|
My Reply to "naxalite" of May 7, 2002[Note: This is the verbatim posting I attempted to make on the "2changetheworld.info" site on May 7, 2002, which was refused by the moderator. (For his stated reasons, and my replies, click here.) This posting is indeed fairly long (one of the charges against it), partly because it includes the entire posting by someone whose handle is "naxalite", with my extensive responses interspersed. Naturally, only those seriously interested in the issues being debated will want to read it all.] ["naxalite" begins:] > Scott wrote: The 1981 RCP programme, which I assume is still officially the governing programme for the Party until the finalized new one is adopted, says this: "The main way that the Party influences the masses and the mass movements, the main way it works to build the leadership of the proletariat and prepare the working class and broad masses--and the Party itself--for revolution, is to systematically carry out revolutionary agitation and propaganda." [pp. 41-42] It certainly seems fair to me to sum this up by saying that "propaganda and agitation are principal". (It’s true, I left out the words "and agitation" before, but as you know, in some contexts the word "propaganda" is short for all types of political education work, including both propaganda properly speaking, and also agitation). So, if you deny that the RCP has really followed this policy over the past 21 years, are you then saying that the Party has been ignoring its own programme on this very central point?" > > This is mistaken, factually, on several points. > > First: His thinking is completely mechanical, when he assumes that the formulations of the 1981 have been still "governing" the work without change, development or amendment for twenty years. This is a legalism that reflect how little he really knows about the RCP’s analysis, theoretical work on strategy, and its actual practice. > > In fact, the RCP has been applying its line, and developing it theoretically (based on summation of that practice) constantly. In many ways and in many places (starting in the 1980s after the 1981 programme was published) the Party has summed up the importance of leading the struggles of the masses as a key part of its central task. > > The development of its line, which included "preparing minds and organizing forces" as a key component of its central task appeared as early as 1982. > > Throughout this period, the Party put great emphasis on actually organizing and leading struggles among the masses of people -- with the "NO Business as Usual" antiwar movement being just one example. > > The vision concentrated in the draft programme has been developed over twenty years. And this evolving vision and line not a mechanical, legalist reading of the 1981 programme) has been guiding the RCP’s practical work. > You say my approach is "mechanical" and "legalistic". Well, then I apologize for ever having taken the 1981 RCP programme as seriously as I have. I really did not know that we weren’t supposed to do that, that we were supposed to treat it the same way we do bourgeois party platforms--as meaningless fluff. Are you aware of the battles Lenin had with his comrades over the wording of their party programme? Sometimes knock-down and drag-out over just a few words. But I suppose he must of been guilty of bourgeois "legalisms" too. Imagine! All that hassle over a few words! Lenin took constructing a party programme extremely seriously, and getting everything just right, because he viewed the programme as being the primary document which should guide all the work of the party. Thus at the very least, you had better damned well get the party’s basic approach to the masses put down correctly there. If you don’t, then no matter what else you may say, your programme is no damned good! "naxalite" seems to be implying that whenever we look at an RCP programme, we should understand that whatever it says on any point, no matter how important and fundamental that point may be, that it may have been changed and "developed" in some newspaper article or two somewhere, which thus supercedes the programme. I can agree that this sort of thing might be reasonable with some very minor points, or even some point or two of middle importance. But with regard to the Party’s basic approach to the masses?? If the Party really changed its mind back in "1982" on something that basic, then why the hell have they waited two decades to change their grossly mistaken programme? If you are that wrong in 1981, and you wait until 2002 to revise it, then how right can you possibly have been all those intervening years? No, I’m sorry, "naxalite", your excuses for that egregiously wrong idea in the 1981 programme--which apparently nobody in the Party is willing to publicly defend any longer--are completely unbelievable. Much, much more plausible is this scenario: In 1981 the RCP put down its real position on this basic issue. But it immediately came under criticism, and immediately recognized that it had to "rephrase" the way it expressed things in the future. The culmination of this process (so far) is the new draft programme. But the old mistaken line in the 1981 programme has never been renounced by the Party. On the contrary, the Party even said--at the beginning of the new programme process-- that "We believe our Party’s current Programme sets a fundamentally correct course for revolution and expresses basic MLM principles which are crucial to make revolution in the interests of the masses." Moreover, if you are fairly sophisticated (and not totally under the spell of the RCP line) you will easily see that the "new" line is really the same as the old line--just as the RCP said it was going to be. You know there is a lot to be said for intemperate remarks--such as the way the RCP phrased its line in 1981. It is really a shame to cover up your real views by merely changing the way you express your same old views. (Of course that helps you fool more people about what the real essence of your line is.) Intemperance helps bring the actual essence to the surface. The RCP has never completely held to the line it plainly emphasizes in the 1981 programme. That is to say, to some degree it has engaged in some limited mass leadership even while its programme proclaimed that "the main way that the Party influences the masses and the mass movements" is through "agitation and propaganda", primarily via the RW. They never said that propaganda and agitation were the only things the Party would be doing; only that they would be the main things they would be doing. And they have in fact kept faithfully to that plan. Similarly, I have never claimed that the RCP is exclusively a propaganda organization, but merely that it is primarily a propaganda organization. "naxalite" continues: > Second: Scott accuses the RCP of being a "propaganda organization" and of focusing on educational work. And then he quotes documents that stress "agitation" (which communists see as distinct and different from "propaganda") and that repeatedly say this must not be seen as "patient education" work. > > (Then he wants to define various forms of advanced actions, like Damian on the Alamo, as "propaganda"... all i can say is "reinvent meanings for words if you want, but don’t expect the rest of the world to nod.") > Well, "naxalite", I’m really surprised at you! I thought everybody in or around the RCP was very familiar with at least one of Lenin’s works, "What is to be Done?" (They used to be!) But I see we are using the term "agitation" very differently. I use it in Plekhanov’s and Lenin’s sense, and you ... don’t. Here is some of what Lenin says in chapter 3, section B, "A Tale of How Martynov Rendered Plekhanov More Profound". Lenin first quotes the Menshevik Martynov’s distinction between propaganda and agitation: "By propaganda we would understand the revolutionary elucidation of the whole of the present system or partial manifestations of it, irrespective of whether it is done in a form intelligible to individuals or to broad masses. By agitation, in the strict sense of the word," [and here Lenin inserts "(sic!)"] "we would understand calling the masses to certain concrete actions, facilitating the direct revolutionary intervention of the proletariat in social life." Lenin then comments on Martynov’s definitions: "We congratulate Russian--and international--Social-Democracy on this new, Martynov terminology which is more strict and more profound. Up to now we thought (with Plekhanov, and with all the leaders of the international working-class movement) that a propagandist, dealing with, say, that same question of unemployment, must explain the capitalistic nature of crises, the reasons why they are inevitable in contemporary society, describe the need for its transformation into socialist society, etc. In a word, he must present 'many ideas,’ so many indeed that they will be understood as an integral whole only by a (comparatively) few persons. An agitator, however, speaking on the same subject, will take as an illustration a fact that is most glaring and most widely known to his audience, say, the death from starvation of the family of an unemployed worker, the growing impoverishment, etc., and utilizing this fact, which is known to all and sundry, will direct all his efforts to presenting a single idea to the 'masses,’ i.e. the idea of the senselessness of the contradiction between the increase of wealth and increase of povery; he will strive to rouse discontent and indignation among the masses against this crying injustice, and leave a more complete explanation of this contradiction to the propagandist." [All this is on p. 82 of the Peking edition.] Lenin goes on, but the point should be clear: The way Lenin uses the terms propgaganda and agitation, both are forms of educational work. Agitation deals with presenting a single idea to the masses, propaganda deals with presenting multiple ideas to them. Leadership of the masses is something entirely different than either agitation or propaganda (though it is usually only possible for any length of time when various degrees of agitation and/or propaganda both precede and accompany it). Now it is true that there is nothing that requires us to use Lenin’s terminology here. If you want to use the word "agitation" the popular way (along the lines of Martynov), then go ahead. But I hardly think you have much ground to stand on when you proceed to criticize me for using the term in Lenin’s sense! (And goodness, don’t you guys have study groups any more??) I should add that while I invariably use the term "agitation" in Lenin’s sense, I do sometimes use the word "propaganda" as short-hand for political education work in general, i.e., what strictly speaking should be called propaganda AND agitation. (Other people do this too, by the way.) I also have been assuming that the RCP, in its programmes and serious documents at least, uses "agitation" and "propaganda" in the way Lenin did. They used to, for sure, but I really suspect that the theoretical sophistication of the Party has fallen tremendously over the years, so you have got me wondering what to believe on this score now. Maybe things really are as simple as that many of you guys are no longer even able to use Marxist terminology in the standard ways, or to correctly understand it when others do. Wow! As far as Damian Garcia raising the red flag over the Alamo goes, this may be called either "agitation" (in Lenin’s sense, not YOURS!), or "propaganda" (since a call for revolution is a summation of many separate ideas, and since the word "propaganda" is often short for both propaganda AND agitation (in Lenin’s sense) together. No matter which term you use, one thing is clear: it is an act of political education, and not leadership. (If it was an act of "leadership", then who was Damian leading? Where were the masses?) You suggest that Damian’s was an "advanced action", designed to get others to act. But that didn’t really happen, did it? No, whatever Damian and the RCP thought they were doing that day, it was in reality only a propaganda act (i.e. a proclamation that a revolution is necessary by people utterly unable to lead such a thing). "naxalite" continues: > Third: Scott suggests that the party’s method is to "sell newspapers" (while admitting that it actively leads key movements -- like the struggle around police brutality.) The simple fact is that the Party cannot enter and lead all mass movements of the people. It must pick, concentrate and focus. And it clearly has, chosen some key political issues, and has clearly played a leading political and organizational role. If Scott thinks this isn’t true around the issue of war (after 9/11) he isn’t paying attention. > Ah, yes, I hear this argument a lot from RCPers, to the effect that "the reason we don’t engage in many struggles is that we have so few forces". The flaw in this argument is that the way you get more forces is by participating in mass struggles. The defense confuses cause and effect. The RCP is smaller than it was in 1981, active in fewer cities, and even a lot less active than it was then in its educational work. (It distributed a lot more newspapers then, had more bookstores, held more forums, etc.) Although I have no precise knowledge of such things, I think that the membership may have picked up slightly over the last couple years, but the fact remains that over the past couple decades the Party has lost a lot of strength. Why? Primarily because it was following an incorrect political line, focusing on educational work for the most part. For the Party to now say that it has been "unable" to participate with the masses in their struggles because of its small numbers is thus completely disingenuous. A correct line brings people to your banner. If, over a prolonged period, you remain very small, it is because you don’t have a correct line. "naxalite" continues: > As for selling newspapers: (a) this is an extremely important part of leading and influencing mass struggles (including when the party is involved in many other ways). (b) The RCP calls this "stretching a line" into important movements that Party can’t directly organize and lead. (See the section of the DP on this. > Conceivably a mass newspaper can indeed facilitate leadership of the masses, if it is part of more general leadership efforts using mass line techniques. But the RCP has tried to substitute educational work via its newspaper for any of that. Such a policy inevitably fails miserably. (Just look at all the Trot groups doing exactly the same thing.) "naxalite" continues: > Fourth Scott comes most out of his bag when he writes "only a few of the struggles you mention can really be viewed as ones the broad masses in this country are especially concerned with at this point. Of course it is true that we should try to mobilize the masses on issues like the defense of political prisoners (Mumia and others), and the defense of the revolutionary leadership when it is attacked (including the RCP leadership itself). But it is also true that we have to take up the struggles which the masses themselves consider most important. And on the whole, leadership of the struggles the masses think are important (provided of course that they truly are in the masses’ real interests) is where the bulk of our leadership efforts should be concentrated. From the list you provide, it seems clear that this is not the case with the RCP." > > The real argument is over which issues to "lead" on -- and the whole political approach of the RCP is focused on "issues" that Scott thinks are not already important to the masses. That point -- that Scott believes communists should focus their work on issues the masses (already, spontaneously) appreciate is really the hidden heart of Scott’s complaint around the mass line. A lot would be clearer if he dared to be honest, and list what he thinks the communists should give higher priority to (what exactly is he proposing get higher priority than police brutality, Mumia and opposing the socalled "War on Terrorism" -- which quite obviously the majority of masses don’t yet appreciate as a felt demand.) Well of course whether I think the areas selected by the RCP for its occasional leadership efforts are important to the masses really is beside the point. The point, as I have said many times is what the masses themselves think about this. And what does the evidence indicate? It indicates that the Party is very unsuccessful in leading people, in bringing people forward, and so forth. This already strongly suggests that the RCP is not trying to lead the masses on the issues which most concern them. Now, when I say things like that, "naxalite" thinks he has found gold! Aha, the cat is out of the bag! "Scott believes communists should focus their work on issues the masses (already, spontaneously) appreciate is really the hidden heart of Scott’s complaint about the mass line." But notice, first of all, that the word "leadership" is missing from that sentence. In other words, he is (once again) conflating educational work with leadership work. I do indeed advocate that communists should focus their leadership work on the issues that most concern the masses (providing these are truly in the masses interests of course). But I think the educational work of communists (agitation and propaganda) should be focused more on what the masses most need to learn (both about the need for revolution, and on all the more immediate questions that will advance us in that direction). That is something very, very different. Since the RCP has subsumed its small amount of "leadership" work into what is predominantly educational work, it never even occurs to them that the approach we use should be different in the two cases. Yes, imagine that, we really should be merging into the struggles that the masses themselves have spontaneously begun to wage. Who said so? It isn’t just me! Here is what Lenin said in a programme he wrote for HIS party: "The Party’s activity must consist in promoting the worker’s class struggle. The Party’s task is not to concoct some fashionable means of helping the workers, but to join up with the workers’ movement, to bring light into it, to assist the workers in the struggle they themselves have already begun to wage. The Party’s task is to uphold the interests of the workers and to represent those of the entire working class movement." This point of view continued in all programmes of the RSDLP up through the October Revolution, including both before and after "What is to be Done?" was written in 1902. But the RCP has rejected this basic approach to revolution by Lenin (and by Marx and Engels before him). They have this "new approach" which they are determined to stick to forever, even if it never does lead anywhere. You do have to admire them for their persistence! As I have said in the previous posting, I do indeed recognize that some of our leadership work must also be on issues which the masses themselves may not yet be very concerned with, such as around political prisoners, and against wars that are for a time popular. But the point of the mass line method is that the overall focus of leadership work should in general, and most of the time, be on issues of concern to those we are trying to lead (and to educate while we lead them). I guess this is just too advanced a concept for "naxalite" and the RCP to grasp. And, once again, I must confront the accusation of "dishonesty". I am supposedly "dishonest" because I say that in our mass leadership work we revolutionaries should focus on the issues which are important to the masses--rather than saying where I personally think the focus should be. But what I really do "personally think" is that we should focus on issues of concern to the masses! It doesn’t matter to me one iota what they turn out to be. If the masses think the issues are important, then they are important (for that very reason!). How do you determine which issues are of most concern to the masses? There are two main methods. One, have the Party members get as close to as many of the masses as possible, and learn from them directly what their most heartfelt concerns are. And two, an even better method perhaps, by doing as Lenin said, and join up with the struggles which the masses themselves have already begun to wage on their own. (Yes, "spontaneously", all on their own. How horrifying!) The idea here is that if people are already willing to move on an issue, then it must be of considerable importance to them. And if it is of importance to some, it is likely to be of importance to others. Where does this tendency to always portray people who advocate using the mass line as "dishonest" come from anyway? I think it comes from the simple fact that they just cannot get the idea through their heads. It is so alien to them that their only recourse is to try to "explain" the position of such people as "dishonest" and entirely different from what they present--no matter at what length. More and more I am being forced to view the RCP and its supporters as pretty hopeless dogmatists who do not have the slightest idea about how to lead the masses in revolution. This really, truly sickens me. —Scott H. Return to the debate index page Return to the MASSLINE.INFO RCP Page Return to the MASSLINE.INFO Home Page |
|