In the Red Papers II, we find:
Especially during periods of intensifying crisis, both the proletariat and the bourgeoisie try to win the allegiance of the classes and the strata between them. If the proletariat fails to wage a thorough and consistent battle in the interests of the middle classes and strata, against the oppression of the ruling class, and learn to consolidate this fight under its revolutionary leadership, it will not be able to defeat the imperialist enemy, or successfully resist increasing fascization.
In short, the proletarian dictatorship can neither be achieved nor maintained without the support, of the majority of the American people. To think of the united front as merely a tactic reduces it to a gimmick through which the proletariat suckers other classes and strata. No. The united front is built and led by the proletariat in its own interest against its imperialist oppressor. Other classes and strata who join the united front (and try to take over its leadership) do so in their own interest also based on their intensifying contradiction with imperialism. If the united front is not the strategy to defeat imperialism, what is?
A few sentences later, in rebuttal to a Weatherman argument, we find:
Along with no two stages, there is no united front with the petit bourgeoisie because its interests as a class aren’t for replacing imperialism with Socialism...their class position isn’t against imperialism as a system. (“Weatherman”, Section V, Anti-Imperialist Revolution and the United Front)
We agree that there are no two stages. We do not agree that there can be no united front with the petit bourgeoisie, and we do not agree that building a united front against the petit bourgeoisie means there will be two stages. The petit bourgeoisie can be brought into the united front against imperialism because they have contradictions with imperialism) sometimes very sharp ones.
So, what’s wrong?
We read in the Communist Manifesto:
Of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class. The other classes decay and finally disappear in the face of modern industry; the proletariat is its special and essential product.
The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. If by chance they are revolutionary, they are so only in view of their impending transfer into the proletariat, thus they defend not their present, “but their future interests, they desert their own standpoint to place themselves at that of the proletariat.
In a word, the petit bourgeoisie, or middle class, as a class is against socialism. It is only by deserting their class standpoint that they support socialism. Therefore it is wrong to speak of the middle classes supporting the u.f.a.i. in their own class interests. Insofar as the middle classes are against imperialism, against monopoly capitalism, it is from a reactionary standpoint when they have not deserted their class stand. The mistake made by the Weatherman was that they ignored the second part of Marx’s thesis on the middle class – namely the possibility of sections deserting their class stand. But this does not justify the opposite mistake.
The Red Papers do point out the unreliability of the petit bourgeoisie as an ally in the socialist revolution. But little or no stress is given to its reactionary character and side, a side which is very much in evidence in American society today. It is very clear that the middle classes are beginning to stir, to move, but it is not at all guaranteed that they are going to struggle in the same direction as the proletariat. Even large parts of the white working class finds itself in a position similar to the middle class vis a vis the black ghetto residents, and to a certain extent even the stirrings of some working class whites is not proletarian in character or direction.[1]
The very slogan u.f.a.i. as a strategy for socialist revolution possesses the fault that it points to the revolutionariness of other classes in a positive form, but presents the relation of the proletariat to other classes in the socialist revolution in an incorrect way. Strictly speaking, in regard to the socialist revolution, it is not so much a question of a united front of different classes for socialism, but of certain other classes or fractions of classes deserting their own class standpoint for that of the proletariat.
It is true, of course, that Lenin referred to the class alliance of the workers and the poor peasants for the socialist revolution. But even here, it was a case of the poor peasants being rural wage-workers, semi-proletarians. Partly they had become proletarian through class differentiation in the countryside, although not completely, since they were still associated with small scale production in contrast to the urban workers in the factories. Partly they had been put through the mill, as Lenin and others put it, by the capitalists and landlords and thus were enabled, under Bolshevik leadership, to abandon their small producer class stand. It was an alliance based on the desertion by the semi-proletarian of the small producer class stand. It was an alliance based on the proletariat’s program.
The u.f.a.i. strategy is so desirous of holding out the prospect of allies in the socialist revolution that it dresses up its call for unity with the label strategy. But it has no real content in this direction, and cannot have, since the proletarian revolution has not yet become an immediate prospect in this country. What this “strategy” does is to gloss over the conservative, reactionary nature of the petit bourgeoisie in regard to the socialist revolution, gives up on that struggle which is necessary if the middle classes are going to abandon their class stand, and join that of the proletariat. The petit bourgeois opposition to monopoly is not at all the same as proletarian opposition. The petit bourgeois opposition is aimed at preserving itself as a class.
Certainly the proletariat will have allies in the socialist revolution. The oppressed minorities and most working people in the broader sense of the word.[2] As class contradictions ripen, as the conditions for revolution come closer, it will no doubt be possible to gauge more closely which sectors will be likely to lend support to the proletariat. What is more important to stress at this point is not some abstract united front as a promised strategy, but that it is the proletariat which will be thoroughly revolutionary in the socialist revolution; and the conditional revolutionariness of other classes; and in fact stress the counter-revolutionary interests of the petit bourgeoisie insofar as they do not abandon their class standpoint.
The target of the socialist revolution is capitalism in general, even small scale capitalism (in certain respects, especially small scale capitalism). Lenin did not only mention the big urban factory owners, but also the rural bourgeoisie as a target of the socialist revolution. This does not mean that everything will be done at one stroke. But we must be clear on this. Otherwise we will end up merging with petit bourgeois socialism, which is not socialism at all, but reformism. Here too the slogan is bad, very bad.
It has to be said that the u.f.a.i. strategy, while differing on the question of peaceful transition, makes the same mistake as the revisionist anti-monopoly coalition strategy in regard to the middle classes.
There is one quote that is trotted out quite often in defense of the u.f.a.i. strategy:
In the imperialist and the capitalist countries, the proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat are essential for the thorough resolution of the contradictions of capitalist society.
In striving to accomplish this task the proletarian party must under the present circumstances actively lead the working class and the working people in struggles to oppose monopoly capital, to defend democratic rights, to oppose the menace of fascism, to improve living conditions, to oppose imperialist arms expansion and war preparations, to defend world peace and actively support the revolutionary struggles of the oppressed nations...
Large-scale mass struggles in the capitalist countries in recent years have shown that the working class and working people are experiencing a new awakening. Their struggles, which are dealing blows at monopoly capital and reaction, have opened bright prospects for the revolutionary cause in their own countries and are also a powerful support for revolutionary struggles of the Asian, African and Latin American peoples and for the countries of the socialist camp.
The proletarian parties in imperialist or capitalist countries must maintain their own ideological, political and organizational independence in leading revolutionary struggles. At the same time, they must unite all the forces that can be united and build a broad united front against monopoly capital and against the imperialist policies of aggression and war.
While actively leading immediate struggles, communists in the capitalist countries should link them with the struggle for long range and general interests, educate the masses in a Marxist-Leninist revolutionary spirit, ceaselessly raise their political consciousness and undertake the historical task of proletarian revolution. If they fail to do so, if they regard the immediate movement as everything, determine their conduct from case to case, adapt themselves to the events of the day and sacrifice the basic interests of the proletariat, that is out-and-out social democracy.[3]
The first thing to notice is that this quote does not speak of the anti-imperialist united front as the strategy for revolution, but rather says that, “In the imperialist and capitalist countries, the proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat are essential for the thorough resolution of the contradictions of capitalist society.”
In speaking of “opposing monopoly capital” and ”building a broad united front against monopoly capital”, this is in connection with the immediate struggle, “under the present circumstances”...“While actively leading these immediate struggles...” In other words the quote refers to a broad united front against monopoly capital in regard to immediate struggles, against war fascism, attacks on living standards, etc.
And, as a matter of fact, this is in contrast to the Soviet draft to which the Chinese were replying, which says:
This gives rise, on the other hand, to a joint anti-monopoly movement embracing the working class, the peasants, the petit bourgeoisie, the working intellectuals, and certain other sections of capitalist society Interested in freeing themselves from the sway of the monopolies and from exploitation, and interested in changing over to socialism.
If one were looking for justification for the anti-monopoly or the anti-imperialist united front strategy for socialist revolution, then one would do better to quote the Soviet statement, not the Chinese.
The second thing is that this statement only gives the most general kind of guidance, even in regard to immediate struggles. It is certainly true that the chief enemy of the proletariat, of the working people, are the monopoly capitalists. And, in this sense, the idea of a united front against monopoly capital gives guidance in the immediate struggles. But, even here, a couple of points need to be made.
First, there is a distinction between a united front against monopoly capital and a united front against monopoly capitalism (equals united front against imperialism). How so? Because it is one thing to recognize that the big monopoly capitalists are the enemy in the immediate struggle, for higher wages, in the case of inflation, or whatever, and yet another thing to recognize that capitalism needs to be overthrown in order to fundamentally change things. The slogan (u.f.a.i.) means united front against monopoly capitalism, as R.U. admits, and if the united front against monopoly capitalism does not mean a united front against capitalism, period, in these times what does it mean? There can only be one other possible meaning. And that is that it is a united front against monopoly capitalism and for non-monopoly capitalism, competitive capitalism, or some mish mash of a united front both for competitive capitalism and socialism, which is of course nonsense.
Second, and very much related, is the fact that there is an opposition to monopoly capitalism which is not socialist, but is capitalist. Look at Ralph Nader, Ramsey Clark, and other “neo-populist” figures. One can argue about what their real backing is, but in any case, their rhetoric is anti-monopolist, and there is a lot of such rhetoric around these days, and no doubt much of it actually springs from small and medium-sized businesses which are severely threatened. In regard to ultimate goals, there are also many differences, but in certain cases there might also be points of unity. In any case, we can never merge with this opposition. If people re-read Lenin, they will see that he takes great trouble to distinguish between these two differing oppositions to monopoly capitalism. The united front against imperialism “strategy” does not and cannot.
Third. After we settle down with the slogan of united front against monopoly capital as a slogan for our minimum program – seeing how much trouble we get into if we go beyond that – still, it is necessary to be careful. Why? Because even as such a reduced slogan it can give misguidance as well as guidance if it is not directly connected with a more specific rundown of our minimum program. For example, the petit bourgeois opposition to monopoly capital raises the demand that the big monopolies be broken up. Such a demand could be snuck into an anti-monopoly capital program. But the working class cannot support such a demand, even as part of a minimum program. On the other hand, when it comes to attacks on standards of living, war, fascism, and so forth, there is no doubt there is some common ground, even though lurking behind the common demands are differing motives and interests. The point is that even the slogan united front against monopoly capital as a minimum program is quite misleading if not spelled out and elaborated into a concrete program which actually does distinguish the interests of the working people and the petit bourgeois anti-monopolists, both as to where they coincide and as to where they are opposed.
So much for the quote from the Chinese. And yet, having done with that, there is little else in “scripture” that the advocates of the u.f.a.i. line can appeal to. Neither Lenin, nor Stalin, nor Mao Tse Tung has put forth the u.f.a.i. as a strategy for revolution inside the imperialist countries. And yet, imperialism has existed since at least 1900.
So, if one wants to put it forth now, one is obliged to explain this fact. There is nothing wrong with innovation in and of itself. In fact there is too little of it in our movement. But innovation needs to be defended and fought for against that which existed previously. For example, the idea that revolution could break out and develop in one country was a new idea initiated by Lenin and developed by Stalin. But both Lenin and Stalin had to explain what had changed as between then and before, when it was considered an incorrect notion.
We do not think that the idea can be defended in this way. We think that it arose in this country on the basis of a superficial transplanting of an idea that applies in the world arena to inside this country. It arose on account of the way the movement developed in this country in relation to the third world movement, as explained earlier. But we do not see, and have not seen advanced, any explanation of why or what warrants this new “strategy”, what significant changes warrant this new “development” of Marxism.
[1] That is to say, very often white working class people ideologically desert their class stand, and imagine themselves to be middle class. The schools and media have been cultivating this illusion for decades now.
[2] Salesmen, teachers, government employees at lower levels, etc.
[3] From A Proposal Concerning the General Line of the International Communist Movement, The Letter of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China in reply to the letter of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union of March 30, 1963. (As quoted in RED PAPERS 2)