| (no subject) |
[Nov. 30th, 2005|09:13 pm] |
|
The article Trotskyist Work in the Trade Unions has been added to the AL Collective web site. "Trotskyist Work in the Trade Unions", written by Chris Knox appeared in serialized form in Worker's Vanguard numbers 25-28 (20 July 1973 - 14 Sept 1973). Chris Knox was a member of the Spartacist League's Political Bureau and was the SL's Trade Union Director during the 1970's. The document presents a critical appraisal of the trade union work of the Trotksyist movement from the 1930's through the 1950's. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[May. 12th, 2005|08:51 am] |
|
A significant portion of the book Two, Three, Many Parties of a New Type? Against the Ultra-Left Line ( http://struggle.net/ALC/TwoThreeContents.htm ) is now available online. This book was originally published by the Proletarian Unity League, which has since fused with Freedom Road Socialist Organization (FRSO) http://freedomroad.org/ . FRSO has expressed the intention of providing an online version of this book on their website, but has not yet been able to do so. The present online version (not fully complete) was prepared by the AL Collective ( http://struggle.net/ALC/ ). The AL Collective has not taken a position on the content of this work, but has prepared the online version as a service to those wishing to study polemics related to the building of a revolutionary party. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Mar. 21st, 2005|12:12 pm] |
The following is a section from the book "Two, Three, Many Parties of a New Type? Against the Ultra-Left Line".
I chose this particular section to post in order to counter the impression that is given by David Ewing in a post on the POF-200 list (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pof-200/message/751).
David's post gives the (mis)impression that the book "Two, Three, Many Parties ..." advocates a liquidation of theoretical struggle in favor of "action". I think the section below provides a compelling refutation of that supposition.
Apart from the immediate interest I have in the section below, I also believe it helps to clarify that ultra-leftism can take, and often has taken, the form of worship of "actions", "deeds" etc. with a corresponding belittling of theory as "bookworship".
------------------------------------------
H. The Liquidation of Theory—From the "Left" or...
"To hell with this petty sectarian wrangling, let's build the Fightback!"
If the main danger does in fact come from the "Left," then we can expect that it has sought to hide the true features of "Leftism." We have to examine critically the accepted definitions of "left" opportunism with the knowledge that it is the "Left" trend which has won them broad acceptance. The most widely accepted differentiation between the "Left" and the Right falls into this category. Following these definitions, right opportunism liquidates theory in favor of "practice, practice, practice" while "left" opportunism liquidates practice in favor of bookworship. The communist movement owes these distinctions to groups like the Revolutionary Union (RCP), the Black Workers Congress, and the Communist League (CLP), and they constitute an apology for "left" adventurism and "left" sectarianism. Along with the charge that the "Right trend" ignores party-building and concentrates instead on "building the mass movement," the downplaying of the need for revolutionary theory frequently carries the main weight of the argument for Right opportunism as the chief danger.
This explanation of Rightism and ultra-leftism gives no specific ideological or political content to either deviation. Instead it defines each in essentially philosophical terms, as they relate to the dialectical union of theory and practice. According to this formula, the Weather Underground Organization and the IWW, say, are Right because they overemphasize action and practical experience, while the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee is "Left" because it mainly publishes articles, divorcing its social-democratic theory from social-democratic practice. While too exclusive an emphasis on one form of activity indicates the presence of a deviation, forms of activity in themselves do not define deviations. The "Left" deviation unites "left" opportunist theory with "left" opportunist practice. The Right deviation unites its Right theory with its Right practice. The real problem with the main trend in our movement is not that it has given too much emphasis to practice, but rather that its practice is incorrect. Correspondingly, the real problem with the main trend in our movement is not that it has downplayed theory, but rather that it has promoted incorrect theories. An overemphasis on some narrow forms of practice and a neglect of our theoretical tasks does characterize the main trend. But those problems result from a deviation; they do not define one.
Now it is perfectly true that many individuals and groups do not see the necessity of defending and developing in all directions the theory of historical materialism. Nor do they see the full importance of party-building work. It is also true that right opportunism has these features. But again, these features are not unique to Right opportunism. As a brief review of some assumptions and history of ultra-leftism will show, "left" opportunism shares them.
Lenin identified the ideological source of "left" deviations as anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism. Let us therefore consider a representative sampling of the thought of Mikhail Bakunin, one of the so-called founders of anarchism, on the relationship between theory and other forms of revolutionary activity.
<< He considered himself a revolutionist of the deed, 'not a philosopher and not an inventor of systems like Marx.' He refused to recognize the existence of any preconceived or preordained laws of history. He rejected the view that social change depends on the gradual unfolding of 'objective' historical conditions,... 'No theory, no ready-made system, no book that has ever been written will save the world...I cleave to no system. I am a true seeker.' By teaching the workers theories, he said, Marx would only succeed in stifling the revolutionary fervor every man already possesses-'the impulse to liberty, the passion for equality, the holy instinct of revolt.' Unlike Marx's 'scientific socialism,' his own socialism, Bakunin asserted, was 'purely instinctive.>> (From the preface by Sam Dolgoff, anarchist admirer of Bakunin, to Bakunin on Anarchy, p. xiv)
<< And what are we going to do? Teach the people. That would be stupid. The people know themselves, and better than we do, what they need...Our task is not to teach the people but to rouse them...Up to now 'they have always rebelled in vain because they have rebelled separately...[Shades of the RU's "linking up" struggles] we can render them invaluable assistance, we can give them what they have always lacked, what has been the principal cause of all their defeats. We can give them the unity of a universal movement by rallying their own forces.>> (quoted by Marx and Engels in MEL on Anarchism and Anarcho-syndicalism, p. 113)
<< We have confidence only in those who reveal by deeds their devotion to the revolution, without fear of torture and dungeons, and we disavow every word which is not directly followed by a deed. We don't require purposeless propaganda any more; we need no propaganda which does not fix with definiteness the hour and the place where it will realize the purpose of the revolution.... All babblers who will not understand this will be brought to silence by force....
<< The idea has value for us only in so far as it serves the great work of universal and total destruction. A revolutionist who studies revolution only in books will never be worth anything...Without taking any thought of our lives, without shrinking from any threat, any hindrance, or any danger, we must break into the life of the people with a series of bold, yes, audacious undertakings, and to instil them with a belief in their own strength, arouse them, unite them, and lead them to the triumph of their own affairs.>> (From Principles of Revolution)
If revisionism and anarchism share a disdain for theory, what distinguishes "Left in form. Right in essence," from Right in form, Right in essence?
Revisionism puts the task of "making" revolution in the hands of the objective factor-economic crisis, the "tyranny of monopoly," etc. It claims that these factors will push the masses inexorably toward socialist revolution, as they see it. Therefore the revisionists and other reformists place primary emphasis on involving the masses in the reform struggle, at whatever level the masses spontaneously express readiness for, and generally oppose leading revolutionary struggles as unnecessarily divisive. In their view, once the masses are in motion, the development of objective factors, the intensification of basic contradictions, etc., will propel them towards the socialist goal.
<< The struggle for socialism-the ultimate aim-is inherent in the struggle against the main opponent of that goal-monopoly capital. Every gain wrested from monopoly capital, small or large, strengthens the forces of socialism. Indeed, the basic forces in the anti-monopoly coalition also constitute the basic forces for the achievement of socialism...We are convinced of the fundamental unity of the struggle for reforms and the struggle for socialism...Thus the struggle for revolution is the logical continuation of the struggle for a better life...Through immediate struggle workers organize and learn the need to battle further. They learn who the enemy is and how to fight ultimately to the socialist revolution. >> (New Program of the Communist Party U.S.A., 1970, pp. 83, 88, and 89)
To hear the revisionists tell it, everything comes to him who waits. All this shall be yours without the conscious intervention of any Marxist-Leninist party. If socialist struggle grows inevitably out of reform struggle as its "logical continuation," if no qualitative distinction exists between the two, then revolutionary theory and the revolutionary party become superfluous. The reformists can conduct the reform struggle; they even have the appropriate reformist theories to guide their reformist practice. And since they bring the masses to socialism merely by engaging them in the fight for reforms, the task devolves upon Marxist-Leninists to transform themselves into better reformists, to build a better reform struggle.
"Leftists," on the other hand, have little time for objective factors. If they consider them at all, they regard them as having sufficiently matured for the launching of wide-scale revolutionary battles, or as preventing any action whatsoever (this last is a specific Trotskyist variant). Instead, "Leftists" gaze longingly on the masses as a powderkeg awaiting a sudden spark. They dismiss the current level of mass consciousness, whether that of the advanced, the intermediate or the backward, as the product of bad leadership (the so-called "crisis of revolutionary leadership" particularly obsesses the Trotskyist movement). Above all, they believe in the mobilizing power of action: for the anarcho-syndicalists, this will take the form of diffuse organizations dedicated to direct action in every situation, to no compromises, and no retreats; for the anarchists, the search after that magic form of activity which will unleash "the evil passions" (Bakunin, quoted by Marx) of the masses (bombs, assassinations, militant demonstrations, or what the U.S. New Left and New Left-derived groups-RSB take note-called "actions"). Theoretical struggle obviously has very little place in this design, and the Party itself ultimately has next to none, despite all the protestations to the contrary. For "leftists," the situation calls for a relatively small band of determined revolutionaries who will brook no compromise with the patient accumulation of forces, the organization of the masses, or the analysis of particular situations, all so many obstacles to "getting on with it." The situation does not call for a strong Communist Party. Therefore they set about less to "build the mass movement" than to unchain it.
The history of the U.S. workers' and communist movements contains ample evidence of the "Leftist" liquidation of both theoretical struggle and the strengthening of the revolutionary party in the name of building the revolutionary mass movement. To achieve a comprehensive conception of "leftism," we need to view it historically, both nationally and internationally. Most revolutionaries today tend to follow this advice in regard to revisionism, but do not apply it to the study of "Leftism." We will therefore consider a "left" trend from a much earlier period of U.S. history, namely, the IWW.
Perhaps the most important ideological struggle within the IWW occurred in its early years, a struggle which peaked in 1908 with the expulsion of De Leon and the SLP. (The SLP went on to organize another IWW based in Detroit.) De Leon himself had strong syndicalist tendencies, coupled with familiar forms of social-democratic ideology in a peculiar "unity of opposites" (For example, he repudiated all reforms as "banana peels" thrown under the feet of the proletariat, yet advocated evolutionary change in which the ballot box and the big industrial union would usher in socialism. He also opposed violence, most immigrants, and the struggle against Jim Crow). In the 1908 debate, however, De Leon argued for political action, which he understood narrowly as electoral politics, while the direct actionists opposed it. Philip Foner writes,
<< By the spring of 1908, this interminable squabble had thoroughly disgusted rank and file elements in the IWW...who felt that the endless controversy over De Leonism was interfering with the all-important task of organizing the unorganized. 'Why doesn't the IWW grow faster?1 these elements asked, and they answered: Too many political squabbles fill the Bulletin, taking away valuable space from organizational activity. The Bulletin should not be used for anything but the propaganda for industrial unionism.' 'Clear the decks for more constructive work...' went the appeal from the Northwest, 'for more organizing...' The Bulletin rebuked Heslewood (a Wobbly from the Northwest who wrote, 'Tell them there is too much to do to bother with such small matters, and if they don't like it go to hell.') and others like him for dismissing significant theoretical questions so casually...At the same time, the Bulletin conceded that its critics were justified in their major complaint, and that it was time to concentrate on organizing the unorganized. >> (History of the Labor Movement in the United States, Vol. IV, pp. 106-7)
Throughout its history, the IWW largely dismissed the importance of theory in favor of direct action, a revolutionary syndicalist notion of class-consciousness, and the economic struggle. In the terms of our present-day discussion, it submerged the "conscious element" in the revolutionary mass movement.
In the twenty-year history of the U.S. anti-revisionist movement, the downplaying of theory and of propaganda activities connected to party-building has had far more in common with the anarcho-syndicalism of the IWW than it does with the revisionism of the CPUSA. For example, the RU's and the OL's disregard for theoretical training and their calls to "build the struggle, consciousness and revolutionary unity of the working class" or to "build the Fightback" stems less from a disdain for theory per se than from a worship of action, and a belief in the omnipotence of subjective activity. To take a final, rather infamous case from an earlier phase of the anti-revisionist movement, let us consider the Progressive Labor-inspired slogan, "Less talk, more action-fight racism." In other words, don't analyze the character of national oppression and white supremacy (in particular, don't quarrel with PL's view of nationalism), don't investigate why and how democratic rights must and can be won. Instead, let's get it on, let's take an action, which will do far more convincing than words and pamphlets ever could. Can any more succinct (and almost characteristically American) summary of "Left" frenzy be imagined? And what does the slogan oppose to theory and to the organization of the conscious element, if not "building the mass movement"?
*For more on the "left" economist opposition to busing, see our pamphlet, "It's Not the Bus": Busing and the Democratic Struggle in Boston, 1974-75, particularly pp. 1-5. |
|
|
| What do Marxists need to say in a capitalist court? |
[Sep. 22nd, 2004|10:20 pm] |
DJ: "i hadn't read this section obviously! while there is a lot of talk about workers' defense squads--i still stand by my point, because Cannon fails to explain the reality of capitalist violence and the need for working class self defense on every level except of fascism."
Did Cannon need to explain things on every level? Why?
DJ: "in all of that testimony, only twice does cannon advocate forming defense guards explicity:"
How many times should Cannon have explicitly advocated forming defense guards?
Cannon: "It is a life and death question for the workers that they organise themselves to prevent fascism, the fascist gangs, from breaking up the workers’ organisations, and not to wait until it is too late."
"When we see fascist bands organising with the aim of breaking up the labor movement, we are going to advise the workers, before it is too late, to organise workers’ defence guards and not permit the fascist hoodlums to break up workers’ organisations and meetings."
DJ: Is fascism the only reason to organize defense guards?
No. You missed:
Q: Will you tell the court and jury the position of the Socialist Workers Party on workers’ defence guards?
A: Well the party is in favor of the workers organising defence guards wherever their organisations or their meetings are threatened by hoodlum violence. The workers should not permit their meetings to be broken up or their halls to be wrecked, or their work to be interfered with, by Ku Klux Klanners or Silver Shirts or fascists of any type, or hoodlums, or reactionary thugs, but should organise a guard and protect themselves where it is necessary.
Note "wherever their organizations or their meetings are threatened by hoodlum violence". Fascists are mentioned as an example, but he does not restrict himself to fascists. What does hoodlum violence mean? To borrow an expression from Trotsky, "hoodlum" and "thug" are algebraic term. They don't have one specific meaning, such as "fascist", but apply to all groups that might employ violence against the workers movement. They could mean fascists, they could mean police, they could mean Stalinists, etc. The point is, the workers "should organize a guard and protect themselves where it is necessary. "a gang of Stalinist hoodlums" "fascist movements, which began with gangs of hoodlums"
DJ: "What of the police? In response to questions about the Battle of Deputy Run, he doesn't advocate that the workers should form defense squads to defend themselves from the police."
No, Cannon doesn't explicitly mention police. He uses the algebraic terms hoodlums and thugs. Should he have mentioned police explicity? Why? At this point, I think it is appropriate to recall what Cannon had to say about this.
Q: Well, what kind of violence do you mean?
A: This was what the deputies were organised for, to drive the workers off the street. They got a dose of their own medicine. I think the workers have a right to defend themselves. If that is treason, you can make the most of it.[19]
A: With this testimony we said all that needs to be said on the question of violence in the daily class struggle, as in the previously quoted testimony we said enough about violence and the transition to socialism. If this method of presentation did not help the prosecutor, we can say again: That was not our duty. If it is objected that even in this example of the Minneapolis strike, dealing with an indubitable case of working-class violence, we insisted on its defensive nature, we can only reply: In real life the difference between careful defensive formulation and light-minded “calls for action” is usually, in the end result, the difference between real action and mere talk about it.
Was it necessary to speak about workers defending themselves against the police in court? Cannon again:
Cannon: That is all any Marxist really needs to say on the question of violence in a capitalist court or at a propaganda meeting for workers at the present time in the United States. It tells the truth, conforms to principle, and protects the legal position of the party. The workers will understand it too. To quote Shakespeare’s Mercutio: “’Tis not so deep as a well nor so wide as a church-door; but ’tis enough, ’twill serve”.
DJ: further evidence:
"Q: Will you tell the court and jury the position of the Socialist Workers Party on workers’ defence guards?
A: Well the party is in favor of the workers organising defence guards wherever their organisations or their meetings are threatened by hoodlum violence DJ: [not anywhere else?!]."
If the workers are not facing any real threat, then they will be unlikely to form defense guards. What would be the point of raising such a call in a vacuum?
"Q: So that it is a good idea for your ultimate purposes to have union defence guards right now?
A: It is a good idea, if you can organise them. But you cannot organise workers’ defence guards merely because you want them—only when there is a pressing need for them that is obvious to the workers, regardless of their agreement with our ideas."
DJ: [This is true to some extent, but isn't this objectivism--worsphipping spontaniety? Isn't it the case that it is in the workers' objective interests to form defense guards now but they're not conscious of it and it is the task of communists to fight that backward consciousness, not cover for it by saying maybe there isn't a "pressing need" in all cases?]
I don't think is worshipping sponteneity. It's in the workers objective interest to form Soviets now, but they're not conscious of it. But raising the slogan of Soviets as an *immediate* slogan today, would just be sloganeering -- raising slogans without any regard for the real political situation. Do you disagree?
DJ: cannon in his defense says: "The court record bulges with proof that we had indeed advocated the organisation of workers defense guards."
It does bulge with him being asked questions about workers defense guards, but how does he advocate them? He advocates them as a response to fascism.
Cannon mentions fascism frequently, but he doesn't restrict the need for defense guards only as a response to fascism.
DJ: He's asked if he wants to build a workes' army (from the defense guards), and he says: "You can’t by mere program build up a workers’ army to confront such a thing [what's the point of saying this?]. The force of the workers will grow up out of their unions, out of their workers’ defence guards, out of the rank and file of the soldiers and the farmers who are in the armed forces, who will not support the slaveholders’ rebellion. We will not be without resources if we have a majority of the people." this answer seems evasive and defensive.
Revolutionaries are not trying to hoodwink the workers. The bosses want the backward workers to believe that Communists have an agenda which does *not* flow from the interests of the workers. It is important to counteract this red-baiting. Cannon here is saying that, the revolutionaries are not pushing their subjective wishes on the working class, but rather calling for actions which are appropriate for the situation.
DJ: to summarize:
munis aruged that Cannon presents the idea that the bourgeoisie will only employ violence after the majority accept socialism,
Munis is wrong on this score. Cannon does not present the idea that the bourgeoisie will only employ violence after the
majority accept socialism.
DJ: and that this theory lulls the workers to sleep, and that in fact, the bourgeoisie already employs daily violence against the workers and defense guards are needed now and an army is needed now. The masses should respond to the organized violence of the capitalists with their own organized violence.
munis was slightly incorrect in that Cannon notes that the capitalists will employ the forces of fascism before a majority accepts socialism, but Cannon does imply that the workers will only form defense squads in response to fascism or the reactionary minority against the majority [at least black self defense squads against police violence, not fascism, have proven him wrong].
Cannon never said that workers defense squads will *only* be developed in response to fascism. Once again:
A: This was what the deputies were organised for, to drive the workers off the street. They got a dose of their own medicine. I think the workers have a right to defend themselves. If that is treason, you can make the most of it.[19]
Yes, he didn't specifically refer to "workers defense squads". But he's talking about workers defending themselves. Black self defense squads against police violence don't prove Cannon wrong, they confirm Cannon.
DJ: By only explicitly advocating defense squads in response to fascists and Stalinists but not police and the capitalist system as it is now, Cannon is abdictating the struggle for class consciousness and organization.
Once again,
Cannon: That is all any Marxist really needs to say on the question of violence in a capitalist court or at a propaganda meeting for workers at the present time in the United States. It tells the truth, conforms to principle, and protects the legal position of the party. The workers will understand it too. To quote Shakespeare’s Mercutio: “’Tis not so deep as a well nor so wide as a church-door; but ’tis enough, ’twill serve”.
Do you really disagree? |
|
|
| Workers self-defense |
[Sep. 21st, 2004|12:32 pm] |
Goldman stated:
The evidence will further show as Mr. Anderson himself indicated, that we prefer a peaceful transition to socialism; but that we analyse all the conditions in society, we analyse history, and on the basis of this analysis we predict, we predict that after the majority of the people in the United States will want socialism established, that the minority, organised by the financiers and by capitalists, will use violence to prevent the establishment of socialism. That is what we predict
*****
Munis criticized the above with the following:
Why not ask forgiveness, besides, for seeing ourselves painfully obliged to employ violence against the bourgeoisie? Even neutralising oneself to a mere diviner, the prediction is completely false. It is not necessary to poke into the future to discover the violence of the reactionary minority throughout society. The accusation lends itself ideally to launching a thorough attack against capitalist society and to show the American workers that the so-called American democracy is no more than a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Among the workers who have read or listened to Cannon and Goldman, there must be many who have experienced the daily violence of bourgeois society, during strikes, demonstrations, meetings; all of them without exception experience the normal violence of either working for a wage established in the labor market or of perishing; a violence much more lamentable is the imposition of the war; educative violence; informative violence imposed by the newspaper trusts. Far from receiving a notion of the environment in which they live and far from preparing their spirit for rebellion against this environment, the workers watching the trial have been pacified in respect to the present. Only in the future will the bourgeoisie employ violence.
Besides, it is completely inexact and contributes toward putting the workers to sleep, to tell them that the bourgeoisie will employ violence “after the majority of the people in the United States will want socialism established”. It uses violence already, always employs it, the bourgeoisie knows of no other method of government but violence. The workers and farmers should respond to the daily violence of the bourgeoisie with majority and organised violence of the poor masses.
*****
Cannon responded:
But neither did we represent ourselves as pacifists or sow pacifist illusions. Far from it. We elucidated the question of violence and the socialist transformation of society in the same way that our great teachers, who organised a revolution, elucidated it. More than that, we gave a sufficiently frank and precise justification of the defensive violence of the workers in the daily class struggle this side of the revolution. The court record bulges with proof that we had indeed advocated the organisation of workers defense guards. The testimony goes further—and this is a not unimportant detail—and reveals that we translated the word into deed and took a hand in the actual organisation and activities of defense guards and picket squads when concrete circumstance made such actions possible and feasible.
We are not pacifists. The world knows, and the prosecutor in our trial had no difficulty in proving once again, that the great Minneapolis strikes, led by the Trotskyists, were not free from violence and that the workers were not the only victims. We did not disavow the record or apologise for it When the prosecutor, referring to one of the strike battles in which the workers came out victorious, demanded: “Is that Trotskyism demonstrating itself?” he received a forthright answer. The court record states:
[Q: In October 1938, you made a speech on “Ten Years of the Fight to Build a Revolutionary Party in the United States” in which you said this: “In the great Minneapolis strikes ‘Trotskyism’ revealed itself in the most dramatic fashion, as no bookman’s dogma but a guide to the most militant and most effective action.” What did you mean by that?
A: That in the strike in Minneapolis in 1934 some comrades affiliated with our party played a leading influence, or a part of the leading influence, and demonstrated in practice that the principles of Trotskyism are the best and most effective principles, and can be applied most effectively in the interests of the workers.
Q: Would this be a demonstration of this principle? In The Militant of July 12, 1941, under the heading, “Local 544-C10’s Proud and Stainless Record” this was said: “During the first drivers’ strike of May 1934, the employers threw against the embattled transport workers the entire police force of Minneapolis and 5,000 special deputies armed with clubs and guns. In a historic battle-the ‘Battle of Bulls Run’-the drivers fought the police and deputies to a standstill and chased them off the streets of the city.” Is that Trotskyism demonstrating itself?] -- inserted by ulyanovist
A: Well, I can give you my own opinion, that I am mighty proud of the fact that Trotskyism had some part in influencing the workers to protect themselves against that sort of violence.
Q: Well, what kind of violence do you mean?
A: This was what the deputies were organised for, to drive the workers off the street. They got a dose of their own medicine. I think the workers have a right to defend themselves. If that is treason, you can make the most of it.[19]
With this testimony we said all that needs to be said on the question of violence in the daily class struggle, as in the previously quoted testimony we said enough about violence and the transition to socialism. If this method of presentation did not help the prosecutor, we can say again: That was not our duty. If it is objected that even in this example of the Minneapolis strike, dealing with an indubitable case of working-class violence, we insisted on its defensive nature, we can only reply: In real life the difference between careful defensive formulation and light-minded “calls for action” is usually, in the end result, the difference between real action and mere talk about it.
*****
In Cannon's response he notes: "the prosecutor in our trial had no difficulty in proving once again, that the great Minneapolis strikes, led by the Trotskyists, were not free from violence and that the workers were not the only victims." Below is Carl Skoglund description of the Battle of Deputies Run:
Early one morning in May 1934 the strike started. The workers responded practically 100 per cent. The employers were caught by surprise at the response of the workers. The methods used by them were nothing new -- the use of police and deputising of every reactionary man equipping them with weapons to beat and arrest the pickets. During the first days dozens of strikers had been arrested and beaten up in a most brutal manner. Sixteen women had been beaten unconscious after being lured into an alley where an attempt was being made to deliver newspapers.
We organised rehearsals, padded our caps with cardboard and proceeded to hit one another on the top of the head. If it hurt the first time some more padding was applied until the blows became painless.
The daily newspapers carried screaming articles warning the public not to appear in the market area on such and such a day as violence was prevalent and some innocent bystander might get hurt.
Two days after the women were beaten up an attempt was made to open the market with scabs. The morning when this happened all radio stations had their speaking equipment on the roof of buildings to broadcast the intended movement of trucks. Instead they had to broadcast the Battle of Deputy Run.
The story of Deputy Run is known all over the country, in fact all over the world. It meant that 1500 deputies and 500 uniformed police, under the pressure of the strikers' superior force, had to run for their lives. One deputy, a prominent open-shop employer, fell dead on the battlefield. Another died a few days later. Many others went hospitals.
Governor Floyd B Olsen then intervened, demanding a 48-hour truce, and during this time no trucks were to move. Both sides accepted this truce proposal. During these 48 hours we were in continual negotiations; union representatives in one room and employers in another, and the governor as a go-between.
After many hours of negotiations, a contract with recognition of the union and a small increase in wages was presented. The big question at issue at that time was our right to represent truck drivers, helpers, and inside workers working for each employer. This issue was scuttled, and finally a paragraph, very ambiguous in wording, was accepted with the guarantee of the governor that it meant the right of the union to deal for all the mentioned classifications. On this basis the strike ended after 11 days. |
|
|
| Unpublished draft of leaflet for June 5, 2004 |
[Sep. 13th, 2004|09:03 pm] |
What We Should Be Hearing From the Speakers’ Platform (but we won’t)!
What we will be hearing from the speaker’s platform is what a great job the anti-war movement is doing. We will hear how the anti-war demonstrations are larger today than they were after the first year of the Vietnam War. We will hear the “leaders” of the anti-war movement congratulate themselves on the great job they are doing.
We should be hearing clear arguments for why the anti-war movement should work to scuttle the US occupation of Iraq. Both Bush and Kerry aim to “pacify” Iraq. That is, they aim to crush armed resistance to the occupation, and establish a regime friendly to US business.
We should be hearing arguments for why the anti-war movement should make its appeals, not to Bush, not to Kerry, not to congress, not to the UN, not to the ruling class. We should hear why the anti-war movement should make its appeals to the working people who constitute the vast majority of humanity, and to those GIs who identify with working people and who have the power to put a wrench in the subjugation of Iraq.
We should be hearing calls for GIs in Iraq to protest against the occupation. Explanations are needed of why a demonstration of even few dozen active duty US soldiers in Iraq, if it became widely known, would have far more impact than a protest by thousands of civilians in front of the White House.
We will hear a lot about the crimes of Bush and his croneys, but we should be hearing the truth about the Democratic Party politicians as well. We should be hearing a recitation of the aggressions committed by the Democrat Party. We should hear of the voting records of the Democratic Party politicians. We should be reminded of their stated positions. We should be hearing an explanation of how both the Republican and Democratic Parties represent the interests of the ruling capitalist class. That is the truth, and we should be hearing it.
We should be hearing calls for a one day general strike in protest against the occupation of Iraq. We need a general strike which is not limited to organized labor, but includes the vast majority of working people. We should be hearing of examples of such strikes, which extended far beyond organized labor, and which raised political demands first and foremost. We should be hearing about the example of the general strike in France in 1968.
We should be hearing calls for unions to hot-cargo military goods. We should be hearing the stories of those who have used this tactic, such as the British railway workers who refused to move military goods at the start of the war.
Workers World Party (WWP), the premier player in the ANSWER organization, has a number of supporters in labor unions. We should be hearing how these supporters of WWP have introduced motions in their unions in support of a one day general strike in protest against the occupation of Iraq. Unfortunately, we won’t hear this, because it isn’t true.
We should be hearing all these things from the speakers’ platform, and much more! Why aren’t we? If the ANSWER leadership cannot give voice to these issues, they should let others who can. A democratic anti-war movement would give time for such voices. If you think we should be hearing these things from the speakers’ platform, let ANSWER know! (And let us know too!) |
|
|
| Policy for Comments in my LJ |
[Sep. 13th, 2004|10:05 am] |
|
I do not support any military actions by the US ruling class. Furthermore, I do not want my lj to be filled with arguments in favor of US military actions. If you support such actions, and wish to debate with me, posts your opinions in your own lj, and leave a one-line comment in mine, saying something like, "I disagree, please see my lj entry of xx-xx-xx". I may or may not choose to respond. If you post lengthy hostile comments, or comments apologizing for the crimes of the US ruling class, they will be removed. This isn't an issue of your free speech. No-one if preventing you from expressing your views. It is a question of my free speech, and my right to converse with others without being bombarded with unwelcome noise. |
|
|
| Excerps of Cannon's Testimony (Dictatorship of the Proletariat and the Need for Armed Struggle |
[Sep. 8th, 2004|01:29 pm] |
Q: Define the term “dictatorship of the proletariat”
A: “Dictatorship of the proletariat” is Marx’s definition of the state that will be in operation in the transition period between the overthrow of capitalism and the institution of the socialist society. That is, the workers’ and farmers’ government will, in the opinion of the Marxists, be a class dictatorship in that it will frankly represent the workers and farmers, and will not even pretend to represent the economic interests of the capitalists.
Q: What form will that dictatorship take with reference to the capitalist class?
A: Well, you mean, what would be the attitude toward the dispossessed capitalists?
Q: Yes, how will it exercise its dictatorship over the capitalist class?
A: That depends on a number of conditions. There is no fixed rule. It depends on a number of conditions, the most important of which is the wealth and resources of the given country where the revolution takes place; and the second is the attitude of the capitalist class, whether the capitalists reconcile themselves to the new regime or take up an armed struggle against it.
Q: What is the difference between the scientific definition of dictatorship of the proletariat and the ordinary use of the word dictatorship?
A: Well, the popular impression of dictatorship is a one-man rule, an absolutism. I think that is the popular understanding of the word dictatorship. This is not contemplated at all in the Marxian term dictatorship of the proletariat. This means the dictatorship of a class.
Q: And how will the dictatorship of the proletariat operate insofar as democratic rights are concerned?
A: We think it will be the most democratic government from the point of view of the great masses of the people that has ever existed, far more democratic, in the real essence of the matter, than the present bourgeois democracy in the United States.
Q: What about freedom of speech and all the freedoms that we generally associate with democratic government?
A: I think in the United States you can say with absolute certainty that the freedoms of speech, press, assemblage, religion, will be written in the program of the victorious revolution.
Capitalists responsible for violence
Q: Now, what is the opinion of Marxists with reference to the change in the social order, as far as its being accompanied or not accompanied by violence?
A: It is the opinion of all Marxists that it will be accompanied by violence.
Q: Why?
A: That is based, like all Marxist doctrine, on a study of history, the historical experiences of mankind in the numerous changes of society from one form to another, the revolutions which accompanied it, and the resistance which the outlived classes invariably put up against the new order. Their attempt to defend themselves against the new order, or to suppress by violence the movement for the new order, has resulted in every important social transformation up to now being accompanied by violence.
Q: Who, in the opinion of Marxists, initiated that violence?
A: Always the ruling class; always the outlived class that doesn’t want to leave the stage when the time has come. They want to hang on to their privileges, to reinforce them by violent measures, against the rising majority and they run up against the mass violence of the new class, which history has ordained shall come to power.
Q: What is the opinion of Marxists, as far as winning a majority of the people to socialist ideas?
A: Yes, that certainly is the aim of the party. That is the aim of the Marxist movement, has been from its inception.
Marx said the social revolution of the proletariat—I think I can quote his exact words from memory—“is a movement of the immense majority in the interests of the immense majority”[2] He said this in distinguishing it from previous revolutions which had been made in the interest of minorities, as was the case in France in 1789.
Q: What would you say is the opinion of Marxists as far as the desirability of a peaceful transition is concerned?
A: The position of the Marxists is that the most economical and preferable, the most desirable method of social transformation, by all means, is to have it done peacefully.
Q: And in the opinion of the Marxists, is that absolutely excluded?
A: Well, I wouldn’t say absolutely excluded. We say that the lessons of history don’t show any important examples in favor of the idea so that you can count upon it.
Q: Can you give us examples in American history of a minority refusing to submit to a majority?
A: I can give you a very important one. The conception of the Marxists is that even if the transfer of political power from the capitalists to the proletariat is accomplished peacefully—then the minority, the exploiting capitalist class, will revolt against the new regime, no matter how legally it is established.
I can give you an example in American history. The American Civil War resulted from the fact that the Southern slaveholders couldn’t reconcile themselves to the legal parliamentary victory of Northern capitalism, the election of President Lincoln.
Q: Can you give us an example outside of America where a reactionary minority revolted against a majority in office?
A: Yes, in Spain—the coalition of workers’ and liberal parties in Spain got an absolute majority in the elections and established the People’s Front government. This government was no sooner installed than it was confronted with an armed rebellion, led by the reactionary capitalists of Spain.
Q: Then the theory of Marxists and the theory of the Socialist Workers Party, as far as violence is concerned, is a prediction based upon a study of history, is that right?
A: Well, that is part of it. It is a prediction that the outlived class, which is put in a minority by the revolutionary growth in the country, will try by violent means to hold on to its privileges against the will of the majority. That is what we predict.
Of course, we don’t limit ourselves simply to that prediction. We go further, and advise the workers to bear this in mind and prepare themselves not to permit the reactionary outlived minority to frustrate the will of the majority. |
|
|
| Sections from Cannon's Political Principles and Propaganda Methods |
[Sep. 6th, 2004|10:05 pm] |
The trial was by far our greatest propaganda success. Moreover, even those workers who disagree with our program, have approved and applauded our conduct in court as worthy of people who take their principles seriously. Such is the testimony of all comrades who have reported on the reaction of the workers to the trial. On a recent tour across the country from branch to branch of the party we heard the same unvarying report everywhere.
Naturally, our work in the trial was not perfect; we did only the best we could within the narrow limits prescribed by the court. More qualified people can quite easily point out things here and there which might have been done more cleverly. We can readily acknowledge the justice of such criticisms without thereby admitting any guilt on our part for socialism does not require that all be endowed with equal talent, but only that each give according to his ability. It is a different matter when Comrade Munis—and other critics of our policy—accuse us of misunderstanding our task and departing from Marxist principles in the trial. To them we are obliged to say firmly: No, the misunderstanding is all on your side. The correct understanding of our task in the courtroom and the sanction of the Marxist authorities, are on our side.
In undertaking to prove this contention we must begin with a brief analysis of a point overlooked by Munis as well as by the others: the social environment in which the trial was conducted. Our critics nowhere, by so much as a single word, refer to the objective situation in the United States; the political forms still prevailing here; the degree of political maturity—more properly, immaturity—of the American proletariat; the relation of class forces; the size and status of the party—in short to the specific peculiarities of our problem which should determine our method of approach to workers hearing us for the first time from the sounding board of the trial.
Our critics talk in terms of trials in general and principles in general, which, it would appear, are always to be formulated and explained to the workers in general in precisely the same way. We, on the contrary, dealt with a specific trial and attempted to explain ourselves to the workers as they are in the United States in the year 1941. Thus we clash with our critics at the very point of departure—the analysis, the method. Our answer to their criticism must take the same form.
We shall begin by first setting forth the concrete environmental circumstances in which our party functioned in the United States at the time of the trial and the specific tasks and propaganda techniques which, in our opinion, were thereby imposed. Then we shall proceed to submit our position, as well as that of our critics, to the criterion which must be decisive for all of us: the expressions of the Marxist teachers on the application of the points of principle under discussion.
2. The setting of the trial
The United States, where the trial took place, is by far the richest of all the capitalist nations, and because of that has been one of the few such nations still able to afford the luxury of bourgeois democratic forms in the epoch of the decline and decay of capitalism. Trade unions, which have been destroyed in one European country after another in the past decade, have flourished and more than doubled their membership in the United States in the same period—partly with governmental encouragement. Free speech and free press, obliterated or reduced to travesty in other lands, have been virtually unrestricted here. Elections have been held under the normal bourgeois democratic forms, traditional in America for more than a century, and the great mass of the workers have freely participated in them. The riches and favoured position of bourgeois America have also enabled it, despite the devastating crisis, to maintain living standards of the workers far above those of any other country.
These objective circumstances have unfailingly affected both the mentality of the workers and the fortunes of the revolutionary political movement. The revolutionary implications of the shaken economy, propped up for the time being by the armaments boom, are as yet but slightly reflected in the consciousness of the workers. In their outlook they are far from revolutionary. “Politics” to them means voting for one or another of the big capitalist parties. The simple fact that the organised labor movement has not yet resorted to independent political action, even on a reformist basis, but remains in its political activity an appendage of the Roosevelt political party—this simple fact in itself shows conclusively that the American workers have not yet begun to translate their fierce militancy in the field of economic strikes, directed at individual employers, into terms of independent politics directed against the employers as a class. As for the Marxist party, with its program of the revolutionary transformation of society, it has been able in such an environment to attract the attention of only a few thousands to its message and to recruit into its ranks a still smaller number of the most advanced and class-conscious militants.
The forty million American workers, casting an almost solid labor vote for Roosevelt, remain in the first primitive stages of class political development; they are soaked through and through with bourgeois democratic illusions; they are discontented to a certain extent and partly union-conscious but not class-conscious; they have a fetishistic respect for the federal government as the government of all the people and hope to better conditions for themselves by voting for “friendly” bourgeois politicians; they hate and fear fascism which they identify with Hitler; they understand socialism and communism only in the version disseminated by the bourgeois press and are either hostile or indifferent to it; the real meaning of socialism, the revolutionary Marxist meaning, is unknown to the great majority.
Such were the general external factors, and such was the mentality of the American workers, confronting our party at the time of the Minneapolis trial, October, November, and December 1941. What specific tasks, what propaganda techniques were imposed thereby? It seems to us that the answers are obvious. The task was to get a hearing for our ideas from the forum of the trial. These ideas had to be simplified as much as possible, made plausible to the workers and illustrated whenever possible by familiar examples from American history. We had to address ourselves to the workers not in general, not as an abstraction, but as they exist in reality in the United States in the year 1941. We had to recognise that the forms of democracy and the legality of the party greatly facilitate this propaganda work and must not be lightly disregarded. It was not our duty to facilitate the work of the prosecuting attorney but to make it more difficult insofar as this could be done without renouncing any principle. Such are the considerations which guided us in our work at the trial.
Our critics do not refer to them; evidently they did not even think of them. Our method is a far different method than the simple repetition of formulas about “action” which requires nothing but a good memory. More precisely, it is the Marxist method of applying principles to concrete circumstances in order to popularise a party and create a movement which can lead to action in the real life of the class struggle, not on the printed page where the “action” of sectarian formalists always begins and ends.
The accomplishment of our main task—to use the courtroom as a forum from which to speak to those American workers, as they are, who might hear us for the first time—required, in our judgment not a call to arms but patient, schoolroom explanations of our doctrines and ourselves, and a quiet tone. Therefore we adapted, not our principles but our propaganda technique to the occasion as we understood it. The style of propaganda and the tone which we employed are not recommended as a universally applicable formula. Our propaganda style and tone were simply designed to serve the requirements, in the given situation, of a small minority Marxist party in a big country of democratic capitalism in the general historic circumstances above described.
Comrade Munis accuses us of popularising our propaganda and defending ourselves (and the party’s legality) at the expense of principle. Our statements at the trial are held to be “decidedly opportunist”; to “border on a renunciation of principles”. Following such and similar assertions we are informed that “it is a very grave error to substitute manoeuvers for principles”. This maxim—not entirely original in our movement—can be accepted with these provisos: that the maxim be understood; that a distinction be made between “manoeuvers” which serve principle and those which contradict it; and that it be applied to actual and not imaginary sacrifices of principle. This is the gist of the whole matter. The Marxist teachers did not change their principles, but in explaining them they frequently changed their manner and tone and points of emphasis to suit the occasion. We had a right and a duty to do the same. An examination of our testimony from this standpoint will bring different conclusions from those which our critics have so hastily drawn.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/cannon/works/1941/socialism/ch05.htm |
|
|
| A leaflet from Feb 15, 2003 (NYC) |
[Sep. 3rd, 2004|11:58 pm] |
THE ROAD AWAY FROM WAR
Who can prevent a war? Who can end a war? In the most direct sense, only those who have direct control over weapons, for the most part soldiers, may determine whether those weapons are loaded, aimed and fired. Thus it is primarily soldiers who have direct control over whether war is waged or not. To the extent that soldiers obey the commands of the government, the government has control over war. But this control, though usually firmly in the hands of the government, is nevertheless indirect.
The morale of an armed force, its discipline, its political moods, not only affect its direct actions, i.e. its obedience or disobedience to the government. The morale of armed forces also affects the thinking and mood of the government which commands it. The government must always consider the effect of its commands, orders and instructions on the obedience and discipline of the armed forces. The greater the anti-war feelings among the soldiers, the greater the belief that the war it is being asked to wage is unjust, the greater the concern must the government have for possible mutinies, insubordination and insurrection. Consequently, the greater the pressure upon the government to avoid war, to obtain peace, to preserve the discipline within the armed forces.
What effect can mass rallies have upon decisions to go to war, or to prolong a war? To the extent that such rallies encourage, either directly or indirectly a spirit of revolt within the armed forces, to that extent they bring foreboding and fear to the government, and promote the cause of peace. Such rallies may encourage this spirit of revolt directly through appeals to the soldiers, or indirectly through appeals to the masses of working people, with whom the soldiers have ties of kinship and culture. But it is an illusion that mass rallies can have an effect upon the war policies of a government if they fail to encourage a spirit of revolt. No government preparing to bomb, burn, and annihilate innocent civilians and children will be morally swayed by the pleas of demonstrations and rallies. That is, unless those pleas might ultimately find their answer in the direct actions of the armed forces. The key to peace lies in encouraging the spirit of rebellion among the rank and file soldiers. The anti-war movement can encourage rebellion in the military, and show the soldiers that disobedience to the government will not be seen by anti-war masses as treason against America, but rather a necessary action for the benefit of both Americans and Iraqis as well as the rest of the world that suffers under US domination.
The recent anti-war demonstration in Washington numbered in the hundreds of thousands. We ask the reader to imagine the effect of those hundreds of thousands carrying say 10,000 banners with the slogan “Soldiers! Turn Your Guns Around!”. The exact slogan is not important. What we are asking the reader to imagine is the effect of directing an appeal to the soldiers rather than to the government, an appeal that questions the moral legitimacy of the government and its war, and that encourages a spirit of rebellion among the ranks of the armed forces.
Rebellion within the ranks of the armed forces is not an unheard of occurrence. Rebellion was a key factor in the decision of the US government to cut its losses and pull out of Viet Nam. The US had the manpower and materiel to continue the war for many more years. Yet widespread insubordination within the army, which included “fraggings”, i.e. the tossing of hand grenades into the tents of officers, posed the threat of the government losing all control over the army. The so-called Vietnam syndrome stayed the hand of the US government for many years.
The US government has sought to immunize itself from the Vietnam syndrome through an all volunteer army, high-tech weaponry and a policy of using overwhelming firepower to minimize US casualties. But these factors, though significant, do not constitute the only, or always even the most important factors. Highly significant are the beliefs and political outlook of the fighting soldiers.
An all volunteer army is immune to some of the coercion and resentment involved in a draft. But many “volunteers” are subject to an economic draft. They are motivated to enlist in order to acquire job skills or a ticket to college. Although they join the army believing in “defense” of their country, this conviction is sometimes quite thin. They have not joined the army to slaughter Iraqis. The inevitable complicity in atrocities has the potential to infect the army with a spirit of rebellion.
Casualty rates have an undeniable effect upon morale and discipline, but many armed forces, convinced in their hearts of the justice and righteousness of their cause, have retained their discipline even while sustaining very high casualty rates. On the other hand, soldiers who do not believe in the war they are being asked to fight may lose their fighting spirit even when their casualty rates are much lower. The Viet Nam conflict illustrated both aspects of this lesson, but the lesson is more general. The belief or disbelief in the justice of one’s cause is a factor of prime importance. Overwhelming firepower alters the equation, but does not eliminate the issue.
Overwhelming firepower may reduce the morale eroding effects of casualties on ones “own” side, but may nevertheless introduce a new morale eroding effect. Witnessing the horror of overwhelming firepower being wreaked upon its victims may cause revulsion in the armed forces towards the government which orders such firepower to be used. (An unfortunate example of this is the Oklahoma City bomber, Timothy McVeigh. Unfortunately, McVeigh’s experience in the first Iraq war made him numb to the mass killing of civilians and young children, referring to them as “collateral damage”. That is at the heart of the Oklahoma City tragedy. But it is worth noting that though the US suffered almost no casualties from Iraqi firepower, nevertheless, McVeigh was driven, at a later date, and at an inappropriate target, to turn against his ruthless masters.)
The anti-war movement consists in large part of working people. However, in most work places, anti-war sentiment is not yet sufficient to support political strikes against war. Nevertheless, work toward such actions is an important component of the struggle. Strikes are not enough to prevent military action by themselves, but have the potential to influence the armed forces to an even greater degree than mere rallies and demonstrations. Building political strikes, though difficult today, is a very important goal of the anti-war movement.
The idea of achieving peace through undermining the discipline of the armed forces goes far beyond anything that the Democratic Party or even the Green Party would contemplate. Although a minority of Democratic Party politicians are “against the war”, they are not so opposed to it that they would undermine the authority of the government.
In the event of political strikes against the war, the Democrats and Greens will take the same position in opposition. Any politician who endorses such struggles will soon find themself attacked by the media, no doubt portrayed as defending Saddam Hussein. Indeed, no section of the ruling class will encourage soldiers to refuse to fight, nor would they encourage political striking against the war. That would be encouraging the soldiers and working class to take matters into their own hands, something even the most liberal rulers will never do. The “left wings” of the ruling class, i.e. the Democratic and Green party, seek to corral popular anti-war sentiment and transfer that sentiment into votes for their own parties. They will capture the “no war” votes, while mounting no useful opposition of their own against the US aggression. If the masses swing to a pro-war sentiment, as was the case with the war on Afghanistan, the capitalist used-to-be doves follow suit, quickly becoming hawks.
The anti-war movement must directly appeal to the soldiers and working class to stop the war . Only class struggle in opposition to all wings of US imperialism, not just the Republican wing, is capable of winning the concession of peace.
(al_collective@hotmail.com)
(labor donated) |
|
|
| first entry |
[Apr. 19th, 2004|08:26 pm] |
Hi,
This is my first entry on live journal. I've been struggling all day with political questions. The group that I'm with has been corresponding with another group, and it is quite a consuming task. I have a final tomorrow, and then I'm done with school for a few months, unless I decide to go to summer school. Well, I don't know who will read this. Perhaps the hen. |
|
|
| navigation |
| [ |
viewing |
| |
most recent entries |
] |
| |
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
ulyanovist's journal