Non-Yank with a question for Yankie comrades.
I've recently been going back over Lenin's writings, in particular What is to Be Done?:
We have said that there could not have been Social Democratic consciousness among the workers. It would have to be brought to them from without. The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own efforts, is able to develop only trade union consciousness, i.e. the conviction that it is necessary to combine in unions, fight the employers, and strive to compel the government to pass necessary labour legislation etc
What do USAmerican Marxists think the current correct organisational strategies are, given the particular conditions of the US? What are the limits of activity within trade-unions, compared to other countries?
The situation is incredibly bad in countless ways for two primary reasons: imperialism and settler colonialism mean that even American workers with shitty jobs are making more money than most people on Earth. That plus more propaganda than any other society in human history means that large numbers of americans believe that socialism is when the government does stuff (and many americans think this is bad). All of this means that it’s difficult enough just to get workers to unionize without even factoring in shitty bosses, the government they control, and the police. And as bad as the situation is, lots of americans have other options—if one job doesn’t work out, they can get another, and that might be easier than unionizing. Americans also hate and distrust one another and view each other (not entirely incorrectly) as lazy evil bastards.
Che says in one of his texts that revolution is impossible as long as large numbers of people believe in the democratic process. As obviously fucked as things are in the USA, many people still believe that the system is legitimate, for all its faults. If and when the american empire collapses and the bourgeoisie starts tightening shit up to shift the exploitation from the global south to america itself, maybe then things will get easier for communists, assuming we don’t all end up carrying anvils and getting gassed in concentration camps.
What are the limits of activity within trade-unions, compared to other countries
i think the recent federal blocking of a rail strike & subsequent everything going spectacularly wrong on the railroads is illustrative. that is to say the US doesn't really have trade-unions. all the tools available have been systematically stripped from unions starting with Taft-Hartley up through current neoliberal governments. its much worse than it appears---we often see picket lines but these are not allowed to legally perform any of the functions of a picket line, except public shame & speech. we observe in the rail affair that striking is a right revoked at the pleasure of the capitalist government. previous experiences like the air-traffic-control strike demonstrated this as well.
when im feeling hopeful i like to think that the failures of current union structures will revitalize a more militant component---especially with new waves of unionization, new blood in old ones & new unions altogether, but americans ever prove a newtonian marvel in their capacity to not meet force with force
Strikes these days aren't strikes, they're the same ineffectual protests that libs do.
That's because the militant unions were all killed or mass arrested in the early 20th century, then what examples remain have been actively sabotaged the moment they become more than two guys in a basement. The domesticated, declawed and neutered unions are all that is allowed to exist.
I don’t completely disagree with what others are saying… But I am going to go against the grain here and say that the prospects for revolution and social change in the usa aren’t impossible or even grim. Too often on this website, well meaning individuals will paint the most grim picture, and look at the state of the left in the USA and say, “there is nothing that can be done, it is too bad here.” Ultimately, this is capitalist realism at work, and serves the imperialists. It is an understandable sentiment, but it is also counter-revolutionary in the most literal sense.
If you want to see revolution in our lifetime… Or even if you don’t believe it is possible, but the alternative is extinction or an endless hellscape of depression or misery… Then the next thing to do is to create and work to build a significant peoples movement. The pessimists, typically through online discourse, seem to think that there would already be something that they can just walk into and then revolution will just happen. Or, they believe that some spontaneous event will ignite revolutionary fervor in the people and then just because they have the correct ideas, it will happen. Without any work. This is nonsense, and a bourgeois attitude.
Ultimately, the contradictions of capitalism and imperialism will come home to roost. The US already seems to be losing its grip on the world, and that will only heighten the contradictions that occur here further. Eventually, as China and the developing works chart an independent path, the US will re-proletarianize (a process that seems to already be taking place) and the tremendous debt-burden and price-inflation that the US working class will face will open the way to another shift in consciousness. There is a path towards revolution, but the events that continue to build up towards it, and shape consciousness are unpredictable… like what happened in 2020.
The correct organizational structure to build durable working class power that can fight and be defended, is ultimately the Marxist-Leninist party, at least historically. But that itself is not a panacea, and building a party alone is also not how revolution typically transpires. Multiple forms of working-class self organization and groups will likely continue to be built by the conditions within the USA. The role of the party it to support and weave together these disparate elements into a cohesive social movement. Ultimately, the revolution will be shaped by the social forces that propel it forward. In the US this is going to include trade unionism, but it will just as likely include the struggle for Black liberation and also the liberation of other marginalized nations and groups of people within the working class in the USA
Thanks for taking the time to write out this comment comrade.
It does strike me, when I've met USAmerican communists (so not soc-dems, dem-socs, etc.) that they are frequently pessimistic or idealistic about the prospects that current worker struggles develop in a direction that Marxist-Leninists desire.
Edit: Another question: it seems to me (please correct is mistaken) that to the extent that there are Marxists in the US who claim to aim for a political party on the Marxist-Leninist model, a sizeable number (at least a plurality) would be best (or self-) described as Trotskyist. I'm aware that many places in the West but outside the US, many of the remaining Marxist parties who adhere more closely to a revolutionary Now, I'm no Trotskyist, but it seems that, at least where I'm from, those are the closest types of organisations that explicitly try, or at claim to, apply the Leninist and strategies. What do other comrades think of engaging with such orgs?
As you mention, even once the task of "touching grass" and trying to build the foundations of a party (to the extent that is possible, as I'm aware that many comrades are not in positions where it is safe for them to do so) has been overcome, the party is not itself a panacea. This obviously has to do with the particular conditions of the historical place and time - a Marxist-Leninist party structure was not in-and-of-itself sufficient in China, particular wrt the question of the peasantry. So the question then becomes: what more particular form might a Marxist-Leninist party take in the US to gain more traction in critical or even potentially revolutionary situation? As you say, indigenous and racial liberation struggles will be key, and trade-unionism is clearly important.
My worry is that they remain separate, that a unifying party which incorporates these struggles does not emerge, and that those comrades who attempt fail due to their being murdered by the AmeriKKKan state or because the liberal brainrot is so deeply set in from what I can see externally of American culture and its political discourses. Of course, these don't really represent the views of most working class Americans who are alienated from all dominant or visible political processes or discourses.
I think in the example of China you cited is incorrect, it is more correct to say that the CPC had an inner-party struggle in which the inclusion of the peasantry in the struggle for revolution was decided. This was not a deviation of Marxism-Leninism, but a struggle for the correct application of Marxism-Leninism in the material context of China in that time and place. It had been dogmatic, or orthodoxical, to ignore the possibility of revolutionary potential in China’s peasantry: particularly with regard to the history of peasant uprisings in China, imperialism/colonialism, and the lessons of the Soviet revolution. Being able to adapt to changing material contexts is what gives marxism-leninism its strength.
The point is to apply an logical framework for understanding and affecting social change, and then creating the type of organization that can utilize it. The Leninist party form, using democratic centralism, is able to “test” out its approach to social change by having a disciplined and cohesive working class organization. This can become the application of Dialectical Materialism in action, where organizers use a “scientific” approach to their work which will allow them to punch well above their weight.
I don’t want to get too much into the minutia, like how each of the US communist parties have their own sorted history. But the only parties I would describe as “trotskyist” would be socialist alternative or SWP.I think their influence and potential are limited. I would not describe the PSL, CPUSA , FRSO, or PCUSA as such, although they are all different. and have different strengths and approaches I would say the closest the USA has historically come to a true vanguard party is the BPP.
I think in the example of China you cited is incorrect, it is more correct to say that the CPC had an inner-party struggle in which the inclusion of the peasantry in the struggle for revolution was decided. This was not a deviation of Marxism-Leninism, but a struggle for the correct application of Marxism-Leninism in the material context of China in that time and place. It had been dogmatic, or orthodoxical, to ignore the possibility of revolutionary potential in China’s peasantry: particularly with regard to the history of peasant uprisings in China, imperialism/colonialism, and the lessons of the Soviet revolution. Being able to adapt to changing material contexts is what gives marxism-leninism its strength. >
I don't disagree with any of this. I wasn't trying to imply that the CPC was deviating from Marxism-Leninism. It was not contradicting it in that sense. But it was a certainly a necessary development and, as you say, application of Marxism-Leninism in the Chinese context, which was necessary due to the particular material conditions of China, and because the Menshivik or economistic revisionist/opportunist line of simply allowing China to development was obviously inadequate. I guess the question which I would need to reflect more on is to what extent those distinguishing features of Maoism could be infered from Marxism-Leninism by itself, given that Leninism also placed a great emphasis on the need for a revolutionary alliance with the peasantry. My question had to do rather with how USAmerican comrades think it would be best to apply the theoretical and practical tools of Marxism-Leninsm, vanguardism, and democratic centralism in the context of a state and society as reactionary as the USA.
Agree with everything else you've said.
I dont have any intimate knowledge of the various small American communist groups today, apart from the BBP, which definitely strikes me as the most revolutionary party I can think of (from an outsider's perspective ofc). If you can point in directions of literature for education on the topic, wud be much appreciated.
Yes, thank you, if I have to see one more reply which is a depressed wojak and nothing else I'll shit a brick.
The situation is bad but the moment someone tells me what to do, I’ll do it. I live in the very rural US, I’ve nonetheless tried electoralism multiple times, I’ve tried building an org (it went nowhere fast, and there are no other orgs here), I’ve done things I can’t discuss, I’ve done performative marches, I’ve tried radicalizing people endlessly in many different ways, and just gotten nowhere. I’m on my own out here: anything beyond Bernie is considered insane. Does that make the situation hopeless? Absolutely not. The bourgeoisie are nervous and for good reason. I think the revolution in the USA will start in the cities and probably in the midwestern ones like in 2020. When it begins I’ll be there to help however I can. In the mean time, I’m doing what I can to help anyone out there (inside or outside the USA) who sticks out their necks to take this motherfucker down.
To back up what @duderium said: I think the unfortunate reality is that, due to the artifically inflated quality of life that most Americans enjoy atm, the limit of what yank socialists can achieve right now is damage control and political education.
Unionization is on an upswing, as are anti-racist, abolition and environmental movements. But their scope is limited by a number of internal and external factors, not the least of which is members' own skepticism of socialism based on persistent red scare propaganda. And racism, of course.
As orgs go, the DSA is the country's biggest "left" org and it's active in a lot of cities, but ymmv as to whether it's actually doing explicitly socialist organizing or just being the progressive wing of the Democratic party. Then there's some demcent orgs like PSL which talk a good talk but have negligible membership numbers, and of course your usual gaggle of college-age anarchist circles which in practice are just weekend warrior charity groups.
Nothing will fundamentally change until the floor falls out on US economic global hegemony. You'll see some local, transient wins, some harm alleviation or some concessions won from the state, but that's the limit of what's achievable while yanks still have gas in their cars and Little Debbie cakes in their cupboards.
God damn, I wish I knew. So much seems to just boil down to time and money. Organizations that have lots of people with free time and a line to resources seem to outperform those that don't.
Because conservatives and neoliberals have this endless pipeline of money and a parade of aspiring bullshit artists to do ideological sales calls, they've stayed ahead of the curve.
Meanwhile, my contact with any kind of legitimately progressive organizations and activists has been depressing in no small part because of how hard it is to get full time people assembled to do anything. And there's this bizarre obsession with bureaucracy that keeps even the most well meaning people locked in a room with a collection of busy boxes.
Sigh
And there’s this bizarre obsession with bureaucracy that keeps even the most well meaning people locked in a room with a collection of busy boxes.
I think it comes down to an aversion to communication. Perhaps this is just me projecting my own shortcomings on the matter, but it really seems like the United States systematically selects against learning communicative skills. Kids go to schools, where they receive instruction. They come home to parents that are overworked and, frequently, too tired to engage. In the past, entertainment was broadcast television -- passively watching a script play out for 20 minutes with 18 minutes of advertising; today it's a grab-bag of trending auto-play videos -- all still inundated with advertising.
This isn't to say that nobody learns commutation skills -- merely that, overall, fewer people enter adulthood able to confidently have a discussion as co-equal interlocutors. So when people try to organize, instead of having intimidating conversations about their ideas and intentions, they jump straight into building an organizational framework -- out of a naive sort of "build it and they will come" hope that it will just sort of work itself out. But it doesn't work. You have to know the goals and ambitions before you put it together. You have to have some idea what your partners are thinking and expecting. You can't have a party line without first having a party conversation -- and not the sort where you keep minutes. Minutes come after. The sort where you just talk.
I mean, I think you're on to something but I'd go one further.
You just need a lot of time with people before you incorporate them into a reliable friendly organizational setting. And so much of young life is atomizing. We change schools every four years. We don't have large families anymore, so we have limited sibling relationships. Our careers scatter us to the four winds and slot us together as contractors on a temporary project rather than team members on a multi-generational local industry.
Even before you get to forming an organization, you need a squad of friendly people you know who will support you. So much of modern American life works against that.
This is a great point. I think a lot about the communication breakdown. I want to write something at some point on other people and how they go about relating to one another. We've certainly lost the skill as a population (obviously there are exceptions, this site is a pretty decent one) to communicate with people we don't agree with but could. Instead people get slurped down literal slipper slopes because they don't think to leave whatever silo they happen to be in in the first place. People acquire their ideologies and ideas largely passively.
I believe, under present conditions, there is no organizational in-road to national-level politics. A nationally successful project would have to form bonds between people across a wide and varied geography with radically different political and economic situations, all while holding up in the face of current bonds forged by national media and the shared mythology of America's founding. That's too much to coordinate across. Organizing has to start local, tailoring itself to the immediate political and economic conditions of its region. State governments are imminently more accessible than anything at the national level, while having similar structures and chambers. The goal there wouldn't be revolution, but instead demonstrating to people that something different is possible. You dismantle the narratives of mass media with concrete examples you can point to -- because counter-narratives without a material grounding just become more culture war fodder.
-
Organize get together of Marxists
-
Drink lots of alcohol because you are sad
-
I’m gonna win the Presidency in 2040 and demand global communism at my inaugural address
