April 27, 2004 To the LRP, Attn: Joseph Dear Joseph,
We would like to congratulate your organization for Walter Daum's face-to-face denunciation of presidential candidate John Kerry. Good work!
We have received your email of April 12, 2004, as well as the pamphlet and magazine sent by snail mail. We will be sending you some money along with an order for more literature shortly.
This email will focus on the issues of propaganda/agitation and the draft. It will, however, touch on other issues as necessary. We do not have, yet, any public statement on our position regarding party building. However, the positions discussed here will appear in the pamphlet we are preparing, perhaps modified as a result of this discussion.
******
It is the task of revolutionaries to work to unite an advanced layer of the working class, a layer able to lead the masses of the working class, around a predominantly correct revolutionary program, and around a disciplined organization which embodies that program. This is a task for revolutionaries today, when the no such layer of the working class has been won to revolution, or at best an extremely thin layer. It will continue to be a task of revolutionaries even after the establishment of a workers state.
Our current situation is characterized by the fact that the unity of a working class vanguard around a revolutionary program, or around a revolutionary organization is still something to be established, rather than something to be maintained. The establishment of such a unity is a precondition for successful, truly mass, truly nationwide revolutionary activity.
Local and limited actions can, of course, achieve only limited results. Success in achieving even limited and local results cannot be obtained reliably unless a vanguard of the masses involved has been united to a significant degree around a predominantly correct program for that particular struggle and an organization which embodies that program.
If a revolutionary organization has won a vanguard layer in a particular locality, or within a particular industry, if that organization has a predominantly correct program, then it is possible for that organization to lead limited struggles with some confidence of success, even though it has not won a layer of workers that is able to lead nation-wide struggles, or lead struggles in all sectors. The development of propaganda and agitation does not proceed along a strict separation of phases. The phase of winning the vanguard nationwide is not complete before the phase of leading limited and local actions begins. These phases are intertwined.
The pamphlet "Propaganda and Agitation in the Building of the Revolutionary Party" recognizes the need for intertwining propaganda and agitation:
"The propaganda stage does *not* mean not working among the masses. On the contrary, agitation is crucial to the success of propaganda. Ideas developed in the course of theoretical study must be confirmed by the experience of the class struggle. Moreover, vanguard workers will in general pay no attention to revolutionaries who cannot address their current struggles and prove in action that Marxism can make sense to broader masses of workers"
We would add to this the following:
The development of agitation generally does not proceed from a stage characterized by the absence of agitation directly to a stage where agitation is conducted successfully. Rather, there are periods where agitation is conducted among masses in struggle with only sporadic results.
The layer of advanced workers who form the vanguard united around a revolutionary program and revolutionary organization are generally not the current leaders, or more correctly mis-leaders of the masses. At first, the layer that forms the vanguard, does not lead the mass, and is not yet able to lead the mass. This layer only develops the ability to lead the masses by conducting a struggle against the influence of the misleaders. Rarely will success in this struggle come immediately. Rather, the advanced layer will frequently need to present ideas and plans to the masses before the masses are ready to accept these ideas and plans. By doing so, the advanced layer lays the basis for the masses accepting these ideas and plans in the following period.
******
Your email discusses at some length our alleged misunderstanding of what agitation is. Until now, we have understood propaganda to be the presentation of many ideas to a relatively few people, and agitation to be the presentation of one or a few ideas to many people.
In this definition, the criterion for distinguishing agitation from propaganda is "presentation", not the "aim" of the agitator. The definition makes no mention of "sparking mass actions". Nor does it regard the degree of conviction a given presentation instills within its audience as a criterion.
The definition you provide, however, differs from the one we have used in these three respects. That is, it takes into account the "aim" of the agitator, that is a subjective factor. It associates "sparking a particular mass action" with agitation, and it makes "convincing great numbers" a minimal requirement for agitation.
<< Propaganda in the Leninist tradition is understood as the explanation << of a wide range of ideas to a relatively small number of people; << agitation is the emphasis of a limited set of ideas to a large number << of people with the aim of initiating or sparking a particular mass << action or at least convincing great numbers of a particular idea in an << immediate sense.
Whether your definition is better or worse than the one we have used, whether we have "misunderstood what agitation is" we can leave aside for now. The important thing is the political implications, and we can discuss these without complete agreement over the meaning of words.
******
The central focus of our leaflet, "The Road Away from War", is found in the following passage:
"What effect can mass rallies have upon decisions to go to war, or to prolong a war? To the extent that such rallies encourage, either directly or indirectly a spirit of revolt within the armed forces, to that extent they bring foreboding and fear to the government, and promote the cause of peace... But it is an illusion that mass rallies can have an effect upon the war policies of a government if they fail to encourage a spirit of revolt."
Everything else in that leaflet is simply motivation for this point, support for this point, or conclusions that are easily drawn from this point.
We would like to see demonstrators becoming dissatisfied with the tactics promoted by ANSWER and others, see their futility, and begin to use *new* tactics. We suggest such new tactics in the passage:
"We ask the reader to imagine the effect of those hundreds of thousands carrying say 10,000 banners with the slogan "Soldiers! Turn Your Guns Around!"
That is the "particular mass action", the "particular ideas" etc to which we "aim" to contribute with our leaflets. You seem to misunderstand this point, when you write:
<< You say that the *chief* action which you would like to see << undertaken would be protests and rebellions by soldiers.>>(I have added the emphasis around *chief*.) Where do we say this? Of course we would like to see protests and rebellions by the soldiers. But the aim of the leaflet is to win *demonstrators* to better tactics. Misunderstanding this point, you criticize us for putting our leaflets into the hands of these same demonstrators.
<< No doubt such actions would be desirable. Yet if your leaflets << were to aim to accomplish this, then the people whose hands << they would need to reach would be the soldiers ready to receive << this message, or other people who were likely to immediately be << convinced to focus their energies on encouraging soldiers to << protest and rebel... << The leaflets are being distributed at general anti-war events, << where soldiers or those with likely access to them are probably << a minority,>>
******
The slogan "Soldiers! Turn Your Guns Around" has a revolutionary ring to it. If soldiers do rebel, we are certainly in a sense "closer" to revolution. But if one stops and thinks for a moment, it should be clear that soldiers did turn against their officers in Vietnam, that this did lead to the ruling class "cutting and running", but that this did *not* lead to an American workers revolution.
Slogans such as "Revolution is the only Solution" overshoot the mark. The US has pulled out of wars without revolution, and not a few anti-war activists are aware of this. Anti-war activists who have not yet been convinced of the need for revolution are apt to suspect that such slogans are motivated, not by a desire to stop a war, but from some alien (alien to their anti-war consciousness) motive. The slogan "Soldiers! Turn Your Guns Around" on the other hand has the advantage of not only having a revolutionary *thrust*, but of also pointing out the inescapably necessary solution to the problem of stopping a war. Thus, this slogan can provide a useful bridge from anti-war consciousness to a more general revolutionary consciousness.
We are aware of only one group that raised the slogan "Revolution is the only Solution". However, we regard the *practice* of many ostensibly revolutionary groups to be little different. The only solution that they offer to the anti-war movement, is "join our organization".
(The article "Left Strikes Out in TWU Struggle" in Proletarian Revolution, has a polemic against supporters of the SL in the Transport Workers Union. When asked about their stand regarding a strike, SL supporters responded "We're telling workers to build a workers party". PR correctly recognizes this as abstention from the concrete struggle at hand. Wouldn't it also be correct to see left groups which pose "building the revolutionary party" as a solution to the concrete struggle of the anti-war movement as abstentionism?)
******
The public activity of our group has been exclusively what we have termed agitational, but what you may or may not consider propagandistic. After the initial collapse of the anti-war movement, we attempted to make a turn toward propaganda, but as an organization, we were unable to do so. We are again attempting to develop propaganda.
You warn us about the dangers of opportunism to small organizations which have focused there efforts on agitation. We thank you for the warning, and further request that if you be frank with us if you feel that we have fallen into opportunism. Most importantly, we would hope that you support your opinions with arguments, and make a sincere attempt to guide us onto a more correct path.
******
We have a generally positive impression of Revolutionary Transit Worker. RTW has not only registered criticism of supposed "reform" bureaucrats", but has also raised issues that go beyond the bounds of narrow "trade-union" issues, such as the war.
We note a contrast between RTW and Proletarian Revolution. It seems to us, that RTW tends to attempt to win the convictions of its audience primarily based upon the simple merits of its arguments, and avoids to a large extent appeals to the authority of great revolutionaries. It further explains its ideas rather carefully rather than relying upon a shared agreement between the author and the reader regarding the use of terms.
Proletarian Revolution, on the other hand, is written in a style such that it sends any *serious* reader off to further study -- and that is its chief merit. PR may make claims such as X is the Leninist position on Y. Very few workers and even very few intellectuals have the necessary background in the history of the Marxist movement to evaluate such claims without further research. Further, even when workers or intellectuals are able to evaluate such claims, the issue of whether Lenin's position on X or Trotsky's position on Y are the best positions is still an open question. Lenin and Trotsky were not gods after all.
We think that prompting workers and others to further research is a very good thing. However, in many cases, a worker first needs to be convinced of the value of such research. Why study Lenin at all? We believe that a worker (or most anyone) will be more likely to see a value in studying historical literature, if they first see that the organization proposing such a study takes a correct position on the issues at hand. Thus, even if an organization is not in a position to *lead* a struggle, by presenting a correct program for that struggle, in a fashion that is accessible to workers (without further study), such workers are more likely to be interested in further study, and examining issues outside of their immediate struggle.
Thus, publications such as PR are important for stimulating and driving its readers to study and to learn. However, we think that if one takes the effort to intervene in a mass struggle, such as the anti-war movement, it is also very worthwhile to have literature which is specially tailored to that particular struggle, literature in which allows readers to judge a program on its merits, immediately, and without further research.
We see a similarity in the style in which RTW is written and the way we wrote The Road Away From War. We tried to make our arguments self-contained and we appeal to the rationality of our audience, avoiding authority and terms whose meaning may be misunderstood. We wonder why you don't approach the workers who may be present in anti-war demonstrations with the same stylistic approach you use in RTW.
Is it that you merely believe that you lack the size or forces to conduct "agitation" in the anti-war movement, and that the "style" of RTW is agitational? Or, do you believe that a fundamentally different approach is needed when presenting ideas before the workers in RTW, and workers in the anti-war movement?
*******************************
Regarding conscription, there are three distinct questions that seem to be under discussion. The first question, is whether a working class revolutionary should support, oppose, or maintain neutrality regarding the resumption of a bourgeois draft. The second question is what attitude a working class revolutionary ought to take regarding anti-draft *movements*. The third question is what attitude a working class revolutionary ought to take regarding resistance to a bourgeois draft vs submission to such a draft.
We are somewhat unclear regarding the attitude of the LRP to the first question. The article "The Leninist Position on Conscription" in Proletarian Revolution #69 states:
"So while we in no way support the bourgeois draft and would never vote for one or call for its resumption, we argue against campaigns that oppose resumption of the draft."
One clause states that the LRP would never vote *for* resumption of the draft. We would naturally expect the following clause to finish out that idea, to state either that the LRP would vote *against* the draft, or that the LRP would abstain when confronted with such a vote. Instead it is stated that the LRP is against *campaigns*... It sounds as though you would abstain, but rather than assume this, we would like to hear one way or the other from you.
******
You wrote:
<< 2. Conscription << On conscription, you do raise an interesting objection. << (I hope you will provide a more detailed response to << Dave's letter.
Are there specific points that you would like us to address?
******
<< Our discussion of the anti-draft movement was based in the << concrete reality of its dominant pacifism which is antithetical << to communists. It is the opposite of what we stand for, because << we know that revolution means class war. And in fact << anti-draft movements are generally pacifistic and middle class << -- and not by accident. And this is key. << What anti-draft movement do you have in mind which has not << been dominated by pacifism and the middle class?
We didn't raise the issue of an anti-draft "movement". Are you trying to make the point that an anti-draft "stance" is necessarily associated with a pacifist middle class "movement"? The Dodge Revolutionary Union Movement, and similar organizations stood opposed to the draft in the 1960's and '70s. These were not "anti-draft" movements, but radical auto workers movements which had opposition to the draft as one component of their program. Since they were not strictly "anti-draft" movements, they perhaps do not provide an answer to your question as it was stated. Wouldn't a better question be "What working class movements, which have not been dominated by pacifism and the middle class, have opposed the draft?"
******
This is perhaps a side issue, but your comment that:
<< Right now the U.S. will not dare to re-introduce the draft,>>
seems a bit too certain. We hope you mean by "right now", "this very day". Otherwise we think you are risking a great deal on a prediction in which you may very well find yourselves mistaken. You continue:
<< even though it is already needed if the U.S. is to accomplish << its will in Iraq and have forces to put down unstable situations << elsewhere at the same time. They will not do so until they feel << they have enough popular support to get it going without << fostering a mass rebellion.>>
When the Democrats and Republicans stand united, and call upon "the nation" to stand united, and the press praises them to the hilt, then there is a very large likelihood of "public opinion" backing the actions of the government. The Democrats and Republicans are squabbling today, some of the press is critical of the administration today, but if the ruling class feels the need, they will close ranks.
It may be as you say that a draft "is already needed if the U.S. is to accomplish its will in Iraq and have forces to put down unstable situations elsewhere at the same time." However, there are no serious "unstable situations elsewhere" at *this* time, in which the ruling class (as a whole) feels the need to intervene. If tomorrow, such a situation arose, do you think it out of the question that the ruling class would close ranks, and that the masses might support a draft?
But even if the masses didn't support the draft, as long as those opposed to the draft don't threaten military discipline, the government can walk right over them.
A draft is a potential hazard to the imperialists over time. They will no doubt weigh that risk together with the risks and rewards to themselves of their various military options.
******
<< We are not sure what you mean by general defeatism. For << us defeatism is a military policy, not a pacifist policy. If a << generally defeatist movement existed, in actively siding with << the military defeat of imperialism it would have to advocate << that soldiers turn their guns around to bring it about.
What was meant in the previous email is this. If one takes a stand of defeatism, that is, works to make one's own ruling class lose militarily, and if a draft, at a particular moment has the potential to make one's own ruling class *win* militarily, then it would seem to make sense to oppose the draft at that time.
Your line doesn't seem to take the immediate military situation into account.
(Not all defeatists would advocate soldier rebellion. The ruling classes of Czechoslovakia, Austria and France were all defeatist to one degree or another with respect to the Nazis. They saw a Nazi takeover as accomplishing militarily, what they were unable to accomplish themselves politically, that is, dealing a crushing blow to the workers movement.)
We take a working-class defeatist position. We support splitting the military along class lines, and support the working class component rebelling against the officers. Our position is not pacifism. Perhaps there is more to your question than we have understood?
******
Tactics with regard to conscription are under active discussion in our group.
It has been argued that the conditions in Israel are such that defeatist-minded individuals who submit to the draft are unlikely to be able to play a positive (from a revolutionary perspective) role in the Israeli Defense Forces.
Do you have a position on this? Any light you could shed on the subject would be appreciated.
******
We are disappointed that you don't have information to share with us regarding motions by WWP supporters. We do, however, thank you for your willingness to share information.
******
Peter For the AL-Collective