I would like to briefly address three points: (1) why we need to change from the M-L theoretical framework (2) how to look at the question of socialism and (3) how to achieve greater unity in this difficult period.
1. On our theoretical framework: As stated in the majority proposal, we need an indigenous theory based on the history and conditions of our struggle. I think everyone would agree with that. The question is, how do we develop this theory, and what is it based on?
I believe the key thing is to proceed from practice (historical and present day). We should be guided by our basic revolutionary goals of fundamentally changing capitalism and achieving a more just and equitable society, and basic principles such as the right of self-determination, opposition to exploitation, etc. We need to learn from other revolutionary experiences (including Marx, Lenin, Mao, etc), but mainly from the experience and conditions of the U.S. The bottom line of our approach is the basic ethical code which I believe is common to all causes for justice – “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
To “proceed” from the M-L framework, on the other hand, I feel is too restrictive. It locks us into a historical tradition and experience which while certainly having positive aspects, also has undeniable negative aspects. It also does not adequately address many of the conditions of today’s struggle. That is why we say we want to be able to take whatever is positive and discard what is negative, not relevant or appropriate.
I agree with the majority position that rejects the view that M-L is the “leading” ideology, the vanguard party and the dictatorship of the proletariat. These points are all inter-related. They stem from the basic M-L concept that the working class is the most revolutionary class, that M-L as the ideology of the working class is inherently superior to all other ideologies, and that the role of the vanguard party is to make the working class “conscious” of its historic mission is to lead the struggle to overthrow capitalism and establish socialism (dict of prol).
Marx correctly analyzed the history of human society up until the time of early capitalism, and projected a vision and the possibility of a classless society. But as Kevin Kline said in a Fish Called Wanda, “I got everything but the middle part.” That is, the period of advanced capitalism/imperialism, and socialism. Marx’s strategy on the leading role of the working class was based on the polarization of society into just two classes, with a rather homogenous proletariat. He thought capitalism was on the verge of collapse, and that socialism would be a relatively brief transition to communism.
In reality though, the middle classes have not disappeared, and we also see greater class stratification in addition to greater class polarization. Clearly the transition between capitalism and communism is very long and complex. What does it mean concretely to say that today by definition the working class is the most revolutionary? In this country, an imperialist nation, there are sections of the working class that are very backward. There are also other social and class forces, particularly from the national movements, which are not working class but are undeniably revolutionary. There are also large strata of oppressed people such as the permanently unemployed (or never been employed) who are clearly not working class but not “lumpen” either. It is also true that in the U.S. the working class itself is so diverse and stratified that it has many different views, and not “one working class line.”
Perhaps more importantly, in real life, people and forces in the mass movement and in society should be evaluated and related to based on their actual politics and practice. Not by their “class”. Understanding classes and a class analysis is helpful to understand society and why people may be the way they are in general, but it alone is not a basis for policy in the united front.
One of the worst abuses of this approach to “class struggle” was in the Cultural Revolution where people were treated (jobs, college) based on three generations of their class background. In general I think that all the problems associated with the lack of democracy and other abuses under the dict of the prol. are theoretically justified by this view that the working class by definition (and as defined by its party) is the most revolutionary and that it must, in order to advance, restrict and curb other classes.
Does moving out of the M-L framework mean we are abandoning the revolution and the working class? I don’t think so at all. We definitely should stand for the interest of the working class, as well as the interest of other classes and social forces who want democracy and justice. In the U.S., we need a movement and an organization which can capture the diversity and creativity of the masses; a multi-class movement and a multi-party strategy. Since we recognize that the transition between capitalism and communism (classless society) is very long indeed, and that classes will continue to exist, we must struggle for a society where the economic needs of all are taken care of, and where politically there is democracy, a system of law and the protection of individual rights. Classes will not be eliminated by decree, or force.
2. On the question of socialism. I consider myself a socialist. I identify with it as the historical alternative to capitalism. Socialism is going through a rough time now in the world, but I have confidence that the people will be able to redefine and reform it so that it can better meet all their needs. I do not think that socialism has the same negative connotations today as “communism” and “Marxism-Leninism”, and this to me is not the reason for proposing that we not formally identify the new group as socialist.
We are not anti-socialist, nor have we “abandoned” it in favor of capitalism. But the reality today is that socialism is the subject of theoretical and practical debate as to its very definition. All the heretofore accepted premises are up for discussion (diet, of prol, central planning, state/public ownership, etc.) There does not exist at this time a clear understanding, by ourselves or by any force for that matter, as to what is socialism.
At this time then, for us to formally identify our new organization as “socialist”, raises more questions than we can adequately answer. It is more appropriate to be able to state affirmatively and concretely what it is we do stand for. If people ask us, is that socialism, I don’t think we should be defensive or run from the suggestion. We should say that perhaps it is, and explain that we, as well as many others, are in a process of evaluating and defining how to concretely build an alternative to capitalism.
It will take us some time to sharpen the definition of the new organization. This will come mainly through the collective process of our practice. It will also be important to have an ongoing process of study and discussion over theoretical issues, summing up the experience of socialism in the world, and defining further our view of socialism. I don’t think it’s a point of principle to not say we’re socialist now, and I think this is something that could be possible in the future. But it’s not appropriate now (and would even be confusing) to pin a label on us now when no one can really say what it is.
3. Where do we go from here: It is interesting that among those people who uphold M-L, there is a broad range: some uphold dict of the prol., vanguard party, etc. and want a Leninist org; some uphold the M-L framework but have discarded these key theoretical points; some feel these are fundamental differences and can’t go with the new group; some feel that ideological differences can exist within the new group and want to be in it. That these differences exist actually reveals the difficulty in saying we should base ourselves on M-L.
The minority proposal is very muddled and self-contradictory, because it contains all the above positions. At its core though, it is a call for us to basically remain the same, with some modifications.
In order for the new organization to be effective and credible, and to have a chance at providing the kind of leadership the masses are crying out for, we need to make a hold step. While we are moving away from the M-L framework, I believe there is room within our new organization for individuals who consider themselves M-L. I would hope that comrades would unite around the basic purpose and nature of the new organization and be part of our collective process to build an effective revolutionary force that can organize the masses. The ideological differences over M-L can only be resolved over time, through practice.
At the same time, I respect those who disagree and want to build a M-L organization. I don’t feel that the majority should stand in their way.
For those in the minority, I feel these are the choices that exist in real life. It is unfortunate that some people are so rigidly tied to M-L that they believe anything “less” than that is not in the interest of the working class. This is the kind of mentality that leads to the destructive, splittest “two line struggle” approach. If people don’t want to go along with the majority, that’s fine too. But they should not stand in the way of the majority either.