The Spark

[DaringMehring]

Around late 1967 Kay Ellens split with a few others and formed Spark, a group centered in Detroit, that was aligned with Lutte Ovrier, a French group with a rather syndicalist bent. They still exist, according to their website. When I was more active, I almost never ran into them at demos, or anything else for that matter. I think they were always small, even on the scale of the US left.


This is a split off from the closed Spartacist thread.

I wanted to address what LB said about The Spark. I am a sympathizer not a member.

First of all, yes The Spark is small. But so is every group and they are not particularly small relative to other groups. It is more, that they are geographically limited. I believe they only have branches in Detroit, Chicago, LA, and Baltimore. But those branches have OK membership. And their membership is mostly workers as they have pretty strong anti-petty-bourgeois controls.

Second, the accusation of "syndicalist" or "workerist" which I've seen here and before. It's insane. Can you really criticize a Marxist group for being too oriented toward workers? It makes no sense.

You don't see them at demos? That's cause they don't go for that kind of thing. They go for workplace agitation and work in poor communities. It's weird that a lot of groups get criticized "all they do is show up at demos and hawk their paper" -- but when Spark does not waste its time with fad protests, they are some how considered inactive.

Spark continues all the best traditions of Marxism. Their paper is the best tool for agitating. It is written mostly by workers not petty bourgeois theoretician types. You can find it here: http://the-spark.net/paper.html

And yes, it is the US version of Lutte Ouvriere. If you speak French, check out the spokesperson of LO, Nathalie Arthaud, or the previous one, Arlette Laguiller, in Youtube. They're amazing. And if not -- well I don't think http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMiFhMxaJ_E takes any translation.

I have seen ISO and CWI types criticize LO for not joining in "popular front" type activities. They don't support bourgeois lefts. That's great. They don't participate in things like the NPA (new anticapitalist party) --- well, looked what happened to that. The LCR (other French Trotskyist party) dissolved itself into the NPA, and then the NPA collapsed and the LCR was wrecked. LO has been building patiently for far too long to go opportunist now.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

First of all, yes The Spark is small. But so is every group and they are not particularly small relative to other groups. It is more, that they are geographically limited. I believe they only have branches in Detroit, Chicago, LA, and Baltimore. But those branches have OK membership. And their membership is mostly workers as they have pretty strong anti-petty-bourgeois controls.

Second, the accusation of "syndicalist" or "workerist" which I've seen here and before. It's insane. Can you really criticize a Marxist group for being too oriented toward workers? It makes no sense.

Ellens's tendency was close to Turner's, wasn't it? I swear, the Trotskyist movement is like a series of Matryoshka dolls - take any tendency, examine it closely, and new tendencies emerge. But I digress. I think the Lutte Ouvrière is sometimes described as "syndicalist" because it focuses on work in the trade unions to the exclusion of other aspects of communist organising. I don't know if the Spark is like that, though.

As for "workerism", orienting oneself toward the workers is not bad, of course, but tailing less advanced sections of the proletariat is. And suspicion of petit-bourgeois elements can be carried to far, for example if an organisation turns down a militant student or lawyer due to their class background. But, again, I don't know if the Spark is like that. And, of course, ideally we want a party that is primarily composed of the class-conscious proletariat. Centrist organisations sometimes forget the proletariat, but workerists forget the necessity of class consciousness.


Spark continues all the best traditions of Marxism. Their paper is the best tool for agitating. It is written mostly by workers not petty bourgeois theoretician types.

I think this formulation is problematic - surely, Marxist theoreticians are not always part of the petite bourgeoisie, and a revolutionary party needs revolutionary theory. For the third time, I don't know much about the Spark, but certain groups really go overboard with posturing about how they are composed of real proletarians who don't need petit-bourgeois theoreticians.


I have seen ISO and CWI types criticize LO for not joining in "popular front" type activities. They don't support bourgeois lefts. That's great. They don't participate in things like the NPA (new anticapitalist party) --- well, looked what happened to that. The LCR (other French Trotskyist party) dissolved itself into the NPA, and then the NPA collapsed and the LCR was wrecked. LO has been building patiently for far too long to go opportunist now.

I think large sections of the communist movement are so thoroughly demoralised by the present epoch of low class consciousness and triumphant reaction, they latch onto anything that looks vaguely popular and alive - "anticapitalist" movements, parties, popular fronts, Occupy, hell, even religion, whatever.

[Martin Blank]

I believe they only have branches in Detroit, Chicago, LA, and Baltimore. But those branches have OK membership. And their membership is mostly workers as they have pretty strong anti-petty-bourgeois controls.

Their membership is also pretty well-versed in political program and methodology as well. I've done a lot of work alongside Spark members over the years, and they are a pretty solid group.

I'd be interested in hearing more about their "anti-petty-bourgeois controls". I've suspected they had something like that, but it was never confirmed.


Second, the accusation of "syndicalist" or "workerist" which I've seen here and before. It's insane. Can you really criticize a Marxist group for being too oriented toward workers? It makes no sense.

I can't, but some can. I agree that calling Spark/LO/ICU "syndicalist" or "workerist" is rather ridiculous. As the Old Man said, even slander should make some sense.


You don't see them at demos? That's cause they don't go for that kind of thing. They go for workplace agitation and work in poor communities. It's weird that a lot of groups get criticized "all they do is show up at demos and hawk their paper" -- but when Spark does not waste its time with fad protests, they are some how considered inactive.

Well, you do see them at some demos -- usually the same ones we go to, and for the same reason: because those events have the potential to attract thinking workers who can be won to communism. The Spark gets a lot of the same criticisms that we do, and, also, for the same reasons. I've always seen Spark as a party of organizers, not a party of activists (which is the same way the Workers Party sees itself).

You'll note more than a touch of sympathy for The Spark in my responses. That's because I know many of The Spark's veteran members in Detroit. We don't toss around the word "comrade" lightly, but we see members of The Spark as comrades, brothers and sisters. We operate in similar circles for similar ends.

[Martin Blank]

I think the Lutte Ouvrière is sometimes described as "syndicalist" because it focuses on work in the trade unions to the exclusion of other aspects of communist organising. I don't know if the Spark is like that, though.

My experience is more or less limited to working with the Detroit members of The Spark. My sense is that they are concentrating their limited resources on organizing at the workplaces where they are. If they were larger, I suspect they would expand into more areas.


As for "workerism", orienting oneself toward the workers is not bad, of course, but tailing less advanced sections of the proletariat is.

Workerism is more than "tailing less advanced sections of the proletariat". It's a petty-bourgeois romanticism of those "less advanced sections", a glorification of the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideology, and social backwardness, found in those sections. Wohlforth's snide comments about gays, feminists and hippies is rank workerism of the most obscene order. In all my years of working with Spark members, I have never seen them romanticize those reactionary tendencies.


And suspicion of petit-bourgeois elements can be carried to far, for example if an organisation turns down a militant student or lawyer due to their class background. But, again, I don't know if the Spark is like that.

I don't think The Spark has an openly proletarian-separatist position like we do.


I think this formulation is problematic - surely, Marxist theoreticians are not always part of the petite bourgeoisie, and a revolutionary party needs revolutionary theory. For the third time, I don't know much about the Spark, but certain groups really go overboard with posturing about how they are composed of real proletarians who don't need petit-bourgeois theoreticians.

Some of us don't need them. We have plenty of working-class theoreticians and don't need to be arsed by the reactionary baggage that non-proletarian elements bring into an ostensibly communist organization just to feed their belief that they are the "leaders". They can be supporters of the Party, but not members. We'll work with them, including on theoretical issues, but they will not have a decisive voice in our Party. If they are genuinely committed to the struggle for proletarian self-emancipation, then they shouldn't have a problem with this.

[Devrim]

I know who they are. They have a very small group in the UK. I have never met any of them, but I know somebody who has. They also publish in Turkish though I don't think that they exist in Turkey, and I imagine they publish from France, England, or Germany.

Devrim

[ComradeOm]

Can we please move this out of Learning?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

My experience is more or less limited to working with the Detroit members of The Spark. My sense is that they are concentrating their limited resources on organizing at the workplaces where they are. If they were larger, I suspect they would expand into more areas.

Fair enough, but it seems to me that an excessive focus on work in one area carries the risk of degeneration. Lambert's group, for example, seems to have become little more than a part of the union bureaucracy (I don't know how their international affiliates are, though), and the Redgrave faction of the old Healyite group is now a liberal party due to their excessive focus on political issues.


Some of us don't need them. We have plenty of working-class theoreticians and don't need to be arsed by the reactionary baggage that non-proletarian elements bring into an ostensibly communist organization just to feed their belief that they are the "leaders". They can be supporters of the Party, but not members. We'll work with them, including on theoretical issues, but they will not have a decisive voice in our Party. If they are genuinely committed to the struggle for proletarian self-emancipation, then they shouldn't have a problem with this.

Liberal criticism of proletarian separatism isn't the only possible criticism of proletarian separatism, though. I understand the appeal of such a strategy, but I don't think it's a good one. It won't protect you from leaders - Healy was a member of the proletariat, after all. I think it is important to maintain, where possible, a proletarian majority in the party, but I think proletarian separatism excludes potentially good comrades. That's neither here nor there, though. I think it's an interesting experiment, and I wonder if it will work.


Wohlforth's snide comments about gays, feminists and hippies is rank workerism of the most obscene order.

Ha, I almost forgot about that. Didn't the Spark pass through his Workers' League at one point, or was that Turner's faction? I can't imagine they felt welcome. A real piece of work, even by the generally low standards of the International Committee. Did you know he reportedly joined DSA in recent years?

[Martin Blank]

Liberal criticism of proletarian separatism isn't the only possible criticism of proletarian separatism, though. I understand the appeal of such a strategy, but I don't think it's a good one. It won't protect you from leaders - Healy was a member of the proletariat, after all. I think it is important to maintain, where possible, a proletarian majority in the party, but I think proletarian separatism excludes potentially good comrades. That's neither here nor there, though. I think it's an interesting experiment, and I wonder if it will work.

It's not meant to protect us from leaders per se. We have elected leaders of the Party; I'm one of them. It's our Party program and constitution, and the political development of our members, that protect us from the charlatans and bandits that may arise from within the working class. Restricting non-proletarian elements means we can work more on programmatic and theoretical questions, be watchful for problematic tendencies that inevitably arise due to pressures from bourgeois society (including the tendency to defer to "experts"), and train our comrades to be solid organizers, writers and educators ... all without having to deal with the class-based tendencies (and subsequent class-based division of labor) that arise from admitting people into membership who have been taught from birth that they are "leaders", "experts", and generally superior to workers.


Ha, I almost forgot about that. Didn't the Spark pass through his Workers' League at one point, or was that Turner's faction? I can't imagine they felt welcome. A real piece of work, even by the generally low standards of the International Committee. Did you know he reportedly joined DSA in recent years?

That was Turner. He tried 'em all before starting a small group around his Vanguard Newsletter (god, what a wretched read!). They died out sometime in the mid-1970s, IIRC, with some of their remnants ending up in Dunayevskaya's orbit.

Yeah, Tim is known to hang out with DSA, CCDS (ex-Stalinites) and various "academic Marxists". His spouse (ex-spouse?) is a union official who works with the Lambertist "International Liaison Committee" on their "Open Workers Conferences" and appeals to the ILO.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

It's not meant to protect us from leaders per se. We have elected leaders of the Party; I'm one of them.

I meant the Healy or Avakian sort of bureaucratic supremos that, more often than not, end up building cults around themselves. In retrospect, I could have expressed myself more clearly.


It's our Party program and constitution, and the political development of our members, that protect us from the charlatans and bandits that may arise from within the working class. Restricting non-proletarian elements means we can work more on programmatic and theoretical questions, be watchful for problematic tendencies that inevitably arise due to pressures from bourgeois society (including the tendency to defer to "experts"), and train our comrades to be solid organizers, writers and educators ... all without having to deal with the class-based tendencies (and subsequent class-based division of labor) that arise from admitting people into membership who have been taught from birth that they are "leaders", "experts", and generally superior to workers.

These people should be excluded, of course, or perhaps be restricted to candidate status until they improve. That said, such tendencies can arise even in an all-proletarian organisation - who is to say that you will not have problems with a tendency of hardman industrial workers that consider themselves superior to shop assistants or florists or whatnot? The attitudes of the proletariat also reflect bourgeois ideology, often in an exaggerated manner, and an ideology of superiority of "experts", "producers" and whatnot is no exception.

[Fred]

It's not meant to protect us from leaders per se. We have elected leaders of the Party; I'm one of them. It's our Party program and constitution, and the political development of our members, that protect us from the charlatans and bandits that may arise from within the working class. Restricting non-proletarian elements means we can work more on programmatic and theoretical questions, be watchful for problematic tendencies that inevitably arise due to pressures from bourgeois society (including the tendency to defer to "experts"), and train our comrades to be solid organizers, writers and educators ... all without having to deal with the class-based tendencies (and subsequent class-based division of labor) that arise from admitting people into membership who have been taught from birth that they are "leaders", "experts", and generally superior to workers.



That was Turner. He tried 'em all before starting a small group around his Vanguard Newsletter (god, what a wretched read!). They died out sometime in the mid-1970s, IIRC, with some of their remnants ending up in Dunayevskaya's orbit.

Yeah, Tim is known to hang out with DSA, CCDS (ex-Stalinites) and various "academic Marxists". His spouse (ex-spouse?) is a union official who works with the Lambertist "International Liaison Committee" on their "Open Workers Conferences" and appeals to the ILO.

I don't think Harry and his one or two followers even made it to the mid seventies. As for Wohlforth, I think he can best be described as the worst kind of political whore. I think he knew better when he hitched his wagon to Healy -- but once he did that, he was done as a revolutionary political figure. He was a toady, and a nasty one. He was described by Jim Robertson as being "soft" politically -- meaning he be bent to almost any position with enough pressure being brought to bear.

I disagree that keeping your membership to proletarians is any protection from alien class forces. We're all soaking in them. The best way to do this is clear program, and excellent internal education as well as vigilance against the class pressures that necessarily exist in bourgeois societies.

[Martin Blank]

I meant the Healy or Avakian sort of bureaucratic supremos that, more often than not, end up building cults around themselves. In retrospect, I could have expressed myself more clearly.

Fair enough.


These people should be excluded, of course, or perhaps be restricted to candidate status until they improve. That said, such tendencies can arise even in an all-proletarian organisation - who is to say that you will not have problems with a tendency of hardman industrial workers that consider themselves superior to shop assistants or florists or whatnot? The attitudes of the proletariat also reflect bourgeois ideology, often in an exaggerated manner, and an ideology of superiority of "experts", "producers" and whatnot is no exception.

Of course, those concerns exist. We don't see proletarian separatism as a panacea. Never have (contrary to the sneers of some of our detractors). In fact, it brings new problems and questions to the fore, such as the aforementioned question of deference to "experts". But it also allows us to deal much more clearly and openly with these issues as they arise, without having them amplified by non-proletarian elements that are more prone to positions like workerism (as I've described it above).


I disagree that keeping your membership to proletarians is any protection from alien class forces. We're all soaking in them. The best way to do this is clear program, and excellent internal education as well as vigilance against the class pressures that necessarily exist in bourgeois societies.

So, in other words, by doing and having exactly what I said above. Thanks for that.

[DaringMehring]

As for "workerism", orienting oneself toward the workers is not bad, of course, but tailing less advanced sections of the proletariat is.


Who is "less advanced?" This becomes all to easy to corrupt as some section of petit-bourgeoisie calls those workers who do not agree with them "less advanced."

Then they become like Marx said socialism should not be -- imposing some pre-conceived ideal on the working class, like the utopians did. Instead, Marxism is "the real movement to abolish all existing conditions" (Marx). That means that who is advanced among the working class, are not those who fall in line with some pre-conceived politics, but those who fight the boss and the system.

LO/Spark bases itself on that kind of person and tries to agitate so that broader strata activate to the fight. They focus on the workers. If you insult that by calling it "workerism" and "tailing" -- that's silly, if you want to be a Marxist.



And suspicion of petit-bourgeois elements can be carried to far, for example if an organisation turns down a militant student or lawyer due to their class background.


The Bolsheviks had an organizational model on this and it was -- those like you describe who are willing to become "professional" revolutionaries, can join the organization. Those who are sympathetic, can support, but don't get to vote. That -- loosely -- is how Spark/LO work.

Seems like a pretty good model to me. That way, the workers keep control of the Party, but those who want to help by tossing in resources, time now and then, etc. can.