Introduction to the National Leadership Seminar

Actually, the idea is not a new one. It has been gestating for some time. But it wasn't until the time of the National Committee meeting in March that it got a fresh lease on life.

The reasons are simple enough. First of all, the idea of bringing together district leaders seemed to fit with other proposals to deepen the collective and democratic life of the Party. Since the National Committee meeting, we have opened up some new channels of communications so the idea of a national seminar seemed to be a logical extension of this process.

Secondly, a seminar of district organizers and leaders made uncommonly good sense because you are the key link in the leadership chain of our Party even if we don't always acknowledge and act on that basis.

Nevertheless, it is true. You make the Party go. You enable the Party to make sound assessments of and tactical adjustments to new conditions of struggle. Your initiative is crucial to the on-going process of building the Party and the People's Weekly World.

Where we have a district organizer and a functioning district leadership, the Party responds in creative ways to new opportunities for broad mass actions and Party growth. By the same token, where districts are without a district organizer or without a functioning district leadership, new political opportunities are frequently missed. I wish I could say that such districts are as rare a typhoon on Lake Michigan, but that would be bending the truth.

Of course, responsibility for this lies as much with the National Office and National Board as with the districts. For too long the political and organizational status of the districts and clubs was not on our radar screen. We have to change this method of work if the Party as a whole is to fully respond to the altogether new political situation that is taking shape in our country as well as around the globe. But to overcome this shortcoming, we need your input and help at this seminar.

Finally, we strongly felt that it would be useful to bring you together to discuss some longer range theoretical and practical questions - questions that we might not examine in the normal course of our day-to-day work.

Normally, we don't have the luxury of time to reflect on this or that question. Instead, we are always moving from one event or one mobilization or one campaign to another with barely a moment to catch our breath.

I guess that's the nature of leading the Party, and especially at the district level, in busy times, but sometimes it is necessary to pause and step back for a moment from the pulls and pressures of day to day events. Hopefully, this seminar will allow us to do precisely that and reflect on some fundamental questions of long term significance to our Party and the working class movement. In doing so, we will help the entire Party to get its bearings in a fast changing political and economic environment.

In other words, you aren't here to receive marching orders on your already full plates. But rather we hope that this seminar is a venue where we can get your thinking in a relaxed setting on a range of fundamental questions.

Now, as paradoxical as it sounds, one could legitimately argue that the discussion of longer-range questions at this seminar is shortsighted. Shouldn't our focus be on the 2000 elections? After all, Election Day is roughly five months away and the outcome will go a long way in determining the quality of life for tens of millions of Americans for years to come.

That argument would resonate more with me had we not had substantive discussions in our leadership bodies on the 2000 elections and had we not reached a consensus on our political and tactical approach to this crucial arena of struggle.

But that is not the case. We had an exhaustive discussion and with but a few exceptions, we are united in our approach. The main problem now, however, is to apply our policy at the grassroots level. But that problem - and it's an immediate problem - is best solved at the district and club level - albeit with the help of the National Center and leadership.

To that end, we discussed at the National Board meeting on Thursday of this week a series of initiatives that will help to move the Party at every level into the practical aspects of the 2000 elections.

ATMOSPHERE AND THEORY

At any rate, let me proceed to the main purpose of my opening which is to discuss some theoretical issues, based on my opening at a recent meeting of the National Board. I hope all of you had time to read it. The questions that I raised are far from academic in my opinion, but rather have a substantive bearing on our political and practical work in the short and long term.

I already received some reactions to my opening. But instead of trying to respond to them, I would like to elaborate further on some of its main themes.

But before I do, I first want to say a word or two with regard to what prompted me to make this opening to the National Board. For some time, a skeletal version of it had been gathering dust and resting undisturbed in my paper tray at work, of little interest even to the mice that I suspect scamper around my room between midnight and dawn.

And it might have remained that way for I felt no compelling reason, no tug to fill out and tidy up the document. But then the "Battle in Seattle" happened, to be followed by a rush of events and mass actions in the spring of this year.

First, the farmers and their allies assembled in Washington in the middle of March. Then tens of thousands marched in Charleston, South Carolina and Atlanta, Georgia against racism and for affirmative action. Then, thousands of unionists gathered in Mansfield, Ohio to support the locked out and courageous workers at AK Steel. Then, tens of thousands gathered in Washington to protest globalization. Then a half million assembled in our nation's Capitol for Earth Day. Then another half million came to the footsteps of our capital to demand gay rights. Then moms and their allies assembled in front of the Washington Monument to protest the gun lobby and congressional stalling on gun legislation.

And in the midst of all this a mass outpouring of support for a state holiday in California to honor Cesar Chavez, the great Mexican American trade union leader was cresting into a tidal wave.

The confluence of these events and what they foretell for the future made me wonder if our concepts of class are too narrowly constructed to allow us to understand and influence the new political patterns that we see emerging in our country. This intuitive feeling prodded me to revisit, rethink, and fill in my sketchy thoughts on the Marxist category of class.

But far more important than my personal journey into the realm of theory, the groundswell of mass actions convinced me that the leading collectives in the Party needed to re-examine some of our assessments and theoretical concepts against the background of this broad mass upsurge and the contemporary world in which it occurs. To me this conclusion is undeniable.

Another equally undeniable conclusion is that a party whose theoretical concepts lag behind the changing contours of political, economic, and social life will eventually pay a price, sometimes a heavy price for this deficiency. The price paid by the German people and their working class parties, for example, for not properly analyzing the rise of the fascist threat is too painful to think about.

To be sure, we aren't stagnating ideologically and theoretically, but we are not up to speed either.

Therefore we have to pick up the pace, but we can only do that collectively. We can't, and frankly we shouldn't, rely on a few comrades to do our theoretical thinking. Every communist and especially every communist leader, like you, has to help in this regard.

We should take a fresh look at both the world in which we live and the Marxist concepts that allow us to analyze this world. We shouldn't be satisfied with old assessments, landmarks, and analytical tools, sculptured in fine detail by a different era and perhaps no longer providing a serviceable guide for our work in present day conditions.

ALARM BELL

Before anybody's alarm bell goes off, I should say that I am not suggesting that we trash the fundamental concepts that guide our theoretical and practical work, but rather that they be brought into line with present day developments. For that to happen our fundamental concepts have to be open-ended rather than closed, able to absorb new experience, and pliant enough to be modified by new conditions of struggle.

Or to put the matter differently, if we say that the terrain of struggle has undergone a seismic shift then doesn't it follow that we have to adjust our concepts to this shift? Don't we have to think outside the box with regard to some new problems and developments?

Of course, to think outside the box, we have to create an atmosphere which encourages comrades to think in a fresh way and allows for differences in views.

Perhaps, we have some different opinions on this matter. So let me state mine: I don't think that the atmosphere in the Party's leading collectives is friendly enough to thinking that departs from our traditional views and assessments on a range of questions. Instead, we have a tendency to quickly pounce on comrades who challenge our positions on one question or another.

This has to change. We don't need an atmosphere in the Party that makes comrades sheepish, even fearful about expressing views that they think might go against the collective grain or the thinking of one or another Party leader. Comrades should feel able to express their views on matters big and small. Let's face it: we won't explore new questions and developments if the atmosphere in our collective bodies is arbitrary, undemocratic, and resistant to new class based thinking.

Apart from seriously undermining the Party's ability to politically gauge new developments and make appropriate changes in its work in the broader movements, an unfriendly atmosphere also gnaws away at comrades' confidence in the Party's leadership and makes the Party much less inviting to our new friends in the labor and people's movements.

In fact, our new friends will be attracted to the Party not only to the degree that we are engaged politically with broad forces, but also to the extent that we possess a lively, stimulating, and democratic political and ideological life. One indelible impression that I retain from my experience in Michigan is that autoworkers love to talk politics and exchange opinions and they would expect no less than that from any Party that they joined.

The legacy of the bitter struggle for socialism in the last century at a global level and the bitter fruit of McCarthyism and the Cold War in our own country not only damaged not only our image and our relations with the broader movements, but also distorted in some ways the internal life of the Party. That period, however, is over by and large.

We live in a new century with new political possibilities. To respond to them, we have to adjust our concepts, our policies, and our internal culture. This is daunting, but it is exhilarating as well. Needless to say it will keep us busy for some time to come.

PRIMACY OF CLASS

Another theme that I would like to elaborate on is that of class. As I indicated in my opening to the National Board, I feel that our understanding of class concepts is too rigid, too static, and too closed. Class concepts should be open ended and elastic.

The class struggle is the fundamental relationship of capitalist society and its shadow penetrates - sometimes directly, other times more indirectly - nearly every area of social life and struggle. This is undeniable.

But there are times when the intricate relationship between the class struggle and other social struggles is unduly simplified, turned into a reductive relationship in which class is the sole determining factor of historical development and social change.

At this moment we should see the growing intensity, scope and role of the class struggle, but in close connection with the reciprocal influences on it coming from other social struggles and movements.

After all, emerging today is an extremely broad, developing, and varied movement. It is multi-layered and multi-form. Millions from different walks of life are joining struggles for the first time in their lives. New organizational bases are surfacing and mobilizing broad sections of the American people. Perhaps there is no better example of this than the million-mom's march which I mentioned earlier.

This emerging loosely constructed movement is distinctly anti-corporate and anti-far right. Some currents especially among the youth are militantly anti-capitalist. It thinks globally and increasingly acts on a national and global stage. And, labor, in a way not seen since the 1930s, is an integral and leading component of this broad-based coalition.

Perhaps no one appreciates the diverse nature of this movement more than the new leadership of the AFL-CIO. Since their watch began in 1995, this leadership has shown unusual understanding of the entangled nature of class and social struggles.

From what I observe, the approach of the new labor movement is to reach every potential coalition partner - both the familiar and traditional and the unfamiliar and non-traditional. Indeed, the interactions of labor and its growing array of allies are more entwined now than at any time that I can recall

To be more specific, the new labor movement is renewing relationships with old allies, like for example, the African American and Mexican American people, while at the same time reaching out to new political actors, particularly women, youth and students, immigrants, environmentalists, academics, gay activists, seniors, sections of the radical community and so forth.

Frankly, we should emulate not only their approach to coalition building, but also their understanding that the outcome of labor's struggles is bound up with the struggles of other social forces.

Our alliance policy in my opinion has been too narrow and too insular. I don't want to overstate this, but we sometimes tend to be suspicious of any movement or grouping, including the new leadership of the AFL-CIO, that don't have what we consider full-fledged, bona fide working class credentials.

Some might ascribe our coalition weaknesses to a shortage of comrades to assign to these movements. Others might say that the shortcomings are the result of faulty implementation of our policy at the district and club level. But this is unconvincing to me at least. These weaknesses stem from rigid and static concepts of class in my opinion.

We tended to look for pure forms but, not surprisingly, we seldom found them because life at best only approximates abstract theory. Instead we found movements mixed in their social makeup and political outlook that we dismissed, usually by labeling them middle class, petit bourgeois or social democratic. While this was self-satisfying, it also isolated us from forces that were moving into struggle.

Moreover, many of these movements, I suspect, brought into struggle substantial numbers of non-traditional sectors of the working class, sectors that the labor movement and ourselves should establish relationships with, which, by the way, is precisely what the new labor movement to its credit is now doing.

The class struggle neither stands by itself nor appears in pure forms. It is melded into a larger social process with which it interacts. Unless we see matters in this light than we may well repeat the standoffish and sectarian mistakes of the past and fail to take full advantage of the new period, which we are entering.

Therefore we have to adjust our thinking as well as our practical activities to this new political situation. We have to mix it up. We have to strengthen our relations with the movements of the racially oppressed, the women's movement, the environmental movement, immigrants, the youth movement, the new movements for political independence, the gay movement, the senior movement and, above all, every sector of the labor movement. If we do, and I sure we will, our unique contribution will be felt by millions of working people and their allies in the period ahead.

PATH TO SOCIALISM

The transition to socialism - not to mention its construction - is a complex process fraught with difficulties and contradictions. The experience of the 20th century amply bears this out.

At the Ideological Conference speeches by Evelina, Elena, and John persuasively argued that a broad, working class led coalition is a political prerequisite for socialism. Without the amalgamation of a broad array of forces, Bill of Rights socialism, they said, will not see the light of day.

From this proposition, I would argue, two further observations follow. First, the formation of broad coalitions that will eventually fight for socialism is a task for the present not the future. It is silly to think that our coalition partners are going to suddenly join us on the eve of a socialist transformation.

Such coalitions, however, will coalesce around the struggles for people's immediate needs rather than a socialist future. In the course of these struggles, everyone will not only gain in political understanding, mutual confidence, and unity, but also, we hope, come to see the necessity of socialism.

"It would be a radical mistake," wrote Lenin, "to think that the struggle for democracy was capable of diverting the proletariat from the socialist revolution or of hiding, overshadowing it, etc. On the contrary, in the same way as there can be no victorious socialism that does not practice full democracy, so the proletariat cannot prepare for its victory over the bourgeoisie without an all-round, consistent and revolutionary struggle for democracy."

In other words, in the absence of a long and persistent struggle for people's political and economic needs by a labor led, broadly based people's coalition, socialism will remain an idle and quixotic dream.

The other observation that I want to make is that the Party will cooperate as well as compete for the working class and popular support with other movements, organizations and parties on the left. The old concept that the Party would assume sooner or later the position as the sole and unchallenged leader of the working class and people's movements is outdated. This was a product of the building of socialism in conditions of backwardness and the force of the Soviet experience.

It is highly unlikely that the revolutionary process in the future will provide an open and uncluttered field in which the Party by itself leads the working class and its allies to victory. This goes against the grain of historical experience.

A more likely scenario is that an array of left led formations, including the Party, will lead such a process. Wasn't this the case in Chile, in Portugal, and even in Cuba? Isn't it even more likely in the major capitalist countries, including our own?

Thus, we would be wiser to see the Party as a militant and advanced section of the working class acting in concert with other left and democratic forces. We should reject the notion that everybody else on the left is a pretender who will eventually acknowledge our role as the undisputed leader as we proceed to usher in a socialist future.

Setting aside the ultra left who are incorrigible in my experience, we should have relationships with a range of formations on the left. To be sure, we aren't going to see eye to eye with them on some issues. But that shouldn't prevent dialogue and joint actions to the extent possible.

Such a view doesn't take away from our unique role in the revolutionary process in the least. Moreover, in my opinion, it is consistent with the views of Marx and Engels.

"The Communists," they wrote in the Communist Manifesto, "do not form a separate party opposed to other working class parties. They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole. They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mold the proletarian movement."

"The Communists" they continued, "are distinguished from other working class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletariat of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole."

"The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have the over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions and the ultimate general results of the proletariat movement."

Thus, communists have some distinct advantages or, as we say, a unique contribution to make, but they make this contribution in cooperation and competition with the other left formations.

Moreover, whether we become the leading force of this broader coalition depends on what we do politically and practically, on how we creatively develop and apply our theory and policies to changing conditions. Leadership, in other words, has to be earned.

Such an approach would suit us well today. We have a militant tradition, rich and varied experience, and a scientifically grounded working class, revolutionary outlook. At the same time, there is much we can learn from our coalition partners.

INDUSTRIAL CONCENTRATION

Our policy of industrial concentration as I suggested in my opening remains a cornerstone of our Party's work in the labor and working class movement. We have conceptualized our policy usually along two lines.

On the one hand, we say that the aim of concentration in industry is to build the Party among industrial workers. And, on the other hand, we argue that the purpose of our concentration policy is to focus on the struggles of workers in basic industry.

But aren't both conceptions of our concentration policy somewhat narrowly constructed? Lately I've been saying that the aim of our concentration policy is to bring the political and economic weight of mass production workers, including in the new mass production industries like hi-tech, to bear on the struggle of the whole working class and people. In the course of which we should fight and struggle and plan to deepen class consciousness and enlarge the ranks of the Party among workers.

Perhaps I'm going out on the limb, but I think that this conception of our concentration policy is somewhat like Lenin's. At the end of my opening to the National Board, I chose a brief quote from Lenin that I thought captured his view of the special role of mass production workers. I want to do that again, but this time I give you a fuller text.

"Social Democracy," Lenin wrote, "has fought, and is quite rightly fighting, against the bourgeois democratic abuse of the word 'people.' It insists categorically on the need for complete class independence for the party of the proletariat. However, it does not divide the 'people' into 'classes' so that the advanced class will become locked up within itself, will confine itself within narrow limits it does that so that the advanced class, which does not suffer from the half-heartedness, vacillation, and indecision of the intermediate classes, should fight with all the greater energy and enthusiasm for the cause of the whole people, at the head of the whole people."

This I believe provides a framework for our concentration policy. Furthermore, with the upsurge of the people's movements combined with the new militancy of labor, the grounds for our concentration policy seem so much better than in earlier decades.

Of course, the bringing of mass production workers to the fore of the broader struggles of labor and the people's movement is never easy even in the best of circumstances. Witness the present difficulties with regard to the elections because of the anti-China campaign promoted with a special vigor by some of the main industrial unions. I called the campaign a bump in the road, but it's become a bit more than that although I think that these same unions will get back on the track of defeating the extreme tight in November sooner than we might think.

I could go on, but I'm sure by now that you're getting tired of listening to me and besides this is your seminar not mine.