It is precisely as a minimum program that the u.f.a.i. strategy is most objectionable and harmful.
If, as a maximum program, the u.f.a.i. is reformist and blurs class lines, then as a minimum program it is sectarian and lacks definite content. A maximum program, especially when it is still some distance from realization, is necessarily indefinite except for a few main points. But the u.f.a.i. maximum program, if anything, is too definite, more definite than it is possible to be.[1] But exactly the reverse is true in regard to the minimum program.
The Red Papers speak of five spearheads of struggle in connection with the anti-imperialism minimum program – support the national liberation struggle, support for the liberation of internal black and other national liberation struggles, women’s liberation, struggle against the attacks on standard of living, and struggle against fascism.
First, these spearheads are not presented in any particular connection, but rather as only so many converging streams. There is no real analysis of the interconnections of these struggles – except that they are all directed against the monopoly capitalists and are under the leadership of the proletariat.
Second, these spearheads are somewhat arbitrary. There are others, which might be included, which would not fall conveniently under any of these categories. For example, take the case of old people, who are left to rot in this society, are thrown on the scrap heap. Or busing, which cuts across a few of these categories. On the other hand, insofar as anything can be stretched to be included in these categories, they have no usefulness. They reflect only a simple-minded listing of issues, and reflect the time at which they were drawn up. Except for the case of the black liberation issue, which would have to be changed to the appropriate nationality, the listing could equally well apply to any imperialist country, so little does it take into account the peculiarities of the situation here.
Third, these issues cannot be construed as necessarily anti-imperialist (i.e., anti-monopoly capitalist). The workers oppose attacks on their standard of living, but they do not yet oppose monopoly capitalism. Many people were against the war, and yet were not against imperialism, and in fact may have even supported Israel and imperialism in the Mid-East. And so on down the line. Moreover, on some of these issues, even certain sections of the monopolists themselves would give a certain amount of support – for example, witness McGovern or Ramsey Clark in the case of the war in Vietnam.
Fourth, the anti-imperialist pretensions of the program spoil it altogether as a minimum program and undo even this abstract unity, give it the appearance of being something more than a minimum program. Those who are ready to discuss anti-imperialism are ready to discuss socialism and the system.[2] There is no basis for some permanent intermediate category of “anti-imperialist”, except perhaps in the case of some of the students and third world radicals back in the 60’s. Generally speaking, it is far more appropriate to use the “old” and “time honored” categories of advanced and progressive, which apply to any sector of the working population which is beginning to wake up to political life, not just the students and black activists. Even this question of seemingly nitpicking terminology reflects the origins of our anti-imperialists.
Fifth, whereas anti-imperialism has a direct and definite meaning in the third world countries as a minimum program-namely, opposition to imperialist control and domination – throw out the yankees –independence, control our own resources – a visible, tangible, comprehensible meaning to everyone, the same slogan here has no such clear meaning at all as a minimum program. What does opposing imperialism here, short of wanting to overthrow it, mean? Concretely? What people oppose is not imperialism, not monopoly capitalism, but only certain of its excesses, certain of its vices. People may believe in the necessity of certain reforms, but to be for certain reforms is not to be against imperialism, as Lenin pointed out. People may well even win certain reforms, certain concessions without undoing imperialism itself.[3]
Nor is it that we are against united fronts in general. There was a very broad united front against the Vietnam war – consisting of many different forces. There were many different forces united in the various stages of the civil rights struggle. History has known the united front against fascism, against imperialism in the third world countries, and so on. All justified and all concrete in their aims.
In the Russian Revolution, Lenin formulated the ideas of an alliance between the proletariat and the peasantry in the democratic revolution, and an alliance of the proletariat and the poor peasants in the proletarian revolution. He did not speak of a “united front against the tsar.” The difference is one between concreteness and abstractness. This is why the Red Papers reference to Lenin in this area is out of place.
Up until now, we have criticized the united front against imperialism strategy more directly, in terms of its direct implications, which, admittedly, are few.
However, there are many things which flow from this general “strategy” or outlook more indirectly, but are actually just as, or more, influential.
[1] It suggests greater support is going to he forthcoming from the middle classes than is necessarily the case.
[2] In third world countries, the case is very different of course. There exist many who are anti-imperialist, hut not socialist. The national bourgeoisie most typically, for example.
[3] Of course, “anti-imperialism” does not have one concrete, tangible meaning -namely, opposition to imperialist oppression of other nations. But as pointed out, this kind of consciousness goes well beyond the immediate and perceived interests of the worker.