From: Ben Seattle
To: marxism-international
Subject: M-I: Louis Proyect smashes reformism (Jesse Jackson edition)
Date: Saturday, April 11, 1998 2:21 AM
=================================
1) The importance of social power
=================================
Louis Proyect:
> The reason it is useful to dialogue and keep open doors
> to reformist forces is that they have social power.
This is an extremely useful and revealing statement. This reveals
in concentrated form the *essence* of reformist ideology. Any
serious approach to understanding the reformist trends is forced
to ask the following question:
----------------------------------
What is the *source*
of this social power ?
----------------------------------
And the ultimate answer to this question--if one troubles oneself to
trace out the various complex and lengthy chains of political and
institutional alliances, linkages, and relationships--is always the
same. The source of this social power is the *bourgeoisie*.
That's how things work in class society.
Politicians such as Jesse Jackson have social power precisely
because the bourgeoisie *gives* it to them. Why does the
bourgeoisie do this ? Because people like Jesse Jackson play
ball with the bourgeoisie. Because people like Jesse Jackson
perform errands for the bourgeoisie. Because the bourgeoisie
has a *need* for people like Jesse Jackson.
In 1988 the Democratic Party in the US was facing a credibility
problem among the workers and oppressed. The Democratic
Party was losing its ability to present itself as a defender of the
interests of workers. The Democratic Party had a need for some
preacher to bring the wandering flock back into the fold.
> Millions of people look to Jesse Jackson ...
Precisely.
And that is why Jesse Jackson was just the perfect person to fulfill
the mission of bringing the masses back under the influence of the
Democratic Party.
> As it turned out, Jackson got cold feet, rejected the notion
> of a third party bid, and re-entered the Democratic Party
> inner circles with a vengeance. The only thing that could have
> swayed him in the opposite direction would have been a
> powerful mass movement independent of the Democratic Party
> like the kind that existed in the 1960s and early 70s.
Louis hits the nail on the head once again.
If there had been a sufficiently "powerful mass movement
independent of the Democratic Party" then the bourgeosie would
have *needed* Jesse Jackson to create a third bourgeois party in
order to *intercept* the leftward motion of the masses. And what
the bourgeoisie wants, the bourgeosie gets. Jesse Jackson is
nothing if not obedient. Once things had cooled down, of course,
the third party could have been liquidated.
All this helps us to understand the extreme foolishness of hoping
that Jesse Jackson would use his "social power" to assist in
awakening the consciousness of the oppressed. Because such
foolishness ignores how things actually work in class society.
Jesse Jackson only has his social power because the bourgeoisie
*gives it to him* so that he can use it to *degrade* the
consciousness of the oppressed. If Jesse Jackson were to use
his social power to raise the consciousness of the oppressed,
then the bourgeoisie would *strip him* of his social power. And
Jesse Jackson would *lose* his social power. And Jesse Jackson
will not go for this.
Such an analysis is elementary.
One of the tasks of genuine communists is to raise the
consciousness of the masses so that they can clearly understand
the role which is played by treacherous misleaders like Jesse
Jackson. It is the consciousness of the masses which is the most
powerful *driving force* that determines everything else. But for
the communists to perform this task, they must wage a struggle
(both within their own ranks and within their circles of influence) to
oppose the reformist ideology which is aimed at keeping the
workers and oppressed under the political influence of
bourgeoisie politics and ideology.
==========================
2) suspension of disbelief
==========================
Louis Proyect:
> Carrol's point about Jesse Jackson was well-taken.
> 10 years ago when he was running as a Rainbow
> candidate in the primaries, many of us held out hope
> that he would break with the Democrats and run as
> an independent.
Hope springs eternal in the human breast.
If we could somehow harness this incredible suspension of
disbelief that allows reformists to substitute pious wishes for a
sordid reality--we could use this energy to light entire cities.
The problem with such dangerous and extreme naivete is that it
*ignores* the reason Jesse Jackson was active in the first
place--which was to *herd* the masses back to the Democratic
Party fold.
> He disappointed us, however,
Will wonders never cease ?
The extremely misplaced faith of reformists in charlatans like
Jesse Jackson is impervious to erosion by the treachery of Jesse
Jackson. People like Louis Proyect only discover that Jesse
Jackson cannot be relied upon when the *masses* begin to get
*angry* with people like Jesse Jackson. Then people like Louis
Proyect understand that *their own* credibility is at stake.
> and remains more deeply entrenched in the Clinton
> machine than I would have dreamed possible.
Dreams are interesting. People used to dream of turning lead into
gold or harnessing energy from a perpetual motion machines.
Reformists dream that bourgeois lackeys will grow a spine and
stand up to their masters. I dream also. I dream that the working
class will develop its own politics and organization that will be
independent of bourgeois control.
I ask readers: which dreams are worth dedicating one's life to?
============
3) So what ?
============
Louis Proyect:
> Godena can foam at the mouth at Jesse Jackson
> all he wants, but the plain truth is that his miserable
> Communist Party has done more to hold back
> independent political action than any group on the left.
Proyect appears to be arguing that Jesse Jackson's crimes in
holding back independent political action are smaller than the
crimes of the CPUSA. This, by itself, may or may not be true.
But shouldn't we be opposing *all* these crimes? And doesn't
opposing all these crimes involve opposing the reformist
ideology?
And isn't this what Proyect so vociferously objects to?
==============================
4) A perfect sense alternative
==============================
Louis Proyect:
> In reality, the job of breaking down
> reformist consciousness is a difficult
> and time-consuming chore.
So because this task is difficult and time-consuming should we
therefore give up on it ? This task is difficult and time-consuming
precisely because it ultimately threatens the foundations of
bourgeois rule. On the contrary, because this task is as important
and necessary as it is difficult, we should try to develop as clear
an understanding, in *practice* and in *theory*, of what reformism
represents and skillful ways to assist the masses to break away
from reformist influence.
> The working-class in general does not go beyond a
> reformist consciousness. This explains the existence
> of reformist leadership, not naked repression.
If the workers are covered with shit, we want to help them throw off
the shit--not pile more shit on top of them. If we want the working
class to break free of reformist illusions--then we have to help
them do so--not reinforce those same illusions.
> When a worker is offered a choice between a reformist
> leader and a revolutionary leader in normal day-to-day
> circumstances, he or she will vote for the reformist.
> This makes perfect sense.
Yes, this does make perfect sense. But what *conclusion* do we
draw from this ? Do we change our politics to be reformist so that
the workers will vote for us ? Hey, maybe we can grow up to to be
president like Bill Clinton? I've heard there's lots of nice fringe
benefits.
> What is critical is to offer a revolutionary alternative in
> *prerevolutionary* periods, or periods of deepening
> class confrontations, that makes sense to the average
> worker.
True. The trick, my friend, is to make certain that we are offering
the workers a *revolutionary alternative* and not a *reformist
alternative*. What does theory tell us about how to do this ?
Theory tells us that *above all* the alternative we offer the
workers should be an alternative which is not controlled by the
bourgeoisie. Otherwise it is not really an alternative--it is merely
the lesser of two evils--which is hardly revolutionary.
==============================
5) Need for theory
==============================
Louis Proyect:
> The last time in the United States when we had
> this kind of opportunity, the revolutionaries shot
> themselves in the foot by trying to mechanically
> replicate the Russian or Chinese revolutionary
> movement in auto, steel and garment factories,
> etc. in the most foolish manner.
Unfortunately this is largely true. But what was the *reason* for
this ? The reason was that the state of "communist" theory was in
the gutter. Neither the Russian, the Chinese, the Albanian nor the
Cuban parties had "communist" theory that wasn't fucked-up in
some serious way. We were faced with the problem of developing
our own theory. We didn't know this. Our theoretical level was so
low that we didn't understand how starved we were for correct
theory. To make matters worse, developing correct theory takes
time. Theory represents concentrated experience. It takes time to
get experience. It takes time to concentrate it. We didn't have
time. The opportunism, sectarianism, charlatanism and reformism
that saturated nearly all corners of the movement greatly hindered
cooperation between revolutionary activists who often were hardly
speaking to each other.
What conclusion should we draw from this ?
1) Without theory the communist movement is hardly worthy
of being considered a communist movement.
2) Without theory the communist movement is naked
in the presence of its enemies.
3) We now have plenty of experience (the 60's, 70's, 80's and
90's) to sum up and opportunities (electronic forums such as
this one--where it becomes damn difficult to shut up anyone
with something worthwhile to say) to do so.
4) We should take advantage of the present circumstances to talk
to one another in an intelligent way. Opportunism,
charlatanism, sectarianism and reformism will all take severe
damage as discussion develops. Theory will develop as a
result of intelligent discussion.
5) If we take advantage of the present circumstances to raise our
consciousness and the level of communist theory--we will put
ourselves into position, soon enough, to kick some serious
bourgeois butt.
==========================================
6) Principled working relationships
between reformists and revolutionaries
==========================================
Louis Proyect:
> In general, the relationship to reformists is not a problem for
> ultraleftists, who do not consider the possibility that they have
> an obligation to think these matters through tactically.
I agree with Louis that it is very important to carefully weigh all
tactical considerations. Common work between reformists and
revolutionaries is not only desirable. It is necessary. Conducting
this work along principled lines requires, however, that the
revolutionaries not create or reinforce illusions that would
undermine consciousness of the harmfulness of reformist
ideology. Genuine communists will often work with reformists.
But genuine communists *always* oppose the reformist
*ideology*.
Louis Proyect's conception of revolutionaries working with
reformists involves joint work and working relationships with
people such as Jesse Jackson. My conception of revolutionaries
working with reformists involves joint work and working
relationships with people such as Louis Proyect.
I do not require, as a condition of working with Louis Proyect, that
he recognize that he is a reformist and not a communist. At the
same time I will not hide my own assessment. What I expect from
Louis Proyect is that he conduct himself on this list in a intelligent
and principled manner at least 80% of the time. And Louis is more
than meeting my expectations. He is probably in the 90% to 95%
range. When he slips up, from time to time, I believe we should
remind him that we expect better of him and that we know that he
is capable of better. This will help him to further improve the
quality and character of his contributions--which are already of a
level that they are frequently worthy of being considered
outstanding. What we can gain from this principled working
relationship is vast quantities of useful and admirable work from
Louis to help many readers explore and better understand a very
wide range of useful and interesting questions.
Whether it is possible that we can win Louis away from very many
of his reformist prejudices--is unknowable. We should do the best
we can to act intelligently and make every effort to refrain from
ritualistic abuse of Louis because of his mistaken beliefs (which
are common to 99% of all progressive people). To what extent
people such as Louis can be won to revolutionary positions--is
largely dependent on the level of ferment and class struggle in
society. This is the main factor that will influence people's
thinking. However we should still do our best to act intelligently.
We should not be afraid to engage Louis in intelligent discussion
and neither should we fly off the handle when he has an
occasional lapse into unprincipled methods.
The "left" and progressive movements, for complex historical
reasons, have been *saturated* with all kinds of unprincipled
behavior. The dominance of opportunism and the infighting of
various competing trends which fight one another for the
allegiance of activists, over financial support from activists (and
other sources) and over alliances with an entire strata of sleazy
institutions--have created an milieu in which principled and
unprincipled bahavior have existed side by side for a very long
time. It is probably not realistic to expect many activists who
have spent years in this milieu to always understand the
difference between principled and unprincipled behavior. Gentle
reminders (either public or private) will often be all that is
necessary to steadily move things forward.
I have had higher expectations of principled behavior from that
portion of the movement from which I emerged. Partly this is
because it was this section of the movement, the "anti-revisionist"
section, which put immensely greater emphasis on the necessity
of being principled and supposedly recognized the extreme
danger of sliding down the steeply inclined plane of opportunism.
But it is no secret that I have been disappointed, above all, by a
number of my own former comrades.
To those who get angry at the ideas which exist in the heads of
people such as Louis (and many others) -- my advice is simple:
use your damn head. It is a mistake to dwell on the ideas in
Louis's head. That's not the point. We want to raise the
consciousness of *this entire list* about the nature of reformism.
Louis is going to be *extremely helpful* in this regard. It is quite
possible that no one is doing a better job of smashing the
reformist ideology that Louis Proyect is in the process of trying to
defend it. *That* is the point. Louis (and many others here) have
*extensive experience*. We want to get a discussion going. We
want them to talk. We want them to be relaxed. We should offer
them a drink. Let everything flow freely.
And what will be the result ?
The truth will come out.
Ben Seattle
----//-// 11.Apr.98 -- 2am
--- from list marxism-international@lists.village.virginia.edu ---