the expense of black people, and the other has in effect excluded the white workers at the expense of blacks. One can raise all kinds of militant, and even r-r-r-revolutionary slogans in defense of black people in these times, and yet if the problems of appealing to the white workers in their interest, their real interest, are not solved, then the problem of self-defense of black people has been barely touched – since the only real and strong defense for black people in this country is an alliance with the white sector of the working class.
It is absolutely necessary that the black community be militant and organized and prepare to defend itself. Without that, the fight against racism among white workers will fail. It was the great achievement of the 60*s that the image of the black community as a passive victim was completely shattered.
But that is only half the coin. Its own strength alone is an absolutely necessary beginning, and something which must develop, but it is completely insufficient to even the problem of self defense of the black community. The other half is the question of the white working class.
It is precisely in this respect that the position of third world people within this country differs from that of third world people without. The national liberation movements in various third world countries may be slowed down if the U.S. working class remains hostile or neutral, but nothing that happens inside this country can fundamentally alter the course of events in the third world countries. National liberation and revolution is rushing on there no matter what, a little slower, a little faster. But quite inexorably. (This is not to say that the awakening of the working class here is unimportant to third world countries. The “a little sooner, a little later” measures in years and even decades – and hence, Vietnam for example did a great deal, very successfully, to win the sympathy and support of the people in the U.S.) However, the interests of the third world community inside the U.S. are connected with the fate of the white working people much more directly and intimately. The struggle of the third world people here for equality and liberation, even survival, is bound up with the awakening of the white part of the working class, and the direction it takes, whether it is a real awakening or merely a blind intoxicated rage, which results in destruction both for itself and all those near. Some of the same remarks could be made in regard to the external third world movements and most especially to the Arab countries and the Mid-East at present. The Arabs are being set up as the external scapegoat, and used to divert attention from the real cause of the attack on the people.
Here too nothing could be less useful than inane appeals to “support third world struggles against imperialism” – “unite against imperialism”, etc. What’s needed are concrete explanations to working people here of the connection between their own interests, taking into account how their interests appear to them, and those of the Arabs in particular and the third world in general. But as yet, this plays a far smaller role in the forming of revolutionary or counter-revolutionary consciousness and movement than the internal question.
During the 60’s, revolution began seeping into the U.S. around the edges so to speak, from the third world, from Cuba, from Vietnam, from China, and also from the ghettos, from Selma, then later Watts and Detroit. The students and a section of the third world community were drawn into the early movement and reawakening. The working class, especially the white sector, continued to slumber on for the most part. But no longer. Now under the impact of a growing economic crisis gripping the entire capitalist world, this powerful force is beginning to awaken.
This means that the left, and in particular the Marxist-Leninist left, must be prepared to speak to this powerful force in a language it understands, in forms acceptable to it, around the issues that concern it. This means that we must abandon those ideas and methods of work that were suitable for the beginning, for work at the fringes so to speak, for work that proceeds from the outside in so to speak. The awakening of a force at the center of our society demands that we begin to develop a theory and method of work which takes into account the particularities of our society.
In a word, we must cease deceiving ourselves that the united front against imperialism in any way solves the problem of “strategy” or program for revolution within this country, and begin elaborating a program that does.
In the process of polemicizing the u.f.a.i. theory, we have at least touched on some of the elements of what we think such a program might contain. But our chief concern here has been to point out a problem. The solution will not be so difficult once we all see the problem.