First Published: Revolution, May 1974.
Transcription, Editing and Markup: Paul Saba
Copyright: This work is in the Public Domain under the Creative Commons Common Deed. You can freely copy, distribute and display this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit the Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line as your source, include the url to this work, and note any of the transcribers, editors & proofreaders above.
Nixon must go. That is the strong and growing sentiment of the American people, as evidenced even in the bourgeois opinion polls and, more importantly, by the increasing number of demonstrations being held around the country demanding that he be forced out.
But this growing mass sentiment and the mass actions show that it isn’t only Nixon, but the entire U.S. monopoly capitalist ruling class that is in trouble. The imperialist crisis is deepening, the anti-imperialist struggles of the masses both here and around the world are surging forward, and this is leading to deeper contradictions and greater competition among the imperialist thieves themselves.
All the skeletons that they have managed to keep in the closet for a long time are now spilling out into full public view. The bourgeois newspapers, etc. are loaded with reports about trials and indictments not only against the Watergate people, but also politicians and administrators in almost every major U.S. city.
From the communist point of view, from the standpoint of building the revolutionary mass movement, the growing difficulties of the ruling class and the growing number of publicized scandals in their own ranks, means that the situation is growing even more favorable for carrying out intensive propaganda and political agitation. This must be aimed at showing that the root cause of the crime and corruption, the root cause of the imperialist crisis itself, and the basic target of the people’s resistance and struggle, is not Nixon or this or that politician, but the entire imperialist system, which itself is based on the criminal robbery and suppression of the masses.
The ruling class is working hard to reduce the whole thing to Nixon and “his policies.” They then probably will torpedo him, since he’s become a big liability, and claim that “now things will get better,” “this shows that we do have a fine and noble democracy,” etc., etc.
This ruling class plan–and especially their efforts to reduce all the mass sentiment and mass actions to a mere pressure group that they can use to protect themselves while blaming everything on Nixon–must be fought by communists at every turn. We must raise people’s political consciousness–in the course of helping to build the mass actions–that getting rid of Nixon won’t mean any “turn for the better,” etc. but that it will be a significant victory for the people and the anti-imperialist movement in this country and internationally, and will help to strengthen that movement.
All of this, of course, has been said before and the reader may wonder whether it is really necessary to say again. It is, because certain forces in our movement do not understand such fundamental things.
Examine, for example, the editorial in the April issue of The Call, national newspaper of the October League, Marxist-Leninist (OL). The editorial begins by saying that “even though some politicians were talking more loudly about ousting Nixon, the Congress itself appears paralyzed, unable to act decisively on the question of impeachment.”
According to The Call, as demonstrations took place in March in various cities “in opposition to Nixon’s policies, the question that came to the fore was whether or not the Congress was going to act, or merely use the impeachment question for their own immediate political needs while the country suffers the effects of the corruption-ridden administration?”
The OL continues to dig itself deeper into the pit by going on to say that “the past month has shown that the Congress is more concerned with political expediency and making the capitalist system look pretty in the eyes of the world than in purging the criminals in the Nixon regime.” Congress, The Call informs us, is stalling on impeachment, and “Many Democrats are even hoping to strengthen themselves by keeping Nixon in office and running the November elections on an anti-Nixon platform, picturing themselves as the ’preservers of democracy.’ ”
So since Congress is “paralyzed” and is stalling on impeachment, The Call concludes that this “demonstrates more concretely than ever the need to build the mass people’s movement to dump Nixon.” And just to make sure that their readers are not in any doubt about this OL position, it is stated very clearly later in the editorial: “The politicians who have spoken out have only done so because of the tremendous mass sentiment to dump Nixon. This sentiment must be developed still further, and organized so that the pressure remains on the Congress to act.”
All of this certainly “lets the cat out of the bag.” Congress is “paralyzed,” so we need a mass anti-Nixon movement to “unparalyze” it. Congress is stalling, Democratic “liberals” are taking advantage of Nixon’s woes, so we need a mass movement, “so that the pressure remains on the Congress to act.”
Regretfully, we must point out that OL’s position appears to be the same as the revisionists: The “Communist Party,” USA attempts to turn the mass movement into a “mass pressure group,” chaining the masses to reliance on the bourgeoisie rather than relying on themselves. It consistently fights against the genuine communist position that in the course of struggle the masses must be set on the road to understanding that it is the imperialist system in its entirety that must be thrown out, while winning as many partial victories as possible along the way, and that it is only the people themselves, led by the proletariat, who can do this. The OL position is the same as the revisionist viewpoint of relying particularly on the “liberal” bourgeoisie, with the masses’ role being reduced to criticizing these “liberals” when they don’t move fast enough–in this case, criticizing the “liberal” Democrats who are stalling on impeachment because they are “even (even!) trying to strengthen themselves by keeping Nixon in office.”
Imagine that–the “liberal” Democrats (and some Republicans, too, The Call points out) are “even” trying to improve their position by taking advantage of Nixon’s woes. Isn’t that terrible of them? Don’t they know any better? Shouldn’t the masses criticize them??!!
The OL may jump up and down and scream “slander!” They might try to cover over their own rightism by attacking all those who are trying to build a revolutionary movement as “ultra-leftists,” or whatever. But their position is stated in black and white, and moreover, their actions around the mass movement to throw out Nixon–as well as their actions in other struggles – show that they mean every word of it.
Nowhere, absolutely nowhere in this editorial will you find any analysis that it is the entire ruling class that stands exposed and condemned by Watergate and all the other scandals, and that it is the duty of communists to show this through their propaganda and agitation (including, of course, through editorials in their national newspapers!) Instead, OL takes up the ruling class line that it is Nixon and “Nixon’s policies” that are at fault, that it all comes down to “purging the criminals in the Nixon regime” (are the criminals the private property of a particular presidential regime?), etc., etc.
And absolutely nowhere in this Call editorial is it pointed out that the mass anti-Nixon movement must be built as part of the overall revolutionary anti-imperialist movement, and that the point of throwing out Nixon is to strengthen that movement and thereby take a step toward defeating the entire criminal ruling class.
Instead, we are treated to truly profound questions about “whether or not the Congress is going to act, or merely use the impeachment question for their own immediate political needs while the country suffers the effects of the corruption-ridden administration.”
Apparently OL is trying to teach all of us that if Congress would act to impeach Nixon, that would show that they are not using the impeachment question for “their own immediate political needs.” But if they don’t impeach Nixon for their own political needs–i.e., in order to take the heat off themselves and continue to try and confuse people about who is really responsible for all the crime and corruption-then why would they impeach him? Perhaps OL is planning to also teach us that Congress will impeach Nixon to further not their own political needs, but the needs of the masses of people.
And in the same profound question we also get the phrase, “while the country suffers the effects of the corruption-ridden administration.” Let us say it one more time: The point is that the masses of people are suffering at the hands of the entire U.S. ruling class. By talking about this as though it was just the fault of a particular administration, OL’s position coincides with the ruling class viewpoint that Nixon is an albatross around their necks, and the ruling class propaganda that is designed to convince the people that things will be okay when we get rid of Nixon. We are not saying that is what OL intends to do–that’s for them to say. We are only stating what in fact their position amounts to.
On the one hand, a mountain of sentences and. phrases about using the mass movement to pressure Congress into impeaching Nixon, about “Nixon’s policies,” “purging criminals in the Nixon regime,’” “corruption-ridden administration,” etc., and on the other hand not a single grain about developing revolutionary consciousness among the masses about what Nixon really represents, and not a word about developing the anti-Nixon movement as part of the overall revolutionary movement. This, we repeat, seems the same to us as the position of the revisionist “Communist Party,” USA.
The OL apparently is aware that their position is wide open to this conclusion, because they try to cover their tracks by ending the editorial with “an attack” on the CP’s position on Nixon. The editorial says that the CP has “tried to use Watergate as a way ’ of prettifying the system, provided their desired modifications are made.” The Call then quotes from a recent Daily World editorial, which calls for the “ouster of the entire White House gang, broad development of independent action outside monopoly’s two-party system, and the holding of new elections. This is the way to broaden democracy and more responsible government.”
This, The Call says, is an opportunist program, which “poses the holding of an election and the development of more responsive politicians as a solution to the current political crisis. In essence, the same program Nixon’s Congressional opponents put forward. It is another way of saying, ’Make the system work.’”
But, says The Call, “the system does not and cannot work.” Proof of this? “It will not even impeach the most widely exposed criminal of our day, unless the people force it to.” Further, the CP’s position, says The Call, doesn’t “take into account the system of imperialist robbery which the U.S. ruling class bases its power on. This is why the Dump Nixon movement cannot be based solely on the issues of the Watergate affair, or on electing new politicians, but must have a firm base in opposition to Nixon’s policies of aggression around the world, strike-breaking, wage-freezing, and attacks on democratic rights.”
It is true that the revisionists call for new elections and talk about “broader democracy and more responsive government” and that The Call editorial does not. But it is also true that this is not the essence of the revisionist position. The essence is that the revisionists don’t use the Nixon situation to expose the real nature of the imperialist system, mobilize the people to throw out Nixon and in the course of doing so, raise their political consciousness about the need for revolution and the development of a revolutionary movement. Instead the revisionists want to use the masses, as they did, for example, during the last presidential campaign, to “criticize the reactionaries and give critical support to the liberals.”
This is precisely the kind of stand OL takes in the editorial. Compare, for example, the key sections of the OL editorial with the key sections of an editorial appearing in the February-March issue of the Young Worker, newspaper of the Young Workers Liberation League (YWLL), youth group of the CP.
YWLL says that “Nixon’s attitude is a challenge to the people because it becomes more and more evident that Congress–Democrats and Republicans alike –will not take decisive action unless pushed by the masses.” OL says “The paralysis of Congress demonstrates more concretely than ever the need to build the mass people’s movement to dump Nixon.”
YWLL says that “Special efforts should be made to force Congressman Rodino, head of the House Judiciary Committee, to speed up the impeachment proceedings. Youth committees to impeach Nixon must demand that their Congressmen listen to their electors and take action.” OL says that many Democrats are “even hoping to strengthen themselves by keeping Nixon in office and running the November elections on an anti-Nixon platform, picturing themselves as the ’preservers of democracy.’ This is the essence of the Judiciary Committee’s inaction, and if dictates broader, more organized action than ever to, keep the storm swelling and to really dump Nixon.”
OL says that “The CPUSA with its plans for ’responsible government’ and ’broad democracy’ fails to take into account the system of imperialist robbery which the U.S. ruling class bases its power on.” That is not true. The CP definitely does take this into account. The YWLL editorial, for example, says more about such things than the editorial in The Call: “Watergate is more than a story about a corrupt politician; it is basically the story of a corrupt system..”
The job that Nixon intends to continue to do is the plunder of the working people, for the greater glory of the huge corporations that own Nixon–lock, stock, and barrel. And: “Nixon is a servant of the monopolies, and his corruption can be understood only as the corruption of monopoly capitalism.”
The point that OL apparently can’t understand is that the revisionists claim this “corrupt system” can be “purged” of its “criminal elements” and “saved,” and that the political role of the revisionists is to try to delude the masses into believing this and to put their fate into the hands of the “liberal” bourgeoisie. “The “corrupt system” does not have to be overthrown; it’s just a matter of getting rid of the “bad policies” of “bad people” like Nixon and forcing the “good” imperialists to adopt “good policies.” That is how the revisionists can come up with the absurd slogan, mentioned in the YWLL editorial, “to impeach Nixon and all he represents.” is it possible to impeach the ruling class?
The OL, in The Call editorial, says “...the Dump Nixon movement cannot be based solely on the issues of the Watergate affair, or on electing new politicians, but must have a firm base in opposition to Nixon’s policies of aggression around the world, strike-breaking, wage-freezing, and attacks on democratic rights.” Again, we get talk not of imperialist aggression, etc., but of “Nixon’s policies” of aggression, etc., just as we get the same thing from the revisionists, even while they talk at the same time about the “corrupt system,” “monopoly capitalism,” etc.
So, despite OL’s “attack” on the CP at the end of their editorial, we are forced to conclude that both the OL position and the revisionist position are, to say the least, quite similar. Both positions must be opposed by all revolutionary minded people.