Respect the People, Train the Advanced
Posted by Mike E on March 30, 2011
Recent rally for immigrants rights in Utah
“This means you must have faith not only in your fellow students and activists, but also the conservative catholic immigrant, rightwing construction worker, and the republican retail cashier. One should not mistake that they are ‘Really on our side but just don’t know it.’ Instead, one should recognize that we can win them over through proper argument, action, and line.”
Greg shared this with us. It sketches methods that have contributed to the communist work around the RSU in Salt Lake City — developing a radical core, developing their knowledge of communist theory, engaging in active mass work, energetic public discussion around communism, and defense of immigrant workers. It also appears on Greg’s personal blog, Red Flags Over Utah.
Thoughts on Student Organizing
by Gregory Lucero
I’ve prepared some thoughts on the student organizing I’ve done. These, of course, are not complete. However, I’ve been asked to provide some introductory advice for those seeking to start a student movement within their area. As I’ve started one up in the most conservative city in the United States, I have some general advice that I feel can help most American student organizers. The advice is split into the personal and the organizational. I’ve listed the personal first because it’s the one you can immediately put into effect, but one should understand the vital nature of both the personal and organization principles remain vital.
I will give some suggestions below for starting up.
1. Have faith in the people.
One must have faith in the people. Not the People (capital P), but the real material people around you. This means you must have faith not only in your fellow students and activists, but also the conservative catholic immigrant, rightwing construction worker, and the republican retail cashier. One should not mistake that they are “really on our side but just don’t know it.” Instead, one should recognize that we can win them over through proper argument, action, and line.
This also means taking radical responsibility for any failure of leftist organizing. You must completely remove from your mind any elitist attitudes so prevalent on the left such as
“Americans aren’t communist because they don’t care about anything but their big macs and American idol.”
If you find yourself making statements like that, you must stop and rethink your position. Statements and attitude of this sort show a hatred of the masses and need correction.
Without a faith in the masses, you will get nowhere.
2. Be polite
One must be polite. You will be attacked constantly.
Most people have never experienced a revolutionary ideology or position. It is absolutely unreasonable to expect them to change their beliefs in a single conversation. Make your points firmly and in a principled fashion, but under no circumstance be impolite or dismissive. One must cultivate the view of a revolutionary as a true servant of the people.
Even people who disagree with you will return for further conversation. In addition, being polite helps reduce your anger and rage which allows you to think clearly about the positions being expressed. Even if you do not change the mind of the other person, often a polite and principled argument will change the mind of those around you.
However, this does not mean you should not make strong lines of demarcation between yourself, capitalists, liberals, opportunists, and revisionists. Yet, you must do so in an open, clear, and principled fashion.
3. Listen to what is being said.
One must listen to what is being said. You will have a thousand conversations about the dictatorship of the proletariat. You will have a thousand conversations about the difference between private property and public property and why communists are not trying to steal people’s homes.
Yet, you must approach EACH conversation as though it is fresh and new. You do find a quite a few similar questions and arguments against communism, but each person has their own variation. You must address the particular concerns an individual has NOT the general concern that you imagine is “covered” by your general response. In addition, you will learn what people actually want and how to best help them by listening.
4. Be honest.
One must be honest. If you don’t know something then admit that you don’t know. If you’re not certain about something admit that you’re not certain. If you stand for something, say that you do. If you don’t stand for something say that you don’t. Working class people may not be able to refute all of your arguments, but the know bullshit when they hear it. It’s always better to be honest and admit that one doesn’t know rather than to mislead information or come across as pretentious.
Among the Active Core:
1. Make sure you work to raise consciousness in the group.
It’s not simply enough to get people together nor is enough to engage in activism. We must create a revolutionary movement. That means raising consciousness through study, discussion, and debate.
For the RSU we have a lecture or discussion every meeting.
They include things such as the history of the Iraq war to Maoism to the Paris Commune. It helps having everyone to give a lecture or lead a discussion on a topic their familiar with to begin with. Yet, it also helps having people study new topics and present to the group. This way the group will share information and help each member advance both theoretically, but also in the practical aspect of speaking and research.
2. Make sure your organization remains active in a campaign.
Enough injustice exists in the world that a student organization can always be doing work. It’s absolutely vital that you keep track of what’s going on with your campus including funding, wages of workers, discrimination, programs being cut, student government, etc.
These wider campaigns can help your members get involved and get used to organizing. In addition, by having a campaign you can get new members interested in doing work and joining the movement. Besides the student campaign on campus, begin by tackling one issue that affects your community and your members are excited about. This could be anti-war, immigration, union organizing, police brutality, or any other issue.
We started with immigrant rights, but as our organization grew we began to get the capacity to do union organizing and anti-war as well.
However, don’t try and take everything on at once. Start with one campaign and see where it goes from there.
3. Focus on active organizing rather than message organizing.
As much as you can, focus on active organizing rather than message organizing. Active organizing entails organizing based on actions that directly target the problem rather than simply “making your voice heard.”
The anti-war movement provides a good example. Messaging includes rallies and “honk and waves” for peace. Sure individuals make “their voice heard.” Yet, we all know Washington doesn’t give a shit what its people think or how many people we get out on the street.
People will quickly get burned out because the protests and rallies “don’t do anything.” Contrast this with a counter-recruitment campaign. You directly affect whether or not people join the military and help spread imperialism. It only takes a few people to say no to a recruiter for the group to get energized over their actions.
This on the ground organizing gives people real work to do rather than waiting around for the rally. It is the communists’ job to create this form of active organizing. Rallies and protests must be DEMONSTRATIONS that give a good idea of how your work is progressing, getting new people involved in the struggles, and providing a boost for the groups organizing.
4. Meet regularly
Meet at least once every two weeks if not once a week. You must meet to stay in contact and move forward with the organizing efforts.
If you do not meet frequently, then you’ll very quickly end up drifting apart. If you find yourself meeting with no reason, you need to step up your organizing so that you have a reason to meet.
5. Argue over correct policy
Do not argue over individuals, the organization itself, personalities, or ideology as such. Argue over correct policy.
If there’s no suggestion to replace a bad policy with a good policy, it’s not an honest debate but is instead “wrecking.” This should be avoided.
The “concern over the direction of the organization” is the most frequently line. The concern over the direction of the organization only matters if you or they can propose another direction.
These are some basic principles to get you started.
Eli M-H said
The “Have faith in the people” point is an out-and-out religious argument – forget a materialist analysis of concrete conditions, you just gotta believe! Isn’t it Communism 101 that all revolutions have a material basis and are explicitly NOT just a case of “winning them over through proper argument, action, and line”? If people have no real material reason to listen and understand, there is no reason to expect them to “come to the light” as it were. Should German, Japanese, and Italian Communists in the 30′s simply have had “faith in the people”?
I do think we should always believe in the potential power and goodness of people; that is, human beings. But if we are serious about revolution, we need to discard any pseudo-religious “faith” in an idealized “the people”.
Radical-Eyes said
Thank you for this, Greg. I would like to hear more about your work in Utah.
As for Eli’s objection, I think it bespeaks a pessimism that can be really un-productive, that can hold us and our movement back. An urge to write off (the) people that can be –and is!–really disabling.
I agree that it is important to have a strategic orientation, a materialist analysis, a map of faultlines in the society based in a well-grounded sense of dynamics and class alignments in the world. (And here I see Greg’s call to “listen” to people as an extension of this imperative to do ongoing investigation).
But there comes a point where one decides to throw in where one is, and at this point a basic faith in the masses of people (I assume Greg is not saying that he has faith in the “enemies of the people”!) is absolutely essential.
Mike E said
Eli writes:
I don’t think so. But it is worth asking (if only because there is sometimes a problem with religiousity among communists).
Mao wrote (and this is cited in the very opening pages of his famous Quotations from Chairman Mao):
What does this mean? Is it meant religiously?
I don’t know the Chinese word that is translated into English as “faith” — but I think we should make a distinction between religious faith and something we can call scientific faith.
Marx once wrote “theory bridges gaps in data.” In other words the abstraction involved in theory allows us to project and interpolate — to connect the dots, and to anticipate what is happening (and will happen) in places where we don’t yet have empirical data.
An example: I don’t know (for a fact) that the sun will rise tomorrow. the future is (in one sense) unknown. But I have a kind of scientific faith that it will — based on the incredibly long record of data (of sunrises and sunsets), and based on the more abstracted astronomical theory of how sunrises work (the rotation of the earth, the spherical nature of the earth, the geographic understanding of my place on the earth etc.)
I have been above the arctic circle (in Lapland at the end of a long finger lake, surrounded by herds of reindeer in a small village) when the sun did not set or rise. And it was (to say the least) very weird — because in that place and time my scientific faith in the regularity of sunrises met an exception, and it was disorienting.
But the reason it was so disorienting is precisely because on the rest of the planet the sunrise is so regular.
So it is quite reasonable to have scientific “faith” that the sun will come up tomorrow — because it is a truth that reliable enough to be the basis of planning and practice and orientation. And it is a truth even if it is a relative one (and even if we can travel to the far north or south of the planet and find places where it does not apply the same way.)
So…. to go beyond my analogy:
There are in politics truths (summations, insight, verdicts, etc.) that we can embrace and use as the basis for our work (planning, practice). And this is important because often revolutionary work and actions are a “leap into the void” where many variables are NOT reliable or known.
And Mao is saying that for communists, we should take (as a basis of our planning and projections and tactics) an assumption (a scientific faith) that the people have a great potential for grasping and supporting our project, and that “the party” is a powerful instrument for reaching, mobilizing and leading the people in a revolutionary direction.
This is a scientific hypothesis. And it is fair to debate it (as Eli proposes doing). But it is not a religious argument.
And it is also worth saying that “the party” he is talking about is a specific party (the Communist Party of China) and he is writing in 1955, when there has been a lot of experience with that party and its experience. It is not true that we should have “scientific faith” in any group that slaps a label, “the party,” on itself — as if the label justifies the confidence.
But a real revolutionary party, which has led through many storms and weathered many controversies and has (precisely) deep ties among the people, is also deserving of a degree of scientific faith: I.e. when we have such a party, we should have confidence in ourselves and our comrades and our structure, and see the role such a party can play in events where OTHER variables are far less well understood.
To use another metaphor, “this is my rock” — these are things (the people and a mature experienced communist party) that people can rely on, and build upon.
I agree with Radical Eyes when he writes:
That is a question of stand: who do we stand with, who do we stand for (represent).
That is a choice (not a matter of analysis — but a decision with implications). And I think we should make that choice and decide that we intend to serve the people (not serve something else).
As to Eli’s point:
We can’t just assume that because Mao could have “faith” in the people of China (for his revolutionary cause) that this applies to any people, anywhere.
Certainly there could well be people who are corrupted enough or reactionary enough that communists shouldn’t have “faith” in them. And that is sometimes argued specifically about the people of the United States.
I think that is a good discussion to have. And I would just like to say that this is a struggle I have seen in our revolutionary movement (from the early conflicts with Weatherman, down to the conflict with Avakian’s deepening bitterness toward the broad people who have not shown him or his party appreciation.)
And my own views (my tentative conclusion) is (despite all the complexity and difficult experiences) that we should have faith in the people (even here in the U.S.) especially in the potential for revolution among the most oppressed and disenchanted strata.
Mike E said
Greg asked me what my thoughts were on his piece. Here is what I wrote to him:
To be honest, I don’t always feel like responding to something with “instant analysis” — like we’m grading papers or something.
I prefer to read it, think about it, try to learn from it. Not instantly produce a verdict on this point or that point.
Here is my main response: this was a thought provoking piece, and made many valuable points.
* * * * * * * *
However…..
If you twist my arm, if I HAD to make a comment, I would urge that there always be a discussion of final goals (even in a list of organization suggestions).
Our final goals are important enough that they need to be consciously brought into any discussion — including discussions of tactics and organizational formation, because those final goals influence every point of our work (or else they don’t, with terrible consequences).
Our discussions (and “arguments”) over “policy” or “where the organization is heading” are ultimately about line (i.e. line meaning who do we serve, what are our goals, what road are we on). And so they should be (to the degree possible) be approached as discussions about line.
So for communists, I would inject a mention in an essay like yours that we always need to struggle to get our arguments and discussions onto “the high plane of two line struggle” — i.e. train ourselves to ask whether this or that approach leads us (and the people) toward revolution and communism, or leads us (sometimes inadvertently) somewhere else.
This is implicit in your essay, but I would always make it explicit — precisely because so much “argument over policy” remains pragmatic, or petty, or focused on short term gain, and because if we don’t make it explicit, and if we don’t make that one of the key methods we employ, then the long range goal will (over and over) become formal, hollow lip service.
* * * * * *
To put this strategically:
I am concerned about reducing socialism, revolution and communism to the level of education: I.e. as if they come up mainly in the form of lectures and study.
There is a historic strategic approach that we could describe as “organize the fight back while we talk socialism.” And in that view, socialism (and communism) are mainly matters of education (talking). And the struggle we wage is seen (mainly) in terms of the people’s immediate needs (trade union economic demands, demands for legal amnesty, opposing the outrages of the right, etc.)
And historically, when we have seen “the struggle” that way (as mainly a form of “fight back”) it has had a dynamic all its own — and that dynamic has widened the disconnect between “the struggle” and the “talking socialism” (which became more wooden, more proforma, and less prominent).
This is precisely the experience of the CPUSA in its transition from the “Third Period) (pre-1934) to the Popular Front period.
By contrast, I think that socialism and communism don’t *just* appear in our work as a matter of education (study and lectures for the cadre, and “talking socialism” for the people). It is a matter of road — in the sense that our final goal gives rise to many tasks that we wouldn’t otherwise have, and needs to be considered when we make all our choices and plans. Some forms of political work aren’t just about fightback –but are political decisions and campaigns that ONLY make sense if we are taking responsibility for a communist road. Our forms of organization (for example) should mainly flow from our long-range goals and tasks (not mainly from the needs of immediate fight back).
And our theoretical tasks are not solved by a mix of “lectures to the cadre, talking socialism to the masses” — because (to put it simply) how do we know what to put in those lectures? Which Marxism? Which theory?
That structure implies that our theory and beliefs are known (set, inherited, and especially closed) and that our main theoretical work is popularization of existing theory to new cadre (and beyond them to the people).
In fact our main theoretical work is somewhere else — and involves the refinement, reconception and development of communist theory (which has been semi-frozen and objectively lagging for decades). And that impacts how we view how theoretical tasks impact organizational method — including the goals and forms of study among cadre.
So the raising this question of “high plane of two-line struggle” involves the critique a particular strategic view — the “fight back plus talking socialism” approach (which is sometimes called “left economism” in communist shorthand).
Left economism does involve some public discussion of socialism and communism. It is an approach that attempts to be revolutionary — and that distains the open rightism of “hidden” socialists. But while at attempt at revolutionary work, left economism involves a built-in inherent disconnect between that talk of socialism and the dynamics emerging from its particular expectations from immediate struggles.
It assumes that we will lead people in their struggles (and win their trust), and we will creatively promote socialism as an idea — and out of that mix, the people will adopt our views and become pro-socialist. In fact, history shows that this is not how things come out. (For a discussion of the 1930s CP and this experience, and the 1970s NCM and this experience.) These are misunderstandings that I don’t think we need repeat.
We resolve that disconnect by considering all our work (our tactics, our involvement in immediate struggles, our initiation of other kinds of mass work and struggle, our organizational structure, our theoretical work) in terms of that final goal and the road that leads there. I’m not arguing for not “talking socialism” (obviously), nor am I arguing against initiating and leading immediate struggles (obviously), nor am I arguing against giving lectures on communist theory (obviously) — but I am arguing that we need to have a sophisticated overview of how all the many different parts and tasks fit into our final goals, because seen from that perspective many of those components appear differently.
soapbox said
Mike,
when you say that we resolve the disconnect between immediate struggles and final goals by “considering all our work . . . in terms of that final goal . . .” what does this concretely mean?
I understand that you’re asserting the need for connection between the immediate problems and struggles at hand along with the broad scope of the “final” goal, but I’m completely unclear as to what you think this means.
Can you give some examples of where you’ve seen this happen in the US? Do you consider the work you’ve done with the RCP to fit into this category? Are there examples of work other groups have done that you would consider to be connecting the tactics, immediate struggles, and general mass work to the overall goal of social revolution and communist transformation of society?
It’d be nice to get a sense of what you’re talking about by getting some historical examples (in US particularly, since that’s where some of us are, but from around the globe also of course.)
Radical-Eyes said
Thanks, Soap Box, for setting forth those clear, thoughtful, and potentially concretizing questions.
tellnolies said
They are excellent questions and I’d be delighted if Mike could answer them. I’d also be surprised. I can think of fleeting moments in my own experiences in several formations (SLAM, Fire by Night, Love and Rage, RABL) where I was party to something approaching this, and I suspect Mike thinks similarly of some of the experiences of the RCP, but that at the end of the day there really aren’t good examples of successfully doing this in a protracted way in the US and that this is our challenge. There is much to be learned from international examples of course, but figuring out what to take and what to discard from all of that is a process that lies ahead of us.
It seems to me that finding the sweet spot so to speak involves a much more serious and systematic analysis of the social formation that is the U.S. than we really have right now. This goes to the question of “faith in the people.” I think a (scientific) faith in the people is a neccesary starting point, but there is a rather extensive body of what we might call “Lapland experiences” in the US owing to some of its unique characteristics as a country. (In particular its historical origins in settler colonialism, its consequent white supremacist character, and its position as global hegemon.) All that has put that faith to some rather sharp tests. That demands a refining of our analysis to help us figure out both where specifically we should have the most faith that communist politics will resonate but also how it must be reconceived if that is to happen.
I think that there is a powerful need to “rebrand” revolutionary communism, that is to say to make a push to popularize a certain core set of commitments, but that this will not succeed if it doesn’t reflect a serious process of reconceiving those politics as well, that is to say rethinking what they mean here and now and that without this process of theoretical clarification that it will prove impossible to resolve these problems.
otto said
I have to admit that action is a necessity as Greg points out. At some point we have to go from paper revolutionaries to revolutionaries who are doing something and I have heard that from others.
I also appreciate the idea of being polite and patient with people. It’s easy to end up saying “These people are just idiots and useless.” But that doesn’t really get us anywhere when we take that attitude.
I wouldn’t mind spending some time in Utah if I can get out there to see your group in action. Maybe we could learn some things for Wichita as we do have some Marxist here trying to find ways to organize.
Mike E said
[moderator note: this response was moved to its own self-standing post.]