July 7, 1990
When I first heard of the proposed changes in the organization, frankly, I was a shocked. I had joined one of the organizations that later merged to form the LRS in the early 1970s at a time when we were first struggling to understand what it meant to be a Marxist-Leninist. I was eighteen years old at the time, and so I have spent almost my entire adult life working for democracy, equality, and socialism in the context of a Marxist-Leninist organization.
My shock quickly turned to one of admiration when I thought through the implications of the proposed changes. I thought that the proposal to be a more open organization and to make adjustments in our line such as not calling for the overthrow of the government were consistent with, and a result of, the past growth of our organization. I also thought that the proposed changes would allow us to greatly broaden our work and qualitatively advance the struggle for socialism.
I first heard of the proposed changes verbally, and I looked forward to reading the documents which would describe these changes in a more in-depth way. I expected the documents to clear up some of the questions that I had about the form of the new organization and the process to get there.
While the proposal passed by the CC did clear up these questions, it also created new ones as the proposal contained more changes in our political line than what I had originally heard. My concerns are with the proposals to not characterize ourselves as socialists or Marxists and what I perceived as a vagueness in our criticism of capitalism, the right to self-determination of the oppressed nations of the United States, and in the role of the working class.
I would like to explain both why I support the need for a more public, mass organization and the need to criticize and disassociate ourselves from the Marxist-Leninist model of socialism; and why I think that we need to continue to be revolutionary, socialist, and advocates of the needs and interests of the working class.
The organizations that merged to form the LRS grew out of the movements of the African American, Asian American, Chicano and Latino peoples in the late 1960s and early 1970s. These organizations formed with the understanding that revolutionary changes were needed in order for our peoples to gain equality.
In the words of Malcolm X:
...it’s impossible for a chicken to produce a duck egg – even though they both belong to the same family of fowl, a chicken just doesn’t have within its system to produce a duck egg. It can’t do it. It can only produce according to what that particular system was constructed to produce. The system in this country cannot produce freedom for an Afro-American. It is impossible for this system, this economic system, this political system, this social system, this system, period. It’s impossible for this system as it stands to produce freedom right now for the black man in this country.
And if ever a chicken did produce a duck egg I’m certain you would say it was certainly a revolutionary chicken!” (Talk by Malcolm X, May 29, 1964)
When we took up Marxism-Leninism, we did not abandon our struggle for equality, nor use M-L to try to downplay the importance of the national movements as other groups did. Instead we broadened our work by going into the workplaces while struggling to continue our work on the campuses and in the communities.
As we struggled to understand the need to build a party, we did not abandon our practical work as did some other groups. Instead we struggled theoretically and practically to unite with other Marxist Leninists. The formation of the LRS was the result of this work.
After forming the LRS, we continued to struggle to broaden and expand our work. We developed our united front work, changed Unity into more of a mass newspaper, and took up electoral work. We achieved some spectacular successes in these areas – in particular in the Jackson campaigns and in running for, and winning elected office in the most advanced areas of our student, community and labor areas.
Of course we made many errors in the course of the development of our organization. But to me the main thrust of our history has been to broaden and expand the organization, and to bring our vision of peace, justice, equality, and socialism to more and more people. I think that the proposed changes to make the organization more public and to end the “hothouse” style of organizing are a natural outgrowth of this history.
Over the last few years, I have seen some of our best fighters, individuals who have earned the respect of the masses through their politics clarity, commitment, and plain hard work, have to abandon their open membership in order to run for (and win!) elected office. Others, who could have become public representatives of the organization within the movement were in positions of mass leadership or were working with middle forces and could not become open members.
Thus there was a growing contradiction between our gains in the mass work, united front work, and the electoral arena and our ability to have a public presence in the movement as an organization. I think that we made the right decision to expand our work, nevertheless in the process the organization became less public and objectively, more secretive.
Another problem with our work was the “hothouse” type of organizing, where the organization became the main (or even only) source of activists to carry on a mass campaign. In this situation, where everyone is working overtime just to carry out the mass work goals that we set, how can one do consistent independent work, develop our Unity work to the fullest, organize political education, etc.?
For years we have said that we need to improve our Unity distribution, increase our recruitment, etc. But let’s face it: the “hothouse” style of organizing makes this virtually impossible!
Thus I thought that the proposed changes to make the organization more public and to end the “hothouse” style of mass work could resolve these two contradictions and allow us to have open members occupy public positions of leadership, and will allow the organization to do more independent work.
What I hope for is that the organization will move from an organization of political activists to a mass organization or a mass party. We have already adjusted many of our policies in a piecemeal way to incorporate new students and workers, and now we need to make a more systematic change. What would emerge is a much broader organization: so in this way I think that the proposed changes are consistent with our past history of expanding and broadening our work.
I also think that the criticisms of the Marxist-Leninist model of socialism, as practiced in the so-called “communist” countries, and the need to disassociate ourselves from the terms “Marxist-Leninist” and “communist” are correct. They coincide with my own thoughts on socialism.
For the last four years I have been struggling on and off to understand the societies of the USSR and China. I have done some research for the organization on this topic, although the conclusions that I state here are my own.
I began thinking that China was socialist while the Soviet Union was not, and that the USSR had been a socialist country until Stalin’s death in 1953, after which it degenerated into an imperialist superpower. As far as I know, this was the thinking of the organization and its members at that time (1986).
My view changed as I concluded that the system in the USSR (leaving aside for now the reforms under Gorbachev) was fundamentally the same as it had been under Stalin. Economically the limited market reforms initiated by Khrushchev in the late 1950s and early 1960s had been reversed under Brezhnev, so that the USSR had probably more central planning than China during the 1970s and 1980s.
The Soviet bureaucracy developed during the Stalin period to carry out the centralized industrialization and forced collectivization of agriculture. The thinking behind the invasions of Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan, that is to protect socialism by protecting the interests of the Soviet Union, are the same as that which motivated the annexation of the Baltic states of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, and the invasion of Poland in 1939 under the Hitler-Stalin pact.
A second conclusion that I came to was that despite the polemics and even armed clashes between the USSR and China, the violations of democracy in the two countries shared a common root in the “Marxist-Leninist” model of socialism developed under the leadership of Stalin in the USSR.
(Of course these problems also stem from the lack of tradition of democracy and the semi-feudal nature of pre-revolutionary Russia and China. But this does not absolve the Communist Parties of those countries for their failure to carry out thorough democratization after they gained power).
These violations of democracy that occurred during the cultural revolution in China and during Stalin’s purges were in large part due to an overemphasis on class struggle in which anyone could be labeled a “class enemy” and (at best) sent to shovel shit for years; or at worst sent to a labor camp or simply executed.
This and other violations of democracy: the lack of any significant opposition parties, denial of freedom of the press and expression, and lack of an effective legal system, were all justified under the concept of “the dictatorship of the proletariat”.
While I think that China made fewer errors than the USSR, this failure to democratize cost literally millions of lives, even in China. This can be seen in the estimate by Sun Yefang and other Chinese scholars that some fifteen million people died directly or indirectly from the famine during the years 1959-1961. The extent of this famine was not acknowledged publicly until the 1980s. In denying the existence of the famine, the Chinese government also denied the need to do anything about it, causing millions of lives to be lost.[1]
I now believe that both the USSR and China are both socialist countries, but that many of the most significant economic and political problems of these two societies are rooted in theoretically equating socialism with the dictatorship of the proletariat, and practically in the bureaucratic, centrally planned economy developed under Stalin.
These countries and the failures of their systems have been identified as “Marxist-Leninist” and “communist” in the minds of the masses. Disassociating ourselves from these terms would make the masses more receptive ideas about socialism and why it is needed here in the United States.
In reviewing the proposal, I am in basic agreement with the analysis of parts I-IV of the proposal. The main points of this analysis, to my understanding, are: (1) that what is being proposed is to adjust our theoretical framework to the piecemeal changes that have already been made in our work; (2) that in order to win over the majority of people in the United States we must abandon calling ourselves “Marxist-Leninists” or “communists”; (3) that the working class at this time does not have the ability to play a leading role on a large scale, and has the tactical initiative only in a limited sense; (4) that the Leninist form of organization is an obstacle to doing political work broadly and openly.
I also agree with the specific organizational changes proposed in part V (subsections V.2, V.3, and V.4) and with the assessments of the implications of the proposed changes in part VI (subsections VI.1, VI.2, VI.3, and VI.4). I feel that they flow from the analysis outlined in the first part of the proposal, and will not discuss these points further in this paper.
However, I feel that the proposals to stop calling ourselves socialist (subsection V.l), and stop having Marxism as the basis for our theory (subsection VI.5), do not flow from the analysis in the parts I-IV of the proposal, nor are these proposals adequately explained.
Further, I think that the proposed political principles are unclear on some major points, in particular: (1) do we recognize the right to self-determination of the oppressed nations within the United States?; (2) do we feel that the system of capitalism is incompatible with our vision of peace, justice, and equality?; (3) what is our class analysis of the United States and the role of the working class in the people’s struggle?; and (4) Do we see ourselves continuing to represent the interests of the working class?
These changes and unclarities give the impression of changes in our line and work which go far beyond the changes that we have already made in practice. If these changes in our line are being proposed this should be clearly stated and me the reasons for them need to be clearly laid out and discussed prior to making such significant adjustments of our line and work.
In the last part of this paper I will outline some key points that I think need to be incorporated into the principles of unity as we move into a new period and a new organization. I feel that these points are compatible with the analysis in parts I-IV of the CC proposal and are more in line with our current line and practice.
The four main points have to do with (1) the national question; (2) our critique of capitalism; (3) socialism; and (4) the role of the working class.
Our vision of a democratic and multi-national United States is one of the greatest strengths of the organization. Our history of fighting racism and national oppression, our support for the self-determination of oppressed nations inside the United States, our struggles for multinational unity, our work and leadership in building the Jackson presidential campaigns, and our multi-national membership with a majority of people of color are proud foundations on which we can build the people’s struggle in the 1990s.
Our vision will be confronted by the growth of racism and nationalism in the next period of time. This trend can be seen today in the increasing number of violent attacks on people of color, and to growing tensions among people of color.
These contradictions are rooted in the history of national oppression upon which the United States was built. They are bound to sharpen even more in the 1990s because of the growing backlash to the demographic trends where people of color are becoming the majority of the population, and because of the deterioration of the economy which is fueling racial tensions.
But our vision of equality of nationalities in the U.S. is not possible under monopoly capitalism. U.S. capitalism was built on the oppression, exploitation, and genocide of people of color in the U.S. Under capitalism the competition among workers under capitalism contributes to inter-ethnic tensions. Only the elimination of the capitalist system provides the basis to fundamentally resolve the contradictions among nationalities and bring about equality.
Our vision of equality also includes upholding the right to self-determination of the oppressed African American, Chicano, and Hawai’ian nations, and upholding the sovereignty and treaty rights of the Native American Indian and Alaskan peoples.
Recognizing that the movements of people of color in the United States are revolutionary struggles against monopoly capitalism and upholding the right to self-determination of oppressed nations are not Marxist-Leninist. Indeed U.S. Marxist-Leninists other than ourselves oppose these views, while many other revolutionaries such as Malcolm X and others in the national movements support them. If we are to be revolutionaries and if we are to uphold the legacy of our movement, we need to continue to uphold these two principles.
Our opposition to monopoly capitalism is also based on the exploitation and suffering of working people of all nationalities in the United States. Our political program begins with the declaration:
The United States today is a land of stark and bewildering contradictions.
The greatest industrial and agricultural power in history cannot feed, clothe and provide a decent livelihood for millions in this country. Countless other work away their lives to survive, while billionaires squander fortunes on mansions and fly around the world in private jets. Poverty and economic insecurity exist alongside extravagance.” (Peace, Justice, Equality, and Socialism, page 1)
During the five years since we wrote this statement, life itself has confirmed the correctness of this statement. Look around virtually any urban center today: are there not more homeless and more multi-million dollar skyscrapers than five years ago? Newspapers and television news are reporting on the fact that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.
These extremes of wealth and poverty are a result of monopo1y capitalism, the economic system where the factories, stores, farms, banks, and other means of producing goods and services are owned or controlled by a small elite, while the masses of people have to work for them in order a make a living.
These conditions will get worse in the 1990s. The economic growth under Reagan fueled by pro-business and anti-people economic policies, military spending, and borrowed money is coming to an end. The economy is slowing, federal and state budget deficits are exploding, and corporate empires are sinking under the weight of their debt. Even Donald Trump is being told by his bankers that the party is over!
But the working class and the masses of people to being made to bear the burden of cleaning up the mess. To begin with, we have to pay some $350 billion to cover the costs of the Savings and Loan debacle. Tens of thousands of workers are being laid off as corporations “streamline” themselves for a slower economy. Massive cuts in social services and increase in taxes that fall the heaviest on the poor are being discussed from Washington D.C. to California. Finally, there is always the threat of a recession looming on the horizon that would worsen the living conditions of working people many times over.
The organization has a proud history of fighting for the interests of the working class and working people. We have organized the people in our communities, in the workplace, and on campus, and struggled to better their lives and empower them. Our faith in the masses, and the support we have gained because of our work, and the fact that a majority of our members come from the working class distinguishes us from other left groups.
But we have not limited ourselves to fighting for the immediate interests of the masses: we have tried in many ways to point out that the root of social problems in the U.S. is the system of capitalism, and that to solve these problems and empower the people we need to break the economic power of the monopoly -capitalists and establish socialism, a social system where
...the social wealth is genuinely controlled by society and for the benefit of society, where the common good, not profits, becomes the chief concern; where the everyday working people become the rightful masters of society.” (PJES, pages 4 and 5, emphasis in the original).
The vision of society run by working people and for their interests has been known as socialism ever since the growth of the working class with the industrial revolution. But socialism has never been the property of any one individual, group, or perspective: there has always been conflicting visions and strategies. Advocates of cooperatives, Marxists, and anarchists debated during the 1800s; in this century there are Marxist-Leninists, Trotskyists, social-democrats, etc.
Today there are not only different visions, but different examples in the real world of socialism: political reform and economic stagnation in the USSR, economic reform and political repression in China, and rectification (anti-reform) in Cuba. In addition there are lessons from countries that have not followed the Marxist-Leninist model: workers self-management in Yugoslavia, the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, social-democracy in Sweden, etc.
I agree with the view of the CC that the identification of socialism with the dictatorship of the proletariat has produced gross violations of democracy, and that the terms “Marxist-Leninist” and “Communist” have become discredited in the eyes of the masses because of the failures of socialism in Eastern Europe, the USSR, and China.
However, I do not think that the term “socialism” is so discredited that we need to disassociate ourselves from it. I think that most people in the U.S. see the USSR, China, etc. as “communist” countries. Sweden, and its social-democratic welfare state with cradle-to-grave social services, is more likely to be seen as socialist. While obviously most people in the U.S. are not even for this type of socialism, I think that they would identify such positive characteristics such as concern for people over profits, increased social services, and some amount of economic equality as socialism. I think that we need to unite with this sentiment.
We need to have a dialectical approach towards socialism: we need to grasp its positive points as well as negative ones. For example, the Chinese famine in 1959-1961 has to be put in the context of the overall success of socialist China in overcoming hunger and disease.
Compared to China, in India (which is also a large, poor Third World country but which is not socialist), millions of people die each and every year through malnutrition, disease, and poverty. Under socialism in China such deaths were are an exception, while they are the rule under semi-feudal and semi-capitalist India.[2]
It is not “problematic” that so many different forces claim to be Socialist. Socialism represents the ideal of a fair and a just society. It is the power and the attractiveness of this ideal that makes all kinds of governments and political forces want to associate themselves with socialism.
In this century socialism has among its supporters the most consistent fighters for peace, social justice, and equality. The need for socialism is not something that only Marxist-Leninists uphold. Indeed Martin Luther King, towards the end of his life, also recognized the need to replace capitalism with socialism:
...I can’t say this publicly, and if you say I said it I’m not gonna admit it, but I do not believe capitalism as structured in the United States can meet the needs of poor people and that we have to look at a kind of socialism, a democratic kind of socialism.” (by Daryl Grigsby: More Than a Dream, Asante Publications, San Diego, 1988(7), pages 12-13)
Many of the most prominent fighters for the working class and oppressed people in the United States were socialists or communists: W.E.B DuBois, Paul Robeson, Carlos Bulosan, Mother Jones – the list could go on. Others such as Malcolm and Martin were moving towards or struggling to better understand socialism before they were assassinated. And many other activists who are not in any history book, but who are known to us personally and by the oppressed masses were socialists or communists.
Through our own experience we have seen that the working class is the only class that can unite all working, oppressed, and progressive people to carry out this fundamental change because it has no interest in preserving capitalism. Where the working class has been able to lead the mass struggle there have been tremendous breakthroughs. This is why we became “Marxist-Leninist”: because we understood this to mean that we would fight for the interests of the working class.
But abandoning some of the key concepts of Marxism-Leninism (dictatorship of the proletariat, Leninist party, etc.) does not require us to abandon our commitment to the working class. If we still believe in a class analysis of society and history, then we should keep our commitment to the working class.
We should not pit a commitment to the working class against the concept of a majority revolution. The working class makes up the vast majority of our society. We never saw the working class as making revolution by itself: in fact our basic strategy has been to unite the struggle of the working class with that of the oppressed nationalities and to form the broadest united front with other forces.
I think that our basic strategy of the strategic alliance between the working class and the national movements is still correct. This concept is incorporated into the analysis in part I of the CC proposal. But in the proposed principles (subsection VI.6), there is no mention of it. Was this an oversight? Or are there doubts about the role of the working class?
In the analysis in the first part of the CC proposal, we analyze the limited strength of the working class. But there is no mention of the working class in the proposed principles to unite us in the next period. I hope that this does not mean that we are questioning the ability of the working class to lead the revolution, or that the organization should no longer try to represent the interests of the working class.
It is not enough to recognize the weakness of the working class. The question is, what needs to be done to strengthen the working class and enhance its ability to play a more leading role in the mass movement. The CC proposal does not speak to this.
The empowerment of the working class requires that the level of political consciousness of the masses be raised. The masses learn through their own experiences, but the experience of mass struggle alone do not provide the movement with the vision or the understanding of how to make revolution. This requires revolutionary theory, that is an understanding of why society is the way it is and what it will take to change it.
“Without a revolutionary theory”, wrote Lenin, “there can be no revolutionary movement” (What Is To Be Done, page 28). The role of a working class party is to bring revolutionary theory to the mass movement, and to sum up the experiences of the struggle to constantly develop, modify, and enrich the theory of revolution.
But modifying some of the tenets of Marxism-Leninism and disassociating ourselves from this term should not mean abandoning Marxism. The question is not whether we are “wedded” to some “ism”. The question is whether we still believe that social theories reflect the interests of a class and do we still see ourselves fighting for the interests of the working class.
If so, then we need to have Marxism as the basis for our theory. Marxism is the science of making revolution. It explicitly takes the stand of the working class.
We also should not counterpoise being open-minded to having Marxism as our theoretical basis. Marxism is not a dogma, it is a science of the development of society. Marxism requires an open mind to constantly learn about changing conditions and the experience of the mass movement.
We should not underestimate the power of ideas. A vision of socialism, an understanding of the workings of capitalism, and faith and commitment to the working class has been part and parcel of the spirit of struggle needed to better this world. We need only to ask ourselves what part this vision has played in motivating us to recognize that we cannot sacrifice these ideas.
I hope that each and every one of us studies the CC proposal very carefully. Many of us (myself included) have had periods of “burn-out”, or have postponed personal goals, or have gone through traumatic red-baiting attacks. Many of us (again, myself included) have also had a hard time coming to grips with the meaning of the changes in Eastern Europe, the recent events in China, etc. We cannot let fatigue or confusion from struggling for what we think is right.
As we struggle to move forward in the next period, I think that it is important to remember that in the final analysis we are revolutionaries in the United States of America.
This means that we cannot allow ourselves to split hairs in trying to come up with the correct view of socialism. We will probably continue to have (and should allow for) a broad range of views on what is happening in Eastern Europe and China, and should have ongoing discussions on what socialism should look like.
At the same time, as revolutionaries we cannot surrender our contributions to understanding how fundamental change is to come about in the United States: the need to support the right to self-determination for oppressed nations within our borders, the revolutionary nature of the national movements, the need for the strategic alliance of the national movements and the working class, the need for working class leadership of the mass movements, and above all, the need for a multi-national organization to fight for the interests of the working class.
These views are not Marxist-Leninist dogma. They are based on our own experience and many of them represent significant contributions to the theory of making revolution in the United States. While the analysis of the CC proposal states the need to forge our own revolutionary theory, what is proposed in the principles of unity for the new organization omits key parts of the theory that we have struggled to develop.
To me giving up these principles, or even throwing them into question without substantial explanation, is a disservice to the work of the organization, it is a disservice to the legacy of Malcolm, Martin, and many other American revolutionaries, and ultimately it is a disservice to the peoples of the United States. Giving up our principles will not allow the organization to advance: it would be a call for a retreat.
These are strong words. But these are difficult times, and strong actions are called for. What is to be done?
(1) We must make the necessary adjustments in our line and policy to enable us to be a more public organization and enable us to continue to grow and overcome the new obstacles in our work. We cannot continue our work as a “Marxist Leninist” organization.
(2) We need to explicitly keep those political and strategic principles that have not been proven wrong. This means we need an alternative basis of unity to the one proposed by the CC majority, principles of unity that will uphold those parts of our program which we have not repudiated.
In closing, I want to apologize for not directly addressing the individual papers that went out with the CC proposal. They were helpful in writing this paper. I do find myself in the same situation as the individual who wrote: “Of course this paper is only an individual effort and is therefore subject to many shortcomings and limitations.”
But out of our individual efforts I am confident that we will arrive at a higher level of collective understanding and unity.
[1] Information is from an article by an Indian Marxist economist Amartya Sen: “Development: Which Way Now”, The Economic Journal, 93 (December 1983), pp. 745-762. The information is on pages 757-760.
[2] Information also taken from Sen’s article in endnote #2, page 760.