A Call to Revolutionary Unity from the Independent Workers League

[Lolshevik]

This was mentioned in a thread on left unity. I'm a founding member of an organization that is launching today called the Independent Workers League. We have a paper, Forward, that you can download as a PDF if you go to our site, www.independentworkers.us .

I'm also posting a statement made by the Central Committee. Hopefully it can spark a discussion, questions, a tendency war or 12, whatever.

A Call to Revolutionary Unity
http://www.independentworkers.us/1/post/2012/06/a-call-to-revolutionary-unity.html

The class struggle in the United States continues to deepen, but by and large it has left socialists behind.

American socialism is perhaps at the weakest state in its history. Fractured and small, Marxism is often perceived even in activist circles as out of touch, irrelevant or a historical curiosity. Partly this condition stems from the blows that the international workers’ movement suffered in 1989-91, when the fall of Stalinism was used by the capitalists and their ideologues to discredit socialist thought in general. Not only socialism but also reformism were weakened: neoliberalism replaced Keynesianism, “third way” currents trumped the traditional leadership of the Social Democracy. In America, the Democrats shed more and more of the pretenses they used to make their claim as our country’s mass working class party - already an illusion to begin with.

Although a generalized resistance, conscious or unconscious, has yet to develop in any country - with the exception of Greece - the workers movement is recovering. “Green shoots” are springing up, not the green shoots of economic recovery as official optimism claims, but of fight-back. Marxists can no longer cloak their misfortunes in unfavorable objective circumstances. They are more favorable now than in decades. Yet socialism was unable to leave its mark on, let alone lead, last year’s Wisconsin struggle. Consequently, the labor bureaucracy and the Democrats took the lead. Socialism’s voice in explaining the roots of the crisis was not loud enough, and socialism has not thus far been able to spark political independence of the trade unions. Thus, the Tea Party emerged as our punishment. Socialism has not offered Occupy a program that will assure its safety against suffocating bureaucracy while also mounting a generalized solution to 1% rule. Socialism rarely attempts to convert passive, grumbling discontent into fighting opposition.

The IWL maintains that revolutionary socialists must unite in a single organization if we are to be up to the challenges that history is placing before us. We are against a far-left lash up based on lowest common denominator agreement. We advocate principled programmatic unity on the fundamentals of Marxism, not neccessarily theoretical unity on every historical or tactical point from 1848 to today - whether the USSR was a deformed workers’ state or state capitalist, tactical differences on Black liberation, etc. As for defining these fundamentals of Marxism, we offer the following as a tentative, incomplete and admittedly imperfect basis: Marxist economic analysis, application of dialectical and historical materialism to the political situation, organization in a political party or current based on genuine democratic centralism that includes the right to dissent, implacable opposition to imperialism in all its manifestations, opposition to Stalinism, recognition of the need for flexible union and electoral tactics, and political independence of the working class.

We don’t think this unity can be built overnight, but we do think the process should start now, not be deferred to some future period of sharper class struggle. We offer a proposal as the first step in this process: a campaign for an anticapitalist workers’ party that would bring together socialists, left-wing Occupiers, social movement activists and militant unions and unionists, changing U.S. politics in a way that speaks to the legacy of Eugene Debs’ Socialist Party of America and the early years of the Communist Party.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Well, at least it seems your group has broken away from the leftist tradition of posting overly long party programs. Props for condensing content.

[Lolshevik]

We're kind of big on that one, actually. I don't want to sound anti-intellectual, but we do need to break the image of Marxists as being stuffy people. A lot of working class people just plain don't have time for a lot of reading, so we also plan on having a lot of audio and video content.

[Manic Impressive]

I'm going to be blunt


- with the exception of Greece -
I'd take that out. That's a massive assumption with no credible evidence.


in a political party or current based on genuine democratic centralism
Oh No

implacable opposition to imperialism in all its manifestations
How about instead of that opposition to all bourgeois wars? Makes more sense.

opposition to Stalinism
huh I thought it was a left unity group you're cutting out most of the left with that.

recognition of the need for flexible union and electoral tactics, and political independence of the working class.
I take it by this you mean trying to get elected so that you can pass reforms? That's what social democracy is.

This to me looks like the program of a Trotskyist party. Are you by any chance a Trotskyist?

[Lolshevik]

I'll be blunt, too: That statement was very rushed. It's... less than perfect, I'll grant. Here's the thing about Stalinism though: we are for unity, but it has to be a lasting unity. So it has to be programmatic, we have to be able to answer the question "how do we get from here to socialism?" and the Stalinists have very different pathways to that, like the popular front, let alone their actual conception of socialism which is very different from ours. The IWL is more or less Trotskyist. The title "A Call for Trot Unity" doesn't have the same ring to it, however. ;)

And re elections: that formulation used is not very clear, but an upcoming statement will remedy this. We do not believe that socialism will come through reforms.

[eyeheartlenin]

Just out of curiosity, is this an actual organization with branches in different places, or, since you're just starting out, with an actual headquarters in an actual city? That is, does your League have an existence beyond the computer screen? I ask because there is some organization, widely mentioned on revleft as a proletarian party in the US, that actually has no existence, except on the computer screen, so we already have one of those.

I will be interested to hear the answer. Any information about whether this is going to be a real organization, will be gratefully received. I hope I am not disappointed.

[Positivist]

This party has great ideas and tremendous potential in my opinion, though I agree with Manichean impressive that cutting off the MLs with the rejection of Stalin is rather sophomoric. While the promotion of stalin by some communist parties is worthless and alienating to regular people the principled rejection is also unnecessary. Though I would agree with dissociation from Stalin since he is held lowly in popular opinion. My reccomendation on the Stalin issue is that so called stalinists be permitted to join the party, but that repressive measures be polemicized against in the detailing of the party program.

[Manic Impressive]

The IWL is more or less Trotskyist. The title "A Call for Trot Unity" doesn't have the same ring to it, however. ;)
Some might say that's opportunist. ;)

I'd be more happy for you and more willing to wish you luck if you'd just drop the democratic centralism crap. And I really want to be happy for you and to wish you luck but I can't. But at least I can thank you for being honest.


And re elections: that formulation used is not very clear, but an upcoming statement will remedy this. We do not believe that socialism will come through reforms.
A bit like this?

To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.

[The Hong Se Sun]

I have to agree that the name is misleading. opposing "Stalinism" is sectarianism. Specially as a Maoist I see the headline and think "cool" the see "oppose Stalinism" and think "pffft great way to bring about unity. Isolate half your audience"

[Lolshevik]

Just out of curiosity, is this an actual organization with branches in different places, or, since you're just starting out, with an actual headquarters in an actual city? That is, does your League have an existence beyond the computer screen? I ask because there is some organization, widely mentioned on revleft as a proletarian party in the US, that actually has no existence, except on the computer screen, so we already have one of those.

I will be interested to hear the answer. Any information about whether this is going to be a real organization, will be gratefully received. I hope I am not disappointed.

I've never heard of the Proletarian Party. I must not lurk RevLeft as well as I thought I did!

The main areas of life for the IWL right now are in Iowa and Florida. In Iowa, we are involved in the AFSCME union at the UIHC, and in Florida we have one branch and a few scattered people. The branch, in Daytona Beach, has members who were involved in the Justice for Trayvon protests, although it's sadly faded from the consciousness of even militant activists, so now we're trying to organize resistance to Governor Rick Scott's voter disenfranchisement and austerity measures. Of course, the voter thing has to be done delicately because the Governor is primarily disenfranchising Democratic voters, and we don't want to be perceived as supporting the Democrats. We try to link it to the issue of democratic rights as a whole.

Positivist, The Hong Se Sun: I am really not comfortable with this, but I know others would be. If either of you would like to write something a little more formalized, we can post it on the blog as something to be debated and decided on.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

A leftist unity party with democratic centralism included within it does not sound like a winning combination, in my opinion. It works well with other pure tendency groups but with something like this where you are aiming for unity among different tendencies you will likely find that sooner or later one tendency will think you are favoring another. I would have looked into alternative means of organization than this position.

[Lolshevik]

Well, if it helps, we do have a different conception of democratic centralism than is the usual. One is not expected to publicly declare agreement with positions one does not agree with. One can express dissent by having the dissenting view published in Forward, or at the very minimum on the Blog. Factions are permitted - if you organize a faction, you are guaranteed space in Forward to air your views. And, this last one has to be taken on a case by case basis, but you probably won't see us (at least in my opinion) officially saying, "China is a deformed workers' state." When it comes to new member education, we will air multiple theories and allow that individual to decide.

[eyeheartlenin]

I've never heard of the Proletarian Party. I must not lurk RevLeft as well as I thought I did!

The main areas of life for the IWL right now are in Iowa and Florida. In Iowa, we are involved in the AFSCME union at the UIHC, and in Florida we have one branch and a few scattered people....

Thank you, Lolshevik, for your reply.

(Responding to the first paragraph above) If I remember correctly, the party that used to mentioned a lot on revleft is called, approximately, "Workers Party" and then a preposition, "of," I think, and then, "America," but when one investigates it, it becomes obvious that party's existence is exclusively on computer screens. I think it is contemptible to mislead working people.

I will now read the IWL program and whatever else you sent to revleft.

Thanks again, and best of luck – eyeheartlenin

[Geiseric]

We need to bring up slogans to the working class and its existing organizations, not to bunch togather a bunch of sects in one room for an intevitable future of splits, with slogans and politics that are directly concerning the issues and demands the working class faces and supports (respectively) such as
"unconditional end to all wars currently in effect,"
"Unconditional amnesty to all undocumented immigrants,"
"Major tax on the rich to afford social services,"
"Shortening of the working day,"
"Raising in wages corresponding to inflation," <-- I see that one as very important since it's impossible to argue against.
"Nationalisation of all major industries,"
Things like that are what concerns the working class at this moment. Calling for a united "party," of communist intellectuals is pointless, you can have a "united marxist party," with no workers involved in the process, not unlike Blanquism and it will be fruitless. The working class and the demands it creates needs to be at the core of the parties program.

[Q]

Here's the thing about Stalinism though: we are for unity, but it has to be a lasting unity. So it has to be programmatic, we have to be able to answer the question "how do we get from here to socialism?" ...

... The IWL is more or less Trotskyist. The title "A Call for Trot Unity" doesn't have the same ring to it, however. ;)


We need to bring up slogans to the working class and its existing organizations, not to bunch togather a bunch of sects in one room for an intevitable future of splits, with slogans and politics that are directly concerning the issues and demands the working class faces and supports (respectively) such as...


This brings up a question for me: When you say the IWL is "more or less" Trotskyist, does this incur the transitional method of bringing up slogans in the way Leon Brotsky does? What does "programmatic unity" mean here exactly? In the normal Trotskyist discourse "programmatic unity" means unity around the transitional method and a whole library of texts varying from the Communist Manifesto to the first four congresses of the Comintern to The Transitional Programme - the Death Agony of Capitalism and more.

If by "programmatic unity" is meant unity around an actual document you describe as going from "how do we get from here to socialism?" and, furthermore, you encourage open debate and open factions, then we have something qualitatively different and you're no longer "Trotskyist" in the orthodox sense of the word.

[Jimmie Higgins]

A Call to Revolutionary Unity
http://www.independentworkers.us/1/post/2012/06/a-call-to-revolutionary-unity.html

While this sounds good and I think many people here would appreciate the ideas set out, I think part of the problem may be that there isn't a concrete basis for groups or individuals to form this. The objective situation is ripe for a much more effective radical left, but the subjective situation of the class struggle makes it difficult to get there.

The call mentions Wisconsin and the failure of socialists to break the union movement from the Democrats, but what are the reasons for this? Radicals don't have the organic connections to the working class in most places and so our rhetoric is easily drown-out or dismissed by union officials and leaders and we have no organized way to present an alternative. Struggle may change this and I think that's the potential of this time period - that the IWL statement describes so well.

So I guess what I'm suggesting is that it's a little like putting the cart before the horse. I'm not against unity on principle, not by any means! In fact I predict that an upturn in workers struggle and militancy would lead to tendencies coming together. But I think this will be the result of people drawing similar conclusions through actual struggle in which they are an organic part. The Socialist Party (at least when it became significant) was a product of a maturation of years of worker's struggles; the IWW was the result of radicals learning lessons through industrial struggle; the USCP was several groups inspired by the Russian Revolution coming together.

Without a concrete action-based reason for groups coming together, I think people will just see this call in terms of ideology - are the ideas any better, does this formation agree with my view 100%? A coalition brought together because of active struggle, on the other hand, would allow people to put some of these questions aside if they are not immediately important to the concrete tasks being attempted.

[Positivist]

Lolshevik I'm curious if you'd prefer me to just right up the page for the site which contrasts the party program with Soviet policy as I suggested.

[Binh]

Sign me up. This is what www.thenorthstar.info (http://www.thenorthstar.info) is all about. :)