In its document "Build the Communist Party on Reality, not Subjectivism" ("Build..."), Unity & Struggle (U&S) has finally clarified its positions. Its stand on political Power that is fundamental for a genuine Communist Party, is indeed the main difference with the proletarian line which is based on Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (MLM), Gonzalo Thought (GT), upheld by the MPP.
The conquest of political Power by the proletariat, the armed overthrow of the Yankee imperialist
bourgeoisie and the destruction of their state apparatus (the essence of Marxism), is NOT the
central question for U&S. For these Yankee revisionists, this fundamental principle of Marxism is
"subjective," and their willful participation in bourgeois elections, voter registration drives, and
trying to be "elected" authorities of the old state, is "reality."
The seizure of political Power is not central to U&S's call for building a "circle of
revolutionaries"; it is not central to their call for "Afro American self-determination" or for
"complete social equality between women and men," and it is definitely not central in their call for
a legal "Democratic Workers Party" that advocates a clear reformist and liberal program.
Let's examine the above issues in detail:
1) On the forging of the Communist Party. U&S proposes the building of an abstract
"organization of revolutionaries" instead of the forging of a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Communist
Party. U&S incorrectly seems to think that a Communist Party and a United Front ("organization
of revolutionaries") are one and the same, saying: "U&S has clearly put forth the call for the
reconstruction of the Communist Party in the United States in its proposal, 'Revolutionaries
Unite!': The call 'revolutionaries unite' must initiate a whole chain reaction of political activity
and organization. The intense struggle inside the circle of revolutionaries, and sponsored by
such a circle, must begin by addressing the question: what is revolution, what is a revolutionary,
here in the United States today? Ultimately that definition, which can only be gained through
struggle, committed only to a higher level of unity, must begin to address itself directly to the
questions of The People vs Imperialism, and Labor vs Capital, and the question of Socialism
and Communism. Unity & Struggle asserts that the truly revolutionary struggle must seek to
eliminate monopoly capitalism and imperialism together with their class, national, and gender
oppression. That struggle is not one waged in academia behind closed doors. This struggle will
be the nuts and bolts of building a true organization needed to make revolution in the United
States." ("Build...", p.1)
U&S is calling for the "reconstruction" of the Communist Party in the United States. This
implicitly refers to the reconstruction of the CPUSA currently led by the political dinosaur Gus
Hall, a callous revisionist and corrupt organization that, at the behest of its former master Soviet
Social Imperialism, has supported every Democratic Administration since F.D. Roosevelt and it
continues to support this party of imperialism during the Clinton Administration. The problem
with its wishful call to "reconstruct" the CPUSA (from the outside) is that U&S basically has the
same reformist positions historically upheld by the CPUSA.
Since 1993, U&S has been contacting groups they call ("the advanced") for political unity.
However, they offer as the basis of such unity an ambiguous leaflet called "revolutionaries unite."
This document acknowledges that U&S doesn't have a definition of what revolution is (!) and
revolutionary in the United States. After contacting several groups, among them the Worker's
World, CPUSA, RCP (even the undercover gang MIM), etc. during the last four years U&S's
unity is up in the air, simply because it doesn't have a definition of what revolution is. What about
the "whole chain reaction" U&S expected from its unity calls? These are empty words.
Where is the proletarian line of the U&S leaders? It is not there at all. They don't even use the
words "Communist Party"-- are the masses supposed to read their minds? They don't mention
conquering power from the imperialist bourgeoisie; they don't mention armed struggle, or
remotely the People's War as the means to accomplish this; but how else can the elimination of
monopoly capitalism and imperialism as Lenin taught us, be achieved? The U&S bourgeois
politics is to participate in voter registration drives and/or to pursue petty jobs such as becoming
school board officers.
U&S considers monopoly capitalism and imperialism as two separate things. That position totally
negates Lenin's analysis that "imperialism is monopoly capitalism," which he expanded thoroughly
in the book "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism". No class analysis is provided, nor an
evaluation of the national and gender oppression that are integral parts of the imperialist system.
Also, in referring to the contradiction of "People vs. Imperialism" they don't define what classes
make up the people just like the bourgeois politicians.
A willful ignorance of U&S is revealing when it states that: "To date, the People's War is a
phenomenon seen only in such countries [semi-feudal and semi-colonial] where its correctness
as a revolutionary strategy is indisputable. However... MPP makes no contribution at all to the
question of what People's War might mean in the United States." ("Build...", p.1) On the
contrary, the Civil War in Russia following the initial insurrection of October 1917, was also a
People's War, different in its process than a People's War in a semi-feudal, semi-colonial country
because of the different conditions, but identical in its fundamental principle, of relying on the
armed sea of the masses, under the political and military leadership of a proletarian Communist
Party.
However, rather than drawing from this experience of revolution in a backward imperialist
country the very important lessons that apply to an imperialist superpower like the U.S. today,
U&S instead, counterposes upholding the "democratic tasks" as central to revolution in the U.S.,
using many out-of-context quotes from Lenin, as if People's War had nothing to do with
completing democratic tasks. The struggle for economic and political demands is intrinsically tied
to the struggle for power through the People's War.
In the sub-section of "Build..." they claimed, "II. The U&S Program to Build the Party is
Concrete; that of MPP is Abstract", they even misquoted Lenin in an attempt to indicate that the
"Conquest of Power" is not central to building a new Communist Party! They claimed that MPP
is "innocent - of the very concept of the minimum program," essentially as a way of saying that it
is incorrect to base the forging of a Communist Party of a new type, on promulgating the
MAXIMUM program, that is, the conquest of power by the proletariat, led by its
Marxist-Leninist-Maoist party; the destruction of the imperialist state and its replacement by the
dictatorship of the proletariat, and the consolidation and advancement of this through subsequent
cultural revolutions until Communism. We must plead "innocent" as charged!
2) On the Question of Self-Determination for the Afro-American Nation (and Complete
Social Equality for Women and Men)
"Revolutionaries Unite!" (RU!) states: "...revolutionaries must lead efforts to organize a United
Front for Afro-American Self Determination, to build the national, political, and class
consciousness of the Afro American people so that a plebiscite or referendum can be held in
which Afro Americans must address themselves to the question, 'What Should Be the
Relationship of the Afro American People to the United States?' "
What referendum and self-determination is U&S talking about? Under the control of what class
in power? U&S narrowly focuses on the national question among African Americans in the U.S.
has missed the fact that another national question -- that of Puerto Rico -- has been put to a vote
in the electoral arena of the U.S. imperialist state many times, and that Clinton is planning one for
1997 in its 100th Anniversary as a colony. Have these instances of "plebiscite or referendum" had
ANYTHING to do with the people of Puerto Rico exercising self-determination? What has U&S
learned from history?
It is not only the building of "national, political and class consciousness of the Afro American people" to create conditions for any meaningful means for the Black nation to
"address itself to the question of what will be its relationship" to the larger oppressive nation, or
to other national groups in the land area now known as the "USA". It is the class struggle the
motor of the changes in society. Nothing else. Concretely, it's the seizure of power by the force of
arms, which realistically, can almost only mean seizure of power by the multi-national proletariat
led by its M-L-M Communist Party. ("almost only", because there's at least a theoretical
possibility of an armed struggle led by Black nationalist forces seizing power in some portion of
the current U.S.)
On the question of "complete social equality of women and men", "U&S" has virtually nothing to
say about this matter other than to call for a united front against Imperialism." In "Build..." U&S
accepts as "rhetorically quite good" MPP's statement that "...the goal cannot be simply "complete
social equality..."; it must be the overthrow of imperialism and class society in general! Only
within the class struggle is there the best basis to overcome the millennias- old divisions and
domination of men over women. And only with the elimination of class society can there be the
full emancipation of women. This is called Proletarian Feminism, a Communist concept
introduced by the PCP, which has a universal validity. We need to base ourselves on this concept,
not on anything less!
For Marxists, the question of political power is central. Rhetorical acceptance of the concept of
Proletarian Feminism is opportunism. It has to be put into practice as part of the forging of the
Party and the preparation for the conquest of power by the proletariat.
3) On the question of Participation in bourgeois elections and the call to build a
"Democratic Workers Party."
Even if you want to argue, as U&S seems to, that the same strategy with regard to bourgeois
elections that was correct in pre-revolutionary Russia at the beginning of this century --a
backward imperialist country with a very new parliamentary system -- is also correct for the U.S.
at the end of the century -- an advanced imperialist superpower with a long tradition of bourgeois
democracy -- at LEAST recognize one thing: Lenin did NOT advocate participation in elections
to the Duma under the auspices of a "Democratic Workers Party", but as the RSDP, the
Proletarian Vanguard Party itself. That's a fact.
Lenin certainly never promoted voter registration drives so that the masses could be encouraged
to vote for Democrats or Republicans or even for a "Democratic Workers Party" at a time when
there was no Communist Party! He never promoted participation in bourgeois elections -- for
Mayor, School Board or whatever -- under the disguise of FORMING a Communist Party. All
the Lenin quotes that U&S uses to justify their promotion of the masses participating in a process
that ONLY consists of choosing which oppressor will rule over them, are actually statements
about COMMUNISTS running AS COMMUNISTS for seats in the Russian Duma. What
COMMUNIST is U&S encouraging the masses to vote for? Is this the gentleman (U&S leader)
who dreamed of being elected Mayor of the city of Newark, New Jersey on the ticket of Clinton's
"Democrat" Jesse Jackson?
In fact, U&S's participation in elections has nothing to do with Communism, with conquering
power from the imperialists or establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat, or even with
creating public opinion for these things. There's nothing wrong with the masses demanding the
right to vote for their local school board. But there's plenty of wrong with revisionists telling the
masses the LIE that electing a local school board (which is still part of the structure of the
imperialist state, no matter what class background its members come from) will give them some
kind of actual control over the process of educating their children! To imply that voting for
school board members is an act of "self-determination...in its schools" ("Build..." p.4) is an
outrageous falsehood!
4. On the Peoples' Committees:
U&S states: "Very well, it is the masses who create new forms of struggle, but has MPP deigned
to notice that the masses of the people of the United States have not yet taken the steps it
mentions? People's Committees, Soviets, whatever you call them, we ain't got them, not yet. What
is the conscious element to do in the interim? Look a little closer at the MPP's program: it says
to wait for the revolution to happen."
In 1919, Lenin said: "One of the most important tasks confronting the West-European comrades
is to explain to the people the meaning, importance and necessity of the Soviet system."
Furthermore, he said that "for us, and particularly for the majority of the West-European
countries, spreading the Soviet system is a most important task (ibid)."
For the record, Soviet seeds in the 1935 revolution ranged in size and scope from small groups of
peasants in villages to workers of an entire city. In all cases, the peasants and workers engaged in
"empowerment" against and despite, the authority of the landlords and bourgeoisie.
Even if Lenin had said nothing at all like the above, does it not seem quite logical that the Peoples'
Committees which have proven to be successful in one part of the world, i.e., Peru, should be
emulated in other countries? Isn't it clear that promoting and developing Peoples' Committees is
part of the answer to the question - What Is To Be Done? (which was written before the
emergence of the Soviets)?
In addition, on what basis is it assumed that People's Committees in rudimentary cannot exist even
in imperialist countries? Look around you and you will see community activists organizing along
political lines in cities across the country. Why can't one exist upholding the proletarian line?
Let's examine what a Peoples' Committee might look like in a hypothetical situation described by
U&S in one of the ghettos of Newark, New Jersey. First let's use a summary of the situation as
described by U&S:
The state has deprived the citizens of their right to elect their own school board. Hundreds of
local residents have been laid off from their jobs -bus attendants, clerks, security guards, cafeteria
workers. Plus, over a hundred teachers have been fired. The number of Black administrators has
dropped. Privatization of teaching and other services is under way. And, U&S has been struggling
for a long time around these issues, and at the present time U&S demands that "the State get out
of our schools and that our right to vote be reinstated."
We should also surmise that the texts, school equipment and facilities are inadequate, etc. We can
also draw the conclusion that there is a lack of housing, employment, and medical care. In sum,
the Government (Federal, State and local) has failed to provide the basic needs of the people.
Under these conditions, and again assuming that the Communist Party is in place, the People's
Committee could begin in this neighborhood by working to "empower" the masses to take their
destiny in their own hands not by supplanting the responsibilities of the old State to fulfill its
obligations, but by linking their struggle for economic and political demands to the struggle for
power, which implies the destruction of the old State.
The Party would seek to take over the control, for example of the community schools at the level
of the Parent-Teachers Associations (PTA.)Candidates for various elective offices, including the
PTA, should emerge from the masses themselves. At the same time, youth groups should be
organized by setting up tutorial centers to help each other after school and to form a Youth
Brigade where they don't only patrol the streets at night to protect the masses from the brutality
of the system, but grasp the ideology of the proletariat, MLM. People interested in health issues
should organize a US version of the Barefoot Doctors. Workshops, co-ops and perhaps even
some small businesses can be set up through independent community funding sources.
Union organizing should also be initiated. The People's Committee (PC) meets its own food and
clothing needs, and their own cultural and sporting events also come under its auspices.
Every now and then, there is a block party to raise funds for a PC in Lima, or perhaps medical
supplies for the PCP. Classes are organized for car repair, computers, history and issues in
socialism and proletarian internationalism. Classes in political economy explain why lay-offs,
privatization, etc., are taking place in a rich, imperialist country. Other PCs spring in the rest of
the city. Real political power emerges, in conjunction with a nation-wide movement, etc.
U&S: Can't you see that Peoples' Committees are the only way to organize the masses to achieve
the goals of the revolution? There should be no argument here.
Peoples Committees are nothing but the modern day version of the Paris Commune of 1871
which instituted a whole series of reforms after the Workers' Committee seized power. Marx
praised the Communes while at the same time criticized them, saying that "they should have
marched at once to Lyons." The Peoples' Communes in China, began in the mid-fifties, and were
truly examples of the role that Peoples' Committees will play under socialism.
U&S justifies its reformist proposal with references to a supposedly "positive" work done by the
CPUSA in the thirties, and also the positions taken by the Comintern in 1928 and then again in
1935, when it adopted the United Front Against Fascism (UFAF). But, the plain fact is that
Lenin's clear position on promulgating the Soviet System was never fully adopted by the CPUSA,
the Comintern, or any other party or organization, for that matter, except the Chinese
Communism Party under Mao's leadership in the 1930s and the PCP in Peru since the 1980's.
In the essay by Lenin quoted above, in a criticism of the socialist reformists of that period, Lenin
stated: "When, after all these events, after nearly two years of victorious revolution in Russia, we
are offered resolutions like those adopted at the Berne Conference, which say nothing about the
Soviets and their significance, about which not a single delegate uttered a single word, we have a
perfect right to say that all these gentlemen are dead to us as 'socialists' and theorists."
Somehow, for some reason, these ideas of Lenin on the importance of the Soviets were either
abandoned or watered down or neglected or... Exactly what is happening today from reformist
groups such as U&S.
It should be clear that the task of forming Peoples' Committees begins with the principle put
forward by MPP: "First, ingrain yourself in the masses, then develop and apply the theory." And it
should be clear that the MPP is basing its tactics on reality, whereas in fact, it is the U&S that is
lost in the nether world of subjectivism, reformism and, to quote Lenin, "parliamentary cretinism."
Next, we should examine the U&S -position on self determination for oppressed nations.
5. What is to be Done.
A very clear example of the differences that have emerged between U&S and the MPP can be
seen in the paragraph by U&S challenging MPP to attend a meeting of the unemployed workers in
Newark. U&S says to MPP: "Tell those workers that it is opportunist to agitate for the
restoration of their voting rights, comrades. But first, make sure you are close to the door. The
workers really can fight."
Neither the MPP, nor anyone with any sense ever suggested that the workers, especially
Afro-American workers, should be criticized for opportunism. The point centered is on the
opportunism of so-called leaders, especially so-called Marxists.
U&S misquote What Is To Be Done. The U&S should know, therefore, that Lenin argued against
bowing to the spontaneity of the workers, which necessarily leads to narrow trade union demands.
Our job, said Lenin, "was and is to raise the level of the workers into the arena of the political
struggle for power. And the role of the party was to be and still is to lead the masses towards the
goals of socialism."
U&S: We can say that some day some Maoists are going to show up at this meeting you invited
MPP to attend, and the Maoists will not be concerned about sitting next to the door, because we
are confident that the honest elements of the working class will listen to our points, and that the
advanced elements will themselves become Maoists! Furthermore, during the meeting, Maoist
representatives will explain the necessity of organizing for political power, via new organs called
Peoples' Committees. Plus, the politics and economics of imperialism, especially yanqui
imperialism, will be explained so that the workers will begin to understand the real causes of their
worsening conditions, and therefore find the real solutions to their problems and all working
peoples' virtual enslavement, and finally learn from the heroic example of the People's War in
Peru.
It should be no surprise that the opportunist views of U&S are reflected first and foremost in their
plan to "Reconstitute the Communist Party in the United States."
The plan in a nutshell:
1. "...is not a Communist proposal."
2. Allows for "people with varying ideological bases to struggle for the correct revolutionary political line and practice."
3. Non-Communists will participate in the plan.
4. Communist ideology is to be projected "in the broadest possible setting, as a vital question for
all of the advanced, and not just for those who already accept it."
For the readers' information, this "reconstituting" process coopts what has been done in the U.S.
about 20 years ago in a rather large party building effort involving many different groups. At that
time, it was understood that the minimum program of the party would be based on:
1. the science of Marxism- Leninism-Mao-Tse-Tung Thought;
2. organizing the proletariat for the conquest of political power; and
3. the struggle against revisionism and opportunism of all shades. That is -NO non-Communists
with "varying ideological bases" would be invited.
Now, after twenty years, we must struggle for a proposal that is a continuation for the
development of the earlier work done in this country, and develop new forms of struggle. Instead,
U&S is countering us with a reformist "new" idea. An opportunist new form!
The issue of self-determination was originally based on the right to secession for nations
oppressed by imperialism. The Comintern's 1928 platform and the CAUSA's position in the 30s
stood for secession.
But, U&S reduces the above to a plebiscite to determine "What Should Be the Relationship of the
Afro-American People to the United States?"
A plebiscite like this at the present time, would most likely reveal that the overwhelming majority
of Afro-Americans would like complete equality economically, educationally and politically with
white people as well as the cessation of police terror in their communities. The issue of complete
self-determination has not been propagated by any Afro-American mass organization. The Nation
of Islam has demagogically propagated for years, economic independence, etc. But secession is
not on anyone's agenda. And how could it be? It is pure rhetoric to fool the black masses.
Second of all, in past history, the national question was a peasant question, a land question.
Where is the peasantry in the U.S.? Actually, imperialism and its agri-businesses has converted the
majority of peasants into rural proletarians so that the question of a New Democracy has changed.
In all cases, national self-determination is part of, and even merges with the proletarian revolution.
Let's look at it another way: U&S advocates an Afro-American United Front. United Front with
whom? A large class of petty-bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie Afro-Americans are a modern
comprador class, wholly in league with imperialism. Do you wish to overthrow imperialism with
them? Good luck!
On the other hand, MPP states that we need more proletarian internationalism not more
Afro-American nationalism. In addition, MPP mentions that there are other national minorities to
be included in the picture, particularly Latin Americans who are "considerable." Therefore, instead
of the U&S formula for a United Front of Afro-Americans, which is too narrow (at least), why
doesn't the U&S advocate a United Front of Oppressed Nations for self-determination up to and
including secession? And then, without skipping a beat, on to the proletarian revolution? Such an
approach should satisfy the requirements of the U&S.
But the problem with the U&S stance is that it should be obvious, that in the United States today,
it is impossible to wage the struggle for self-determination without a proletarian revolution.
MPP points out that "The strength of the oppressed nations and nationalities within the US is that
they are overwhelmingly part of the multinational working class, and therefore, are in the best
position to play a leading role in the overthrow of the imperialist bourgeoisie....Proletarian
revolution is what is on the agenda, not the completion of the bourgeois democratic revolution."
It is also very curious that the U&S only focuses on the struggle of the Afro-American people. At the present time, this is a strange position. When the Black Liberation Movement was in the forefront thirty years ago, Black people were in the midst of winning the right to their civil rights, and they constituted
the largest minority within the US. In addition, they lived in immense poverty, not much different
from slaves. Today, this description particularly fits immigrant proletarians, particulary from
Mexico, and other oppressed Third World countries.
This latter development at the present time, is the fundamental factor in the "conversion" of the
national question in the US into the question of proletarian revolution. For the first time in a long
time, a solid section of the US multi-national working class consists of proletarians, who by
definition own nothing but their hands. And that section is growing in size and importance. These
proletarians, therefore, represent the vanguard of the working class in the US. And as the U&S
should know by studying so much of the principles of M-L-M theory, the main focus of all work
is supposed to be the organization of the working class, particularly the proletarians, to gain
political power and build socialism.
Another interesting device the U&S uses is the "minimum program" which consists of demands
which focus on the "struggle for democracy and Self-Determination. Maximum demands
(program?) are defined as "the overthrow of imperialism, and the building of socialism and the
eventual emergence of Communism."
The RSDP, under Lenin's guidance, put forward a minimum program as early as 1899 and as late
as April, 1917 which included about twenty demands, only one of which was Self-Determination
for Oppressed Nations. The other minimum demands dealt with the eight hour day, the rights of
women, the rights of workers, etc. So, how did our self-righteous U&S end up distorting and
restricting such a revolutionary program?
One answer lies in the MPP statement concerning class analysis with which U&s has difficulty.
MPP states that the class relations in the US are complex, that the economic structure has
changed drastically in 150 years and "even changed significantly in the last 20 years." And that
without an understanding of these changed class forces "an attempt by U&S to 'define what is
revolutionary'...is ineffective."
Mao understood well enough in 1921 to say clearly that the reason previous revolutionary
movements in China failed was because the revolutionaries did not correctly distinguish between
real friends and real enemies. And, "To distinguish real friends from real enemies, we must make a
general analysis of the economic status of the various classes in Chinese society, and of their
respective attitudes towards the revolution."
Now apply Mao's class analysis to the U.S. keeping in mind that China was an extremely poor
country severely oppressed by imperialism. Do we have a comprador class in the US? A
peasantry? Etc.
Now ask the question -what is the attitude of these various classes toward ...socialism? Toward
Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, Gonzalo Thought? Toward "illegal aliens?" Toward US military
intervention in Peru or Mexico or anywhere?
According to U&S: "We are using Lenin's observation that the Soviet Revolution transformed
national liberation struggles from merely bourgeoisie democratic struggles to direct struggles
against imperialism." (Dec., 1993, Revolutionaries, Unite!)
Comment: Historically, National Self-Determination has consisted of two types of situations:
1. Colonial or semi-colonial countries dominated by foreign imperialists. In these countries there
was a large peasantry, and the first objective was independence and the establishment of a New
Democracy, in which for a certain period of time capitalism was allowed to be developed in line
with the principle of "land to the tiller." Similar steps were taken in the Soviet Union in the 20s
under the National Economic Plan (NEP.) In China's case, the time frame for ND was six years,
from 1950 to 1956.
2. The second type of national self-determination existed in imperialist countries such as Tsarist
Russia, England and the United States. Here the situation, was that of oppressed nations and
nationalities within the borders of a capitalist country and exploited in the same fashion as colonial
countries. In the US, the right to self-determination meant the right to secession, the right to form
an independent country. And in the 20s and 30s, the Black Nation in the South was clearly
defined as an oppressed nation, and the right to self-determination centered on the land and on a
"land to the tiller movement" (the "40 Acres and a Mule" promised after the Civil War). In other
words, the national question once again involved the peasantry as a class.
By 1996, the peasants or small farmers increasingly no longer existed as a class in this final stage
of imperialism. Agri-business, mechanization, and semi-colonialism have been driven the peasants
off their land. This is also happening in oppressed countries but to a lesser degree, peasants may
work for agri-business as rural proletarians or farm workers or they are forced into the large cities
as proletarians. In imperialist countries they have become more and more part of the urban
working-class. The migration of Afro-Americans to the North beginning in the 30s, is the main
example in the US. Furthermore, these changes are not quantitative but qualitative.
Look what's taken place in the world just in the past twenty years. All the Third World countries
which gained independence have become semi-colonies of imperialist countries; there is no longer
a socialist camp since the death of Stalin in the ex-USSR and Mao in China; and within the US, it
has become clear that the national liberation struggle has been totally usurped not by corrupt
leaders per se, but by the national bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie who are wholly in league
with imperialism, constituting a new class of comprador. Again, all these changes are not merely
quantitative changes but qualitative changes.
That leaves the multi-national working class as the only force capable of revolution, and that, by
definition, means proletarian revolution, with the objective of moving right into socialism.
The national question is now a proletarian question.
Therefore, the objective is proletarian revolution, not a New Democratic revolution. Or,
minimally, there is a merger of the two in such a way, that the time frame is shortened.
Let's look at the position of the theoreticians of the U&S specifically and concretely. Let's go into
the future, to the day after there has been a successful movement for self-determination, etc. The
job of the leaders of U&S is to announce to the people what the new society will look like
politically and economically. Or will there be mass discussions and forums to decide these issues?
In any case, what will be the outcome? New Democracy, in which a certain degree of capitalism
will be allowed? If so, for how long and under what conditions? The time frame should not be
longer than it was in China. So let's say five years.
And the new government? Why will it be a coalition government practicing "pluralism" just
like...in Nicaragua, El Salvador and-South Africa! And then what? To find the answer just look
what happened to those countries these days.
So, the whole position of U&S really boils down to a rejection of the proletarian revolution and
the dictatorship of the proletariat.
U&S and others will argue that the Afro- Americans and other oppressed nations (e.g., American
Indians and others) within the US, still have legitimate national aspirations and demands primarily
because they are still brutally suppressed and exploited. This, of course, is absolutely true and the
situation is getting worse. But, first, how on earth can the masses of any oppressed nationality in
the USA achieve even minimum goals, without a United Front of all oppressed nationalities? And
how can any such struggle NOT be firmly based on the multinational working class, and hence the
demand for socialism? U&S: your position does not make sense in a practical or a theoretical
way!
The position of U&S only makes sense from the point of view of the introduction of new forms
and "theories" of Revisionism, which, upon closer analysis, are not really new at all. To get to the
heart of the matter, the main point of the approach taken by U&S is to lobby for the formation of
a Democratic Labor Party, which will serve as an umbrella for all the revisionist, reformist, and
opportunist Left organizations in the US. This party will be "a mass electoral style" party.
The history of this approach began 1914 when leaders of the European Social Democratic Labor Parties supported their governments in the first Imperialist War. Lenin explained the economic roots of this betrayal in his pamphlet, Imperialism and the Split In Socialism. In a nutshell, Lenin explained that because of the super- profits accrued from the exploitation of the colonies, the monopoly capitalists were able to bribe the upper strata of the working-class and its leaders into support for imperialist wars on one hand, and into "struggles" for acceptable reforms on the other. Lenin concluded, therefore, that the tactics of socialists should focus on "going deeper,
to the real masses."
And furthermore, because of this split in socialism throughout the world, Lenin later argued that
the name of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party (RSDLP) should be changed to the
Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), and that other parties should follow suit.
Twenty years ago, in the U.S.A. emerged the phenomenon called Democratic Socialism, and now
we have the Democratic Workers' Party, being proposed. It is interesting to note that in 1996,
there was a great flurry of "debate" on the need to form an independent "progressive" party, yet
nothing concrete emerged. Perhaps it will later on.
In any case, what we have in the US, through all these reformist efforts, is nothing but an attempt
to form a Social Democratic party similar to those in Europe and Latin America. At this point, it
would be refreshing if such a party were finally formed. But the US Left cannot agree on goals
and objectives. Sectarianism runs rampant.
For example, in California, a coalition was formed to combat Prop. 209, the anti-affirmative
action measure called the California Civil Rights Initiative (CCRI). According to the LA Times,
Oct. 11, the coalition has split apart over tactics.
This split is a perfect example of the ineptitude of the Left. "NO on CCRI" should have been a
perfect issue for groups like U&S to work on. After all, the democratic rights of oppressed
national minorities and women were at stake. Where was the United Front? Where was the
democratic labor movement? The progressive movement? The students? They were all busy
conducting forums, discussions and debates. Just like U&S has suggested. At the same time, they
were all busy forming factions against each other, maneuvering and playing at bourgeois politics.
In the final analysis, the impending defeat of the Left on this issue exemplifies why the neo-Social
Democrats cannot form a "mass party" of any kind. The masses, the multi-national working class,
will not follow these groups!
Look! This U&S call was made a week before the November elections. Where IS the Electoral Left? What has been accomplished since 1993 when the U&S issued its call for UNITY?
Nothing, absolutely nothing!
We have also a problem with the U&S use of the term " multi-national U.S. working class" and
with the emphasis on African-American self determination. The United States is not one nation,
but an entity of many nations, divided into oppressor and oppressed nation. There is not equality
between the workers of these nations, nor can there be, as long as imperialism exists.
Lenin addresses this question in "Imperialism Economism a Caricature of Marxism." He shows
that there is a qualitative difference between the workers of oppressing nations, economically,
politically, and ideologically: "ALL ALONG THE LINE there are differences in objective
reality...the International is composed of workers DIVIDED into oppressing and oppressed
nations. If its action is to be MONISTIC its propaganda must NOT be the same for both."
The trouble with the concepts of a multi-national working class is that it leads to the concept of a
"nation within a nation" a la RCP. Look at it this way, is Ireland a nation within a nation? Was
India? No. They have been and still are independent nations.
Another difficulty is that the privileges afforded to the white workers will tend to be overlooked
such as privileges which render them not only useless, but reactionary.
To continue in the other point, framing the national question only in terms of the African
American struggle, automatically down plays all other national struggles. In particular, the
Mexican proletariat has a dual role to play. A United Front for the liberation and independence of
non-white peoples is what is needed. Perhaps then the advanced white workers, intellectuals and
others can join.
Lastly on the issue of fascism. The issue of the United Front against Fascism needs to be analyzed
to dispel U&S's misconceptions. Fascism already exists -directed against non-whites as a whole
and in particular against immigrant workers from oppressed countries. In addition, dictatorships in
the Third World are propped up by imperialists, mainly yanqui imperialism, the typical case is
Peru.
U&S suggests forming an independent workers' party to put a supposedly United Front Against
Fascism (UFAF) in an "organizational form." The original UFAF, in 1935, was an attempt to unite
with the Social Democratic parties, particularly, through negotiations with the leaders. Time after
time the Social Democrats sabotaged the UF. Is it possible to work with the SDs in the US, which
basically categorizes 90% of the US Left? Can we work with the fake U.S. Left opposed to the
most advanced revolutionary movement in the world today, the People's War in Peru? No, of
course not.
In any case, the practical, organizational form that will develop in the US will be the Peoples'
Committees just like those under the leadership of the PCP. These peoples are a continuation of
the Soviets first formed in Tsarist Russia. Likewise, they are fundamentally the same as the
Peoples' Soviets in China, organized by Mao and the CCP from the mid 30s on.
In sum, U&S has made clear that the key question for them is NOT how the proletariat can seize
political power from the imperialist bourgeoisie, in order to totally remake the world in its own
interests. They can misquote volumes of Lenin, while posturing that the MPP is "unlettered in
Marxism." But what is the U&S revolutionary practice? None. What's their goal? To build an
electoral party, rather than a proletarian Communist party, for encouraging the masses to vote for
their next oppressors rather, than to prepare to overthrow them, and to promote dangerous
illusions about how oppressed nations can win self-determination and liberation by means of a
"plebiscite", controlled by the Yankee imperialists.
Communists must continue to say that we must learn from the leading example of the most advanced struggle in the world today, the People's War in Peru, led by the most advanced Communist Party in the world today, the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, Gonzalo Thought Communist Party of Peru.
There are many tasks left to be accomplished on the road to rebuilding a Communist party in the
U.S., including the development of an up-to-date class analysis of U.S. society in all its
complexity. But the starting point has to be the centrality of seizing political power for the
proletariat and the masses. Anything less will lead to the well-worn swamp of revisionism.
Peru People's Movement (MPP). November 1996.