What the Left's (non) Response to the Financial Turmoil Shows [Archive]

View Full Version : What the Left's (non) Response to the Financial Turmoil Shows

MarxSchmarx

30th October 2008, 08:00

Unfortunately, the present financial doohickies have exposed the sorry state of our movement. We need to call ourselves on it. Something is not working.

There are no shortages of sensibly cogent analyses of the ongoing financial turmoil churned out by the serious left(c.f. this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/understanding-economic-crisis-t91844/index.html)). There is even some talk of how socialism could have averted this.

What there is an utter lack of, however, is an analysis of the abject failure of the serious left to grow beyond it's committed ranks in the face of the greatest jitters the capitalist class has faced in a long time. In times like these, we should at least be convincing at least a few social democrats and laid off workers that capitalism is terminally flawed. Instead, we're going to let this one pass us by, until things return to "normal", yet again.

The usual responses (we were co-opted by social democrats, the capitalist media ignores us) don't cut it any more. Here was our chance to grow, and we're squandering it.

Yes there are some bright spots, like wildcat strikes in China. But these are the exception that prove the rule. There is no serious leftist alternative, and we're letting this glimmer of an opening slip us by.

I don't think it's too early to start the circular firing squad of why this is going to be yet another opportunity missed. For starters, we have no coordination, nor even a pretense for the kind of infrastructure that could create sustained, common campaigns in prosperous times and not. As much as I enjoy Revleft, it's just a start.

Moreover, I am baffled that while there is no shortage of leftist analyses of what caused the crisis or how socialism could have prevented it, there is little more than scattered lip service to the question of what we socialists are going to DO about it in the here and now. It's almost become instinctual in us to analyze and problematize and occasionally dream and leave it at that. There is barely any strategizing. We need to get in the habit of hard-headed thinking and debating about what to do in the here and now, rather than just thinking and debating about business cycles and bases and superstructures.

Still another problem is our communication of our message. Our strongest critique has always been about economics. Of course we are for socialism because we are for humanity, but our message on the economic front clearly needs work.

Instead, we do better at organizing against wars and hate crimes. Somehow we can convince many "fence sitters" to participate in massive anti-war demonstrations, but the closest we've gotten in the global north to anything near the anti-war movement are the G8/IMF protests, and even those are spotty and incoherent as hell.

Laudable though these causes are, our utter silence when a news event strikes at the heart of capitalism is deafening.

What else do you think this turmoil has exposed about our shortcomings?

politics student

30th October 2008, 08:06

Well I think it comes down to a few reasons.

1. We have a lot of tiny parties and no real power or resources.
2. I do not understand why the left can not join a single united party and then have ideological wings like every other main stream party.
3. We have no real publications to produce propaganda, maybe if the resources of all the small parties where put togeather we may be able to at least increase recruitment to the left. When you have a small list of small papers produced by small parties it just shows the lack of propaganda.

Die Neue Zeit

30th October 2008, 22:30

Still another problem is our communication of our message. Our strongest critique has always been about economics. Of course we are for socialism because we are for humanity, but our message on the economic front clearly needs work.

Instead, we do better at organizing against wars and hate crimes. Somehow we can convince many "fence sitters" to participate in massive anti-war demonstrations, but the closest we've gotten in the global north to anything near the anti-war movement are the G8/IMF protests, and even those are spotty and incoherent as hell.

Comrade, like you yourself said in my "Basic Principles" thread, class struggle is a concept that is WOEFULLY taken for granted. Also, lots of circle-sects ARE organizing; they're just too focused on selling newspapers (I remember your anecdote). :glare:

Yehuda Stern

30th October 2008, 23:23

Die Neue Zeit

30th October 2008, 23:39

On the transitional program:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/socio-income-democracy-t92929/index.html

Tower of Bebel

31st October 2008, 00:31

The left still has to lick its wounds inflicted by the organizational crises that hit us after the opening of the Pandora's box that was World War One. There are those who say we'll have to wait for a united working class if we want to see the revolutionary left to become united. And there are those who say they were always right and they couldn't care much about the rest because the working class will only come to them anyway. But that's just idiotic.
Yes, the working class will take lessons from the current crisis. And a possible revolution will teach the working class much. But who will teach the revolution? And who will start uniting the working class?
The current state of the left drives the working class to bourgeois politics. Remember What has to be done? The workers don't come further than trade-union consciousness if scientific socialism cannot reach and teach them. yes, every tiny group is involved with teaching and reaching the working class: starting from the present level of consciousness that prevails. But the vicious circles make it impossible to build a solid and lasting relation between the revolutionary left and the working class. And so either reaction will prevail or revolutions will end up in slaughter.

Martin Blank

31st October 2008, 06:10

I cannot and will not speak to what "the left" is doing because, quite simply, there's no point. "The left", for the most part, has had its own systemic failure over the last two decades -- since the end of the Soviet Union -- from which it has yet to recover. In my view, this has been a double-edged sword: on the one hand, it has meant that the "mountain of dead dogs" that communists have to dig out from has gotten larger; on the other hand, the increasing betrayals, appeasement and capitulation to bourgeois ideology and the capitalist order by "the left" has made it easier to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.

For our part, the approach we've taken to the economic crisis has been two-pronged, seeking to not only present an analysis and platform of action around it (the seven-point platform, which we've distributed across the country, can be seen on our website -- www.communistleague.us (http://www.communistleague.us/)), but also taking the opportunity to analyze the class conflict (not just between bourgeois and proletarian, but bourgeois and petty-bourgeois, and petty-bourgeois and proletarian) behind it. We increased the frequency of Working People's Advocate to weekly to deal with the unfolding development, and have (finally!) got our news-portal website (www.ucpa.us (http://www.ucpa.us/)) together to increase the access to our articles. As the economic crisis unfolded, we also sought to tie it more closely to what has been happening in the presidential sweepstakes.

As for protests, the question has to be asked: To what end do we protest? Do we really think that the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie are going to succumb to "street heat" and adopt an alternative to their own system? I tend to think that such time and resources that would be devoted to organizing a protest march or rally would be better spent educating and organizing working people, with the goal of building a solid movement for workers' control of the economy and for the overthrow of capitalism, based on a platform of concrete demands. Once there is a class movement, then we can talk about organizing protests that can give capitalism a nasty wake-up call ... and give workers the opportunity to draw broader conclusions about the capitalist system.

Obviously, if there are protests called, communists would participate on the basis of its own demands and literature. But our goal is not to bring the exploiting and oppressing classes "to their senses" and have them adopt our demands; we know that will not happen. Our goal is to use our demands to educate, agitate and organize working people so they can draw the necessary conclusions and move forward.

Yes, we are small and our message sometimes gets lost in the din. But we do reach our class brothers and sisters where we are, and while they may not join us, they do end up agreeing with us. "Planting seeds" is sometimes better than signing up paper members, in my opinion.

Obviously, our shortcomings are our size and ability to do anything major at this time. But while we cannot do what we wish to do today, we continue to look to tomorrow ... and do what we must. Pessimism is poison in this period. Keep it to yourself.

31st October 2008, 07:07

There really is no point in talking about a "left" anymore, at least in the revolutionary sense.

The entire revolutionary left is scattered into many little sects that are more concerned with ideological discipline than with actually building a movement. Their primary focus is building their own little sect into a "vanguard party," something that will never happen because of the very nature of their sect and the failure to understand that building a movement should be the primary focus and that party building only comes as a development of that movement.

Nowadays when you look at each party they each have their own little opinion on everything, and if you disagree with one or a few of those positions then you are not eligible to be a member. It's an interesting form of "revolutionary puritanism" that lets these people play Bolshevik without actually having to do the nitty gritty work of actually organizing.

Now, I'm not saying that everyone involved with these parties is like this; quite the contrary. I think these sects are filled with people that really do want to create a social movement and either don't know how, or get too wrapped up in party politics to focus on what really matters. There are many people that actually work towards building a movement, but the very nature of these sects hinders that development. It is a burden. Only when we start seeing leftists focusing on organizing, agitating and propagandizing among the working class are we going to see any significant developments.

This economic crisis happened and all of these little groups put together their papers and articles explaining what the crisis means, how and why it happened, and what to do about it. The problem, of course, is in the delivery of that message; basically, there is no delivery of it to anyone. It doesn't mean anything until you actually get out and start explaining it to everyone that's hit hardest by this crisis, so that they can actually understand. And no, they're not going to want to buy your paper, and no they're probably not going to want to join your party.

The problem with the revolutionary left is the revolutionary left itself; how it organizes, how it agitates and propagandizes (or does not), how it approaches those with a lower level of consciousness, who it focuses on - everything seems to be handled incorrectly.

Kind of went on a rant there, so some of it might sound a bit incoherent, but I think I got my basic point across.

MarxSchmarx

31st October 2008, 07:08

A common thread emerging from the posts is the rampant sectarianism that continues to plague us a century and a half after the Manifesto. This has been discussed ad-nauseum. Maybe as a prescription, if the failure of serious leftists to make major headway in the current economic turmoil is attributable to our rampant sectarianism, this should serve as a wake-up call. Maybe the best we can do is sound this alarm among fellow leftists, and make our case that sectarianism is our achille's heel. To do this, it would be helpful to be able to demonstrate or at least catalog how sectarianism has paralyzed our response to this crisis.

The efforts CL and JR mention are encouraging and definitely a step in the right direction. Again, tying it back to our sectarianism, what do you all think it will take for leftists to accept the current milieu of "transitional demands" irrespective of their sectarian affiliation?

Also, to clarify, proposals about how leftists will handle this if they were in charge are way different from an honest discussion of what we as leftists are going to do given that we are not in charge. The former are well articulated by transitional demands, but the latter, well, I'm just struck by the dearth of discussion about it.

The lack of response to the crisis has uncovered, more than anything, the lack of understanding of capitalism of all the pseudo-Marxist groups. No group that I know of has explained that the crisis is, like all capitalist crises, one of overproduction, and that the housing bubble is an expression of a massive buildup of financial capital which has been going on for many decades.
This raises an interesting point - although analysis for its own sake seems silly, how does an incoherent analysis paralyze us in terms of our activism?

Die Neue Zeit

31st October 2008, 07:15

^^^ "Neo-Kautskyism" is the answer, comrade. :p ;) :D

what do you all think it will take for leftists to accept the current sleu of "transitional demands" irrespective of their sectarian affiliation

The Transitional Programme suffers from broad economism:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/socio-income-democracy-t92929/index.html

31st October 2008, 07:24

MarxSchmarx

31st October 2008, 07:24

I agree that the critiques of protests are spot on. If protesters made policy, imagine the implications of neo-nazi demonstrations. Protesting for its own sake is like analysis for its own sake - engaging and occasionally useful, but by and large irrelevant. Indeed, this is symptomatic of the smoke screens we erect for our selves. Protests and analyses are supposed to be by-products of movement building, not substitutes for movement building.

^^^ Neo-Kautskyism is the answer, comrade. http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_tongue.gif http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/wink.gif http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/biggrin.gifhmmm... so how does one convince the many leninists who feel Kautsky was a class-collaborationist to adopt Kautsky's line? I'm sympathetic to your point, but at the same time, there's the problematic reality that even so much as mentioning "Kautsky" leads to bulking anarchists and tuned out leninists. If we're serious about overcoming sectarianism we have to repackage Kautsky-ism in a fashion that is acceptable to these diverse tendencies.

And my sincerest apologies for the confusion. By "transitional demands" I meant in essence the changes the left is currently demanding (like shorter work weeks, unionization world wide, etc...) rather than the 1938 pamphlet as such.

Die Neue Zeit

31st October 2008, 07:38

I have just finished reading the rest of this thread, and I think Miles raises some good points. Your comments on protesting are of course correct; there is a specific context when demonstrations are effective. We have a tendency to fetishize demonstrations, and at these demonstrations the same people show up. It sort of becomes a social gathering more than it does a political one. It's a clique tendency, which is really due to the clique/sectist tendency of the left itself.

You may wish to read this article:

Reform coalition, or mass strike? (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/618/McNair%20-%20Strategy3.htm)
In the third article in this series, Mike Macnair examines the basis of two contending strategies for working class advance

This has been thoroughly debunked. You haven't even read the Transitional Programme.

I actually have, which makes my criticism all the more poignant. :)

hmmm... so how does one convince the many leninists who feel Kautsky was a class-collaborationist to adopt Kautsky's line?

Comrade, please get them to read:

1) At least Chapter 1 (and preferrably Chapter 2, too) of Lars Lih's Lenin Rediscovered (and if possible obtain via e-mail from the guy himself more Word docs on Lenin's theoretical relationship with Kautsky like I have), which details the merger formula;
2) CPGB comrade Macnair's "profoundly true and important" Revolutionary Strategy, an edited collection of these articles (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1203523&postcount=32); and

3) The Class Struggle Revisited (any edition ;) ).

I'm sympathetic to your point, but at the same time, there's the problematic reality that even so much as mentioning "Kautsky" leads to bulking anarchists and tuned out leninists. If we're serious about overcoming sectarianism we have to repackage Kautsky-ism in a fashion that is acceptable to these diverse tendencies.

Programming Class Struggle and Social Revolution takes the basic ideas and goes beyond the "textbook a la Kautsky" (Lenin in 1923).

I suggested a solution to electoralism and anti-electoralism here (and SACT for some reason, whether it's due to my work that he's got or otherwise, has solidified the class-strugglist portion of his "class-strugglist anarchism"):

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1272822&postcount=32

Even class-strugglist anarchists have problems with elections. Can both sides - both theirs and the Marxists - be more organizationally flexible within the same organization?

I have re-read Lenin's Freedom to Criticise and Unity of Action (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1906/may/20c.htm) as a starting point (which quoted the RSDLP's Central Committee):

that at public political meetings members of the Party should refrain from conducting agitation that runs counter to congress decisions

As Comrade Rakunin and I noted before, and as Lenin himself commented in this work, this is be a bit too strict, and is typical Trotskyist "democratic" centralism:

Criticism within the limits of the principles of the Party Programme must be quite free (we remind the reader of what Plekhanov said on this subject at the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P.), not only at Party meetings, but also at public meetings. Such criticism, or such “agitation” (for criticism is inseparable from agitation) cannot be prohibited [...] Obviously, the Central Committee has defined freedom to criticise inaccurately and too narrowly, and unity of action inaccurately and too broadly.

To be sure, though, there's a certain level of professionalism that should be exercised when deciding to conduct "agitation that runs counter to congress decisions" (nothing in this 1906 work talks about opposition to the decisions of the Central Committee, whose historic insurrectionary decision was opposed publicly by Zinoviev and Kamenev).

Now, what about unity of action, particularly in elections?

Let us take an example. The Congress decided that the Party should take part in the Duma elections. Taking part in elections is a very definite action. During the elections (as in Baku today, for example), no member of the Party anywhere has any right ’whatever to call upon the people to abstain from voting; nor can “criticism” of the decision to take part in the elections be tolerated during this period, for it would in fact jeopardise success in the election campaign. Before elections have been announced, however, Party members everywhere have a perfect right to criticise the decision to take part in elections. Of course, the application of this principle in practice will sometimes give rise to disputes and misunderstandings; but only on the basis of this principle can all disputes and all misunderstandings be settled honourably for the Party. The resolution of the Central Committee, however, creates an impossible situation.

The Central Committee’s resolution is essentially wrong and runs counter to the Party Rules. The principle of democratic centralism and autonomy for local Party organisations implies universal and full freedom to criticise, so long as this does not disturb the unity of a definite action; it rules out all criticism which disrupts or makes difficult the unity of an action decided on by the Party.

Given my own personal stance against electoralism as a tactic, I myself am willing to be flexible on this subject. The mass class-strugglist organization should by default be ANTI-electoral except on referendum questions (read: spoilage, refusal of ballots, but NOT abstention), but whenever elections come up Party members who wish to stand in elections should feel free to organize a UNITED "electoral platform" (i.e., don't transform intra-party squabbles into multiple "electoral platforms").

Party members outside this "platform" should continue to advocate anti-electoralism (the question of anti-electoralism in places where "platform" members are running depends precisely on how many are running and their chances of getting into the legislature), while party members inside this platform should follow Lenin's suggestion. Once the elections are complete, the "platform" dissolves. Those who happen to be elected are under the direct control of the Party.

And:

And my sincerest apologies for the confusion. By "transitional demands" I meant in essence the changes the left is currently demanding (like shorter work weeks, unionization world wide, etc...) rather than the 1938 pamphlet as such.

By your definition, comrade, my program is "transitional."

I know my programmatic work isn't complete yet, but one of the recognitions in "Of Programs, Presentation, and Game Theory" is that [b]the list should NOT be one huge laundry list. If necessary, the party should have a Basic Program (with the most eye-catching reform demands) and a "Full Program" for optional reading (with the former taking precedence over the latter, and not the other way around). I am working out programmatic theory for the Basic Program, such that we all should be "not in the least afraid to say that we want to imitate the Erfurt Programme" (Lenin).

Note to SP-USA comrades: I hope that the bolded criticism of your party's "laundry list" for a platform is taken as strictly comradely criticism and not cheap-shot-ism.

Martin Blank

31st October 2008, 09:03

A common thread emerging from the posts is the rampant sectarianism that continues to plague us a century and a half after the Manifesto. This has been discussed ad nauseam. Maybe as a prescription, if the failure of serious leftists to make major headway in the current economic turmoil is attributable to our rampant sectarianism, this should serve as a wake-up call. Maybe the best we can do is sound this alarm among fellow leftists, and make our case that sectarianism is our Achilles heel. To do this, it would be helpful to be able to demonstrate or at least catalog how sectarianism has paralyzed our response to this crisis.

Yes, sectarianism is one of the major problems of "the left". Each of those groups sees itself as the One True Church, the Caretakers of the Unbroken Red Thread of Marxism. Historical and doctrinal questions become "litmus tests" designed to exclude those who are not truly "orthodox" and ultimately gag the thought and will of the membership. We in the League see this as an expected outgrowth of the non-proletarian "social being" and consciousness of those who compose the leaderships of these organizations: the organization operates like a small business, with the leaders functioning like tight-knit "management teams" seeking to "corner the market" of the working class movement, and exploiting its membership to further themselves -- ultimately burning them out and pushing them out of political life altogether.

I would also argue that, alongside and in conjunction with sectarianism, opportunism is a major problem of "the left". We see this manifested in the way that "the left" generally conducts itself in relation to public protests. KC correctly points out the cliquish and sectarian character of protests, but there is also a strong element of opportunism that goes along with it. Using a myriad of reasons and arguments, "the left" often "dumbs down" its politics at protests -- especially mass protests called by reformists and liberals. They opportunistically tail these elements, usually adopting their slogans and demands as their own, and (at best) burying their "real views" inside the pages of their publication. In the end, they become little more than pressure groups on the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie. They effectively abandon the principle of proletarian political independence and seek a "short cut" to mass membership.

Why would any self-respecting worker bother to join a small group that claims to be "revolutionary" or "socialist" or "communist" when they raise the same demands as the larger liberal, social-democratic or "official Communist" organizations in public? I've heard workers ask each other, "Why won't they say out loud what they whisper to themselves?" And really, who can respect an organization that doesn't even take its own politics seriously enough to say them openly?

The efforts CL and JR mention are encouraging and definitely a step in the right direction. Again, tying it back to our sectarianism, what do you all think it will take for leftists to accept the current milieu of "transitional demands" irrespective of their sectarian affiliation?

I think it would take, at the very least, a common understanding of class questions and the class struggle to do that. Look, I've read many of the various "solutions" and "alternatives" offered by different self-described socialist and communist groups, and what I noticed is two things: 1) Many of them actually do raise similar, or the same, demands; and, 2) those demands usually center around pressuring the exploiting and oppressing classes into "coming to their senses".

Even organizations that consider each other mortal enemies raise virtually the same demands, with the differences being mainly formulaic. This can even be extended as far as the radical-liberals; we pointed out how both The Nation and the Socialist Equality Party essentially raised the same demand that the government nationalize the financial system.

This is where sectarianism comes in. I believe it was Trotsky who once pointed out that sectarianism is opportunism scared of itself. I think that the economic crisis has confirmed that observation. Numerous organizations that make up "the left" (including the radical-liberal left) have essentially called for the same thing, and each of these groups knows what the others have said. But because of their fear of finding themselves merging into a swamp of leftist pressure on capitalism, the leaders of these organizations have to find something that makes them "unique" in order to distinguish themselves from the rest of "the left". Hence, they resort to sectarian shibboleths. But the root of that sectarianism is, in the end, opportunism.

Also, to clarify, proposals about how leftists will handle this if they were in charge are way different from an honest discussion of what we as leftists are going to do given that we are not in charge. The former are well articulated by transitional demands, but the latter, well, I'm just struck by the dearth of discussion about it.

I tend to think that, in the U.S., "planting seeds" is probably the best thing to do at this particular moment -- both in a practical sense and in a long-view sense.

Let's face facts: Americans are not "joiners". It's not in the culture here. I mean, really, how many people are actually dues-paying members of the Democratic or Republican Party? From what I can find, their dues-paying memberships are roughly 500,000 for each. And these numbers fluctuate; the range is actually between 100,000 and 1 million, depending on the year (in presidential election years, the numbers expand, and in non-election years, they fall dramatically). This is one of those instances where the U.S. is not like Europe, where being a member of a party is more common, from what I can tell.

Understanding this reality of the American body politic puts things in better perspective about our tasks and work. Playing the "numbers game" and equating effectiveness with membership numbers is a losing proposition.

The lack of response to the crisis has uncovered, more than anything, the lack of understanding of capitalism of all the pseudo-Marxist groups. No group that I know of has explained that the crisis is, like all capitalist crises, one of overproduction, and that the housing bubble is an expression of a massive buildup of financial capital which has been going on for many decades.This raises an interesting point - although analysis for its own sake seems silly, how does an incoherent analysis paralyze us in terms of our activism?

I hate to be a quote-monger, but I do think that Lenin's comment, "Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement", is an appropriate answer to this question. If your "theory" is opportunist pressure-groupism (dressed up as a "transitional method" or "mass line" or whatever term you wish to use) peppered with doctrinaire sectarian shibboleths, then, in the end, your activism will only be as radical or "revolutionary" as those elements of the "theory" that relate to the real world.

JimmyJazz

31st October 2008, 09:17

Yehuda Stern

31st October 2008, 12:54

This raises an interesting point - although analysis for its own sake seems silly, how does an incoherent analysis paralyze us in terms of our activism?

Analysis is a guide to action. Analysis for its own sake is silly, but then so is activism without any theory behind it.

31st October 2008, 14:06

You may wish to read this article:

Reform coalition, or mass strike? (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/618/McNair%20-%20Strategy3.htm)
In the third article in this series, Mike Macnair examines the basis of two contending strategies for working class advance

I'll read it later, although I doubt it has anything valuable in it.

I actually have, which makes my criticism all the more poignant. :)

Then you're either being incredibly dense or intentionally dishonest.

Die Neue Zeit

1st November 2008, 02:17

Using a myriad of reasons and arguments, "the left" often "dumbs down" its politics at protests -- especially mass protests called by reformists and liberals. They opportunistically tail these elements, usually adopting their slogans and demands as their own, and (at best) burying their "real views" inside the pages of their publication. In the end, they become little more than pressure groups on the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie. They effectively abandon the principle of proletarian political independence and seek a "short cut" to mass membership.

Comrade, don't most left parties dumb down their minimum program (not just protest slogans) to exclude reform-enabling reforms that allow basic principles to be "kept consciously in view," anyway?

I've heard workers ask each other, "Why won't they say out loud what they whisper to themselves?" And really, who can respect an organization that doesn't even take its own politics seriously enough to say them openly?

Because they have a condescending attitude towards workers' ability to gain consciousness, perhaps? While I stand by my position that the extensive development of revolutionary-socialist theory lies outside the class movement (NOT the class) and needs to be "merged," workers are more than capable of accepting a basic idea of what revolutionary socialism is all about.

I think it would take, at the very least, a common understanding of class questions and the class struggle to do that. Look, I've read many of the various "solutions" and "alternatives" offered by different self-described socialist and communist groups, and what I noticed is two things: 1) Many of them actually do raise similar, or the same, demands; and, 2) those demands usually center around pressuring the exploiting and oppressing classes into "coming to their senses".

Even organizations that consider each other mortal enemies raise virtually the same demands, with the differences being mainly formulaic. This can even be extended as far as the radical-liberals; we pointed out how both The Nation and the Socialist Equality Party essentially raised the same demand that the government nationalize the financial system.

Me, too? Most of these parties don't raise these demands with any sort of programmatic theory behind them whatsoever.

Let's face facts: Americans are not "joiners". It's not in the culture here. I mean, really, how many people are actually dues-paying members of the Democratic or Republican Party? From what I can find, their dues-paying memberships are roughly 500,000 for each. And these numbers fluctuate; the range is actually between 100,000 and 1 million, depending on the year (in presidential election years, the numbers expand, and in non-election years, they fall dramatically). This is one of those instances where the U.S. is not like Europe, where being a member of a party is more common, from what I can tell.

What's with the crap about both parties having several million members each, besides your last comment? :confused:

ckaihatsu

1st November 2008, 02:42

I'd just like to briefly note that this thread is the most topical and pertinent one right now, and that I enthusiastically agree with all the points from all the postings here.

Perhaps just getting more people to read this thread would solve most, if not all, of the problems that this thread (correctly) raises.

Chris

--

--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u

MarxSchmarx

2nd November 2008, 05:01

Thanks for the links, comrade JR. Obviously I am wrong and there are activists who are out there sounding the call. Which begs the question:

Why do you think these ideas aren't more widely discussed among lefists? Especially in this day and age with the internet, why are even the most committed among us seemingly avoiding this very difficult debate? More importantly, what will it take to get these people around?

I tend to think that, in the U.S., "planting seeds" is probably the best thing to do at this particular moment -- both in a practical sense and in a long-view sense.

Could you be more specific about how to plant the seeds?

I believe it was Trotsky who once pointed out that sectarianism is opportunism scared of itself. I think that the economic crisis has confirmed that observation. Numerous organizations that make up "the left" (including the radical-liberal left) have essentially called for the same thing, and each of these groups knows what the others have said. But because of their fear of finding themselves merging into a swamp of leftist pressure on capitalism, the leaders of these organizations have to find something that makes them "unique" in order to distinguish themselves from the rest of "the left". Hence, they resort to sectarian shibboleths. But the root of that sectarianism is, in the end, opportunism.

This is an intiguing point. No doubt sectarianism has its roots in the more than a few "little Lenins" who want to lead the next soviet empire. Unfortunately, fighting back against such cliques has hisorically only exacerbated sectarianism in the past. What are some steps the CL is taking to avoid repeating these mistakes?

More broadly, though, I think sectarianism does have (some) qualitativel distinct features from opportunism. For instance, sectarianism is categorically bad for us. But opportunism not so much. For example, the Chinese communists were "opportunistic" to ally with the nationalists against imperialism, and they weren't beyond using the occasional irridentist slogan. Indeed, one man's opportunism is another man's pragmatism. Cynical opportunism can be useful as a tactic; what iskey is that we distinguish it from the self-centered ambition of a few delusional creeps that thrive in a sectarian-ridded movement.

And the broader point about membership is well taken. The question is one of quality or quantity. More members or a few good cadres? Although this does beg the question: should there be a domestic "grand congress" like the 1st international in the different countries (or regions) to get together and hash out points of unity, or should we take over one of the existing leftist groups and begin anew with an avowedly non-sectarian and ecunemical outlook? No doubt the people doing the grunt work for either organizational model will be dedicated "members", but the question is, which attracts more of the better sort?

2nd November 2008, 15:31

And the broader point about membership is well taken. The question is one of quality or quantity. More members or a few good cadres? Although this does beg the question: should there be a domestic "grand congress" like the 1st international in the different countries (or regions) to get together and hash out points of unity, or should we take over one of the existing leftist groups and begin anew with an avowedly non-sectarian and ecunemical outlook? No doubt the people doing the grunt work for either organizational model will be dedicated "members", but the question is, which attracts more of the better sort?

The idea of "taking over a party" to battle these old ways of doing things isn't effective; the way these sects are organized it would make any such attempts impractical and irrelevant. Your group that is attempting to do it would simply be kicked out of the party.

Starting a new organization also is pointless, as it perpetuates the problem instead of helping to solve it. Starting an "anti-sectist party" in opposition to other parties makes no sense.

The real solution isn't where you're looking, in parties; the solution is to stop worrying about party affiliation and party organization and focus more on building a movement. The real movement-building work is what the party and organization are developed from as it is, and as such a valid form of organization will materialize itself when necessary.

You should read these articles by Hal Draper; they deal directly with the issue.
http://marxists.org/archive/draper/1971/alt/index.htm
http://marxists.org/archive/draper/1973/xx/microsect.htm

BobKKKindle$

2nd November 2008, 17:23

The basic premise contained in the title of this thread - that the left has not had an effective response to the financial crisis - is unfair. The SWP has run a series of articles on the origins of the crisis and what the crisis is going to mean for ordinary people in terms of food prices and other issues in Socialist Worker for several weeks in succession, and our weekly meetings are now orientated specifically to the crisis because that's what people want to hear about right now - although we're also trying to show how the crisis and the capitalist system as a whole are linked to other problems such as militarism and the destruction of the environment. Several demonstrations have also been organised with our input including the Halloween demonstration against the Lehman Brothers offices on the 31st, and there are also more events planned for the near future.

The real question, however, is whether these efforts are actually having an effect and drawing people closer to socialism. There are obviously areas where we could improve but the answer is actually suggest - every indicator, ranging from the number of people who are attending our weekly meetings, to the questions that people ask when you talk to them on the street during a paper sale, suggests a real interest in socialist ideas, simply because the crisis has undermined the ideological legitimacy of the system which has been promoted as the answer to all of our problems for the past two decades, after the fall of what was wrongly seen as the only alternative to the market. The fact that there is already such interest is encouraging when we consider that the real effects of the crisis has yet to be felt - economic depression is not something the left should ever celebrate regardless of its political consequences because a depression always means pain and hardship for ordinary workers, but given current trends it is not unfair to assume that people will become even angrier and hopefully more radical as the state of the economy grows worse.

2nd November 2008, 17:46

fabiansocialist

2nd November 2008, 18:18

1. The lack of response to the crisis has uncovered, more than anything, the lack of understanding of capitalism of all the pseudo-Marxist groups. No group that I know of has explained that the crisis is, like all capitalist crises, one of overproduction, and that the housing bubble is an expression of a massive buildup of financial capital which has been going on for many decades.

This is correct. But also it's not easy to understand the world of modern finance capitalism, as its mechanics and nature of exploitation are much more abstract than the industrial capitalism of Marx's time. I wonder how many people on the left are comfortable with credit default swaps, exotic options, and structured investment vehicles? Speaking very broadly, one can say that the speculative finance capitalism of today is the bourgoisie response to diminishing returns from industrial capital and that an emphasis on (unsustainable) asset bubbles has become essential. But perhaps this is known to everyone here. The next problem is how to explain this to a lay audience. The exploitation of an earlier industrial capitalism was easy to explain: it was clear to workers toiling for 12 hours a day that they were being exploited by factory owners and the superstructure of government, police, and media. Everything was tangible. How to explain this more modern abstract exploitation? Assuming this has also been overcome, what is the panacea for it? In my case, I suspect I have some grasp of what is happening but I've not the foggiest idea of what to propose.

PRC-UTE

2nd November 2008, 19:39

it's very early on in this crisis- we've plenty of time to address it (unfortunately). I know my party's working on a piece analysing the events and the tasks ahead.

though tbh, I don't know that the left has not had a responce at all. I've seen several in print.

also, there's some evidence that many people are already looking to Marxism for answers without being told to do so by the left.

Tower of Bebel

2nd November 2008, 19:51

also, there's some evidence that many people are already looking to Marxism for answers without being told to do so by the left.
Yes, there is an increasing demand for Marx' Capital. It is very exiting. Even newspapers and magazines are publishing articles devoted to (the history of) marxism.

This is really an important signal to the left.

Martin Blank

2nd November 2008, 22:38

Comrade, don't most left parties dumb down their minimum program (not just protest slogans) to exclude reform-enabling reforms that allow basic principles to be "kept consciously in view," anyway?

In a sense, yes. Many organizations seem to believe that "agitation" and "mass work" involves appropriating the slogans of the liberals and reformists and showing that they can be given a "militant" tinge. Indeed, this stems from a view that self-described revolutionaries have to be the "best builders" of "mass movements", and that the way to do this is the adapt your politics to those of the self-appointed "leaders" ... until such a time as the "revolutionaries" are in control, then more "revolutionary" demands can be raised.

In the end, it reduces a political struggle over strategy and perspective to a fistfight over who controls the apparatus of a movement. It not only reduces the membership of these movements to little more than an object, a pawn to be used by one side of the bureaucratic faction fight or the other for its own ends, but also makes political thought and opinion "proprietary", in that it creates a false equation between certain political ideas and a given faction within a broader movement. (We've certainly seen this in the antiwar movement in the U.S., with the "official Communists" in UFPJ and the Workers World/PSL in ANSWER/TONC.)

... workers are more than capable of accepting a basic idea of what revolutionary socialism is all about.

Yes, that is true, from my own experience -- especially the economic arguments (e.g., workers' control, sliding scale of wages and hours, etc.); the political arguments take a little longer. But this is where we see how the "numbers game" distorts opinion. Many organizations believe that because working people are not so willing to join a small group, they cannot understand the theory or the politics being presented. Therefore, they write off the working class as "too beaten down", "too backward" or simply "too uneducated" to be involved.

In the 1990s, this developed into a generalized theory called "bad periodism" -- that is, the collapse of the USSR ushered in a period when it was a bad time to organize as self-described socialists or communists; it was a bad period to do anything in but survive; any kind of organizing was written off as a waste of time. Of course, different organizations had different ways of referring to this: the Spartacists called it a "crisis of class consciousness"; the "official Trotskyists" in groups like Socialist Action and Solidarity talked about the need for "working-class recomposition"; other groups simply didn't talk about it openly, but acknowledged to each other that it was a "bad period" for them.

Looking back, I see the 1990s as a missed opportunity, and I am even self-critical of my own role in this time period; while I didn't necessarily accept "bad periodism", I sort of went along with it. If there had been a general understanding among self-described socialist and communist organizations that working people were not fundamentally set back by the collapse of the USSR or closed off to the politics, but were still cautious because of years of betrayals and were more interested in observing than joining, then I think that some of opportunities presented in the mid- and late-1990s (e.g., organizing against the Republican "Contract on America", building support for the 1997 UPS strike, etc.) would not have necessarily been missed.

What's with the crap about both parties having several million members each, besides your last comment? :confused:

There is more than one of each of these parties. Let me take the Democratic Party as an example. Formally, there is no singular "Democratic Party". There are the state Democratic Party organizations, which organize the state primaries, nominate candidates for public offices, have local clubs, precinct captains, etc. Then there is a statewide "Democratic Party" that is composed of those who "identify as Democrats" and vote for them. Then, on a national level, there is the Democratic National Committee, which is composed of representatives from the state parties and well-known "faces" of the party, and is responsible for organizing the quadrennial Democratic National Convention. Then there is the "Democratic Party of the United States of America", also made up of those who "identify as Democrats" and vote for them. These amorphous state and national "Democratic Party" voter groups have no formal organizations or structures, and no meetings or events outside of elections (primary and general elections). The Republicans are pretty much the same, organizationally.

Could you be more specific about how to plant the seeds?

There's no singular tactic for "planting seeds". It's a method of work. Basically, what you're looking to do is win people to the ideas. I cannot tell you how to do this with the people you're dealing with; I can only tell you how we do it here. Our method of "planting seeds" was developed over time; it was a product of trial-and-error and experience.

In the U.S., there are two general rules to remember about working people: 1) we are smarter and more aware than we appear or act in public, and 2) we will not show you this side of us unless we trust you.

On the first point, it has been our experience that working people create an outward image of apathy and disengagement from what's going on as a defense mechanism against possible retribution by the bosses (the capitalists, the petty bourgeoisie). Working people still have a collective memory, which is shared in something of an oral tradition (stories told from parent to child or among friends and relatives), and often the stories passed from generation to generation are those of betrayal and retribution by false friends and enemies. Yes, some positive experiences are also relayed among some sectors, but most often they are tempered and offset by negatives. This builds up to the "lesson" of how to put together the image of disengagement: "just do what you have to do to get through it"; "swallow your pride"; "keep your nose to the grindstone"; etc., etc. The result is that workers put on a "front" at work -- in a sense, a caricature of what the capitalists expect workers to be: compliant, happy and, most importantly, disengaged from events happening around them.

This is where the second point comes in. As a result of creating this image of disengagement, working people have a natural and healthy distrust of those who do not have such an image. This occurs for two reasons: First, there is a belief that the more "opinionated" worker could be one of those betrayers they were warned about; and, second, they do not want to find themselves caught up in any possible reprisal that might happen to the "opinionated" worker. So, they keep them at arm's length and don't want to open themselves up to being attacked (or, at the very least, personally hurt by anything that might happen).

"Planting seeds" is a process of getting through the mask of mistrust, engaging with the working person and giving them food for thought. Building trust is the first, and most important part, of this. This itself is a three-fold process. You not only have to work toward the goal of being seen as someone they accept as one of "their own", you also, at the same time, have to prove you're genuine in what you say and convince them that you will not sell them out. And let me put it this way: If you cannot win their trust, then you need to take a serious look at your own politics, because they're seeing something about them that you're not. This trust-building process takes time; do not expect it to be either an automatic or easy process.

Once you've managed to win trust and "prove yourself" to workers, then you can begin talking with them. Now, it is important to remember that, even when talking with them, you are still having to prove yourself. Where and when you have a conversation, and what you choose to talk about, can all influence an ongoing process of building trust. No working person is ever going to trust unconditionally, so you have to be careful and conscious of your actions at every step. You cannot just start "waving the red flag"; that makes you look foolish, and that breeds mistrust. Take your time. Ease into it. Sometimes it's best to let your fellow worker bring up an issue or topic to talk about.

"Food for thought" is the last part of this. For the self-described socialist or communist, this is also sometimes the most dangerous part. The most important thing when doing this part of "planting seeds" is to avoid giving all the answers. In fact, I would recommend you not give any answers at all. Instead, ask pointed questions that will allow your fellow worker to come to the conclusions themselves. Allow them to think it through from beginning to end, to analyze the question themselves. Give them the tools, but let them do the digging. In effect, let them plant the seeds themselves. More often than not, this is a process where you're doing this one issue at a time, over a longer period of time. But in the end, you find that, while they might not join an organization, they will be there when it is necessary.

I can attest to the success of this method. Even though the League is still a small organization numerically, our influence is greater than organizations 10 times our size or more. We may not recruit a single person from an area of work, but we know that there are dozens, if not hundreds, of people we've influenced and won over to at least some of our ideas. We've done this in the Soldiers of Solidarity movement among dissident autoworkers; we've done this in our work with the Lakotah Freedom Movement; we've done this in the immigrant workers' rights movement; we've done it in the antiwar movement.

This is an intriguing point. No doubt sectarianism has its roots in the more than a few "little Lenins" who want to lead the next soviet empire. Unfortunately, fighting back against such cliques has historically only exacerbated sectarianism in the past. What are some steps the CL is taking to avoid repeating these mistakes?

I would say we're doing this in three ways: First, we have made a point to consciously reject the method of building an organization based on a specific doctrine or "name-ism". We are a multitendency communist organization, united on the basis of our Basic Principles. Our principles address the questions of what capitalism is, what the class struggle means, how we as working people can organize to fight and overthrow it, what our tasks are before and during the revolution, and what our goal is. We do not get bogged down in demanding "litmus tests" on historical questions or issues of who had the "correct line" at a given moment in history. Members are free to hold their own specific doctrine, and both believe and advocate that our principles are in line with that doctrine (with the understanding that there are other members who will necessarily disagree). We also give our members and base organizations a great deal of autonomy when it comes to how they conduct their work. We encourage experimentation and creativity, as long as it does not directly conflict with our principles. We trust our fellow members enough to give them the leeway they think is needed.

Second, we have also taken steps to combat what we see as the root causes of opportunism, sectarianism and the "Little Lenin Syndrome": the influence and presence of non-proletarian elements and ideology within the movement. Our practice of proletarian separatism in building a communist organization means that there is no material basis for the development of a class-based division of labor within the League, where non-proletarian "theoreticians" and "leaders" administer and manage the proletarian "members", and, as the Spartacists once said, "drag them around like a big bag of shit". Every member is encouraged to develop theoretically and to develop theory. That is, we seek to equip every member with the means and ability to think through theoretical questions on their own, and also to develop new theoretical arguments and positions, and have the means to fight for them within the organization.

Third, because we are an organization that bases itself on a mutual trust among members, we have no fear of an honest and open political debate among our membership. This is why the pages of our publications are open to members (and non-members), for the purposes of debate and discussion. And this is not only on ongoing or developing questions, but on historical and doctrinal issues too. We've had an ongoing debate in the pages of Workers' Republic for three years on the question of the USSR; we've opened up debates on the differences between "Left Communism" and communism. In our view, debate is nothing to fear, and public debate before the entire class is something to be welcomed. In our view, the working class is our ultimate "check and balance", not "the left" and not ourselves.

More broadly, though, I think sectarianism does have (some) qualitatively distinct features from opportunism. For instance, sectarianism is categorically bad for us. But opportunism not so much. For example, the Chinese communists were "opportunistic" to ally with the nationalists against imperialism, and they weren't beyond using the occasional irridentist slogan. Indeed, one man's opportunism is another man's pragmatism. Cynical opportunism can be useful as a tactic; what is key is that we distinguish it from the self-centered ambition of a few delusional creeps that thrive in a sectarian-ridded movement.

The problem with this view, however, is that you essentially are trading one set of "delusional creeps" for another. While you might get rid of the "Little Lenins" of the movement, you still have the "Little Stalins" or "Little Blairs" patiently biding their time. This is why it is necessary to take on both sectarianism and opportunism; yes, they have some fundamentally different forms, but the underlying content -- especially the class basis of their existence -- is fundamentally the same.

And the broader point about membership is well taken. The question is one of quality or quantity. More members or a few good cadres? Although this does beg the question: should there be a domestic "grand congress" like the 1st international in the different countries (or regions) to get together and hash out points of unity, or should we take over one of the existing leftist groups and begin anew with an avowedly non-sectarian and ecumenical outlook? No doubt the people doing the grunt work for either organizational model will be dedicated "members", but the question is, which attracts more of the better sort?

For starters, we should reject any organizational model that allows for "grunt workers". Period. That is how class-based divisions of labor begin, when mental and physical labor within the organization is divided among groups of members. Either every member does both theoretical and "grunt" work, or they all do one or the other.

As for the model, the "grand congress" idea is probably the best, since it allows for a more flexible and open organization to develop. Three years ago, we proposed the formation of the International Working People's Association as an organization along these lines. For a U.S.-specific formation, we would propose something along the lines of a Working People's Alliance (or whatever it wants to be called), based on the seven Points of Unity of the IWPA:

The liberation of working people must be carried out by working people themselves; this struggle for liberation does not mean merely a fight for better wages and privileges, or merely for more rights, but the abolition of classes and class antagonisms, beginning with the establishment of real majority rule on its own basis.
The exploitation of the producers, of working people, is based on the private ownership of the means of production, and this private ownership lies at the heart of all the misery, degradation, oppression and bloodshed in society, as well as serves as the basis for the development and irreconcilability of classes and class antagonisms.
The liberation of working people from this societal system of exploitation and oppression (capitalism) is the central task of all genuine working people’s organizations and movements, with all other tasks subordinated to and guided by this goal. This struggle of classes takes place in all areas of society, but is concentrated on the political battlefield, in the form of a decisive struggle against the state and its organs of enforcement.
All previous movements for the liberation of working people failed either because of isolation and a lack of solidarity, or because of an inability to venture beyond immediate issues, or because of subordination to the interests and/or leadership of false friends from the exploiting and oppressing classes.
The liberation of working people is not a local or national, but a societal task, embracing all the countries of the world where capitalism exists, and demanding the closest possible unity of working people on a worldwide basis. The organization of working people toward this end, without regard to “homeland,” is a natural outgrowth of the class itself and the conditions that created it.
The struggles of working people against economic exploitation are only one part of the broader struggle for liberation. The struggles against oppression of working people based on race or nationality, gender, age, sexuality, or ability, are an inseparable part of the struggle for liberation, and must be fought by all working people in order to achieve our common goals.
The reawakening of working people in this period to their central role in society, their common interests and the lessons given to them by the last century of struggle, while it raises a new hope, gives solemn warning against a relapse into the old errors, and demands the immediate unification of these emerging, disconnected forces into a single worldwide body.

I would also suggest it have a platform of concrete demands around which it organizes. Above and beyond that, though, it should be a place where working people and youth from working-class backgrounds can come together, debate differences, clarify questions and build the basis for a new class-conscious workers' movement. It should allow members to also be part of other organizations, as long as they are not attempting to use the alliance as a feeding ground for their group.

In short, it should be class-based, non-doctrinaire, multi-tendency and a place where theoretical debate is welcome. It should be both a school for training the next wave of class-conscious workers and an organizing center for current struggles. It should be open to workers from all class-struggle-oriented trends. Most importantly, though, it should be seen as a means to an end, not the end itself. This kind of project is a tool for building a movement, not a substitute for the movement.