'it.ti

Crlsls and lihr: The ltlood andCondftlons of the ltlasses

Americain Decline

tr""il':lit';*T.: itYano

^^nta I

ror\d Bon Postaoe) ^,-:^a..,c), \L 600

ups\de Llu""

-?r, $14.g5 c\orrr

(add ao' postaoet ), ch\cago'

\L 60654'

price: gseb r*"]:,:_ llr"i.,g*l; l:;t^86' \'.'*-"

^ *.rr,, ^v\,a rvruy r.rJu*ifiJ.'B':"ru"'""*%€ Ot

rff.ffi, '"il$t:iiuii onu'v.-'"v

i

"to' w'r o

Revolation is the organ of the Cen-tral Committee of the RevolutionaryCommunist Party, USA {BCp, USA}. ltis published monthly.

"4ll correspondence to the parlyshould be sent to RCP, USA; p,O. Box3486, Merchandise Mart; Chicago, lL60654. Overseas cable Address: RCP,USA. Chicago

February/March 1980

AA

Vol. 5, No.2-3L$t-\oL-E- +-Lr7

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Call to Battle,ChallengetoDare ...3

The RCP has published drafts for discussion for a newParty programme and new constitution. A statement fromthe RCP Central Committee.

The Movernent AgainstNuclearMadness .....4

Notes on the anti-nuke movement.

America in Decline-Crisis and War:The Mood and

ConditionsoftheMasses . .. .. 1lr The majority of the working class is living on the preci-pice: able to get by, but only by the skin of their teeth. Thisarticle analyzes why, given this condition (brought on bybhe recenb downturn in the economy, especially Lhe lg74-7i. recession), the mood cf the working class is decidedly non-revolutionary and ibs consciousness backward. Further, itpaints a dramatic view of the future-political andeconomic crisis on a scale unseen in this counbrybefore-bhat along with or immediately preceding the out-break of world war, could well give rise to a revolutionarystorm led by this working class.

This article is a chapter from Ameica in De-cline-Imperialism's Greatest Crisis, DevelopmentsToward War and Revolution, in the U.S. and Worldwide, inthe 1980s, to be published soon by Banner Press.

Slipping lnto Darkness:"Left" Economism, the CPUSA and theTrade Union Unity League (1929.1995) . . . 33

The Depression which hit the capitalist world in 1929U.S. likeg the vereply thanCPUSA,

revolutionary movement!What happened? This article examines the particular role

of "left" economism in laying bhe basis for later movestoward open revisionism, by analyzing bhe Communist par-ly's trade union work, especially the Trade Union UnityLeague (1929-1935).

Subscribe:U.S.-one year, $10; one year by tirstclass mail, $23; six months, 96.50.Canada and Mexico-one year, $.l3;by air mail, 923Other countries-one year, $13; by airmail, $25Libraries and institutions-one year,$18

I would like to be part of a monthlysustainer program for Revolution. I

willcontribute _$5, _$10,$ _amonth,or $ _ lor the whole year.This includes a one"year first-classsubscription and all new booko andpamphlets from RCP Publications.

Send check or money order toHCP Pirblications,F.O. Box 3486,Merchandise Mart,Chicago, lL 60654

RCP

A Call to Battle

"Seize the day, seize the hour." These words oI Mao

A Challenge to DareTselung sum up and conclude the new Dralt Pro;gramme ol the Revolutionary Com-munist Party, USA. Together witha new Dralt Constitution these doc-uments hit the streets on March 8,,1980. They hit in a time o{ growingturmoil, a time ol Afghanistan, Iran, olgrowing crisis and preparations forworld war.

Piercing through all this is a declar-ation oI war-revolutionary war-abattle plan Ior destroying the old andcreating the new. This is the Programmeand Constitution oI a Party that has ana-Iysed today's situation and the underly-ing Iorces and come to the conclusionthat the time when things ripen may wellbe very close-within the next decade.Our Party is now preparing-preparing toseize the time when the time is ripe to smashthis rack ol capitalism belore it makesanother torturing round. We do not intend tomiss the opportunity.

Nor are we preparing simply to light andthen lose. Revolution does not come out ol no-where. Today we are battling out the possibilityoI winning in the future. That is not only thesignilicance behind this programme and consti-tution, but behind why they are appearing now

-as May Day Brigades take to the streets andthe battle shapes up that will result in thousandsol workers and others across the country on thestreets on May lst-International Workers Day.This May Day battle, the study and use oI the Pro-gramme and Constitution, and all the actions ol the advanc-ed, will in no small part determine how Iar along we are andwhether we are able to break through all the way when condi-

lr..;:.tr,, ripen and the opportunity lor revolution is there to

In this light, the purpose and nature ol this new Dralt Pro-gramme stands out starkly. It urgently calls attention to andanalyzes the immediate situation Iacing the working class andmasses in this country, in lhe context o{ the world situationand world struggle. It sharply indicates the only road forwardout oI this-proletarian revolution-by making a clear andconcrete summation o{ what such a revolution will mean. Theprogramme spells out how the proletarian revolution, uponachieving success and winning power, will deal with theneeds and demands o{ the masses of people and with theworld situation we Iace.

OI course communists are not lortune tellers, and this Pro-gramme cannot and does not say precisely whal immedioteproblems will have to-be addressed, in what order and rela-tion to each other, and every concrete and specilic step thatwill be required to bring about a revolutionary resolution ol arevolutionary crisis.

But it can-and does-address the basic questions that wecan already see shaping up. How will unemployment beeliminated? Discrimination and national oppression? The

oppression ol women? How will agriculturebe dealt with? How will industry be organiz-ed? Given the likelihood ol world war, howwill the revolutionary government get outof it? What will be the policies towardeducation, culture, the rights ol the peo-ple? AII these urgent questions are ad-dressed-their solutions are indicated.

The constitution deals with the basicline ol the Party, its principles, the tasksand duties oI the Party and Party mem-bers in relation to the historical task ofrevolution and communism and to themasses ol people who must carry outthat new task.

This new Programme and Consti-tion are themselves the product ol arevolutionary process. They are notthe first, but the second, pro-gramme and constitution ol ourParty in the 5 years of its exist-ence. The previous ones, we cannow see, had many shortcomings.but the need to change these doc-uments should not be seen main-Iy negatively. Instead it is a realadvance, breaking with not on-ly our own past errors, but evenmore importantly with ten-dencies which have existed

throughout the history ol the com-unist movement internationally-a movement

which, in many parts, has been caked with a thick layer olcrusty relormism. These tendencies, more like a gross diseasein the case oI the old C.P. in the USA, have prevented anyserious preparation Ior revolution in this country.

There have also been big changes in the world. Most impor-tantly the world situation has sharpened greatly, underlininglhe urgency oI a thoroughly revolutionary line and pro-gramme, one that will stand up through the storms.

Another oI the great changes has been o{ the reversal ol therevolution in China with the reactionary coup after the deathof Mao Tsetung. This was a major setback, but it also putrevolutionaries worldwide to the test-to go down the drainwith the revisionists or to advance in another wave. As withall such tests, the revolutionary movement internationally andin this country has split-with part going each road. But ourparty in particular, alter much struggle, has emerged muchstronger, more united around the revolutionary leadership ofits Chairman, Bob Avakian, and much broader in its revolu-tionary inlluence. This is as it must be, because we must allrace lrom behind to catch up.

These documents are dralts, weapons in preparation. Weare spreading them widely and deeply so that many amongthe working class and others oppressed by this monster, im-perialism, will seriously study them, take up and help sharpenthem. By the beginning oI April, the Spanish language draltswill be ready and the process of circulating these dralts willgo on Ior a short time alter May First.

Study these drafts, write us, meet with us to criticize andstrengthen them-and unite with us to carry them out.

Centrcl Committee Revolutionqry Communist Porty, USA

I{otes on lIlE ItOlfrEIrlEI{T AGAIIISTNUclEfin

In the spring of 1,977, when 1414 peo-ple were arresbed in a probesL at theSeabrook, New Hampshire nuclearpower plant, the anbi-nuke movementin bhis counbry took on a mass charac-ter unparalleled by any other duringthe labe 1970s. For a whole section ofpeople, lhe anti-nuke movementbecame the social movement, atlracL-ing lens of bhousands to demonsLra-tions, beach-ins and sit-ins, nob onlybecause bhese people were concernedabouL the danger of nuclear power inibs own right, but also because this wasthe mosb powerful protesb movementaround. In this sense the anti-nukemovement became a lightning rod.

With 72 nuclear power plants al-ready in operabion in bhis country and92 more under construction, from onecorner of the country to the olher, inbhe late '70s bhe issue of nukes came bofbcus many people's concern over andopposition to "putting properby beforelife," to quobe one anti-nuke grouppamphleb. From Barnwell, SouthCarolina, where 2000 people demon-strated and 300 were arresbed in May1978, to Rocky Flats, Colorado, wherebhousands demonstrated and someblocked Lrain tracks for five days in acold pouring rain thab same spring;from lhe rally of 25,000 in San Fran-

4

cisco afler Three Mile Island, bo the26-mile march of 4000 in the BlackHills of Soubh Dakota-the anli-nukemovement has succeeded in unibingbroad numbers of people to strike bac[at a glaring example of the criminalworkings of capibalism.

But while the anti-nuke movemenbhas united tens of bhousands in hittingthe capibalists on this imporbant and

exposing outrage, including many whothemselves had at one poinl or anobhereven helped in bhe development ofnuclear technology (such as the 2000scientisbs who signed a leLter of proLestaround nukes in 1975), still bhere havealways been many divergenI viewswi[hin the anli-nuke movemenb as bobhe nature, causes and solubion ofnukes. These differences have come

' ruil

out over quesbions relaLed Lo Lhe move-menb itself, such as the kind oforganizaLion thaL would be needed Lobuild the anbi-nuke movement (espe-cially cenbering on Lhe question of localvs. national organizalion) and bhe me-thods of struggle thaL should be used.And they come oub around broaderquestions as well, on the links betweenthe question of nuclear power andobher issues in society, and bhe naLureof society ilself.

A demonstration ab bhe Wall SlreetStock Exchange last fall was signifi-canL in this light, for as one activistwrobe afterward, "For the firsb bime ona Iarge scale the larget was the 'powerbehind [he power,' bhe corporabions inbhe nuclear business and bhe financialinsbiIutions that bankroll them. Alloubreach work preceding bhe aclion em-phasized the connecLions betweennuclear bechnology and bhe exploita-tion of Native Americans, Black SouthAfricans, and poor and working peopleeverywhere. "

'

In contrasL bo this was [he view pubforward in an article summing upwhere lhe anLi-nuke movement musLhead (and in a so-called "socialist"magazine, no less) which, after declar-ing that "sbopping nuclear power wibh-oub challenging bhe economic systemLhat bred it would leave Lhe underlyingproblem to create new 'irrational'sympboms," issues the sLirring babLlecry, "Ib would be a limited vicbory if ilfailed to help establish the organiza-tional framework that could alsochallenge liquified natural gas, solarsatellites, and similar bechnologieslhat represent the same trend."= Thereare, of course, many other less disguis-ed appeals to the anli-nuke movemenbcalling for it bo focus narrowly andforever on narrow "energy issues."

But the worsb-and mosL danger-ous-trend is lhat represented by thebourgeois polibicians, so well exempli-fied by Tom Hayden, who lasL Septem-ber at the MUSE anbi-nuke rally inlower Manhatban looked oub over Lhecrowd of 200,000 people and calledupon Lhem Lo take Lhe anti-nuke move-menl "inbo Lhe mainstream"-Lherebyspibting on the very dissatisfactionand oubrage that had moved so manyof the protesLors oul of the polilical"mainsLream" and inLo action in Lhefirsb place.

These are bhe questions and bhe verydifferent paths that have been posed inthe anti-nuke movemenb.

The purpose of bhis article is to ex-amine bhe nature, make-up and impactof the ant,i-nuke movement and bhediverse trends within it. While Iran,Afghanistan and draft regisbrationhave already begun to overshadow the

anti-nuke movemenL, the issue hasanimabed a vast number of people andit is far from dead. More importanbly,bhose who awoke to political lifebhrough the anti-nuke movemenb-andbhe social sbrata bhal formed itsbase-will conbinue Lo play a very im-porbant role in the even greater massstruggles which are brewing. Many ofbhe same political and ideological ques-tions posed by this movemenb will con-tinue to be key ones for bhe revolu-Lionary working class and its Parly todeal wibh if bhey are Lo unite and strug-gle with broad secbions of lhe people tobuild a unibed fronb [o overthrow U.S.imperialism.

Who Is the AntiNukeMovement?

MosL of those acLive in bhe anti-nukemovement today are youbh from thepetty bourgeoisie, especially collegeand high school sbudents, who usuallyare bhe main force at demonstraLions.Most-both those who jusb come todemonstrations and the smallernumber of "organizers"-have neverbeen involved in any oth6r political ac-biviby. Contrary bo what some peoplehave said, [he anli-nuke movement isnot just a hold-over or a rejuvena[ionof the anti-Vietnam war movement,albhough bhere are some forces within

il who were acbive bhen, includingpacifi s Ls (who ha ve been ac tivefighting nukes in some form or anobhersince the late 1950s), as well as variousCP-style revisionists and Trobskyibeswho see bhe anti-nuke movement astheir big chance to regain the influenceand opportunity to spread their poisonthat they enjoyed during the anti-warmovement of the 1960s. In addition Lothe studenbs and sbudent-aged youth,bhere are many others from collegecommunities and urban areas withhigh concentrations of inbellectuals,such as Bosbon and San Francisco, in-cluding teachers and other profes-sionals, scien[ists, arbisbs and obhersfrom this straba. Even though bhe mainstruggle in New England, for example,has been around the Seabrook plant inNew Hampshire, the main base of thisactiviby is in Boston.

While the anbi-nuke movement ismostly white, one imporlant excepbionbo this is the parbicipabion of Na[iveAmericans in many areas. Fifty-fivepercent of all U.S. uranium reservesare under Indian reservation land, andNalive Americans make up a largepercentage of all uranium miners in bheU.S. today, suffering extremely highcancer rates because of the conditionslhey work under. In the Black Hills ofSoubh Dakota, for example, home ofthe Lakoba Nabion, the governmenb,especially the Bureau of Indian Af-

Anti-Trident Demonsirqtion, Bongor, Wcshington.

+_L.l r, 4T .^E Ltn

=r'lr t

lI urnu ,^ff,11'-

L,- a)rr-

i.' *Yt -"//

Ja-t:iI h? lru !y tr6rri M#di{e

9.t til 41 o*tat t Az tb51,tuMrbil at tut^w toLs&tllL

I 1tz tu Nwtau Sf. @ M6 @fl. i bt\ats*f ro!.4..1,411'dlffi/k& tut

r 'i

-

i N0 NLKES l"lEMs INDIAi/ RIGIfS I

t ll lt 4

(DLORADO

ffiWskanuuailt lALa\ t-NfrIoilAL hNIAd I

LEI,END !t , {rororrnvr ilAsr. DtstusiL Lll,tltt . Ar)€ TAtur,tsl

@M uuu,ur rdes - nrus let,srt*)anzM-(, lltEc

a'9r @S lAA^ttlH AitEs- tiru,s {?RDposED\

U77V1 lE^s ED tdL DEtustrs -FI€LDV,Vl Lot+L stQt? ht^!€s (€rttt^l(/\

E onias rt*so A*resH RAILIaADS

F -fRAN{Htlsto.J urlE tE\ttftilbl

+t+'lP..MlsNtsttoN UNE (Pko?otct\Rt(€Qs t wlta!+4

: lNTEesflfre *t&*uAv

flrl. .'i --:

i,1.lti.(" u

_-.. ..'; \"1-L,inn' . i gj

y r*,;;*,itnn,rs M o*ocotrol

lA'.rELtft \do. 6- .

@,J6h",." *u63'aaY@,^iit',46.

1w.u

r ; s.fMtr

"'frl L- ,flt l+lHh -

1o f!6or,ei+ NEI^/ MEXltO

tiltd :-\i ARrzoNA'

]-- t"*t-.r-

\, tl,r$\ -r,

Mop ol the Four Corners qreo of the Southwest (the coniunction oI Colorodo, Utah, Arizona qnd New Mexico), q lqrgeconcentrdlion oI Indicn reservqlions-ond nucleqr mining. 75o/o ol U.S. urqnium reserves <rre on Indian lond, where theU.S. impericlists' ircdition oI genocide dgqinst the Indion peoples hcs tqken on d more modern lorm: slow decrth torthose who work in the urqnium mines and the mony more poisoned by nucleor conlcminonts-qccompdnied by rob.bery on c mqss scole by the oil componies cnd the Burequ oI Indicn AIlairs.

fairs, has been ruthlessly trying tocrush Indian resistance to attempbs bo[ake from them the land promised theIndians in an 1868 treaty. For the rul-ing class, as former Energy/DefenseSecrebary James Schlesinger put it, thehuge uranium reserves in the BlackHills are "America's energy ace-in-the-hole." These atbacks on Indian landand the Indian movement have led toan imporbant battle linking the anti-nuke forces and the Nabive Americansbruggle against national oppression.The same has happened in bheSouthwest and elsewhere.

In addition, in some rural areas likeMinnesota, small farmers have playeda role in the movement, usually in con-junction with antinuke organizers.These farmers have come up with somenew tactics for the antinuke move-ment, like dumping giant manure pilesat appropriate spots to stop construc-tion.

Finally, scientists and others whohave played a significant role in expos-

6

ing the dangers of capitalist nuclearbechnology are widely respected in bheanti-nuke movement of boday. Peoplelike Dr. Helen Caldicotb, a pediatricianand specialist in the biological effectsof radiation; Dr. John Gofman, co-discoverer of uranium-233 and one ofthe first people working under theAtomic Energy Commission who turn-ed in research exposing the hell out ofthe nuke industry and the governmenb,which led to his dismissal as head ofthe Lawrence Radiabion Lab in 1969;Sam Lovejoy, who toppled a weatherobservation tower needed to build anearby nuke in 1974(and, then proceed-ed to burn himself in); and KarenSilkwood, the best known outside bheanti-nuke movement, who wasmurdered by Kerr-McGee in 1974 forplanning to expose the company'sdeath-trap plutonium plant.

A very large number of the localcoalitions sprang up after ihe first ma-jor civil disobedience antinuke acbionin the U.S., the atbempt to nonviolent-

ly shut down the Seabrook plant in1977. There are some national organi-zations which relate heavily to the anti-nuke movement, like Nader's "PublicInterest Research Group" (PIRG),which was the main organizalionalforce behind last May's demonstrationof 100,000 in Washington, D.C., andMobilization for Survival (MfS) out ofPhiladelphia: but at this point there isno national organizaLion just dealingwith nukes. The "grassroots" form oforganization which is dominanb in themovement is a reflection of the outlookwhich predominabes within it (more onthis later).

Imperialism and Nukes

Before turning bo the various poliii-cal tendencies wilhin the anti-nukemovement, it's necessary to go inboone central fact that has turned amovement which in many cases hasbeen a conscious demand for a simplereform into a head-on collision-the

fact thab bhe capitalisb ruling class inthis country cannot and will not giveup their nukes.

From bhe firsi, nuclear weapons havebeen both a symbol of U.S. hegemonyand a means bo mainbain it. It was inlarge part U.S. imperialism's economicmight, unhurt by world war, thatallowed the U.S. to be bhe firsb todevelop the atomic bomb. Althoughthe U.S. ruling class used the excuse[hat the A-bomb was needed to win thewar in order bo win over many scien-tists and others io the necessiby offiguring oub how lo actually make sucha ghastly weapon (German scienbislswere also exploring bhis avenue), bhefirst use of this bomb, againsb Japan,was not directed primarily at winningthe war (whose oubcome had alreadybeen determined on bhe babblefields ofEurope, Asia and the Pacific), but atbringing it to a conclusion on termsmosb favorable to U.S. domination inthe post-war world. The American im-perialists waved around the A-bomb tothreaten the then-socialist USSR andthe liberabion movemenLs alreadvdeveloping in Asia, and as part of theirefforts to dominale their lesser im-perialisb allies as well.

So-called "peaceful" nuclear energycame into use in the U.S. to serve ex-actly bhe same masters and same in-teresbs as nuclear weapons-the main-tenance and expansion of bhe U.S. mo-nopoly capitalists' empire of profits.

At first, nuclear power reactors weredeveloped bo provide a good propagan-da cover for lhe developmenb ofnuclear weapons, as much as anybhingelse. In 1953, Eisenhower launched his"Aboms for Peace" slogan, which wasreally a glorified name for government-funded research and production innuclear science. At the same bime,however, some sections of the rulingclass began looking into lhe construc-bion of nuclear reacbors as a means to"cheap, clean and inexhausbibleenergy"-and big bucks. The Price-Anderson Indemniby Act of 19b2, inwhich the government agreed bo insurethe power companies for liability in theeven[ of a massive nuclear disaster,cleared the way for commercial nuclearpower planbs.

Slill, as labe as 1969, there were onlv16 nuclear power plants licensed btoperate-and many of them were notyet in actual operation. Bul b4 morewere under construction and anobher35 were on order.

This sudden appearance of nuclearplanls on a broad scale across bhe U.S.during the years 1970-75 was nob main-ly due to some technological break-through that made bhis possible. Start-ing towards the end of the 1960s, theoil industry was hib by a falling rabe ofprofit, parbly as a result of worldwideoverproducbion of oil. (For more on bhe"energy crisis," see Reuolution, Yol. 4,No. 4; on OPEC, see Vol. 4, No 5.) This

made nuclear power an abLracLiveeconomic proposition bo Lhe oil com-panies, who were bhe main ones to in-vesL in nuclear power.

More significantly, bhe question ofenergy increasingly became a polibicalquestion. U.S. dependence on Mideastoil was becoming dangerous, and bhehuge balance of payments deficit theU.S. was running (oil imports alonejumped from $5 billion in 1972 Lo $45billion in 1977).was a very serious prob-- lem in terms of holding bhe U.S.'s im-perialist bloc together-and all this inthe face of growing economic andpolitical crisis and moves boward warwibh the Soviet Union. As DefenseSecrebary Harold Brown said before acongressional committee in May 1977," In fact bhere is no more serious threabto the long-term securiby of the U.S.and its allies than bhab which sLemsfrom the growing deficiency of secureand assured energy resources." Ofcourse, there is a bigger threat-theSoviet Union-but without bhose"secure and assured energy resources"the U.S. could hardly hope bo deal withit. Carter put it even more sbrongly bwoyears later, when he said, "Our na-tional security is dangerously depend-ent on a thin line of oil tankers stretch-ing half way around bhe earth."

The simple bruth is bhab it's too lateto do much aboub it. However muchthe U.S. imperialists mighb wish thatthey and lheir allies in Western Europeand Japan were less dependent onMideast oil, there's nob much bhey cando except defend thab thin line oftankers and the land from which the oilwas sbolen in the first place. Nuclearpower now supplies only l27o of elec-tricity in the U.S. and a somewhathigher figure in Europe, and ib takes 10years to build a new plant from theground up. The virbual lack of newnuclear power planbs built during thelast five years is due to two bhings.Firsb, that rising capital costs havemade nuclear power no more profitablebhan conventional power, and requiretremendous ouilays of capital (gl-92billion each), wibh many years betweenbhe firsb outlays and the day when theycould even hope bo make a profit, al abime when that kind of capital has beentight for all American indusbry.Second, Lhe anLi-nuke movement hasbhrown some real, if bemporary,obstacles in the way of nuclear con-struction, by exposing the criminaldangers of these proposed powerplants.

But exacbly because the world isheading where it is heading, the U.S.imperialists cannot give up bhe nukes[hey already have, and bhey may buildsome new ones. Following the disaster

I:o

&3'5f

Four thousond onti-nuke prot thedusty ronchlqnd ol the Blcrck tion tothe plcns by ihe government into oglowing lunqr lqndscape by ripping oll <rnd ripping up Indicrn lcrnd lorurcrnium mining,

Nukes Next Door.

-u dr,,,-d,l-'' ,t fr,-v,/4

/a

Nuclear Weapons(Design, Teitint, Predudiotr,St6.Ie, D.Oloym.nl)

ug

Underground Experiments

University Reactors

Military and ERDA ('72) Reactorsand Research Facilities

dAccountinB for 50ol. (app. ) o, All R.dioictire W.sle

Nuclear Power Plants (commerci.l)Acounlinr fo. 50% (appr ) All R.dioadive W.sre

lIA

. Under Construction

. Operable

. PlannedNuclear IndustriesUranium Mill TailingsTransportation/Storage ofRadioactive MaterialsRadioactive Waste Burial Grounds

Frrnlh nrhinr,.nddesi3..d hy M.E.d.! N:v.ko rnlon.rbi,omAnorherMorh.rldrP.r.. onnLrioftd

,l- >4-! a

d'i

,,o a\\ .r-'

)Ait-,-l

1 \ /,s\x'c\l r'.rL\-,/ .t,.h.a.;:51:v,1;7,a-,"4 _

and near catastrophe ab Three MileIsland, Jimmy Carter appoinbed a blue-ribbon panel headed by DarbmouthCollege Presidenl John Kemeny,whose task was, Carter openlydeclared, "to make nuclear power evensafer." The ruling class was not aboutto back off an inch. As expected, bheKemeny Commission came up wiLh areport combining bhe most "serious in-vestigabion" with the conclusion thatnukes are just fine. Afber the ThreeMile Island furor died down, theNuclear Regulatory Commission onFebruary 6 licensed anobher new nukeplant in Tennessee and reopened lwomore ihat had been temporarily shutdown for safety violations-one in theNew York Ciby area and the other, withone of bhe worst safety records in thecountry, near Chicago.

Then, of course, [here's the nukesthat were meant bo explode, des[roycibies and kill people these are bhenukes fhe imperialists are counting on.Give up t,heir nukes? Over bheir deadbodies.

l. The Forerunners

Two brends emerged in the struggleagainst nuclear weapons in the 1950sand early '60s. Revolutionaries oppos-ed the U.S.'s nuclear weapons, de-manded bheir destruction, but at thesame time refused to be intimidabed bybhe U.S. imperialisbs' nuclearblackmail (this stand was most clearlyput forward by the Chinese Com-munist Party under the leadership ofMao Tsetung). In contrast, there aroseliberal and pacifisb opposition (in-cluding within the U.S.), which book

I

positions against nuclear weapons notbecause they opposed U.S. imperialismbut because these weapons lhreatened"lhe end of bhe world."

This liberal (such as Lhe explicitlyanti-communist Commibtee for a SaneNuclear Policy-SANE) and pacifist(such as the American Friends ServiceCommibtee) currenL also opposed thedevelopment of nuclear weapons bythe USSR and China, weapons whichwere aL thab Lime (in the case of theUSSR, unlil bhe mid-1950s) of an anti-imperialisb and not imperialisbcharacter. With the signing of bhe

above-ground nuclear besb ban treaiyby the U.S. and ihe Soviet revisionisbsin 1963 (which China refused to sign,pointing oub lhis represenbed capitula-tion to U.S. imperialism), and the riseof other issues and mass movemenls inthe U.S., this first anti-nuke movemenLfaded out. At the same iime, someclaimed it had won. These same forces(including Lhe two above-mentionedorganizations) are active in the anti-nuke movement of boday-and moreimporbantly, fhe polibical questionsraised bhen are still extremely relevanland likely io become even more so inthe near future. Principally, lhis meanswhether lo take the stand ofpacificism, which sees all violence asLhe same and refuses to dislinguish be-tween revolubionary violence andcounberrevolubionary violence, or tosee [hal the answer to imperialism'sviolence must be revolutionaryviolence to overthrow imperialism.

2. "Survival"

Initially much of Lhe impetus for the

present anLi-nuke movemenL camefrom incredulity and indignation overthe exisbence "right next door" ofnuclear reactors. In facL, no matterwhere you lived, they utere righL nextdoor-few places in the U.S. are veryfar from some kind of nuclear inslalla-tion.

At the hearL of a lot of anli-nukemovement literabure boday is thebottom-line problem which frighbensand angers many: the potential dangera nuclear power reacbor disasterpresents to people's lives, their health,and lheir children. And the whole lhingseems so out of conbrol, beyond reach.There is an ominous feeling on Lhe parLof many [hab there are larger forces insociety controlling, or al least greallyaffecting, people's lives. One of bheprincipal reasons that this issue issharpesb among the petty bourgeoisie,and that this class makes up bhe baseof the anli-nuke movement, is lhat theawareness of the existence of nukeshas hit some important illusions whichare held by large secLions of bhe pettybourgeoisie who, because of their roleand position in society, bend bo seethemselves as "free agents" able trrconLrol their own desbiny far more bhanmosb workers do. The existence ofnukes on a widespread scalethroughoub bhe counlry "threaleningmass genocide at any moment" hashad the effecb of jarring bhese illusionswith a heavy dose of realily.

The working class has been con-spicuous by ibs absence in bhis move-ment, principally due Lo the generallylow level of polilical consciousness andmobion among bhe workers. Thebourgeoisie has repeatedly bried totake advantage of Lhat facb, in relationbo the anti-nuke movement, bY whiP-ping up some union hacks and backwardworkers (especially in Ihe constructiontrades) around bhe grobesque sloganlhat nukes mean jobs-a ridiculouscaricalure of Lhe interests of Lhe pro-lebariat. At the same time, however, fora greab many workers life is already ahorror. There is Iess of a feeling on thepar[ of even the mosb backwardworkers that each individual in thissocieby is able [o debermine his owndestiny, to "do his own thing." Thusparb of the reason workers have noLbecome involved in ihe anLi-nukemovemenb in a big way is that thenukes question has not astonished lheworkers as much as iL has [he peltYbourgeoisie, nor has ib concentratedtheir anger for this society bo the samedegree. Ib is significant, Lhough, ihatsome advanced members of bhe work-ing class have been spontaneouslYdrawn to the anti-nuke movemenL, nolso much because of bhe issue itself, but

because they are drawn bo this largepolitical movement out of a desire tostrike back at the system.

This is also true of the majoriby ofyouth who marched in Washington,D.C. last May 6, as well as the otherlarge mobilizations against nukes-people came only in part out of concernaround the nukes issue. The urge tojusb geb down and demonstrate againstsomething and to learn more about theworld was a big motivating factor fortens of thousands. At the May 6 rallyit was not at all unusual to hear youthsay, "I came to the rally because I'mbrying bo figure out whab to do wibh mylife and I figured there would be peoplehere who could help me decide." In thelate 1970s ihe anti-nuke movementcaptured the imagination of millions ofyoubh, boih because the issue itselfconcentrated disgust for a society runby the quesb for personal profit, bubalso because afber a certain point, ifyou were looking for a way lo strikeback at [he stabus quo-[his was whereit was at.

There is another seciion of sociebyactive in bhe anii-nuke movement sincebhe early 1970s which shares a disgus[for and frustration over capitalistsociety in general: the relatively largenumber of "ex-students" who live andwork in university towns and majorcities, and for whom political activityof one kind or another is the most im-portant thing in their lives. This sec-tion of society was deeply affecbed bythe mass movements of the 1960s, al-though not necessarily deeply involvedin those movements. In the condibionsof ebb of the 1970s, many have pub theidea of radical change on bhe backburner and become acbive particularlyin various local reform movements.While many of these forces consciouslyrejecb the most blalant goals thabcapitalism holds out to the pebty bour-geoisie-a profession, home in bhesuburbs, etc.-they are nonebhelessspontaneously pulled into variousforms of reformism, from local rentconlrol sbruggles, to co-op schemes, toihe anti-nuke movement. In manyways they are typical of some impor-iant aspects of the entire decade of the1970s, caught in limbo to some extent,rejecting certain bourgeois values, bubmore ofben than not replacing themwith more subtle ones because theyhave not understood the essence ofcapitalist socieby and the road out of it.

Certainly the anti-nuke movement isfar from the first, social movement tobe based in the petty bourgeoisie. Thesame can be said for the anti-Vietnamwar movement and several other of themass storms that shook America in the1960s. But unlike these movements,

Whot the well-dressed corpsewill wecrr. LeIt, workers ondtechniciqns prepore to enter lheqir lock oI the shut-down BqnchoSeco nuhe, sister plont to ThreeMile Islcrnd. The sign over thedoor reqds, "Nucleqr Power-SoIe, Cleon, Economiccrl." Atright, speciol Air Force helmetond goggles Ior pilots who dropnukes. This clothing demon-strctes very well the grecrtlengths to which the ruling closshos gone to moke sure thoinuhes never huri onybody.

the anti-nuke movement has not bakenon a broader character. In part, ofcourse, this is due to bhe nature of bheissue itself. But it also has quite a bitto do with the nalure of the period inwhich this movement developed, whichconditioned its development.

The fact bhat the anti-nuke move-ment developed around 1976-78, aL atime when bhe bourgeoisie was bryingto catch i[s breath during bhe lowesbebb of mass struggle in this country innearly two decades, accounbs a greatdeal for the kind of movement it be-came-a movement whose resurgenceis testimony to the fact that the basiccontradiction of capitalism constanblygives rise to struggle and rebellion

among all strata of people, but at thesame bime, a movemenb marked byisolation from both more broad andfundamental social issues and from lhebroader masses of people.

The very fact that "survival"became the watchword for so much ofthe anti-nuke movement demonsbrabesboth its class outlook (trying to con-serve an endangered posi[ion in socie-ty) and bhe ebb period in which itdeveloped.

That survival often becomes in andof itself the primary objecbive of theanti-nuke movemenb is indicated bythe names of more [han one anti-nukegroup ("Alliance for Survival" and"Mobilization for Survival," for exam-

f.,,;

t:l

Nukesple). The view is often offered that, "Ifwe don't deal wibh the issue of nuclearpower plants there won'l be a naburalworld left io house ihe obher problemswe wanL to solve." This senLimenb isdominant in rnosL of lhe anti-nukegroups, slemming both from a rabherrigid concepCion of what constitutes"the problems and the solutions bo theproblems," but also [ied in with bhis asense of desperation because of lhepotential horrors hanging over theworld.

3. Nukes and Classes

There is tremendous uncertainby inthe anti-nuke movement over "who'sto blame" for unsafe nukes. Manychalk the whole situation up to indivi-dual madmen and individual careless-ness on the part, of those in conbrol, orio the facl that bhose "on a power trip"are in power. Again, this is an analysiswhich sees the individual as cenbral tothe whole set-up, and specifically re-jects and/or neglects an analysis whichshows how [he capitalisl class isresponsible for unsafe nukes. There is adist,inct desire expressed in bhe anbi-nuke movement to "raise" the nukesissue "above classes."

For example, a spokesman for theMobilization for Survival made bhefollowing siatement: "Key constituen-cies we need to work on in this effort(to dismanble all nukes) are of courselabor and minoribies, although bhereare successes happening in those areas.We don't want to leave out the middleand upper classes either. We think thatthis is an all peoples' movemenb andthat rational, just beings anywhereand everywhere will agree with uswhen they have the information andthey can free themselves of their pre-judices."'r Or as a local anti-nuke groupin Wisconsin put it in summing upbheir coalition, "People of all political,religious, social, and economic posi-tions have learned io work together.The issue Cranscends all differences."l

While some sections of the anti-nukemovement have been much clearer inidenbifying the monopoly capibalists asthe source of at least the nukes prob-lem, still running through much of themovement literature is a deep sensebhat America cannot afford bo be divid-ed over this one, that "if ihe big onegoes, we all go." A group of peoplemarched from Louisville, Kentucky bo

Washington, D.C., to protest nukes in1977, and they issued a stabementwhich included this: " . we wanb [lhemarchl to further symbolize the sincere

10

desire to avoid the type of confronta-tion tha[ in the pasl has divided thecounbry. Prosperity and harmony forour counbry and world can only beachieved through a united effort ofcibizenry and government."' Theabove quobes-which illustrate themore backward brends in the anti-nukemovement-indicate bobh a deep desireto do something about the nukes, andat the same [ime a compleLely upsidedown view of society. Ib is a view whichdoesn't see America fundamentallydivided by social classes (or if there aredifferenl classes, lhey are of liblle con-sequence when ib comes Lo nukes), andseeks bo work things out so that, ab

leasb on bhis quesbion, everyone ispleased. The solution to the nukes pro'blem is made biological insbead ofsocial: "We're all human beings."

At rock botbom bhe question comesdown bo lhis for many: does the facbthaL nuclear bechnology exisLs indicatethat bhis basically seaworthy ship hasa few leaks, some "impuri-ties," "malfunctions," and so on-orare nukes just a slice of capitalism, apiece of a thoroughly robben puzzle?

Still, many in the movement have aguL feeling thal somebhing is prebtywrong with this counLry. AfLer all,many of them are youth of the"Wabergate generaLion," as somebourgeois analysLs nervously put it,people with little political experience(because they grew up during an ebb)who have seen enough to know ihatthey don't like it.

Among some of the relatively moreadvanced in the anti-nuke movement,lhere is a general desire bo do awaywith all monopolies, do away wibh a

cenLral government which plays a

dominant role, etc., and bo creabe a"decenbralized" society. This is felt Lo

be bhe best "solution" io the problemof individual freedoms getting en-croached on under capitalism: breakeverything up into libtle pieces, then in-dividuals will automaLically get moreof a say. The stress in Lhe anii-nukemovement on "democratic" decision'making, where "responsibilities areshared, with no elecied 'officers' ordesignated leadership," and where"somelimes a meeting will decide thaLeveryone presenb must have a chanceto speak on an issue before anyone canspeak for the second lime"" cannot beoverestimated.

This understanding of democracyseeks to go backwards Lo a day whenpeople mainly lived in rural areas andnol cibies, where, it is felt (incorrectly)bhat individual freedoms could be exer-cised by all through town meebings,etc. (A statement once made by AlbertEinstein-known today in the anti-

nuke movemenL as one of the moslvociferous opponenbs of nukes "oncehe realized the monsber he'dcreaLed"-is often quobed in the move-ment boday: "To the village square wemusL carry bhe facls of at,omicenergy from there must comeAmerica's voice.") But it also seeks togo forward to the day when socieLy canand will be organized cooperaLively,when there will not be a shortage ofmaterial needs for some while othersare filthy rich, and where all can playan ac[ive role noL only in production,but even more imporlanbly in runningbhe affairs of sociely. In Lerms of anorganized political theory, much of Lhisthinking consists of anarchism; buL inthe anti-nuke movemenL ib exisLs large'ly as a kind of spontaneous anarchismon the part of those who dream of a bet-Ler world, but end up wiLh various (un-workable) ubopian schemes bo realizethaL belter world. This anarchism isnot in conscious consolidated opposi-tion bo Marxism-Leninism. IL is a spon-laneous resisbance bo bhe effects ofcapi[alism and the dominaLion of Lhe

bourgeoisie, a resisbance which reflectslhe outlook and social base of much of[he anLi-nuke movemenL.

4. A "Praetical" Cause

Because radiation does not discrimi-nabe be[ween the cold and warm-blooded, bhen unibing all secbions ofsocieLy to destroy nukes seems like anidea whose time has come, an ideaeminenbly capable of succeeding. Thebattle against nukes is Lherefore notonly jusi, bub it's winnable-so goesthe logic of much of the anbi-nukemovement. This "practicaliLy" is real-ly very utopian and subjecbive, ofcourse-as is all pragmatism-becauseit loses sighL of the bigger piclure.However "pracbical" getting rid ofnukes may seem, bhere are far morepressing reasons why, for bhe im-perialists, there is nobhing ai all prac-tical about this idea.

Two examples are ofben raised as"proof positive" of prac[ical resulLsachieved in the batble against nukes.First, a vote in Missouri in November1976, involving the passage of an ini-biative barring ubiliby companies fromcharging bhe public for CWIP (Con-

sbruction Work in Progress). (In mosts[ates utility companies jack up utilitybills to cover costs from nuclear reac-bors being consLrucled.)

The second is when a group of 250sat in ab the offices of the NuclearRegulatory Commission in Washing-ton, D.C. demanding [hat all construc-tion be halted at the Seabrook plant inNew Hampshire. The NRC hurriedly

I;;iii

met and announced a complebe and im-mediate cessation of construcbion ab

Seabrook. (Then, bhree weeks laber,after the victory celebraLions werefinished and the summation of this"vicbory" had been spread through lhecountry by nob only the anLi-nukemovemenb but also the bourgeoismedia, the NRC burned around andreversed ibs decision.)

But bhe final Iine of defense for manyin the anti-nuke movement who areconvinced of bhe capacity for thismovement bo succeed in its goal ofdismanbling all nuclear power planbsand preventing [he conslruciion of newones is the argumenl thab nukes are nolonger profitable.

"Rising capital costs have nowbecome the dominant factor in theprice of nuclear power; because thesecosbs are increasing much faster lhanthe capital costs of coal-fired plants,sometime in lhe next ten to fifteenyears nuclear power will become moreexpensive than coal-fueled power. Theentire nuclear-power program will thenlose ibs only reason for exisLing-ilspreseni cosl advantage over coal-firedpower-and is then (or sooner) likely tocollapse. "'

And: "The dilemma facing the nu-clear indusiry is clearly one of safebyvs. costs. Safety hazards are anunavoidable by-producb of bhe nuclear

bechnology. If lhese hazards arebrought to light and modifications arerequired, capital costs can onlY goup."*

As meniioned earlier, parb of bhe ex-planabion for ihe 1975-80 moratoriumon consLrucbion of new nuclear planbsis the decreasing profitability to themonopoly capilalists involved in lheenergy indusbry. But this quesiion can-nob be looked at in a narrow or shori'ierm sense. Very similar apparenbroadblocks to the develoPment ofnuclear power planls have arisenbefore. 'fhis is why in 1957 Congresspassed Lhe Price-Anderson AcL: theenergy companies like General Elec-tric, Westinghouse, elc. couldn'tthemselves make a profit on nukes (in

lhis case because Lhey couldn'b prof-itably cover insurance cosbs) so theyweren't going io build bhem. Thegovernment, acling for the ruling classas a whole, stepPed in [o do whai wasneeded-giving them $500 millionworih of free insurance!

In 1970, just as certain malters Iikewhai to do with spent fuel with a lifeexpectancy of 250,000 Years werebecoming more immediate problems'the U.S. governmenb took over controlof "waste storage" for all nuclearpower reactors in the countrY.

All this on top of the bebter knownfact thab the U.S. government serves

For three doys losi October, severtrlthousond demonstrqtors tried lo cqrryout q non-violent occupction oI theSeobrook nuclecrr plont constructionsite in New Hompshire, Ior severqlyeors one oI the mqin torgets ol theqnli-nuke movement. Moving throughthe mcrrshes qnd creeks surroundingthe qreq on home-mqde portoble pon-toon bridges, ihe mqrchers rqn uPogqinst hordes oI cops who were Protecting q fence trround the site. Thecops used mqce <rnd clubs in o seriesol brutol ottqcks to move bcck thedemonstrqtors, pcying no qttention iotheir ottempts to keeP things non-violent, Yet the demonstrotors movedin cgoin in severcrl woves, <rnd Nq-iionol Gucrrdsmen hcd to be used tobeef up the police lorce <rnd hqul thedemonstrqtors oIl.

today as it has for 35 years as lhe chiefresearcher, producer and purchaser ofnuclear weapons.

What's at the heart of the incorrecLanalysis about bhe nukes fight beingpractical is one main bhing: a lack ofrunderstanding of the desperabion ofthe bourgeoisie, specifically how theirenergy problems are directly relaled tot heir overall drive towards world war.And coupled with this, in bhe case of theargument about profitability beingdown for nukes lhese days, is a mechan-ical understanding of bhe role of profil inbhe economics of capilalism, and ofwhat's at sbake for the ruling class to-day.

While the question of profits overallis central to the capitalists, and whileeach capiialist is mosl certainly out tosave his chubby neck, when there areoverriding needs of the capibalisi classas a whole, then policies will be under-taken which may in a narrow sense beunprofibable, but in Lhe long run, [hecapitalisbs hope, will serve to increasetheir wealth, power, and profiis. Wecan see this by looking at the militarybudget, which, while it reaPs largeamounts for the arms industry, etc., isoverall a bremendous drain on theeconomy in the short run, bu[ in thelong run is meant to guarantee con-tinued world domina[ion.

11

a

A-bomb qir roid drill in the 1950s. The nuns crnd the bowed heqds qre suppos-ed to protect these school children-or at least recssure them. Todoy theiul-ing clcss is using only slightly more sophisticqted methods lo try to convincethe people thqt nucleor wqr is not reclly mcrdriess,

5. Methods of Struggle

A major debate wibhin bhe anbi-nukemovement for several years has beenover the mebhods of struggle to employin trying bo shut down the nukes.While non-violence is up to this pointvery much bhe password throughoutthe movement, over the years therehave been significanb politicaldevelopments within the movement.

In [he early 1970s the main form forstopping nukes was called "inlerven-ing," and consisied of a legal processaimed at, aI the least, postponing con-strucbion of a particular plant. It was,and still is, a process built into thelegal books, and as much as anythingelse played mainly a role as a steamvalve on bhe newly emerging anti-nukemovement. Tied in with this basic ap-proach to "solving" the nukes problemwas a whole sbring of electoral schemesat[empted in the mid-?0s, from coast[o coast. As in all questions over whatforms of struggle were correct, bherewas great, controversy over how to sumup the resulting defeabs on these initia-tives and propositions. Some said thatthe issue was "boo radical," and thatthe only road forward was one of morecompromise and Less "hard-line"polibics, while o[hers mainly learnedfrom these defeats-in the face ofmulti-million dollar pro-nuke cam-paigns-that the elec[ora] road was awaste of time, and LhaL action of somesort was whab was needed.

In bhe winber of 1975, 28,000 stu-

12

dents, farmers, and obhers occupied anuclear planb site in Wyhl, West Ger-many. For those who were then in theanti-nuke movement, in this country aswell as in Japan and in other parts ofEurope, Wyhl had a big impac[. WhileRalph Nader the year before had calleda mass meebing to plan lobbying tac-tics called "Cri[ical Mass '74," over inGermany thousands were taking mat-bers into bheir hands [o a greaberdegree. The spring of 1977 broughb theoccupation ab Seabrook.

But still bhere was sharp slruggleover bacbics, especially be[ween somein the movement who soughl civildisobedience with pre-planned busts,and others who sought bo go back tolobbying, and still others who soughbnuke site occupabions without busts.In bhe summer of 1978, after LheSeabrook occupabion, a deal was struckbetween the Clamshell Alliance-albeitafter much internal sbruggle-and bheNew Hampshire authorities bo preventany similar occupation. A rally washeld far away from the nuke on landprovided by the state, so that "thedemonstralors could make their poinl,but bhere would be no repelition ofbefore." This shows lhat even after theacbion which sparked bhe real growthof the anti-nuke movemenb nationally,there was deep vacillation within bhemovement-leading in this case booubright capitulation-over the roadforward.

This pasb fall, after another failed oc-cupation atbempt at Seabrook on Oct.6 and bhe "Wall Streeb Acbion" a few

weeks later designed bo shut down thepower brokers, the anbi-nuke move-ment cautiously advanced what wasfor [he movement itself a "new" formof struggle: "non-violenb direciaction." According Lo the handbook forthe Oct. 6 acbion: "Ten years of fight-ing the nuke bhrough the system andthree years of rallies and civil disobe-dience have accomplished a greab dealin terms of education and raisingpublic sentiment against nuclearpower, but have not succeeded in stop-ping construction of the plant., . Thegoal of this action is not to provoke afighi, nor is it t6 get arrested . Oc-tober 6 will be a departure from civildisobedience. Our success will not bemeasured in terms of symbolic value,nor media impact, nor numbers arresb-ed. Our success depends on our effec-tiveness in directly blocking furtherconstruction, and our ability to do so ina collective and non-violent way.""

The anti-nuke movement up to thispoint has never broken in any way, in-cluding in its methods of struggle, wi[hits basic line of "We're all human be-ings," and in its advocacy of non-violence has consistenbly preached aline of "Do no harm to our fellowhumans." A few points are worthnoting ab this time, however. In anhistorical sense things have beendeveloping in a forward direc[ion,although slowly. Every single insightinbo bhe workings of capitalism-fromthe move on ihe par[ of some awayfrom bhe courbrooms and elecboralarena to demonslrabions, and on downthe line-has been realized onlythrough greai struggle among theseforces, who had to combal both theirown inexperience and ignorance andalso the conscious attempts on the partof the bourgeoisie and its agents tosteer the movemenb in bhe most in-nocuous direction possible.

In fact the group which sponsoredthe Oct. 6 aclion represented a parbialsplit-off from the long esbablishedClamshell Alliance. The split camedown primarily over tactical dif-ferences, although ihe official terms of[he debate put it more like the questionwas one of biming: direct action (non-

violent) soon vs. waibing a while andfinding other things to do. Also ofsome significance is anobher line fromthe pamphlet put out by the "Coalitionfor Direct Action at Seabrook," thisone on the police. "While we respectbhose opposing us as human beings, wewill steadfastly resist them in their in-stitutional roles as agenbs of an imper-sonal repressive structure. Though inone sense police forces senb against usmay only 'be doing their jobs,' theyhave also, by showing up that day for

duty chosen sides on Lhe nuclear ques-tion before bhe world." Again, lhissiatemenL is sLill in bhe same ballparkas before ( that " theY too arehuman")-buL it does show signs ofbreaking with some of bhe pasl lhink-ing by the expliciL stabement that ifpolice play the role of pigs, then bheyshall be (non-violently) treated as being"on bhe other side."

These developmenbs in bhe tacLicsused by the anti-nuke movemenL havein a certain sense been forced on iL. ForinsLance, at the mosl recenb occupabionabLempt ab Seabrook, there was a

viciously organized and ruLhlessly car-ried out police abback on bhe demon-strators who nob only Preached butpracticed non-violence. SLories of thisatback are now circulabing bhroughoulthe counbry, and imporbant lessons arebeing summed up. For the bourgeoisiehad decided thab even with non-violence, a point had been reachedwhere enough was enough, and iheYsoughb to iniimidabe and bruialize bhe

youbh who showed up to bhe demon-sbraLion. For the demonsLrabors, morebhan a few feel very differenbly todayabouL lhe question of non-violence, in-cluding many who have been involvedin lhe movement for a while.

6. Solar "Solutions"

For bhe pasb five years or more a ma-jor leneb of Lhe anli-nuke movemenLhas been tha[ "you can'l criticize if youdon'b have a better idea," a solubion Lo

the energy problem which can replacenuclear power. Solar power has beenthe main solution proposed by thoseactive in the anti-nuke movement.Various research studies have beendone on solar power, both bY theenergy indusLry and more broadly (and

probably more scienbifically) by peopleinvolved in the anti-nuke movement.Companies have bought up paienls tosolar power ideas, and JimmY Carierhimself even has a few solar panels in-stalled on lhe roof of lris house'

The bourgeoisie has chosen a two'pronged approach bo the question ofsolar power. First, because at bhispoint the bourgeoisie has neibherfigured out how to make sizableenough profibs from solar power, norhow lhere mighb feasibly be anymilibary applicaLion for ib, bhey havedone practically nolhing to bring solarpower into being. If they could make abuck off it, or if solar power could helpcreate explosives, no doubt ihe bour-geoisie would be on lhe front lines inthe solar energy movement.

Second, the bourgeoisie has activelypromoted Lhe idea of solar powerwibhin the anti-nuke movement. While

various referendums used lo be theirbesL bel in trying to sbeer Lhe move-menL down a dead end a few years ago,today solar power serves jusb such a

funcbion. Wibh thousands acbively andgenuinely seeking to solve Lhe energycrisis, here comes respecbed scientisl(and closel "Marxist") Barry Com'moner, promobing the sun as the onlyway oub. Then there was "Sun DaY'78." And along bhe way there havebeen other efforts like the joinbelecboral-solar campaign ringmasteredby Tom Hayden called "Solar-Cal,"which sought to have California "gosolar" bhrough a series of energy billsin bhe slabe legislabure. There is not theslighbest accidenb bo the facb bhat thosefigures mosL associabed with pro-moting solar power as an "alternabive"bo nuclear power are exacbly the sameforces most associaled wiLh electoralpolibics within the anti-nuke movemenband mosb opposed to direct action.

The fact that for many people, oppos-ing nukes Loday is synonymous wibhbeing pro-solar is mainly a Lestamentbo the facb that the ques[ion of nuclearpower is sLill seen hy many in the anti-nuke movemenb in isolation fromwhab's happening overall in socieLy.Not thab bhose local coaliLions whichconsciously and actively oppose bolhnuclear weapons and power auLomabi-cally have a clear understanding ofhow nuclear technology overall iies in-bo bhe question of U.S. dominationaround the world and the prospecLs forwar in the near future. But generally,bhose groups who do take up both havenot gobten as hung up in convincingthe ruling class to "go solar" as havesome of Lhe other coalibions.

7. Nuclear Weapons

For most in bhe anbi-nuke movement,the prospect of world war is noL

somebhing that, unlil recenbly aI leasL,has been sbaring them in bhe face.There has been a marked tendencYwithin the anti-nuke movement na-tionally bo prelend that either nuclearweapons don't exisb, or at least Lhalthey are "a separate problem." In lhemain ii has been the pacifisb groupsand a few Iocal coalitions such as ab theRocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Facilityin Colorado, where components forH-bombs are made, which have paidany atLenbion aL all to nuclearweapons, in many ways the heart ofthe bourgeoisie's nuclear program.

Sbill, many anti-nuke forces havestarted bo pay attention io this ques-tion. The rebirth of the August"Hiroshima Day" activities in 1977 incommemoration of bhe first massnuclear murder committed by the U.S.

imperialisbs in Hiroshima andNagasaki in 1945 sbands in stark con'Lrast to the solar power nonsense. ThefacL is, though, thab some of thesesame people who do see nuclearweapons and nuclear war as a far moreimportanb issue still see anti-nuclearpower planis as the thing to focuson-because of the "practicality" ofthis issue-in order to build the kind ofmovemenL bhey envision, even thoughlhey hope it will one day actuallYchallenge "the system" which pro-duces both.

A view promobed by the bourgeoisforces is tha[ since nuclear weapons areused for bhe "defense of bhe country,"and since we can never [ell what bhe

Russians will do, [hen nuclear weaponsare an unforbunate necessity. Andbesides, "defense of bhe nation" is atouchy subjecb and quesLioning itmight cub down on anti-nuclear powersupport. The direcior of Ralph Nader'sCribical Mass Energy Projecb spoke bo

this quesbion in an interview: "Withthe nuclear weapons side of things, youget inlo such issues as the MX missile,ihe Backfire bomber and the Cruisemissile, and I think bheY [nuclearpower and nuclear weaPons] are twoenbirely separate issues, although theyshare similar features." And thenspeaking to what Nader himself saidaboui how opposing nukes is "thehighest expression of patriobism forAmericans," the direcbor of CriticalMass conLinued, "If you're going totalk bo bhe general public aboub thesematters, it is very difficult to expectthal people are going bo have fullawareness of both issues, let alonejust one.""' Given Nader's commentabout opposing nukes and patriotism,ib is clear bhat [here are those in theanti-nuke movemen[ who nob onlYpush ihe above nonsense aboub "oneissue at a bime" for pragmatic reasons'but also do so because they bhink thatwhereas opposing nuclear Power ispa[riotic, supporting nuclear weaponsis also patriotic.

While many in the antinuke move-menl raise the question of nuclearweapons bo expose the imperialists'war drive, some who raise this questiondo more bo confuse the issue at best,and promo[e national chauvinism atworsb. The principles of uniby of twogroups on opposi[e ends of the coun'lry-the Abalone Alliance in Californiaand the Potomac Alliance based in theVirginia, Maryland & WashinglonD.C. area-contain very similar sec-

tions on the questions of nuclearweapons. To choose one, in its"Declaration of Resistance to NuclearPower," the Abalone Alliance states'"There is a direct relationship between

13

Nukesnuclear powerplants and nuclearweapons. The export of nuclear reac-tors makes possible the spread ofnuclear bombs to na[ions all over theworld. The theft of nuclear materials

-and the sabotage of nuclear facilitiespose furbher bhreats to our lives andour civil liberties."

This line of thinking, whaL Lhe Chica-go Tribune called "The Ultimate Fear"in a front-page article on nuclear ter-rorism, is very prominent in the anbi-nuke movement. Boiled down to bhebare bones, it comes down to: "Wedon't like nuclear weapons, but we feelsafer knowing that the U.S. has gotbhem than a crazy in some foreignIand." (The main example used in theanti-nuke movement a couple of yearsago to show how dangerous ib could beif nuclear weapons got into "other peo-ple's" hands was Idi Amin.)

Regardless of the fact that some whooppose nuclear weapons for the samereasons as the Abalone Alliance alsocarry out exposure of nuclear weaponsproduction and planned use by theU.S., still the reasons given for oppos-ing these weapons amount, to wipingthe blood off the hands of the U.S. im-perialists for bhem. By raising the spec-tre of "berrorisbs" from foreign landswho get their hands on a nuclear reac-tor, and alluding to home-grown "ber-rorists," they let the biggesI berroristsand gangsters in the history of bheworld just walk right out bhe front doorwhile everyone is watching.

IV. Conclusion

The generally sbagnant polibical lifefor masses of people in the 1970s hasalready been bursI apart wibh [heevenbs shaking the world in the lastfew months. Iran, Afghanistan, thedraft, the Carter Docbrine, boycott ofLhe Summer Olympics-even bhe lies of"debente" which were only a propagan-da cover for more subtle imperiilistwar preparations anyway have nowbeen replaced wibh open jingoism,chauvinism and pabriobism- Themasses of people have been drawn intopolitical life more in the pasb threemonths than bhey have in years, bothby events themselves and by bhe bour-geoisie's open calls to arms whichmillions are coming to see are anybhingbut empby words. In retrospeci, look--ing back over bhe last four years or so,it is clear that the anti-nuke movementhas represented a political harbinger ofthis gabhering s[orm.

Where the anti-nuke movement isheaded a[ this point and in bhe period

14

bo come will be grea[ly determined bythe larger and more significanl eventsin the world, not necessarily unrelatedLo the question of nukes, but most cer-bainly nob bo be reduced to this ques-bion. Ib is becoming clearer to millionswho have grown to habe nukes bhat forthe bourgeoisie, nuclear technology isjusb part of their larger scramble tomainlain and expand their position inthe world.

The anti-nuke issue has brought lensof [housands inbo mobion, objec[ivelyand in many cases subjectively,against the capitalists and theirgovernment. With the rapidly ac-celerating war drive of the imperialisbs,many of those involved in the anbi-nuke movement as well as millions ofothers will no doubb [ake a sland op-posed to these war moves. But bhestakes will be higher in bhe movemenbagainst imperialist war because thestakes for t he bourgeoisie arehigher-their whole empire is on bheline, nob just whether bhey face ex-posure around one particular outragelike nukes. A movemenb against im-perialist war will go much morestraight up against bhe capitalistsystem and the stale.

Both because sbuden[s as a stralacome into motion quickly around manysocial questions, and because youth areof course the first to gel drafted, afterCarier's announced plans for "registra-bion" for lhe draft many sbudents whohad been active in the antinuke move-ment quickly began lo get involved indemonstrations and rallies opposed tolhe draft and war moves generally.

The threab of a reacbor accidenI wip-ing oub bhe population of whole cibies issomething that has propelled many in-lo the anti-nuke movemenb. Todaymuch of bhe sentiment against bhedraft is couched in similar terms, ex-cept more urgenb because in the eventof World War 3 there won'b just be bhethreat of mass slaught,er-it willbecome a reality.

While the anti-nuke movement as amovemenb in its own right will nodoubt continue for a period of bime, ibscharacber, role, and politics in the faceof worldwide developments toward warcannot and will not continue to be thesame for long. The issue of nukes (bobhpower and weapons) directly relates towar for bhe imperialisbs. So lo the ex-tent that the issue of nukes is made acomponenb part of an overall move-menb againsb imperialist war prepara-tions, to bhat exbent the nukes ques-tion will be relevant to the overallevents in society and the directionthings are headed. No doubt there willbe those who try to perpetuate [he nar-row focus of much of the anti-nuke

movement, simply againsb nuclearpower plants-or Lo drop the wholeissue in the higher inberests ofpatriotism, confining bhemselves tocriticizing the nukes in Russia. Clearlya parting of the ways between thebackward and the advanced forces issomebhing bhab even[s themselves willrequlre.

How should communists relate bo

bhe anlinuke movement? There arelwo slriking negabive examples whichhelp on this point. Firsb is the Pro-gressive Labor Parby (an excellentbeacher by negabive example on manyquestions), who, in a recenl issue ofbheir magazine, made the startling "ex-posure" that the anti-nuke rnovemenbis reformist and nob very working-class. They ended up calling it "a reac-tionary movement, organized by thebosses for their purposes. By divertingthe masses from revolulion, lhey havehelped engage millions in a futile exer-cise." Finally they conclude, "It iswrong, a serious mistake io become in-volved in bhis reactionary movement.We call upon all the participants in theanti-nuclear movement bo wilhdraw." "

This classic Trotskyite call forrevolutionary "purity" misses a fewsmall facts-that the anti-nuke move-ment is a real response bo a real crimeof capibalism, a crime which needs tobe relabed to bhe basic contradicbionsof capitalism which can only be resolv-ed through proletarian revolution. ForPLP, the reason bhey miss this is thatdespite their "left" nonsense, whatthey are really interested in building isbhe economic struggle of the workingclass. They cannot undersband how theemancipation of bhe working classcould involve broader questions whichaffecl much more bhan bhe workersalone. Second, they miss bhe fact bhatunder the actual condibions in bhiscountry in the mid bo late 1970s, therise of this movement signified aposibive developmenb, a sign of stirr-ings against the system, and in bhatsense a forebasie of much more serioussborms.

The opposite error has been mostamply illustrated by the SocialistWorkers Parby, anobher Trotskyiteoutfit, which has tried to adopt (andtake over) ihe anti-nuke movementwholesale, painting it as a movementbha[ in and of itself is "challengingcapitalism and ibs government." Theyeven call for building the anti-nukemovement into "a political force bhatcan prevent wars and shut down allnuclear abominabions once and for all."This is also very rightist, for itamounts to lailing the anti-nuke move-ment. It misses something qui[ebig-that bhe only way to "prevenb

wars and shut down all nuclearabominations once and for all" '' is pro-letarian revolubion, revolution that canonly be built by diverting bhe sponta-neous sbruggle among all sbrata (in-cluding bobh the working class and thepebty bourgeoisie) so as to build a con-scious revolubionary movement. (Thepro-China revisionist CPML goes thisopportunism one better-or worse.They've promoLed bhe call for solarpower as the solution, thereby tailingthe worst aspec[s of the anbi-nuclearmovement.)

A lot of light is shed on this questionby an arLicle Lenin wrobe in 1908, dur-ing bhe period of ebb of bhe revolu-tionary movement in Russia followingthe bloody defeat of the 1905 uprising.A movemeni arose on the campusesdemanding university autonomy fromthe government. Some social democrats(as communists were called ab the bime)active among studenbs wrote that theyopposed this movement, because it wasmerely academic, and not "co-ordinatedwith general political action" bo over-Lhrow the Czar.

Lenin criticized this view, calling it"a lifeless dogma":

"One musb be able to agitate forpolitical action, mahing ase of allpossibilities, all conditions and, firstand foremost, all mass conflicts be-tween advanced elements, whateverthey are, and the aubocracy. Ib is no[ ofcourse a quesLion of us dividing everystudent movement beforehand intocompulsory 'sbages,' and making surebhat each stage is properly gonethrough, out of fear of switching overbo 'untimely' political actions, etc.Such a view would be bhe most harmfulpedantry, and would lead only to anopportunisb policy. But j usb as harmfulis bhe opposite misbake, when peoplerefuse to reckon with bhe actual situa-tion that has arisen and the actualconditions of lhe particular massmovement

"Condi[ions are possible when anacademic movement lowers bhe level ofa political movement, or divides it, ordistracts from it-and in bhat caseSocial-Democrabic students' groupswould of course be bound to concen-trate their agitation againsb such amovement. But anyone can see bhabthe objective political conditions at thepresent time are differen[. Theacademic movement is expressing thebeginning of a movement among thenew 'generation' of studenbs, who havemore or less become accustomed to anarrow measure of autonomy; and thismovement is beginning when obherforms of mass struggle are lacking atthe present time, when a lull has set in,

and the broad mass of the people, sbillsilently, concenbratedly and slowly arecontinuing Lo digest bhe experience ofthe [hree years of revoluiion.

" The student youth who haveeniered the universibies during the lasttwo years have lived a life almosl com-pletely detached from politics ofcourse it is not for us socialists loguarantee bhe success of any bourgeoismovement [this is the] beginning of apolitical conflict, whether those engag-ed in the fight realise it or nob. Our jobis to explain to bhe mass of 'academic'probesters the objective meaning of theconflict, to iry and make it consciouslypolibical, bo mulbiply lenfold the agita-tion carried on by the Social-Democratic groups of students, and ,odirect all lhis activity in such a waythat revolubionary conclusions will bedrawn from bhe history of the lasbthree years, that the inevibability of anew revolutionary struggle isundersbood, and that our old-and stillquite timely-slogans calling for theoverthrow of the aubocracy and bheconvocation of a consbibuent assemblyshould once again become a subject ofdiscussion and the touchstone ofpolitical concentrabion, for freshgenerations of democrats. " "t

Lenin is balking aboub a democraticmovement in a bime and Place wherethe democrabic revolution to overthrowihe Czar is sbill on the order of the day,a prerequisite for the socialist revolu-tion. Further, this movement foruniversity autonomy is a movemenbfar more direcbly aimed ab the govern-ment and its despotism than bhe anti-nuke movement could ever be, which iswhy Lenin's emphasis here on com-munists iaking part in and leading themovemenI he is speaking about is nob

directly applicable bo the anti-nukemovement. But as for uniting with thisfresh outburst against ihe sysbem andconducting broad political agitation inconjunction with it, so that those whofight only for university autonomy in anarrow way come to see bhe necessityand inevitability of revolulion and takeup bhat slogan and acLiviby-this is ex-ac0ly the point with things like theanti-nuke movement. This is how bhe

working class and ibs Party builds theunited fronl against imperialism, notby tailing or taking over the spon-taneous movements, but by bringingout-through bhem and in conjunctionwith them as well as through agibationin general-the issue of proletarianrevolution, and by building for thisgoal as the apple of its eye.

The lessons drawn by different sec-

tions of people in the anbi-nuke move-ment will have some effect on their roleinitially in the turbulent times ahead.

For bhose who hold dast,ardlY in-dividuals in regulatory commissions,ebc., responsible for [he existence ofdangerous nuclear power planbs' who-

supporb the existence and use ofnuclear weapons, and who firmlYbelieve thab America is a fine and freeland wibh a few kinks bo work oul-forthese people the recent developmentsrepresent mainly a call to Pluck uP

one's patrio[ic spirit and march downto get fibted in khaki.

Large sections of ihe anli'nukemovement, in particular those whoform ihe nuclei of manY of the localcoali[ions, share polibics that are heavi-ly influenced by pacifism and the beliefthaL all humans share common in-teresbs, and a commiiment to non-violence bhat is as strong as theirabhorrence of nukes. These people maywell provide the initial bulwark of a

significant pacifist wing of an anti-warmovemenb, opposing all wars ingeneral, regardless of wheiher lhey areiought to liberate or to enslave-bubtheie is definitely a dislincbion be-

bween die-hard pacifists (like those whoopposed the U.S. and ihe Viebnamesee(ually during the war) and bhose forwhom this posilion is somelhing in mo-

tion.Still others-ab t,his lime the

smallest section of bhe anti-nuke move-menb, but an extremely significant onenevertheless-will bake an importanbleap coming off the recent events in theworld. For them ib won'l simply be aquestion of learning some new bhingsabou[ the role of the U.S. imperialistsaround bhe world, and adding these towhat they already know about the roleof the monopolies and the governmentwith nuclear technology. For [heseforces the potential exists Lo take a

qualitative leap beyond bhe knowledgeof a mere sbring of facbs exposing theimperialists-a leap which bringseverything inbo much clearer focus, in-cluding the ntrkes question.

For as the bourgeoisie heads towardswar ib raises basic questions andissues: "The masses of American peo-ple can make no greater sacrifice andcontribution to humanity than to givethemselves fully over to the service ofthe nation, the greabest on earth." Sowe are told. The bloodthirsty nature ofthe imperialist ruling class becomeseasier to distinguish if your eyes arenot clouded with a patrio[ic film. Allthese aspects of the developing situa-tion will no[ be losb on those in the anbi'nuke movement for whom the nukesquestion may have been bhe firstpolitical cause [hey became involvedin, but who are determined not to geb

sbuck there while the hurricane of warand revolution encircles [he earbh. I

15

1.

FootnotesRobin Read, " to Wall Street,"Clamshell Alliance News,Nov./Dec. f 9?9, p. f .

Jeff Proctor, "The Nuclear PowerIndustry and bhe AntiNuclearMovement," Socialist Reuiew,Nov./Dec. 1978, p. 32.Herb Ettel, from interview in theGuardian, July 4, f979, p. 5.League Against Nuclear Dangers

Statement, found in No Nukes,South End Press, 1979, p. 429."Citizens Statement," found inibid., p. 425.-Ay'o NaAes, p. 388.Barry Commoner, The Pouerty ofPower, Alfred A, Knopf, 1976,p.213.op. cit. Socialist Reuiew, p. 18.Handbooh for Oct. 6, 1979 DirectAction Occupation, Coalition forDirect Action at Sbabrook, 1979,

pp. 4, 9.Ibid., p. 23."The Bosses Build a TrojanHorse," editorial in ProgressiueLabor Magazine, Fall 1979, p. 12."Halt the nuclear d,anger," YoungSocialist, March 1979, p. 8.V.L Lenin, "The Studenb Move-ment and the Present Situation,"Lenin on Youth, Progress Pub-lishers, 1974, pp. 100-101. AIso inCollected Worhs,Yol. f5, pp. 213-19.

5.

6.

7.

8.9.

10.11.

t2

13

3

4

Banner Press$ummer ISBO America

Los Angeles: 2706 W. ?th St.90057(2 l3)384-38s6.Berkeley: Bevolution Books1952 University Ave. 947 04(4r5)84r-83r4.Sqn Frqncisco: Everybody's Bookstorel7 Brenham Place 94108 (415)78I-4989

Seqttle: Revolution Books I828 Broadway98122 (206\323-9222Honolulu: Bevolution Books923 N. King St. 96817 (808)845-2733.

Detroit: May Day Books 3136 E. Davison48212 (3r3)893-Os23.

Chiccgo: Revolution Books1727 S. Michisan 606I6 (312)922-6580.

crisisDgclineAn'Analysis of the Developments Toward

War and Bevolution, in the U.S.and Worldwide,

in the 1980s

by Sydney Stern

Sometimes boo. ks can be conepicuous by !B d people haverecognked the need {or- a comprehensive and e U,S. irr"p*}uf-ism and its bloc. whai_is the signiiicanee o{ the crisis? s le{t to the mo-

--nopoly capitalists?-Do they-have a "way out" oI this crisis other than-war against their rivals in the SovietUnion? Why has ihe U.S. woiLlng class been so backward? What is the elfeci o{ the crisis on the conditions

and rnood o{ the masses? Based on actual material conditions, what are the prospects for revolution?Thie book is a pathbreaking application oI Marxism'teninism to the concrete conditions oI the U.S.

and its bloc and a thooretical development ol the Marxist understanding of crisis and war. It is ihe mostsignilicant book oI its kind siace Lenin's Imperialism, the Highesf Stogaof Copitalism, providing a {resh

understanding oI the sigrrilicarrce of Lenin's analysis today, Above all, ihis is a took lor tie lgg0s. It pro-vides a fitm and scienti{ic {oundation for seeing the rea} possibility oI a revolutionary situation developlng

in the U.S. in the next decade.

It was writtea under the Ieadership of theBevolutlsnary Communist Party Central Committee and its Chairman, Bob Avakian.

f,tuildlla tocWcrshington, D.C.: Revolution Books2438 l9lh. St NW Washinston, D.C.2OOO9 (2O2)26s-1969.New York City: Revolution Books l6 E.rSth st. N.Y., N.Y. tOOOs (2121243-8638.Cambridge: Revolution Books 233 Mass AveCambridse, MA 02139 (6I7)492-9016Clevel<rnd: Revolution Books2044Euclid Ave. Cleveland, OH 44II5.

16

Crisis andlrUarl

The following is a slightly edited section of a chapter froman extraordinary new 6ooA, AMERICA IN DECLINE-Imperialism's Greatest Crisis: An Analysis of theDevelopments Towards War and Revolution, in the U.S.and Worldwide, in the 1980s, to be published soon byBanner Press. This pathbreaking effort, written under theleadership of the RCP Central Committee and its ChairmanBob Auahian, analyzes the deuelopment and direction ofthe cisis of U.S. imperialism. It represents an importantaduance both in its thorough and all-sided application ofMarxism-Leninism to the concrete conditions of the U.S.and in its theoretical deuelopment of the Marxist under-standing of cisis and war. It will be inualuable for anyonewho wants to know where this country is headed. and tounderstand the context for our Party's line that a reuolu-tionary situation may arise in the U.S. in the coming fewyears. This particular chapter deals with the present condi-tion of the ttasses in the U.5., its relation to their mood, andhow this objectiue situation will deuelop in the future.

At the present time, the majority of bhe working classdoes not find itself in circumstances corresponding to arevolutionary situation, nor is it in a revolutionary mood.F or that to happen, the income and conditions of work, thestability of employment and other basic conditions musthave deteriorated and, along with social relations and life ingeneral, become intolerable in the context of a deep'goingcrisis, with all the social and political turmoil and upheavalthat characterizes a revolutionary situation. But, the pre'sent crisis, which has not yet approached such dimensions,may well do so in the coming period, providing the objec'tive basis for not only the minority of class-consciousworkers, but tens of millions more, representing the majori-ty, to act in a revolubionary way, at least out of the recogni-tion that their immediate conditions will not change for thebeiter except through the overthrow of the capitalistsystem.

How are we to understand the development and unfold-ing of such a situation? And what effect has the economiccrisis of the past period had on the consciousness of theworking class, broadly speaking? There are two sides tothis question. The continuing strength of the bourgeoisieshows up mainly in the form of its political and ideologicaldomination over the masses-in the general backwardnessof the working class as a whole, in the strong influence ofbackward ideas among the masses of workers and therelative influence of backward forces in the working class.To put it another way, it has not mainly been the recourseto force and suppression by the bourgeoisie that accountsfor the relabive inactivity of and confusion within the work-ing class, though this is obviously a factor of growing im'portance.

On the other hand, the material basis for this backward-ness and passivity-the ability of the bourgeoisie to deliverthe goods, so to speak-is being rapidly undercut. As we

AMERICA IN DECLINE

The Mood and Conditionsof the Masses

will see, even this has its contradictory consequences in thewillingness and capacity of the working class to raise itshead and act as a class with its own interests. Yet there aresome sections of the population whose backs are already tothe wall, whose conditions of life are intolerable and whosepotential for revolutionary activity right now is very great.There is, then, a process at work in which thebourgeoisification of the U.S. working class is breakingdown-this is connected with the international situationand crisis of the past decade-and bhis in itself will give riseto another leap, in the form of a depression or war(whichever comes first) which will thrust people into aneven more charged and radically different situation bhanhas been faced in the last 10 years. The contradictorytrends must be examined more closely.

The 1950s and 1960s were a period of rising expectationsand rising living standards for the majority of the workingclass. This could only be a temporary phenomenon and hadto give way eventually to a period characterized bysharpening attacks-economic as well as political-on theworking class in ibs majority. But this bribery was realenough, since real income rose and stabilized into the early1970s. Nevertheless, though this bourgeoisificaiion wastemporarily dominant, poverty and misery were ac'cumulating during the 1950s and 1960s right along with ib.

Mass rebellions among sections of the masses-especial-ly the oppressed minority nationalities-shook the UnitedStates during bhe 1960s. The character of that movementand the relationship of the working class to it was rooted inthe specific developments of the post-war period' The livesof Black people had changed enormously: they had comeNorth, off the farms and into the cities, as the capitalists

world-io the civil rights and then Black liberation strug-gles.

At the same time, the universities had opened up to largenumbers of youth in the 1950s and 1960s, due to thetechnical changes in the U.S. economy and the potentialdanger posed by "sputnik," A whole generation of youngpeople was affected by the experience of coming on to cam'puses and breathing the stench and hypocrisy of a societywhich promised them careers and rewarding lives; whatthey got was a demeaning and deadening education and theprospect of perhaps finding a slot in a man-eating andstultifying society. These were Chings being felt against thebackdrop of the rebellions of Black people and the war be-ing waged in Vietnam-and so there was rebellion among

17

the youth as well against the depredation of the"abundant" society.

Yet, by and large, the working class remained on the side-lines of these struggles. As summarized in an analysis ofthis period by the Revolutionary Communist Party, "whilemillions of workers hated the war, and many took part inactivities against it, this took piace almost entirely on an in-dividual basis, and the banner of the working class wasmostly absent from that struggle."' So, while workers didcome into this struggle, it was mainly students, young peo-ple and sections of the petty bourgeoisie bhat took up thisfight in an organized way. And, by the same token, theBlack liberation struggle-while it involved a much largernumber of workers, especially young Black workers-wasnot marked by the organized and class conscious participa-tion of the working class. This lack of a working classpresence meant that petty bourgeois ideology and otherharmful tendencies would be more difficult to combat inboth these movements. But the overriding question is not somuch the inherent limitations of these movements andstruggles, but rather, what was it that relegated the work-ing class to an indifferent or, at times, even hostile reactionto these upsurges? The answer runs bhrough most of whathas been said already. Apart, of course, from the treacheryof the "Communisrt" Party, USA and, consequently thefact that there was no political vanguard to articulate theinterests of the working class and galvanize it in revolu-bionary activity around these interests, it was the objectiveposition of the U.S. imperialists that enabled them to muz-zle bhe working class.

These mass movements, it is true, reached their heightsduring the late 1960s when the United States' uncontestedpower in the world was coming to an end. However, theU.S. imperialists were not powerless. They still had'reserves, the remaining strength to maintain social peace,as far as the working class in its great majority was con-cerned. The ruling class-and not without a consciousawareness-was able to keep the one force, the workingclass, that could truly alter the character of thesemovements from coming into its own, from coming to thefore of these movements, from playing the central anddecisive role it must historically play. In short, it was notthe intrinsic backwardness of American workers that led tothis situation, but the objective conditions bhat prevailedduring the time. The fact is that the working class did notendure great hardships; things were not so bad that theywere forced into action. The ruling class was able to makeconcessions, to throw some crurnbs to the workers preciselyat a time that U.S. socieby was in the midst of extraor-dinary political and social convulsions.

To sum up, these upsurges came at the end of a phase ofU.S. imperialist strength and unprecedented prosperitythat did trickle down to the working class. This was dialec-tically the beginning, or the harbinger, of a new period ofcrisis and war preparations, but the objective situation wasone in which the U.S. imperialists could still maneuver,even to the extent of withdrawing from Vietnam and mak-ing these concessions at home. The ruling class could notonly prevent the radicalization of the working class (whichit certainly feared like the plague), but could also use itsagents to organize the backward sections of the workingclass around reactionary positions and into reactionary ac-tivities exactly to demoralize others.

None of this denies the tremendously positive impact ofthese movements-they aroused the revolutionary sen-timents of millions and did, in fact, penetrate into the work-ing class, but they were not taken up and transformed bythe working class. There were, however, some interestingsigns of the times. It became increasingly common for

18

workers to seek out students; if only in a somewhat narrowsense of enlisting support on picket lines in economic slrug-gles. There was a perceived identity of interests. Too muchshould not be made of this, because it was far less commonfor these workers to come out to anti-war marches,although this, too, began to happen by the early 1970s. Yet,coming at the same time as reactionary "hard hat" attackson antiwar protesters, this indicated that the ice was beingbroken. The Richmond, California oil strike in 1969 and thenational GE strike of 1969-70 saw this activity reach moreorganized and politically advanced dimensions. Statementsin support of each others' struggles were drawn up in somecases, mass meetings in which bhe bigger questions of theday got discussed were held and there was a curiosity andalmost grudging respect among many of these workers forthe students.

The decade of the 1970s taken as a whole was one inwhich the optimism that many workers had in the futurewas shattered, especially by the middle of the decade. Upuntil then there was the increasing standard of living thathas been mentioned and the conviction that children wouldhave more opportunities than their parents did, and thateven for the current generation of workers things would im-prove from one year to the next. But then, a definite stagna-tion in people's living standards set in. The average realtake home pay of manufacturing workers with 3dependents rose a meager 0.3Vo per year during the periodof 1966-76 and this increase was virtually wiped out byhigher local and state income taxes through the early1970s.2 Spendable earnings after taxes actually showed adecline in 1979 over the previous year. What is calleddiscretionary income (this is money income left over afterexpenditures on food, shelter and other necessities) perworker has been falling since 1973. By the end of thedecade, the average American was spending 36Vo of hisdisposable income for housing, about twice as much as 10years prior.:] In fact, according to federal surveys, only lSVoof potential home buyers could meet typical monthlypayments. The New Yorh Times in its decadeend review ofthe 1970s could sum up that "virtually overnight, theAmerican dream of owning a home became a mere fanbasyfor many."o

Expectations were changing along with-and on accountof-changes in living habits. Consumption patterns began

water. But, and this is very important, if the decade of the19?0s was marked by these real changes in living standardsand by declining expectations, this was still largely withinthe framework of continuing secuity and stability, at leastfor he working class' It was afra on getting further entangl'ed than one job, where it waspossible, and having more than one wage-earner in the fami'ly. Table 2 shows 11.5 million families of productionworkers with both husband and wife working, and 8.5million with only one worker.

The sledding was tougher, people were struggling to holdon, more desperately trying to maintain certain living stan'dards, while some were losing out. The opportunities to getahead were severely restricted. The children of workerscould still go to college, though they were, in increasingnumbers, shunted off to community colleges, many of theseno more than high schools with ash trays. The majority ofthese students were programed for "failure"-tested andcounselled right back into the working class-and the

lifetime income advantage of these students over highschool graduates was hardly consequential.

The early 1970s witnessed a dramatic increase in strikeactivity. Postal workers struck for the first time and thefederal government called out the National Guard.Longshoremen on the West Coast effectively shub downport activity there. A wave of public employees sbrikesparalyzed several cities. The strikes were of longer durationin succeeding years and reached their peak, in terms of thenumber of stoppages, in 1974, This was the high watermark in post-war strike activity. What brought this on wasthe interaction of the first real deterioration in living stan-dards, particularly with bhe onset of inflation, and the spill-over effects of the turbulent social movements of the late1960s and early '70s. This was registered in the infusion ofoppressed minorities, youbh and Vietnam veterans into thework force who brought with t,hem a broader experienceand hatred for the system and a general rebelliousness. (SeeTable 3) There was a more insurgent mood in the coun-try-again not approaching that of a revolutionary situa-bion, but the dislocations of the 1960s did shake things up abit throughout society.

The situation was defined by increasing economic attacksby the capitalists; in sbronger language than had beenheard in decades, workers were being told that the pie wasnot getting any bigger. Productivity drives, various at-tacks on work rules, the beginnings of "take-aways," wherecertain cusbomary benefits or conditions of work were sub-jected bo renegotiation or withdrawal, became more fre-quent. Within the auto indusbry, some plans for reorganiza-tion and forced overtime bouched off local strikes. Publicworkers-who through the decade of the 1960s had achiev-ed unionization, in many cases, and made wagegains-were now being squeezed as the urban crisis (as partof the developing overall crisis) dictated layoffs and

changes in work rules.These were the early warning signs of the impending

downturn as the capitalists sought to compensate for fall-ing profits. Following an extended period of real wagegains, this tapering off of real incomes coupled with produc-tivity attacks (like forced overbime) propelled a militantreaction. Older workers responded along the lines of "howdare they" or "I've never seen things this bad before," Formany younger workers and veterans it was more an angryand defiant "fuck this shit." In fact, it was in the early1970s that the bourgeoisie took note of the phenomenon ofthe "new breed worker" in the coal fields or the auto plants,hateful and mistrusting of authority. There was somethingto it. At GM's Lordstown (a highly touted modernassembly plant), it book several years to impose labordiscipline on the youthful work force. In Detroit, the pro-blem of absenteeism and sabotage was commented uponwidely. Young Black workers were regarded as a source ofrestiveness on the job. Foreman-employee relations, the

Table 1 WEEKLY WAGES-PRODUCTION WORKERSAll non.government, non.supervisory workers

Gross Weekly Wages Spendable Weekly Wages(in 1967 dollars)

Worker with Worker with0 dependents 3 dependents

Currenldollars

1 967dollars

1 9501 9601 9651 9701 975

53.1380.6795.06

1 19.461 63.89

73.6990.95

1 00.59102.72101.67

63.8373.9583.5982.4982.34

72.1882.2591.3289.9590.53

Production workers in Manulacturing

'rgso1 9601 9651 9701 975

58.3289.72

107.521 33.731 90.51

80.89101.1 51 13.79'I 14.991 17.56

69.7181.8294.2691.8693.49

78.1790.32

102.4'l99.66

1 02.56

fable I source: Handbook ol Labor Statistics, 1979. pD 325.28, Table 98

Tab|e 2 MEDIAN AFTER.TAX EARNINGS OF PRODUCTION WORKERS 1973.77Number(millions) 1973 1977

% Change inreal earnings

-'1.30k

.1.5"/o

3.1"/".3.30/o

o.oo/"

CouplesBoth working

CouplesHusband working

Female lamily headsMale lamily headsUnrelated lndividuals

'I 1.5 s1 0,805 $1 4,538

s1 1.7938.5 $8.780

3.1 $3,813 $5,363.7 $6,840 $9,020

7.8 $4,430 $5,998

Table 2 source: Monlhly Labor Review, August 1979, pp 43-44, Tables 1-3

19

"blue-collar blues," etc. occupied the attention of some sec-tors of the bourgeoisie.

This was a bransitional situation. Workers' hands werebeing forced, but they regarded their current condition ofholding down a job and making ends meet-even if thismeant working overtime or a second job-as the principalaspect of their lives. It was strike activity, therefore, thatwas predicated on the experiences ofthe 1960s-that it waspossible to secure more in the way of benefits and, at thevery least, hold the line against lhese attacks. You couldalmost afford to be defiant-for the great majority of jobscould still be gotten (actually, it was not uncommon foryoung workers in auto plants to be fired one day and gethired on ab another plant the next). To some degtee theold-line union leadership was losing credibility. Within themass unionized industries, these strikes resulted in somewage gains and expanded fringe benefits.

There were some struggles which went beyond theconventional bounds of strike roubine. The miners hadengaged in a powerful strike movement beginning in thelate 1960s, which persisted through much of the '70s. Whilethey were subject to the same influences that have beendescribed, particularly the introduction of Vietnamveterans into the work force, there were also some specialcondibions faced by miners. The '50s were not a period ofboom for the coal industry. Thousands of jobs had beenwiped out by mechanization, while pensioners, widows anddisabled miners were living at barely subsistence levels.Black lung disease and unsafe working conditions grewworse with the spread of mechanization, and when the in-dustry picked up in the 1960s the kettle boiled over-astrike and wildcat movement which cut deeply into coaloperators' profits and became an inspiration to workersthroughout the country, Yet and still, this was conductedwithin a trade unionist framework ("we miners vs. the coalbosses"). By the middle 1970s it began to run up againstthe limits of spontaneity that marked it from bhe begin-ning: knee-jerk resistance to economic attacks by the coaloperators which, though powerful and significant in themilitancy of the rank and file, could not susiain a move-ment as workers saw that what was won was being snatchedback in other ways. This struggle, in itself, was not adequateto train and educate workers to their larger and more long-term interests in taking on oppression in all its forms, inmaking revolution.

As the crisis deepened and the capitalist class was moredeeply torn by conflicting interests, a severe recession hitthe coalfields, which had been sheltered somewhat from themass unemployment of the downturn of 1974-75. Therervere a number of mine-closings and shutdowns;unemployment in the coalfields increased markedly, whilethe coal operators seized on the situation to tighten theclamps on those still working and intensify attempts to"boost productivity." The given orientation of fighting

from on the job and with the prospect of wage increaseswas even less able to sustain a movement.

Nevertheless, the experiences and the limitations of theminers' struggle were object lessons for the whole workingclass. The early 1970s also saw bhe upsurge of the farm'workers movement, which was conditioned by the savageexploitation in the fields and the general oppression of theChicano people. This struggle, too, in ibs intensity and someof the broader'questions it threw up about what was goingon in society took on greater significance.

lhe downturn of L974-75 hit the working class like aI tornado. Specifically, the ranks of the industrial

reserve army swelled to proportions unseen in the UnitedStates since the Great Depression of the 1930s. And whilethere was some recovery from the depths of bhe contradic-tion which hit in the early part of 1975, and some reductionin unemployment for some sections of the working class,there was no recovery at all for the masses of Black peopleand other oppressed nationalities. And overall the course ofthe crisis since 1974-75 has left its mark on the shiftingmood of the masses.

By the first quarter of 1975, 2.3 million fewer personswere employed than in the third quarter of 197 4.8.2 millionworkers by mid-1975 were officially counted as unemploy-ed, compared to 4.3 million workers during 1973. Theunemployment rate shot up to a posb-war high of 8.9Vo dur'ing the second quarter of 1975, and 8.5Vo for the year'saverage." The massive layoffs spread across all industriesas the crisis deepened, especially the manufacturing andgoods-producing industries. Construction workers were thehardest hit. At one point, more than 1 out of 5 constructionworkers were on the unemployment lines-or at least out ofa job. Manufacturing unemployment rose to a posb-warhigh of l2.2Vo in the second quarter of. 1975. By March,13.27o of durable goods industrial workers wereunemployed. "Blue collar" unemployment (manufacturing,construction, mining and transportation) more thandoubled-from its 5.37o level in 1973 to l2.9Vo by the sec-ond quarter of 1975."

It was the tremendous magnitude of unemployment,more than anything else, that unsettled people's livesdramatically, 21,1 million workers who either worked orIooked for work in 1975 experienced some unemploymentduring that year. In other words, more than one out ofeuery fiue worhers experienced a spelL of unemploymentin 1975.7 Of those who had worked during 1975, over7.7 million were out of work for more bhan 15 weeks, while3.4 million were on the unemployment lines for over half theyear." For the first bime since 1957-58-and even thatperiod pales in significance beside the 1974-75downturn-the more stably employed, high seniorityworkers were facing unemployment. Nearly 2AVo of the7.83million unemployed in 1975 ("officially listed") were adult

Table 3 VIETNAM.ERA MALE VETS, 20.34 YEARS OLD, lN THE WORKING CLASS

.Number. . whire t'Xil"l"' ,dr1';":i 3iL,

It!o!::.41_ minoritiesr in this occuparionOperatives and

LaborersCraltSeryiceClerical and SalesFarmworkers

1,486.0 1,297 .2

1,231.5 1,144.4157.8 't29.7

1 90.1

83.428.3

28.7o/o

33.60h19.5%

549.6 486.5 62.0 32.20/"81.4 78.8 3.2 15-90/"

Total Working Class 3,506.3 3,136.3 367.0 29.syo

Table 3 source: Monthly Labor Review, August 1974, pp 23, Table 5'According to the Bureau ol Labor Slatistics, the calegory "Black and other minorities" includes 9070 Blacks,lhe other 107. being Nalive Americans and Asian Americans "Spanish surname" persons are included in thecategory "while "

20

men in the prime working ages of 25 to 44 years old-thiswas the highest percentage in the period since the SecondWorld War.' At certain points virtually entire industrieswere at a standstill. Workers with 3, 5, 10 years senioritywere given indefinite layoff slips, and as the crisis deepenedthrough 1975, bankruptcies multiplied, leaving workerswith 20, 30 years on the job completely jobless and oftenwithout pensions.

Cities like Detroit, where the pivobal automobile industryis concentrated, book the brunt of the swelling of the ranksof the unemployed, The level of unemployment in Detroitsoared from a low poinb of 101,600 (or 5.4Vol in November1973, during the boom in car production, to 315,300, or overL57o,by March 1975, as inventories piled up and factoriesshut down. "' The unemployed lined up inside and often out-side the unemployment offices in numbers reminiscent ofthe Depression of the 1930s. In bhe inner cities, the rate ofunemployment reached Depression levels.

These statistics indicate the two-fold impact of the crisis'On the one hand, many workers who thought they had "jobsecurity" and were counting on their seniority to carrythem through thick and thin found it ripped out from underthem. It was, it might be accurately said, a traumatic ex-

buses ferried workers-among whom were many of theolder workers wibh more time-from the East Coast andMidwest. The hacks had orchestrated the event both tocool out the workers and parade their favorite Democraticsaviors and hopefuls along with their gtab'bag oflegislative reforms. They were met, however, bypandemonium and near-riot conditions from the crowd; theold "liberal-labor" warhorse himself, Hubert Humphrey,was shouted and booed down. In New York City, aroundbhe same time, 10,000 construciion workers shut down citystreets and bridges in protest over the loss of jobs. Thisscene would be repeated several bimes in obher cities duringthis period. trn short, bhe immediate response of thoseworkers in the more highly paid and highly socialized in-dusbries (bhis latter condition in particular obviouslydoesn't apply to the construction workers) was an indig'nant and, occasionally, active one-or at Ieast a receptivityto collective action.

At the same time, the situation worsened gravely forminorities and youth. The crisis of 197 4-7 5 compounded thelonger-term trends. The labor market prospects of manyyoung Black men were so bleak by then that many per'manently dropped out of the conventionally measuredlabor force. Government data reveals that the proportion ofBlack male teenagers wiih work experience over any givenyear fell from 67 .37o in 1966 to 47 .2Vo in 1977.r ' The trendwas just as pronounced for those in the 20'24 age bracket.Many of those people who were working part'time jobs,who were coming in and out of the work force irregularly,mothers on welfare, disabled older workers, and the youth,were pressed hard. Widespread incidents of people fteezingto death, of starvation, the further spread of prostitutionand dope and so-called "survival crimes" were accom-paniments to the downturn. This was mosb pronouncedamong bhe bottom layer of the unemployed, the urban poorwho were concentrated in the ghettos. From among manyof these people came the 30,000 persons who applied formany fewer jobs at the Plaza Hotel in the new RenaissanceCenter in Detroit, lining up by the thousands for severaldays running. Again in Detroit, 5000 unemployed showedup at a Cadillac plant one morning on the rumor that ap-plications would be given out. Hundreds had slept there

Doors," etc.

T\espiie the jolts experienced by tens of millions ofLl workers in the years 1974 urrd tgZe and the initialreactions of rage, there was no gathering storm ofresistance to speak of. If anythingset in, especially among some of thThis was nob across the boardcharacterized the ensuing years was a settling in, an adjust-ment to a new situation, There was not a sense among thebasic sections of the proletariat that they had nothing tolose-although for some in fact this was quite immediatelyand materially the condition of their lives and bhey tendedto look at things somewhat differently. Rather, amongIarge sections of the working class it became a question ofhow to hold on to what you have, how to scramble through'how [o put off paying bills, how to bend and gyrate to pro-tect the little security and comfort that was left.

There were real things going on throughout society whichreinforced this, First, bhere was the partial recovery' Thenature of this recovery has been analyzed in the precedingchapter, but for now a few things must be said. Many ofthese laid-off workers in basic industry were cushioned byunemployment and supplementary unemploymentbenefits. 75Vo of the unemployed in 1975 claimedunemployment insurance-this reflected the'higher propor-

bourgeoisie. By 1977 1.6 million jobs had been recoveredsince the high point of the downturn-but still there weremore bhan 500,000 more unemployed than in 1973. Due to aspurted bythe mfewerperiod preceding the downturn.ts In other words, there wasiecovery, but not so much of a recovery. Between June1977 and June 19?8 the rate of unemployment decreasedfrom about 7Vo to 6Vo and from then to the end of 1979' therate has fluctuated between 5.7 and 5.9Vo.'a Also, quiteclearly in response to the initial outrage over unemploy'

21

ment and the political danger it posed, the bourgeoisie hadembarked on an inflationary stimulus program which in-cluded the creation of federally funded jobs. These pro-grams were employing upwards of 750,000 people.ti

What was going on, then, was thab people in basic in-dustry were being recalled, but the continuing existence offairly high unemployment acted as a reminder in effect tomany that things could be worse. Some of the phenomenaof the early 1970s that have been described were temporari-ly turned into their opposite. For example, where new hirescame into basic industry (there was some stepped up hiringin auto and steel during the recovery years 1975-78) manyof the young among them were practically grateful for ajob. Overtime was something that people looked for-andquite obviously had no other choice if they were going toget by. Since there had been no large-scale social movementerupting out of the contraction of 1974-75 and since therewere still some props left, some life rafts to cling to, therewas a tendency to seek out "practical" and individual solu-tions to problems. This was reinforced by the general tackof the bourgeoisie, which was not to launch a full-scaleassault on the living standards of the working class. Therewere the jobs programs, but also the credit expansion thatunderwrote the recovery. 1976 and 1977 were banner yearsfor auto production. And people, including workers, con-tinued to buy cars. Overall lhe rate of savings fell Lo abotLSVoof disposable incorne as the 1980s opened, and installmentdebt as a percent of disposable income rose to an un-precedented l8.4Vott Since the downturn, consumer debthas been growing at a rate 50Vo f.aster than the growth inpersonal income.tT And so, while repossessions were morethe order of the day, it was still possible to open new lines ofcredit. How tenuous all this is and where it may lead will bediscussed later,

The bourgeoisie did not launch a new wage-price programin the wake of the downturn-in part summing up the reac-tion to the wageprice controls of 1971, which were a factorin the strike wave of L973-74, but also because the effec-tiveness of these and other measures was questionablegiven the depths of the crisis. There were some heavy at-tacks levelled on workers, but they tended to be selective:in the rubber industry, construction, meatpacking. Thesedid touch off some militant battles. It is not the case thatthings were peaches and cream elsewhere; accident ratesshowed an increase in many industries in these years of so-called recovery, for instance. But there was no concerted of-fensive to depress wages and working conditions. The par-tial recovery had the effect of increasing the stratificationwithin the working class-between those who continued towork and eke out an existence and those on the marg'ins ofthe labor force-the burgeoning welfare or "underclass"-and there were the differences in attitudes among sectionsof the young workers, trying to get started, and the olderworkers, trying to hang on.

Perhaps a microcosm of the degree to which the condi-tions of life of the more socialized and highly paid sectionsof the working class have been jostled and upended by thecrisis, but where some margin-and an increasingly slimone at that-of readjustment remains, can be found in thesituation of steelworkers in Youngstown, Ohio. Here is acity that has been devastated by two major shutdowns, thefirst costing some 4000 jobs in 1977 and the second an additional 3500 jobs. A steelworker after five years on the jobmight be earning more than $16,000, depending on his orher position and amount of overtime. In addition, therewere fringe benefits like life insurance, pension, denbal plan,discount on prescription drugs and scholarships for part-time atbendance at college. These were the things that atonce made up for the dirty and dangerous work that was

22

life for a steelworker (not to mention the rotating shifts)and afforded workers a measure of security. In cities likeYoungstown it was literally the case that generation upongeneration would organize their lives around the mills-just about everybody who lived in the area worked there orhad a relative who did. When the announcement of the firstshutdown came down, a group of open-hearth workers whohad only recently been awarded jackets for setting new ton-nage records went out to the river bhat was oozing with thepollubants the mills dumped into it and threw their jacketsin. It was a metaphor of how people felt: cheated androbbed, Iied to and deceived. There was an inibial flurry ofactivity-demonstrations and a few job actions. Much ofthis was channeled inbo dead-end and bogus schemes to buythe mill. Those still working in the other mills were equallysbunned, and the question bhat hung over people's headswas, "Will it or will it not happen here?" The sense of per-manence, that there would be a future in these steel mills,was shatiered.

But what became of those who lost their jobs? Many in-itially qualified for federal import relief pay. Most creditorsin the city temporarily extended and renegotiated variouscredit arrangements. A Youngstown State Universitystudy showed that among the former Sheet & Tubeemployees 1000 took early retirement, 1500 found jobs inobher industries, services and trades in t'he district' 800moved away, while another 800 or so were unemployed or intraining for other jobs (which basically amounted to beingunemployed).'* While perhaps 30Vo of. those laid off foundother work, for mosb of them the change meant beingunderemployed and earning considerably less; for thosewho were working at all, the average pay was more in therange of $10,000. The effects were different for differentaged workers. Those with 20 or 30 years seniority, maybe intheir mid-40s or early 50s and some with children still athome, would have a harder time picking up and leaving orgetting another job. At the same time, not all of them wereable to go onto social security or collect pensions. For manyof the younger men it meant seeing wives go off to work'and it was mainly among these workers that houses werelosb or sold. But selling a house was no easy matter, giventhe conditions in the area. Actually the loss of tax revenuesfrom the mills forced cuts and belt-tightening in the schoolsin the small towns in which the mills were located. Whatprincipally characterized the experiences and reaction ofthose who lost their jobs was a recycling into lower-payingjobs, a kind of fateful resignation among the olderworkers-which prompted early retiremeni where

fact that a second major shutdown took place and unem-ployment in the area was approaching l|Vo made this less

of an option at the beginning of 1980. This occurred as theeconomy was eniering another recession and the room tomaneuver and get by wa ven these ex-pectations were dashed probably ac-

counted for bhe more mili as evidencedin several demonstrations and job actions.

Averall in the U.S. 1974-75 was a watershed. It wasLl possible bo discern the outlines of a major social crisisin the massive layoffs and the shocks felt throughout socie-ty. For a brief period, routine and convention in the masses'lives, especially the more strategically situated in the work'ing class, was no longer so certain or desirable. To many itbecame more dangerous not io act than to sit back and letthings take their own course. That no real upsurge materia-

lized does not detract from the significance of what washappening to people and how they began to perceive thingsdifferently. No doubt many within the working class feltand feel that they have a lot of things, more than theirparents, certainly more than people in other countries. Butpeople also realized just how wobbly and fragile it all was.

Which brings us back to the question of impoverishment,People have not in their tens of millions been crushed andground down. What really exists are ropes around people'snecks, Iike credit, and if there is a real collapse-which, asexplained in this book, is a distinct possibility-then the ef-fect on people's lives could be more devastating than theDepression, since Iiving standards in this country are an-chored in credit, fringe benefits, government programs andassistance. Everything bhat has enabled people to hang oncan become the hangman's rope. It becomes apparent howprecarious it all is whenever workers go on strike and in afew months' time face the prospect of losing their homes. Itbecomes apparent when a job is Iost and with it health in-surance. It becomes a vicious cycle: a person may beoverextended due to easy credit only to find himselfor herself wibhoub any incorne bo retire these debts, due toillness or Ioss of job. Or, reversing the situation, a personmay begin to over-depend on easy credit after suffering areal hardship. One account of a typical bankrupbcy in bhisperiod is worLh reproducing:

"She hung her head and spoke so softly that her voicewas barely audible in the dingy bankruptcy courtroom. . ..Yes she was still working as a telephone operabor and earn-ed $ 13,000 a year . No, she had nobhing of value aside from afew articles of clothing. The plumbing backup that floodedher apartment with sewage had left all her possessions un-fit for use. Even before the accident, Estelle was Iivingperilously beyond her means. Despite her modest salary,she owed a total of $10,352 to 12 creditors, mostly depart-ment store and bank credit card accounts. . . She owedmore than $4500 on just one of her Visa cards . . and wasbehind on her rent and telephone bill. Nonetheless, Estellehad managed to stay one step ahead of the collection agen-cy by nimbly juggling her meager resources, But her houseof credit cards collapsed after the apartment flood. Hersalary was attached by a creditor and-as have hundreds ofthousands of other over-burdened consumers-Estelle filedfor bankruptcy."rt'

By no means exceptional. This is New York. In Youngs-town, a parking lot attendant says that before the millshutdolvns, ihe lot was always filled up. Now this is bhecase only on Mondays-when bankruptcy court is in ses-sion. It should be pointed out that new bankruptcy stabutesallow for repayment over time as opposed to outright liquidation. This is the product of the continuing pyramidingof credit. But with consumers unable to pay their debts andlending institutions impaled bebween delinquent accountsand very thin profit margins (the difference between whatthey pay for money and charge for its use), this can only goon for so long. While there has been and will continue to bea gradual erosion of the living standards of the U,S. work-ing class, it is the prospect of a collapse that will sendthings reeling. The various means by which the masseshave been able to "hold on" are being pressed to the limit.As of 1977, more than 40Vo of. all homebuyers were familiesin which a second wage owner contributed anywhere from20Vo to 50Vo of. total family income.'" The ability of wives,however, to supplement the incomes of two-spouse familieshas more or less reached a plateau: earnings are not risingand these jobs, themselves, are quite insecure, Teen-agechildren can be sent into the work force, but that is anotherstory in itself, what with unemployment rates among youth

at extraordinary levelsThe rising ,oir-" of credit obligations (bank credit card

volume was triple what it was in 1974 by late 1979) putstremendous pressures on consumers whose wage andsalary increments are less than the credit they have takenon. The result has not only been a rise in delinquencies, thesort of thing described in the account of ihe yourrg wou*rEn,but a tightening up: financial subsidiaries have begun topare down the number of stores and purchases theyfinance, many department stores have raised minimummonthly paymenbs, and savings banks and credit unionshave periodically experienced disturbances such as bigwithdrawals, new cash reserve requirements, and anoutflow of funds to other markets, all of which limits theirlending capacity. The point is that already the debt whichhas propped up consumer spending is stretched thin, andtighter money supply policies and attempts by lending in-stitubions to minimize losses have put a crimp on suchspending and resulted in a tremendous increase in personalbankruptcies. But this, again, is nothing compared to whatwill happen when bhere is another precipitous down-turn-with more thrown out of work than in 1974-75. Thereis an increasing vulnerability and sensitivity of the massesof people in this country to any radical change in the condi-tions in which they get by-tenuous as they are. Millionswill be pushed into bankruptcy-and, yes, impoverishment.

Take the case of housing, again. If some internationalevenb, political or otherwise, touches off a round of bankingfailures and a massive scramble on the part of banks forcash and liquid assets, what will the average homeowner befaced with? \{ith a demand to pay a higher rate of interest?Not likely. Rabher, homeowners who default on payments(which is bound to become more frequent) will be con-fronted with demands for repayment of their entire mortga-ges. But housing prices will probably decline, and quiteviolently at that. So people who have been making $400monthly payments for years will find their home invest-ment wiped out. It is a situation which has been preparedexactly by the artificial stimulation of home purchasesthrough the extension of government-backed credit.

The very things that have enabled people to hold on andwhich were in some respects expanded during lhe'74:75decline will no longer provide the cushion they once did. Itis an open secret that the Supplemental UnemploymentBenefit funds for auto workers will not be able to sustain alarge number of laid-off workers for any extended time-these funds are vastly inadequate. Exercising the option ofearly retirempnt when a plant shuts down will be less feasi-ble when the investments into which these pension fundshave _collapsed. As it is, and this was pointed out in thesection on banking, pension funds (which are managed by arelative handful of banks) now own between 20Vo and257o

23

of all stocks, and about 4OVo of. corporate bonds, hardly alow-risk preserve for what are supposr,d to be deferredwages. And, anyway, the Department oI Labor estimatesthat less than half of those covered by these plans will eversee these benefits, because of certain stringent stipula-tions.2' In addition, the financial foundation of the socialsecurity system is already quite unsteady. The mountingdeficits of the government and the pressures on the dollarinternationally, which had their origins partly in thestimulus of the last few years, will act to constrain thebourgeoisie from undertaking another such stimulus. Un-employment and welfare benefits cannot be maintained onthe same scale, much less extended to provide for millionsthrown out of work, when ballooning debt and inflation arepushing the economy inexorably toward such a breakdown.In other words, what the future holds out is not a mere con-traction of credit, i.e., that it will be more difficult tofinance or refinance purchases, but a disintegration andwrenching of the entire structure. The house of cards imageis an apt one. Things don't just get progressively worse,they undergo qualitative change.

Being entangled and enmeshed in this debt cannot bereduced to the number of bad debts or the shrinking or ex-panding of the merchant-customer base. It takes a toll onhow people scrape to live, on social relations. The truth ofthe matter is that people realize not only how precariouswhat they have is, but also how nightmarish and pressureridden it is to keep it. A woman's husband loses his job atan auto plant; they are up to their necks in debh she drivesher car, with her children inside, into a river-they are deadon arrival at a city hospital. It happened in Cleveland, butit is not unique. What happens to people? David Caplovitzin his highly original study'2 describes the daily degrada-tion. Wages and salaries are garnished. Often employersput pressure on employees to settle their debts or face theimminent loss of their job. Job insecurity grows. In casestudies of three cilies,207o of the employed lost at least oneday of work because of the debt problem-absenteeism toresolve the accumulation of debt-related difficulties. Thosewho lose their jobs because of debt burdens must thenweave their way through the unemployment and welfarebureaucracies-first of all, just in the attempt to qualify.And quite clearly the constant scrambling and jockeyinghas an impact on people's mental and physical health.Caplovitz conducted interviews concerning psychosomaticailments like insomnia, stomach upsets, headaches, ner-vousness, and loss of appetite. Over half of the debtors in-terviewed acknowledged having at least two of these symp-toms in the past month. One of those interviewed ex-plained, and this is by no means exceptional:

"You know I live alone and I've been separated from myhusband for 20 years and it's lonely so you buy something

here or there on credit. You have to brighten up your life abit. There was one point there when all the bills and debtsseemed to be closing in on me. I had no one to turn to, and Ihad a nervous breakdown."'''

The threat to income that debt represents impairs not onlyhealth, bub marriage and personal stability as well. Count-less surveys show that debt troubles lead to marital quar-rels and stress, and they have become a major factor indivorce:

"I've had debt problems with him ever since I married him.He never wanted to pay his bills. We fought like cabs anddogs, day and night. I'd have bo call him at work to tell himthe lights were turned off. I'm so glad he's gone."'a

The maze of debt obligations people enter into-monthlypayments, late payment fees, hidden fees-all this pressesagainst people's financial capabilities, and bheie is anundeniable cutting back: denbal or medical care is put off,recreabional activities (perhaps one of the few bright spotsin someone's life) are curtailed, and even food expendiburesare roped in,

In general, the quality of life deteriorates with thedevelopment of capitalism into its final stage-decadent,moribund imperialism. Vital activity gives way to stag:na-tion and degeneracy. The experience of the "growth" in-dustries cited in the chapter on accumulation are testamentto this. But so are some of the more sub rosa enterprises:the booming child pornography industry, in addition toother similar degtadation of adults, multibillion dollardrug trafficking and widespread beenage prosbitution.

f\ertain aspects of social life stand out in this period. The\-r, search for security in the face of economic uncertain-ty, frustrated aspirations, and social degradation has led toa discernible rise in religious activity. This is quite pro-nounced and takes more fanatical forms among sections ofthe petty bourgeoisie, with various cults, gurus and otherassorted "saviors" who make a careei out of turning many,especially the youth, into mindless zealots and robots. Butwithin the working class, including those whose conditionsof life are extremely desperate, religion has been sought outas an escape as well. This is not necessarily reflected inregular church attendance or affiliabion wiih organizedreligious denominations, but in more widespread accep-tance of "fate," attempts to explain current events byrecourse to Biblical "prophesies," e.9., "the end of theworld is near and has been pre-ordained," and the spread ofmysticism, astrology and metaphysics in general. In theghettos, storefront churches continue to proliferate, in thefactories self-styled ministers and messengers distribute bi-ble tracts, and on TV religious programming has grown as

Table 4

1960 1970 1975

ffi 2.2 3.s 4.8

Families headed by women (millions)

Black and other mino.ity (excludingHispanic ) lemale head (7o)

Births lo unwed mothers (1000s)

Public expendilure for lawentorcement ($ billions)

"police proteclion" ($ billions)crimes ('1000)

crimes per 100 peoplehomicides (1000)police employees (1000)

4.5

22.4

2243.3

2.03,384

1.99.1

303.8

8.6

5.1

8,0984.0

16.0449.7

7.2

32.4

448

17.2

9.81 0,253

5.320.5

556.8

5.6

26.7

399

24

Table 4 source: U.S. Bureau ol Census, The Slatistical Abslracl ol the Uniisd States, l977, pp xvii-xix

slick as it is pervasive. This points to the hand of the bour-geoisie, but the flight to religion, while definitely promotedby the bourgeoisie, is also a barometer of the conservativetrend that set in during the 1970s.

Anobher trend, is the splitting up of the family delineatedin Table 4. More than twice as many adults are divorced to-day as in 1960. Today there are 7.5 million female heads ofhouseholds compared with 4.5 million in 1960. A full one-third of Black families are headed by women today. Twiceas many births to unwed women take place today as com-pared with 1960. Among Black people this is related to thesituation that drove them into the cities in the post-warperiod to face chronic unemployment and squalid livingconditions which destabilized people's lives, a sibuationhardly mitigated by a welfare system that would makepayments only if it could be established that there was nogainfully employed head of household.

A second marked trend which can be discerned from this

The rise of crime is also a reflection of these conditions.

the masses are the chief victims as an excuse to send theirmarauding armies of police into the communities. At the

cra5 cgg."2r>

he masses, then, is that the majori-s living, as it were, on the precipice:by the skin of their teeth. Illusions

are-stripped away as the opportunities to get ahead dry upand the effectiveness of seeking out individual solutionsdiminishes with the deepening of the crisis. This is whatcan be True enough,some c ang loose for awhile. tinual ,,shake-o grabu longP d,ash itha

is why the experience of. 1974-7b,tections, like seniority, no longer af-e of security, was a bellwetier. To

put it bluntly, the present existence of the masses is reallyquite untenable, based as it is on this partial recovery andthe cushions, like debt. Moreover, the conditions for someare highly volatile right now, with intense and grindingpoverty and very little in the way of temporary band'aids.For all, the quality of life is rapidly deteriorating, even ifthere is some tinsel and lace to cover it up. In a certainsense, just as the bourgeoisie is juggling to keep theirsystem afloat, so too are people forced to do many things atonce-holding down a job, putting off creditors, borrowinghere and there, maybe selling a house, etc.-to stay afloat.

ut ib is not just an economic collapse which is on thehorizon. It is not just a financial debacle that will

make it impossible for the federal government to fund jobsprograms and more decisively burst the credit balloon andresult in far more serious material losses for the masses.Something else is looming on the horizon-and that isworld war. The forces propelling war are gathering quickly.The superpowers can scarcely conceal it, and they less frequently make the pretense-beneath their pious talk ofdetente or human rights. Soviet airlifts make their way toAfghanistan, U.S. naval squadrons steam up the PersianGulf. The preliminary moves can be seen, bhe opening shotscan be heard. And the tempo is picking up daily. The super-powers do not go to war because they want to; it is not thatthey are driven by malevolence. They are driven by necessi'ty. Who strikes firsi and where is of secondary importance,even to them-to the proletariat it is of no importance atall. But that there will be a first strike within the next fewyears is what lends urgency to the situation.

The ruling class in nurturing war fever presents peoplewith the lesser-evil ultimatum: "sure things are messed uphere, we have our slums and unemployment, but at leastyou have your freedom to travel around, to go out to eat, tohave your own car and color TV and enjoy a high standardof living." Naturally, in the Soviet Union, the social-im-perialists make a similar case: "sure we have our problems,shortages of some consumer goods and private housing,but at least people can retire with dignity, not worry aboutmedical care and be more assured that their children willhave a job and education." Such demagoguery has un-limited potential. It iu the tired old refrain of slavemastersthroughout history-"things could be a lob worse for you onsome other plantation." But to accept this framework-dndhere it is no longer simply a matter of putting up with op-pression, but fighting and dying for the furtherance ofslavery-of whether workers in the United States get morecrumbs off the table than do workers in the Soviet Union orwhether Blacks are more or less oppressed than centralAsian peoples in the Soviet Union is pure poison. It is thepathetic reasoning of a slave who will remain a slave. And,

25

beyond this, whether the case is made for the relative ad-vantages on the Soviet or U.S. side, it is completelychauvinist because, in fact, these crumbs and bribes, b'ebhey higher wages or "socialized medicine," have been bledfrom the people of the world. ap-proach things this way then uldnob be the unmitigated dis ourrulers. After all, extending the argument of higher livingstandards to its logical conclusion, the Soviets might getenough productive forces and conquer enough of the worldto bhrow a few more bones (in the way of social benefits) toAmerican workers and, who knows, even allow them toshoob their mouths off. The point of this is not thab theSoviet social-imperialists are any better-or worse-thanthe U.S. imperialists, but that both are intolerable andmust be overthrown.

There is a great deal of confusion, much of which is sownby ihe bourgeoisie, among the masses on the question ofwar. Mosi people in this country have only experienced warindirectly-through a relative or friend who has servedabroad or through those from abroad who have settled inthis country. Several million, of course, have been in thearmed forces and altogether have the direct experiences oftwo world wars, Korea and Vietnam. But these wars havealways been fought somewhere else. The chauvinist song"O,irer There, the Yanks are Coming," at least has the meritof expressing bhe objective position of U.S. imperialismbhrough the past two world wars: it was the U.S. armedforces thai were going "over there" to clean up or bo defendthe spoils of wars fought abroad. The hardships suffered bypeople in the United States during these wars were realenough, but scarcely comparable to those who lived incountries which were turned into bloody battlegrounds oreven testing grounds by the imperialists. World War 2 inthis country was synonymous with rationing, victorygardens, Ionger working hours and, of course, reports fromthe battle lines; it was more an inconvenience than thedislocabion and terror of war. The caskebs came back, butthe streets were not piled high wibh corpses from theravages of war. Total U.S. casualties during World War 2were just over one million, Iess than half of which weredeaths.2'r In absolute and percentage terms this was a smallfraction compared to the casualties in Europe and Asia.

The fact, that these wars have been fought elsewhere, andthat the United States had gained from bhem in itsstrength and posibion without suffering material damage,fuels the idea held by many among the masses that, maybe,a war is jusb what is needed to revive the economy. Thisdivides into two. There is a recog'nition bhat wars and theeconomic system are interlocked, and that when things getbad the capitalists prepare for war. (However, of course, thecapitalists do not go bo war simply to rev up the economy:wars of aggression are launched to put down challenges toan empire, such as in Vietnam, and world wars are causedby inter-imperialist rivalry and the need to re-divide theworld.) On the other hand, there is the illusion that thingswill necessarily get better for people with the economicstimulus of war. In the past there has been truth to this;but things will not be the same bhis time around. The kindof war shaping up will directly affect the lives of tens ofmillions in this country and it won't just be in the highercasualty figures.

A poinb which is made throughoub this book is that the

26

[ion. And now, wibh a rival in the Soviet Union challengingib bhroughout bhe world, the U.S. musb play the decisiverole in organizing and preparing ils bloc for war. It cannobscubtle the preliminary skirmishes or leb obhers do ihefighting and wear themselves out; bhe reason is quibe sim-ple: ib is U.S. imperialisb interests which are directly abstake and which are threabened. And because it has built upa far-flung empire, losses tend to reverberabe. The Soviebs,if they are bo build up an empire, musi collide with bhe U.S.imperialists-which is whab has been happening. If bhey areto succeed, they must thoroughly vanquish the U.S. im-perialists, and bhis will require, ultimately, that the U.S. im-perialists be defeated in their own backyard, even if the warbegins and is foughi elsewhere for a period.

The U.S. imperialisbs are no less compelled lo brouncetheir rival in order to probect and expand their empire ofplunder. The megabonnage is there, Lhe monstrously ac-curate bechnologies have been developed, and the targetsare pre-planned. The scenarios and contingency operationson bobh sides bake as their point of departure destrucbionand atbacks on each other's soil. The Department ofDefense has undertaken several studies which coollycalculate how many millions of lives in lhe Unibed Sba[escan be spared, how many can be evacua[ed, and in whaLspace of bime-for purposes of winning [he war.

What will ib mean for a third world war to bake place andhow will it affecb the lives of the masses? Firsl there is thequestion of the preparations for war-politically andeconomically. The ruling class will not be in as strong aposition economically going inlo bhis war as in the previoustwo world wars (because of bheir international en-tanglements). The main reason for this is the high degree ofintegrabion of the U.S. economy wibh the resb of lhe blocthat it conbrols and the burden the U.S. has of shoring it upto avoid collapse. It is a two-way street: the UniLed SLaiesis neither insulated from the disturbances bhat aremultiplying throughoub its bloc nor in a position todestabilize ib further with expansive and inflationarypolicies. Concrebely, this means that it will be harder for theU.S. ruling class to make concessions and accommodationsto lhe working class as parb of ibs drive to seal some sort ofnational unity.

To be sure, crumbs will still be thrown to a number ofworkers, but lhis will be in bhe conbext of a much tighbersqueeze on bhe living and working conditions of the masses;these crumbs will be offered up much more direcbly and ex-plicitly as rewards for loyalty and productivity. In addi-bion, laying the economic foundations to prosecuie a war of[he dimensions that is shaping up requires more centralizedcontrol over labor and resources, and while there may noibe a return in form bo the wage/price boards and panels ofbhe early 1970s, workers will be subject bo control and coer-cion on a scale that will mos[ cerbainly exceed that of bheprevious bwo world wars. The gas shortages of [he last fewyears are but a faint prefiguring of what will be happening.Working and driving hours will only be one aspect of peo-ple's lives that will be s[rictly regulated. A war economy ina country which is not only in the grips of a major crisis butvery much at center stage of bhe internabional conbradic-tions propelling this war will force a rather sharp turn inthe kind of life people have been accustomed to: from thefurther restric[ions in availability and distribuiion of basicnecessities to an imposed labor discipline which few haveexperienced.

Politically, the ruling class has already revealed thelengths to which it must go to rally public opinion and in-timidate opposition to its war plans. The hysteria whippedup around Iran and the Soviet invasion of Afghanisbanwere merely the opening shobs. If people are to be press-

ganged into lhe mosb devastating war in hisbory, bhen it isabsolutely essential that the right climate be creabed. Theimperatives of the ruling class were spelled out candidly inthe somewhat infamous "Eisenstad[ Memo" of 197g. Thiswas the sage advice from an advisor [o Presiden[ Carter boquickly find some oubleb for the frusbrabion and anger of lhemasses, to seek out some scapegoab which was named andlaber invoked-bhe oil-producing countries. Here again, bheenormity of the crimes bo be commibbed by the U.S. im-perialists in launching and attempting io win this war willrequire a stable home front-something which will be moredifficult to secure both because of Lhe experiences of bhemasses through the 1960s (of which more will be shorllysaid) and the hardships that millions will face, sooner andlater. The level of class struggle so far preceding ihe out-break of this war is lower bhan thal which raged before bhelast bwo world wars. However, the pobgnbial for this is verygreat-and the ruling class is well aware of lhis and deter-mined to snuff i[ out.

Despibe bhe cloudbursl of national chauvinism aroundIran, Afghanistan and the 1980 Olympics, [he ruling classwas still skittish. The American people had to be primed fur-t,her and one Marine commandant described the reaction todraft plans as "underwhelming." While the political strug-gle and consciousness of the working class, in parlicular,was nob highly developed, the country was noL "united" ina durable way. With so much on bhe line in [his war for theimperialists, and wibh the American people having Losacrifice in fighting and directly experiencing this war, thepolitical "work" of the bourgeoisie becomes very impor-tant. The level of repression directed al revolubionaryforces began to pick up markedly as bhe 1980s opened-nolso much because of bhe existing level of struggle buL on ac-counI of whaL could happen.

By the same token, bhe ruling class is going inbo bhis warfollowing a period of discord within ibs ranks-fromWatergabe and other scandals to the abbreviated politicallives of presidents. This bended to undermine Lhecohesiveness of the U.S.-led bloc in the l970s. The papabout how "America lacked resolve" bo carry ihrough onher commibments abroad and stand firm againsb the Rus-sians, though mainly a crude attempb to stir up chauvinismand serve as a pretext for expanded defense expendituresand military aciivities abroad, did reflect reality: the U.S.imperialists had taken a drubbing in Vietnam, bhe rulingclass was wracked with scandal, and bhe American peoplehad indeed become cynical and distrustful of aubhority.Politically, the ruling class musb close its ranks more firmly(this is not bo suggesl bhat bhere are any fundamenbaldisagreements within the ruling class over the need to go towar-only over how to pull it off in bhe strongest possibleposibion), bobh to weld the U.S. bloc togeiher as firmly aspossible and increase the initiative of the U.S. ruling classand to exact the submission of bhe American people. This isa war which will be accompanied by more savage repressionthan any before ib in this country's his[ory.

"Suppose the USSR invaded Western Europe, and bhat t,he

U.S. conventional and tactical nuclear forces cannot sbopbhem. At that point we should be prepared bo use a strategicLimibed Nuclear Option (LNO) by evacuating our cities.Hopefully the Soviets would be deLerred by this action; butif they are not, the relocabion would have made us ready toexecule the LNO."'7

With an equanimity that is as amazing as it is spooky,these planners are matber-of-facbly balking about blowingaway several Soviet cities. And in this scenario millions ofpeople in this country would be gathered up and dispatchedto this or that hide-out, for who knows how long, in order tostrengthen the bargaining and logistical posibion of theU.S. imperialists-bhey could care less about people's lives.It is the old shell game. Come see if you can find usl Insteadof taking your enemy's populace as hosbage you turn largechunks of your own civilian population into poker chips.The obher side can'b kill enough of them lo make it worth-while; in Lhe meantime the nuclear warheads are beingreadied. The Soviets have their own variations on bhe sametheme: their "civil defense" sysiem is more highlydeveloped. How quickly cibies can be evacuabed andwhether it is even feasible is no[ bhe point-what is, is themeans that will be employed to proteci and reinforcesystems of exploitation in the United Stabes and bhe SovietUnion. No technology and no fall-back plan is beyond adop-bion Lo win such a war. But all of this is couched in terms ofprotecting the country; in other words, cibies are "pro'tected" by anti-ballistic missile systems, a "counter'forcestrategy" (in which your adversary's potenlial bo slrikeback is knocked out) is developed to "proteci" againsl a

lethal attack.Now the actual effecbs of a nuclear war have been

documented (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) and anbicipated bybhe sysbems-planners. There are bhe prompt effects-blasldamage and fire storms-and lhe delayed effecbs of radia-bion, disease, the despoliaiion of waber, air, and soil.-^ Butthe imperialists have never predicated their thinking on theabsolute end of the world. The Pentagon has commissionedthe think banks lo "think through" possible nuclear ex-changes. Two recent studies have considered targetingstrategies which would be aimed at wiping oub the SovieLleadership group and unleashing secessionisl movementsin the Soviet Union to effectively dismember the couniry.Said one Defense official in reference bo [hese studies (andpreparations), "We are trying io see in bhe ulbimate nuclearexchange what should we be trying to do other bhan jusLflatten their industry." A consultant chimed in, " It's bhink-ing bhe unthinkable. We don't want [o bomb them into thestone age. We should have real objecbives Lhat make

27

sense."2!)The new technology of war does not override bhe

decisiveness of the human factor; even the imperialistsrecognize this. They need people in their armies and occupa-tion hordes, they need their factories staffed. This would bea war to de[ermine in the final analysis which of [he great,powers will enjoy the lion's share of territories, rawmaterials, markets-and labor power. Other systems-plan-ners are busy at work figuring out what percenbage of theindustrial capacily will be destroyed, how quickly it can berebuilt or salvaged-for the holy cause of profit, il goeswiChoub saying. In [heir worst-case prognostications, some75 million Americans might die; how they approach all bhisis illustrabed in [heir notion of "'city-trading" wiih theother side-upping lhe ante in terms of retaliaiion fordestroying bhis or that city. With the urban areas largelydestroyed and the indusbrial base shatiered (in both theUnited States and bhe Soviet Union production of key com-modiiies is concentrated in a relatively limited number offacilities), the planners foresee a shif[ of the populalion tothe couniryside-as agricultural production will necessari-ly absorb a larger share of social labor, given the destruc-tion of agricultural equipmenl and the factories that pro-duce it along with support indusbries like feriilizer. And sothe experts blithely conclude society will begin Lo recoverstarting at a level of developmeni that, approximates whabexisted in maybe 1890.

There is one basic elemenb thaC is conveniently omittedfrom these calculations-the masses of people who have toendure all of this. Yes, there are bhe illusions thai "thingswill eventually geb better" and it is quiie conceivable thatsome lift will be given the economy by expanded mili0aryexpenditures-though even this possibility should not beexaggerated, because of the level from which things arestarting, i.e. a persistent inflation and monetary instability.Doubtless, many will be swept up by the inibial warhysteria, the specber of Russian hordes taking over, andstandards of living going down ihe drain. But the fever andemotion, the flag-waving and demagogy canno[ change Chenaiure of imperialist war and the enormous suffering bhat itwill lead to. The perorations about the American siandardof living are going to wear thin with bhe economy lurchingthrough crisis, even grinding bo a siandstill, with physicaldestruction being inflicted extensively.

Consider how some of this might play itself out. Follow-ing the destruction of key miliLary and industrial centers inboLh counLries, Sovieb forces seize portions of the WeslCoast, Alaska and maybe parts of California. The U.S. im-perialists retaliabe and launch an invasion of Lithuania orLatvia (though the order of this entire chain of evenbs couldjusl as well be the reverse). But, wheiher you live in "oc-cupied" Alaska or "free" New York, life is hell. In fact,bhose from "free" New York will be press-ganged io eventhe score-by invading Lit,huania. Everywhere, people fedin[o the meat grinder, everywhere bhe equivalent of martiallaw, whether it be under Sovie[ or U.S. imperialistbayonets. The misery engendered by war will increase andwith this a growing sense of unrest among the masses andan increasing capaciby io put, the blame where it belongs.The U.S. imperialists strike Moscow and level it to theground. In response New York is reduced to rubble. Whosefault is it? The imperialists never cared about ihe ghetbosand slums before-they created them, and they created thesitua[ion in which humanity is tossed inbo an incineraior.

While conventional armies will mainly be locking horns inoiher parts of the world, and even if the U.S. is noi invaded(though there is scant possibility that the United Stateswill be spared extensive material deslruction), bhe lives ofmillions in ihis country are going [o be compleLely and

28

totally disrupted. There will be no "individual solutions,"not when whole cibies are being evacualed or decimaled.(Canada's actions in smuggling a few U.S. spies andflunkies out of Iran during bhe embassy crisis is a forewarn-ing of this, as is the Canadian government's recent an-nouncement that the country is "off limits" to would-bedraft dodgers.) What will such a war do? Some, iI is true,will be demoralized and ground down by bhe unprecedentedhorrors and misery. But millions of oLhers will be roused Lo

act, to put an end to lhis barbarity as a resul[ of lhese in-bense experiences. Even one of lhese logistical expertsmust acknowledge the possibility:

"My concern is over the disruption to U.S. society andpossible adverse impacl on our governmenL's decision mak-ing process. . crisis relocaLion would cause a bremendous,serious domestic upheaval."""

That is just the poinl. Such a war, even if not immediate-ly, will lead to a situation of unprecedented social chaos andtremendous upheaval, exactly because it will cause a sharpturn in the daily existence of the masses. The fact of bhemabber is bhat the economic crisis so far has not brokenhabii and routine, has not fundamen[ally left people withno choice but to act,, noi oui of blind desperation, bui out ofthe recognition thab only bhe overthrow of the sysLem canresolve [he suffering and contradiciions of their lives. 'fhepossibility exists that with crisis deepening and the out-break of war, the social ferment and changing mood of themasses brought on by this carnage may well occur in con-juncbion with a severe weakening of the bourgeoisie's abili-ty io rule and maintain order. It spells trouble for thecapilalist class and opportunity for the working class.

On a small scale the experience of war and the impactthat it can have on people was highlighted in Vietnam. Peo-ple's eyes were opened. Hundreds of [housands who hadswallowed bhe American dream and bhe glory of the starsand slripes coughed it, up and threw it up on the batllefieldsin Vietnam and at home. Nob only was there a process of arude awakening-a lifetime of lies and deceit exploding inpeople's faces-there was a wholesale disinbegralion of theU.S. armed forces in Vietnam. InsLances of fragging, at-tacks on officers, of refusal to go into the field and even con-sorting wit,h "the enemy" grew. The mosi modern weaponscould not stop it. This was a rage which was propelled byand transported back io burgeoning anger and protest inthe U.S.

The kind of rapid changes that have been described andwhat t,his does to the consciousness of the broad masses,how their sentimenis can just as rapidly and radicallychange-these are lessons of hisLory which have been em-phasized by Bob Avakian in his writings, building on Lhelegacy of Lenin. As he wrote as early as 1976:

" . . . the development of the situation must nob be viewedsimply in quantitatiue terms-a series of small changes' ad-ded togebher over time, will somehow lead to a revolu-tionary mood among the masses. At a certain point, theremust be and will be a qualitatiue leap, in the objective situa-tion, in bhe mood, and,-if we do our worh right-in ihe con-sciousness of ihe masses. . We cannot say now what willcause a similar qualibative leap in the development of oursituation, whether a "crash" and major depression like the'30s, the outbreak of WW3, or a combination of severeeconomic crisis and war-a war which, over time ab least,would add to the strains and hardships on the masses. Norcan we say when this will happen. But we do know just assurely as there is not now a revolutionary situation, one willjusb as certainly develop in the future.""'

Is ii possible thai bhe same masses who would so eagerlygive their blood for iheir imperialist masters would sudden-ly demand blood instead, would demand an end to the ruleof a class of parasites? Again the lessons of history are rele-van[. In a shor[ span of bime during World War 1 large sec-tions of bhe Russian workers, peasants and soldiers of allnationalibies who had been swept up by chauvinist warfever turned against lhe war and the ruling governments.In the Czarisb and German armies rebellious and mutinoustroops inspired and ignibed by the mass movement in socie-ty, parbicularly among bhe workers, in turn played a leadingrole in revoluLionary upsurges. These were qualitativedevelopments brought on by the agony of the first worldwar. In the case of Russia, bhe Bolshevik Party was able bo

influence bhese sentiments and organize these oubpouringsof resistance and habred inbo a successful revolutionaryassault on stabe power.

fllhere was a period of inbense political turmoil inI this country in the 1960s; ib provided a glimpse of ihe

social ferment that can grip millions. There was a period inbhe immediate wake of the 1974-75 downturn when secbionsof [he more stably employed workers found the rug pulledout from under their previous condi[ions and illusions. Theperibd we are entering into will much more dramatically af-fect people's lives. The system is much weaker economical-ly, bordering on collapse, and a war of almost unimaginableproporbions threatens to engulf the globe-unless it isprevented by revolution. Where today the question is stillone of "getting by," tomorrow ib will be survival. Thebourgeoisie will initially pose this question in terms of killor be killed-fight the Russians or be overrun by them. Butthe quesbion that will ulbimately be posed to the masseswill be-how to escape this madness-and the answer canonly be one of collective sbruggle against the forces respon-sible. There will be no successful strabegy of individual sur-vival under bhese circumstances, because to live and bo diewill have become very immediately and direc[ly social ques-t,ions. This, of course, is always true in so far as people livewithin a society with specific social relations, but now thequestion of how people are living and have been living(since war and its attendant suffering are bub the concen-tration of exisbence under regimes of exploitation) and whatis worth dying for-bo perpetuaLe the rule and dead hand ofcapital or get rid of ib-comes into sharp relief. Revolutionbecomes no longer a perhaps abtractive, buI dangerous andimpractical, alternative to gribting your teeth and livingwith exploibation. It becomes a practical necessity.

"It can't happen here." It is a senbiment of many, in-cluding many who wish it could happen here. But one doesnob have to search too far for the ingredients of a revolu-tionary challenge, for bhe potential fracturing of a societywhich has by and large been stable for 30* years. There isthe economic crisis which will continue to propel secbions ofpeople into motion-from diverse quarters: small farmers,truckers, those cooped up in the ghettos and living rightnow under the gun (Soviet occupying troops will not makethings all that much worse for those facing the onslaught ofkiller cops and the National Guard). Social movementserupt: in a matter of weeks hundreds of thousands take tothe streets in protest of nuclear power. The same kinds ofbolts of outrage bo the draft. Even where the bourgeoisiecan geb over with a "hate Iran" crusade for a time, it is cer-tainly not without its contradictions. Millions are draggedinto polibical life and discussion, the atmosphere is morehighly charged, as world events and people's futures arenow bopics for consideration. Yes, these social movementsare still dominated by ideologies which are not revolu-

tionary and yes, bhere are reactionary currents among themasses, but the turbulence in society is growing-of whichall this is a reflection-and ib can only force a more pro-found questioning and awakening among millions. Nothingbhe bourgeoisie and its agenis can say or do can reverse thetrend of deeper crisis; bheir bellowings aboul Soviet ag-gressors will not make Lheir war plans and what people willbe forced bo go bhrough any less gruesome. And, inescalating fashion, the monstrous developments lowardswar will fill more with hatred for bhe system and a burningdesire to acb. The increasing hardships, along wibh a deeperunderstanding of what the imperialists have in store forpeople, will put the question before millions: why wait to dosomething about bhe situabion unLil after they havelaunched such a war of desbruction and terror? Only revolu-bion can prevent the imperialists from carrying ouL theirwar plans, and it is by no means a settled issue that a

revolution can only await the ouibreak of World War 3. Theimperialisbs will not have an easy time preparing for thiswar, and their preparations may very well precipibate, inconjunction with the economic crisis, a deep-going politicaland social crisis in lhis country which opens up oppor-tunities bo challenge their rule decisively.

Beneath the surface of calm lies this underlying instabili-ty. It is like a geological faull which in its imperceptiblemovement evenbually jars bhings loose. This is nob bhe

1960s. The struggle is nob on as high a level. But bhese

rivulels of struggle, lhese pockets of resisbance, exisbwithin a different context. And jusl as the [empo of worldevents leading [o war is rapidly accelerating, so boo wi]lthere be rapid shifts in the mood of the masses and Lhe

scope of t,heir ac[ivity. Where there is oppression there isresisbance. This is a basic law of history. But hislory doesnob mechanically repeab itself. For example, as a majorcomponent of bhis mass struggle in bhe period ahead, bherewill continue to be major sbruggles by Black people andother oppressed minorities againsb their national oppres-sion, and no doubt they will intensify. But lhese and otherstruggles will not assume the same forms and pass throughthe same stages of developmenL as they did in the 1950sand 1960s. Yes, many of bhe same lessons will have bo belearned over again, but it will nob be a replay, i.e., firsb asbage of civil rights and then breaking beyond bhese

bounds. Experiences have been accumulabed, the rulingclass cannot make the same kind of concessions, and lhings

ated by outbursbs andIl be largely scabbered,

T"::H"i:,n"J.il*T::higher for boih the ruling class and the masses' And whatof the working class? When will ib enter the fray? Actually,in the annals of revolution it is more [he rule than Lhe ex-

ception bhat the working class, particularly its beiLer paidand socialized sections, tends to move later rather thansooner. The Iranian revolubion sbands as tesbimony to [his.Ib was the youth, the intelligentsia and sections of the pet-ty bourgeoisie bhat were engaged in bhe early and pitchedbabbles with the Shah's regime. That one of the Shah's lasb

desperation maneuvers was bo offer striking oil workers aL\OVo wage increase was an indication of the fear the rulingclass had of the working class entering the s[ruggle as apolitical force and also lhe facb that up until then secbions

of the working class were mainly preoccupied with morenarrow concerns. But bhe workers threw this bribe back inthe Shah's face, they struck and paralyzed bhe oil fields insupport of the revolubionary demands of the struggle andin dbing so transformed bhe character of that siruggle.

Today, as analyzed, bhere are real reasons that the U.S.

29

working class is mainly a sleeping giant. The backwardelemenbs put a lot of pressure on the more advanced. Formany in the working class there has not been the ex-perience of sustained and militanC political struggle likebhat which others wenb through in the 1960s, and there arestill some crumbs to grab hold of and protect, some straws[o graso at. This, however. is nob the botal picture, even to-day. There are tens, even hundreds of thousands right nowwithin the working class, who not only wish for a drasticchange in their lives but are convinced that this system hasgot to go; tens, hundreds of bhousands who are open to lheidea of revolution and who can be welded into a potent forcewhich can activate the resb of the working class as the con-ditions ripen and can influence untold masses beyond bheirnumbers. This is not the same working class of the 1gb0s.Ib conbains significant elements wit,h broader experiences:Vietnam veterans whose eyes were opened by a war ofplunder, [hose among the youth who rebelled against thesystem, women who have arisen against their restrictedand oppressed condition, and mosb of all large numbers ofrevolutionary-minded people from among the oppressed na-tionalities.

The ingredients of a mass movement in t,his country arethese stirrings in bhe working class, the other movemenbsand sbruggles which are like tributaries inbo the workingclass, and bhe convulsions thab will rock this sysbem withthe aggravation of the economic crisis and the movesbowards war. There is something else. That is the existenceof a revolutionary vanguard, of a party which is armed wiiha correct understanding of the internabional and domesbicsituation and where developments are heading, which iscapable of summing up the experiences of the masses andorganizing and leading the armed onslaught against thebourgeoisie. A party cannot create a revolubionary situa-tion; yei preparing for and utilizing the opportunitiespresented by such a situabion requires this political leader-ship. When the contradictions accumulating reach such apoint, then even the most minor flare-ups form part of alarger struggle. They [ake on an added significance whenthe system is vulnerable to a frontal assaulb, and because ofthis, and in conjunction with the leadership of the workingclass's vanguard, many such struggles will go over io thepolitical realm-this is what happened in Iran among bhe oilworkers.

But it would be wrong and naive to suppose that lherewill be a smooth developmenl of bhings such thab [he work-ing class and its vanguard will neatly gather bhe strengthto bake on the bourgeoisie as everything else falls in place.As the authority of the bourgeoisie breaks down, powerfulforces will be unleashed throughout society. Uprisings andborrenbs of resistance involving different seciions of thepopulation and with dynamics of their own will be more theorder of the day. Movements and slruggles concentrated,perhaps, among some of the oppressed nationalities or invarious regions of bhe country and in which other organizedforces, with programs of their own, command the respectand allegiance of substantial numbers of people, will, nodoubt, arise. Under these complicated conditions the work-ing class and its vanguard must seek a basis of unity wiihsuch forces while maintaining its independence andwithout ceasing to fight resolubely for leadership in theoverall sbruggle and without compromising the basic in-berests of the masses.

The decisive question for the future is whether the work-ing class can raise its head above the petty and mundaneand grasp ibs historic role. Thab bhere will be turmoil insociety is undeniable; where it will go depends in largemeasure on bhe capacity of the working class to bake in-dependent action in the broadest interests of society, that

30

is, revolutionary action. The dialectic that has been etchedoub here is that already the conditions faced by peoplealong with the social and political strains in society havesparked sbruggle and raised big quesbions in people'sminds. Yet, what has been experienced is nobhing comparedwith what lies ahead: war and a more cabaclysmic decline inbhe economy. Is the situation, then, one of a waiting game?No, because the actions of ihe advanced sections of bheworking class can acb as a lightning rod, as it were, to therest of the working class and point the way forward to thediverse strata whose rumblings can be felt. The actions andstand baken by the advanced will right now call into ques-

tion and sharpen bhe sbruggle within the ranks of the work-ing class around the illusions and, yes, the rot and reactionwhich some still cling to. The class-conscious minority canaccelerate-under the leadership of bhe Party

-the tempo of development which will see millions awakenand bhirst for change when a sharp and sudden turn in dailyexistence takes place. To go into the maelstrom of con-broversy and emotion around Iran, for example, to upholdthe revolubionary interests of the inbernational workingclass in support of that struggle, is not only to help make itpossible for those who are confused and misled to breakwith such reaction and unleash ihose whom the ruling classwould wanb to intimidate and demoralize, but bo temperand train bhe advanced for a time when society will be rentby far more intense social conflicb-and even lhen [he ma-jority may initially be "on the wrong side."

The possibility of revolubion in the United States cannoLbe ascertained from the existing level of struggle in bhiscountry-or bhe existing objective sibuabion. It is based onwhat is developing bhroughout the world. The fragility oflhe imperialisb bloc headed up by the United Stabes and theexbraordinary attempts bo induce a war hysleria are aneconomic and political barometer of the objective weaknessof the ruling class; i[ is far from being down and oul, but ilis extremely desperate. There are seeds of the fubure in ihecurrent battles of the working class and other sections ofthe people; more imporLant is what the fuiure holds in storeand how to prepare bhrough these battles for it.

The particular posi[ion of U.S. imperialism in the world, asource of unprecedented strength in the past, is now, indialecbical relation, pressing in on it. Here in the UnitedStates we are dealing with the prospecb of mass unemploy'ment, ihe possibility of territory being "seized" by the"enemy," of lhe terror of war and bhe ruling class whichmust resort bo vastly repressive means here at home to pro-secute it. The ruling class must [ake a differenb road wilhrespect bo bhe masses than what it has taken in bhe post-war period and even since the downturn of 1974-75. Allthose things which were taken for granted, that therewould be gas at a pump, that schools would be open to sendchildren to-bhey are nol so ceriain any more, and so thereare riots and near-riobs over such things as the gas short-age. The spreading insecurity of life, bhe botbom falling oubfor millions, wibh a shutdown here, a credit squeeze there,such that bhere is no longer even a job for millions (a lousyjob, but a job nonetheless, and maybe a Superbowl as enLer-tainment); the dislocations of war-all this will wrench peo-ple's lives and inbensify the disorder in society. Right herein bhe United States. The ruling class has on more than oneoccasion referred to the cibies with their huge concenbra-tions of poor as "bime bombs" ready to go off; not a few of-ficials have worried just abou[ what would happen if forsome reason welfare checks were cut off. The same rulingclass bent every effort to beab back and smooth over thecontagion of anger among the more strategic secbions of theindustrial prole[ariat in 1974-75. They have expressedgreat concern over the response of bhe youth to the draft

and bhe influence of Vietnam-era veterans.The Uniied States may well turn oui to be a place where

ihe chain snaps in bhe coming conflagrabion, given the ac-

cumulabion of all bhese contradicbions. Whebher it actually

turns out io be ihe case or no[' it is bhis possibility which

[he class-conscious section of the working class and revolu-

tionary fighbers must prepare for. It is to prepare to scale

bhe heights of hisiorY.

3.4.5.

6.L

l. Reuolution, September 1977,p.7.2. Business Weeh, APril 11, 1977,

8.

p. 79.New Yorh Times, JantarY 6, 1980.Ihid.F.M. St. Marie and R.W. Bednar-zik, "Employment andUnemployment Trends in 1975,"Monthly Labor Reuiew, FebruarYl9?6, p. 12.Ihid., p. 17.Bureau of Labor StatisLics, Hand-booh of Labor Statistics, 1979(Washingion, D.C.: U.S. Govern-ment Printing Office, 1979), Table67.U.S. PresidenL, F)mployment and'I'raining Report ol the President,1978 (Washington, D.C.: U.S.(iovernmenI Printing Office,1978), Table B-18, p. 260.Ihid., Table A-19, p. 240.U.S. Depart,ment of Labor, /reaTrends in EmploYment anrlUnemployment (Washington,D.C.: U.S. Government PrihtingOffice, 1975) March 1975 issue, p.46 and May-June-July issue, p.43.Norman Bowers, "Young andmarginal: an overview of youthemploymenL," Monthly LahorReuieut, October 1979, p. 8.

I l.

Footnotes

12. Bureau of Labor Statistics,E m ployme n t and U ne m ploy me ntTrends I)uring 1977-SpecialLabor Force RePort 212(Washington, D.C.: U.S. (iovern-ment Print,ing Office, 1977) P. 14.

13. Ibitl., p. 17.14. Oleueland PLain Dealer, February

2, 1980.15. Office of Management and

Budget, The United StatesBudget in Brief, F'iscal Year 1978(Washington, D.C.: U.S. (]overn-ment Printing Otfice, 1977l, p. 42.

16. Rusiness Weeh,,Ianuary 28,1980, p. 74.

17. Neut Yorh Times, January 6, 1980.18. (ileueland Plain I)caler,

September 30, 1979, summarizesthis study.

19. Neut Yorh Times, op. ciL.20. "Who's Buying Homes,," I)ollars

and Sense, April, 1979, P. 13.

2l. "Workers Pensions: A PennySaved is a Penny Robbed,"NACLA Reports, April 1976, Vol.X, No. 4, p. 16.

22. David Caplovitz, (\tnsumers inTrouble, A Study of Debtors inI)efault (New York: Free Press,I 974).

23. Ihid.. p.281.24. thid., p.284.25. Netu iorh T'imes, March 11, 1979'

26. Newspaper F)nierprise Associa-Lion, The 1973 World Almanac(New York: DoubledaY and Co.,

l9?2), p.510.2?. Roger J. Sullivan, JeffreY M'

Ranney and Richard S. Soll, ThePotential Effect of ("risis Rektca-tion on Crisis Stahility, preparedfor the U.S. Defense CivilPreparedness A gencY (Arlington:System Planning CorPoration,19781, p. r22.

28. Kevin N. Lewis, "The PromPtand Delayed Flffecis of NuclearWar," Scientific American, JulYI9?9, Volume 241, No. 1, PP.35-47.

29. Washington Posl, FebruarY ll'I 979.

30. Sullivan, op. t:it., P. 105 and P.

I 60.31. Bob Avakian, RertolutionarY

Worh in a Non-ReuolutionarySituation (Chicago: RCP Publica'tions, 1978), PP'6-7.

9.10.

31

{

s2

Intollarlinttleftrl:sgglromisln

The CPUSAand thc

Trade Union UnltY Leagucfl.qrg-rqrs)

I. INTRODUCTION

Augusb 1928-On the campaignbrail, HerberL Hoover pompously an-nounced, "We in America boday arenearer Lo the final triumph over pover-ty lhan ever before in the hisbory ofany land. The poor house is vanishingfrom among us We shall soon, withthe help of God, be in sight of bhe daywhen poverLy will be banished from bhisnaiion."' 'Ihere were many who actual-ly believed him. These were bhe headydays of a "chicken in every pot." U.S.imperialism had come out of WorldWar 1 as bhe only genuine vicbor. It gobfatter and cockier as it elbowed olderrivals ouL of the way and gorged ibselfon Lhe peoples of Lhe world. For ihefirsb bime whole nabions were in debb io[he finance capitalisLs of Wall Streel.The American economy revved its waythrough the 1920's in explosive specu-lation and expansion. PoliticallyAmerican capitalism seemed invincible.

Despite exploitation, oppression andbhe fact bhai even during the boomyears many millions Iived in despera-lion, despite resurgent lynch berrormeant to preserve the sharecroppersystem in the South and fierce repres-sion against Black people in the North,no one could deny that capibalism was,at leasb, providing steady employmentand allowing most people lo put foodon their tables. For a small upper crus[of skilled workers, bhe expanding em-pire acLually meanb thaL bhey could winmore privileges over [he masses ofworkers. And their reactionarygrabitude toward " Americanism "poisoned the political climate in thewhole working class, especially the sec-

tion organized inlo bhe craft unions.Professors solemnly declared, "Fordhas defeabed Marx."

Never before had illusions pene-iraled so deeply into lhe Americanworking class.

Ocbober 1929-in a blinding flash,the bloaied slock markel collapsed,and world capitalism quickly sank inLoa chaobic depression unprecedented inits scope and severity. In bhree years ofsbraighl downward slide, whole bran-ches of industry collapsed. 5,761 banksfailed. By 1933, industrial producLionwas cut in half.

For bhe millions of wage-slaves, theinability of capilalism [o profiiably ex'ploit them meanI bhat slarvabion ibselfstared bhem in t,he face. One t,hird ofthe working class was turned ouLwiihoub hope of finding a job. Wagesfor those still working were slashed aseach capiLalisl fought the gruesomebatble to cui costs to survive. In bhe

scramble for cheap production, workinbensiiy climbed. In lhe cot[on millsof lhe Carolinas, even young workerssbarted dropping dead on the millfloors from overwork and hearl failure.

This caiastrophe was nob confined bo

the indusirial working class. Hugenumbers of white collar workers found[hemselves with their hands bhrusLdeep in[o their suit pockels in the soupkilchen lines. Hundreds of thousandsof farmers went bankrupt and weredriven from their land, migrating ingreat waves across ihe country (a pro-cess that actually began before iheDepression hit the cities). Smallbusinesses fell like dominoes. Studenbsprolonged their schooling (especially inIhe free universibies) because therewere no jobs waiting at ihe end of it.

Black people were driven oul of Lhe

firsL boeholds they had established inNorbhern industry. In Chicago, whereBlack people were I lqo ol Lhe popula-Lion, Lhey made up a quarter of bhose onrelief. In bhe Wesl, Mexicans andsuspected Mexicans were shipped ouIof Lhe counlry in boxcars.

A river of men flowed ihrough Lhe

railroad yards, the hobo jungles andalong the endless rails, looking forwork, looking for a way out, jusL look-ing. Every major ciby had its "Hoover-villes," colonies of lhe displaced,driven to living in barpaper and tin canshacks. Nothing seemed Permanenlany more, nob for anyone. All of socie-ly, from top to bollom, had been hi[ bYan earthquake.

The illusions builb over decades weredeeply shaken.

In the firsL years of the Depressionthe capibalisLs simply urged patienceand faibh. "Prosperity is right aroundthe corner." They made a hiL song out ofthe ditty "Hrppy DaYs Are HereAgain!" BuL now fewer and fewer be'

lieved them. Anger and desperalion fill-ed the workers. Never before had lhereligion of "Americanism" seemed so

hollow and deceitful. Millions werelooking for answers and radical ideaswon a tremendous and growing au-dience.

Two years into Lhe DePression, thebourgeoisie nervously sensed thepolibical danger bhe crisis posed foriheir whole established order. Presi-dent Hoover whined lo Congress onDec. 8, 1931, "Within bwo years, bherehave been revolutions or acute socialdisorders in 19 counbries, embracingmore than half the population of theworld."'

33

TUULIn 1932, two distinguished guesbs at

Franklin D. Roosevelt's inauguraLionwere overheard discussing bheir grow-ing fears:

"GenLlemen," one of them began,"[l's revolution. I'm telling you Ican see 'em now, howling up FifthAvenue with blood in Lheir eye, howl-ing up Market Street and BeaconStreet and Michigan Avenue! "

"Who?""Why, the birds thaL get hungry,

Lhat's who!""

ln lhe crisis, the stench of capibalismbecame overpowering. There was noplace Lo hide from bhe major ques[ionsof socieLy and the future. Self-proclaimed "armies" of joblessworkers converged on WashingLon,D.C. looking for help and relief.Populist "share-Lhe-wealth" move-ments sprang up everywhere. In 1932,Lhe Communis[ Party wroLe, "'f hemasses are beginning rightly Lo sensethat Communism has an importanlmessage for the human race and bheywanb bo know whai it is."l

The CPUSA rushed inbo Lhe 1930sde[ermined Lo creale a revoluLionarymovement. tt declared "the Com-munist Parly must raise before Lhetoilers in the United Sbates Lhe revolu-[ionary way ouL of the crisis," "onlythe destruction of the capitalisLsystem, the eslablishment of the dic-Latorship of the prole[ariat, of Sovietpower, can free lhe millions oftoilers. " "

In the decade [hal followed, millionstook up Lhe struggle againsl the effecLsof lhe crisis. Hundreds of thousandspassed through the ranks of the Com-munist Pariy, and the whole workingclass-in faci the whole counLry-wasinfluenced by ils work.

When lhe smoke of the decadecleared, there ruas no trace of a massreuolutktnary mouement among theAmerican people!

This article will dig into the roots ofhow bhis happened. And for that rea-son, il will most definitely nob be a nos-talgic irip through the past bat,bles ofthe CPUSA's "better days." In fact,the lessons of the thirties areoverwhelmingly negatiue lessons forrevolutionaries today. Even in the per-iod of 1929-1935, when the CP wasclearly a revolutionary organizationbhat upheld the goal of proletarian rev-olution, the line it held on how bo do po-litical work in the working class helpedset the stage for the laber move intoopen revisionism. Here we are not at-

34

tempting an overall summation of theCPUSA, its work in other major fieldsand all lhe factors that contributed lothe rise of revisionism. We are focusingon the line, "left" economism, that ledthe work of the CP in the early Depres-sion, and especially the way that linegot carried out in the trade union workof the Pariy, the building of bhe TradeUnion Unity League.

For years, the revolutionary move-ment that grew out of the lg60s hasbeen plagued by the tendency to resur-rect the lines of bhe thirties uncribical-ly. Xerox machines and old documentshave kept dogmatists busy all throughbhe last decade. New and old revision-ist parties promote now one, nowanother, of bhe "old" CPUSA's polibi-cal lines and organizational plans. Attimes it seems like we are waiching acompetition over which group canmost quickly re-enact the CP's slidedown the road to hell.

Even among genuine revolutionar-ies, there still exists a tendency loswallow uncritically ihe revisionisbCP's his[orical summabion of its ownpast.

In the last years there have been awhole series of books published by bhe

CP and its admirers bo establish ibs or-ganizational "lineage" [o bhe "glory"of the pasb, and to spread its summa-[ion of the ihirties: The works ofWilliam Z. Fosier (American TradeUnionism, History of the CPUSA,Pages From a Worher's Lifel; JohnWilliamson's Dangerous Scot; andLabor's Untold Srory, by Morais &Boyer, among others. In addition thereis a collection of memoirs by social'democrats formerly in lhe CP: PeggyDennis' The Autobiography of anAmerican Communist; Al Richmond'sLong View from the Left, eLc. Add tothis Black Bolsheuih, by ex-CP (andpresent CPML) figure Harry Hay-wood, who manages to uphold everywrong line the CP ever had on tradeunionism, even when some of lheseconflict with each other. In all bheseupside-down accounbs, lhe economicstruggle the workers waged beforeWorld War 2 was the greatest heightsthe class could aspire io, and bhe CP'srole in organizing bhat sbruggle the pin-nacle of communisb work.

AII his[ory is wri[ten bo fight for apolitical line. The pro-revisionisbhisbories present a cerLain (narrow) pic-ture of the economic struggle of bhe'30s in order to glorify econohism; thefanatical anti-communist social demo-crat,s (such as Irving Howe and LewisCoser, and Theodore Draper, whosebooks are standard bourgeois bexts onthe period) paint a picbure of someperfectly good trade unionism ruined

by "Stalinisi" zealots who insisted ontainting it with politics on "ordersfrom Moscow." The history we havewritten here is written io root ouL econ-omism, not praise it.

Any nosbalgic at0achment bo [he po-litical lines of bhis period, because ofthe breadth of the motion among bheworkers or because some of the leadersof [he struggle called themselvescommunists, complebely misses thepoint of studying history. It is not anaccident thab almost every opportunislline to emerge within the revolutionarymovement boday wrapped it,self in themantle of one period or another of [he"old" CPUSA. This includes lheMensheviks who split from the RCP inJanuary 1978. Of course, these par-ticular opportunists consider the CP of1929-1935 a little too "left"-ihey basebhemselves on the CP's more openlYrighiist periods.'r However, ihe "left"economism so characteristic of the CPin the early Depression has been takenup lock, stock and barrel by some to-d"y (the Communist Workers Party,for exampleT), and it remains a devia-tion quite suited io the present period,especially since it is so able bo disguiseibself wibh revolubionary phraseology.

The CP lost its bearings right at themoment of its greatest opportuniiy.For us, in the 1980s, the practical rele-vance of these hisborical lessons is ob-vious.

II. CP'S INTERNALSTRUGGLE,

PREPARING FORCRISIS

For a full year before ihe stockmarket crash, the Communist Parbyraced againsb bime [o shake up iLs ownranks and prepare to play a revolu-tionary role in bhe turmoil it knew wascoming.

Seven years of "peacefulprosperity," with its accompanyingreaction and repression, had cut awayab the broad influence the Party hadwon in ihe posb WWl upsurge and iheearly 1920s. Its numbers shrank to a

few thousand members, concentraLedespecially among foreign-born workers,who, because of their involvement inbhe revolutionary movemenis ofEurope, tended bo have a much higherpolitical level ihan many native-bornworkers. These losses were inevitable,to one degree or another, during such aperiod of ebb. But within the Partythere arose a sirong righbis[ tendencythat, lhrived on and in iurn fed an in-tense demoralizaiion.

By 1928, this more and more openly

revisionist lrend became concentratedin ihe line of Jay Lovesbone (Parbyhead since 1927) and his supporlers.'Iheir consistenb line had been to em-phasize ihird party coalitions withvarious reformers, social democrabs,farm populists and trade unionists. Asbhese forces, one by one, merged intothe political campaigns of bourgeoispoliticians, like Wisconsin SenatorRoberb LaFollette's presidential bid,the Loves[oneites fought within theParty to have Communisbs followthese "progressives" into the clammywaters of the American "mainstream."

"Our big demonstrations and massmeetings are altogether boo much con-fined to evenbs [hat appeal only bo bherevolubionary and more progressiveworker who, afber all, is bhe excepbionin the American working class. . thepractically unsophisticated masses ofAmerican workers cannot be reachedby these mass meetings and massdemonsbrations. They can only bereached by discussions of problemsand issues which they undersband andrecognize. Capitalism, unfortunabely,is not yeb an issue wibh them, nor is it aproblem of theirs."

But surrounded by ihe signs ofrapidly approaching crisis, with theclear analysis of the Communist Inier-na[ional that sbabiliza[ion was comingto an end, bhe Lovestone leadership ofthe CP and all lhat they representedsbood out more and more siarkly as anobstacle to seizing the opportunitiesarlslng.

In 1928, the Communist Interna-tional launched an inbernational strug-gle against those determined to sticktheir heads in bhe sand and igrore whabwas coming. Il wrote that the "presenbstabilization period is growing into a

period of gigantic cataclysms."t'A political confronbation was brew-

ing as the iwo lines sharpened up,driven by events. The three majorLovestoneites (Gitlow, Lovesbone andPepper) produced a thesis of "Ameri-can Excepiionalism," a smug, agnosbicrejection of Marxism-Leninism. Theyannounced [he "Hooverian Age," "anepoch of affluence and magnificence, ofpeace and prosperiby. "rri "A power-ful technical revolution is [aking placein lhe United States, a tremendous ra-iionalization, an increase in bhe forcesof production, which in its effects canbe compared to a second industrial re-volution."r'

The struggle broke out and ragedover the question of whether crisis wascoming, and ulbimabely whebher therewas a possibility of revolution in theUnited Stabes. When Lovesbone and

his closest, supporters were expelled,*the Parby had consolidabed itselfaround a new line that, bouched everyarea of its work, on the Black nationalquestion, on the question of crisis andthe laws of capibalism-and whab con-cerns us in this article-a new view ofpolitical work in the working class andthe trade unions, bhe line of "revolu-tionary unions."

Throughout 1929, this political two-line struggle within the Party wasparalleled by a campaign to creaLe amass revolutionary organization tolead the upsurge of the masses that in-tensified crisis and impoverishmenIwould bring. September l, 1929, twomon[hs before lhe crash on WallSireet, bhe Trade Union Unity League,a federation of "revolutionary tradeunions," was gavelled into exisience atits Cleveland convenbion.

The very facb that bhis sbruggle bookplace, that communists anbicipated thecrisis and fought to prepare their ownranks, is testimony to the science ofMarxism, and puts the lie bo bhe scrib-blings of bourgeois economisIs and his-torians who declare that the crash wasunforeseen and unforeseeable. At thesame bime, the new line of the Partyshowed the powerful weaknesses in un-derstanding [hab accompanied its re-newed revolutionary spirit. And bhesewere weaknesses that were going bo

have a powerful influence on the abili[yof the CP io carry bhrough with itsplans bo build a revolutionary move-ment.

Changes in Trade UnionLine-from TUEL to TUUL

Like every other aspect of the CP'spolibical line, the trade union strategyof the Party was in sharp crisis as theRoaring '20s prosperity drew to aclose. Since 1922, ihe Party hadbasically followed a policy of concen-brating on lhe economic shruggles in-volving the esbablished trade unions,

* Loves.tone's expulsion in 1929 waspreceded by the poliLical struggle with atiny clot, of Trotskyites, whose dishonest in-trigue scarcely took the form of a major linestruggle. In any case, they are incidental Lothe events we are analyzing here.

ln passing iL is inieresting to note lhat,Lhe Lovestoneites degenerated completelyinto renegades, stool pigeons, CIA agenbsand general professional anti-communists.Aft,er years of political intrigue within theAmerican trade union movement, Love-stone became the CIA's favorite operativewithin the labor movement, especially in-ternaLionally. He was involved in arrangingunion credentials for CIA agenLs bound forLaLin America, and other unsavory serviceto imperialism.

seeking to build a national movementof left-wing caucuses-"the militaniminori[y"-wibhin bhem, boamalgamate them into industrialunions, and radicalize Lhe workingclass by seizing lhe leadership of theunions and taking them to the left.This was the policy of "boring fromwithin," closely associated withWilliam Z. Fosier, a leading member ofthe CP and the leader of its trade unionwork for years. Fos[er's policies werebased on the assumption [hab winningleadership of the majority of workersby leading [heir economic struggleswas the necessary steP toward anYpolibical movement.

"tt may be accepted as an axiom bhab

whoever controls the lrade unions isable to diciate the general policies'economic, political and otherwise of thewhole working class. " ' '

And further, according to Foster, thisprocess had to go ihrough establishedtrade union channels because aP-proaching the workers directly andpolitically would inevitably produce re-jection. As Foster later explained it

"the old brade unions had t,he vital ad-vantage of speaking bhe same languageas ihe broad masses in resPecb ofreligion, patriotism and general Ameri-can tradibions while the dual unionistrevolutionaries were usually anti-religious, anti-patriotic, and altogetherscornful of American tradibions ingeneral.

"The basic advanlage of boring fromwithin as a method over dual unionismwas tha[ the miliiants, by being insidethe old unions, negated altogebher theadverse affects of several of the abovesbrong mass opinions and predilecbionsand grea[ly modified ihose of the rest;with the general resulb that themili[ants had a be[ter approach to theworkers and were thus enabled to winto their side large and ever decisivemasses of them for policies of classslruggle. " |"

The Trade Union EducationalLeague (TUEL), founded by Fosberbefore he joined the ParbY, wasadopted by the new-born CommunistParty in 1922 Lo be ibs major weapon inbhe triumphant march through theunions.

"Our main strategy was bo revolu-tionize these [AFL craftl unions by giv'ing them Communist leadershiP(through organized minorities, andsuch official posbs as we couldconquer), by amalgamating bhem intoindustrial unions, and aside from par-

35

TUULbial support of exisbing independen[Inon-AFLI unions in unorganized in-dusbries, by organizing the unorganiz-ed masses into the old ones. The TUELnaLional center directed this generalminori[y movemenb and challenged theAP of L bureaucrats for leadership ofLhe masses."' I

It didn't work Lhab way. By 1923, thevery "progressive" brade union of-ficials thal lhe Party planned to unitewith in a "lefb-progressive bloc" werepabching up their differences with themain body of bhe union bureaucracyand helping bo launch a massive expul-sion campaign against Communists.'Ihe union sLrucLure did nob move tothe left, bub insLead dove headlong intoa frenzy of wheeling and dealing, bribe-baking, "labor" banking and infamousnew schemes bo help speed-up bheworkdrs. Where bhe Party had suc-cessfully won some leadership of theeconomic struggle, in the coal minesand garmenb induslry, the influencedid not lead to secure positions withinthe union strucbure, but to massiveand violent expulsion fights.

MosL important of all, from a com-munist poinl of view, the policy did notlead to Lhe polilical radicalization ofbhe working class.

Although Fosber bitterly fought theLovesLone facbion for control of iheParby, and ultimately opposed their re-jection of the line of the Communist In-ternational, his line on trade union

lwork was based on a similar view oflstraighr, sLeady work around the day-Ito-day concerns of Lhe masses. WhenLhe line was pub into practice ib mebwiLh failure, and when sbruggle brokeoub ib did not follow bhe plan and leadbo radicalization of bhe masses throughunion posilions for the "militantminority." Conditions had changed,the economic struggle died down dur-ing the '20s, and with ib bhe willingnessof union officials lo allow bhemselvesto be dragged inbo confrontation withihe employers evaporated.

'Ihree industries did provide theComrnunists wi[h a mass base: tex-tiles, coal and the garmenL industry.All three of these industries missed bhe"golden glow" of prosperity. Forvarious reasons, vicious price wars,layoffs and wage cutting swept themyears before bhe overall Depressionitself broke out. Because of the intensi-ty of the oppression, the rapid im-poverishment and the man-killingspeedup, and because there was a largepercentage of immigrant workers con-centrated there, the Communisls won

36

massive influence. But ins[ead of seiz-ing control from the well-enbrenchedhacks, they were expelled, often tak-ing thousands of workers wibh them.

In 1928, under pressure from LheCommunisb International and fromstark reality, the CP broke with "bor-i.rg from within" and sbarted toorganize independent unions. InSepbember, 1928, the National MinersUnion (NMU) was formed oub of ihemilitants of the crushed 1927 miners'strike bo "Save our union." With thatdefeab [he AFl-affiliated United MineWorkers had been broken organiza-tionally ihroughout the coalfields andibs treachery had earned bhe hatred ofthe more active and advanced workers.The NMU vowed bo replace ib withmiliLant "class slruggle" industrialunionism. Similarly bhe National Tex-bile Workers Union was formed at thesame time, out of bhe ashes of thesbrike of 26,000 cot[on mill workers inNew Bedford, Mass. In December,1928, the revolutionary fur workers,their organization inlacL after years ofbitter and bloody slruggle in the NewYork garment district (where the AFLhacks had driven oul 12,000 mem-bers-bhe whole New Yoik member-ship), unibed obher expelled and mili-banl garmeni workers around them-selves and their Communist leaders t<rform the Needle 'Irades IndustrialUnion. These were bhe first results ofbhe new line of the Communist Party inthe trade unions, and the signs that LheCommunists were breaking withreligious awe for the eslablished laborin sti tution s.

Dual Unionism

Convenbional wisdom among socialdemocrats, revisionists, bourgeoishistorians and even some genuine com-munists is bhab the Communist Party,driven by frustration, flipped into aninfanIile, sberile and sectarianultra-"left" binge in the late twenties,and recovered its senses barely in limelo make its historic contribu[ion to bheAmerican working class: the buildingof the industrial unions in basic in-dustry and bhe passage of unemploy-ment insurance.

By forming dual unions (unionsaparb from and sometimes parallelingthe existing AFL craft unions), thisstory has it, the Communists violatedsacred principles and cut themselvesoff from the "mainsbream of Americanlabor." Gloriously pure bub inevitablyrejected.

Foster, despite bhe fact thab he ledthe Party's practical union work of thisperiod, and even gave ib critical en-

dorsements in his la[er histories,'" isundoubtedly a major source of the"dual union" taboo. After all it wasFosber himself whose main contribu-Lion bo t,he theology of American revi-sionism was thaL dual unionism wasthe U.S. revolutionary movemenl'soriginal sin: "Dual unionism haspoisoned lhe very springs of progressin the American labor movement, andis largely responsible for ils presentsorry plight." "'

In his view even lhe mosb hideboundcraft unions resLricted to skilled (andusually whibe) workers had, as Fosterput it, an inherenbly "working classcharac[er under bheir veneer of bour-geois ideology and reactionary leader-ship "'' The very idea of forming"dual unions" conjures up the image of"splitting the working class" if yousucceed, and sberile isolation if youdon'b.

'Ihis ignores the facL that lhe work-ing class was (and is) already split, inLoa polibically backward labor arisbo-cracy, and the broader masses of or-dinary workers, among whom i[ was(and is) extremely imporbanb to buildup a revolutionary political pole, in op-posiLion to the reactionary outlook ac-tively promoted by the bourgeoisie'srepresentatives in the unions whosesocial base comes from Lhis laboraristocracy. This certainly does notmean thaL bhe bask of communisbs was(or is) bo smash the existing unions, orto seb up special economic org,aniz.a-tions for the most advanced workers.BUL the criticism of dual unionismleveled againsb the TUUL thal hasbeen sbandard gospel about bhis periodreally amounts to Lhe viewpoinL of bhelabor arislocracy and those like AFLhead Samuel Gompers (Lhe GeorgeMeany of his day) who claim that theyare ihe "legitimate" spokesmen of thewhole working class.

Any concrebe analysis of bhe objec-tive conditions in the working class atthab time shows thab by the time thecrisis got going, the AFL was soisolated from bhe profound turmoilamong the industrial workers bhab totry to center political work inside of i[1would violate ihe basic principle ofluni[ing with the masses. I

Throughout the '20s, the AFLshrank sbeadily, and was more andmore exclusively based on [he mostskilled workers, and focused on thebabtle for privileges over the masses.The few industrial unions within theFederabion were hardest hit. Some, likethe brewery workers and bhe seaman'sunion, simply folded. The United MineWorkers, the largest and mosb influen-tial union in the U.S., disintegratedunder the combined assaulb of the pro-

found overproduction crisis in coal(starting in 1922]. and the gruesomelyreactionary policies of the John L.Lewis clique. In 1920, bhe AFL had en-compassed 19.4% oI the working class,and in major struggles was actually avehicle for leading the broad masses,including thq.unskilled. By 1930, theAFL barely'bpoke foi' loqo of iheworkers, even by its own figures.

Great, sections of American industrywere virbually untouched by unionorganization, including most of steel,auto, electrical equipment,, rubber, ce-ment, textiles, chemicals, food, oil andnon-ferrous mining. Where unions didexist they were usually so corrupt andconservabive that they were worsethan useless, even to the workers whobelonged to them, and were propped upas an insLrumenC of bhe employers. It istypical that the AFL opposedunemployment insurance far into theDepression on the grounds that lhe"dole" undermined the individual ini-biative that "made America great"!

Fortune magazine reported the ob-vious: "The Federation has been suf-fering from pernicious anaemia,sociological myopia, and hardening ofthe arteries. "'^ Wherever strugglebroke oub, new unions sprang up,organized by those expelled from theAFL, including "non-political"unionists, socialists and variousdefeated bureaucrats, all compebing forthe leadership of the masses. Com-munists were not the only ones forcedto give up neat little plans for "boringfrom within."

But in facb, Lhere is a very seriouserror associated with dual unionism,and that is syndicalism, a [endencywhich has hisLorically been deeplyrooted in the U.S. revolutionary move-ment, including the IndustrialWorkers of the World (IWW) at Lhebeginning of the cenbury. Syndicalismsees bhe task of transforming owner-ship of the means of production fromthe hands of bhe capitalists bo theworkers as principally an economicquestion, neglecting the key role of thestate and state power, of politicalrevolution, in this transformation.Usually this means organizing theworking class to fight for socialism onan economic basis-shop by shop andindustry by industry-and neglecting[he political organization of theworkers, bheir organization to carryouL revolubionary political struggleand eventually political insumec-iion-a line that often involves under-estimating or even denying the needfor the political party of the workingclass as its highest form of organiza-tion. In the old IWW, it even book theform of a stand against such political

struggle as the fight against the firstworld war, and calling on the workersto concentrate instead on building upthe battles againsi their employers.

For bhe CP in the period we are talk-ing about here, this syndicalism showsitself clearly in the very idea of"revolutionary unionism," as thoughindustrial unions which can only beorganized on a shop-by-shop andindustry-by-industry basis were bhebasic revoluiionary organization of theworking class. This is bied to the CP'seconomist line of unfolding politicalwork mainly around the struggle overwages and working conditions. Whabwas wrong with the CP's line was nolso much the "dual" as the "unionism."

Gastonia

In bhe spring of 1928, in the smallNorth Carolina mill town of GasLonia,'the new CP-led bextile union got itsbaptism of fire. The sbruggle inGastonia was a first glimpse of comingchanges in fhe consciousness and ac-tivity of even the more backward sec-bions of the working class. And it brokeoul at the climax of bhe two-line strug-gle wiih the Lovestoneiies within theParty including the sharp inbernaldebate over how to conduct politicalwork in bhe working class upsurges.

The bourgeoisie was proud of the po-litical backwardness of the Southernwhibe workers. They were religious, ra-cist, filled wibh the ignorant backward-ness of rural life, and held up as ex-amples of why revolution was only bheun-American scheme of foreigners.When they rebelled under Communisbleadership it was a political sbabementLhat electrified the whole couniry, andinevitably brought, oui the most deter'mined hatred of the oppressors.

Year after year of inbensifying ex-ploibation, a workday of eleven andtwelve hours, the nerve-wracking workof tending several looms at once, andthe constant "strelch-out" increasingthe work load on each worker, all Lhe ef'fects of the intensified competition andcrisis within the texbile industrybrought, the workers Lo the limits ofhuman endurance. Every institution inthe company bowns sbood againstihem. Even the preachers werenotorious for teaching that the Bibleopposed bathing, in order to excuse thecompany housing without indoorplumbing. Within days of being con-tacted by the National Textile WorkersUnion, bhe workers felt they had whatthey had needed for years, a leadingcenter with experience in fighting theoppressors, and the promise of outsiderelief to keep their families alive when

the wages stopped. Coniact betweenthe union and a few active workers,two speeches to crowds of workersfrom the Loray Mills, and the strikewas on.

Right from bhe start, ihe bourgeoisietried to redbait Lhe strikers and dividebhe workers from ihe Communists. TheGastonia Gazette ran a full page ad"paid for by the Citizens of GasbonCounty," declaring:

"The strike at the Loray is somethingmore than merely a few men strikingfor better wages. Ii was nob in-augurated for that purpose. li wasst,arted simply for the purpose of over-throwing this Government anddestroying property and to kill, kill,kill.",!'

A federal mediaior at the scene an-nounced that a setilement was in-conceivable until "the workers divorcethemselves from their communisticleaders." In its presenb form ii was"not a strike, bui a revolt."

The strike was a sharp challenge tobhe whole heavy hand of class rule inthe South. Nominally the demands ofthe strikers were simply the means tolife itself. They demanded a weeklywage of $20, a forty-hour week, nomore piece rate, betber living condi-tions in the company housing, unionrecognition. The mill superintendenLreplied, "You realize that if we shouldcomply wibh them, it would mean thatwe would virtually give you the plant."All the local pillars of society weremobilized against them: the press, theNaIional Guard, sheriffs, thenightriders called "The Commibtee of100," all aimed at stomping out bhespark that bhreatened to ignibe theSouLhern working class and spreadthroughoub the counbry.

The strikers were almost immediate'ly evicted from their company housingand forced bo live in tents piLched inthe mud. Facing beatings and gunfirealmosi consbantly, they organized arm-ed self-defense. When bhe lawmen andthugs fired, they fired back. When thelocal police chief led a drunken chargeon bhe union hall, he was blown awaY'These strikers knew the odds bheywere up againsb, but bhey consideredtheir lives intolerable and were deter-mined to change things no matierwhat. This is whab made their strugglea manifesto that threw cold fear intothe hearts of the bourgeoisie andbroughb supporb for their fight fromacross the South and throughout thecountry.

Workers came from every Southernstaie. By foot, horse and ramshacklecar they came to suppori the struggle.

37

The luneral ol lourmen killed bY Detroit

police during aHunser March ol3OOOfed 5y the TUUL and

the UnemPloYedCouncit, demandlnglobs or income iromtheir lormer emPloY'er at the Ford Blver

Rouge Plant. There isa shhrP contrast be'

tween the Portrait otLenin that hangs over

the funer'al-obvlouslY sYmbotl'

zing the cause forwhich these men gavethelr llves-and theDAILY WORKEB'streatment ol this

struggle, which locus' es solelY on the lm'mediate demands ol

the workers and in noway uses lt to brlng

out the need lorrevolution.

a

In surrounding mill towns, every twistand turn of the strike was watched in-tensely. Advanced forces eagerly madecontac[ with bhe union and bhe Partyand repeated abbempts were made toturn the s[rike into a general strike ofthe mills in bhe area.

Calls went out to the Nabional Guardbo mutiny and join the strikers:

"Workers in lhe Nabional Guard: we,ihe striking workers, are your bro-thers. Our fight is your fight. Help uswin bhe strike Refuse [o shoot orbayonet your fabhers or bro[hersFight with your class, the strikingworkers. "3"

In bhe few shori months [he strikelasted, before it was crushed in abloody wave of lynch-mob terror, apolitical battle raged among the Com-munisbs about how to conduct lhestrike. II paralleled [he strike itself inintensiby and bitterness.

The question was whether or not andhow bhe strike should be "politicized,"as ib was then said, and one of [hesharpest ways this came down wasover the issue of whether or not thestrikers should take up the "race ques-tion." All bub a few of the workers werewhite, as a result of Jim Crow practicesby the owners. The CP slrike leadersopposed baking up the question of JimCrow at all, fearing that it might dividethe white slrikers and undermine someof ihe support the strike was receivingfrom the community.

Fred Beal, the main CP sbrikeorganizer, recounls wi[h scorn in hisautobiography, how another comrade

"brought orders from bhe Cominlernand from the Central Commibbee that Iemphasize the Negro Question. I ex-plained that there had been only lwoNegroes working in the mill and that,they had fled when the strike sbarted.But, Weisbord argued bhat this situa-bion involved other things bhan a merestrike.

"'I['s not just a skirmish. We mustprepare the workers for the comingrevolution. We must look ahead andsmash all feelings of inequality,' he in-sisbed.

"I failed to understand how it waspossible bo bring inio the sbrike thequestion of Negro rights when therewere no Negroes involved."''

semifeudal oppression of .Black people(even ihough many sharecroppers were

white). In fact, the huge supply of laboravailable to the mill owners, includingthe many sharecroppers who had work-ed in the mill a[ one time or another in[he past, was a bremendous obstacle tothe strikers. True, the strike could bewaged without any reference to Blackpeople at all-but it was a fantasy tosay that the sit,uabion of the s[rikershad nothing to do with the oppressionof Black people. Certainly bhere was abasis bo "politicize" the sbrike in bhissense.

In nearby Bessemer City, the line oftrying to spread the slruggle fromGasionia into a general sbrike in theSouthern textile industry-a line alsoopposed by the open rightists withinthe Party-began bo become a reality.The workers sbruck one of the few millsthat employed both Black and whiie.At a union meeting, bhe whiles re-quested that a Jim Crow wire bestre[ched between the workers. TheCommunist organizer of the meeting,George Pershing, strung it up. TheBlack workers left the meeting andnever came back; and the sbrikecrumbled until it consisted of just afew blacklisted workers pickeLing ahumming factory."

Even more telling was that when thenalional CP leadership sent a leadingParty member, Otto Hall, to roob oulthis betrayal of the new "Negro pro-gram of the Union, the RILU, theParby and the CI,*" he capitulated too.lTo the disgusL of the Parby center, hesuggesbed that the Black workers beorganized inbo a separate organizationso that the issue of the wire would nobcome up. Hall was Black and this wasnot a case of being infected with theprevalent racism. Rabher it was a caseof giving in to what seemed mosl"praciical"-after all, if ib's only aunion bhat you're afler, why go upagainst segregaiion, which wasn'beven really an issue at stake in bhis im-mediate battle?="

Even afber the s[rike was crushed,lhe two lines were carried right inlo thekangaroo courtroom where l5 strikersand leaders were railroaded on murdercharges, in connecbion with theshooting of bhe police chief. Some Com-munisis simply protested bheir in-nocence, even though lhe Party's linewas bo proclaim the fight of self-defense. One comrade, Edith Miller ofthe Young Communist League, spit inthe face of the anti-communisthysteria, openly declaring bhat revolu-

* The RILU was the Red International ofl,abor Unions, the internat,ional organiza-tion of revolutionary and communisL.ledunions, and the CI is the CommunisL Int.er-nalional.

tion was the agenda of the workingclass, and when challenged on thequestion, boldly defended abheismfrom the witness stand.

The problem was ihai bhe two linesthal were in conlenbion within the CPover how Lo conduct this slrike wereboth wrong, although one was clearlycounler-revolutionary. The openrighiisbs, including most of the on-Lhe-spot leadership of the strike who wereassociabed with the Lovesbone faction(and who lefb the Party shorbly afLer),foughb toobh and nail for the line bhat"the struggle in Gas[onia was Lo winthe sbrike for ibs immediabe benefibsand not for forming Soviebs," as FredBeal, Ihe main CP organizer, laberwrote.:l

Instead of seeing Lhe sLrike as a"school of war," as Lenin had said, "aschool in which bhe workers learn tomake war on Lheir enemies for lheliberabion of ihe whole people," theobher line saw this sbrike as though itwere the war itself, as though thisstruggle (or a spreading of it) couldlead in a straight line Lo revolution.

CP strike leader AlberL Weisborddeclared at a strike meeLing:

"This strike is the first shob in a baLblewhich will be heard around Lhe world.It will prove as important in Lransfor-ming [he social and political life of thiscountry as [he Civil War iLself."'-'

Here Weisbord compleLely identifiesthe strike wibh insurrecbion, as Lhoughthey were bhe same thing. But thisblurring over of disbinclions, which is,in the final analysis, rightisl, waspresented in a very "lefb" form. WhileBeal, the open righbisL, was lrying Lo

talk bhe workers out of carrying guns(apparently he lhought bhis sirike waslooking too much like an insurrection),bhe "left" line was claiming bhatbecause of the guns it already u)as aninsurrecLion.

As a na[ionally distributed CP pam'phlet summing up ihe Gastonia sbrikesaid:

"The struggle in Gastonia has reacheda far higher slage-that of armedstruggle [thislfurnishesirrefubableproof of the process by which the innercontradictions of capitalism in lhe im-perialist period bring on economicstruggles which speedily bake on apolitical character."="

True, especially because of condi-tions in Gastonia, bhe strike did raisesharp poli[ical issues-bhis is why ilslood out so clearly lhab the openlyrightist line was wrong. Bub the factthat lhe sbrikers took up guns againstthe law did nob in and of itself mean

39

TUULthal they were acquiring a revolu-tionary Marxisl outlook, bhab they werewaging a consciously political sLruggleor a struggle over someLhing more Lhanthe Lerms of the sale of Lheir laborpower.

In fact, when the CP did try lo bringMarxism bo bhis sbrike, it was badly in-fected with the economism and syndi-calism bhal appeared in such a "left"form in bhe Party's declarabions. TheYoung Communist League was bhemain open face of bhe Party during bhest,rike. In a speech bhal drove the openrighrist Fred Beal up ihe wall, the YCL

TIIE WORKERS' ANSWER! By Fred Ellis

[]uATf $f'l

!1.

As tt turned outr..aationatizationtt (speed.up, layolls andother capitallst attempts to get out of the crlsis) didnttautomatically spread to revolutionary polltlcs among theworkers. Underestimation ol the task of eommunlsts totranslorm the consciousness ol the masses iswhat theCPtsllne durlng the earty Depression had in common with alleconomlsm.

40

representative gave lhe following an-nouncemenb ab a press conferencewhen he arrived in Gastonia:

"I am here for bhe purpose of organi-zing the Young CommunisL Workers'[,eague. The principle view of bhe Com-munisls is control of lhe counLry by theworkers. Under Communist control LheLoray Mill and every oLher mill wouldbe operated by a general commitleemade up of one represenbaLive workerfrom each deparLmenb, and they wouldelecb a manager who would be responsi-ble to this general commibLee.""

At this poinb, Beal cut the YCLrepresentative off and told him thatfrom now on only he, Beal, would speakLo lhe press; he considered the speech aprovocation. Bu[ the real problem isnot that it upped bhe ante as far as bhe

mill owners were concerned. The millowners, faced with deadly competition,were of the opinion that if they gave ineven around wages and working condi-Lions they'd go broke, which wasalmosi as bad as communisb revolu-[ion. The real problem is thab Lhisspeech is sucker-baibing-an altemptbo "sell" socialism lo Lhe workers onihe basis that this is how Lhey cansabisfy their economic demands. Itreeks of syndicalism, and is at boLLoma lhoroughly reformisL attempb Lo

make lhe goal of revolution seem "con'crebe" [o ihe workers, as though con-brol of bhe Loray Mills was what bheyhad been seeking all their lives.

The combinAbion of open righLism bybhe CPers involved in Lhe strike on aday-to-day level wilh the empty bom-bast heaped on from outside formed a

unity-both aspecbs meanb that the CPwas doing libtle bo acbually divert [hisspontaneous battle into a consciouspart of bhe revolubionary struggle.That's why the same man, George Per-shing, who made lhe brash YCL slaie-menL quoted above on his firsL day inbown, was also the man who laLerslrung up the Jim Crow wire atBessemer City. The general rhetoricabouI revolubion quickly melLed in theheal of practical work.

III. "LEFT''ECONOMISM

At the Labor Day, 1929 conventionin Cleveland that founded the TUUL,CP spokesman William Dunne de-clared:

"The main objective of the RILU, theoverthrow of capitalism, requires forits attainment organizabion of the

RATIONAil-tEAf #

workers in disciplined battalionsaround a program which meets the dai-ly needs of the masses."'*

For this purpose they set out to buildan organizaiion that would win wide-spread influence among the workers byfocusing on bhe burning economicneeds of bhe masses, unionize them,and bhen be the arena for increasing"the class consciousness of the masseson the basis of their experience in thesestruggles." This they saw as the firstand central step to bake on bhe road torevolution:

"The building of the TUUL, thedevelopment of bhe new unions intoorganizations of sbruggle for the dailydemands of the workers, especially inthe basic industries, is a prerequisitefor turning our Party in[o a mass Par-[y, capable of leading bhe workers intheir sbruggles againsb capitalism."="

So naturally, following this line, theconvention of the "revolubionaryunions" spent lhe major parl of bhemeebing broken down inbo 16 differenlindustrial caucuses developing a pro-gram of immediabe economic strugglefor each branch of industry, andcementing the organizational ties thatwere hopefully to be bhe basis ofmassive unions [hab would soon sweepAmerica.

Down to the smallest de[ails, bhenew organization was built along unionlines-local bodies were going to beTrade Union Unity Councils, pa[[ernedafter the cenbral labor bodies of ihecrafl unions.

Here was a rival center of unionorganizabion that was going to fashionitself into the perfecb vehicle for thecoming upsurge of the workers. "Theheart of [he convention was the sbrug-gle against capibalist rabionalizationand all its evil consequences of speed-up, unemployment, accidents, occupa-tional sickness, low wages, etc.""" Anyworker who accepted t,he "basic pro-gram of class sbruggle" was welcome.And the eniire thrust of the organiza-tion made it clear ihab this "classstruggle" was simply the opposite oftraditional "class collaboration"; itmeant "a militant slrike policy":tr plusa general orienbation that the bossesand the workers had nothing in com-mon-a notion that does not at alloverstep the bounds of trade unionism.

At the end of the three-day conven-tion, a rousing plenum "enthusiastical-ly" passed a series of resolutions andslogans that were inbended bo injectrevolutionary politics: "Build bheTrade Union Unity League! FighbAgainst Imperialisb War! Defend the

Soviei Union! Fight Against CapitalistRationalizalion! Organize theUnorganized! For the 7-Hour Day,5-Day Week! For Social Insurance! ForFull Racial, Social and Political Equali-by for Negroes! Organize Youth andWomen! Defeab bhe Misleaders ofLabor! For World Trade UnionUnity1""'

An eclectic mixture of slogans tack-ed onbo the end of a convention over-whelmingly immersed in laying plansfor massive unionization drives. Thiswas what the CP saw as the first stepin combining the immediabe economicdemands of the workers wibh the majorpolibical quesbions ihat faced the class.

On the one hand, bhe slogans book astand against the oppression of Blackpeople and called atbention to theurgent political question of a new im-perialist war aimed al the SovietUnion; on bhe obher, the whole move-menb was so consumed with its centralfocus on alleviating the escalating im-poverishment bhrough militantunionization strikes, that even themost baldly utopian and reformistslogans like the "7-Hour Day" slippedin as a major "rallying cry."

What was the plan behind this "revo-lubionary unionism" and how was it go-ing bo enable the CommunisL Party tolead an uprising to overthrow thesysbem and the government? In short,what was supposed to be "revolu-tionary" about this unionism?

To undersband this, we have to get apicture of what the CP thought was go-ing on in the world, and how theythought workers became revolution-ary. In a nutshell, they thought thabcapitalism was so rotien ripe, that theDepression was going to be so pro-found and long lasbing, thab themasses were plunging into such pro-found impoverishment bhat everydemand for the very means of lifewould challenge the system itself. Asthe CP summed it up a few years later:"Fight For Bread Is A Fight AgainsLCapitalism."""

From the sbruggles against the ef-fects of the crisis, out of ihe cryingneeds of workers driven to slarvationby unemployment and wage cuts,would come ever greater explosionsand bhe approach of revolutionary con-sciousness and the revolution itself.

As the CP portrayed its smoobh rideto power:

"The revolutionary way out of thecrisis begins with t,he fight forunemployment insurance, againstwage cuts, for wage increases, for reliefto the farmers-through demonstra-tions, strikes, general strikes, leadingup to the seizure of power, to the

destruction of capitalism by a revolu-bionary workers' government.""'

There was one libtle problem withbhis [heory. It was based on idealism,not on the actual laws of developmenbof society. As we shall see in a moment,the result of [his was that bhe CP gotstuck, completely bogged down in along fruibless battle to complebe [hefirst stage-winning bhe majority ofbhe workers to its leadership in theeconomic struggle.

Bub firsb, we have bo examine exacilywhat is wrong with this whole plan forrevolution theoretically, bheir view ofcrisis, and their view of consciousness.

Crisis and Consciousness

The CP's view of crisis was bhabcapitalism, in the era of imperialism,was so moribund that it was impossible to mainbain even the most bem-porary prosperity wibhout constantlyincreasing bhe absolute impoverish-ment of the masses. The misery anddesperation of the masses could onlymount until they were driven to deliverthe final blows io bhe system.

"Any recovery, therefore, thab may beregisbered from the present economiccrisis can, al most, be only uery partialand bemporary in character. Ii mustsoon be followed by another crash stillmore far-reaching and devastating tothe capitalist system.""-

Overall, bhe system was seen to be ina permanent tailspin. What bhey over-looked was exactly bhe possibility of aworld war affecting capitalism the way

Although hindsight makes ib easy tocriticize the CP's conception that arevolubionary situation would quicklydevelop in the U.S., such a develop-ment was not inconceivable ab the timethis analysis was made, and of courserevolubionary situations did develop inother countries during bhis period ofcapitalist crisis. Nor was the CP'sanalysis based on the assumption t'habeconomic crisis alone would give rise toa revolubionary situation, since the CPspecifically pointed out that the worldwas moving toward war, either among

41

" ,1i;, t tB4tt .J.:

.s'

slan Revolutlon had alreadY

ma3ses in polittcal c vltytt through drawlngirom these itruggles a e a single comp^elllng p!c'ture oi a system-t-hat t This cartoon ol a muscle'bound chirlcature ol a worker degrades the task ol tralning the workers in theoutlook of Marxlsm.

grasp the need for reuolution andsocialism was preserued.

It is exlremely telling that bhe samemonth that the TUUL was founded,Lhe Daily Worker reprinted prominent-Iy a bheoretical ariicle written by CPfounder C.E. Ruthenberg in 1923, ex'pounding the economist bheory of con'sciousness:

"[The CP rejecied the] ggelhqd-d"Ep-pg4g1!9.. thal is..Lhat we should pre-s-6"flT6- Lhe working class our indict-ment of the capibalist system, factsaboub the exploibation of bhe workingclass, the theory of surplus value, bhe

class struggle and bhe materialist con'cepbion of hisbory, and by publishingbooks, newspapers, pamphlets on the

theYsisrder

ii'iril{ffil *

the imperialist powers or between bhe

imperialist powers and socialism, orsome combination of bhe two (which isin fact wha[ happened), and that therevoluEionary situabion would mostIikely arise in conjuncbion with bhisdevelopment.

What the CP bhoughb was mosi like-ly was revolution in Germany, combin-ed with attacks on this revolution andthe USSR and an inter-imperialist warbetween the U.S. and Britain. Again,this isn'i how things developed, but itisn't so far off the mark-World War 2

did develop as a combination of inter-imperialisi rivalry and a war io defendsocialism, and did give rise bo revolu'tion in many countries. What is reallyinsane about the CP's line is that theypaid no attention bo its practical conse-quences-here they correctly predicbedthat the world was about bo enter a tur-bulent, period of war and revoluLion,

42

and they still made the economic sLrug'gle the "center of gravily" of bheirwork, as bhough the economic crisisand the economic sbruggle were bhe

most revolutionary elements in thesituation.""

In the course of the struggle againstLovestone's "American exceptional-ism," the CP had flipped from classicright economism lo a new, "lefb" formof the same economism. Whereasbefore [hey held that the working classwas too backward for communistpolitics and had lo be spoon-fedbhrough a long period of economicstruggle where it would learn itsprecious "lessons" by summing up"the experience of hard knocks," nowthat severe crisis was coming, the CPsimply assumed that ihe same idealisbprocess was going to be lelescoped intoa few stormy years. The same underly-ing theory of how the masses come to

slrownr a newspaperts main task to "train the

and the way in which the evils of [hissystem can be abolished"'

To rely on [hat melhod would mean"we could wait for another millionyears and there would be no Pro-letarian revolution nor a dictatorshipof the working class," Rubhenbergwrote. The method the CP adopled was"quite a differeni method."

l"The policy of the CommunisL Par[y isIto associale it,self with ihe workers init,he everyday struggle. Communistsfight with the wage workers andfaimers in support of bhe demandswhich they make of the caPilalislsbecause it is in these s[ruggles andthrough lhese struggles [haL theworkers learn the character of thecapit,alist sysbem, and Lhere isdeveloped the will to Power of lheworkers, the determination bo triumphover the enemy who exPloits and oP-nroqqa< i hpm

| .iruggles of Lhe

I mosl favorable con-

i ning Lhe influenceI tpCnmmunist.Par-

trp@

t"-..- .----. -he Communisl Par'f$i[tv. tte workers learn by experience Lhe$5ty. tt. workers learn by experience Lhe

lc-haracter of the capitalist sysLem.

I They learn by their experience in theI struggle lhat ihe government underthe capibalisL sYstem is merelY an

agency of the capibalist for maintain-ing bhe sysLem of exploiiation. Theylearn this not through iheoreticalpresenlation and proof of the facbs, butthrough the hard knocks of iheir ex-perience with the capilalisls, and wibhihe governmenl which suPPorLs ihecapibalisl system.""7

qyslgrr!-a struggle the workers cannotwagEunless they are brained bhroughagitation (as well as taking up strug-gles around questions that bring outthe need for revolution). Lenin's viewwas whaL Rubhenberg was caricatur-ing-bhat the principal role of commu-

in What Is To Be Done, and the lineRuthenberg puts forward is an almosbword-for-word repebition of ihe lineLenin atiacks.

Lenin made it unmisbakablY clear(to anyone who cared to read him), andthe experience of ihe RussianBolshevik Party certainly confirmedhis line, that bhqllqsk-o:lanqlnuni!]!q is:

Srl1dlye1s ("class against, class," as

nists is bo bransform the consciousnessof the workers and the masses, Lo

"create public opinion," as Mao laberput it, so thab when the conditions forrevolution are ripe, the working class

Withoutlontaneouslcan be noling power.l

What Ruthenberg does distorb is Lhe

central role oftion-especially

-i6[-mean simplthe exploitation of the working class,the bheory of surplus value" ebc., as

bhough it amounted to Passing ouleconomic charts and free coPies ofCapital al factory gates' Speaking ofthe absolubely central importance oforganizing political exPosures(especially [hrough a newspaper, nobjust "agitating at meetings"), Leninrips up the economist theory of "rais-ing the activily of the workers"through "political agitation on aneconomic basis" (exactly whaL RuLhen-berg is calling for), and declares:

"The consciousness of the masses ofthe workers cannoL be genuine classconsciousness, unless'the workerslearn to observe from concrete, andabove all from toPical (current),political facts and evenLs, euery oLhersocial class and all [he manifestaiionsof bhe intelleciual, ethical and polibicallife of these classes; unless they learnto apply in praciice the materialistanalysis and bhe materialisL esbimabeof all aspects of the life and aclivity ofall classes, s[rata and groups of thepopula[ion. Those who concenbrabe thealtention, observabion and con-sciousness of the working class ex-

clusively, or even mainly, upon itselfalone are not Social-Democrabs; for itsself-realization is indissolubly boundup not only with a fullY cleartheoreiical-it would be even more Lrue

to say not so much with a theoretical,as with d pracbical undersbanding, ofthe relationships bebween all thevarious classes of modern sociely, ac-

This basic, underlYing economisttheory (that l'economic struggle is themost widely applicable means of draw-ing the masses into political move-ment") was never rooted out. Indeed,although i[ took a differeni form frombefore, it was the guiding line of the

CP's work during bhe whole period we

are discussing (as well, of course, as

after, although again in a differenLform).

Suddenly here, in 1929, was a crisisthal promised an endless si'ccession ofhard knocks. Whab could an economistexpect except a rapid, auLomatic andwidespread "radicalizaLion"? Themasses were going directlY into a

revolutionary mood.

"A sure radicalizalion is being broughLabout by 30 to 40 cents a day wages forKentucky miners, $3.50 wages for a

70-hour week for SouLhern texbileworkers, and similar conditions inobher indus[ries. StarvaLion wages aredestroying the capibalisiic illusions ofAmerican workers and25 cenL wheat ismaking poor farmers their allies."""

Whereas before, revolubionary agiLa'tion was premature because theworkers hadn'L yei comPlebed thesLage of economic sLruggle, now it wasunnecessary because the masses werealready revolu[ionary. The role of Lhe

communists was now simply Lo race tocabch up with lhe masses, win Lhe

leadership of bhe majorily of workersin their ineviiable resistance bo lhecrisis, cemenL organizaLional conLrol,and hold on tight bhrough the siormsteading Lo revolution itself.

Social'Fascism

The very same LheoreLical error thabmade the CP think that it did not haveLo diuert bhe economic struggle fromits sponlaneous course, led bo tremen-dously overesbimaLing the ease withwhich bhe Parly would win bhe leader-ship of the sLruggle for unions andrelief. Afler all, if capitalism is in suchdesperate straits that it cannob granLany concessions, and at everY burnmust answer struggle with "fasciza'tion," and if every struggle for reformsquickly reveals bhe sLruggle for revolu-lion lurking right below lhe surface-what will the reformists do in bhe classslruggle? The very facl bhai lhey arecommilted opponenbs of revolutionwill force lhem into the open camp ofLhe bourgeoisie even before actualrevolution eruPts. All non-revolubionary forces would be forcedby their very nature Lo aLLack anYstruggle the masses waged forunionization, or relief, or bread.

"II is no accidenb bhab whenever a bigsbrike movement breaks oub, bhe capi-balisb press shrieks thab it is due bo Com-munisl influence, and the A.F. of L. andSocialist Parby leaders wail bhaL Lhe

masses have got beyond bheir conLrol."

rp di v e4 Lhe _WqrLgrs-fu!q_th9--spp4-

43

TUUL

" I0 is true that all sLruggles for dailybread, for milk for children, againsbevicbions, for unemploymenI relief andinsurance, for wage increases, for theright to organize and sLrike, etc., aredirectly connected up with bhe ques-Lion of revolu[ion. Those who areagainsl the revoluLion, who wanl tomainbain bhe capiLalisL system, areprepared lo sacrifice lhese struggles ofthe workers in order to help thecapitalists preserve lheir profits.

"Only Lhose can courageously leadand stubbornly organize the fight for[he immediate inberests of the toilingmasses, who know thaL these thingsmust be won even though ib means thedesbrucbion of capitalist profits, andwho draw the necessary conclusionthat the workers and farmers mustconsciously prepare bo overihrowcapibalism." "'

In obher words, reformism is dead,the very profundily of the crisis killedit. The committed leaders of socialdemocracy, frightened and repelled bybhe revolubionary nabure of the fightfor reforms, would flock to Lhe defenseof profits. Social democrats, in the U.S.and internationally, had become social-fascists, a wing of bourgeois terror. On-ly Communists could lead the milibanlfight for reforms, because only Com-munists stood for revolution. Theworking class had become a clear field.

To bhe exten[ that the CP in thisperiod branded these reactionaries asagenbs of capitalism, we have no quar-rel. And countless examples, like thebloody suppression of the workers ofBerlin in 1929 by the "socialist" policechief Zorgiebel, prove that bhese right-wing socialists were certainly capableof viciously, even lerroristically de-fending capitalism.

The problem is Lhat the whole situa-tion was far more complex bhan bheCP's simple view of a downhill fall,where bhe choice is "eilher fascism orsocial revolution." Overall, there wasstill a role for social democrats to playas reformists, confusing the masses byspreading countless pipedreams andschemes about how to alter bhe systemhere or there and make things better.There was still plenty of room for thesocial democrats of many kinds toslither around among the oppressedspreading their poison. That was sbilltheir principal role.

In fact, the theory of "social-fascism" principally led the CP in arightist direction, just like the whole"left" economist line did overall. If

44

reformists were going to exposebhemselves decisively through theirfascist attacks on reform struggles,then libble more was needed to winleadership from bhem than being ihemosb milibanb and consistent defendersof the economic needs of [he masses.What should have been a fiercepolitical and ideological s[ruggle overhow capitalism works and whaL ittakes io get rid of bhe system, simplybecame a competibion between whichpolibical brend could best lead theeveryday sbruggles. Contrary toeconomisb gospel, reformisbs are oftenskilled at leading struggles iacticallywithou[ "selling [hem oub"-the prob-lem is they leave things at that.

At the same time, communists, whorepresent the overall and long-range in-berests of the working class, fighl forthese inberests in the day-to-day ba[-tles as well, which sometimes meansthat the fight for victory in bhese bat-[les is subordinated to ihe workingclass's higher interes[s. Given [his, lheonly way communisls can successfullycompete head to head with reformistswithin the limiLs of the trade-unionsbruggle is by becoming ,reformiststhemselves-and even there, the old,original, proven reformisbs often havebhe advantage.

IV. POLITICALWORK

Agitation and Propaganda

In practice, because the working-class movement was still in an overallebb (1929-1933 saw a deep lull insbrikes overall), despite very sharp out-breaks within i[ and a mood of tenseanticipabion on [he parb of bhe broadworking class, the Party found iiself ina position where the great volume of itswork was agitation after all. But thiswas not sltig]il:(-Mer.Iist _eeitaiiqr

"which not only fans every spark odiscontent and arouses indignation atevery outrage, but knits togebher allthese oubrages inbo a cohereni picture,tracing each to its source, and probesbeneabh the surface, scieniificallyanalyzing the development of events

Instead, what bhe CP focused on, inits leaflets, Lhe Daily Worher and iisspoken agitation, was economic ex-posures combined with calls to action.

by means of capitalism's inherenb lawsi

Since lhe line was thaL people learn on-l ..l.y in the course of struggle andl "especially the day-bo-day struggle, thisagitabion concentrabed on sparkingsome acbion. The many bhousands ofCP'ers, locked into brade-union work,beat bheir heads against the walls try'ing to find just the right economic ex-posure and demands to unleash thefury of lhe masses and create theschool of "hard knocks" for conscious-ness-rarslng.

This was tied lo some of the mosthackneyed and wooden "propaganda"imaginable. Actually, there was nob allthab much genuine communisb propa-ganda-Marxisl maberial (wrilten orspoken) which examines things in anall-sided way and weaves variouseven[s and elements together [o createan overall picture. Rather, bhe mainthing was "propagaLion of lhe ulbimaLeprogram of the ParLy," as it was said,which often sunk to the level of simplysaying: it's bad here, ib's noL like lhatin Russia. Foster's book, Touard a

Souiet Americo. wriiten to serve as bhe

main propaganda piece when Fosterran for Presiden[ in the 1932 elecbion,contains a long secbion on SovietRussia which is unbearably boring, farmore boring Ihan a few quobes can cap-Iure.

This is because what it atbempls lodo is paint a pie-in-[he'sky piclure ofthe USSR, through a step'by-step com-parison of conditions in bhe USSR andthe U.S. on an economic basis. Endlessstatisbics , on bhe consbruction ofrailroads, tractors, hydroeleclricplanbs and so on. Wages in the U.S.and bhe USSR. Health care in the U.S.and the USSR. Crisis here, uninter-rupted prosperity lhere. Of course,bhese stabisbics did represent thetremendous advances the Sovieb work-ing class was making in socialist con-sbruction, and did paint a sharp con-trasb bebween conditions in the twosys[ems. Bub really, whab bhey amountbo is an effort bo say lo the U.S.workers: look, bhe workers really haveit good in Russia. 'Ihere is no abbemptto inspire bhe workers wibh the pro'spects of emancipation and lhetransformation of class society. Infacb, according bo this view, classesand class slruggle did nob exist in bhe

USSR and everything was just a mat'ter of higher and higher development.No wonder this seemed so strange andutopian to many who read it (and bhe

many more who skipped the rest afterthe firs[ few pages). In facb, lhis wholesecbion is a bypical example of aneconomist (and petty-bourgeois) viewof socialism.

With this kind of "propaganda," nowonder it seemed like a distraction and

THE ADVENTURES OF BILL WORKEB

even an obstacle Lo bhe CP'ers doingLhe ParLy's mass work. More andmore the summaLion was thal suchwork was a liblle "left," but reallyLhere was nothing very left about it. ILseemed "absLract" and "alien"because ib was noL connected bo realibyas only Marxism could connecb it, andbecause it was done in the absence ofcommunisl agibation, which, as Leninsaid, draws workers inbo the poinb ofview of Marxism "from living ex-amples and from exposures, followinghot upon lhe heels of what is going onaround us These comprehensivepolitical exposures are an essential andfundamentaL condibion for [raining themasses in revolutionary activiby." ''General, superficial dogma pasted onboeconomist work which leaves bhe

workers untrained in polibics doesn'teducabe anybody.

"Left" Economism AdjustedRightward

The coal fields had long represenbedthe great hope of the TUUL for a majorbreakthrough in basic industry. Theminers were one section with a forty-year history of industrial unionism. Bythe late twenbies, the capitalist crisisand the cynical bebrayal by the Lewismachine had totally wrecked bhe oncedominant UMWA.

Union menbership had dropped fromhundreds of thousands to lens of

GEiI UP CNP TTCUT

lhousands. And every sbep ofretreat inbhe '20s had been a bloody babble,where miners, oflen led by Com-munists, fiercely fought for their veryIives. John L. Lewis, president of theUMWA, was righteously hated by theveterans of the mine wars. And thechances were excellenb for theemergence of a new union led byrevolution aries.

Miners were literally starving. Un-employment in bhe coal fields wastremendous, the resulb both ofmechanizaLion and of the overallslump. In 1923 there had been 704,800miners working. A decade later only406,300 were Ieft. 300,000 families hadbeen driven out.

In 7922, wages had been ,$0.84 anhour. In bhe Depression, bhey droppedto an average of $0.54 and as low as$0.28 in Pennsylvania. The ions of coalwere ofben measured in at 2,800 oreven 3,000 pounds, further cuibing bhewages of the miners.

In 1931, 40,000 miners slruck in bhePittsburgh coal fields under the leader-ship of the TUUL Na[ional MinersUnion. A magnificent rank-and-fileorganizabion was built under brutalconditions. Midway inbo the strike, lhenabional Parby leadership summed upLhab the Communists direcbly involvedwere so engrossed in building thesbrike in and of itself bhat they had fail-ed to build the ParLy organizabionamong the workers, and aclually haddissolved the local Party apparabus in-bo [he sbrike organizaLion. They also

!r BIAII WAIID

had failed to build the NMU, which,since it was known as a "red" union,was closely associated with Lhe ParLy.After this criticism. miners were drawnin[o bhe Hunger Marches in Pitbsburghand Washington, D.C., the strugglearound bhe ScotLsboro case, and "RedDay" marches warning bhe im-perialists not to invade Lhe SovielUnion. But after the strike was crush-ed, little lasting organizabion remain'ed, most parbicularly little ParbYorganization This and similar disap-poinbments bhroughoul lhe ParbY'swork broughi the whole line inbo ques-

tion.In many ways the struggle over how

to sum up t,he 1931 miners'sbrikeparalleled bhe inner-Party struggleover Gastonia. But this time it wasresolved in a more openly rightwarddirection. The official sum-up (ac0ual-

ly writben by the Execu[ive CommilLeeof bhe Communist Inierna[ional, buiadopted by the U.S. Party) criticizedbhe line of liquidaling the Party, but, incon[radiction io the line of buildingParty campaigns and the Party in itsown right during the sbrike, puL for-ward the following view of how Lo

bring oul and build the ParlY:

"Il was nob made clear thab a separa-bion and coun[erposing of these bwotasks [i.e. winning the strike on bhe onehand, and building the PartY on theother-RCPI or the emphasis of bhe oneat the expense of the obher, concealswithin itself the danger of a political

Is this caftoon training the workers to be, as Lenln saidr "a trlbune of thc peoplertt..abte to explain to all and everyone the world-histoaic signlflcance ol the proletar.iatts struggte for emancipationrtt and put themselves at the head ol the masses in thestruggle to overthrow capitalism? Or is it training the workers in the point ol view

' that what the Communist Party is all about is something for eyerybodyr a coalitionof setf-interests, while the workerst place is in the economie sttuggte?

45

TUULone-sidedness or devialion. A lack ofclarity remained as io whal was to becharacterized as the main object LhaLbhe Communists were to pursue in theslrike sbruggle: bhat if one wants iostate the main object in one word, andin doing so avoid the danger of one-sidedness, bhen neither the simple win-ning of the maberial results which arecontained in t,he strike demands northe mere ulilizabion of the strike for thestrengthening of the Party organiza-[ion, should be designated as bhe mainobject, but that, on t,he conlrary, ihereuolutionization of the strihingworhers should be bhe main object. Themost important thing is that the Com-munisbs strive, through t,heir agitationas well as through their entire par-ticipation in the sbrike, bo give thebroad masses of the strikers ihe ex-perience and t,he firm conviction iha0the Communists haue ad.uocated orcarried through correct strihe tacticsand strihe leadership. It is, however,impossible to instill this conviction in-to bhe masses of sbriking workers if theCommunisbs do not exer[ all t,heirenergy in bhe struggle against theemployers so as to win Lhe slrike.r"

Officially, "revolutionizaLion" re-mains the objecb. But what does itmean in practice? It means subor-dinating everything, including theagibation of the Communists, to givingthe tactical leadership that carries theimmediate sbruggle through to victory.The economist understanding of therelationship between consciousnessand struggle, step by step led io thesubordination of politics to economics,while in name "combining" the two.

In practice, the Party conceded theobvious fac[ bhat revolution was notaboub to spring full blown from bheunionizabion demands of the workers.Bub the resolution of the problem wasnol a determined struggle to find theways to develop that revolubionary mo-tion. Insbead the Party went down thatwell known path of trailing whateverrua.s springing from those struggles. Ifthe upsurge was not coming as quicklyas expec[ed, more abtention was need-ed bo the "little questions."

Parby shop papers, a major Com.munisb activiby in [he working class,started to be replaced more and moreby union shop papers. Even bhese drop-ped more and more of the political pro-gram of the TUUL and focused on themost particular questions possible.And bhose shop papers t,hat remainednominally "Party" were bogged downwith questions like oil on the shop

46

floor.rlIn fact, the working class was not a

clear field for the Communisbs, andevery struggle swarmed wiCh forceseager to lead. It is not surprising thatthe very label of "red" became anobsiacle in this competiiion to see whowould lead the broadest masses. Witheconomism in command, whab theCommunists summed up from theirown school of hard knocks was wrong.The words "revolutionary" and "classstruggle" became devalued and meantlittle more than "militant." And moreimportantly, the struggle over whetherto hide the face of the Party was resolv-ed by changing iL-lhe CP more andmore put itself forward as bhe home ofthe best fighters, the party of militanbresistance.

Here you have the greatesb crisis inworld history grinding on, a time of in-tense political turmoil, class forcesthroughout the world colliding inevents thal are affect,ing the course ofhistory: massive collectivization ofagriculLure in bhe Soviet Union,upheavals in Cuba and Nicaragua, redbase areas fighting for Lheir lives in Chi-na, whole sirata of the American popu-laLion ruined and thrown into turmoil asnever before, as well as rising counler-revolution in Italy, Germany and so

mel,"1

adslrhel

In an arbicle entitled "The FightAgainst, Sectarianism in the NMU,"ihe CP wrote:

"Our local [TUULI unions lead a lifeof their own entirely separate andapart from the life of the masses. Theyare so engrossed in their own internalproblems and the general campaignsand problems of the revolutionarymovement that they have no time todeal with bhe problems facing theminers wiih whom they are in contact.Mine local meetings, insLead ofdiscussing the burning needs anddemands of the miners in that par-ticular mine and the actual organiza-tion and leadership of a local strugglearound such demands, are taken upwith interminable discussions on theCommunisb Party election campaign,the campaign against the Dies Bill, thestate of the local International LaborDefense orgauizations, etc., etc."

While claiming that the politicalcampaigns are important, bhe authorgels down to his basic point:

"The trouble is thab they are wronglyintroduced, they are not considered in

relation to the problems of the massesof miners in the midst of which thelocal works. Each campaign is ireatedas something separa[e and apart fromother campaigns and is not used to fur-ther the cenbral task of the localunion-bhe organizabion of the minersin its mine for struggle against the coaloperators' offensive. Miners join ourunion primarily to defeab wage culsand win better condibions. When theyfind out that the local organizationrelegates such matbers bo second placethey leave the union." ''

There was partial truth to bhis-theworkers recruited on an economic basisexpected simple [rade unionism. Afterall, bhat is whab they signed up for.

Political campaigns and bhe workeiswere separaLed more and more, so as notto disrupt the trade union work with"absbract" questions from outside bhedireci experience of the masses. In theCPUSA internal journal PartyOrganizer there are insbrucLions onhow to inbimabely connect the politicalissues of bhe day lo whalever is drift-ing around on bhe plant floor. Want todiscuss bhe fascisb seizure of power inGermany? Start wilh bhe way the bosspushes guys around in your depart-ment. Wanb bo discuss t,he oppressionof Black people under capibalism?Then talk aboub how workers in thesame shop must stick together or else.What bo explain how socialismrepresents a qualitalively higher formof human society? Then bone up on bhecomparison bebween how your shop-mates live and the conditions wi[hinthe same branch of industry in theUSSR. I"

Since economism, basically, assumesbhat workers don't care about anythingthat doesn'b bouch bhem personally,and don't aspire to anything more [hana full belly and a secure, peaceful life,even bhe line of the CP in this periodwhere it was expecting revolubion anyminute, led to political work thab view-ed bhe world through the grimy win-dows of the factory. And in the finalanalysis, these politics are polibics thattail and reinforce the bourgeois view of"what's in it for me"-they are not fill-ed with the revolutionary sweep of aclass struggling for the emancipationof all.

Millions were awakening to struggle,lumbering in[o acbion based on a glim-mer of bhe class antagonism in society,eagerly looking bo undersband more.And the revolutionary work of the Par-ty among workers gob more and morevulgarized to fighting bhe bosses,building bhe unions, following the Par-[y, and someday we'll have ib made likethe Russian workers (i.e., lots of .

goulash).

Economism and Reformism

The sharp contradiction be[ween"revolutionary" in the Party's line offinding a "revolutionary way oui of thecrisis" and the reformist conbenb ofthis line shows itself in the 1932Presidential carnpaign.

On the one hand you have the bookToward a Souiet America" which is amonument bo the fiery tone the Partywas capable of at, that time. Certainlyit is nothing like its later geritol-reformism. In this book Foster exposesand denounces capitalism. The churchand religion are lambasted as theopiate of the people. The Boy Scoutsare shown bo be a training ground formilibarism and fascism. There is even asection calling for "racial amalgama-tion"! This work iargets "the idiocy ofthe capibalist system, its planlessness,its antiquabed moral codes, its warpand woof of exploitabion," and loudlyproclaims lhe goal of a "Unibed SovietStates of America."rT

On the other hand there is lhe linethe campaign actually took oub acrossbhe country, as exemplified in Foster'sChicago speech, the high point of thecampaign. Herc bhe reformism thaL liesside by side with general phrases aboutrevolulion in l'oster's book now slandsnaked. After listing the effecbs of bhecrisis, the oppression of ihe masses,and the prospects for more of the same,Foster gets down to his point: "Can bheA.F. of L. leaders and the Socialisb Par-ty be relied on io obtain relief?" Theanswer, of course, is "No!" Only a"united struggle against starvation"can provide relief. "If the poor wish tohave their voices heard, then theymust elecb bheir own direct represen-tatives and go to Washington them-selves." "Solidifying their ranks,building bheir committees everywhere,[the masses-RCP] can face Congress,lhe Senate, and the President with anirresistible force that will achieveresulbs. "

And what are these "results"?Foster runs down an extensive pro-gram that lists every concern of the op-pressed people in the U.S. an end tothe attacks on wages , immediaterelief . "All relief and insurance to befinanced by taxes on wealth andcapitalist income. . . " "Unconditionalequality for Negroes" . . "Againsb thenew robber war. Stop the manufactureand shipment of munitions. All warfunds for the unemployed,"

And how far reaching will theseresults be?

"It is clear to us that the workers

will find ways and means of putbingsuch a program into effect if [all theworkers-RCP| will join boge[her incommon struggle irrespective to whichpolitical party they adhere, they canwin these demands." llll

And what is bhe difference betweenthe Communist Party and all theothers? Communists believe in masspressure from below bo win reforms,these others wanb you to rely on ihecour[s, eleciions and good will.

Revolution? Well, the speech has anawkward aside thab quickly mentionsthab somehow these struggles will givethe workers "organization, con-sciousness, power, to achieve thedecisive way out of the misery ofcapitalism."r^ But after they win allthese reforms through mass pressure,we can only ask Foster why bhey wouldwant to.

On the one hand, fire and brimsbonein the textbook, a broken capitalismcompared inch by inch bo a youngvibrant Soviet Union, and the open callto desiroy the old society. But, on theother hand, on the campaign trail, thestrict focus is on what is "winnable"under capitalism, throu,gh coalitionsfor mass pressure, coupled with themost grotesque reformist exaggerationof whal capitalism in crisis can beforced to concede.

This is a stark example of why theRCP has characterized "left"economism as revolubionary propagan-da loosely tacked onto the reformisbpolitics arising out of the economicstruggle.

(tt is only one example among many.'lhe struggle against unemploymenLcenLered nol on exposing the naiure ofthe capibalist system and unemploy-ment as a built-in feaLure, bu[ ins[eadmobilizing millions Lo march for theWorkers Unemployment and Social In-surance Ilill [H.R. 75981 is also rich in ex-amples, but is outside the scope of thisarticle.)

In pracbice, because of its line onwinnable struggles for palpabledemands, bhe CP undermined all itsown attempts lo raise revolutionaryconsciousness by conducting politicalcampaigns simply as the miliiant fightfor reforms. Crisis was por[rayed assimply a "policy" of the rich;unemployment as a brick for cutbingwages which [he capitalists couldeliminate by "allocation of all warfunds, a capital levy, increased taxesupon the rich, eic.""'Throughout thisperiod, the very hunger and miserythat the Depression brought were" Hoover's wage-cut, starve-the-unemployed murderous policy."-" TheCP put a face on the enemy and in the

process obscured his [rue feabures. Nowonder millions of workers (includingmany advanced, in fact, includingmany Communisbs) were noL preparedto resist FDR's demagogY!

Training the Advanced

For hundreds of Lhousands bhe

oubrages of the Depression were thelast sbraw. They stepped forward fromthe sbart inbo inbense acbivity. Theranks of the radical workers inspiredby and rallied around bhe flag of theRussian Revolution were joined bynew forces awakened to political life bythe desperate posit,ion of the class.Many thousands came forward whowanbed bo learn, eaget to transformbhemselves, to become insiruments ofbhe struggle. And bhey rallied aroundthe CPUSA, because it was the mostrevolutionary organizaLion in Lhe work-ing class.

Most of the struggles the CPUSAled in [he early bhirties were actions ofthis advanced seclion of the class,preparing the conditions for massiveupsurge. The movement they crealedcalled to the millions to awaken andsbruggle, and that movemenl was a

training ground, an intense schoolingfor the advanced secbion of theworkers. In a very real sense, bhe train-ing given in lhab school would have a

profound effect on the direcbion thalthe working class as a whole wouldtravel.

Whal role did economism give theadvanced to play?

The Party is going lo couple up tothe broadest masses by leading theeconomic struggle, like a locomotivebacking into a [rain of cars. Once [helies are firm and tight, and once themovement is big enough and badenough, bhe Party will lead its train onthe road to its final goal of revolubionand meat-and-poiatoes communism.The consciousness of the masses is notfthe crucial thing, their molion is. The I

advanced? They are the couplings ofl

ture of bhe Party.The model for a communist worker

was actually not even a trade unionsecretary. The Communisl ParbYupheld Ehe "Jimmy Higginses," theworking class workhorses, basing their"effecbive" work on prolebarian in-stinct, basic class hatred, andboundless loyalty for the cause and bhe

Party. Untrained bhemselves, theYwere unable to struggle with the broadmasses to spread genuine class con'

47

TUULscrousness.

Since consciousness was Lo comefrom the hard knocks of the immediatest,ruggle, and since Communist leader'ship would be won by leading thatstruggle io vicbory, political controver-sy that mighL alienaLe even ihe morebackward was an obstacle to thepolitical development of Lhe workingclass. This passage from the semi-autobiographical novel Home is the Sailor,shows how the workers were lrained toreduce their politics bo whaiever waspalalable, even Lo the mos[ backward:

"Harl had a lot of screwy ideas aboutCommunists. As a Catholic, helhought bhey were against religion andhe meant to fight for his faibh.

"'Go to it, bud,' Billy told him. 'Noone's trying to iake lhe communionouL of our mouth. I've been a memberof the Communist Party for over a yearnow and no one has even asked mewhat church I belong to, if any. The on-ly thing the Communists are againstare preachers who use religion to coverup atiacks on the people's righbs. Likethis guy Coughlin who shoots off hismouth up in Detroib. He's no[hing buta would-be Hitler. Ib isn't.againstreligion to fight him, it's just an[i-fascist. "'-'

'fhere was never quite a view that itrequired a leap in understanding tobecome a genuine communist, a leap ingrasping the laws of society, ofdedicating one's life to Lhe realizationof classless society, of applying bhescience of revolution Lo bhe conditionsof the present.

This is bhe image porfiayedin Home isthe Sailnr, describing the end of the"left" economist period:

"Having joined the Party, Billy divid-ed his time between bhe waterfronbunion hall and the Communisb head-quarbers. Actually bhere was small dif-ference then in the work of a partymember and an active member of bheMWIU [lhe TUUL seamen's unionl,except, lhal as a Commutrisb he foundLhat he was expec[ed to plunge inbowhatever work was at hand to do. Aunion member could take things a littleeasier occasionally avoidingassignmenbs for sbreet meetings,leaflet distribu[ion and the like.""]

It is nabural thab this lin€ would pro-duce a recruitment policy that wasbasically bhe old social-democraticmet,hod of "self-enrollment." A Partymember was anyone who signed a card;

48

and bhere had to be periodic campaignsto figure out who all was actually in theParty, bo geb them to pay dues, to comelo meetings, even campaigns io geLParby members to subscribe to the Dai'ly Worher!

l,enin, roasbing the economists of hisday in What Is To Be Done?, pointsout bhaL the historic basks that theworking class faces demand that theadvanced worker be trained, not as atrade union secrebary, but as

" a tribune of the people, able bo react toevery manifestabion of byranny and op'pression, no matter where ib takesplace, no matber what sbratum or classof people it affects; he musb be able bo

generalize all these manifestations toproduce a single picture of policeviolence and capitalist exploibabion; he

must be able to take advantage ofevery eveni, howeuer small" in order ioexplain his Socialisiic convictions andhis democrabic demands bo oll, in orderto explain Eo all and everyone the worldhistoric significance of the prole-tariab's slruggle for emancipat'on."i:r

The CP in this period didn'b trainanyone to be such a tribune. It brainedpeople [o be hacks and reformists, it" brained" the life oub of therevolubionary-minded workers whowere atbracled to it,

This produced a problem the CPitself ofben poinbed to: despibe hugenumbers of workers flowing thrqugh it,the Parby had trouble keeping ihesepeople. At the same [ime, because ofbhe line in which it was braining bhe ad-vanced, including its own members, itwas creating a social base for furbhermoves rightward. Large seclions of bhe

Pariy had only the vaguest ideaof anyfinal goal. This created favorable con'ditions for those Parby leaders whowanbed to drop revolubion.

V. DROPPING THE..LEFT'' IN

..LEFT'' ECONOMISMIn 1932-33, the lowesb point of the

Depression was reached. All the ben-sions in society strained at their limits.Something was giving way bhe pow-erful forces that had kept the mainbody of employed workers relativelyquiet, bhe fear, the hope that "prosperi-ty is right around the corner," the lackof organization, were dissolving in anew determinabion to fight their wayout. Every political force in the coun-[ry sensed the workers were going [orise. And ihey prepared.

For four years, the TUUL had boldlyand doggedly fanned any resistance

among the workers. On paper, theystill expected the upsurge to challengethe system ibself. In 1934, they stilldescribed themselves as working in "atime when bhe revolulionary crisis isripening.' '" '

At bhe very same time, in pracbice,the CP had already come far down theroad of dropping iheir polibical work,to focus more on whaL actually arisesspontaneously-simple trade unionismand reformism. In the economic strug-gle, bhe line of building "revolutionaryunions" had given way Lo building "in-dependent unions," i.e. indusirialunions neither AFL nor 'IUUL, withno overt polibical conbenI beyondmilitancy. [n a sense, bhis itself evolv-ed. spontaneou.s/y, since it was definite'ly nob the way the plan of bhe Partywas supposed to unfold. Throughoutthe country, in auto, in steel, strongunion locals formed under Partyleadership; the very locals ihat com-munists builb repeatedly voted not toaffiliate with the openly pro-communisb, openly revolutionaryTUUL.

Given the mood of the majority ofworkers, and given, secondarily, bhalbhe CP had done so little to divert bheworkers' movement from its spon-taneous course, bhere is noihing sur-prising about [his. But for the CP, thisis nob how they had planned ih bheiridealist schemes simply did not corres-pond wit,h the acbual processes of socie-Ly. Faced with bhis development, theythemselves were diverbed from bhecourse they had set. Since bhey wor-shipped spontaneiby, of course theybowed to ib.

Togebher with the locals formed bysocialdemocrals and "non-political"unionists the new CP locals became a

major "independent" trend bhal grewup parallel to ihe TUUL unions'Despi[e the intentions of the Party,despite the plan they laid out for bheeconomic movement to give rise torevolutionary politics, the actual lawsof development asserted themselves.

In 1933, bhe main body of the work-ing class began bo move. 'Ihe numberof strikers tripled over the previousyear. Although the Parby had nob builtany stable national unions, it had coresoforganizers in every industry, trainedbhrough repeated sbruggles, ready andwaiting for [he ice bo break.

But again the world refused to con-form to the idealist "lefb" economistscript. The working class was not a

clear field where the masses movedsmoo[hly from one level to ihe next. Infact, by 1933, the class was crawlingwith every imaginable stripe of refor-mist hustler. Several mass movementshad already grown under anti-

communisi leadership-the Bonus Ar-my encampment of veterans inWashington whose naive flag-wavinghad been answered with sabres andgunfire, Coxey's Army of bheunemployed, social-democratic leaguesand unions, and so on. Above all, thebourgeoisie was far more flexible andresourceful than bhe CP had ever im-agined. The capiialisbs were ceriainlymore aware bhan Lhe CP that the fightfor bread was not, in and of itself, afight for power, and bhey bent every ef-fort bo limit the struggle of bhe work'ing class to every imaginable varialionof the s[ruggle for immediate relief.Franklin D. Roosevelt brought in a

profound change in capi[alist tacbics.Sysbematic moves were afoob [o co-optthe discontent of the masses, to tradeconcessions for con[rol of bhe move-menb. Major anbi-communist forces,especially the secLion of the AFLbureaucracy headed by Lewis, weremarshalled bo march ab the head of themasses and to steer them inbo thewaiting arms of lhe bourgeoisie. Thecrime of bhe reformists was noi fun-damentally, as imagined by the CP,thab they always and everywhere wereforced [o "sell out" Lhe masses, andcrush their economic struggles, bub bo

contain Lhem politically within the con-fines of wage-slavery.

The CP found itself in a franiic com-petition over who could most quicklydominate the movement organiza-tionally.

The Disappearanee of theNational Miners Union and

the Rebirth ofJohn L. Lewis

In the spring of 1933 the dam finallybroke in the coal fields. And this Limebhe miners were able to consolida[etheir organizaEion. They came for-ward in their thousands. A decade ofretreat gave way to a charge. In massmeetings, in conventions, in sbrikes,the miners organized. Within months,90Vo of [he miners were unionized! Ar-mies of armed workers swept upcountless river valleys in the coalfieldscarrying lhe struggle to new campsand regions. 128,000 joined in Penn-sylvania. 160,000 in West Virginia.The South organized quickly. Rallieswere held as far away as Raton, NewMexico. UMW official John Brophywrobe: the miners " organizedthemselves."

But the union bhat emerged with anational conbracb covering 340,000bituminous miners was the UnibedMine Workers, notorious as one of [hemost politically reactionary and cor-

rupb unions of all.The CP had been oubflanked by a

top-level decision of the bourgeoisie.Realizing bhab nothing could stop themovement, bhey had resolved to con-trol it. UMWA organizers fannedbhroughout lhe coalfields. Companiesrushed to deal wibh the very union thatthey had mercilessly crushed only fiveyears before. Ariicle 7a of the NalionalRecovery Act gave lhe bourgeoisie'squalified blessing to bhe organizationof [he workers in company unions andproven reacbionary unions.

Even NMU organizers jumped onthe UMW bandwagon. Finally, the CPrecognized lhe obvious, and bhe NMUwas officially dissolved.

The CPUSA, which had planned bo

win unchallenged leadership of lhemass struggle by its proven miliLancy,found i[self in s[iff competition withnon-revolubionary forces for the leader-ship of bhese sbruggles. And the logicof iis economisb line led it even furbherdown the road toward shedding itsrevoluLionary program.

way bhaL communisls could expecb lo{have decisive political leadership overJrhe bulk of the Lrade unions, sincellhese organizations, by definition, in-iclude advanced, inbermediale andibackward workers. Bul Lhe CP didn'tlsee ib bha[ way. Because lhey believedbhat leadership of the unions was aprerequisibe for revolution, they judg-ed ihe success or failure of their workby how well bhey had seized Lhe leader-ship of lhe unions. This was also linkedbo iheir line that economic crisis wouldauLomabically revolulionize the work-ers. The quesbion bhat posed ibselfespecially starkly to bhem when bheworking class as a whole began to goinbo motion was-why weren't theyleading it? And lhis queslion of Ieader-ship was vulgarized, so that instead ofbeing a question of bhe Parby's leader-ship of the advanced and bheir polibicalLraining to put themselves ab the headof millions when a revolutionary silua-tion did emerge, and the broad in'fluence of the Party in political lifeeven though it might be'conbroversialand not immediately followed bymillions, it was reduced Lo-whywasn't [he ParLy at the heads of bhe

organizalion of the masses in theirmillions? This is why bhe line of"fighting secbarianism" came moreand more to bhe center stage. The Par-ty began bo consider it a liability thatthey were direcbly leading only a sec-

tion of [he masses-those bhat tended

to be relalively advanced and moslopen bo radical change-and began Lo

speak of "breaking oul" of this massbase by tailoring iLself Lo Lhe atLiLudesand prejudices of the working class inits majorily.

In bhe summer of 1933 lhe ParLy call-ed for an emergency meeLing. 'I'hreehundred leading Party cadre gatheredin New York for "an extraordinaryParLy Conference." 'l'here was an acuLecrisis in ihe Party's whole work. 'fheupsurge was starting and from Lhe

beginning iL was obvious that bhe Par-by was nob leading it. They surveyedthe TUUL and summed up ils obviousweaknesses.

This is how lhe CP appraised theirinfluence in the 1933 miners' sLrike:

"[The Communis[ Party and the NMUIplay an insignificani role in Lhese masssbrikes. We are almosL compleLelyisolaled from Lhe masses of miners andcannoL even speak ab bheir meebings,pickel lines, and other gaLherings."lThe NMU, flagship of the TUUL fleeL,did nobl "have one single well'functioning mass local of theemployed. Since the 1931 strike Lhe

Parly never appeared before Lheminers as a polilical organiza'Lion Lhe Daily Worher and currenlliberaLure were noL known even to Par-ty membership."-'

In the railroads, years of resoluLionscalling for an organizabional break-bhrough had yielded nolhing, Lhe in-dustry "remains largely-well, wemight call it 'unexplored lerriLory.' "'Ihe National Tex[ile Workers Unionhad the same membership (1,000) thatit had claimed in 1929, and was in 1933"afler a long period of passivily, begin-ning to parlicipate again, [o some ex-benL, in strikes." The Marine WorkersIndusbrial Union was leading occa-sional sbruggles, here and there, didsome considerable work among Lhe

unemployed on the waterfronls, butwas basically still an organizing com-mibtee. SLeel, supposedly a major con'cenbration, was dead. And bhe TUULAuto Workers Industrial Union had a

declining membership in DetroiLalthough there were some break-throughs being made outside MotorCity.

For the Party overall, Lhe concenbra-iion on economic sLruggle had led to a

drop in bhe circula[ion of. Lhe DailyWorher. The rapidity of the turnoveramong new recruils was shown bYpointing oub bhab several thousandmembers had been recruited in the firsLhalf of 1933, and in Lhe same period Lhe

overall membership of the Parby haddeclined.'"

49

TUULGiven the whole logic of Lhe CP's

polibics at bhis point, their mobion, andthe level of bhe polilical sLruggle withinthe Party, it is nob surprising whaL bheoutcome of bhe "Exbraordinary Con-ference" was. In an "Open LetLer" lothe membership they laid out the ob-vious situaLion and called for a re-newed and intense struggle to seize bhefronb of bhe economic sLruggle. Warwas declared on "political formalism"and "sectarianism"-meaning politicalwork thal mighb get in the way of be-ing the besb fighters and organizers ofthe day-to-day struggle and, related [oLhat, there was to be a struggle againsb"righL errors," meaning, in this case,mainly defeatism over whebher the CPcould really win leadership of the spon-taneous struggle.

The Upsurge and the CP'sCapitulation-

Or, Who Diverted Whom?

During World War l, the cenbrisis ofLhe Second In[ernational justified theirpolitical capitulation io iheir ownbourgeoisie with the words, "Hopes fora revolulion have proven illusory, andiL is not bhe business of a Marxist bofight for illusions." This same spiritnow filled the CPUSA. For four yearsthey had awailed the sponbaneousrevolutionary turn of the workingclass. They had fought to catch up andlead every sponbaneous outbreak. Andnow as bhe storm broke, and struggleswept through American industry in1934, '35, and '36, the CPUSA watchedthe qt_ruggle slip into the hands of theirsworn enemies, those hidebound tradeunions thab "lefb" economism hadsworn would never lead anything everagain. The CPUSA was by now farmore solidly commitied to tailing spon-taneiLy and leading economic strikesbhan they were to their own political in-dependance. From lg34 on, it was agreased slide to the right.

This is nob the article to describe indebail the struggles of the upsurgeitself. It is difficult to sketch them in afew quick lines. By 1934 aboub amillion and a half workers were sweptinbo lhe battle. Major s[rikes broke outin the brucking industry, in auto parts,in the mines and in [exLiles. The strug-gle of the longshoremen of San Fran-cisco in 1934 mushroomed inbo a majorGeneral Strike as the entire workingclass of bhe west coast entered into atest of strength with the bourgeoisie.In bhe years thab followed there were

50

the giant battles of rubber, steel-the stronghold of b-he open shop-auto (wibh the famous Flinl sibdownstrike), and countless other branches ofindustry. The pent up anger, the op-pression, ihe repeated assaulbs [hat[he Depression had created called in[obeing the most exbensive movement ofthe American working class.

From 1934 on the CPUSA was clear-ly engaged in a process of negobiating amerger of its TUUL forces with bheother currents that were rising for in-dusbrial unionization. The major ques-bion was how much organizational in-fluence the Party would have withinthaI movemenb.

In 1934, the TUUL issued a call forcreabing a federation of independenLunions which would be formed alongindusbrial lines, and which the TUULwould merge into. I[ was an offer bo

completely drop any idea at all of com-bining economics and polilics in ex-change for basic leadership of the in-dusbrial union movement. There wereno takers.

Afber years of equating the unioniza-tion of indusbry with the road to a newsociety, they were sbaring at a siiua-tion where they might be isolated oreven kept out of the unions tha[ wereactually forming. Outflanked, political-ly unarmed, the CPUSA capibulabed.In 1935, the TUUL was dissolved, andits active core rejoined bhe AFL as in-dividuals.

Shortly afler, bhe AFL bureaucracysplit in two, and John L. Lewis led bheformation of the Committee for In-dustrial Organization [o serve as ihecenter for the unionization of basic in-dusbry. Lewis had fifteen years of ex-perience thaL proved there was nothinginherently anti-capitalisi about in-dustrial unionism. He set oub toreproduce on a national scale his feat ofleading and containing the minersstruggle. With the obvious blessing ofbhe top levels of the bourgeoisie, theCIO captured unquestionable controlof the movement. Organizationallythey needed to absorb the base lhat theCP had built, they needed the skilledand dedicabed organizers, and theywan[ed to avoid a noisy fight with theLefC that mighl disrupt the single-minded concentrabion of the workerson unionization. The CIO bemporarilyreversed bhe long-standing policy ofsimply expelling and isolating Com-munists. But politically they set thestiffest possible berms for the CP's par-ticipation, cgmplete subordinabion.

In ihese swirling waters of bhismovement, the CPUSA got pulleddown by the undertow. They were thefoob soldiers of the war, its fines[ frontline organizers. They were driven to

white-hot activiby, and Communislswere among the 88 workers murderedby the bourgeoisie in its frantic effortsbo beat the movemenb down. But thebourgeoisie was using dual tac-[ics-repress all you can and co-opbwhat you can'b repress. The CP pro-vided bhe organizers, but they didnot lead. Lewis summed up bhe rela-tionship coldly: "Who gets the bird,the hunter or the dog?" Politically,Lewis and the pro-capibalist forces heled were undoubtedly the hunter andhisbory shows how completely theybagged the game.

In a sense, the CP summed itself upwith its epitaph to the murdered Com-munisb, Morris Langer. Langer, aworker since bhe age ol 12, had becomea Communisb. He joined the revolu-bionary party of his class to dedicabehis life bo the destrucbion of class socie-by. In 1932 he led several bloody bat-tles bo organize the cloth-dying sweat-shops in New Jersey and was brutallyassassinated by gangsbers there whoplanbed a bomb in his car. His funeral,attended by ten bhousand workers,became a powerful demonstration ofclass hatred againsb this sys[em. Buthis epibaph wri0ben at that time by hiscomrades showed Lhe way the vision ofthe workers was narrowed byeconomism. Under Langer's picture intheir hall they wrote, "We willremember Morris Langer by building agreaber union.""t

VI. SUMMATIONThe myth of bhe thirties as a "high

point" turns reality complebely upsidedown. The decade opens wi[h tremen-dous possibililies, a section of the classeager to dive inio revolutionary workand [ear [he system down. And itcloses with lhe working class over-whelmingly, almost unanimously,cemen[ed into [he reactionary, im-perialist "New Deal" coalition. Wavesof revolulionary-minded workers weremolded inbo libble more bhan militantunion organizers. A whole generationof workers saw the class struggle as lit-tle more bhan a fight to bebter the saleof their labor power.

Thousands who had yearned forrevolution were left high and dry byevents, disillusioned, frustrated andconfused. A few, who clung to theirunion posibions, became some of ihemost cynically dishonest demagoguesof the "labor movement."

The 1930's left behind a workingclass that had been given a politicallobotomy. Considering that, the con-cessions around unionization andsocial insurance were a cheap deal for

TUUL

"in such work, as in all work, com-munists must nob limit themselves bo

bhe confines of the Lrade unions orreduce bheir political line to bhe level ofspontaneous Irade-unionist slruggle(nor still less to ihe explicitly bourgeoispolitics of the trade union hacks). In-stead bhey musb carrY out strictlYMarxist agitabion and propaganda andall-around revolutionary work bo raisebhe workers' sights io the broad anddecisive quesbions in society and lhefundamental political s[ruggle forsocialism, reaching its highest form in

bhe armed struggle for bhe seizure ofpower. " t'

For various reasons it is fairlYunlikely that an actual revolubionarysitualion would have emerged in [he1930s even if bhere had been a

lhoroughly revolulionarY ParbY.Evenbs refuted bhe bheories about a

permanenb economic decline, and lheU.S. *at able bo emerge from WorldWar 2 sufficienLly str6ngbhened to en-joy another period of sbablilizabion, a

period of "prosperiby" and reaction' Iidid not develop that [he bourgeoisiecould no longer rule in bhe old way (the

the old way any longer. However, il isnot inconceiuable Lhat bhings couldhave gone obherwise, especially if theyhad gone differentlY in some othercounbries as well. The point is that bhe

course evenls followed was very muchinfluenced by the subjecbive fac-bor-the line lhe CP followed and pro-paga[ed among the masses'-

A revoluLionary secbion of lhe work-ing class would have had a iremendousefiecb on bhe last several decades,

especially the 1960s. Even if all bhab re-'miined of the CP loday were a revolu'tionary legacy-and nob a revisionislone-bhe strengbh of ihe revolutionarymovement would be quite different go'

the CP was notcorrupbed andion from Lhe

beginning thab gives Lhe whole ex'peii"n"" ibs urgent significance. .Aievolubionary Party, rooled among lheworkers, had a bremendous opporlunily to iransform lhe political landscapeof bhe U.S., and lheY lhrew it awaY.

The source of bhe problem' ultimabely,did not lie in objective conditions oub'

side bhe Party, including bhe overalltrends in [he inLernational communisLmovement, bub mosb fundamenballYr,he inability of Lhe Communis[ ParLyto ihoroughly defeat ihe reformisb andeconomisl lines thab ib was born withand which were continuously recrea[edand enforced bY ihe Pressures ofbourgeois society ibself.

The CP began the decade as a revolu-tionary party which mainly carried ouba wrong line, a line noi based on the ac-

tual laws of society. Ib ended up beingbransformed, droPPing its goal ofrevolubion and evenbually becomingthoroughly counterrevolubionary.

In the CP of the earlY DePressionthere is little to emulate, but much lolearn from. These are mistakes which

we, the revolutionaries of the 1980s,cannoc afford Lo repeat.

Footnotes

I Irving []ernslein, 'l'hc l,eart Ycurs(liivt'tsttlt' l'tt'ss, Oittltltrttigr',1960), p. 247: Jack Allen & ,lohn1,. lJetLs, flistrtrY: tlSA(American 13ook, 1969)' P. 527.

2. William Z. FosLer, 'l\trt'arul SrtrticlAmorica ([nt,ernaLional[)uhlishers, New York, l9:]2)' P.

55.l]. Bernstein.4. 'littt'artl Sot,iet Amrri<'.r, p.v.5. 'l'hc Woy Ortt (PanrPhltr[),

nranifesto and principal rcsolu-Lions adop[ed bY thc F)ighth Con-venLion of thc (lonlmunist, [)arLY

of t.he [JSA in Clevelancl, Ohio,April 2-U, l9ll4 (Workers l,ibrarYPublishers, N.Y., 1934)' P. 12.

6. See Ilill Klingel and ,lrtannePsihountas, I nt prtrl ort I Sl rugglesin Rttilding lhe llertrtlutirtrtory('ommunist PortY, {/,S'/ llt(lPPublications, 1978).

7. See "'l'hero Will tle llcvoluLion'llut Wishing Won'1. Make lt, So,"Het'olu t irtn, .lanuar.Y I 980

U. Parlv Organizer' ,Ian -l'eb. 1928,

p. 18. (Article hy Max lledacht)g. 6lh Wttrlrl (\tngrass o[ (ltnt-

m u nis I I rt t ern a t irtnal, 192U.

10. 't'he Oommunisl' Dec 1928. ArLi-cle on "'l'he 1928 Fllections,"quoLed bY 'l'heodorc I)raPer,Ameri<:an ('rtmmunism ontlSttrtict Ilussia (Viking Press,N.Y., 19601, P 382

ll. 'l'ho l)uilv Wrtrher, Dec. 26, 1928'

15.

I hirlWif liam Z. l"rrsLcr, llunhrttplcv oIlhe Anterican l,ahrtr Mttt'ement,1922, quoLed bY l)raPcr, P.70.William Z. I'rrst,er, l"ntrn llr\tan lttStalin ([nLernaLional Puhlishers,1937), p. 55.'l'he ('omntunist, October l9l)0' P.

8[t5. Article hy Willianr Z. FosLer.

I'rttm Bryun l(, Stulin, PP.277-281 .

William 7,. F ost('r. Amtricun'l'ratlc IJnionism ([nlernaLionalPublishers, Itt.Y., 1947), p 66.'l'hc ('ommunisl, Nov l9ll5. Arti-cle by Fost.er.Bernstein, p. 506.Fred Ileal, Wrtrd I'ntm l\'11111t11p71',

p. ll7.lrving Howe & Lewis Coscr,'l'hoAmerit:on (,lommunist PartY ll)aOapo Press, N.Y., 1974), P. 259

Real, p. I15.Southcrn F)xposure, WinLcr 1974,

pp. 188, 194.

'ltho (:,,mmunist, ,June 1929. Arti-cle by Cyric Briggs, "'l'he Negro

Question in the Southern 'l'exLile

16,

t7.

18.19.

20.

2t.22.

2i.

Strikes. "24. Beal, p. I 13.

25. llowe, p. 258

t2

ll

t4

51

26. Wifliam I)unne, ()astrtniu, ()itur!ploI the ('luss Slntgglc irt the Ncu,Soltfr (N.Y., 1929), quoted [r.yIlowe, p. 261.

27. lleal, p. I 12.2tt. Willianr I)unne,'l'he l)aily

Worlter, Sept. 1929.29. Porty Orgunizcn May l9:)0, p. 10.30. Lohor llnit1., lorgan of the'l'U tJl,),

SepL. 14, I929.3l . l'ntm Br1't1n 1,, Stalin, p.2lg.32. 'l'hp l)uilt, Worhcr, Sepl". :i, 1929,

p.2.33. 'l'hc lluy ()u1, p.29.34. Itid,35. Titutartl Srtrtiel Amtrica, p. 69.

(l)nrphasis added.)36, lltirl., pp. 64-66.37 . 'l'he I )uilt' Worher, Sept. 20, 1929,

p. 4. Arlicle by Charles l). ll.u-lhenberg, "Road to Prole[arianlievolu Lion. "

3ll V. I. l,cnin, What Is'l\t IJe lhtnet(Foreign [,anguages Press, Pek-ing, 1975), p. 86.

il9. 'l\tu,urrl Stt,,ict Amerit:a, p. 261 .

(1.)mphasis added.)

40. I'he Way Out, p.23.41. Reuolutktn, Jan. 1980, p. 37.42. l,enin, p. 87.4ll. 'f'hree articlcs in'l'hc (.ltmmunist

express the different lines: "NextSLeps in Lho Coal Strike" hyWifliam Z. l-osLer, 19.31, p. 703;"Some I.essons of the LastMiners'St,rike" by S. Willner,1932, p. 27; and "l,essons of Lhr:SLrike Struggles in the [JSA,"lfo*tlution rtf the F) (lfll, 1931,p.4O2.

44. Party ()rganizar, Feb. 1934, p.:)1.45. 'l'he (.lontmunist,l932, p. 697. Ar-

Liclc by'l'om .lohnson, "'l'he F ightAgainsL Secl.arianism in Lhe Na-Lional Miners [Jnion." {1.)nrphasisin original.)

46. Party ()rganizcr, March l9i)4, pp.:10-32. 'l'his is only one of man.y (f x-amplcs of this line.

47 . 'llsuurrl Souiet Anteri<:a, p. 341.48. 7'he I )oily Wrtrhcr, Sept. I l), 1932.49. 'l\truarrl Souiel Anteri<:a, p.248.5O. Antericart'l'rade IJnirtnism, p.

200.

51. Beth McFlenry & Frederick N.Myers, llome is thc Saiktr llnLer-national Publishers, N.Y., t94lJ),p. I08.

52. lbid, p. 166.5ll. Lenin, p.99.54. l'arty Orgonizer, March 1934, p.

l.55. 'l'he ('ommunist, 1933, pp. 975,

978.56.'l'he Oommunisl Inlernatirsnal,

1933. "'l'he HxLraordinary Con-ference of Lhe CPUSA," pp.652-657.

57. Philip S. F'oner, 'l'hc l.'ur &Leuthcr Worhers {./llon (NordanPress, Newark, 1950), pp. 392,394.

5tl. Hcuolulirsz, Oc[./Nov. 1979, "'l'heProspecLs for Revolulion and theUrgent 'l'asks in the I)ecadoAhead; DocumenLs from Lhe'l'hird Plenary Session of Lhe Sec-ond CenLral CommiL[ee of LhotiCP, LISA," p. 13.

52