First Issued: n.d. [July-August 1980].
Transcription, Editing and Markup: Paul Saba
Copyright: This work is in the Public Domain under the Creative Commons Common Deed. You can freely copy, distribute and display this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit the Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line as your source, include the url to this work, and note any of the transcribers, editors & proofreaders above.
Eight persons came together to contribute to the writing of this paper. It is a collective work. Because of the pressures of time, it was not possible for each individual to see the final version of each section, so everyone who contributed may not agree with each and every formulation. However, seven persons agree with the thrust of the paper and the general criticisms raised.
Also many of the points raised in this paper correspond to points raised by Rodrigo in a recent paper given to the SC of FTP [For the People EROL]. We are asking the SC of the LC to distribute Rodrigo’s paper also to members of the LC, as optional background material for the discussion at the next LC meeting.
* * *
We have been criticized for submitting this paper later than originally planned. The reasons it took so long to write this paper are not only the usual time pressures of other commitments, political and personal. The reasons also have to do with the fact that we have had to work out a “new” position, based on much thinking and discussing among ourselves, with little theoretical help from the outside. Unlike the leadership of the LC, we do not have ready-made theories and analyses from somewhere else.
This fact explains not only why this paper took so long to write, but also certain weaknesses of the paper, which can only be corrected through further thinking, discussion, struggle. This paper does not claim to be the full expression of an opposing line to that of leadership – only the beginnings of one.
The criticism that we are not offering an “alternative” to “sharp ideological struggle” (SIS) as it is being carried out, is therefore partly true: at present, it cannot be otherwise. The criticism, however, is partly untrue. We all know alternative methods. For instance, whatever happened to plain old criticism/self-criticism on an objective basis, without preconceived formulas and predetermined conclusions? In this paper, we try to put forward some of our ideas on “alternatives”.
However, this paper is mainly addressed towards the present model of ”sharp ideological struggle” as it has been carried out. We find the present model of SIS unacceptable not only because it has been carried to ridiculous extremes – something even our leadership now realizes, after putting “SIS” into practice with people outside the organization and in the mass movements – where “SIS” was correctly seen as wrong, disruptive, pointless, counterproductive and sometimes racist.
This sobering experience may now lead to more “moderation” on the part of those practicing SIS. But such moderation’ of style does not eliminate the underlying left dogmatisim and idealism of the approach – which we will explain in this paper.
We want to be clear. We are not against sharp struggle, criticism/self-criticism, drawing people out, or probing ideological roots – in situations where these are appropriate, and in an objective, reasoned and all-sided way. Especially we are not against using these methods to struggle against our own racism.
What we are against is the approach now being used, which we believe is dogmatic in assumptions and premises as well as in practice. We do not believe the present approach can be successful in the struggles against racism, capitalism or anything. It is self-defeating in the end. History has taught us this about ultra-leftism.
It is true there is a positive side to the present approach. It quite clearly attacks the liberalism prevalent before in our practice, and promises more criticism/self-criticism, which we have needed. And it has been put forward in the context of wanting to struggle against racism and take Marxist-Leninist ideas to the working class and national minorities. These are excellent goals.
Yes, of course the approach of “SIS” has a positive side to it. And undoubtedly it has some positive effects on the thinking and practice of many OC members. Otherwise the “SIS” wouldn’t appeal so much to so many LC members.
But this is the problem: that the “positive side” can serve as a cover for the grave, self-defeating mistakes of idealism and dogmatism embedded in the new approach.
Some people are defending the ultra-leftism of the new approach as being necessary to correct past errors – it is described as “bending the stick” in Lenin’s terms. But, friends, this analogy is dangerous. Lenin never “bent the stick” in carrying out wrong approaches or policies. He never “bent the stick” into dogmatism! In fact, he always had to fight relentlessly against the dogmatism that appeared in the Russian socialist movement. If the Bolsheviks had not broken with dogmatism, they would never have been able to win the workers to follow them, and to lead a successful revolution.
Ultra-leftist groups are always “bending the stick” as they flip-flop from one extreme to another, looking for a quick solution to their frustrations, a formula for instant revolution. What they lack is a scientific, objective approach. And in their zeal and super-communist mentality, they not only “bend the stick” but break the stick.
This is what has happened here. A real flip-flop. Everything once good is now bad. What was ultra-leftism and dogmatism before, is now super-correct and true “Marxism-Leninism”.
Of course the new line has a positive side. But so do the lines of other clearly ultra-left groups, past and present. The Progressive Labor Party, the Revolutionary Communist Party, the Communist Workers’ Party, and others all raise Marxist-Leninist ideas in a sharp way in their work; some of them are very committed to fighting racism; they are determined to take a stand with the proletariat, etc. Sometimes they do good practice, even. Sometimes they even “moderate” their style when they come face to face with the opinions of working-class and national minority people – because they too want to win people to their cause.
They do win a few (because of their positive side). At the same time they keep losing people, one by one, as persons inevitably get burned out by the unrealistic demands of “super-communism” and the rebuffs of the masses who generally will not accept any ultra-leftist approach.
We could bring in cadre of the RCP, PLP, CWP, etc. etc. – who would all give testimonials of how wonderful their group’s latest line and practice is, what a great effect it’s had on their thinking and practice. They wouldn’t be making it all up. They could be very persuasive, even, if we had little experience with ultra-leftism.
But if we step back and look at these groups from an historical perspective, another picture emerges. For all their commitment to the working class and revolution, these ultra-leftist and dogmatist groups achieve nothing that really serves the working class or advances revolution. In fact, these groups confuse the working class, build anti-communism by their practice, and postpone revolution.
Our tendency is in danger of falling into the same trap. It is abandoning reality and the principle of thinking for itself, in favor of formulas and a super-communist conception of itself. This will be a tragedy if it happens, because our tendency was born in reaction to the ultra-leftism and dogmatism we once recognized was all too prevalent and dangerous in the anti-revisionist communist movement.
It is time to stop and think about this. White chauvinism and racism are dangerous enemies to the progress of our communist movement. But we cannot make progress in struggling against them unless we simultaneously avoid dogmatism, idealism and ultra-leftism: which objectively only serve to perpetuate racism by undermining, and finally defeating, the movements that fall prey to them.
It is from this viewpoint this paper is written.
1. The Communist movement world-wide has a very rich history of both successes and failures. Hopefully we can learn from the mistakes of the past so that serious errors can be avoided. The currently practiced method of SIS was fully developed and extensively used as part of the Stalinist method in the 1930’s. Although elements of this approach were found in Lenin’s method of arguing and presenting ideas, there are significant differences between the Leninist approach and present practice.
2. Lenin’s style of debate was very sharp and polemical towards his opponents. His main focus, however, was on ideas and practice and not motives. The Stalinist version by-passed differences in conflicting ideas and focused on motives behind ideas. This shift in focus was specifically designed to break down comrades’ defenses and force them to go along with the will of the majority. Disagreements were not tolerated, and personal motives and ideological weaknesses were attributed to underlie all differences and all criticisms.
3. Lenin’s attitude was generally one of struggle with differences and insistence that party discipline be maintained once a decision had been made by the party. It wasn’t insistence on agreement. Consolidation, for example, is an idea that would be alien to Lenin. Carry out the party line, not conformity in thinking was the Leninist approach. Lenin rejected Zinoviev and Kamenev’s resignations from the party, when they were the lone two dissenters (on the Bolshevik Central Committee) for revolutionary seizure of power in October 1917. It is remarkable that today’s leadership in the SC has a less open attitude towards differences.
4. With Stalin the insistence on agreement became an obsession. The focus on underlying motives became the method of enforcing agreement. The effect was to stifle dissent and eliminate competing ideas. Real political differences were never really struggled out; they were just silenced. Many strong and dedicated comrades were purged from the party and sometimes killed for not agreeing with the current line.
5. The s Stalinist method led to very serious errors in the Soviet Union, China, the U.S. and elsewhere. The method was very effective in enforcing agreement, especially when there were sharp flips in party line. But there were real disasters that resulted from not having struggles over party lines be an open process. In 1927, thousands of workers and cadre of Chinese Party were massacred in Shanghai. Stalin had instructed the Chinese CP to subordinate itself to Chiang Kai-shek and the bourgeois Koumintang. Chinese Party members were brow beaten and criticized into accenting this line. This is just one example, but movements elsewhere have been weakened and even destroyed for not being critical and not thinking independently.
6. The current method of SIS is a Stalinist deviation that must be exposed. It is a method that shields the leadership from challenges to their ideas. It is a method which is rooted in intimidation and holds back comrades’ ability to think critically. It is a method which does not permit competing views to be struggled out in an open manner. It is a method which doesn’t really permit differences in politics to be exposed to the light of day.
1. The current method of Sharp Ideological Struggle (SIS) was never discussed or studied collectively within the whole organization. Its roots were never traced. SIS and other methods were never evaluated for effectiveness, weaknesses or strengths. Its introduction was highly undemocratic and unscientific; yet this method is now exclusively used to present ideas, deal with political differences and run meetings.
This is not a question of new ideas being introduced from the outside. But it represents a major shift in line and focus with far reaching impact. Is this a prelude of the way things will be run now? New ideas or lines from Phila. or Baltimore seep in and are adopted without organizational discussion. Those privy to the new ideas become the new leaders. Democratic centralism can give way to centralism in times of crisis. Today it seems as if a crisis mentality has been created to quickly sweep away the old and bring in the new.
The style of debate that we use today should be one that advances our movement. It is not sufficient to say that SIS Is “Leninist”, because what was “Leninist” varied during Lenin’s lifetime. It seems that a more open struggle of ideas, a weighing of pros and cons, a sharp and penetrating examination of differences would be more in line with the Leninist experience. SIS is more a reflection of the Stalinist tradition.
2. In the short period that the Rectification Campaign has been underway, many serious systematic ultra-left errors have been made both in our analysis and practice. Our mass work in the Black Community is in trouble, and our work in the women’s movement has had serious problems. This turn of events is no accident, nor is it the result of isolated “mistakes” from a few overzealous individuals. It is the result of the current Rectification Campaign and the method of SIS which is rooted in dogmatism.
3. In the rectification campaign SIS is used to root out white chauvinism. In this campaign every weakness, error or political difference is raised to the ideological level. This is a classic error of dogmatism, known as reductionism – reducing a many-sided phenomenon to a single-sided one. According to SIS, lack of confidence becomes racism. Getting shut down or being confused becomes racism. Different levels of commitment becomes racism. Difficulty in getting a task done becomes racist. Reducing every criticism to one of racism does not seem very helpful in moving people forward. Many problems are due to other causes, such as sexist oppression, lack of confidence, inexperience, intimidation, poor leadership, lack of an adequate training program, and class oppression to name a few.
Narrowing the range of ideological errors to racism doesn’t help move people forward either. Liberalism, dogmatism, commandism, nationalism, male chauvinism to name a few, are serious ideological weaknesses which need to be identified and rectified.
To identify everything as racism really obscures the analysis of racism and detracts from the battle against white chauvinism. Instead of a focus on major errors, on mass practice, or relations with National Minorities we wind fihting subconscious racism. Attacking everything as racist makes us look very strange indeed to Blacks today. This strangeness is more accurately called ultra-leftism!!!
4. Reducing every political question to an ideological level, places the leadership in a powerful position. It enforces conformity without having ideas examined carefully. There is no room to discuss real differences or merits of alternative viewpoints Those that disagree with the leadership line must argue on the basis of racism or anti-working class bias. Ideas are not drawn out, criticisms never get raised, or get dealt with as ideological errors. It is clear that SIS liquidates the two line struggle. We now have a one line struggle, which is characteristic of dogmatic tendencies. In one mass work campaign, white cadre debating whether to present self criticism of their work to the masses. Leadership put forward the position that SIS should taken to the mass movement and that would include getting into the question of attitudes, the roots of racist errors. The position of the leadership that racist stereotypes be laid out was narrowly defeated. Had the question been taken up organizationally, the SC would have been in a strong position to push its line, arguing that it would be racist to disagree. One week later, the SC repudiated its position of taking SIS to the masses realizing that serious mistakes had been made in the self criticisms. Imagine what would have been the results if leadership had its way and we went even further.
5. The current method of SIS takes place in an atmosphere of group intimidation. Sharp struggle usually takes place on a 4 to 1 basis or greater. People are subject to struggle over long periods of time. Meeting now run up to six hours. There is also a lot of struggle going on on an ad hoc basis while eating dinner, etc. While the atmosphere is presented as one of openness, it is just the opposite. People are not encouraged to have an open discussion. Those that are brave enough to speak up and voice differences or questions find a ready group of cadre eager to uncover racist errors or anti-working class bias. People wind up not listening to the content of other people’s ideas, but are in fact listening for ideological weaknesses. If part of your idea is tainted, it all gets rejected. People’s ideas get labeled and categorized – “that’s racist.” No one is searching for truth or objectivity. The hunt centers on ideology. Under this set up there is a tremendous pressure to conform. People will agree to accept positions, even when they aren’t well thought out or if they are still believed to be wrong in cadre’s minds. There is a lot of posturing going on. Even the leadership has admitted this. People are agreeing to racist errors even when they aren’t fully sure. Who can think clearly under hard-sell tactics? People know what the leadership wants them to say, and there is a lot of pressure to conform rather than think independently. How honest is this process anyway that we are spending hours and hours of valuable time on? Under these conditions, leadership is in a strong position to push a line and expect little criticism or opposition. It is no accident that we have witnessed sharp flip-flops in line in a short period of time. Note well, this is the mark of dogmatism. We can expect more flip-flops in the near future. While it may be true that underlying criticisms or differences may be white chauvinism or an attempt to shield racism, this is not true in all cases. Arguing political, strategic and tactical questions is difficult. Many errors are to be expected. Arguing these questions on the basis of ideological purity obscures the real issues, surrounding these questions and insures that dogmatism will have its day.
6. The current method of SIS is dogmatic and reductionist because every problem, issue or difference is reduced to an ideological question. We now have a simple formula which can be applied to all complex questions. We no longer have to think all sidedly about an error. We no longer have to debate the merits of a question. We now have a substitute – SIS for real scientific inquiry. Real political differences don’t get addressed. Even the formula itself is rigid and fixed. The questions are the same. Even the expected answers are the same. The method is designed to force people into one pre-set direction. Once you step on the conveyor belt we all wind up in the same place. Under intense group pressure, people are pushed to admit that the basest racist stereotypes underlie their errors. They are then asked to confess and lay out these stereotypes as the essence of their views. People are then asked to expose their stake in holding onto the racist stereotypes. The stakes are usually the same. So are the stereotypes. If people disagree or offer alternative explanations, they are accused of hiding their racism. They are “defensive” regardless of how honest they are in trying to explore their motives. If others offer alternative explanations, they are accused of hiding their own racism and shielding the racism of others. So the circular process continues. The application of a fixed formula to complex questions and the assumption of preconceived conclusions is not scientific but is dogmatic. Truth is not the objective end of such a method.
1. An important part in the fight against racism is exposing racist bourgeoisie ideology and attitudes that are found in all whites. The present method of SIS and its method of implementation places ideological change as the central or main focus in the fight against racism.
This is an idealistic formulation, which emphasizes changing attitudes as a means of fighting racism. The method is also idealistic in that it downplays the role of practice. To focus our main energies on our own psychologies and to make our main efforts to “purify” ourselves as soon as possible – is to give into a profoundly reactionary notion, that it is our feelings or unconscious thoughts or subtle unmeaning racism, that is at the “root” of the problem. These are certainly problems that we must struggle to correct. But the main problem facing Blacks is not us, it is not in the psychologies of well-meaning whites though we tend to reflect the racism in our thinking and behavior – but the real problem is in the racism of the system that surrounds us, the imperialist system at large, American capitalism in particular.
2. We know that the real oppression that national minorities suffer comes from racist capitalist institutions and structures – the racism of the courts, the police, the housing industry, the employment structure, the medical establishment, the government in general, business practices, etc., etc.
Seeing the “real” enemy as inside us, rather than out there – imperialism and capitalism – will divert us from our real struggle, and not solve a thing. And it will not help a bit.
3. It is important to rectify white racist attitudes and practice. The main focus of a rectification program should be practice. There should be an attempt to figure out racist practices and engage cadre & leadership in extensive criticism & self-criticism. The roots of people’s ideas should be examined along with their practice. But the primary focus should be on correct practice and program and not rooting out ideology.
Because the present Rectification program is rooted in idealism, its results have been racist and paternalistic. SIS attempts to purge all aspects of racist thinking without connecting it up with real practice and. relationships. In most meetings now people are encouraged to open up and then others start finding racist errors based in meeting dynamics rather than practice in the mass movements. There is no way to gauge the consequences of your thinking divorced from real relationships. Consequently every nuance, word or attitude that is racist gets exposed in a static way. Cadre become conscious of all possible racist errors. But because this rectification campaign is not rooted in practice, what gets conveyed is that Blacks will crumble from all aspects of white racism. Whites have become so aware and scared that they will make racist errors, that they have almost forgotten how to relate to Third World People. Our practices with whites around racism has become extremely dogmatic. This is all due to SIS being rooted in idealism.
The idealist arguments of what is or isn’t racist on the part of whites is racist. The emphasis should be on what will objectively move the Black liberation struggle forward and fight U.S. racist institutions. Not to have this focus is idealist and racist and is presently being rejected by both Blacks and whites.
4. SIS is a dogmatic and idealistic method. It’s true test is not in debate, but in practice. The effect of SIS in the mass movement has been on the whole negative. It has divided, fragmented, and demoralized people involved in the anti-violence’ campaign. Many former allies who were involved in this campaign now see our local cadre organization and socialism in a negative light. True, the issue of racism was raised. But the method of SIS has not raised it in a way to move the struggle forward. Another example of not looking at material conditions – where people are at and how much people can realistically take in. Similar results are noted in the Campaign Against Racist Injustice. Third World People see cadre as arrogant, and racist. Comments like: “They don’t listen.” “They are always preaching.” “They’re trying to take over our movement.” are what is heard from people who we have been working with. Better than a year of community work, turned around in little more than a month. Blacks hear a lot of talk about fighting racism and what is racist, but they want to hear less talk and more action. There is a lot of red baiting that is going on behind our backs. This is not the work of the FBI. A correct approach to struggle involves an assessment of where people are at and how far to push and when to let up. This is not to surrender our principles, We should be out front with them. But it is realistic to recognize that people will move only so far at a given time. They may not so from A to Z as fast as we would like. The first step is going from A to B. But we have time. SIS is not going to create a revolution this year. An important ingredient in winning people over is patience and listening. Now leadership is admitting some ultra-leftist errors have been made. It would be opportunistic for them to change their policies without full criticism & self criticism and evaluation of SIS.
5. In developing the united front strategy in China, Mao has shed some light on methods of winning over potentially antagonistic forces.
The contradiction between exploiter & exploited that exists between the national bourgeoisie and the working class is in itself an antagonistic one. But in the concrete conditions existing in China, such an antagonistic contradiction if properly handled, can be transformed into a non-antagonistic one and resolved in a peaceful way. But if it is not properly handled, if say, we do not follow a policy of uniting with, criticizing, and educating the national bourgeoisie, or if the national bourgeoisie doe not accept this policy, then the contradiction between the working class and the national bourgeoisie can turn into an antagonistic contradiction as between ourselves and the enemy... Mao, On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People.
SIS is a hard sell technique which says that if we push an idea hard enough, people will grasp it and change. Idealism! The use of SIS is turning non-antagonistic contradictions into antagonistic ones. SIS is rooted in frustration and impatience PWOC, the OC, etc., are mostly white and middle class. SIS is a petty bourgeoisie get-rich-quick solution in reaction to the slow pace and development of our movement. People are not moving fast enough. If we push them hard thru SIS, things will move faster? This one sided approach to speed up the Revolution is idealist and will result in incorrect handling of contradictions.
6. It is idealistic to think that people will change if given the correct idea. The materialist view says we must look at specific forces in people’s lives that stand in the way of grasping the correct idea and changing their behavior. SIS says you can change right now, you have the choice, and a lot of pressure is placed on people to change. But instant change under pressure is not a real change. Real change is a dialectical process that is integrated into people’s lives.
Many questions can be raised about the desirability of instant change, its meaning and effectiveness. Quick changes may be the flip sides of the same error. True behavior gets changed, but the root may be untouched. If the pressure to change is removed, the old behavior returns.
Doing things because people are paternalistically nice to you is an error. Doing things because people will criticize you and be down on you is an error too. Changes need to be integrated into people’s lives. Quick changes or flips, can mean opposite flops down the road. The root needs to be changed. Any other approach to change is idealistic.
Serious errors have been made in our work. When pressed on this issue SC leadership has admitted that the quick changes in cadre so far have only been superficial and have led to errors. But this analysis is simplistic & glosses over the main problem which is the dogmatic tendency to flip flop which is at the root of the errors. Superficial, quick changes are flip-flops themselves. The leadership does not want to face the real root of the errors. They are afraid of opening up a can of worms which will lead to exposing the undemocratic, heavy-handed way that SIS was introduced.
7. Racist attitudes have a material basis. Whites can never completely root out racist ideology if the material basis of society doesn’t change. That’s not to say that whites should not struggle against racist attitudes. The idea that SIS is a miracle approach to wipe out racist attitudes is idealist. Whites need to be aware of racist attitudes and struggle against them through criticism and self criticism around practice. There are many methods that can make us aware of racist attitudes. But the focus should be on ending racist practices.
8. Because the SIS method is one sided and idealist, it has led to serious errors in dealing with reform movements. The Women’s Movement, for example, is presently und or attack because it is not taking a M–L approach––it does not place racism as primary. While the Women’s Movement does contain bourgeois trends within it, it is also a diverse movement. There are significant numbers of Third World and working class women in this movement today. There are many in the movement that are open to new ideas and could be won over to a socialist perspective. This would take patient work and struggle by Marxist-Leninists. But SIS liquidates this approach. Our allies are treated as if they were our class enemies and a deep gulf is being created between a reform movement and our tendency.
This approach is not much different from PL’s attack on Black Nationalism which was seen strictly as a bourgeois ideology. It is also similar to OL’s attack on Sadlowski who was a rank and file reform candidate for president of the United Steel Workers.
Instead of uniting with reform movements, SIS has pushed us into a one-sided undialectical focus on differences. Our objective allies in the struggle against capitalism are written off as right wingers and racists. If Mao could unite with the National Bourgeoisie in China, are we more RED than he by attacking the Women’s Movement as Racist?
One important aside. The question of Feminism being racist was never taken up organizationally. It was taken up in PWOC. Yet SC leadership have adopted this line. Where is democracy? Are we blindly following PWOC’s lead?
9. The roots of SIS are to be found in bourgeois ideology. Bourgeois ideology says that we are to blame for all the problems around us. It says that all the crises that capitalism produces are our fault. This is the method of getting the working class and others people to blame themselves for the problems created by capitalism. It deflects the struggle away from the capitalists and directs it inward. The self hatred and internalized oppression that people carry are part of bourgeois ideology. The current method of SIS puts the focus inward. It says that we are the problem, that racism is our fault and that our racist attitudes lie at the base of white chauvinism. It is a method that reinforces white guilt. Racism is not our fault. But we do have a responsibility to end racism. We heed to end racist attitudes. But our focus should be on practice. It is no accident that SIS would be taken up as the main struggle by a predominately white, middle class movement.
10. SIS has been a cruel experiment both on cadre and on the masses. There was no scientific testing of this method or study. When it was introduced on the mass level, it wasn’t even checked out with advanced workers or community people. Did they think it was a good idea to bring it to the mass movement? Leadership didn’t care what they advanced thought. Yet another example of rendering people invisible!
Now that errors of SIS have been admitted, both cadre & leadership are taking a cavalier attitude: “Well we just made a mistake.” This was no little mistake. This was an experiment on people which reflects an underlying disregard for the masses and a lack of seriousness of the task at hand. Such an attitude is racist and reflects anti-working class bias.
1. Under the new method of SIS, all personal & political differences are raised to the level of ideological weaknesses to be struggled over. This approach fails to recognize that to build a strong, broad movement will require drawing in people from different backgrounds and with family commitments and responsibilities. We want people that have and maintain close personal links to their job, community and family. Not only must these links be maintained, they must be strengthened to develop strong links with the masses.
2. At this point, people who are committed to relationships or family are seen as having ideological weaknesses. The history and experience of the movement has been that when people get involved in politics and have family commitments or are in relationships, others in the relationship are at different political levels.
The new approach says that Sharp Ideological Struggle is the way to move political development forward in relationships. People are pressured to struggle sharply with their partners. Little consideration is given to the tensions or difficulties that already exist as well as whether SIS is the best approach to move the relationship forward. The argument is given that if you don’t struggle, this shows a lack of respect. We aren’t saying that people should be liberal or paternalistic or ignore differences with partners just for the sake of unity. But that there needs to be balance and awareness of where people are in their lives, how fast they can move and whether they can really hear what is being said. If real care and respect are important, thought and support would be given to cadre rather than a simple “struggle sharply” approach.
3. It is no accident that people who are heavily involved in the LC for the most part have no children, are single or in relationships that share the same level of political commitment, and have very few close links to their community. There seems to be one mold of a full time, fully committed Revolutionary. People with family commitments are not welcome unless they subordinate their families to the organization.
It would seem that this particular model of a Revolutionary has something to do with the problem of recruiting working class and national minority cadre.
In the past history of the CP, cadre’s family responsibilities were never taken up by the organization in a responsible way. It is no accident that scores of Red Diaper babies have been churned out with little commitment to politics. While on the subject of children, is the SC taking a position that people take SIS to our children?
4. The heavy focus of ideological struggle on cadre’s personal lives and commitment once again is misdirected. SIS says that the problem is within us. We have to change dramatically. Our personal commitment is the problem. We need to sacrifice more to speed up the Revolution.
Again this is another example of hopelessness and frustration with the pace of developments. One side of demoralization is giving up. The other side is a compulsive attempt to change things right away. Both are aspects of demoralization even though they take different forms.
5. Our party needs people to participate at all levels. People need a full political commitment, but we must recognize different levels of development, different responsibilities and time commitments. There seems to be a policy that unless you give full time participation you are guilty of racist errors. To turn away people who want to make a contribution, but not a full time one is counter-productive.
6. People’s personal lives do need to be brought into conformity with their political ideas. It would be a mistake not to take up white chauvinism or sexism because they were part of a cadre’s “personal life.” But there is a line beyond which an over concentration of attention on personal life becomes dogmatic.
In the party of Lenin, there were three requirements for membership:
1) membership in a party organization (unit);
2) payment of dues;
3) carrying out the Party’s line.
Under Stalin, more and more provisions were added to membership requirements. In the abstract, many of these provisions were good. But many of the conditions were so vague and all inclusive that what was really happening was that tremendous power was given to party leadership to judge or attack practically anything that a member did. Today there are over 80 requirements for membership in the CPSU. This total control over every aspect of a cadre’s live insures a great deal of conformity in thought as well as practice.
7. People’s feelings are not going to go away just because we have found SIS. To be a successful political movement, we need to strengthen and deepen both our political and friendship relationships – in the collective in the community and on the job.
Now we are told to get rid of our feelings – we don’t want to get caught wallowing or coddling. To express feelings is a sign of paternalism, or even worse defensiveness. But where are feelings going to go now that we have found SIS? Just where they’ve always been, right inside us, regardless of how we may change our outward behavior.
People from North Carolina were involved with a collective several years ago that went through a similar process. That group, now called CWP has degenerated into a dogmatist ultra-left sect. People turned into robots. True they were excellent workers, 100% committed to revolution, but working class people have a hard time relating to them. Che said that a Revolutionary is motivated by great feelings of love. These feelings have to be part of the way that communists relate to each other and to the masses.
8. Being a model communist includes sharp struggle, ideological criticism, criticism & self criticism and sensitivity towards people. Being a good communist means listening to the masses. It means not coming off arrogant like you have all the answers. Up have a lot to learn from people. They have a lot to learn from us, but it is a two-way street. People need to see us as human beings that make mistakes and have weaknesses just like them. If we continue to act like over-zealous, born again communists, who have all the answers, people will be turned off by this posturing. We need not live up to the anti-communist stereotypes that people already have.
9. The assumption that Third World and working class people will have more respect for sharp struggle and reject other approaches reflects racist and anti-working class bias. It characterizes people as being tougher than the rest, more struggle oriented, more aggressive, more angry, more impatient.
This characterization stereotypes these people. The characterization is partly true, but by itself represents a one-sided and idealist view. Third World and Working Class people can be passive, cynical, have personal problems that hold them back, etc. Unless we have an all-sided view of people it is easy to develop an impatient attitude.
By expecting Working Class and Third World people to be instant communists–after all communism is in their objective interest and all we have to do is struggle sharply–will lead us down the dogmatist road. Working Class and Third World People have to see the theoretical importance of something before they will take it up and agree with it. We can’t expect them to look at something and agree just because we think it is right. This is the arrogant idea of the super-communist who forget that we may have something to learn from the people. In fact communists have at times been wrong in their line and method of struggle and made serious errors.
Third World and Working Class people are in real touch with capitalism as it effects their lives. Therefore, they won’t put up with ideas that are divorced from concrete reality. They will reject picky and hair-splitting discussions (such as have in the main characterized SIS) that “focus on ideological defects that are secondary to the struggle against racist, capitalist institutions that oppress people in their every day lives.
10. With SIS, it is now argued that people can change very quickly, and many of our comrades can give ready testimonials to this fact. Whether these changes are good, real and meaningful have already been addressed. But another danger that needs examination is that if cadre now believe that instant change is possible thru SIS, then attitudes of impatience will be reinforced. Some leadership has historically been guilty of this error, and SIS will only deepen this weakness and lead to further impatience and intolerance with non cadre and other cadre shortcomings.
11. What the leadership of the SC is now projecting as the model of a “real” communist in fact resembles(and is probably rooted in) the anti-communist stereotype prevalent in our bourgeois society. This stereotype of a super-communist characterizes communists as: l) being dogmatically sure that they are right and having a formula for everything; 2) puts family and other personal responsibilities and problems in a far second-place to political and ideological debating; 3) is so obsessively committed to preaching a “Line” that the questions and objections of others are not really listened to, but labeled and disposed of quickly; 4) can relate to others only in terms of sharp ideological struggle and in service to a political line(that is constantly flip-flopping, however).
This is the stereotyped image of a communist – a rigid robot. Is this the mold of “communism” our leadership wants us to imitate?
Of course, the masses are turned off by such a model and such an approach. This is why ultra-left groups inevitably fail to become large organizations or real vanguards of the working class. It is also why their cadre “burn out” one by one, over time and leave. Unfortunately, there are always left some “true believers” to keep carrying on the self defeating small sect of “true” communists.
1. Are there alternative methods to SIS? Right now the majority saying no. Why? Because their attitude and approach to fighting white chauvinism is dogmatic. It reflects petty bourgeois impatience that doesn’t recognize the difference between seeing the centrality of racism and how long it takes before racist ideology can be eradicated, As mentioned earlier, the errors being committed in the mass work are a classic example of this kind of thinking.
2. Criticism-self criticism is a crucial component of our communist organization. Unfortunately, its use in the past has been superficial and paternalistic. Because of this poor practice in the past, comrades want to “throw out the baby with the bath water.” The writers of this paper feel we cannot ignore the correct use of criticism/self criticism as a major alternative to the present method of SIS, before we seriously test it out in practice.
If used correctly and consistently, criticism would be a valuable method for cadre and advanced workers in pinpointing and correcting errors of racism and anti-working class bias in our practice.
Criticism should be direct and honest. It should focus on specific areas holding people back. It should probe to draw people out and encourage them to move forward on their weaknesses. There should be serious follow-up and support on cadre’s development.
Honest criticism is not hand-holding, but should be supportive by thinking clearly about the person being criticized. Honesty and directness are crucial in this process to move people forward.
Criticism and Self criticism is an open process–a two way street between the parties involved. It is not to be used as a form of manipulation or guilt tripping people into pre-set directions. In all cases it needs to think clearly about where a person is at and how far that person can realistically move forward in a given time, period. It should encourage goal setting and getting people to honestly take a look at what is holding them back.
3. Whatever methods are used to root out racist ideology must not reinforce blame or guilt. Rejoinders that “we are just attacking your ideas” don’t address this issue. It is true that we are responsible for racism, and that means ending its practice and ideology. This responsibility is ours. But racism is not our fault. It is embedded in capitalist institutions and bourgeois ideology. We were all brainwashed with racism from the day we were born. There is a subtle, but big difference between fault & responsibility. In our fight against racism, we must grasp this difference or our struggle will be seriously held back.
4. People need more information and more education about the forms that racism takes. We need to understand how paternalism works. We need to examine our practice in this light. We need to review very carefully the mistakes as well as the successes in our practice and in past practice. We need to find out why whites were kicked out of SNCC in the 60’s. We need to examine the failures of other groups on the left such as Prairie Fire. We need to examine our practice and. our attitudes in this light.
5. Racist ideology is a very complex web that runs through our conscious and unconscious minds. It is attached to our habits and attitudes in very subtle and deep ways. White chauvinism is based on a lie and is propagated by bourgeois ideology daily in hidden not so obvious ways. Rooting out racist ideology involves contrasting the lies that whites were taught with the reality that exists about national minority people. Whites need to get more in touch with that reality.
In rooting out racist ideology, it is important to grasp that there is a dialectical conflict that rages in the minds of whites between the truth and the lies. Capitalists have a real stake in the super profits that they make off racism, which stands in their way of resolving this conflict. That is to say, capitalists have an objective material interest in racism. White workers do not have this objective material interest. They may think they do, but that is false. The conflict in white workers’ minds is therefore clouded over by confusion and ignorance. The methods we use in rooting out racist ideology must be ones that address themselves to the confusion and ignorance.
Racist ideology is deeply rooted in our subconscious minds. To really get to the roots of this ideology, whites need to examine the specific stereotypes and the specific situations in which they bought into racism. They would have to examine the specific ways that they falsely saw a stake in white chauvinism. This means going back and looking at the various experiences and attitudes towards national minorities that whites grew up with. To state the same stereotypes over & over and the same stakes over & over doesn’t begin to scratch the subconscious roots of racist ideology.
This means that whites would have to look at their innermost thoughts. These cannot be predetermined. Whites have mixed thoughts about Blacks. So far SIS as it is presently practiced has a predetermined view of what whites think of national minorities. SIS gives us a very superficial look at the racist roots. It glosses over the complexity of the problem, and it is viewed as the only way to uncover these roots. To make the specific connect whites would have to look very deeply into themselves. There would need to be a lot of probing and well thought out questioning. People would have to listen carefully, and not jump to conclusions. Important gaps in people’s knowledge would have to be filled. To carry out this process, there would have to be a supportive and non-blaming atmosphere. Furthermore this whole process would have to be linked to one’s present practice to avoid errors of idealism.
6. Certain practices of the last 9 years do not contradict or undermine taking something to its roots.
***Honest and genuine compliments. Workers and national minorities need to be told what they are doing right quite often. Past practice was too one sided and didn’t address people’s errors, but with honest criticism this one-sidedness can be corrected. Honest compliments are not paternalistic. Working class and national minorities know the difference between honest compliments and paternalism. Our leadership and cadre need to make this distinction. This distinction needs to be applied to cadre & leadership too.
***Personaal Empathy. People who are giving a criticism or who are listening to a self criticism need to acknowledge that they understand what the person is going through. It is difficult to change, and it is important that people acknowledge this difficulty to themselves and to others. An indication that you understand what a person is going through is not necessarily wallowing. Positive support is essential in helping people change. People need to ask, “What do you think should be done to over come your difficulties?” ”What are you going to do about it?” People need guidance in working through their goals and in overcoming the obstacles in their way. That’s not paternalistic. Saying: “Change now because you are racist! You can choose, Do it now!” shows a superficial understanding of how people make real changes; it shows impatience and also a disregard for people’s real commitment to change and the difficulties in their way.
***Recognizing Differences. It is important to recognize uneven development among people and where people are at in their lives. These factors must be taken into consideration in delivering a criticism and providing support and direction for people. This is not to say that we should be paternalistic and not tell the truth. But what is said and how it is said is critical. What this means is that serious and hard thinking be done about that person. We need to figure out what will move that person forward and help them, deal with their white chauvinism, anti-working class bias, commitment, confusion, or other problem that they may face. To say that’s racist, what are the-stereotypes, what is your stake, choose now, etc. is not real useful in helping people deal with their specific errors and shortcomings. It only reinforces peoples’ guilt and self hatred.
In the present method of SIS, people leveling the criticisms are coming off as if they have it all together. They are coming off arrogant and superior to the persons they are criticizing. All whites have white chauvinism. A holier than thou attitude doesn’t help Blacks or whites in the struggle against racism.
***Dealing with Bourgeois Ideology. Take the example of paternalism. People are saying that paternalism is bad and has to go, and that is right. But just how do we recognize paternalism and break people from their paternalistic ways? Bourgeois ideology and bad habits are woven into the fabric of people’s personality. Third World People and workers, especially lumpen workers are fed paternalism all their lives. Honesty, respect and criticism will help people confront their bourgeois ideology, but it takes a long time to have people really change their ideas and ways. This is especially true when we are not in a revolutionary situation. One’s commitment is always being tested. Bourgeois forces are strong, and there are plenty of pressures not to be committed. We need to look at the struggle against bourgeois ideology as a process, where even the most dedicated will waiver. We need to commit ourselves to the struggle against bourgeois ideology as a long term process. We need to take a more patient and less arrogant view of how people change.
***Dealing with Sexism. Another area where Co Counseling can compliment the process of defeating bourgeois ideology is in helping men combat their sexism. Men need to be struggled with over their sexism, but once again there needs to be a process whereby the scars of male chauvinism can be healed. Although men are oppressors of women, men are also victimized by male chauvinism. Men need to break thru their walls of isolation which are really painful scars from capitalist oppression. Men need to learn how to give support to other men as well as to women. The vital ingredients of having men move against their sexism are challenging incorrect ideas along with getting men to be in touch with their feelings. SIS as it is being presently practiced ignores the potential danger that denying your feelings reinforces the macho ideology. The present aggressive emphasis of SIS really reflects the bourgeois roots of this method.
Men need to be less aggressive and competitive and more supportive of women and children. This is more than just an ideological process. It is a process that means changing your life. Co Counseling can help men figure out the correct path and get around the road blocks in the way.
***Good Listening & Good Information. Being a good listener and providing needed information is critical in moving people forward. Sitting and listening to somebody to see what is going on shows respect. Jumping right on their case without investigation shows disrespect. Asking questions and providing good information shows that you are thinking about people.
It is one-sided and arrogant to have the attitude that you want to move someone to a certain place that’s all figured out in advance. Now Move!!! The attitude of not just moving people forward, but rather moving them to place X, shows a lack of respect and a lot of impatience.
This can extend into our mass work where if we aren’t good listeners, as well as good strugglers, we risk coming off like a bunch of know-it-alls.
7. Co-Counseling can compliment the process of providing someone with a political goals and direction. It is a method that can help people change & integrate those changes into their lives. True it may not say that racism is central, but Co-Counseling is not an M-L organization. Co-Counseling can help us deal with some of the following:
***Feelings. People have feelings. SIS is not going to make people’s feelings go away. In fact sharp struggle is going to bring up a lot of feelings. How are we going to deal with these feelings. No matter how much you deny them, they are still there. Many people undergoing this campaign of SIS are having a lot of emotional tension, –smoking more? sleeping less? It is not wallowing or self pity to recognize that people need emotional outlets. Co-counseling provides a key way of letting out people’s built up emotions. It is human to cry, and it is a sexist stereotype that says that’s just self pity. People’s subjective feelings need to be separated from their objective analysis. By letting feelings out in a safe place, it becomes much easier to see what is going on.
***Racist Attitudes and Anti-Working Class Bias. Attitudes of White chauvinism and anti-working class bias are a result of capitalism and bourgeois ideology. These deep seated attitudes need to be explored and exposed, in a constructive supportive, non-blaming way without guilt-tripping or humiliation. Co-Counseling does provide a place where such attitudes can be explored. The roots of racism run deep Into our subconscious minds. We carry unconsciously the habits & attitudes of racism propagandized by capitalism. We need to explore our unaware racism & its roots. Co-counseling does provide a way to loosen up our hidden ideas. By stating the stake and stereotypes whites have only superficially scratched the surface of the roots of racist ideology. Co counseling goes much deeper.
*** Oppression is Painful. People experience hurt and pain that comes from bourgeois oppression. This hurt and pain is an integral part of bourgeois society. Having outlets for that pain helps clarify who the real enemy is and what steps need to be taken. Again it’s a way of clearing out the subjective factors. It’s a way of seeing that your real enemies aren’t your fellow workers, Blacks, your parents, gay people, etc. Co-counseling points out that pain needs to be discharged through crying, releasing anger, shaking, getting out angry emotions, laughing out embarrassment as well as other forms of release. Getting rid of painful emotions can only strengthen us in the struggle ahead.
8. We run the risk of idealism unless we link up rooting out racist ideology with our practice. All over the country, white OC forces are making self criticisms about racist ideology to Black and Third World People. This is very paternalistic and racist, and National Minorities are offended and rightly so. A quote from a paper submitted to the Boston area LC by Fr./St/Tr. would shed some light on this problem.
The idea that we will rid ourselves of racist attitudes and other errors by proclaiming how foul and disgusting our attitudes (ourselves?) are, is wrong. It can only result in a one-sided focus on our weaknesses, a focus that will likely lead to defeatism–just the ideology we need to avoid. Are we going to use this method with future working class or national minority recruits? Not to do so would be elitist; to do so would be destructive.
Another quote from this paper would be instructive.
...if the criticism is not done in the context of our collectively agreed-on work, it becomes idealist. It is idealist because it assumes that it is primarily our bad attitudes that keep national minority candidates from joining the OC. In reality, the history of racism on the left, segregation in the society at large, as well as our attitudes have frustrated our efforts at overcoming our isolation.
We need to use criticism and self criticism extensively in connection with our practice. Not to focus on practice will produce idealist and dogmatic errors. If we would listen carefully, our Black friends are really telling us–less talk and more action.
We don’t need a new formula for rooting out racist ideology. We need to sharpen up our bid tools. We need to combat liberalism and paternalism. We need to practice criticism and self criticism. We need to listen to the masses and evaluate our work accordingly. We need to probe into the ideology that is holding our work back and contributing to our errors. Let’s stop blaming ourselves, that’s self defeating; National minorities arc going to judge us by what we do, not just what we say.
Elliot B.
John W.
Leah R.
Rodrigo B.
James C.
and two other comrades not in the Local Center