Introduction
I appreciate Sam Webb’s invitation to contribute to finding collective solutions to some of the most perplexing and challenging questions of the day.
The time when one could bottle up a controversial yet necessary discussion in some half-lit room and then emerge to announce the results to the world are gone, at least for the foreseeable future.
Through online communication, modern technology has let loose the genie of democracy in an unprecedented way.
And the working class, popular, left and socialist/communist movements have learned through ruling class-imposed dominance and self-imposed errors that to score a sustainable political victory requires the people’s fullest possible participation in the battle of ideas.
To concede this fight to the class enemy by limiting the discussion, whether by commission or omission, is deadly.
While much of the discourse surrounding his article has been thoughtful, I believe some has dealt with appearance rather than essence.
Some of the exchanges around the meaning of the terms Marxism-Leninism and democratic centralism are a case in point. Historical eras, like Stalin’s, have meaning in so far as they help shed light on the path ahead.
I am reserving my opinion on these particular subjects until later because I want to focus on other essential elements of Webb’s article requiring, in my opinion, greater reader attention.
I will ignore the posturing and phrase-mongering, in isolated cases, which largely fell flat.
I believe Webb challenges himself and the reader to dig under the surface and uncover the essence of social phenomena in searching for the truth.
Central Challenges
In point 1, Webb outlines the main interdependent challenges facing the working class and humanity around which a communist party today must wrap its theory and practice.
He says (I’m paraphrasing): A capitalist social system appearing to reach its limits; a hegemonic shift in power potentially resulting in generalized war and chaos; global processes – like global warming and nuclear proliferation – threatening humanity’s very existence; new technologies (especially communication) reshaping production methods, social relations and the nature of war.
Webb adds that there is a “fierce urgency” of resolving these challenges in a timely manner lest they “could make the world unlivable.”
Compelled by the insatiable drive for maximum profit and the resulting concentration of capital and wealth in ever-fewer private hands, modern capitalism has unleashed a series of processes (including global warming, nuclear proliferation and others) that are bringing humanity to the brink of unimaginable horror.
The flip side of this interdependent and contradictory dynamic is that modern capitalism has also given rise to increasingly social and interdependent forces of production on an unparalleled international scale.
This phenomenon has tended to intensify the need and the potential for working-class and people-to-people global collaboration on the class and democratic (in the broadest sense) struggles, in the face of powerful imperialist countercurrents trying to head off and squash this process.
While still in its infancy and somewhat tenuous, in recent years (since the socialist camp debacle) there has been a growing recognition of common interests by millions on a global scale, by nations, and by progressive class and social forces.
This is precisely the process to which the broad left, including the Communist Party, labor and other progressive popular movements need to give greater collective attention, and help to propel forward.
Needed on a grander scale are united expressions and actions, however loosely assembled at this stage, on a regional and global basis taking into account national peculiarities and conditions.
The role of online communication in recent events – in Egypt and the region, in Wisconsin and nationally coordinated days of solidarity action – are proof positive that united organized expression around common goals on a national and potentially an international level are more possible than ever.
More robust united struggle on the ground regionally and internationally will strengthen the role of the United Nations as a crucial force for peace and a more equitable, sustainable economic and political world order.
Some of the forces at the international, regional, state and popular level already in motion with common interests and needing greater convergence include:
- Nations breaking away from the dominance of imperialism, especially U.S. imperialism, including those at various stages of transformation away from capitalism and toward socialist construction.
- The rise of China as a constructive counterweight to U.S. imperialist world hegemony.
- Regional international blocs of an economic/financial nature without the imperialist powers.
- World-wide and regional labor federations which share a coincidence of views on broad democratic and trade union issues.
- Industry-wide global labor federations which in a few instances have organized job-related coordinated actions with some degree of success.
- U.S.-Canada based national unions collaborating, and sometimes merging, with unions in other countries.
- The peace, environmental and other progressive social movements.
These processes and movements need further development in their own right and in their interrelationships.
Webb is absolutely right when he says:
The ‘fierce urgency of now’ is not yet matched by the popular movements at the state and global level that possess…the vision and capacity to resolve these…challenges” which “must begin well before the arrival of socialism on a global level. (My emphasis)
And that is the “paradox,” as Webb puts it, needing urgent attention.
Webb argues the role of the U.S. Communist Party is to “assist” the process for “international unity and peace, against its own imperialism, and to articulate an alternative vision of the place of the U.S. in the world.”
Our nation’s working class and people have a pivotal role to play in this process both as a matter of self-interest and international responsibility/solidarity, given the dominant role of U.S. imperialism in the world.
That means greater attention overall to issues of ending wars, cutting military spending, and promoting nuclear disarmament.
In the fight against austerity measures being imposed by major industrial powers, it means international labor-to-labor-to-people cooperation in the fight for environmentally sustainable economic recovery and jobs-creating measures.
For us here, these goals will at best bear limited success unless (as Webb emphasizes) we succeed in fulfilling the “overriding strategic task” on which the “country’s future depends,” enlarging the organized section of the working class.
He argues this is the task for labor but also for “every democratic-minded organization and person.”
Facilitating this critical task, Webb adds, is the “continued evolution of labor into a social movement” and the need to defeat “right-wing extremism,” which will open the door to a more “labor-friendly environment” including – I would add – the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act.
Integral to labor’s resurgence is the “urgent” need to encourage the continued evolution of the U.S. labor movement’s internationalist outlook and activity, as a matter of self-interest and international solidarity and unity.
When combined with a larger membership at the head of a broad social movement, U.S. labor’s increased international role will strengthen exponentially the working class’ leverage at home and globally.
It will strengthen our labor movement’s bargaining power in the workplace and its social and political power nationally and internationally.
In addition to political and practical assistance, the role of the broad left in labor and beyond, including communists, is to help working people see through divisive rightwing ruling-class ideas and to project an alternate progressive vision.
The class and democratic struggles
Webb does a wonderful job of weaving together the “internal and organic” connection of the class struggle and racial and gender equality, and related struggles for the rights of immigrants and the LGBT community.
Also to be noted is the interdependence of class and democratic struggles on the road to socialism and in the construction of socialism itself.
Current experience in Latin America, with Venezuela and other nations in the region, speaks volumes about several questions Webb develops, including:
The potential for peaceful transition to socialism, including in our country.
The relationship between the struggle within the state and against the state.
His conclusions about the transition to and construction of socialism are very insightful. On this score, I would direct attention to the Central Report by Raul Castro to the 6th Congress of the Communist Party of Cuba and his closing remarks, because they are living proof of what Webb is elaborating.
In a move to correct tendencies that were stymieing the economy and other aspects of life, Cuba is phasing in over a five-year period a more productive economic model and moving to more fully empower the people on the political as well as the economic fronts.
While the economy will function in a regulated socialist market with a mix of property forms, maintaining the pivotal socialist state enterprises, it will move away from an overly centralized model to one more decentralized where planning is essential.
The adjustments will more clearly delineate the role played by state institutions and state enterprises with “gradual decentralization of powers from central to local government, and from ministries and other national entities in favor of the increasing autonomy of socialist state enterprises,” Castro explained.
“Excessive centralization inhibits initiative in society and in the entire productive chain,” Castro said. He noted the aim is to “release the development of the productive forces.”
Citing the phasing out of the ration book, as part of a broader restructuring plan, Castro said the idea is to bring economic life in line with the “principle of distribution which should characterize socialism” - in other words, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his work.”
Marxism-Leninism and Stalin
Webb proposes dropping the designation of “Marxist-Leninist” (M-L) in favor of simply “Marxist.”
He argues the term “took formal shape during the Stalin period” which led to “simplification” of Marxism and hemmed our party in “theoretically and practically.”
Perhaps I’m missing something, but to most people the origin of the term M-L is an obscure fact of history. More important, it seems to me, is to recognize the essence of what Marx and Lenin imparted to future generations, as Webb says, “a scientifically grounded mode of analysis” and “compass of struggle.”
As to Stalin, I am in the camp of those who believe Stalin stultified theory and practice, and engaged in outright criminal acts.
His actions are indefensible and undermine the essence of Marx, Lenin and socialism/communism, and the humanistic values they represent.
I’m sure some will disagree with me. No matter how much we argue, we’ll never see eye to eye.
So, I say, let’s shelve this issue and move on…
Party Standards & Democratic Centralism
Webb calls for dropping the term “democratic centralism,” which I favor, because a party with a “high degree of discipline and centralized structure” doesn’t fit our party’s present status and the spirit of the times.
In my view, there are two bottom-line principles that characterize the unique political and organizational character of a communist party.
Referring to democratic centralism, Webb says, “I’m for dropping the term (my emphasis). Now don’t get me wrong. I’m for collective discussion, broad interaction, democratic decisions, testing decisions in life, and the struggle for unity in action.”
Just like a strike, the correctness of a decision has to be tested in life. If unity in action – that is everyone abiding by the majority decision – is to be expected, the goal must be majority decision reached democratically after a vigorous discussion by an informed membership in command of the union.
But, there is a second overriding principle captured by Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto:
The communists fight for the attainment of the immediate aims, for the enforcement of the momentary interests of the working class, but in the movement of the present, they represent and take care of the future of that movement (my emphasis).
Other than these two general principles, party organizational structure and operational mode should be determined by the prevailing conditions in any one country at any particular stage of struggle and the condition of the party itself at the time.
We have a unique contribution to make. Webb says, “Our experience, our broad and flexible strategic and tactical concepts of struggle, our keen appreciation of the imperative of broad unity, our class, internationalist, and dialectical approach, our willingness to embrace new forms of organization, communication, and united action, and our (socialist) vision allow us to make a vital contribution to the project of the left and to the struggle for human emancipation.” I would say this is the outlook of a leader with a deep understanding of the role of the Communist party in our country, in today’s world.
I agree with Webb’s arguments that our party should “open the door to new members” and be “more flexible as far as structures of organization and membership expectations.”
As for leadership standards, especially for those in leading bodies, a more rigorously self-imposed standard of leadership should be expected that, as he says, “politically engages the membership and leads by force of argument,” and I would add, “by example.”
There are also practices that have characterized communist parties that should be encouraged in new members when possible but should be expected of leading bodies and those elected to leading positions. These include a collective style of work in reaching and carrying out decisions, regular collective review and evaluation of all major policies, decisions and work, to draw lessons from successes as well as mistakes.
Work in Progress
Webb describes his article as a “work in progress.” In a sense, all theoretical postulates are “a work in progress” because reality at any particular point is infinitely richer than what the best minds can conjure up.
Reality at any particular point is literally changing before our eyes and beyond our eyes’ capacity to perceive. It is ever-changing, in constant motion.
The scientific “trick” is to discover/uncover the main processes and contradictions that affect humanity, on the natural and social planes, at any particular stage in the universe’s development, and to test in practice ways to resolve those contradictions in humanity’s favor.
Photo by John Bachtell/PeoplesWorld.org
