The "anti-reformist leaflet" by the CVO is a great piece for discussing the
struggle against reformism. I believe it illustrates what can be termed
"centrism" (vacillating between reform and revolution), which can involve
attacking reformism, feinting left, but not intervening to lead the way to
revolutionary consciousness. Part of centrism is relying on objective
historical events rather than conscious intervention.
A note: I don't know how much or what exactly Ben supports in this leaflet; this
is aimed at the leaflet in hopes that my position on revolutionary consciousness
and leadership against reformism can be clarified. Also, I would love to work
with Ben on the anti-reformism page(s).


Against voting for Kerry (sort of--we'll see this in a sec), it counterposes
mass struggles. It also says, "We must oppose not only Bush and Kerry, but the
capitalist class". What does opposing the capitalist class mean? Later they
say: "The more the mass struggle advances, the more it will clash with the
capitalists and their political parties." Here they hand off the vital task of
fighting for class consciousness to the historical process: materially, this
abdication means, "fight for reforms, and once the capitalist class as a whole
beats you up, you'll realize capitalism as a whole is your enemy."
In the conclusion, it says:
"Whether or not you vote for Kerry or the reformist Nader, we say to you we
should all participate in the mass movements. No matter who is elected, the
warmongering will continue, the conditions of the masses will be under attack,
and the various forms of oppression we are struggling against will continue
because the bourgeoisie, the class force behind these things, will still be in
charge."
It seems they're trying to walk a tight rope. If what they say is true, then a
vote for Kerry is a vote for war, austerity and oppression. By not confronting
those that will vote for Kerry (at the least, without explicitly saying what I
just said), they avoid a fight for consciousness.
It also says we should oppose the union leaders. But how do we oppose the
capitalist class and the union leaders? With what do we oppose them? The
leaflet counterposes "independent mass struggles."
Revolutionary communists must support the independence of mass movements and
their militancy--but that does not mean they tail them. The soviets were the
epitome of independent mass struggles--but without Bolshevik consciousness and
leadership they would've been wiped out by the counterrevolution. Where is the
revolutionary consciousness in the leaflet?
As the article "The Centrality of the Revolutionary Party" says: "Militancy
alone will never transcend capitalism. The working class, in the form of its
ever-increasing advanced layers, must be conscious of its need and ability to
overthrow the system and lay the basis for a new one." Independent mass
struggles are necessary, but without revolutionary consciousness, they will only
wear themselves out (which will lead some to support reactionary movements). It
is true that the "historical process" will itself create revolutionary
consciousness, but it is all the more true that revolutionaries must fight for
class consciousness and tell their fellow workers the truth that we need and are
able to overthrow capitalism and build a new society.
As the article concludes:
"The revolutionary vanguard [more class conscious] workers must constantly
intervene to split workers from their pro-capitalist illusions and develop their
consciousness into revolutionary class consciousness. The task of the
revolutionary vanguard is to develop the mentality of the rest of the class, not
to delegate this task onto the “historical process” and “spontaneous mass
actions”. Spontaneous militancy is no answer. The fight for revolutionary
leadership is the only way for workers to arrive at class consciousness."
The leaflet is militant, exposes the Democrats, and is right as far as it
goes--but it doesn't go far enough. This may seem like sectarian nitpicking,
but I think it is central that we " fight for reform demands by raising the need
for revolutionary political struggle against capitalism, [prove] to other
workers the need for the revolutionary party on the basis of common experiences
of practical action". Otherwise, we are selling them short, simply tailing the
fights engendered by capitalism, and abstaining from the fight for revolutionary
consciousness and leadership that will be necessary to win.
Perhaps one could say that just as the Democrats are more dangerous than
Republicans, centrists are more dangerous than reformists--though it'd probably
be more accurate to classify them as a militant breed of reformists.

relevant theory to this discussion:
The Class, Party, and Leadership
http://www.marxist.net/trotsky/cpl/
Trotsky takes up the questions of why the revolutionary masses of Spain followed
false leadership, and argues for the centrality of revolutionary leadership in
the process of the developing consciousness of the masses in a revolutionary
period.

Centrality of the Revolutionary Party
http://www.lrp-cofi.org/PR/partyPR46.html
see section "Militancy Alone No Answer"
"It is the changing character of the exploitative capitalist system that
pressures the proletariat in the direction of revolution, not the goosing
tactics of small groups who believe that they can maneuver the class into
exploding."

The Leninist Conception of the Revolutionary Vanguard Party
http://lrp-cofi.org/archive/Leninist.html
check out the "Centrism and Objectivism" section

"A major characteristic of centrism is the delegation of the historical tasks of
the revolutionary party onto the “spontaneous historical process”. Objective
processes replace the conscious intervention of the vanguard, enabling the
centrists to constantly postpone the decisive tasks of the vanguard and delegate
them to the objective “historical process” and the “spontaneous actions” of the
masses. The centrists refuse responsibility for the concrete tasks of the fight
for revolutionary party leadership and throw them onto the masses, blaming the
masses for defeats and appealing to disembodied objective processes to carry off
the tasks of the vanguard. The centrists constantly applaud the “spontaneous
actions” of the masses as an alibi for their own refusal to speak the truth to
the masses and advance a definite program and strategy. "

" This false consciousness can only be overcome by counterposing revolutionary
communism to spontaneous militancy. The dialectical leap from spontaneous
militancy to class consciousness and from the unconscious historical process to
conscious understanding of this process is itself a conscious act. This
transformation of spontaneity into consciousness and the unconscious historical
movement into conscious revolutionary leadership can only happen through the
medium of the revolutionary party [the organizational expression of working
class communist consciousness]. "

" The whole point of the fight for the Fourth International is that while the
working class (including the advanced workers) is spontaneously (objectively)
revolutionary, the working class (including the advanced workers) is not
spontaneously conscious. "

Feedback is greatly appreciated on this, what I consider to be a vitally
important topic.

----- Original Message -----
From: Ben Seattle
To: pof-200
Cc: theorist
Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2004 7:39 PM
Subject: [pof-200] Weekly focus # 16 -- priorities, Covey / MVOP-NPOV
hybrids / proposal for joint anti-reformist work / CVO leaflet
------------------------------------------------------------
4. Proposal for "anti-reformist working group"
------------------------------------------------------------

....

I would like to see a page on reformism which can be jointly edited by
both DJ and me. I have been skimming (I have not yet had time to read
and study -- but it is definitely a quadrant 2 task) some of DJ's Live
Journal posts at: http://www.livejournal.com/users/djdialectic/

I was struck by many of the insightful comments there and was
particularly struck by this quote from Lenin:

> "The fight against the liberals waged by the democrats and
> the Marxists is more profound, more consistent and richer
> in content, and it does more to enlighten and rally the masses,
> than the fight against the Rights. That, gentlemen, is how
> matters stand!"
> Lenin, The Nature and Significance
> of Our Polemics Against the Liberals
http://www.livejournal.com/users/djdialectic/2992.html

My suggestion, DJ, (if you have the time) would be for us to create a
page (or pages) at:

http://mediaweapon.net/mediawiki-phase3/index.php/projects:arwg

(where "arwg" would stand for "anti-reformist working group")

Only you or I (at least for now) would edit the page. I would be
honored to work with you on such a page (or pages that branch out from
the "arwg" node).

This would be an example of a page that would be NPOV relative to the
two of us. Our views are not identical (no two activists will have
identical views) but they are close enough that the idea of jointly
editing a page (or set of pages) would be practical. Eventually, over
time, we might find other activists to help us who have useful
experience or knowledge of the struggle against the reformist
ideology, tactics and social millieu.

...
------------------------------------------------------------
6. A practical example of anti-reformist agitation (CVO)
------------------------------------------------------------
....
I have strong criticisms of this group, but I will credit them with
often creating outstanding agitation--of which this is an example
-- Ben, August 29

(taken from Seattle Indymedia forum: http://seattle.indymedia.org )

Bush & Kerry, pro-war servants of capitalism
author: posted by Wilhelmina
Aug 26, 2004 13:35

Let's turn the anger against Bush into anger at the exploiters and
imperialists who lie behind Bush. Let's use every occasion to
denounce the political stands of Bush and Kerry so as to encourage
mass struggle. (And let us denounce Kerry Fri. night at the
Westin!--W.)

------------------------------------------------------------
Build the mass movements, target the capitalists!
Bush and Kerry, pro-war servants of big business
------------------------------------------------------------

Bush is hated by workers, activists, and progressive-minded people.
They've had enough of the war on Iraq; enough of corporate
swindlers like Enron and Halliburton; and enough of police-state
measures to stifle dissent and terrorize immigrants. They've had
enough of his racist campaign against affirmative action and enough
of Bush's Christian right and its holy war on abortion rights and
scapegoating of gay marriage.

The fervor against Bush is directed at the hired gun of the
capitalist corporations. This anger pushes people into struggle. But
how can we get rid, not just of Bush, but of his policies?

Many people are voting for Kerry in desperation. Will this be a real
alternative to Bush? Kerry and the Democrats say so. But Kerry would
keep troops in Iraq, keep the police-state apparatus of the "war
on terror", and give more tax breaks to businesses.

Some are sick of both parties and are voting for Nader. They are
willing to defy the abuse from Democratic Party flacks. But it's
necessary not just to break from the two big capitalist parties, but
from capitalist policies as well. On Iraq, Nader shares with Kerry
the idea of replacing a unilateral US occupation with a broader
multilateral occupation under the UN. But the UN is dominated by the
US and other big imperialist powers. Nader says he hopes to
rejuvenate the Democratic Party. Meanwhile, he makes deals with
racist Pat Buchanan. He'd regulate business a bit. But he's not
for class struggle.

A real alternative must be based on mass struggles, such as the
anti-war movement, the struggle at the workplace, the movements in
defense of the immigrants and minorities, etc. The Democrats want to
divert everything into campaigning for Kerry. Instead, we must
continue mass protests. Let all workers and activists, no matter who
they intend to vote for, put every candidate on the hot seat over
their stand towards the war in Iraq. Let's expose the
anti-immigrant and anti-democratic stands of the candidates. Let's
build organizations of class struggle which stand against the
capitalists and their political mouthpieces and push forward the
mass movements.

Today the mass struggles are sporadic and often small. The
workers' movement is mostly quiet. Yet the mass activity of the
workers in all the struggles is essential to have a real alternative
to capitalist politics. The California grocery strike showed the
workers' willingness to fight, though they were betrayed by the
sellout union leadership. And further struggles will be spurred as
hard times continue as the capitalists squeeze us more. We need to
encourage strikes and other workplace actions. We need to mobilize
workers into anti-war actions like the "million worker march" on
Oct. 17. As well, the rank and file need to organize themselves
against the treachery of the AFL-CIO leaders who have faith in
Kerry, but not the workers.

We must oppose not only Bush and Kerry, but the capitalist class
that stands behind them. The closer we look at Bush and Kerry's
stands, the more it's clear they are the policies of the
capitalist class.

------------------------------------------------------------
Iraq
------------------------------------------------------------

Bush's occupation of Iraq has been a fiasco. His weapons of mass
destruction hoax has been exposed, and the torture scandal has
obliterated the myth of a benevolent occupation. The Iraqi masses
welcomed the downfall of Hussein but now there is resistance all
over the country to the arrogant rule of the US military and the
discredited Iraqi governments it rigs up. Over a year after
declaring victory, US forces have been forced to retreat from many
areas of Iraq.

This is not just Bush's mess, however. Kerry also supports
continuing the occupation indefinitely. Recently he even admitted
that had he known there were no WMDs, he still would have voted for
the war. His main difference with Bush is that he insists he'd be
able to get European imperialist powers like France and Germany
involved in sending troops and thereby share the burden of the
occupation. That way, not only would US troops slaughter Iraqis and
be killed or injured, so would the sons and daughters of the workers
of other capitalist powers. Moreover, in an April 30 speech in
Fulton, Missouri, Kerry demanded more US troops in Iraq, too. What
an alternative!

And what of the great anti-war heroes of the Democratic Party like
Dennis Kucinich? At the Democratic convention, Kerry's forces made
it clear no disagreement with their boy would be allowed. And
Kucinich agreed to call off any fight on this and back Kerry's
platform. Nor did any other of the great liberals utter a peep
against Kerry. Meanwhile, liberals like Congressional Black Caucus
members Charles Rangel of New York and John Conyers of Michigan are
pushing for reviving the draft under the fraud that if rich kids are
drafted the capitalists will hesitate to launch wars.

------------------------------------------------------------
"War on terror" and defending the US imperialist empire
------------------------------------------------------------

For Bush, the Iraq war is just one battle of an endless "war on
terrorism". The "war on terrorism" isn't really about
fighting terrorism though because one US administration after
another has sponsored terrorism and still does. It's really about
settling scores with upstart tyrants like Hussein who once had
friendly relations with the US but then got in the way of US plans.
Also it's a pretext for supporting reactionary regimes in
Colombia, the Philippines, etc. against the masses fighting
oppression in these countries.

Kerry does not expose the war on terrorism, but promises to wage it
more zealously than Bush. That's why Kerry clamors for more troops
for the armed forces, denounces Bush for withdrawing troops from
Asia and Europe, and backs universal national service which could
serve as a precursor to the military draft.

Bush uses the "war on terrorism" to justify the doctrine of
pre-emptive wars, that is, wars against anyone who might potentially
interfere in US world domination. But even the liberal Washington
Post, after listening to a Kerry speech, was forced to conclude that
"Kerry appeared to outline his own pre-emptive doctrine." And
Kerry tries to outdo Bush in arguing that the US has the right to
reshape the world according to its whim. Thus, he stated "America
has taken a rare step in human history in arguing that its interests
and the world's are one. I fully accept the challenge of moral as
well as military leadership that the claim demands." By
"America", of course, Kerry really means those running America,
the capitalists and their puppet politicians. Whatever they want,
Kerry pledges to forcibly impose it on the world.

------------------------------------------------------------
Israel and the Palestinians
------------------------------------------------------------

Massive support for Israel has long been a cornerstone of US
imperialist policy. Israel has turned the Palestinian territories
into a virtual prison camp, but that's OK with the US because
Israel is the main watchdog for US interests in the Middle East. The
Sharon regime continues the decades-long terrorist occupation with a
vengeance. Sharon's latest provocation was starting to build a
425-mile wall that, in effect, annexed a good chunk of Palestinian
land for Israel. Bush complained, but no matter what Sharon does,
Bush continues to send billions to this butcher. Kerry is not to be
outdone though. Last year, like Bush, Kerry had a bit of criticism
of the wall. But this July he issued a position paper reversing
himself stating "The security fence is a legitimate act of
self-defense."

The American bourgeoisie backs maintaining Israel as a Jewish
theocracy because such an Israel will help it oppress the Arab
peoples. We must support the right to self-determination of the
Palestinian people. There should be a single state encompassing
Israel and the occupied territories, to which no religion has any
special rights. This would be a democratic secular state in which
Jewish and Arab workers could live in peace, and in which the
Palestinian refugees could return.

------------------------------------------------------------
Bush and Kerry support deregulation
------------------------------------------------------------

Behind imperialism is economic exploitation. Bush's neo-liberal
"leave no profit behind" strategy is a program of fevered
deregulation of world capitalism. In the US too, it aims to
eliminate anything restricting the capitalists' ability to ruin
workers and the environment. Bush was an enthusiastic proponent of
deregulation of the energy industry, helping fuel the California
energy crisis and the Enron scandal.

But energy deregulation was a bipartisan affair. Clinton was for it,
and so was the Democratic former governor of California, Gray Davis.
In the Aug. 2 Business Week interview, Kerry declared "I am going
to bring Corporate America to the table - not to lecture but to say:
How do we make you more competitive? How do we get out of your
way?" So if Kerry gets his way, the workers and poor will continue
to get run over by the business tycoons.

------------------------------------------------------------
"Trickle-down" economics
------------------------------------------------------------

Bush promised that if only the capitalists were free to do what they
wanted, this would be great for the workers. Instead there's been
massive job loss, while the remaining jobs pay lower wages. Kerry
mocks Bush's jobs record and touts the Clinton administration as
the model. But under Clinton the gap between rich and poor grew
rapidly. Corporate CEOs were swimming in money, while workers were
still treading water. Yes, there was a "boom" that temporarily
lowered unemployment. But, as always under capitalism, that boom has
been followed by recession.

Kerry attacks Bush for running up massive deficits to finance huge
tax breaks for the rich. Fine. But what would Kerry do to balance
the budget? If his model is Clinton, he would slash social programs.
It was Clinton who cut deficits by joining forces with Newt Gingrich
for "welfare reform" that ravaged the poor. And Kerry isn't
opposed to tax cuts for the rich either. He says "Some may be
surprised to hear a Democrat calling for lower corporate tax
rates."

------------------------------------------------------------
Health care
------------------------------------------------------------

The health care crisis has been a hot topic for the candidates.
There are over 40 million people uninsured. Bush has done nothing to
help. He supports tax credits and tax-exempt "health savings
accounts". The tax credits for uninsured people would be minuscule
compared to cost of decent health coverage. Nor are the uninsured
going to have the ability to pour money into a health savings
account. Rich people will have a new tax shelter, however. And the
plan will encourage employers to drop their health care plans.

Kerry's plan would provide some of the uninsured relief by
extending Medicaid benefits. Beyond that Kerry recommends federal
subsidies to health insurance companies and tax credits for
employers which allegedly will entice them to provide their
employees with health insurance. Kerry's plan is a patchwork and
many uninsured will continue to fall through the cracks. It's a
far cry from the universal guaranteed coverage of a national health
insurance system. But Kerry opposes that because he wants to keep
the greedy private health insurance industry thriving.

------------------------------------------------------------
Build an independent movement of the working class!
------------------------------------------------------------

Bush and Kerry may squabble, but they're twins. So no matter which
of them is elected, there will be unrelenting imperialist bullying
and war. And the workers and poor will continue to be sacrificed on
the altar of free-market economics.

Let's turn the anger against Bush into anger at the exploiters and
imperialists who lie behind Bush. Let's use every occasion to
denounce the political stands of Bush and Kerry so as to encourage
mass struggle. Whether or not you vote for Kerry or the reformist
Nader, we say to you we should all participate in the mass
movements. No matter who is elected, the warmongering will continue,
the conditions of the masses will be under attack, and the various
forms of oppression we are struggling against will continue because
the bourgeoisie, the class force behind these things, will still be
in charge.

We must continue the demonstrations against the war. No to American
occupation, and no to NATO or UN occupation! We must direct the
struggle not at the particular form of occupation, but at
imperialism itself. We must support, not multilateral imperialists,
but Iraqi workers and poor, who are oppressed both by US occupation
and its puppet Iraqi government and by religious fundamentalist
groups and ex-Baathists. Imperialism is based on the interests of
the monopoly capitalists. Lenin showed this in Imperialism, the
Highest Stage of Capitalism, and US foreign policy confirms this. So
to fight war and aggression, we must unite the workers of all
countries against the capitalist militarists.

We must organize at the workplace against the wage and benefits cuts
and the miserable working conditions. We should popularize and
support every sector of workers rising in struggle, from the
immigrant workers who are rising up despite every legal obstacle, to
the wildcat strike of truckers on both coasts whose blockades this
spring shut down major seaports, to Bay Area longshoremen who are
demanding an anti-war struggle. We must oppose the pro-capitalist
leaders of the AFL-CIO who try to keep our struggle under wraps and
sell out our demands. These leaders are almost as afraid of strikes
and militancy as the capitalists themselves. Even when they pass
resolutions in support of something good, like opposing the Iraq war
- as SEIU and AFSCME recently did - they immediately support
Democrats like Kerry who want to continue the occupation.

We must pay special attention to the plight of immigrants, including
Arab and other communities who are being persecuted under the "war
on terrorism." The working class will never be free if we allow
different sections to be picked off one by one. Can we rely on Kerry
to defend their rights when he voted for the police-state Patriot
Act, opposes states issuing drivers licenses without checking
immigration status, and is out to prove what a super-patriot he is?
No way. Let's counter racism and chauvin­ism by building working
class solidarity: unity with workers of all backgrounds and with
oppressed communities!

The independent movement of the working class can only be built in
the midst of these and other struggles. To be truly independent
means not only to oppose Bush and Kerry, but to join with other
workers in a powerful movement. The more the mass struggle advances,
the more it will clash with the capitalists and their political
parties. This process will help clarify why we say:

To hell with Bush and Kerry and the capitalist parties!

Build the independent movement of the working class!

(See http://www.communistvoice.org for other leaflets and articles.)


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]