This background paper is to provide a basis for discussion of some of the major political topics that face the U.S. left. Many of these topics are addressed in the Outlook and Role paper, but in broad formulations. This paper is written to more clearly define some of the issues for discussion by the organization and the delegated conference, and thus give comrades a chance to more clearly grasp and interact with some of the general formulations in the Outlook and Role paper.
The topics addressed are of considerable complexity, and we do not expect the organization to come to definite positions on most of them anytime in the near future. Much more study and discussion must follow this initial one. But we think it is important to kick these discussions off at this time so that we can get a start and have that start reflected in our political unity as represented in the Outlook and Role paper.
Contents:
I. The International Situation
II. The U.S. Situation
III. The People’s Movements
IV. The U.S. Left and Communist Movements
Our former line was based on our version of the ICM’s line on the “world revolutionary process” and the “general crisis of capitalism.” This line held that since 1917 world capitalism has steadily and inexorably losing out to the forces of socialism; and that the struggle against imperialism has actively engaged its three main components: the socialist camp was seen as the anchor, the national liberation movement that section most actively taking power, and the working class and people’s movements in the imperialist countries were seen as the third component. The conflict between socialism (headed by the USSR) and imperialism (headed by the U.S.) was seen as the main conflict shaping world events.
That line enjoyed a measure of credibility in the 1960s and much of the 1970s, but does not seem to explain political motion in the 1980s. In general, the process of transition from capitalism is definitely more unsteady, varied, difficult, and prolonged than we previously thought. (1) Socialism is undergoing a crisis rather than outperforming capitalism. Many of the newly free countries, including those led by communists, are also experiencing severe problems (e.g. Angola, Mozambique, Ethiopia, Vietnam, etc.); (2) The national liberation movements are much more diverse than we previously thought: most are neither anti-imperialist nor pro socialist, but bourgeois democratic and aimed at independent capitalist development. (3) It no longer appears that the struggle between capitalism and socialism is a “zero sum game” in which each other’s loss or gain is at the expense or the benefit of the other; instead, both seem to have lost some of their former ability to influence world events relatively to other forces, including Third World forces.
We hypothesize that a major change in the world situation is taking place. Every major relationship in the world – between imperialism and socialism; between the main centers of imperialism; between imperialism and the developing world – is undergoing a dramatic shift. These changes affect the context and often even the internal content of the political dynamics of virtually every country.
This section will take a slightly closer look at some of the issues mentioned above.
1. Socialism; The socialist system, far from proving its superiority over capitalism, is grappling with a crisis situation in a number of countries and is engaged in a difficult struggle for renewal whose outcome will not be clear for a couple of decades.
Economic stagnation, the lack of democracy and the existence of major legitimation problems facing ruling communist parties, and unresolved ethnic and national conflict have all been exposed in most if not all the socialist countries, most dramatically in the USSR, Poland, and China.
More generally, the crisis of socialism suggests that previous assessments that the balance of forces in the world favored socialism were unwarranted. Today, the reality is that socialist material aid to revolutionary or democratic forces will lessen; the socialist countries themselves will become more intertwined with the world capitalist economy; and the political and ideological initiative of the communist forces has dwindled.
On the other hand, perestroika, political democratization and glasnost and the reformulation of Soviet foreign policy on the basis of a “new way of thinking” has already had a tremendous positive impact on world affairs – and that impact is likely to increase if socialist renewal proceeds successfully. However, perestroika’s success is not guaranteed, nor will it be quick.
2. Inter-imperialist Rivalry: The relations between the main centers of world capitalism are undergoing significant change; Japan and Western Europe have gained power and influence in relation to the U.S.
U.S. economic hegemony relative to the other two main imperialist centers – Japan and West Europe – has qualitatively eroded since the late ‘60s/early 70s. Japan’s economy has grown tremendously and the main states of West Europe are moving toward a new level of economic integration in 1992.
The integration of the world economy has fostered new forms of cooperation as well as heightened competition among the various centers of capital. It is difficult to predict which of these trends may predominate at a given time, but we believe that Western Europe and Japan will play an increasingly important role in world political and economic affairs, no longer constantly subordinating themselves to the U.S. Similarly, inter-imperialist competition will play an increasingly major role in the political and economic affairs of each individual country. For example, this shift is already pushing the U.S. towards greater responsiveness to Soviet peace initiatives and economic ties.
3. Developing World: The developing world is itself becoming more diverse, and so are its struggles for independence and self-determination.
Over the last two decades, a number of countries in the Third World have undergone significant industrialization and economic development; in particular this applies to the “newly industrialized countries (NICs)” such as South Korea, Brazil, Singapore, etc. These countries play an increasing political and economic role in the world, especially in their respective regions. They are by no means simply pawns of imperialism.
At the other end of the spectrum, many countries, especially in Africa face the dire reality of mass starvation and are not developing at all. This is a catastrophe of major proportions that is likely to worsen in the years ahead. More generally, with the exception of a handful of NICs, the gap between imperialism and the Third World is growing, and the everyday food, health, and economic crises of people is alarming.
In some developing countries, armed revolutionary movements have taken the lead. But these are the minority. In most countries mass democratic and electoral struggle against social austerity, foreign debt, and for a New International Economic Order are the order of the day. At the same time, a number of the revolutionary or progressive-led countries–Vietnam, Nicaragua, Angola, Ethiopia, Mozambique, etc.–are experiencing acute problems of development and are starting to give more play to private capital, foreign and domestic, to boost their economies.
All across the developing world, broad cross-class alliances are struggling for development under the slogan of a New International Economic Order. Demands are raised for disarmament and development, relief from the tremendous debt burden, an end to imperialist export of environmentally devastating industries.
In this light, the national liberation movements seem to defy simple categorization as inherently anti-imperialist or pro socialist and they cannot be understood merely as aspects of some international “east-west” confrontation. They are more precisely defined as struggles for non-alignment, self-determination, genuine national sovereignty, economic development.
4. Imperialism: Imperialism remains the main obstacle to world peace, self-determination, democracy and development; its contradictions remain and in some ways are aggravated, but it remains remarkably stable and retains tremendous resources.
Due to imperialism’s exploitative and expansionist character, anti-imperialist movements have become a permanent feature throughout the world. Imperialism’s ability to control events has eroded significantly, and that trend can be expected to continue.
At the same time, the imperialist system has not exhausted its capacity for development, proving more resilient than Marxists had previously assessed. The main capitalist countries have displayed significant capacity to harness the scientific and technological revolution and develop the productive forces; and they have also demonstrated the capacity to maneuver politically to forestall or slow down the progress of movements against capitalism, even in the face of fairly sharp disjunctures and contradictions. Although major contradictions and certain particular struggles (in South Africa, El Salvador, Palestine, etc.) enjoy significant initiative, the foundations of the imperialist system do not seem to be at risk in the foreseeable future.
5. New Dynamics: As the 1990s approach, the human race finds itself in an increasingly interdependent, multi-polar world.
The advent of nuclear weapons is the most graphic evidence of the world’s interdependence. The danger of nuclear war is a threat to the entire human race; it has brought the issue of human survival and self-preservation to the fore.
At the same time, the scientific and technological revolution has turned a host of military, economic, food, energy and environmental problems – which previously were national or regional issues – into global problems. The threat of ecological disaster hangs over the entire planet. The yawning gap between the industrialized countries and the developing countries – where millions face starvation, disease, ill-health, dire poverty and so on – is a crisis that cannot be resolved except by international action. The world economy is becoming a single organism, and no state, whatever its social system or economic status, can develop normally outside of it.
While world politics are increasingly shaped by this interdependence, they are also shaped by the world’s growing multi-polar character. Nations and peoples previously pushed to the sidelines of world politics are asserting their interests and strength in the international arena. World politics can no longer be described mainly within a “bi-polar” framework; that is, the struggle between the socialist camp and the imperialist camp, while still an important factor in world politics, can no longer be seen as the main axis determining the direction of world affairs.
6. End to Cold War? Most conspicuously, the long period during which Cold War confrontation between a U.S-led imperialist camp and a Soviet-led socialist camp has been the defining feature of world politics is coming to a close.
For roughly 40 years since the end of World War II, the Cold War confrontation between imperialism and socialism has pervaded every aspect of world politics. Socialism’s achievement of nuclear parity at the end of the 1960s laid the basis for a decade of relative detente, but with the rise of Reaganism at the end of the 1970s the U.S. bourgeoisie moved to escalate the arms race and revive the Cold War. Over the last two or three years, however, the bourgeoisie’s Cold War momentum has been halted, the relationship between imperialism and socialism has begun to be dramatically readjusted, and the Cold War is coming to a close.
In an immediate political sense, this shift is mainly due to the new peace, disarmament and foreign policy initiatives being put forward by the Soviet Union under the banner of a “new way of thinking.” Yet these initiatives have their force because they correspond to the underlying realities of world politics described earlier, and to the overwhelming interest the peoples of the entire world have in peace, an end to the arms race, and the reallocation of resources toward development and human needs.
The dominant section of the U.S. ruling class is still resisting the turn away from Cold War policies. However, the West European countries, especially West Germany, are much more oriented toward detente. This has encouraged more realistic trends in the U.S. bourgeoisie. Today the initiative lies with the forces fighting to end this dangerous period in international relations. As further initiative in this struggle is gained, more favorable conditions are created for more progress in nuclear disarmament, for socialism’s development, for environmental problems to be resolved, for combating the burdens of debt and underdevelopment in the Third World, for resolving “regional conflicts” and for the progress of democratic and revolutionary forces around the world. Because of this, each step toward ending the Cold War is a significant gain for the international working class movement.
U.S. capitalism is quite stable and expanding. It has posted record months of uninterrupted growth. During the Reagan years, a major transition in the structure of the economy – a further decline in the proportion of traditional manufacturing to service, finance and high-tech – was negotiated without unusual turbulence. (This has been variously dubbed as the transition from industrial society to “post industrial society” or to the “science-industrial-information” society.) Significant strata of the population, including some parts of the working class – have been doing well. These sectors, in turn, provide a broad political base for the ruling class. Altogether, U.S. capitalism retains significant economic and political reserves, and the capitalist class has accumulated much experience and skill at using them to manage their economic contradictions and blunt the working class movement.
Yet, even with the U.S. economy in its longest period without a recession since World War II, the country is enmeshed in a web of serious problems: wages are falling and the middle class is shrinking, a social crisis in the large cities is brewing, there is significant financial instability, environmental problems multiply, and racism is retrenching. The effects hit relatively broad sectors of the people.
Due to the nature of capitalism, the U.S. inherently contains potentially explosive contradictions. This is the fundamental rationale for building the progressive movement and, especially, the left. However, we must break with the expectation that these contradictions are always on the verge of exploding, or that such explosions, when they inevitably do occur, will necessarily result in a mass radicalization of the working class, let alone a revolutionary situation. Instead, we need to explore the actual potentialities of the contradictions and movements as they develop, and seek to maximize the possibilities for reform and movement building that they present.
In this section we will identify some of the main contradictions, especially those that may produce increased progressive motion. What follows is quite undigested, but should help spark discussion and further study.
*U.S. capital faces a profitability squeeze, not in an absolute sense, but in the sense of reproducing U.S. capital at an internationally competitive level, especially in a number of areas of industrial production and high technology. One of the monuments to this is the trade deficit. This profit squeeze is a root cause of capital’s offensive against the working class, whether it takes the form of social austerity, forced concessions, union busting, runaway shops or plant closures. The debate over “industrial policy” and trade policy reflects this problem.
*Manufacturing jobs, especially in the union shops of traditional monopoly industry, have fallen off drastically. The vast majority of new jobs are in the service or government sectors where the rate of pay and the rate of unionization are lower. Some statistics show that over 50% of the new jobs produced in the U.S. since 1979 pay less than half the median wage. At the other end, there has also been an increase in high paying technical and managerial jobs.
*More generally, U.S. society has become more economically polarized: the “middle class” is shrinking, the percentage of wealthy has grown somewhat, and the percentage of poor folks has grown even more. Even this is a bit misleading, for while family incomes have remained fairly stable over the last decade, the average wage of the individual worker has plummeted.
*The suburbanization of jobs, the increased educational and technical requirements for jobs, the increase in racism and the plummeting of affirmative action, etc., have combined to create an increased gap between the (disproportionately minority) urban centers and the (disproportionately white) suburbs, and, within the urban centers, an even larger and more depressed stagnant unemployed of largely minority people. The city v. suburb contradiction has become a major social and political distinction in U.S. life.
*The number of urban minority poor has grown to such proportions and the problems they face so intractable that a new term, “the underclass”, has been coined to capture this new phenomenon. Isolated in communities where most people live below the poverty line, the “underclass” suffers the brunt not only of the economic irrationalities of U.S. capitalism, but also its developing social crisis: the decay/cracking of the educational system, the health care system, housing, transportation, the family, personal security and its eroding social benefits. At the same time, this social crisis is a looming issue for the future of U.S. capitalism as a whole.
*At the same time, the minority middle class has noticeably grown, and is fighting to stabilize its position and to gain all the perquisites of middle class status afforded to whites.
*Immigration from the Third World is changing the demographics, workforce and politics of important parts of the country.
*Millions of women have entered the workforce for good, and their wages are crucial to keeping families (whether single female headed or two person) afloat. Women make up a disproportionate and increasing part of people living in poverty. This means a drastic change in the quality and patterns of life, and creates pressing new economic issues, such as childcare, comparable worth, etc.
The economic attacks of the Reagan years were accompanied by a general assault on democratic rights which is continuing today. Most conspicuous is the rollback in democratic gains won by the anti-racist struggle of the 1960s and early 70s. Spearheaded by actions of the executive and judicial branches of government, affirmative action has been virtually eliminated and enforcement of what remains of civil rights legislation turned into a mockery. Despite his “kinder, gentler” rhetoric, these trends are continuing under George Bush.
The Reaganite assault on the NLRB has weakened the trade unions ability to fight back at the bargaining table, the shop floor and in the political arena. A host of court rulings and administrative actions have made it more difficult for workers to fight for disability benefits they deserve, have their health and safety protected, etc.
There is also a looming threat to women’s rights, in particular abortion rights. The legal right to abortion for all women is under threat, and the class and racial edge of the reactionary assault has already largely succeeded in cutting out funding and access to abortion for poor women.
Lesbian and gay rights also remain under attack; in the Hardwick case the Supreme Court ruled sodomy laws constitutional, effectively making lesbians and gays second class citizens under permanent vulnerability of legal assault.
Especially under cover of fighting “terrorism” and drugs, there is an attempt to rollback civil liberties generally.
While the setbacks to democratic rights have been serious, they have not added up to a complete rollback of all the gains won in the 1960s and 70s. The bourgeoisie is not united that this is wise, and continuing popular sentiment – if not always mass political protest activity – has been an important check on the most reactionary sectors, such as with the defeat of Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork in 1987.
*Though in decline compared to the Reagan years, the New Right is still a force to be reckoned with in the Republican Party, the Congress and the Administration.
*The Jackson motion, and similar local motions, have begun to create a progressive wing of the Democratic Party, and a liberal/progressive bloc may be in the making. While far from able to win the presidency in the near future, such a bloc could be a key force in U.S. politics and the Democratic Party, whose dominant forces are still straining rightward.
*The bourgeoisie is in the process of adjusting its approach to domestic affairs coming out of the Reagan era. The Bush administration has broad support in the ruling class for conservative, pro-big business policies, but not for the ideologically driven zealotry of the early Reagan years. The Democratic Party, having regained control of both houses of Congress, is pursuing a cautious strategy, eager to compromise with Bush on many points but also concerned about making sufficient concessions to the working class and minority sections of its base to maintain their allegiance and the social peace.
Under Bush, the trend of Reagan’s last years is continuing. The administration continues to pursue a policy of assault on workers standard of living and political rights. But this assault is framed in less ideological terms, and is somewhat more moderate in pace and scope, than during the early 1980s. And the New Right is not given nearly the same kind of encouragement; while more entrenched in positions of authority that it was before Reagan took office, and still very active and dangerous at the grassroots, the New Right lacks the degree of initiative it held a half decade ago.
Faced with a Democratic controlled Congress, Bush is attempting where possible to win bipartisan support for the key aspects of his program, such as the Savings and Loan bailout, tax policy, the budget, etc. There will be battles – as the fight over the minimum wage shows. But these are not likely to erupt into a full scale, permanent standoff between the administration and the Democrats, particularly given the Democratic Party leadership’s own posture, which is to retain its loyalty to the more “liberal” section of the bourgeoisie while making minimum concessions to the working class and minority sectors of its base. The progressive wing of the Democratic Party, while stronger than a decade ago, is not yet in position to force a shift in this posture and policy.
Two general points are important for understanding the current popular movement. First, the issues and forms of struggle of the late 80s and into the 90s have many differences from earlier periods. Second, the popular movement has experienced some growth in activity and influence relative to the late 1970s and early 80s, but it remains in a relative ebb and in a defensive position, weak in institutional strength and national political clout.
1. New Forms, Issues. As noted in sections I and II, the U.S. has undergone major changes since the early 1970s. These have produced new issues and forms of political motion, including motion in progressive politics. (By progressive, we mean a program whose basic reference point is the interests of the popular masses, not the smoother and more humane functioning of the current economic and political system - the limits of liberal politics. The progressive program today is generally captured in such terms as peace, jobs, justice, democracy and equality.)
Just as the ’60s was a major change from the ’30s, the movement of the ’80s and ’90s is shaping up very differently from that of the ’60s. This is an important point, as many experienced activists and communists are products of these earlier periods, and need to adjust themselves to the new realities.
Some of the main features of the current progressive motion are:
*In general, the centrality of legal democratic struggle, especially in the electoral realm and, more specifically, within the Democratic Party. The effort to develop political institutions and initiative for the popular movement independent of the bourgeoisie (but often within the Democratic Party). The centrality of Black politics to this motion.
*The strengthening of progressive forces in the labor movement, especially in the service and government sectors which are generally low and middle wage workers and disproportionately Black and female in composition.
*Development of a growing social crisis in the large urban areas, captured in the inter-related issues of jobs, drugs, crime, homelessness, and AIDS and concentrated in the development of the so-called “underclass.”
*Rise of “new social movements” such as environment, gay/lesbian (in addition to women which was central to the 60s/70s).
*Rise in the importance of the immigrant question.
*Rise in importance of issues related to overall human survival – especially nuclear war and environment.
*Generally, due to breadth of falling standard of living and quality of life, greater possibilities for common ground –economic and otherwise – and a broad democratic front.
Although the struggle against war and racism are still pivotal driving forces of the movement and lightning rods of struggle, those issues take different forms than in the ’60s. For example, as opposed to massive civil disobedience or revolutionary Black power motion, the Black movement is strongly tied into the electoral motion and issues like drugs have risen to the fore. Similarly, though U.S. intervention in the Third World is central to U.S. foreign policy, there is no single issue of the dominating magnitude of the Vietnam War, and the questions of nuclear disarmament, chemical warfare, the debt crisis, links between disarmament and development and the like are at least as prominent. In addition, the issue of economic justice has risen to the fore as another of the main issues shaping U.S. politics and the progressive movement.
2. Level of Influence. Relative to the late 1970s and early 1980s – before the two Jackson presidential campaigns – there is a growth of progressive activity. However, the movement is not at all in a major upswing. In fact, it is still in a relative ebb and on the defensive. Despite the reactionary policies of the Reagan administration and the sizable fall in the standard of living of large numbers of people, the bourgeoisie has been quite effective in using its political and economic resources to divide the movement. The fightback is still relatively scattered and disorganized. The progressive movement lacks institutional strength, and ongoing organization. While the two Jackson campaigns indicate that progressive ideas do have a mass constituency, it cannot be said that right now the progressive movement has a consolidated mass base.
1. Within the new progressive motion, the electoral motion behind Jesse Jackson has far outstripped all other components of the movement.
Jesse Jackson’s presidential campaigns of 1984 and then 1988 constituted the first independent challenge to the lack of leadership by the liberal wing of the Democratic Party in speaking for or defending the needs of the minority communities, the working masses, the poor, the disenfranchised. Jackson’s efforts catapulted a progressive peace, jobs and justice “Rainbow” program onto the national political agenda; it both reflected and pushed forward the fight for Black political empowerment; and it has meant a new level of coalition politics by progressives in the electoral arena. The Jackson motion has been the key factor in creating a new, distinct progressive wing within the Democratic Party.
But the forms to consolidate this progressive motion are, at best, undeveloped. The future of the main effort to build an ongoing, independent, mass-based progressive organization – the National Rainbow Coalition – is quite dubious at present. A broad current of activists who identify as having “Rainbow politics” has come into being, but this current is not consolidated politically or organizationally.
2. Central not only to the Jackson/Rainbow motion, but to popular motion more generally, is the motion in Black politics.
Since the early 1980s, there has been a dramatic growth in the fight for Black political empowerment utilizing the electoral arena. This motion has been at the center of the fight against racism, for defense of the economic and political rights of working people generally, and for a revitalized progressive movement. The strength of the motion in the Black community stems largely from the increased political clout of the Black community in the larger urban areas and the South; and, the increased political organization and clout of Blacks in institutions like the trade unions to address questions beyond the workplace.
Other minority communities have also suffered from the reinforcement of racism during the Reagan years, and in response engaged in struggles to defend their interest and increase political empowerment. Because of their size and location in many key urban areas, the Latino communities are of particular importance. In many areas the ability to forge a successful Black-Latino alliance is the deciding factor in the fight for electoral empowerment. As the group with the worst objective conditions, and due to the still powerful land/resource grab of big capital, Native American issues can be expected to come to the fore. And Asians are the fasting growing minority group in the country. More generally, immigration issues have become more prominent, as immigration has picked up considerably. Sheer demographic trends promise that all of the different minority groups will have a basis to increase their political clout in the coming years, especially in the large cities.
3. There is also important political motion in the trade union movement, with a militant, progressive trend taking shape and offering a growing challenge to the leadership of the right.
Motion in the trade union movement is shaped by the forms of today’s economic struggle. Fewer workplaces are the sites of major concentrations of workers. There is also a marked increase in service and government employment relative to manufacturing. And there are new complexities brought about by the increasing role of giant transnationals, the internationalization of capital, etc. Also significant is the reduced percentage of the workforce (now under 18%) organized into unions. For these reasons among others, many of the “bread and butter” issues waged from the shop floor are now taking shape as broad political questions that must be taken up in the political arena.
The trade union movement, and the different forces within it, are struggling to adjust to these new realities. With the transfer of leadership of the AFL-CIO from George Meany to Lane Kirkland, a new brand of collaborationism has emerged from the top officers of the trade union movement. This trend has opted for greater activity in the electoral arena than previously.
But Kirkland and his allies are not the only players in the game. In a host of (mainly government and service) unions, new, more militant and progressive forces are gaining influence. These unions are impelled by powerful progressive motive forces: their members are heavily minority, women and low paid. Thus, their members suffer the concentrated effects of some of the deepest contradictions of U.S. society, and their unions must reflect this. They are joined by a number of other unions in a growing challenge to longstanding AFL-CIO support for imperialist foreign policy; to strategies in direct economic struggle based on collaboration with employers; and to political activism which merely tails the Democratic Party hierarchy. The growth of a progressive wing in labor was shown most graphically by the broad labor support given Jesse Jackson in 1988.
4. Rising factors in today’s popular motion are the struggles around issues of the “social crisis,” and the increased activity of various broad cross-class movements, including the “new social movements.”
A set of issues coming to the fore in almost every sector of the people’s movement are those intertwined with the growing social crisis of the cities: drugs, homelessness, AIDS, crime, the collapse or near collapse of social services such as welfare, health care, education, etc. The necessity to address these social questions is on the agenda of the working class movement, yet the social movements and programmatic ideas to take up these questions are very undeveloped. The communities most immediately affected by this crisis and thus with the strongest pressure to fight back – minority communities – are hindered in the fightback precisely by the hardships imposed by the crisis itself.
Intersecting with but not limited to the issues of the “social crisis,” there has been an overall rise in the activity of the “new social movements.” Activism in the women’s movement, which is generally in an ebb, is seeing spurt in the defense of abortion rights. The lesbian/gay movement has been in a relative flow due to the deadly intersection of Reaganism’s reactionary social agenda and the AIDS crisis. Environmental activism is on the rise, and more often than in previous periods the efforts of the traditional environmental movement (largely white and non-working class) intersects with other movements, as in fights against toxic waste sites disproportionately in minority communities.
The peace movement has declined in activity relative to the mass actions of the early 80s; where there still is activity, it is increasingly straining to link economic and human rights issues to disarmament. The solidarity/anti-intervention movement has remained relatively active around Central America. Immigrant rights struggles have heightened. There are stirrings of activism on college campuses - struggles against racism, against tuition hikes and narrow admissions policies, and on international issues.
Given the overall balance of forces in the country and the relative weakness of the progressive forces, for the next period the prospects for increasing the strength and base of the progressive movement are tied up with the development of a working relationship with the liberal trend in U.S. politics.
The existence of real prospects for mass progressive influence is the fundamental lesson of the Jackson movement. At the same time, another fundamental lesson is that, for some time at least, the further development of a nationwide progressive current is tied up with the development of a working relationship – in the Democratic Party, the trade unions, and other institutions - with the liberal trend in U.S. politics.
The possibility of a liberal/progressive bloc to end the Cold War and advance domestic democracy is not imminent, but building it is a real agenda item of today and the coming decades. In fact, the effort to forge such a bloc has moved more and more central to the strategy being pursued by the most influential progressives, in particular Jesse Jackson, progressive Black elected officials, and progressives in labor. It is no surprise that this kind of bloc is being worked for: because the tasks on the popular agenda are democratic, reform tasks, the movements that fight for them are cross-class democratic movements, which include not only working class and petty bourgeois forces, but even, for their own reasons, sections of the bourgeoisie.
As far as capturing governmental power at any time in the foreseeable future, the dominance of bourgeois forces is certain. Consequently, on the level of striving for a governing coalition, the only real prospect before us is the potential ascent to power of an alliance between bourgeois liberal forces and popularly-based progressive forces, with progressive forces having as much influence as possible but extremely unlikely to be the senior partner. Given the real historical possibilities of this period, it is the responsibility of all left forces to attempt to play a role in this process, while they simultaneously struggle to build up the independent initiative and influence of the progressive and left forces.
1. Left Marginalization/Weakness. While many individual left activists are playing important roles in today’s popular movements, the left as the left is institutionally weak and relatively marginal to the new progressive motion.
Right now, there is little specifically left (that is, specifically anti-capitalist) motion within the broad progressive movement. In fact, not only are most new activists mainly attracted to liberal or progressive politics, the magnet of progressive democratic politics is so strong that many left activists themselves are moving in that direction, away from putting much energy into building the left as the left, and even away from a distinct revolutionary or socialist outlook. This is compounded by the fact that the largest stream in this progressive motion, the Jackson movement, has blocked the development of the Rainbow into a flexible, independent formation where the left might have more initiative.
There are many other factors in the weakness of the left. Among the more outstanding: it is not on the frontiers of understanding and explaining the new world and domestic realities, and thus attracting the most broad-minded and politically curious of new activists; it is tactically primitive and often ultra left; it is fragmented by issue, by racism and by sectarianism, etc.
What this adds up to, in general, is that despite the beginning development of a broad progressive movement, the left is still relatively marginal to it. Breaking this marginality and becoming a distinct and integral force within the broader progressive movement is vital for the left’s maturation and, long-range, for the overall future of the progressive movement. Because of this, the ability to contribute to that process is the principal criteria for assessing the progress and role of different forces on the left. Those forces whose line or practice militates against this are likely to face serious problems of relevance if not survival. Those who can play more of a role will have a better chance to thrive.
2. Flux and Realignment. Just as the new conditions of international and domestic politics are producing new forms of progressive motion, so too are these new conditions reshaping the left. Virtually every tendency within the left is being forced to re-examine at least some of its old assumptions and practical policies. While this is a result of “new realities” in general, it is particularly compelled by two factors:
*First, the lessons of the Jackson movement regarding the use of electoral terrain, the Democratic Party, the central role of the Black community, the potential of broad coalition politics on the basis of ”economic common ground,” etc;
*Second, the dramatic changes in socialism and in Marxism, especially those associated with glasnost, perestroika and the new way of thinking. On one level, these changes have been somewhat disorienting to many political currents and individuals activists, and are giving rise to struggle and differences, especially among communists. But the main impact, especially as time goes on, is to strike a blow against dogmatism, sectarianism and all forms of “vanguardism,” to foster impulses toward dialogue and cooperation, and to create a climate on the left (and within the communist movement) more favorable to “unity in diversity.”
To be sure, the process of re-evaluation is uneven among different forces, and it is still at a relatively early stage. However, there are already signs that we may have a re-enactment of realignment/new formations/degeneration of different left forces similar to what happened in the ’60s and early ’70s, though this time under different concrete conditions. In fact, to a certain degree this process has been underway for a number of years now as a number of groups have departed the scene.
One feature of this process is that longstanding ideological categorizations are no longer all that helpful in assessing where different political forces will come down on the actual questions of the period. Differences over such matters as assessing the Jackson movement, the approach to work in the Democratic Party, the relative roles of the labor movement and the minority community movements in consolidating a durable progressive movement, the attitude toward perestroika and new thinking, do not at all fall neatly along “ideological” lines (that is, between social democrats, communists, Trotskyists, Maoists etc.) Rather, differences exist almost as often within each of these trends as between them; conversely, different activists and groups often find as much or more political unity with forces who come out of other ideological traditions as they do with many activists whose ideological history and nominal reference points are the same as their own. This makes for an extremely complex set of relations on the left, and calls for a fresh non-ideological approach to developing dialogue and political relationships.
3. What is the Left? An indication of the present marginalization of the left, as well as the degree of change it is undergoing, is that the left itself is difficult to identify.
On the one hand, there are certain clear, self-conscious and more or less organized left forces who clearly hold one form or another of anti-capitalist or broadly socialist politics. However, there are many more forces within the broader progressive movement who are not self-conscious leftists. The distinction between progressives and leftists is often unclear in the actual political movement, largely owing to the lack of a distinctly left program supported by forces with independent strength. Moreover, the self-conscious left and the practical left within certain movements do not completely overlap due to the fact that parts of the self-conscious left are often absent, confused, fragmented or even wrongly oriented within the practical movement.
Elegant conceptual definitions cannot resolve the problem of defining the left, for it is murky in actual political life. We will have to learn to live with this ambiguity and sort through it practically. Still, it is at least useful to identify the distinction and interpenetration (or lack thereof) between those who function as the left wing of the actual movements and those who may be self-conscious leftists. Maturing the relationship between these two parts of the left (or, to use different terminology, between the self-conscious left and the advanced and center forces open to the left) is a foremost task in developing the left’s actual leadership in the progressive movement.
In addition, the left is segregated by race and nationality (as well as by issue and/or movement). This is a debilitating and distorting factor, the handling of which must be high on the left’s agenda if it is to grow stronger, develop, and/or unify, and to gain a mass base in the minority communities. Dividing on the color line, segregation and racism in the ranks, etc. are still rampant. Identifying and strengthening the anti-racist forces on the left is an important task.
The minority left is itself quite divided. Each minority group has had a different history, set of political distinctions, and dynamics. Various strains of nationalism, for example, are unique to the minority left and, in fact, are quite central to understanding different forces within it. There are often distinctions or even contradictions between immigrants and U.S. born. Also, the dynamics of U.S. relations with home countries sometimes play a major role in shaping the minority left. For example, there are a number of left forces who function primarily based on the realities of their home countries/movements, and not those of the U.S.
4. Different Forces on the Left
*Democratic Socialists Ascendent. While recognizing the limits of assessment by ideological tradition noted above, it remains true as a broad generalization that within the U.S. left, the broad current which identifies itself as democratic socialist is by far the ascendent trend.
The ascendence of democratic socialism – what was traditionally termed social democracy – is not surprising. It is rooted in the fact that legal movements for reform, and attempts to forge broad coalitions on specific issues with sectors of the bourgeoisie, dominate the current political agenda of the popular movement. (Strictly speaking, the forces we are discussing are left social democrats, distinguished from the right social democrats – the like of Lane Kirkland, Albert Shanker and Social Democracy USA – who hold a Cold War, anti-progressive position. But since these right social democrats are not considered part of the progressive movement by almost anyone, while the democratic socialists have pretty much gained a monopoly on the social democratic label, for the purposes of this paper we use the terms social democrat, left social democrat and democratic socialist interchangeably.)
Social democrats are in fact central to virtually every sector of the progressive movement: in electoral politics, in academia, in the minority communities, in the peace movement, the environmental movement, the lesbian/gay movement and in labor. The social democratic press, especially In These Times and various journals, is growing, and democratic socialists have an influential presence (far more than any other left trend) in the main broader progressive publications that are seen as having a left tilt – the Nation, Z and Mother Jones. However, social democracy lacks a cohesive political program or strategy and their one attempt at self-organization, the DSA, is having hard times.
Nonetheless, it is important to grasp that democratic socialism is in the process of outdistancing other trends on the left and has expanded its influence into sectors (such as the minority communities) that it previously had been absent from. It is also important to note that, especially in the era of perestroika, glasnost and de-Stalinization, this trend (as well as the communist movement) is exhibiting great ideological and political diversity, and on numerous questions there is far greater unity than in the past between many democratic socialists and many Marxist-Leninists. As a result, a fresh look at the relationship between communists and social democrats and the ideological, theoretical and political unities and demarcations between them – is clearly rising on the agenda of both trends.
While this fresh look is being taken, it is important to note that contemporary U.S. democratic socialism remains characterized by certain general weaknesses: a tendency to divide along the color line due to racism, a tendency to downplay the national liberation movements, a mixed or even hostile attitude toward socialism and communists (though this is changing with glasnost and perestroika), a tendency to collapse into liberalism, a lack of organization and a tendency to elitism and inordinate role of individuals in general and “stars” in particular.
*No other trend on the left exhibits conspicuous growth, and many are standing still if not declining.
This applies especially to all the trends to the left of social democracy: revolutionary nationalism, anarchism, socialist and radical feminism, Trotskyism, Maoism and communism. However, if having difficulty, these trends are far from dead, each has a certain influence and some important contributions that it can potentially make. This is particularly true of revolutionary nationalism which has a potential base among Blacks and the powerful magnet of anti-racism to reinforce it; and of communism which has powerful traditions, international ties, some potential to achieve a base in the some sectors of the working class and the strength of Marxist analysis on its side. There also seems to be a new attraction to anarchist views and tactics in sections of the environmental, peace/anti-intervention and lesbian/gay movements, especially among youth.
It is also important to note that a significant proportion of left activists (almost certainly the majority of them) are “independents” who are not only unaffiliated with any socialist organization, but whose ideological allegiance to any specific trend is not firm. Such independents play central roles in almost every sector of the popular movement, provide much of the actual operative leadership to many progressive formations and coalitions, and bring rich political insight and experience. It is inconceivable that a strong and united left can be built without the central participation of these independents.
Many of these activists consider themselves to the left of democratic socialism, identifying with Marxism, anti-imperialism and/or one or another current within communism. Many of these activists are former members of the CP, former Maoists and former Trotskyists, as well as many whose main identification is with communists in other countries. The largest active grouping within this sector are products of the ’60s and hence bring some of the strengths peculiar to that period; in particular an understanding of the importance of Third World struggles at home and abroad. At the same time, many of these forces also bring considerable ultra-left and anti-Soviet baggage that was also a product of the ’60s.
It is also important to note that the vast majority of these forces, even those who still consider themselves communists, have only a remote concern with organizing or developing themselves as communists. This is often based on bitter past experience as members or victims of communist formations which originally aimed to provide leadership to the movements they were involved in, but often degenerated into sectarian or destructive activity.
Finally, it must be noted that the independent sector is not made up only of 60s/70s veterans, but includes a new generation which has came to activism in the 1980s and which has quite a different set of experiences. It cannot be stressed enough that much of the future of the left lies in its ability to reach this new generation and bring its members into leading positions.
*The Minority Left: The minority left is in no better shape than the rest of the left. Although many individuals are well positioned in important movements and institutions within the different minority communities, as well as in multi-racial movements or forms, there is precious little cohesion or organization of the left, and virtually no distinctive political program or institutions. National formations such as the National Black United Front have disintegrated and conditions do not seem ripe to make such ambitious attempts in the near future. As always seems to happen in ebbs, many folks have retreated to local work in their particular communities or around specific issues. This is a positive digging in, but also involves difficult fragmentation. Still, there is a lot of work that can be useful in terms of grouping or networking different forces, especially those involved in common issues or movements and developing more practical and strategic relations among them. However, we are talking mainly about working with circles and individuals, not organizations; developing practical relations rather than big organizational realignments, incremental and not dramatic advances.
Making gains in this work is crucial to our organization’s role, identity, and viability. This will mean making difficult decisions to free minority comrades up from internal functions to carry out this work. It will also mean casting away undue prejudices against racially or nationally specific forms, realizing that such forms are part of the spontaneous motion of U.S. politics. Such prejudices were of a piece with our voluntarist and subjective attempt to “divert the movement from its spontaneous course.” Inflated attempts to play a vanguard role, to develop advanced forms and transmission belts (e.g. RMOs), etc. often did little more than isolate us from many folks we had a real basis to develop more strategic ties with, including people we had worked with for years. We believe we have a basis to circle back around and make some modest gains in this work that will put us back into ongoing working relations with a number of folks.
*Who are the Communists? Communism and Marxism-Leninism do not have significant prestige in the progressive movement or on the broad left at this time. In practical terms, the “U.S. communist movement” does not even appear on the political scene as a distinct entity. Beyond a broad ideological identification with Marxism-Leninism and the international communist movement, there is little that politically or organizationally binds together the various forces which might be considered as making up that movement, or which distinguishes them as a group from the rest of the left. Even ideologically there is considerable diversity, especially given the current flux in the international communist movement and Marxism-Leninism associated with perestroika/new thinking, etc. (The forces which theoretically make up a distinct communist movement include the CPUSA, a few much smaller groupings such as the Line of March, the many independents who identify with Marxism-Leninism, various nationality-based communist groupings [some of whom are linked to parties abroad], etc.)
The fragmentation among those who identify with communism weakens the left as a whole, hurts both practical efforts at strengthening the workers’ movement and ideological efforts to build the influence of Marxism. Consequently, if the opportunity for significant unification among communists arose it would be of vital importance to try to take maximum advantage of it. However, given the current political divisions among those identifying with communism, and the flux in the left as a whole, it appears highly unlikely that a process of forging unity among a significant section of communist forces could take place apart from the broader process of forging greater unity on the left.
*The CPUSA: In our view, developments in the CPUSA will be the main factor determining the strength of U.S. communists for the foreseeable future. Efforts to try to displace it have proved fruitless and conditions to do so now are worse than before. The majority of conscious and experienced communists are likely to remain in its ranks. However, the current line and practice of the CPUSA display shortcomings which keep that party somewhat peripheral to the main trends of today’s progressive motion, and severely weaken the CPUSA’s ability to provide leadership to the left.
The main strengths of the CP are its historical continuity and the experience, ties and institutions it has built up over the years, its ties to the international communist movement, its commitment to the working class movement and its trade unions in particular. It is also not only the largest communist formation, it has a relatively strong working class and minority composition in its base and leadership as well. Its survival over years is a tribute to the fact that it has accumulated some advanced experiences, insights and practices that are key to building the movement.
Yet, the CP has also dogmatically clung to many concepts from the ’30s and ’40s when the industrial trade unions were the main base for the left and the CP was the dominant force on the left. Conditions have changed, and the factors that gave rise to some of the cornerstone elements of the CPUSA general line that have not been true for a long time. While progressive motion is strongest in the service unions, the Jackson motion, the women’s and gay movements, and the environmental movement, the CPUSA line insists that the industrial trade unions are the strategic and tactical centerpiece. Continued adherence to this line would sideline the party, much as it did in the 1960s.
Also, the CPUSA’s continued sectarianism toward the rest of the left – its refusal to recognize other socialist or Marxist groups as legitimate forces, or develop official working relations with them – is out of touch with the realities of today’s left and counterproductive for the CPUSA itself. And finally, just at a time when perestroika and new thinking are challenging dogmatism and ideological blinders, and pushing for broad democratization and an end to all vanguardism in the communist movement, the CPUSA center is fighting to reassert supposedly established truths and resisting a serious opening up process, both within its own ranks and toward the rest of the left.
In the CPUSA, there appears to be some evidence of strategic differences, as a result of the development of the Rainbow and perestroika. Whatever the various opinions of different members, however, the CPUSA remains operatively united behind the line led around by the center, and a change does not seem imminent.
The question of whether the CPUSA will replace these lines with ones that more accurately reflect the realities of the U.S. today will have a major impact on the U.S. communist movement’s ability to play a positive role in the progressive motion of the 90s.
5. The left has an uphill struggle for unity, influence and relevance in the next few years. But with more agreement than previously on some key issues, and a period of re-examination and re-evaluation underway, new opportunities are opening up for taking steps in that direction. In an immediate sense, increased dialogue, “networking,” cooperation in specific areas and attempts to build the common institutional strength of the left are coming onto the left’s agenda; more long range, there are possibilities for actual realignment, greater unity and a stronger left.
The most encouraging factors for the left in recent years were the opportunities opened up by the Jackson motion, and the relative coincidence of views among major trends on the significance of that motion and some of its key lessons. The Jackson/Rainbow motion brought many left forces into some working relation with one another after many years of functioning almost completely apart. It also forced a more objective assessment of the state of the class struggle and the progressive movement, and of relations each left force had with others.
A greater common appreciation of the relative weakness of the left as a whole, and of the damage done to all by sectarianism, has added momentum toward maturation of the left. And, as noted earlier, the re-examinations spurred by glasnost/perestroika/new way of thinking have been a blow against dogmatism, sectarianism and go-it-alone attitudes.
In this context, greater possibilities exist for various left forces to embark on efforts beneficial to the left as a whole. No easy solutions to the left’s weaknesses, or quick realignments producing large and united formations, are likely. But a tendency toward greater dialogue, “networking” and cooperation on specific projects is making itself apparent. Pushing forward this tendency, in the context of playing an active role in the new forms of progressive motion, is the next step that can be taken in building a revitalized and relevant U.S. left.