From: "Ben Seattle" <icd-AT-communism.org> Subject: M-I: Louis Proyect smashes reformism (Jesse Jackson edition) Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1998 02:19:55 -0700 ===========================1) The importance of social power =========================== Louis Proyect: > The reason it is useful to dialogue and keep open doors > to reformist forces is that they have social power. This is an extremely useful and revealing statement. This reveals in concentrated form the *essence* of reformist ideology. Any serious approach to understanding the reformist trends is forced to ask the following question: ---------------------------------- What is the *source* of this social power ? ---------------------------------- And the ultimate answer to this question--if one troubles oneself to trace out the various complex and lengthy chains of political and institutional alliances, linkages, and relationships--is always the same. The source of this social power is the *bourgeoisie*. That's how things work in class society. Politicians such as Jesse Jackson have social power precisely because the bourgeoisie *gives* it to them. Why does the bourgeoisie do this ? Because people like Jesse Jackson play ball with the bourgeoisie. Because people like Jesse Jackson perform errands for the bourgeoisie. Because the bourgeoisie has a *need* for people like Jesse Jackson. In 1988 the Democratic Party in the US was facing a credibility problem among the workers and oppressed. The Democratic Party was losing its ability to present itself as a defender of the interests of workers. The Democratic Party had a need for some preacher to bring the wandering flock back into the fold. > Millions of people look to Jesse Jackson ... Precisely. And that is why Jesse Jackson was just the perfect person to fulfill the mission of bringing the masses back under the influence of the Democratic Party. > As it turned out, Jackson got cold feet, rejected the notion > of a third party bid, and re-entered the Democratic Party > inner circles with a vengeance. The only thing that could have > swayed him in the opposite direction would have been a > powerful mass movement independent of the Democratic Party > like the kind that existed in the 1960s and early 70s. Louis hits the nail on the head once again. If there had been a sufficiently "powerful mass movement independent of the Democratic Party" then the bourgeosie would have *needed* Jesse Jackson to create a third bourgeois party in order to *intercept* the leftward motion of the masses. And what the bourgeoisie wants, the bourgeosie gets. Jesse Jackson is nothing if not obedient. Once things had cooled down, of course, the third party could have been liquidated. All this helps us to understand the extreme foolishness of hoping that Jesse Jackson would use his "social power" to assist in awakening the consciousness of the oppressed. Because such foolishness ignores how things actually work in class society. Jesse Jackson only has his social power because the bourgeoisie *gives it to him* so that he can use it to *degrade* the consciousness of the oppressed. If Jesse Jackson were to use his social power to raise the consciousness of the oppressed, then the bourgeoisie would *strip him* of his social power. And Jesse Jackson would *lose* his social power. And Jesse Jackson will not go for this. Such an analysis is elementary. One of the tasks of genuine communists is to raise the consciousness of the masses so that they can clearly understand the role which is played by treacherous misleaders like Jesse Jackson. It is the consciousness of the masses which is the most powerful *driving force* that determines everything else. But for the communists to perform this task, they must wage a struggle (both within their own ranks and within their circles of influence) to oppose the reformist ideology which is aimed at keeping the workers and oppressed under the political influence of bourgeoisie politics and ideology. ====================2) suspension of disbelief ==================== Louis Proyect: > Carrol's point about Jesse Jackson was well-taken. > 10 years ago when he was running as a Rainbow > candidate in the primaries, many of us held out hope > that he would break with the Democrats and run as > an independent. Hope springs eternal in the human breast. If we could somehow harness this incredible suspension of disbelief that allows reformists to substitute pious wishes for a sordid reality--we could use this energy to light entire cities. The problem with such dangerous and extreme naivete is that it *ignores* the reason Jesse Jackson was active in the first place--which was to *herd* the masses back to the Democratic Party fold. > He disappointed us, however, Will wonders never cease ? The extremely misplaced faith of reformists in charlatans like Jesse Jackson is impervious to erosion by the treachery of Jesse Jackson. People like Louis Proyect only discover that Jesse Jackson cannot be relied upon when the *masses* begin to get *angry* with people like Jesse Jackson. Then people like Louis Proyect understand that *their own* credibility is at stake. > and remains more deeply entrenched in the Clinton > machine than I would have dreamed possible. Dreams are interesting. People used to dream of turning lead into gold or harnessing energy from a perpetual motion machines. Reformists dream that bourgeois lackeys will grow a spine and stand up to their masters. I dream also. I dream that the working class will develop its own politics and organization that will be independent of bourgeois control. I ask readers: which dreams are worth dedicating one's life to? ==========3) So what ? ========== Louis Proyect: > Godena can foam at the mouth at Jesse Jackson > all he wants, but the plain truth is that his miserable > Communist Party has done more to hold back > independent political action than any group on the left. Proyect appears to be arguing that Jesse Jackson's crimes in holding back independent political action are smaller than the crimes of the CPUSA. This, by itself, may or may not be true. But shouldn't we be opposing *all* these crimes? And doesn't opposing all these crimes involve opposing the reformist ideology? And isn't this what Proyect so vociferously objects to? =======================4) A perfect sense alternative ======================= Louis Proyect: > In reality, the job of breaking down > reformist consciousness is a difficult > and time-consuming chore. So because this task is difficult and time-consuming should we therefore give up on it ? This task is difficult and time-consuming precisely because it ultimately threatens the foundations of bourgeois rule. On the contrary, because this task is as important and necessary as it is difficult, we should try to develop as clear an understanding, in *practice* and in *theory*, of what reformism represents and skillful ways to assist the masses to break away from reformist influence. > The working-class in general does not go beyond a > reformist consciousness. This explains the existence > of reformist leadership, not naked repression. If the workers are covered with shit, we want to help them throw off the shit--not pile more shit on top of them. If we want the working class to break free of reformist illusions--then we have to help them do so--not reinforce those same illusions. > When a worker is offered a choice between a reformist > leader and a revolutionary leader in normal day-to-day > circumstances, he or she will vote for the reformist. > This makes perfect sense. Yes, this does make perfect sense. But what *conclusion* do we draw from this ? Do we change our politics to be reformist so that the workers will vote for us ? Hey, maybe we can grow up to to be president like Bill Clinton? I've heard there's lots of nice fringe benefits. > What is critical is to offer a revolutionary alternative in > *prerevolutionary* periods, or periods of deepening > class confrontations, that makes sense to the average > worker. True. The trick, my friend, is to make certain that we are offering the workers a *revolutionary alternative* and not a *reformist alternative*. What does theory tell us about how to do this ? Theory tells us that *above all* the alternative we offer the workers should be an alternative which is not controlled by the bourgeoisie. Otherwise it is not really an alternative--it is merely the lesser of two evils--which is hardly revolutionary. =============================5) Need for theory ============================= Louis Proyect: > The last time in the United States when we had > this kind of opportunity, the revolutionaries shot > themselves in the foot by trying to mechanically > replicate the Russian or Chinese revolutionary > movement in auto, steel and garment factories, > etc. in the most foolish manner. Unfortunately this is largely true. But what was the *reason* for this ? The reason was that the state of "communist" theory was in the gutter. Neither the Russian, the Chinese, the Albanian nor the Cuban parties had "communist" theory that wasn't fucked-up in some serious way. We were faced with the problem of developing our own theory. We didn't know this. Our theoretical level was so low that we didn't understand how starved we were for correct theory. To make matters worse, developing correct theory takes time. Theory represents concentrated experience. It takes time to get experience. It takes time to concentrate it. We didn't have time. The opportunism, sectarianism, charlatanism and reformism that saturated nearly all corners of the movement greatly hindered cooperation between revolutionary activists who often were hardly speaking to each other. What conclusion should we draw from this ? 1) Without theory the communist movement is hardly worthy of being considered a communist movement. 2) Without theory the communist movement is naked in the presence of its enemies. 3) We now have plenty of experience (the 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's) to sum up and opportunities (electronic forums such as this one--where it becomes damn difficult to shut up anyone with something worthwhile to say) to do so. 4) We should take advantage of the present circumstances to talk to one another in an intelligent way. Opportunism, charlatanism, sectarianism and reformism will all take severe damage as discussion develops. Theory will develop as a result of intelligent discussion. 5) If we take advantage of the present circumstances to raise our consciousness and the level of communist theory--we will put ourselves into position, soon enough, to kick some serious bourgeois butt. =================================6) Principled working relationships between reformists and revolutionaries ================================= Louis Proyect: > In general, the relationship to reformists is not a problem for > ultraleftists, who do not consider the possibility that they have > an obligation to think these matters through tactically. I agree with Louis that it is very important to carefully weigh all tactical considerations. Common work between reformists and revolutionaries is not only desirable. It is necessary. Conducting this work along principled lines requires, however, that the revolutionaries not create or reinforce illusions that would undermine consciousness of the harmfulness of reformist ideology. Genuine communists will often work with reformists. But genuine communists *always* oppose the reformist *ideology*. Louis Proyect's conception of revolutionaries working with reformists involves joint work and working relationships with people such as Jesse Jackson. My conception of revolutionaries working with reformists involves joint work and working relationships with people such as Louis Proyect. I do not require, as a condition of working with Louis Proyect, that he recognize that he is a reformist and not a communist. At the same time I will not hide my own assessment. What I expect from Louis Proyect is that he conduct himself on this list in a intelligent and principled manner at least 80% of the time. And Louis is more than meeting my expectations. He is probably in the 90% to 95% range. When he slips up, from time to time, I believe we should remind him that we expect better of him and that we know that he is capable of better. This will help him to further improve the quality and character of his contributions--which are already of a level that they are frequently worthy of being considered outstanding. What we can gain from this principled working relationship is vast quantities of useful and admirable work from Louis to help many readers explore and better understand a very wide range of useful and interesting questions. Whether it is possible that we can win Louis away from very many of his reformist prejudices--is unknowable. We should do the best we can to act intelligently and make every effort to refrain from ritualistic abuse of Louis because of his mistaken beliefs (which are common to 99% of all progressive people). To what extent people such as Louis can be won to revolutionary positions--is largely dependent on the level of ferment and class struggle in society. This is the main factor that will influence people's thinking. However we should still do our best to act intelligently. We should not be afraid to engage Louis in intelligent discussion and neither should we fly off the handle when he has an occasional lapse into unprincipled methods. The "left" and progressive movements, for complex historical reasons, have been *saturated* with all kinds of unprincipled behavior. The dominance of opportunism and the infighting of various competing trends which fight one another for the allegiance of activists, over financial support from activists (and other sources) and over alliances with an entire strata of sleazy institutions--have created an milieu in which principled and unprincipled bahavior have existed side by side for a very long time. It is probably not realistic to expect many activists who have spent years in this milieu to always understand the difference between principled and unprincipled behavior. Gentle reminders (either public or private) will often be all that is necessary to steadily move things forward. I have had higher expectations of principled behavior from that portion of the movement from which I emerged. Partly this is because it was this section of the movement, the "anti-revisionist" section, which put immensely greater emphasis on the necessity of being principled and supposedly recognized the extreme danger of sliding down the steeply inclined plane of opportunism. But it is no secret that I have been disappointed, above all, by a number of my own former comrades. To those who get angry at the ideas which exist in the heads of people such as Louis (and many others) -- my advice is simple: use your damn head. It is a mistake to dwell on the ideas in Louis's head. That's not the point. We want to raise the consciousness of *this entire list* about the nature of reformism. Louis is going to be *extremely helpful* in this regard. It is quite possible that no one is doing a better job of smashing the reformist ideology that Louis Proyect is in the process of trying to defend it. *That* is the point. Louis (and many others here) have *extensive experience*. We want to get a discussion going. We want them to talk. We want them to be relaxed. We should offer them a drink. Let everything flow freely. And what will be the result ? The truth will come out. Ben Seattle ----//-// 11.Apr.98 -- 2am --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005