Often Marxist-Leninist organizations or individuals who engage in workplace organizing have a rather unclear notion of who they should initially orient themselves toward. If they do have a position on this it often is taken without prior investigation.
Three groups are frequently looked to: l) Black and Latin and/or young workers, 2) opposition forces within the union, or 3) the de facto leadership of departmental and shop struggles which arise on a day to day basis. Each have important strengths, but the possible limitations of each group should not be ignored so that one fixates on any particular group of workers. Young and nationally oppressed workers are often more open to revolutionary theory because experiences outside the shop have radicalized them. But this does not necessarily mean that they will understand the centrality of the working class in the revolutionary process, or that they will easily see the need to have a long-term, stable organization of a mass character in the shop. The inner union opposition may exhibit the dangers of careerism and the various forms of opportunism. Many a militant leader of intra-union opposition primarily has his or her own career in mind and will sell out as soon as it is advantageous to do so. A person of the third category is the one everybody “looks to” when there is a problem on the shop floor – it may or may not be the shop steward. These workers usually have a good sense of collective power and understand the need for broad unity. However, the possible shortcoming here is likely to be a pragmatic and short-sighted political outlook which completely fails to provide the longer term overview necessary to guide the struggle to a higher level of development. Of the three groups, the third probably comes closest to the definition of advanced workers as self-conscious leaders of the class but we cannot ignore the shortcomings. All too often, the workers with the highest degree of general political consciousness are the least involved in the practical struggle and vice versa.
In sum, different groupings of workers are likely to show different strengths and weaknesses. In many situations, the different categories of workers are not all that distinct. But the likely weaknesses of each group of workers cannot be ignored – otherwise one is likely to make costly mistakes. A solid core for either open mass rank and file groups or more advanced study circles should exhibit an openness to a revolutionary analysis of the entire system, be aware of the centrality of the working class and the importance of organization and capable of providing leadership on the shop floor. All of these characteristics must be developed as one of the initial prerequisites for any Marxist-Leninist work in the workplace. It is rare that we would encounter an “advanced worker” in pure form with all of these characteristics already.
A similar warning is in order regarding a fixation on specific tactics as the way to approach and win over workers in the shop. (The RCP’s fixation on the “single spark method” of substituting individual high points of struggle for day to day ongoing work is one example, but many other left organizations share a similar fixation.) For example, the argument that an organizer must always put his or her politics “up front” leads to nonsensical and sectarian ways of organizing. It is a hangover from the student movement with its overemphasis on “winning” or “losing” arguments (which should never be equated with genuinely converting someone to your political position). Likewise, the attempt to pick the “key issues” in a plant has a great deal of validity (for example, the struggle against racism is likely to be a key issue in the majority of large industrial concentrations), but a fixation on “key issues” irrespective of the consciousness in the plant can be damaging. The issues which are central in the long run may not be the initial issue to start on. In many cases it will be, but the issue which is agitating the workers in the plant has to be taken up, regardless if it is the long term critical issue or not. Of course tactics flow out of strategy and key issues must be at the forefront of our overall work, but we should never let our feelings of moral obligation override our political good sense in picking initial issues of work. Similar warnings about over-reliance on written propaganda must also be made, although again this is a useful and important device.
Here there are two obvious errors to avoid. One is submerging oneself in mass work, open rank and file caucuses, and issues of broadest scope while neglecting the task of independent Marxist-Leninist work and cadre building to create a strong nucleus of Marxist-Leninists in the workplace. This liquidation of the task of winning the advanced workers to Marxism-Leninism and to the organization is one form of the “rightist” error. Study groups should not be postponed until mass work is highly developed, because this means neglecting the crucial task of consolidation of the advanced (which will eventually hurt mass practice also). And postponement often means long-term or permanent neglect, especially as other things become more pressing.
The opposite error is to concentrate on cadre-building and Marxist-Leninist study circles to the exclusion of mass practice. Often this is seen as a “separate stage” to precede any mass practice or rank and file work. This is virtually always a “left” error; it means automatic isolation and usually leads to a sterile and dogmatic understanding of Marxism since the ideas learned are not being put into practice.
Simultaneous mass work through caucus work and similar forms and cadre building through study circles is the ideal goal. However, given the ultra-left stance of many Marxist-Leninist organizations, we must emphasize that, if at all possible, we must always present a public face which addresses itself to the broad concerns of the masses of workers (through caucuses, mass activities, etc.) – which is addressed to both advanced and intermediate workers. There may be situations where mass activity is impossible, but this is not a desirable situation. It should certainly not be our consolidated policy to ignore mass work until we have built up a number of cadre. Furthermore, the best way to reach the advanced and to have a better chance in consolidating with them is by contact through mass struggle. The advanced will only be won to Marxism-Leninism as a living science to concretely solve the problems of the working class if it is demonstrated that it is applicable in mass struggle.
Even among those who understand the above and who therefore build caucuses and other mass forms, “left” errors are frequently made. This includes setting the level of unity too high so that it is unrealistic, overconcentration on outside or secondary issues, overestimation of the support of the masses which leads to adventurist tactics, allowing polemics within the Marxist-Leninist movement to overshadow mass issues, etc. The usual consequence is isolation and this error is most frequently made when one is already isolated because it flows from a lack of contact with and understanding of the level of consciousness of the masses.
The “right” error includes failing to combat racist and sexist attitudes and practices for fear of losing support, failing to fight careerism, “talking down” to other workers, allying with opportunists in a manner which sacrifices principles, “hanging back” and accepting defeatist attitudes, or failing to fight for acceptance of Marxist-Leninist ideas. This error is most frequent when a real influence in a union is possible and the pressure to bend principles in the interest of further support is the greatest, but it can also occur in times of isolation.
Union elections can be an important tool for advancing rank and file interests, but only if used correctly. Virtually all serious chances for the rank and file to challenge the bureaucracy today are at the local level, because of how firmly entrenched the bureaucracy and how disorganized the rank and file resistance presently is. Therefore the elections which we will focus in on here are local elections.
Union elections should not be ignored or boycotted as part of one’s general policy, because this means abandonment of the entire union apparatus to the bureaucrats. There are many problems with participation in elections – especially the problem of betrayal and sell-out – but these problems can be dealt with while a boycott policy usually means no use of the union’s structure at all.
The advantages of winning elected union posts center around greater accessibility to the workers as a whole and the degree of power inherent in the position which offers some possibilities to unleash class struggle at a local level. The disadvantages include the likelihood of being tied to the union bureaucracy in some way, the possibility of being put in receivership by the international if you really do use the union structure for class struggle purposes and the possibility of betrayal by a “rank and filer” once elected.
If certain basic methods and objectives are adhered to, the disadvantages can be neutralized or partly neutralized and significant growth in rank and file power can result from participation in union elections. First, the key posts to aim for: l) the shop steward’s position is important because this person is in the most direct contact with the rank and file on a day to day basis. The shop steward is the first one to handle a worker’s grievance. But his or her position is limited in usefulness if the higher union officials are hostile and bureaucratic. Even the ability to handle grievances can be very limited; a militant steward alone is very vulnerable. 2) Head of the Grievance Procedure (Chief Steward, Grievance Chairman). This is an important position because most of the ultimate power over handling grievances ends here. This is important to help militant stewards and to force other stewards to be more effective. 3) President or Business Agent of the Local. This is the top position in any local – it is most important because the real power rests here, and of course, it is the most difficult position to win. This is the critical post for the overall power of the local to conduct a class struggle policy.
The ability to run for any and all of these positions will depend upon the strength of the rank and file caucus. Contesting for the Presidency of the local will be difficult until some degree of strength is built up. But in any case certain principles should be followed. First, if at all possible, running for a position should be done from the basis of an organized rank and file caucus. Under circumstances that are extremely underdeveloped it may be that running for (and possibly winning; an elected union position may be a way to build a rank and file caucus, but the best position is to run candidates from an already organized caucus. And when candidates are run, the following rules should be applied: l) all candidates must publicly stand on the platform or program of the caucus as a whole. No candidate should be allowed to sidestep controversial issues in the caucus program in the interest of being more broad-based in his or her appeal. This is especially important in matters of principle, such as a determined struggle against racism. Candidates should be chosen on the basis of their understanding of and commitment to class struggle unionism. 2) part of the caucus program should be around internal union reforms, which will curb the tendency towards reformism and bureaucracy. These include short terms of 1 to 2 years, effective provisions for recall by the rank and file, redaction of union salaries to levels comparable to those of the represented workers, curbs on the use of official union resources for re-election campaigns, etc., and 3) if one or more candidates are victorious, effective measures to continue responsibility to the rank and file caucus must be implemented. The caucus should never disband or rely on their elected officials to carry the ball. An organized rank and file is the best insurance against sell outs and betrayals by their own candidates once elected.
Even these measures are not likely to be 100% effective in preventing betrayal by an elected “rank and filer”. The only real guarantee against betrayal is if a class conscious Marxist-Leninist, running from the basis of a highly organized and conscious rank and file, wins. Those are ideal circumstances which will be difficult to approximate until we have advanced the struggle well beyond its present state.
Finally there is the question of alliances. These may be necessary under certain circumstances. If candidates are running – an incumbent bureaucrat, an independent and the candidate of the rank and file caucus – and if the independent candidate takes progressive stances, a split in the progressive vote may result in the election of the worst candidate. Under these circumstances the caucus should try to discuss with the independent candidate the setting up of a common electoral front. This will require an attempt to reach unity on the major matters of principle – on the question of class struggles unionism. If this can be done and agreement is reached, the best candidate should be run. If the candidate takes some progressive stands but refuses to accept certain central matters of principle (such as wavering on the question of a determined stand against racism and sexism), the caucus should run its own candidate anyway. Such a candidate will inevitably turn out to be a sell out and an opportunist bureaucrat.
If support for a candidate not in the caucus is in order, the caucus should still maintain an independent perspective and make its support for the candidate contingent and critical. If no matters of difference exist, the candidate should obviously be asked to join and help build the caucus. There are also times when a caucus may not want to (or be able to) run a candidate for every office. In such cases support for other candidates should always be critical, depending on their adherence to basic principles.
In all cases, the caucus must rise above the usual way of running a campaign – on the basis of personalities, being a “nice guy” and so on and so forth – and must use the campaign as an opportunity for mass education on the issues. This may be its most important function even if its candidates lose this time around.