The Philadelphia Workers Organizing Committee (PWOC) has argued importantly against RCP, CPML, and the Guardian that partybuilding must from the onset be a process of fusing communism with the workers movement. As a local organization, PWOC is relatively large and it has over 5 years experience in areas ranging from trade union work to school desegregation. PWOC has also developed a good deal of original theory. It has published a lengthy document on the theory of the Black Belt Nation. It is one of the few groups in the new communist movement which has developed a comprehensive strategy, tactics and program to guide its activity in the trade unions. This paper attempts to assess the exact significance of PWOC’s theory and practice of fusion as it applies to the labor movement. We agree wholeheartedly with PWOC that party formation rests on the ability of communists to achieve a significant degree of fusion of revolutionary theory to the actual class struggle. Yet, despite PWOC’s contribution, we believe that an adequate strategy for fusion has yet to be developed. We feel this evaluation of PWOC is especially important at this time since PWOC is increasingly playing a role in national communist unity politics.
The authors of this paper are part of a study and research group in the Philadelphia area. We are not all engaged in common practice, though we all have several years experience in the labor movement. We hope to make a contribution toward a revolutionary theory to guide practice in labor and other struggles. We also hope to take part in the current debate around partybuilding. Along with some friends in Boston, we previously collaborated on a paper called “Debating Strategy: A new turn for the movement.”
This current paper formulates some of our central differences with PWOC. We have great respect for PWOC as a local collective and we cooperate with PWOC members in our individual practical work. We have all worked with PWOC members in a city-wide labor organization and two of us are presently members of a rank and file committee involving PWOC, CPML and RCP. Thus we are in the unique position of being able to compare and evaluate their approaches (all inadequate) firsthand.
Some of us might have joined PWOC if our only concerns were the local labor movement. But what is acceptable for a local collective at this time is not adequate for national communist unity. Due to the youth of our movement, we must tolerate a good deal of amateurish practice and theory at the local level. But national unity, if it is not to be sectarian and dogmatic, requires certain basic theoretical and practical prerequisites. It is in this respect that our criticism of PWOC assumes its real significance. Specifically, we will demonstrate:
1) PWOC’s labor strategy is ineffective at organizing a strong and lasting rank and file movement in several important ways. PWOC has a somewhat mechanical approach which is not even thoroughly effective at developing militant unionism.
2) PWOC lacks an adequate strategy for fusing communism with the workers movement. Their theory does not consistently guide practical activity toward the goal of a revolutionary communist party.
Our analysis draws not only from our own experience, but it also benefits greatly from PWOC’s experience over 5 years. In this sense our analysis sums-up and criticizes both our own previous experience and PWOC’s practice. Our analysis is drawn from careful study of all PWOC’s theoretical documents and all labor articles (over 200) in the Organizer (their newspaper), numerous discussions with PWOC members, and our own observations made after working closely with PWOC members for some time.