The decision of the CC of the LRS-ML to abandon revolutionary struggle and to embrace reformism and bourgeois ideology is nothing less than a full blown tragedy. It is a tragedy for the progressive movement in the U.S., a tragedy for the working class and oppressed peoples, and a tragedy for all true revolutionaries who are struggling for Peace, Justice, Equality, and Socialism. It is a victory for our enemy, the oppressor, the unilateral disarmament of a revolutionary movement.
It is also for me a personal tragedy. I began working with LRS-ML about two years ago, and in that time what I have learned from being a part of the organization has changed my life. I have begun to be able to think about things and approach problems in a dialectical way. I have been struggling with myself to look at my own internal contradictions and to understand them, to try not to be one-sided in my thinking, and to take a long term view of things. Struggling to be a revolutionary, to develop revolutionary discipline, effected not only my political work, but all aspects of my life. It made me a better husband, a better friend, and will prepare me to be a better parent. It is a tragedy that future revolutionaries will have to look elsewhere for that kind of training.
“Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement,” The leadership claims they are not saying that there will not be any theory, only that it will not be based on ML. In the majority paper in the TC, and in the meeting which I went to in NY, however, I was not presented with any theoretical analysis which would justify the change. The reasons given were that we had people in positions of leadership who wanted an organization which they could openly admit to being a part of (so why not quite the League and work full time in the Rainbow Coalition?). It was also said that we could bring in more members in this new organization which will be created (again, what will this new organization have that the Rainbow Coalition does not have?). These justifications strike me as opportunism, pure and simple. We were told in NY not to use any “name calling” words such as reformism, opportunism, etc. I am sorry but I cannot think any other way than the way that two years with LRS-ML have taught me to think, and if what is happening to the leadership of our organization had happened instead to some other group with whom we were working, that is exactly what we would have called it.
What exactly will this new organization be fighting for? Who does it represent? Who is it fighting against? How does it view the balance of forces between who and what it is fighting for and who and what it is fighting against? How does it see changing these balance of forces? How does it see achieving victory? What is the State? Can victory be achieved within the existing political structure?
What will be the unity on which the new organization will be based? All that has been mentioned so far is some vague notion of being progressive as well some idea of being eclectic. Eclecticism means selecting or being made up of different things from different sources. Is it not fair for US, the membership of the organization to ask what things from what sources?
The most frightening thing about what I have heard so far is that it seems that the leadership of the organization is more clear on what it is against than what it is for. It is against what happened in the Katyn forest. It is against what happened in the name of ML in all countries, all over the world. In other words, aside from some terribly vague notions of being revolutionary, socialist, and eclectic, what really unites the new organization is anti-communism. Speaking as someone who came to be a communist under the same leadership that is turning against what I am, what they helped me to become, and asking me to turn against myself, I could not think of anything more tragic than that.
How did opportunism win out over revolutionary struggle? What was it that drove people who were formerly in the leadership (Amiri Baraka) out of the organization? I feel much closer to Amiri Baraka than to the present leadership. Why did he leave?
Lastly, while it appeared to me after the meeting in New York that these changes are essentially a fait accompli (given that until now we were functioning as a DC organization and that the entire leadership is united around this new stuff – resulting in the ironic situation where the center will use DC to eliminate DC), I can only hope that those honest revolutionaries within the membership of the League will take a careful look at what is being proposed here. Does the leadership honestly believe that socialism will be achieved through electoral means, as is implied in the majority position paper? Do they honestly think that the ruling class will simply give up power without fighting with all of its very formidable means to maintain it? While such voluntary capitulation does seem to occur to erstwhile revolutionary organizations infected with opportunism, it will not occur to the ruling class. Or does the leadership no longer believe that class differences between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie are irreconcilable short of the overthrow of the ruling class by the oppressed classes? I hope that honest revolutionaries within the League will look seriously at all of the implications of what the leadership is saying. I fear that nothing can be done to stop these changes, which will mean that oppressed peoples will have to look elsewhere for revolutionary leadership. And that is a tragedy indeed.