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?
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.