What would it take?

Freedom Road Socialist Organization has put out a strategy document that raises some very important questions about the tragic failure of the revolutionary left to build any kind of base in this country, and what it would take to change that. I find it refreshing in its honesty and its willingness to re-examine just about everything. The whole thing is worth reading, but here are a few of the points (and questions) that struck me:

• Among the obstacles to the building of a real revolutionary movement is "a factor that often goes unmentioned: the lack of a sense of what it will take to actually build a movement that can challenge for power in the US. Specifically, a failure to appreciate the scale of organization that will be needed and, therefore, the steps necessary to bring such an organization into existence."
• "What do healthy and accountable relationships between people’s movements and the organized Left—whether parties or small left collectives and cadres—look like? How do we rethink the relationship between a party and organizations of workers, neighbors, etc., including the relationship between a party and spontaneous action?"
• "There is a constant need to revolutionize organizations. This need exists irrespective of the period. It includes leadership development (emphasizing working-class women of color and building organizational models where they can lead as women); the personal development of individuals..."
• "Ultimately, we need to be thinking in terms of a party of hundreds of thousands of members. This means, among other things, that those forces committed to the building of a party must themselves have roots in progressive social movements and mass struggles."
• "The Left cannot afford to sit back in the role of perpetual naysayer."

I believe these five points are deeply connected. The crux of the issue, as I see it, is that real revolutionaries must commit themselves in a serious way to organizing and must have a much deeper respect for the social movement organizations (which may or may not identify as explicitly socialist or revolutionary) that are developing working-class leaders on a large scale. Out of this respect must come a practical vision of how a revolutionary organization, whose members are working full-time in these social movement organizations, can help bring the social movements to another level.

Planet of slums -- right here in "el Norte"

A friend of mine took these pictures of a trailer park/shantytown on an Indian reservation in Southern California, not far from the ocean-view mansions of San Diego. In the background of some of the photos, you can see the new four-star hotel and casino that has made the leadership of the once-destitute tribe very, very rich.

The residents of this shantytown are not members of the tribe--most are immigrants from Mexico who work either in the fields or in the casino. Some of the trailers shown in these pictures are casino workers' homes. My friend, an immigrant from Michoacán, grew up on this same reservation in a similar neighborhood that had no running water for years. Most of his family works at the casino. He used to work as a dishwasher and cook there, and now is a union organizer, helping to lead a statewide movement of casino workers.

Fetishism of the word vs. actually organizing the people

Christopher Day's blog introduced me to this critique of Bob Avakian and the RCP (by a former key supporter). Frankly, I think the RCP is pretty irrelevant at this point, but this essay is very thoughtful, and its insights are relevant to anyone who worries about the fact that no explicitly revolutionary organization in this country has any kind of mass base. Although I'm not sure the author would agree with me, I think the implication of his arguments is that an irrational fear of "reformism" or "economism" holds many revolutionaries back from actually doing effective organizing.

The fact is, in order to build a base, a committed revolutionary is going to have to spend a hell of a lot of time talking to people, and spurring them to action, who aren't ready yet to embrace revolution. This is not to say the word "socialism" or "revolution" needs to be taboo, but rather that neither of these words, nor all the rhetoric in the world, will get someone over the fear they need to conquer in order to lead their coworkers out on strike against a multi-national corporation (for example). If this kind of rhetoric is all you got, the company's gonna win. If you aren't willing to take these kinds of conversations (those that don't center on revolution) seriously, you aren't going to lead any significant number of working or oppressed people in any signficant struggle.

Some might argue that these kinds of struggles are "merely trade-union struggles" that the "masses can do themselves" and that real revolutionaries shouldn't waste their time with such "non-revolutionary" work. But this is precisely the attitude that deprives would-be revolutionaries of the organization they need to make revolution anything more than a pipe dream. If you don't believe in digging in for protracted battles whose immediate aim falls short of overthrowing capitalism, capitalism is gonna win.

Frankly, I think a lot of the ideological opposition to "reformism" and "economism" masks a fear of getting one's hands dirty in the real struggles of real people, of getting into the trenches with no immediate way out and no clear path to victory other than blood, sweat, and tears.

In short, I think a lot of would-be revolutionaries are afraid of what it might take to learn how to organize. What do you think?

Which side are you on?