Working with bourgeois liberals? [Archive]

redstar2000

8th December 2005, 15:30

Originally posted by Gravedigger
At least in the US, we do not have the luxury of only working with other revolutionaries. Most of the movements I have to engage in are overrun with bourgeois liberals.

No doubt. I would respond with two questions.

Do you really "have" to work in a movement that is overrun with bourgeois liberals? Sometimes one does...but often it's unnecessary and even counter-productive.

And, if you decide that it "must be done", what then is your response to the ideas that bourgeois liberals put forward?

My experience is that radicals show a marked tendency to accommodate themselves to bourgeois ideology rather than confronting it.

During the second half of the 1930s, for example, the American Communist Party plunged into many enthusiastic efforts to support President Roosevelt and his "New Deal". But instead of "radicalizing" the bourgeois "new dealers", the CPUSA became the most ardent and consistent "new dealers" themselves.

In other words, radicals within bourgeois liberal groups assume that these liberals "are not ready" to hear communist ideas...and so mostly "keep quiet" about those ideas. Consequently, the liberals are not "radicalized" but quite the contrary: the radicals are "liberalized".

My recommendation therefore is that radicals should "work" with bourgeois liberals only in the most extraordinary circumstances -- such as the movement against whatever imperialist war may be going on at the moment. And even then -- or especially then -- it is absolutely necessary to openly confront bourgeois liberal illusions about the nature of modern imperialist politics.

When it comes to other reformist groups, radicals must constantly "pound away" on the issue of class. This risks "alienating" some bourgeois liberals, but that can't be helped.

On the whole, I think those who consider themselves radically anti-capitalist (communist, anarchist, etc.) are better off creating their own autonomous groups to struggle on whatever issues and in whatever ways they themselves consider most useful.

At least that's been my experience.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Jimmie Higgins

9th December 2005, 03:47

Originally posted by Redstar
Do you really "have" to work in a movement that is overrun with bourgeois liberals? Sometimes one does...but often it's unnecessary and even counter-productive.

And, if you decide that it "must be done", what then is your response to the ideas that bourgeois liberals put forward?

My experience is that radicals show a marked tendency to accommodate themselves to bourgeois ideology rather than confronting it.I believe radicals should engage in these struggles as long as they can be independant and open about their own politics.

I don't think we should enter into coalitions willy-nilly. For example, until the last few years anti-death penaly groups we based on either legal strategies or moral strategies. THe moralistic approach ususlly involved some religious people holding candles outside the prison the night of the exaccution. It would be pointless for a radical to involve themselves in such a campaign (or lack thereof).

Since the moratorium in Illinois, the anti-death penalty movements have changed their emphasis to include more grassroots and activist action against the death penalty. In movements such as these, radicals can be effective in both adding a radical backbone to the existing movemnt as well as providing a class analysis for people just becoming active and radicalizing themselves.

During the second half of the 1930s, for example, the American Communist Party plunged into many enthusiastic efforts to support President Roosevelt and his "New Deal". But instead of "radicalizing" the bourgeois "new dealers", the CPUSA became the most ardent and consistent "new dealers" themselves.

In other words, radicals within bourgeois liberal groups assume that these liberals "are not ready" to hear communist ideas...and so mostly "keep quiet" about those ideas. Consequently, the liberals are not "radicalized" but quite the contrary: the radicals are "liberalized".
This is a very good example and probably the most important lesson for American radicals to learn from the history of the CP.

I would add that whatever contributions that the US CP made to the American left (intergrated organizing, emphasis on civil rights) was completely undone by attaching their party to the democrats. The CP dropped their racial demands in order to not alienate the racist Democratic party and this resulted in a huge set back to civil rights and this cut off radical black working people from communist movements and left a legacy of betrayal that can still be felt today. In the US Marxism is still seen as a "white" radicalism (possibly latino as well, but definately not black).

Another lesson from this period and experience is to be independant from dictates designed to suit Stalinist forign policy. Of corse that part of the lesson isn't as relevent with the end of the USSR.

My recommendation therefore is that radicals should "work" with bourgeois liberals only in the most extraordinary circumstances -- such as the movement against whatever imperialist war may be going on at the moment. And even then -- or especially then -- it is absolutely necessary to openly confront bourgeois liberal illusions about the nature of modern imperialist politics.I think this may be true in Western European countries where there is a prominaent left already, but in the US, we are still in the process of rebuilding a real left (part of the legacy of the mistakes of the CP as well as McCarthyism). This process of rebuilding only really began in the 70s and has only begun to move in a positive direction since the 90s.

When it comes to other reformist groups, radicals must constantly "pound away" on the issue of class. This risks "alienating" some bourgeois liberals, but that can't be helped.Yes. We also have to constantly defend ourselves from redbaiting which I find to be the common responce from liberals who feel "alienated". They say: "oh, I have no problem with your politics and I think you make good points but we don't want X mythical student/worker to be scared away".

On the whole, I think those who consider themselves radically anti-capitalist (communist, anarchist, etc.) are better off creating their own autonomous groups to struggle on whatever issues and in whatever ways they themselves consider most useful.This is preferable, but like I said, in the US I think part of the short-term goals of radicals should be trying to reconnect workers to these radical ideas and trying to rebuild a real left that won't cave in and vote for democrats after holding a few rallies.

The best way to do this is to try whenever possible to bring our ideas into the existing movements. We will be redbaited and voted down and told to stop beating the same drum over and over often, but if we stick to our guns and principles, I think our ideas will prevail because events will show that our views were correct and we will win the confidence of other activists and workers.

My annecdote about this is when I was involved with an anti-war group during the afganistan war, liberals were terrified of appearing unpatriotic. One well-intentioned liberal wanted to put "Peace is patriotic" and a flag on all of our fliers. I argued against this and argued against any appeals to patriotism and I failed to convince the rest of the coalition.

Liberals in this group also constantly wanted to emphasise our agreement with the need to "fight terror" just not invade afganistan. Some anarchists and myself argued against this and tried to make the case of why this war wasn't some anomoly or lapse of judgement by our "well-intentioned" leaders but was part of imperialism and systemic. It was slow going and frustrating for us. This group disbanded shortly after Bush declared an end to the war in January despite the insistance by me and the other radicals that we should continue because there are still troops there and Bush wanted to invade other countries next.

To make a long story short, when the group reformed 6 months later as it became clearer that Iraq was next on the list, radicals in the group were in a much stronger position because events had shown that our views had been correct and even the most liberal and red-baiting members of the group were now using terms like, gasp, imperialist to describe the US.

This process takes more patients than I alone could possibly have but together as a handful of radicals we were able to really make an impact in this coalition. We would have never have been able to do this with some front group where we told everyone in the group that they had to already be anti-imperialist to join or by forming a seperate group of the four or five of us who were already radical.

Obviously there were some objective changes wich helped us as well such as a large anti-war movement in general by the fall before the invasion of Iraq.

Sorry for hyjacking this thread.