As a former member of the Congress of African People and the Revolutionary Communist League, and as a member of the LRS, I feel it is important that I respond to the proposed changes for the League.
I am writing this response in the spirit of unity and struggle. As a working class member of the League, I became a Marxist sixteen years ago. I became a Marxist because, like others, I have an intense passion for justice, freedom, democracy and liberation. I became a Marxist because I wanted to play a part in liberating African American people. I was influenced by Marxists in Africa who were leading successful struggles of National Liberation in places like Angola, Mozambique, Guinea-Bissau, Zimbabwe and South Africa.
I also became a Marxist because of a growing class struggle among African Americans over what path the Black Liberation Movement should take, how best to govern and run the cities where African American people had won elected of f ice, etc.
Finally, I became a Marxist because of my desire to make revolution, my unwillingness to accept the conditions of my life and the lives of other African American people in the US. I did not become a Marxist because I had a desire to be popular or “relevant.”
During my early years of political involvement (1967) I was a nationalist and a Pan-Africanist. These perspectives on Black Liberation, however, could not answer the pressing questions of the day and in many ways isolated us from other oppressed people and the working class. Marxist philosophy, political economy and revolutionary theory provided us with a guide to making revolution.
As a working class revolutionary, I learned about how other working-class revolutionaries fought, for liberation and socialism. I felt a sense of confidence because I had been provided with a wealth of revolutionary practice that guided me in my day-to-day work as we fought for justice and against oppression. Marxist philosophy provided me with a world outlook. Marxist political economy provided me with a foundation for understanding the problems with capitalism and why it should be destroyed.
At the same time, I understood that revolutionary practice in other countries could not be dogmatically applied in American because conditions in every country are different. Marxism is a guide to action, a guide to making revolution. It is not a dogma which should be followed regardless of concrete conditions. I am very critical of the view now being put forward that the League has never been Marxist because have not applied Marxism dogmatically, or because others on the left who are dogmatic themselves do not see us as “true” Marxists.
I believe that after 15 years of trying to build a new communist party, we are now in a period where this task has become even more difficult and it must no longer be our “central task.” The name of communism and Marxism-Leninism have negative connotations in the world today because of the practice of so-called communist parties in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, and because other parties like the Chinese Communist Party are no longer providing a clear alternative vision.
I believe that we must build a revolutionary organization that has as its goal the empowerment of the working class and the oppressed nationalities, and attempts to provide strong leadership in the battle for democracy and socialism. I believe this organization must be guided by Marxism and by the experiences, both positive and negative, of other revolutionary movements throughout the world.
This organisation must be disciplined and should maintain some aspects of democratic centralism, to enable us to carry out our work, sum it up draw the necessary lessons and move ahead. The name of this organization, the label it attaches to itself, are less important than what it stands for. It should be very clear to the public, as well as to its own members that its goal is people’s democracy and socialist construction. It should be an open organization whose central tasks are to build the fighting strength of the working class and oppressed peoples, build the strategic alliance, and rally the masses around our visions of democracy and socialism. Its strategic objective would be to win over a majority of the American people to this vision.
In a bourgeois democracy like the US today, electoral politics is an important arena of struggle. We have learned through bitter experience how damaging red-baiting can be in an electoral campaign, much more so than in other than in other areas of struggle. Comrades seeking public office have had to deny any connection with the League in the course of their campaigns or risk losing most of the gains that the campaigns had made.
This problem has caused a lot of confusion in our ranks, particularly among those of us who feel that a “verifiable electoral mandate” is the crucial to achieving our objectives. In fact, the careers of people like Ron Dellums (a national leader of DSA) or Ken Cockrel, the late city councilman from Detroit and former leader of the League of Revolutionary Black Workers, suggests that under the right conditions politicians can function as open socialists and still be popular and effective, particularly if they represent heavily minority and working class districts.
But we also need to recognize that running people for office is not the only means of electoral struggle. Ballot measures and struggles for progressive legislation are also ways for us to verify support for our views, and often demonstrate much more clearly both the potentialities and the limits of electoral politics. Under our present system of bourgeois democracy and the “two party system” with both parties dominated by big business), it may never be possible to elect a socialist president or a socialist majority in Congress. It is questionable whether the capitalists would even allow a Jesse Jackson presidency, though we will certainly continue to fight for it.
But revolutionaries can continue to have a significant impact on US politics by organizing and leading struggles around legislation and ballot measures that we help shape, along with the masses and other forces in the united front.
In the 1930’s, the Communist Party was not strong enough for more than a small handful of its own members to run serious campaigns for elective office. But the unemployment insurance law that Congress passed to deal with the misery of the Depression was drafted by the party, which played a leading role in the fight to get it adopted. Ron Dellums has been calling for economic sanctions against South Africa ever since he was first elected to Congress 20 years ago. But his efforts bore fruit after activists in communities across the country waged successful fights for divestment measures by their own city governments. Though the Uhuru House rent control initiative was badly defeated in Oakland, there remains broad support for the idea, and a strong campaign could win support if it avoided the Uhuru House’s sectarian, purely agitational approach.
Today there is widespread cynicism about politicians who promise everything when they seek office and do nothing once elected. This is expressed in steadily falling voter turnout. People see the failures of the political process in personal terms (corrupt, sellout, liar, etc.) which do not clearly focus on the nature of the system itself. But the refusal of those in power in California to implement Proposition 103, the insurance reform initiative, provides an opportunity for revolutionaries and other progressives to talk seriously about how social decisions are made under capitalism, without getting bogged down in personalities or cynical conclusions about human nature (“power corrupts”).
We want the masses to seek power–for themselves. Successful campaigns for legislation and ballot initiatives can restrict the power of the capitalist class in many cases. But even when they do not accomplish this, they teach rich lessons about the battle for democracy, the need of working class and other oppressed people to win democratic control over the politics and economics of America. This sharpens the struggle for socialism.
The 1980’s saw a powerful motion by the Black Liberation Movement into the electoral arena. The Harold Washington and Jesse Jackson campaigns were two of the most influential electoral developments of the decade. They influenced not just the League, but the entire left, and they have opened up opportunities for progressives and revolutionaries to run for office. They have raised new possibilities for increased political empowerment of the masses.
But it would be self-defeating for us to try to take advantage-of these opportunities if we renounced or compromised our belief in socialism in order to do so. In areas where we cannot run as open socialists, we should focus on ballot measures and legislative initiatives which serve the interests of the oppressed. We should project ourselves as a political force by building broad–based, effective united fronts in support of these measures, demonstrating through our actions, our devotion to principle and our understanding of the different class forces in the united front that as socialists we are an indispensible part of the fight for a people’s agenda. If we do this work well, it will help us get to the point where we will be able to run as open socialists.
Why I disagree with the majority position I consider myself a socialist. My practice is still guided by the revolutionary practice of Marxists throughout the world and in the US. I believe that socialists must make a concrete analysis of concrete conditions and sum up the revolutionary practice of the people’s movement in the US.
I am not trying to build a new communist party. The CPUSA has made valuable contributions to the working class and oppressed nationality struggles. It has also done much to discredit Marxism in the US. It does not represent the entire multinational working class. In fact, in an advanced capitalist society like ours, where the working class encompasses the large majority of the people, from lower strata workers to recently proletarianized “professionals” like schoolteachers and nurses, it would be very difficult for any one organization at this time to embrace the entire working class. There is plenty of room for other revolutionary organizations who will fight for the empowerment and the interests of workers and oppressed nationalities.
At some point in the future, these organizations will have to come together, either in a single party or in a broad-based revolutionary united front like the ANC. We need to remain a revolutionary organization ourselves, committed to keeping things moving in this direction and uniting all who can be united.
I disagree with the majority position that the dictatorship of the proletariat leads inevitably to the dictatorship of the party. This assertion is being made without a real analysis of the countries where it has happened or the historical conditions at work in those countries. The CP’s in Eastern Europe came to power not through popular revolutions but through foreign intervention. The CP’s in the Soviet Union and now China view themselves as representatives of the whole people. This denies the existence of classes and different class interests under socialism. One organization cannot represent all the class and national interests in a society, so differences have been repressed and there has been little opportunity for political, cultural and social expression. The building of socialism should not be the work of just one organization, but of all the political and class forces who fought to make the revolution.
For historical reasons the fact that most revolutions thus far have taken place in underdeveloped countries). Communist parties in power have tended to implement a concept of socialism which mainly centers on “delivering the goods” (higher living standards, more equitable distribution of society’s wealth, basic social services like universal literacy, medical care, child care etc.). The initial support for these parties tends to erode after time as people realize they want something more, or when objective conditions beyond the government’s control undercut efforts to further develop the economy. We need to go back to Marx’s original vision of socialism as a system which empowers working people in every aspect of their lives–politics, the uses to which their labor is put, the labor process itself. If our concept of socialism is grounded only in the successes and failures of existing socialist societies, we will never be able to move beyond them.
While I can agree with some of the structural changes and the need for people in the organization to have more control over their personal lives, some measure of democratic centralism is still needed. We still need unity of purpose and action. Socialism must still be our goal. I feel the majority position has dissolved the goal of socialism. It is not even clear what we will stand on.
I stand on the political program of the League of 1984, although it needs to updated and revised and a new analysis of conditions in the world put forth. Our work today is not being held back because of our Marxist framework. It is because of the political repression in society which restricts the League as a Marxist organization. We need a new political openness in the United States, not just the Soviet Union.
This is a hard time for many of us. Veteran cadre who have spent 10-15 years of their lives trying to understand and implement Marxism-Leninism are now being asked to change or discard many beliefs that are central to their view of the world. Cadre who joined us within the last few years are in many cases getting their first real exposure to Marxism-Leninism, not through the day-to-day political and ideological education which has been lacking in the League the past few years, but in the context of a highly charged emotional debate over the organization’s future.
This is not the best environment in which to resolve difficult political questions. Looking back, it was a serious mistake to think these questions could be satisfactorily addressed by the end of July. Acting on that assumption has further sowed the seeds of disunity, mistrust and subjectivism on all sides.
No constructive purpose is served by this organization’s falling apart or splitting into warring factions. We need a serious, principled confrontation of different points of view if we are to find the common ground that will enable us to continue working together despite our differences. I urge those who feel, as I do, that the majority report is not a suitable basis for us to continue as a revolutionary organization think about what should be in the report, to discuss it with others, to speak up for what they believe in. Your ideas do make a difference, but only if you speak up.
I urge those who agree with the majority report to keep an open mind to other points of view and not assume that those who disagree are | dogmatists, obstructionists, or soreheads. We have much to learn from ea other. Caught up in our different areas of mass work, we have not been talking to each other enough these past few years. We should view this struggle not with fear or mistrust, but as an opportunity to build unity based on principled struggle.