Below is my recent report to the national leadership of CPUSA. It is based on my tour in June to a number of cities where I discussed “Building a Transformative Movement.” I thought you might be interested in its observations. Observations from Tour Report to National Board July 18, 2013 Sam Webb This report will do more than catalogue my three weeks on the road. I’m going to make some observations that will speak to some of our current policies and practices, probably in more depth than we normally do in a report of this kind. And I will raise some problems and challenges, not with the idea that we will solve them at this meeting, but so that we can begin, or continue, to talk and think about them as we enter the convention season. First, a few details: I visited seven states and 12 cities, participated in 14 meetings, and spoke to roughly 200 party and YCL members and friends. None of the meetings were big, but I didn’t think they would be. The whole tour was done on short notice and I appreciate the efforts of the local leaderships to quickly organize a gathering of comrades and friends. I spoke extemporaneously on the building of a transformative movement (cpusa.org/building-a-transformative-movement-and-party/) for about 15-20 minutes at each meeting. And a lively and free flowing discussion and questions followed. This format worked quite well. It allowed for give and take, follow-up comments and questions, and, in turn, a mutual deepening of political understanding. To paraphrase a comrade in Houston, “I read your conference keynote, but this discussion gave me some new insights and answered some lingering concerns.” In most meetings, I began by quoting Antonio Gramsci, who in Prison Notebooks wrote, “The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born.” In my view, this captures the present moment, in which the forces for social progress and socialism do not yet have the political, organizational, and ideological capacity (or hegemony, to use a term Gramsci popularized and gave new content) to resolve the current crisis of capitalism, a crisis that is many sided, deep seated, and global in scope, in a democratic and working class manner. Now to some observations on a wide range of subjects. First, the reaction to the notion of “building a transformative movement” was very positive. This tells me that people are looking for a way to get beyond the present impasse, to move to higher ground, to be part of a powerful movement that possesses the capacity to open the doors to a new era characterized by peace, economic security, equality, planetary sustainability, and substantive democracy. Admittedly, my brief presentation didn’t fully answer that desire, but people welcomed the fact that I spoke to it, that I attempted to visualize a different future beyond the pain and hardship of the present moment. All of which got me to thinking about whether in earlier presentations of our positions, I have allowed the struggles of the present to take up all the oxygen in the room, to the neglect of a vision of an emancipatory movement and future, in which “justice rolls down like a mighty stream.” I would like to think I haven’t, but my suspicion is that sometimes out of haste, or in an effort to counter sectarian tendencies, or just from insufficient political imagination, I may have failed to sufficiently throw light on the dialectical connection between the present and the future. Did the struggle against the rightwing, for example, become a thing in itself, disconnected from the wider class offensive, a distant cousin or no relation at all to more advanced political and economic tasks, and missing a vision of a “beloved community” of the future? Anyway, this is something that I, and probably the rest of us who speak or write for the Party and the People’s World, need to ponder. It would be a worthy subject of discussion for the preconvention period. Another observation is that the discussion forced me to think a little differently about the struggle for reforms. And this happened in a roundabout way. A participant in Oakland quoted my presentation to the April membership conference in which I said that the American people are in a “reform state of mind.” He then went on to disagree, arguing that we should turn the struggle for socialism into our main organizing issue. In reply I said that although socialism’s appeal has grown, it is not by a long shot the main issue of struggle for millions of Americans. I went on to say that expressing a positive attitude towards socialism is one thing; but for millions to embrace it with their heart and soul, to turn it into a clarion cry that channels their energies into the streets, into the voting booth, and into the corridors of political power, is quite another. So far the American people in significant numbers haven’t done so, that is, haven’t embraced socialism in a felt and dynamic way. It doesn’t yet frame their perceptions of everyday life nor shape their everyday actions. But what they have demonstrated, I argued, is a growing disposition to fight for reforms. And then I went on to mention some specific struggles that are drawing masses (and masses is a relative term) into one or another form of political activity. When I finished however I had a feeling that my answer, while not wrong, was inadequate; there was something left unsaid that needed to added to round out my reply to this comrade and the others at the meeting. Now what exactly that was didn’t come to mind immediately, but later on it dawned on me: the struggle for reforms is much more of an elastic concept than I have allowed for. In other words, it includes reforms that are deep going as well as small and incremental, which is not how I have generally presented it. Usually I give the impression that the struggle for reforms is trench warfare, with progress measured in inches. Although at present this is true in most instances, given the balance of class forces, it can change, and change more rapidly than we might think. Thus, the struggle for reforms doesn’t necessarily box in the broad democratic movement to seek only narrowly circumscribed gains. It can also include making deep inroads into corporate power, profits, and privileges at the economic level and radically reforming state institutions, functions, and spending priorities at the political level – much like, but going beyond, the changes in the structures and dynamics of power and capital accumulation in the 1930s. Another observation from my trip is that acknowledging the frustration and to a degree demoralization that many people feel – even expressing my own frustration with the pace of change – was a good note to strike; it allowed me to connect with the audience. We don’t always have to be the “official optimists;” we don’t always have to be on the sunny side of the street. In fact, our emphasis should be on capturing the contradictory nature of life, struggle, moods, and broad trends. What it should bring to the fore is a multi-faceted reality in which the inevitable problems and obstacles to freedom combine with new possibilities and constellations of power that if seized by millions make victory possible, if not immediately, then in the course of struggle, probably protracted struggle. Now this hasn’t always been our practice. For example, on more than one occasion over the past 30 years, we have suggested that the radicalization of the working class was nearly an inexorable process, immune from the effects of time, place, circumstances, etc. While that optimism allowed us to note and be a part of the “fresh winds” in the working class and labor movement in the 1980s and 1990s, its downside was that we were tone-deaf to other processes that were fracturing, disuniting, disempowering, and de-politicizing the working class. This isn’t an unimportant matter; our assessments have a bearing on what we think, say, and do – strategically and tactically – as well as on the confidence and credibility that others have in us. In recent years our assessments have acquired a more dialectical character, that is, a deeper appreciation of the competing and contradictory trends and tendencies in the working class and other movements. Two examples that come to mind are the new labor document authored by Scott (politicalaffairs.net/big-picture-trade-unionism) and Bobbie’s presentation (cpusa.org/taking-a-new-look-at-Party-structure) at the April conference. Neither one threw anyone for a loop – rather, they were appreciated by nearly everyone because they allowed for contradiction and complexity, while rejecting easy answers and solutions to difficult problems and challenges. I would argue that this method creates confidence, not gloom. That said, I finished most of my meetings with an appeal that we, much like Jesse Jackson, always call for keeping hope alive. Still another observation is that while I don’t believe a mass constituency yet exists that is ready to engage in the struggle for socialism -- I continue to think that it will emerge only out of a protracted struggle to preserve and deepen democracy -- we still have to do better to consistently embed our socialist vision into our analysis. And it has to be a socialism that is up to date and modern, attuned to contemporary sensibilities and challenges of this century, and possessing an awareness of the major deficiencies and, yes, defeat of 20th century socialism. I wish this was as easily done as said. Again, this is a subject that needs further discussion and creative thinking, for at least three reasons. First, socialism has acquired a new urgency in this century, which I’m not going to take the time to spell out; second, socialism’s popular constituency is growing and we want to speak to, work with, and grow that constituency; and third, some in this growing constituency, we hope, will find a home in our party, but that is only likely if we, among other things, interweave our socialist vision into the struggles of the present. Another observation: we need a more nuanced and rounded assessment of the Democratic Party and the Obama administration. Too many think that we are uncritical in our support of Democrats. And I’m not talking about sections of the left who will have nothing to do with Democrats or electoral politics under any circumstances. Now I am not suggesting that we do an about-face with respect to the Obama administration or the Democratic Party. At this stage of struggle that would be a stupid strategic and tactical mistake. The Democratic Party, after all, is an essential player in any conceivably realistic strategy for defeating the Republican Party and right-wing extremism at this stage of struggle. But we can’t leave matters here; we have to add that the political disposition and loyalities of the Democratic Party, especially at the top, are shaped by its commitment to create favorable conditions for the accumulation of capital and for the smooth reproduction of the system as a whole. And this makes it at once an unreliable and inconsistent, but necessary, ally of the broader people’s movement at this stage of struggle and a very problematic political/electoral vechicle for people’s aspirations at more advanced stages of struggle. Indeed, in our view, a new party formation grounded in and lead by the labor and people’s movement is necessary. I see no reason to change our view on this score, although I would add that it will grow out of a process of struggle that has its own dynamics, rhytmn, and contigentcies that are beyond our control. Not always did we appreciate this, which left us allowing our desire for such a party to get far ahead of any realitic possibility for the its formation. If it wasn’t imminent, it wasn’t that far away either, if not this election cycle, maybe the next or the one after that. I can understand this sentiment, but our assessments, to steal a page from Lenin, can’t rest on revolutionary sentiment and temper. Instead, they have to be shaped by concrete conditions of struggle, not least of which is the readiness of millions to move in new directions in a sustained and practical way. A more realistic vision for the near and medium term, in my view, is that insurgent forces in and outside the Democratic Party will contest its direction going forward. And out of this will come either a new direction within the Democratic Party (accenting people’s needs, equality and peace) or defeat (or a series of defeats), which in turn will become (with the help of the left) the incubator for a powerful people’s party, fully able to battle the two parties of capitalism over the country’s direction and priorities. Obviously, we will be a part of this process. Three more observations, on some disparate subjects. First, too many of our members and even some leaders have a one-sided notion of our party’s role in the Depression years. The archetypal image is that of the militant communist carrying back furniture into the home of people who have just been evicted, or some such thing. That did happen, and it is inspiring and makes us proud, no question. But to see it as our main role is at best one-sided, and at worst can easily skew and even distort our understanding of what our independent role is in the present. What was distinctive (and too often missed) about the party’s role in the 1930s was not such militant direct action, but rather, the u-turn in policy and practice that we made in the second half of the decade, away from sectarian politics, slogans, images, and practices, away from dogmatism in theory and analysis, away from a model of socialism and socialist transition shaped almost exclusively by the Soviet experience. This u-turn turn was what made possible the enormous contributions of Communists to the movement of that time, as well as the building of a mass party, press, and presence. We should consider some new efforts to educate our members and friends about this critical piece of our history – articles, teleconferences meetings and educationals, schools, and so forth. My second to last observation is that although our united front style of work is increasingly embraced as a policy, I was struck by the limited ability of many members to apply it in concrete conditions. This is not so much a criticism of the membership as it is of the leadership, who need to be more hands-on, more concrete and more practical. And finally, this: a couple of comrades asked me how long I have been the National Chair. I told them, and in doing so was reminded that one of the main challenges for the convention will be to elect a new national leadership that is able to lead the party in times that are both daunting and exciting.
Posted on: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 13:48:46 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015