>>> "Nathan Newman" <nathan.newman at yale.edu> 10/08/99 01:52PM >>>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Charles Brown
>
> Charles: OK, I guess you are for finding a way of getting around
> mushy centrism, but you see it as like gravity, i.e. it can't be
> irradicated. Is that what you are saying ?
Just to get definitions straight (since we are getting closer to clear communication), mushy centrism is not a substantive position but the act of smoothing out real differences in order to forge a political compromise. That will never be eliminated because in any political situation, whether among Maoists or Randians, there are always people who are trying to forge a majoritarian position and engage in mushy centrism to do so. In particular situations, I bet most activists have played both mushy centrists (in one context) and radical militants (in other contexts).
(((((((((((((((
Charles: We may be talking about slightly different things ( My fault since I leaped in to the discussion) . In one sense you are talking about tactics in a lot of different specific situations. I am talking more about an overall strategy (which you may not disagree with). I'm thinking that we have to get (back) to where a lot more trade unionists are communists ( just to be blunt) meaning specifically their long ( or short run if possible) goal is to overthrow captialism and start to build capitalism. This doesn't mean you shout radical rhetoric in every last meeting. And as you say, it might mean compromising on a specific struggle.
I do think the purge of philosophical communists from the labor movement feeds into more compromising in a lot of specific tactical situations.
((((((((((((
Nathan: What can be eradicated is a balance of forces that make Clintonism-Bushism the narrow mushy middle of debate. I'd love for the world to be such that Bernie Sanders could assume the role of mushy middle, as a step towards more radical change.
Charles: I agree with you that with the state of affairs workers and unions find themselves in today, they have to deal with a Clinton/Bush mushy middle (By the way , did you see Bush's rhetoric moving left: he was criticizing GNP (sic) the way Chang was on this list). I'm thinking that that middle has moved to where it is because of a long period of compromises which came out of an overall union philosophy that conceives of capitalism as reformable, that fails to see that the capitalists must eventually seek concessions from the working class and takeback all the compromises as they have been doing steadily for about 25 years.
(((((((((((((
> On the other hand, I think that leftists must take up the task of
> coming up with an alternative to mushy centrism and
> opportunism/'pragmatism".
Nathan: As Angela noted, radical militancy is often the best way to engage and challenge mushy centrism. Recognizing the existence of mushy centrism does not lead to endorsement or capitalation; it just leads to strategic thinking instead of feel-good rhetoric as a substitute for action.
If Clinton or the leadership of the AFL-CIO sucks, just saying so does nothing. In fact, it's jsut depressing and encourages cynical dispair. What is needed is to propose alternatives that mobilize people.
Charles: I agree with you. I certainly am not saying that we shouldn't recognize that there exists mushy centrism. In fact, what I am saying wouldn't make sense without first acknowledging that there has been an overall strategy of opportunism and class collaboration for 50 years; and that somehow this strategy must be changed.
I also agree with you, of course, that just naming opportunism and class collaboration gets us not very far, even though it is a necessary first step. And naming it in union meetings doesn't do anything, because people don't use those words or concepts. I might add that I don't feel good when I say it, because its changing seems like a long shot in my lifetime. I'm a non-entity in this arena, and nobody is going to change based on what I say, so I don't feel good about it.
Finally, I learned in the 60's and 70's the mature people's correct critique of youth radicals that we didn't propose an alternative. That's part of why I am a Marxist, because it does have an entire new system to replace capitalism. Anyway, you are completely correct that we have to make negative and positive, i.e. constructive, criticism. Here I am only putting forth the bare minimum and fundamentals of the alternative: somehow the goal must be a switch from reform and class partnership, to revolution and class struggle. The specifics must be worked out by 10's of millions of workers who become convinced of this goal. Getting there will require some mushy compromises along the way, but a mushy compromise with the correct goal is completely different than a mushy compromise with a mushy goal.
Maybe that's it. Mushy compromises in the short run are no problem if they are struck with a militant long term goal.
((((((((((((((((
CB:
> The something new (and ironic) here is that mushy centrism was
> premised on the idea that it was pragmatic, that it works. But
> now we can look at the long run and say it is not pragmatic. It
> hasn't worked. We can argue pragmatism against mushy centrism.
Nathan: Here is where we disagree in the union context. Mushy centrism was not premised on being pragmatic; it was the product of a Cold War purge of left elements in the union movement to serve the interests of moderate interests at the expense of pragmatic gains for the working class.
Charles: I don't quite see this. Please elaborate. Maybe I should say the Reutherites/Meanyites were opportunists. They saw they could get control of the union movement by selling out the communists.
(((((((((9
Nathan: Ironically, one reason that the Communists were such easy targets for the Reutherites is that during World War II, the CPUSA had for pragmatic reasons supported no-strike clauses, while the Reutherites were much more willing to engage in wildcat strikes during the war.
Charles: I would say the opposite. It was not pragmatism, but principle that had the CP supporting no strikes. The principle was that the first socialist country was very important for world socialist revolution. So, they sacrificed knowingly some popularity in the short run and at home for principle in the larger picture. This is not pragmatic or opportunistic or shallowly popular. It is principled. The Reutherites were the opportunists, taking advantage of the CP standing on principle. ((((((((((((((((
Nathan: This allowed the Reutherites to gain broad allegiance for their militancy, take over the UAW, and then use that support to purge their left opponents. It's a very messy story (as you no doubt know) but the CPUSA ended up with probably the worst of all positions-- extremely militant rhetoric with a really weak record of militant action left over from World War II.
Charles: Yes, on the messy result. No, on who was militant. The miltant class struggle position from a proletarian internationalist perspective ( the truly militant and principled perspective) would be to defeat fascism and protect the SU. "Militant" meant "military" at that concrete moment. The Reutherites had a phony militancy and narrow or short run view. And they were being opportunist by it. And there militancy was coupled with reformism, not revolutionism. As became clear in the long run, they did not have a goal of overthrowing capitalism. Militancy without that goal is not principled or , in the long run, pragmatic. Their militancy dissipated in the long run because it was coupled with reformism and class collaboration. In fact , we can see that their militancy during WW II was opportunist, in that it was used to for the self-gain of purging their opponents, the Communists from the unions.
((((((((((((
Nathan: The result of this whole messy battle was not a real pragmatic strategy, at least not in the sense that any militant would recognize. It was an abandonment of mass organizing drives, the collapse of the CIO back into the AFL, and the creation of the CLC structure we are debating.
Charles: We agree here. See above. The Reutherite "militancy" during WWII was opportunism and logically degenerated into "partnershipism" after they had taken power of the union.
))))))))))))))
> Charles: My comment is for an e-mail list. I am not saying that
> that wording or rhetoric is exactly what is needed in union
> organizing. What you and Tom term rhetoric is in my opinion not
> exactly rhetoric because it is not aimed at people in the
> contexts you describe. It is rather a theoretical discussion of
> trade unionism, which seems entirely appropriate on this list.
> What we are doing on this thread is theoretically discussing
> trade unionism. The idea that terms like "militant trade
> unionism" are inappropriate for any forum seems wrong to me. They
> might not be for the meetings you describe right now, but they
> are appropriate for somewhere.
Nathan: I don't have a problem with rhetoric if it is aimed to convince, but repeating a general phrase that I agree with in the abstract but has little meaning when two militant trade unionists talk- that's rhetoric. No one is defending weak-ass business unionism, so it's rhetoric because its debating a straw horse.
Charles: When two militant trade unionists talk and strategize, they might as well use the classic terminology for miltant , class struggle trade unionism. That's not rhetoric in any negative sense. It is using the terms of art of communist trade unionism. Rhetoric, as you say , implies persuasion. So, the scenario of people who are already persuaded is not really a site of rhetoric, in the technical meaning of "rhetoric". I don't agree with the old slang and pejorative reference to such terms as "militant" and "class struggle" as rhetoric. They are theoretical terms for scientists in revolution, not "rhetoric". That's why use on this list is appropriate too. This is a theoretical discussion. (((((((((((((
> Charles: Yes, I agree. Seems to me if this was a union meeting
> dealing with concrete tasks, then discussion of radical concepts
> might be inappropriate. But this is exactly the forum for
> bringing up issues that are not immediately practical. Otherwise,
> where do they come up ?
Nathan: Sure, but where are the issues? My point is that denouncing evil is not an issue. Proposing a solution, however "unpragmatic" at the moment, is worth discussing.
Charles: Now "denouncing evil" is a bit rhetorical here :>). I am not denouncing evil, but pronouncing a theoretical position. The fundamental problem (it may be evil too, but I am not focussing on the morality) has been a trade union philosophy of class collaboration. That is a theoretical issue, that must be addressed before we can move to change things.
((((((((((((99
> Charles: By and large, it seems to me that the CLC change would
> tend to undermine potential for rank and file power and
> influence, and that this would cut against more militant trade
> unionism. My experience is that CLC's are pretty hierarchical
> themselves and haven't bucked the national levels much.
> However, there would have to be more concrete analysis of what
> this actually is, because to some extent the new AFL national
> leadership, slightly more progressive and activist than what it
> replaces, may be more prrogressive than local CLC's that are left
> with the philosophy of the Kirkland years. But I would only say
> that as a thought , and not as a definite conclusion. And ,
> anyway, in the long run, the more centralized structure seems to
> cut against militancy, because overall I think the rank and file
> tend to be a bit more militant
Nathan: Great. This is exactly the point where strategies are examined. Although, damn, your position sounds like mushy centrism in your equivocation :)
Charles: Uhuh. I am just now hearing about this, and I'm not going to leap to a conclusion. Being principled does not mean reaching conclusions hastily.
(((((((((((
Nathan: The reason I tend to think this restructuring might be useful is precisely because CLCs have been some of the more conservative institutions within the labor movement, resistant to any rank-and-file pressure since all its members are usually appointed by executive boards of local unions. Not that a more centralized structure will change that, but it also won't make it worse on that score.
And anything that forces CLCs into more organizing is good, because organizing forces institutions to deal with militant demands, even if the local structure is top-down. My judgement on the worth of new union initiatives is pretty basic (and unoriginal) which is whether it focuses on "organizing the unorganized." Whatever the rhetoric given, class collaboration breeds best in stable unionization where employers cut deals with established unions. Once new unions are fought for, class struggle is inevitable since employers resist new unions with every weapon possible, which forces unions to marshall their most militant strategies.
The devil is in the details of course, so these comments are abstract. It would be useful to track down the exact details of the proposal and have a more specific debate proposal by proposal. Hopefully one of us can do that.
((((((((((((
Charles: Alrighty.
CB