Results-Oriented, Reality-Driven Style

We have stood by our convictions: that capitalism is fatally flawed; that the working class will lead the struggle for the new system, socialism. We have put our belief in Black-Brown-white unity into practice.

Our experience over 80 years in the class struggle in the United States has constantly proved the truths the Marx uncovered so long ago.

Today, tens of thousands of people are thinking about what's wrong with this system based on exploitation. The labor movement is leading struggles on a whole new level, not just on workers' issues, but more broadly, and in coalition with others, and we've been part of that development. Despite unceasing attempts by the ruling class to "divide and conquer," new forms and levels of multi-racial, multi-national unity are coming into being, and we've also been a part of that, from the beginning.

We can be proud to have been in the "good fight" since our Party was founded.

So what I want to look at is this: how, in today's political, ideological and cultural framework, should we work so that these ideas and principles will have the impact and the influence that they should? What do we need to change, do better, differently?

It is my opinion that our organizational style and many of the ways that we work and structures we have had for a long time, are outdated and, worse, impediments to the Party moving forward. I think that a lot of this is because the Party reflected the times; and the Cold War had long-lasting effects, including shaping a mindset and self-image that was defensive and reactive. And, despite some changes we've made over the years, I think some of our structures are still relics of both that time and of a certain amount of copying of the Soviet Party and experience.

Of course, that was then. It's a whole different world now. Does this mean we should change everything? No. But we should take a look at everything, a fresh -- wholly fresh -- look, at our methods and structures. We have some sacred cows, some assumptions, things we take for granted as "the way it's always been and the way it should be." We should look at those assumptions, too.

Many other organizations are also re-examining their practices and structures to adjust to the new conditions, political and otherwise, including the labor movement. We should study what they're doing, and learn from it.

We have to look at everything, including questions of structure, organization, style and method of work and leadership qualities, from the point of view of the main political proposition of the NC, of the "transition," of the new leadership, and that is: our task is to transform the Party into a 21st century organization, and to make the necessary adjustments so that we relate to and are part of the tremendous developments in our country's political life and in the class struggle today.

We've had a lot of discussions about this, from different angles, at the meetings of the NC and Board this year, so I won't delineate them here, except to summarize: the challenge is to adjust our approach, style and policy so that we are part of this new political landscape, of the revitalized labor movement, the new, broad, oftentimes labor-led coalitions, the anti-globalization movement, the radicalization process, so to speak.

What we are doing is moving away from inner-ness and from sectarianism, too. This is not just a political question; clearly, it has organizational implications. What do we have to change so we can work the way that the times require?

We have to be involved. We have to be action oriented. We have to organize the Party to participate in the key struggles, and we have to help the Party become an organization that organizes others. We have to be positioned to respond quickly to events. We have to build ties, walk through those open doors, and bring people closer to the Party in the course of all this.

Another related factor that requires and allows for big changes in our style, methods and structure: the revolution in communications technology. The internet has given us new ways to work, to communicate, to organize, to get things done. It has made it possible to set up collectives where the members live thousands of miles apart. But it has also greatly speeded up the response time that is required of everyone. It has "upped the ante," so to speak, raised expectations. And, I think it also has a certain decentralizing effect, which is interesting and relevant to this discussion.

But getting back to the political moment:

The coalition character of political struggle, the coalition concept, and the pace of activity and struggle, by definition mean that we are not setting the agenda, that we have to fit into what is going on, that by and large, the time-frame and calendar of events is not of our making. That isn't a bad thing, and of course we also have to figure out how our own events and campaigns fit into the picture. But the determining factor has to be more the mass movements and struggles, and our ongoing participation in them.

And the character of these movements and struggles is itself another factor: namely, that there is more going on, there are many new organizations and forces, there are new coalitions and alliances. There are movements that don't fit any of the old categories: for instance, which department should have had a handle on the Million Mom's March? How should we relate to the struggles against police violence and the death penalty? I don't think these are questions for the Women's equality commission (if we had one) or the African American Equality commission alone.

These changes and developments in the nature of the class struggle are so very important, so basic, that we cannot understand them without serious attention and active involvement. And we are not close enough to developments. Our "role" cannot be an abstraction; generalizations don't suffice, if they ever did. So we have to be much more up on what's happening, who's making it happen, etc. For example, do our commissions view as a primary task being "close to developments," or building ties with mass movements and leaders? I don't think so, or at least, not enough.

I think it is clear that our present style and some aspects of our structure are woefully inadequate. That's clear to me, for instance, looking at the number of "boats" we've missed just in the past year, which I'll talk about in a minute.

What we need is a "results-oriented," "reality-driven" style and method of organization. We need to look at how we make policy, and how we implement it. We have to identify the bottlenecks in our structure, and get rid of them.

The concept of transparency is part of what I'm talking about: We have to look at our structure, at the way we do things, from this point of view: do we do things in ways that are logical and understandable to ordinary people? Why do we do things the way we do them? We need to be much more business-like, much more efficient, much more practical. This, without sacrificing thoughtfulness and developing a Marxist analysis of events.

I think that the most extreme examples of problems are probably found in the national center, and at the national level, and that's natural to some extent: districts and clubs would tend to be closer to what's going on. But the problems are not confined to the national office, and they relate to a self-concept that exists throughout the Party. Are the clubs action oriented enough? Coalition-oriented? I don't think so. Is there something in the structure of the clubs that should be changed? For example, what goes on between meetings? How do we respond to developments that occur when there isn't a meeting? And of course there is the familiar problem of clubs that are isolated and club meetings that are, in a word, boring or irrelevant to what's going on. We have these kinds of problems at that level, and we have to help clubs overcome them.

Priorities -- political, organizational, and financial -- should be set against the backdrop of the actual struggle and what is going on in the country. And because of our small size, there are going to be some hard decisions to make. How should we spend our time, money, resources, staff?

Too often we avoid setting priorities because to do so is to acknowledge that we can't do everything, which we don't like to do.

Our experience earlier this year with trying to adopt a plan of work is instructive in a lot of ways, and I expect we'll do it differently next year. A glaring weakness is the absence of a budget, which we have agreed to have for next year. I think that will greatly strengthen the plan and ground it in objective reality.

To put it bluntly: what we don't have, but need, is an organizational style where we don't simply discuss what's the right policy or position on a question, but also, what are we going to do, and who is going to do it, and by when, and for how much money. That's where reality usually rears its ugly head: not enough people, resources, time.

This kind of concreteness is necessary if we are going to be able to ask comrades to do what they say they'll do. It is necessary for us have a new approach to accountability, to build it into our way of working and our structures. Accountability can't just be accomplished by appeals to individual conscience/discipline/commitment. Accountability has to be built into our structures and method of work.

A small but important example of a much-needed change: taking minutes at meetings. It has been -- in fact continues to be -- a struggle to get someone to take minutes, write them up, and send them out. And we haven't even reached the next step of reading the previous week's minutes at the start of the next meeting. But this practice is an important tool. It will help us with follow-up and reality-based decision making. It will be an objective measure of whether we did what we said we'd do. And we will make better decisions as a result.

Getting back to the issue of "missing boats." A number of times in recent months we've talked about how we "missed the boat" on this or that issue or event. Given the crucial nature of the elections, and the fact that a number of the "missed boats" were national meetings of mass organizations, this is no small problem.

So, why do we "miss boats?" What can we change so that we miss fewer? While it is a basic fact of life that we have too few people trying to do too much, I think it would be a big mistake to accept that as the main explanation for this problem.

A related example: why don't we -- national leaders, the national office -- subscribe to publications from other organizations? (And I don't mean as an afterthought, or as a "if I get to it" kind of thing, but as a priority.) Why has it taken forever to get commissions to put together a list of leaders and organizations who should receive our materials? How could we miss national events held by key mass organizations?

One reason, perhaps obvious, is that we're not close enough to developments, as collectives and as individuals. These problems in our work relate to the lack of an "organizing culture" in the Party. Our default position, so to speak, is not that of organizing and activity, particularly participation in activity we aren't directly responsible for. We need to change that. We need to look at everything with an eye to that.

One of the bottlenecks is one that is dear to my heart is the notion that the Org. Department is the body that organizes the Party to participate in events and to relate to developments. And while I agree that the Org. Dept. should do some of that, it can't and it mustn't be the only way we do that.

(And speaking of what it will take to develop a "culture of organizing," we won't have one if we don't give much, much more attention to finding and training organizers.)

I think the commissions should help organize participation in events and developments. This summer, we had the experience of major national events in places other than DC or NY, and I think the notion that the Org. Dept. should be the center of the organizing efforts limited and hampered our work.

This problem -- the "refer it to the Org. Department" syndrome -- is related to a certain premise, stated or not, that underlies a lot of what we do, and that is the posing of political tasks as separate from organizational tasks. That is why the Org. dept has unwieldy agendas, and why my name or "Org. Dept." is next to too many points on other agendas. This is not a personal complaint; it's an example of a bottleneck in our structure that we have to fix for the Party to function in the best way.

I think that with a few exceptions, every collective should have political authority and organizational tasks.

Let's face it, even if one could argue the principle, the reality is that we just don't have the people in the Org. Dept. to work any other way. To some extent, it boils down to everyone having to "pitch in," and not on a one-time basis, but as a style of working, since we know that the level of activity, of movement and struggle, is not going to decrease but rather, will increase. It boils down achieving a collective commitment to the concept of immersing the Party in mass struggle.

Some more on the commissions: I don't think that has been how we view the commissions; even the name "commission" brings to mind more a think tank than a task force. And although obviously we need comrades and collectives to be thinking about what's going on and what our approach/policy should be in their area of work, we need much, much more of the latter: the commissions should be task forces, working groups, bodies whose purpose is to implement the Party's policy in their area of responsibility, bodies whose purpose is to organize the activity of Communists in their area of struggle and to help organize others; whose purpose is to participate in that area of struggle, in the mass arena. The commissions should be a key way we are relating to the developing movements, and for the most part, they are not. We don't want commissions to meet for the sake of meeting; we don't have to invent agendas.

Another tool that we have not utilized: plans of work. Every leading body should have a plan of work, with concrete goals, that it uses as a guide and that is an objective standard for measuring progress and for guaranteeing collective input. I think every body should also have a budget, or at least figure out its line items for an overall budget.

Both of these (plans of work and budgets) are measuring tools that we have not used, and the lack of which created a situation where there were no standards, where arbitrariness and inadequate follow-up prevailed. Each of us should help develop the overall budget for next year, and plans of work for the collectives we lead.

Without a plan of work, without a budget, there cannot be real accountability or "transparency."

On finances: I think this is an area where we need dramatic changes -- the real bottom line is money, and we must move from a style where there was really only a general principle "don't spend money," to concrete, thought-out financial planning that accompanies political planning. Without this, decision making gets distorted and ultimately is undemocratic or at best arbitrary.

To give an example, if we had a budget, with a line item for literature, the whole discussion on what to print would be different, it would be much more objective and connected with the other aspects of our work. Or another example, if, say, the budget included an amount for international travel, the International Department would have more room to take initiative and plan without having to refer everything to the Exec. That isn't to say that it wouldn't make proposals to the Exec, but those discussions and decisions would be grounded in something objective and more collective.

Just an aside on transparency, which may be obvious. Transparency is important now more than ever, because we're calling for the Party to be "in the mix;" thousands -- tens of thousands -- of people are expressing anti-corporate ideas; we have incredible new relationships in the labor movement, and potential for more, and all this means that people are going to be around the Party, and working with the Party. We should be as un-mysterious, as clear, as explainable, as we can be.

A "results oriented structure" means that all meetings, discussions, collectives, and individual leaders have to be more geared towards "getting the job done." Of course we need thinking and discussion on issues and problems, but we also need to act, and act in a timely fashion.

No one should interpret what I'm saying as a call for pragmatism as against a "political approach." On the contrary, I think this new moment and the style I'm talking about will require all of us to become better Marxists, deeper thinkers, more collective workers. It is not an argument against political or ideological discussion, thinking or development: on the contrary, we will all have to do more individual study, read more, keep up with developments, talk to people, learn from others.

I think we can have deeper, more accurate assessments without longer meetings. I think we can develop sound policy that is tested in reality and springs from reality, without longer meetings.

Speaking of our meeting style: comrades, it has to change. We must have time limits for agenda points, and we must have more effective chairing that keeps to that time framework. This is something we should have done a long time ago, I think, but it's even more pressing now, because what ends up happening, more often than not, is that we don't get to everything on our agendas.

Are there too many points on our agendas? We should consider very carefully which things need to be discussed and in which bodies. We should strive to have as little repetition of points in different bodies as possible. We should put things on the agendas of the bodies which are in the position to take action on them.

And perhaps most important, we have to recognize that there are many things -- many more now than even a short while ago -- which must be on our agenda because they are on the agenda of the people's movements.

On some of these changes I'm talking about, we can make concrete decisions and then implement those decisions. But some of the changes have to do with how each of us conduct ourselves. Too often comrades aren't thinking about what the discussion means for their area of responsibility. Too often we're not thinking about what we should do once the discussion is over. And we have some very bad habits, including the habit of speaking on every point. We can't speak on every point, or at the lengths we might want to, if we are going to have businesslike meetings.

We should also evaluate our meetings with a different yardstick than in the past. So, for example, are our meetings the kind to which we'd want to invite people, from the labor and other movements? They should be -- such invitations would be a natural outcome of the closer working relations we are talking about developing with people in the mass movements. But I think we have to change to make this possible. Too often our discussions are vague, general, and not about the things that are on people's minds and the movements' agendas. Too often we end a meeting with sweeping, general motions, and not enough specific action decisions.

How do we allocate our time, individually, and that of our collective bodies? Do we spend enough time out of our offices, talking to other leaders and activists, communicating with other Party members who are active in our area of work, accomplishing concrete tasks? I think every person and every collective should examine that balance, with an eye to shifting it more towards involvement, interaction, consultation.

Just a few ideas on collectivity, the workingclass principle that underlies our method of work, one of our "basics." I believe that collectivity is the best way to formulate policy and to organize the work to carry it out -- but we need a new discussion on what collectivity means. I think our concept of collectivity is too abstract, too hazy; our practice of collectivity too rusty, a little dusty.

So, for example: at times, collectivity becomes an excuse for not making a decision or taking action. At times, in the name of collectivity, we procrastinate, we pass the buck.

I think there are some new elements to the "collectivity" that is required today. Or, maybe these are not new, but they are certainly more important than in the past, need to be reinvigorated. For example, if we aren't actively consulting with the comrades who are "in the field," we aren't working collectively. This is one of the things we've been trying to improve at the national level -- expanding the leadership collectives. Some of you probably think we have "conference call mania." But I think the use of conference calls to draw comrades into the work and get their input is "the greatest thing since sliced bread." It's a new and very necessary tool to enhance collectivity in the Party.

Collectivity doesn't work if comrades in a collective don't pull their weight. Pulling your own weight -- this is essential for a strong, effective collective. When the level of struggle is high, when the pace is fast, as it is today, pulling your own weight is even more important, and if you don't do it, even more problematic.

We shouldn't confuse dumping with collectivity, i.e., just putting something on an agenda doesn't make it collective. What makes it collective is involving comrades in work and decision-making who need to be involved in it, and taking responsibility for carrying out decisions.

And, collectivity has to be balanced by individual responsibility and initiative. I think our new emphasis on a friendly, comradely, more democratic atmosphere in the Party is important and relevant to this: comrades should not be held back by fear of making mistakes -- but we are. We simply have to go easier on each other; we have to bring up criticism in ways that are helpful, and which don't make people secretly vow to avoid us in the future.

Collectivity should be the beginning and the end of the process, but along the way, individuals and smaller collectives have to be able to make decisions and move. We have to be more flexible, more informal, quicker. We should have lots of back and forth and consultation, with comrades who are involved in the work for which we're responsible. And, to repeat what I said earlier, because I think it's very important: with a few exceptions, every collective should have both political authority and organizational tasks.

Again, the nature -- the pace and scale -- of today's movements and struggles demands this style of work.

An aspect of our "political culture" that needs changing is the equating of realism with negativism or, even worse, with "ideological weakness." That phenomenon damaged our ability to arrive at solid, rounded estimates and conclusions. We need to be more realistic -- much more.

We should value realism and results not more than, but as much as, we value good politics or creative ideas.

What is required of Party leaders today? This is another thing that we should take a fresh look at. The qualities that we must cultivate, in ourselves, and in our leadership, must match the political moment too.

So, the ability to talk with people, to mix it up, and to get things done are as important as what we might call "political/ideological development" This is not to say we don't want comrades to be as developed, as mature, as creative Marxists as they can be, and as we can help to develop. But I think we have to give new emphasis on the practical side of things, and not counterpose the two.

In Michigan recently, we were talking about the fact that we have not been able to find anyone to be the district organizer there. A comrade suggested that rather than look for someone who fits our definition of "d.o. material," maybe we need to define staff differently, as people who do the work, who participate in the leading political collective, but aren't expected to be "the leader." I think this is an idea well worth considering, and not only because we don't have a bunch of "leader" d.o.s waiting in the wings, but also because it gets to the idea of staffers whose job description includes a mass-action orientation, a focus on working with others, on "making things happen": or, in a word, on organizing.

Just a few words on structure: this was the harder part for me; I think the changes we have to make in our style and methods are a lot more obvious. But we also have to look at the way the Party is organized. We should examine the leading bodies of the Party, the National Committee, Board and Exec. What exactly is their role, and are they exercising it? For example, I think these bodies are all way too big, for a Party our size, and that has become an impediment to thorough discussion, work getting done, and a hands-on style of leadership. We should discuss what is the best balance between size of the body, frequency of meetings, and, last but not least, functioning and role between meetings.

There are also problems at the district level of structures not fitting with the organizational status of the Party which should be addressed as part of this discussion. We should be asking: what kinds of collectives do we need, what can we sustain, what will help us move in the direction we want to go?

The National Committee is supposed to be the leading body between conventions, but for the life of me I don't see how it really functions as that. I think we have to do some creative thinking about how the NC will really help shape and implement policy, because I don't think it has. The times demand that the comrades around the country who are part of the many new developments on the political scene have to play a much more active leadership role nationally. We should look at how other national organizations are structured, especially the labor movement.

As I said, I think the NC has to be much smaller. I think the agendas of the meetings have to be more clearly thought through, and that there should be more advance notice so that people can prepare and participate in a more specific and organized way. I think the process at the meeting should be more democratic, and more interactive. Perhaps the NC should meet less often, and the full Board more often. Or perhaps with a smaller NC, more frequent meetings would be more possible.

When I became the Org. Sec. in March, one of the things I started thinking about right away was my title and the job it supposedly describes, and when I tried on one of the alternatives -- "Organizing Director" -- it didn't seem to fit. So I thought, what would have to change for my work -- for the Org. Dept's work -- to be mainly about organizing. We all need to be looking at that question, as it applies to our area of work.

Just a few more ideas: on the People's Weekly World. We need changes here too, in how we have structured our relationship to the paper. I think it follows that if our emphasis is on involvement, on keeping up with and relating to developments, then there has to be a much closer relationship between the Party organization's collectives and the paper. That includes between the Exec and the Org. Dept., but also, and especially, the commissions, and the districts.

As I said in the beginning, I think we have to look at everything in the light of today's political landscape, but we also have to relook at things from the point of view of what is appropriate given our size, and what is possible and necessary given the new technology. We should look at every area where there are problems in our functioning, and figure out the best solution for today, for a 21st century, active, coalition-building, connected political party. What is the best way to function, given the present situation. What I'm saying is that we have to "retrofit" our style, methods, priorities and structures.