đŸ Archived View for library.inu.red âș file âș kimathi-mohammed-organization-and-spontaneity.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 11:53:37. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
âĄïž Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Organization and Spontaneity Author: Kimathi Mohammed Date: 1974 Language: en Topics: vanguard, Leninism, Black liberation, organization, spontaneity, United States of America, Black Anarchism, not-anarchist Source: Retrieved on April 30, 2014 from http://www.anarchistpanther.net/others/other3.html
To Mzee C.L.R. James
and the revolutionary youths he has inspired and coachedâŠ
Special Dedication
To Mzee Roy S. Turner
August 26, 1915âApril 4, 1974
âWe Must struggle from one generation to the nextâ
This pamphlet is not the product of a single Individual, although my
name appears on the front cover as the person who wrote it.
Before this pamphlet was printed many politicals reviewed the various
drafts and held meetings to resolve many controversial points. After
much discussion and the refinement of various points, a consensus was
reached among the politicals whose hands this pamphlet went through that
it must be published immediately. Subsequently, the political grouping,
which operates under the name Marcus Garvey Institute, began making
arrangements for its publication.
It is not necessary to list all the people who were directly involved in
some aspects of this pamphletâs publication. However, it would be a
grave oversight if the name Ali (Mike Lotson) did not appear here. In
fact, Ali must be considered the co-author of this pamphlet.
Modibo Kadalie must be mentioned here too because It was he who took the
Initiative to circulate the drafts among politicals and organize
sessions to discuss the content of this pamphlet in depth.
Then there was Damali Tiombe who actually spent more time getting this
pamphlet in shape for publication than anyone else (including Kimathi
Mohammed). She typed and edited one draft after another. She wrestled
with various controversial points in the drafts and made sure that
politics of this document did not get watered down in the process of
collective thought and action. Without her assistance and those who
worked along with her this pamphlet would probably still be an
unpublished document.
The âorganization questionâ is currently being heatedly debated inside
the black movement in the United States. But most debates on
organization are usually very limited and narrow in scope; in addition
to usually being very one- sided affairs. That is, most of these debates
revolve strictly around certain aspects of creating a black political
party. Seldom does anyone ever come forward to articulate a position in
opposition to the creation of a black political party. Usually the
debators are in total agreement (with the fact) that a black political
party is necessary; so they donât have to argue about that. Instead,
they argue over structural-functional problems which plague political
parties in general.
Most of the current debates on Organization are nothing more than
fruitless academic exercises. They. do not take us one step closer to a
resolution of the âorganizational questionâ. If anything, these debates
have further complicated matters and created more confusion inside the
black movement.
Two important considerations are always overlooked in the current
debates. First, every revolutionary hasâ had to have a base! Second, the
old national form of organization with the âCentral Commandâ dictating
and directing every phase of activity has collapsed. These are the two
propositions we must start with if we are going to seriously approach
the question of organization.
The first proposition settles any bickering about the importance of
organization. The second proposition spells out precisely what we must
recognize. Together, these propositions take us a step closer to
resolving conflicts around the type of organization that must be created
to ensure the success of any revolutionary movement. By themselves,
however they do not provide us with a sufficient understanding of our
dilemma. That is why this document does not stop with the two
aforementioned propositions.
Since a great deal of the current theoretical confusion and practical
mistakes we are encountering stem from a misapplication of V.I. Leninâs
theory of organization, the first section of this document will be an
attempt to put Leninâ s theoretical formulation into its proper
historical context. After a discussion of Lenin and the Theory of the
Vanguard Party, a discussion of Spontaneity and Organization follows;
paving the way for our particular concern here â The Black Movement in
the United States.
The last section of this document is entitled What Must Be Done. Nothing
more needs to be said about the context of this document; except, it is
not an attempt to show that Leninâs theoretical formulation was
incorrect. Like all revolutionaries, Lenin needed a base. Whether the
Russian Revolution could have been completed without the creation of a
Party, is a matter to be shelved or pursued outside of the context of
revolutionary struggle.
Around 1902, Lenin formulated and advanced a theory of organization â
the theory of the vanguard party.
Lenin was quite explicit about the type of organization that had to be
built. First and foremost that organization had to be truly
revolutionary. âLenin wanted a rigid narrow organization, with a highly
centralized discipline. He wanted a strict division of labour inside the
party, each member being responsible for a job of work with which he
mainly concerned himself. The regulation of the party, he demanded,
should be equally harsh. Under the regime of Tsarism formal democracy
was impossible. He advocated democratic centralism. The Central
Committee would be freely elected; whenever possible there would be free
discussions, but once a decision had been taken it would have to be
obeyed blindly.â[1]
As far as Lenin was concerned, revolutionaries in Russia were âlaggingâ
behind the spontaneous development of the working class movement. They
were failing to undertake the new theoretical and practical tasks which
were being created daily by the creative political activity of workers.
Lenin believed that ordinary working people were âcapable of displaying
enormous energy and self- sacrifice in strikes and street battles with
the police and troops.â He also believed that ordinary men and women
were the only ones capable of determining the final outcome of the
revolutionary movement â âbut the struggle against the political police
requires special qualities; it requires professional revolutionaries.â
[2]
Leninâs concept of organization originated in Western Europe. The
dominant form of political organization there was the political party.
After studying carefully the development of the World Revolution and
particularly the development of the revolutionary movement in Russia,
Lenin took the party concept and boldly asserted that:
leaders maintaining continuity;
struggle, which forms the basis of the movement and participates in it,
the more urgent the need for such an organization, and the more solid
the organization must be;
engaged in revolutionary activity;
such an organization to people who have been professionally trained to
combating the political police, the more difficult it will be to unearth
the organization
from other social classes who will be able to join the movement and
perform active work in it. [3]
Two well known revolutionary personalities, Rosa Luxemburg and Leon
Trotsky, disagreed strongly with Lenin on the question of organization.
They argued for a much broader and loose organizational structure. Rosa
Luxemburg, while voicing her opposition said, âThe ultra-centralism
which Lenin demands seems to us, however, not at all positive and
creative, but essentially sterile and comineering. Leninâ s concern is
essentially the control of the activity of the party and not its
fruition, the narrowing and not the development, the harassment and not
the unification of the movement.â[4]
Rosa Luxemburg attacked Leninâ s theory of organization without âsparing
the rodâ. But she was very principled in her attack. One canât help but
admire Rosaâs ability not only to disagree with Lenin, but to also
articulate and defend her position. As she engaged in theoretical and
ideological struggle with Lenin over the question of the best form of
organization she said: âBut the domineering spirit of the ultra
centralism advocated by Lenin and his friends is not for them an
accidental result of mistaken ideas. Rather, this project is related to
Leninâs campaign against opportunism, which is carried through into the
smallest detail of the organizational question.â [5]
Rosa was absolutely correct when she pointed out that Leninâs struggle
against opportunism was interwoven into his theory of organization.
Whether history has proven her entirely correct on the organizational
question in relation to the particular revolutionary movement in Russia
is another matter. All we know is that some of Rosaâs fears and also
Leon Trotskyâs were very legitimate. We will not, however, get into
whether they were more correct than Lenin or vice versa. To do so would
prove absolutely nothing since Leninâs theoretical position prevailed â
the party was built- and it was the organization which seized âState
powerâ in Russia.
Lenin had no sentimental illusions about the obstacles confronting the
revolutionary movement in Russia. He knew perfectly well that no
revolutionary organization had any possible hope of success unless
secrecy was practiced and the membership of such an organization
functioned with extreme caution. Only a well-disciplined body of
revolutionaries could effectively undertake propaganda and agitational
work inside a country like Russia.
Neither a parliament nor freedom of assembly existed there. Many less
disciplined organizations than the type Lenin proposed had been
violently crushed by the repressive forces of the Tsarist government. A
brief glimpse of Russian history should, therefore, verify Leninâ s
concern for organizational discipline.
Around 1867 a number of secret societies were formed in Russia. One of
those societies was Zemlia i Volia (Land and Freedom). Students who were
members of this organization went among the Russian peasants in hopes of
organizing a massive peasant revolt. The Narodniks (those students who
attempted to organize peasant revolts), were singled out by the police,
and either killed or imprisoned, or driven into exile. Zemlia i Volia,
however, was revived in 1879. Shortly afterwards, a split occurred
inside that movement. The Narodnaia Volia (The Peopleâs Will) and
Cherngi Peredel (The Black Partition) were the two organizations which
emerged as a result of the split. The life span of both of these new
organizations were extremely short. But before Narodnaia Volia was
crushed by the police, they assassinated the Tsar, Alexander II, in
1881.
In 1898 the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party (R.S.D.L.P.) was
organized. Before this new party could establish itself, it was
violently suppressed; and most of the leadership of, the R.S.D.L.P. were
either arrested or driven into exile. Since Lenin had been identified
with the First Congress of the R.S.D.L.P., he was a marked-man; and he
had to go into exile. Undoubtedly, these historical experiences and many
others weighed heavily upon Leninâs mind when he formulated the theory
of the vanguard party.
But the past was not dominating his thinking in 1902. The present stage
of development of the revolutionary movement in Russia and its future
was foremost in Leninâs mind. It was obvious to Lenin that the movement
had not reached the magnitude necessary to overthrow the Tsarist
government. It was also obvious to him that the movement was
ideologically weak. Something had to be done to insure the success of
the movement. Lenin, therefore, proposed the establishment of a vanguard
party.
Lenin did not merely propose an organization of professionally trained
revolutionaries as a panacea for the ills of the Russian movement. His
diagnosis was far more comprehensive. Lenin made it clear that there
were three levels of struggle: 1) economic; 2) theoretical; 3)
political. He also stated that the movement in Russia had to be genuine
class struggle, transcending trade unionism and the bureaucratic red
tape of trade union organizations. He further pointed out that political
agitation could not be subordinated to agitation for an increase in
workers wages and an improvement in working conditions. Economic
agitation had to follow political agitation.
Lenin saw the struggle in Russia as more than a struggle against
employers and government to firmly establish trade unionism. But the
popular tendency among revolutionaries was this type of âEconomismâ.
Unlike the âEconomistâ, Lenin recognized that in free countries the
distinction between a political organization and a trade union was
clear. âIn Russia, however, the yoke of autocracy appears at first
glance to obliterate all distinction between the Social- Democrats
organization and workersâ association, since all workers associations
and all study circles are prohibited; and since the principal
manifestation and weapon of the workersâ economic struggle â the strike
â is regarded as a criminal (and sometimes even as a political)
offense.â [6] Because it was not easy to see the differences between a
political organization and a trade union, many revolutionaries made the
mistake of confining their work to trade union activities.
âThe scope of revolutionary work is too narrow, as compared with the
breadth of the spontaneous basis of the movementâ, Lenin exclaimed.
Undoubtedly, Lenin was aware of the importance of the spontaneous and
creative activity of the masses. In fact he always subordinated his
views on organization to politics. That is, he never dealt with
organization theoretically without looking at spontaneity (creative
political activity of the masses). Therefore, Leninâs views on
organization were always in tune with the spontaneous development of the
movement.
âWhere in 1902, Lenin wanted the party to be a tight closely knit, small
grouping with very exclusive standards for membership, he in 1905, wrote
that workers should be incorporated into the ranks of the party
organization by the hundreds of thousands.â [7] The general strike which
took place in 1903; culminating in the October strike of 1905 which
momentarily paralyzed the Russian economy; forced Lenin to adopt his new
attitude.
In 1902 Leninâs conception of organization had obviously been forced on
him. There was nothing fixed or permanent in his mind about
organization. When Lenin advanced the theory of the Vanguard party, he
was simply trying to provide the revolutionary movement with a clear
understanding of how to combat certain specific, concrete and objective
obstacles in the way of the revolution.
He never envisioned the vanguard party as an end in itself. It was to be
the vehicle which would make it possible for the revolution to triumph.
When Lenin proposed the creation of a body of professionally trained
revolutionaries the movement in Russia was very weak. Just in terms of
the number of people involved, that movement was relatively small in
size in comparison with present day movements.
It is important to keep in mind that Russia was essentially a backward
peasant society when the revolution occurred. According to the
revolutionary theories of the time, Russia was the last place one would
expect a successful revolution to occur. Most revolutionaries believed
that the more advanced industrial nations would be the first to
experience a violent upsurge of the mass of the population. But that did
not mean that revolutionaries in the less developed capitalist countries
had to sit around and wait on the revolution to occur first in places
like Germany. No, they were expected to struggle relentlessly to build a
revolutionary movement in less developed countries in anticipation of
revolution in the highly industrialized countries.
That is what Lenin did. He submerged himself in the theoretical and
practical tasks which were being created by the rapid development of the
Russian movement. Unlike many of his comrades, Lenin was a very
disciplined personality. He didnât play around with the notion of
revolution. For revolutionary politics is very serious business. Itâs
not something that can be approached in a haphazard manner.
Questions facing a revolutionary movement must be pursued consciously,
methodically, and systematically. That is why Lenin emphasized the need
for revolutionary theory in What Is To Be Done. âWithout revolutionary
theory there can be no revolutionary movement,â Lenin said. This is
something we canât overemphasize. Lenin continued, âwhen the fashionable
preaching of opportunism goes hand in hand with an infatuation for the
narrowest forms of practical activity.â [8]
Lenin never waivered from his position on the importance of
revolutionary theory. His writings which have been organized into a
forty-five volume set (Collected Works of Lenin) represent his
continuous effort to keep before the movement in Russia a sense of
direction.
Many people have been inspired by Leninâ s writings. For Lenin was
fundamentally a Marxist. He never confided in any class except the
working class. That was the only class that was consistently
revolutionary. It was the only class that could unite the nation and
take the socialist revolution to its completion. It was, therefore, the
class which ultimately had to constitute the armed vanguard of the
Russian revolution.
Both before and after Leninâs party came to power in Russia, Lenin
stated unequivocally that âSovietâ power had to be instituted in Russia.
What Lenin meant was this: control had to be in the hands of the workers
and peasants. âPower to the Sovietsâ meant allowingâ the majority of the
peopleâ initiative and independence, not only in the election of
deputies, butâ also in state administration in, effecting reforms and
various other changes. [9]
For Lenin the transfer of power to the workers and peasants was a simple
matter. In the Impending Catastrophe and How To Combat It he spelled out
the procedure for establishing the âonly control which is real â â.
First, a revolutionary government has to issue certain decrees. The next
step is to call upon the mass of the population to carry out the decrees
and to smash the resistance of the exploiters. Nothing else was needed.
âNo special machinery, no special preparatory steps on the part of the
state would be required,â [10] Lenin declared.
In 1917 Lenin repeatedly and explicitly pointed out that the
revolutionary movement in Russia had to be organized in a new way. By
that time the key question at hand was the question of state power. The
specific question was which class was to hold power. For the class which
held power decided everything.
Lenin insisted that the âSovietsâ had to hold power. In other words, the
âdictatorship of the proletariatâ had to be established. But before that
could be done, the Provisional Government, (which had been set up after
the overthrow of the Tsarist regime) had to be crushed.
Around October 1917 the Provisional Government (Kerenskyâs government)
collapsed and Leninâs party (the Bolsheviks) came to power. But the
seizure of state power by the Bolsheviks did not resolve the fundamental
question of state power. Historical hindsight tells us that the seizure
of state power by Leninâs party was only a necessary step in the chain
of events making up the Russian Revolution.
Even though the seizure of state power by the Bolsheviks represented a
victory for both the proletariat and peasantry, historical hindsight
again tells us that the task of instituting âSovietâ power still
remained. That task was the challenge which confronted Lenin and his
party.
To say the least, the Bolsheviks failed to transfer power to the workers
and peasants. Instead they created a huge bureaucracy which became the
obstacle which continues to stand in the way of the revolution in
Russia.
Today, it is impossible to side-step the fact that once the Bolshevik
Party came to power â it was no longer the vanguard â the vanguard party
and the machinery of government became one. The Bolsheviks had, in fact,
inherited the old state apparatus.
Lenin, consequently, found himself in constant struggle to resolve one
of the fundamental contradictions of the Russian Revolution. He knew
exactly what had to be done, but sudden illness and death cut short his
efforts to chart out a new revolutionary path for Russia.
Before Lenin died he said, âTwo main tasks confront us which constitute
the epoch to reorganize our machinery of state, which is utterly
useless, and which we took over in its entirety from the preceding
epoch⊠Our second task is the educational work among the peasants.â [11]
The Party, however, did not undertake the tasks Lenin defined as
essential.
Following Leninâs death, the power struggle between Joseph Stalin and
Leon Trotsky took on a new character. It had become a struggle which
would determine who would succeed Lenin. It would also determine the
future course of the Russian Revolution.
Stalin won out over Trotsky. Subsequently, the abortion of the Russian
Revolution proceeded with rapidity and the wholesale corruption of
Leninâs ideas went into full swing. Undoubtedly, Lenin knew that it
would happen. For in his Last Will and Testament he stated explicitly
that Stalin must not succeed him. Trotsky was Leninâs choice. However,
Lenin felt that Trotsky had one major flaw: he was overly confident and
spent too much time with administrative details.
Since Leninâs death, there has been a raging debate over the theory of
the vanguard party. All the polemical discussions have revolved around
the universal applicability of what Lenin put forward in 1905. On one
side of the fence, we have the vanguardists, who maintain that
revolution is impossible unless there is a vanguard party leading it. On
the other side of the fence are the politicos who argue that there is no
longer any need for an organization of professional revolutionaries
forming some sort of permanent leadership.
Our task here is to decide where Lenin stands on the question of the
vanguard party. We already have some idea. That is, we know Leninâ s
concept of the type of organizational need was constantly expanding in
proportion to the development of not only the Russian Revolution but
also in proportion with the World Revolution.
Lenin made it clear in one of his last statements what would determine
the final outcome of the revolution. âIn the last analysis,â he said,
âthe outcome of the struggle will be determined by the fact that Russia,
India, China, etc., account for the overwhelming majority of the
population of the globe. And during the past few years it is this
majority that has been drawn into the struggle for emancipation with
extraordinary rapidity, so that in this respect, there cannot be the
slightest doubt what the final outcome of the world struggle will be. In
this sense, the complete victory of socialism is fully and absolutely
assured.â [12]
It is important to keep in mind that Lenin never said a vanguard
organization or party would be the determining factor of the revolution.
Lenin knew that even in a place like Russia it was not the Party, but
the initiative and independence of the workers and peasants, which would
make the socialist revolution possible.
In other words, Lenin saw the self-organization of the masses as the
essential condition for the continuous success of the Russian
Revolution. Self-organization translated into theoretical language is
called Spontaneity. So we must conclude that Lenin was not opposed to
spontaneity, as some people are contending, or as it may appear from a
misreading of What Is To Be Done.
What Lenin was opposed to in 1902 was the opportunistic and anarchistic
tendencies among revolutionaries. He was opposed to the bureaucratic red
tape which dominated the trade union movement. He was also opposed to
the corruption of the whole notion of spontaneity (free and creative
activity of the masses). These were just a few of the things which were
stifling the development of the revolutionary movement in Russia before
1917.
Lenin felt that it was the responsibility of revolutionaries, like
himself, to place their knowledge and special skills at the disposal of
the mass movement. He felt that they could do that best through
organization. Organization was not the end; it was only a means to
achieve a higher purpose. Once the Bolshevik Party had seized âstate
powerâ, the original purpose for the creation of that organization had
been achieved. Something new, a new type of organization had to be
created to carry the movement to its completion.
Lenin said that the new organism had to be âSoviet Powerâ. Organization
per se was no longer foremost in Leninâs mind, except that organization
which emanates directly from the free and creative political activity of
the masses. Lenin had absolute confidence in the workersâ and peasantsâ
ability to mobilize and organize themselves. He therefore told his Party
on various occasions that they had to look to the workers and peasants
for the leadership in the reorganization of the Russian economy. But the
Party was imbued with the idea that leadership in the reorganization of
the Russian an economy. The Party was imbued with the idea that
leadership had to come from above rather than from below.
But history, like agriculture draws its nourishment from the valleys and
not from the heights, from the average social level and not from men of
eminence. â Jose âOrtega y Gasset
Since the Russian Revolution in 1917, all uncertainties about what is
required to bring about a complete revolutionary transformation of
society has been removed.
Today we know that the essential condition for a revolutionary
reconstitution of society is the self- movement and creative political
activity of the mass of the world population. When we translate this
recognition into theoretical language the essential condition for
revolutionary change becomes Spontaniety.
Spontaniety is an abstract and universal concept like organization. It
does not mean that things just happen out of the clear blue sky. Neither
is it a call for anarchy. In simple language spontaneity means âFree and
creative political activityâ. It is merely a recognition of the
importance of the self-movement of ordinary working people in relation
to the activity of established organizations.
In the past, most people considered organization as the essential means
for bringing about change, but to emphasize the importance of
organization today is to emphasize essentially nothing. We have to be
much more specific about the type of organization â churches, schools,
social clubs, cooperatives, associations, trade unions, political
parties, etc. are all forms of organization. None of these highly
developed and established forms of organization represent the type of
organization that is necessary to bring about fundamental changes in
both economic and property relations in todayâs society.
Our most cherished forms or organizations have repeatedly failed to take
a decisive political position in relation to the political struggle of
oppressed people. They have not demonstrated either the will or capacity
to transform modern capitalist society (including those organizations
with the most revolutionary posture, policies and programs). By now it
should be clear that the dominant forms of organization are nothing more
than âofficialâ institutions of capitalist society. And that theirâ very
existence and influence depends entirely upon the continual development
and domination of international capitalism.
In many respects it is clear that organization, as we have known it, is
not the revolutionary answer. However, most intellectuals and other
middle class scoundrels who cloak themselves in revolutionary rhetoric
still attach a fundamental importance to organization, rather than to
spontaneity. They look down on the spontaneous upsurge and creative
political activity of the masses in the most distasteful way.
People from the ranks of the middle class are quick to describe the
masses as backward, unorganized and undisciplined. They usually see the
self- movement of ordinary people as disorganization. But the only
disorganization present when there is a tremendous upsurge of the masses
is the disorganization of the minds of those who are intellectually
bankrupt.
During crisis situations, professionals have nothing to say except that
we must approach our problems systematically. The type of organization
most professionals see as necessary, is a small group of highly educated
people meeting behind closed doors in a mahogany- furnished room,
deciding the fate of the movement on paper. But what the professionals
attempt to organize on paper: poor people are busy organizing daily on
their jobs, in their homes and communities.
The best planners and organizers in our society are people who have to
hustle and scuffle everyday just to subsist. The âless educatedâ, in
terms of formal schooling and training, tend to be less idealistic in
their approach to problems. On the surface, quite often it appears that
the toiling masses are floating in an ocean of disorganization without a
sense of direction and purpose. However, the ordinary man and woman is
not as lost as he or she appears to be, and whenever the opportunity
presents itself they demonstrate a phenomenal capacity to organize in
society what revolutionaries, socialists, Marxist-Leninists, etc. try to
organize in their heads.
Modern capitalist society itself has prepared the ordinary man and woman
and created the conditions for the life-and-death struggles taking place
in every corner of the world. In Asia, Latin America, Africa, etc., both
workers and peasants have come to the forefront of every revolutionary
movement demonstrating not only their readiness, but also their
preparedness to take charge of society and create new institutions. But
many obstacles have stood in their way.
The obstacle which causes the defeat, decline, and collapse of all
revolutionary movements is the corruption of political leaders and
political parties whom the masses put their confidence in. From the
French Revolution and the creation of the Paris Commune in 1871, to the
creation of Ghana; the only people who have shown a willingness to take
the revolution to its completion has been the toiling masses. In each
situation, however, organization has won out over Spontaneity. That is,
those individuals and organizations which have been ushered into power
have put a brake on the revolution. in an attempt to consolidate their
own new power.
In every country today the masses are still violently opposed to the
forces of oppression and exploitation. At certain critical moments in
history the masses have seized the opportunity to register their
opposition. And it has been the total refusal of the mass of
populations; to be governed by an oppressive system which has made
revolution possible.
On the contrary, political leaders, or small bands of men do not make
revolutions. If it were possible for them to do so, revolutions would
occur daily. It is not possible because modern capitalist society has
reached a stage of both organization and disorganization which can only
be successfully challenged by massive political upheaval.
We have to recognize that the world has changed tremendously since the
Russian revolution. What was possible and applicable then is neither
possible nor applicable now. Time, place and circumstances must always
be taken into consideration when we try to determine what is necessary
to bring about fundamental changes in the world body politic. Few
political leaders, however, take the time to do a thorough analysis of
the world in which we live. If they did, they would see that the only
people capable of getting us out of the mess we are in are the toiling
masses.
The most serious mistake every political leader has made is not
confiding in the masses. Instead they have placed their confidence in
organization. But the type of organization that is essential for a
transformation of any society can only be created through Spontaniety.
That is, the people at the point of production and the exchange process
are the only ones who can straighten out the mess created by the
capitalist mode of production. They are the only ones that can organize
a new society..
âSpontaniety organizesâ. That is something few political leaders and
students of politics recognize. They donât see that because organization
is foremost in their heads; or better, the type of organization they are
accustomed to is their only conception of organization. To them
organization is something fixed, permanent, and holy. It is structured
with an identifiable leadership separate from the rank-and-file. And the
most concrete form organization takes in political leadersâ minds is a
political party.
âOrganization does not necessarily mean, however, a Vanguard or mass
political party.â[13] The specific and concrete form organization takes,
varies in accordance with the objective situation and historical
experiences confronting those oppressed and exploited people who discard
their petty differences and engage in collective thought and action. The
life span of every new form of organization which has emerged out of the
spontaneous awakening and creative political activity of the masses is
likewise determined by the circumstances and objective conditions under
which an organized body of people have to function.
But more important than the form and longevity of organization is the
content of its activity and what is achieved through it. It is
imperative that we always keep our eyes focused on what a thing does.
That is how we determine what it is and what purpose it serves. For
instance, Frantz Fanon observed carefully the activity of African
nationalist parties in his book, The Wretched of the Earth. Fanon was
able to determine that regardless of how revolutionary those parties
were, the content of their activity showed that they were nothing more
than replicas of European political parties. âThe notion of the party is
a notion imported from the mother country,â Fanon wrote. He stated
further, âWe have seen that inside the nationalist parties, the will to
break colonialism is linked with another quite different will: that of
coming to a friendly agreement with it.â
Robert Michels, in, his book Political Parties recognized that political
parties in general tend to waver once they attain a certain degree of
clout. Michels also noticed that as the strength of a political party
grows âit loses its revolutionary impetus, becomes sluggish, not in
respect to action alone, but also in the sphere of thought. â One of the
factors Michels attributed to the degeneration of these organizations
was the fact that political parties do not want to irritate the State
upon which their very existence depends. So, instead of encouraging
political activity, political parties (including those which claim to be
revolutionary) suppress politics.
The suppression of politics is a very highly organized activity. People
who reject spontaneity consciously or unconsciously participate in this
suppression, which is carried out in its most violent form by the
policing apparatus of the State. Intellectuals, journalists, lecturers,
political leaders, writers, professionals, etc., are the agents which
are usually employed to discredit the creativeness in the self- movement
of the masses. They spread the hysteria about riots, etc.
Today, however, people donât riot. âMen who read Lenin, Fanon and CheâŠ
they mass, they rage, they dig graves,â wrote George Jackson in one of
his letters from Soledad Prison, Salinas, California. The message that
George Jackson was trying to transmit from prison was: although prison
rebellions may seem unorganized, the activity of the men on the inside
represents consciousness, creativity, discipline, organization and
purpose. But when we read the newspaper, magazines and books frequently
we are led to believe that prisoners are nothing more than animals
acting without a sense of purpose and direction.
People who rebel, resist and enter into life and death struggles never
act without a sense of direction. They know what they want and they
organize themselves to get what they want. Contained within that.
Spontaneity has a phenomenal capacity for organization. On the contrary,
Spontaneity is not something divorced from organization. Both develop
out of each other. At the abstractor theoretical level, some people
define the relationship between organization and spontaneity as a
contradiction. However, contradiction can only be seen when there is
movement. We must also keep in mind Hegelâs statement in Science of
Logic: âall things are contradictory in themselves. Contradiction is the
root of all movement and life, and it is only in so far as it contains a
contradiction that anything moves and has impulse and activity.â
The relationship between spontaneity and organization is very tricky and
complex. One could spend a lifetime trying to identify the intrigues of
the interconnection. But with the accumulation of new
universal-historical facts one thing is certain: the essential condition
for a revolutionary reconstitution of society is the self-movement and
creative political activity of the masses. In other words, spontaneity
must be King.
A vanguard is a vanguard only in special circumstances and in relation
to certain very special purposes. It has no advantage in itself. There
is not, and cannot be, any permanent selection of a group of individuals
able to direct the working class. C.L.R. James
It is somewhat ironic that so many young black politicals still adhere
to the theory of the vanguard party. The irony of the situation lies in
the realization that historically the black masses have exploded with a
disciplined Spontaneity.
The âBlack Revolutionâ in America has never waited on or subordinated
itself to any revolutionary party. Somehow black people have always
recognized certain political opportunities; mobilized and organized
themselves to take advantage of those opportunities. The self-movement
and creativity of the black masses has had a much more profound and
revolutionary impact upon developments in the United States than the
activity of any organization masquerading as âthe vanguardâ of the
American movement.
The only other movement which has shaken the American body politically,
like the black movement, has been the labor movement. Even though the
labor movements during the 1930â s and 40â s were heavily influenced by
the propaganda of âleftistâ parties, the strength of that movement is
likewise to be found in the capacity of the working class for
self-organization. That is much more evident today than it ever was
because we have had an opportunity to see the limitations and
contradictions of unions (a disguised form of the vanguard party) and
âofficialâ labor leadership.
Union leadership has repeatedly sold-out the interest of the American
working class; thus making the âwildcat strikeâ a historical imperative.
That is, workers have had to move inspite of and quite often in direct
opposition to union leadership. Black workers in particular have had to
take the initiative and act independent of organized labor to gain
recognition and better positions in the production process. By doing so,
black workers have not only increased their possibilities of progress in
industry but they have also broken down many barriers which confronted
the average workers irrespective of sex and color.
In 1938 Mzee C.L.R. James recognized the capacity of both the working
class and the black movement for independent action. James stated that
neither the working class nor the black movement had to wait on any
vanguard organization. In respect to the development of the black
movement he specifically upheld its independence and stated that it has
âa vitality and a validity of its own... that it is able to exercise a
powerful influence upon the revolutionary working class: that it has got
a great contribution to make to the development of the working class in
the United States, and that it is in itself a constituent part of the
struggle for socialismâ.
Today, many political elements pay lip-service to the theoretical
formulation of Mzee (the wise old man); But neither the âwhite leftâ nor
black political leadership has taken a decisive political stand in
relation to the contention that the black movement must not be
subordinated to any vanguard party. For all practical purposes, it is
safe to say that the most militant and revolutionary leadership in the
United States has almost completely retreated from the revolutionary
ground plowed by Mzee C.L.R. James.
As soon as the black movement reached its peak in 1966 with Stokely
Carmichaelâs articulation of âBlack Powerâ: and with the formation of
the Black Panther P arty â the theory of the vanguard party took root
inside the black community. Conservatives, moderates, and militants
elements, in chorus, began to sing about the need for a vanguard
organization. And white âleftistsâ groups, organizations and
personalities jumped on the bandwagon, in harmony, lending support to
the specific idea of creating an independent black political party.
Black political leaders fell prey to the vanguard party theory in a very
frightful way. By l968 Huey P. Newton was stating that: âThe sleeping
masses must be bombarded with the correct approach to struggle through
the activities of the vanguard partyâ. But the sleeping masses, as Huey
defined them, were wide awake. They had never been asleep and they did
not need to be bombarded with the correct approach to struggle through
the activity of any vanguard organization.
Unfortunately, Huey failed to fully appreciate the significance of his
own organizationâs entry into the American body politic in relation to
the new upsurge of the black masses. Huey was not, however, the only one
who failed to recognize and appreciate the capacity of the black masses
for self-organization. Black leadership as a whole failed to do so. That
was evident when black leaders at the National Black Political
Convention held in Gary Indiana on March 10â12, 1972, declared: âWe are
the Vanguard. The challenge is to transform ourselves from favor seeking
vassals and loud-talking militant pawns, and to take up the role that
the unorganized masses of our people have attempted to play...â
Although this declaration has a very nice ring, it only reflects the
degenerate mentality that has overwhelmed black middle class leadership.
How can bunch of self-proclaimed âfavor-seeking vassals and loud-talking
militant pawnsâ talk about transforming themselves into something else,
and in the same breath proclaim themselves âthe vanguardâ? They arenât
any vanguard. In fact, black middle class leadership is so disorganized
that at the moment it would even be pretentious for them to define
themselves as the rearguard of the black movement.
It is somewhat disgusting to hear self styled black leaders talk about
leading the âunorganizedâ masses. It was the âunorganizedâ masses who
congregated on the streets, defied curfews, engaged in direct physical
confrontation with the police and military apparatus of the United
States government, and unleashed a burning assault upon the property of
their oppressors. If the black masses were unorganized, it definitely
didnât appear that they were. George Novack said in an article in
Newsweek magazine, Black Uprising, 1967, that: âthe Afro-American
struggle exhibited the power and creativity of an oppressed giant. The
actions were spontaneous, spasmodic, uncontrolled, undirected and
localized.â
All the major rebellions erupted spontaneously and violently â Harlem in
1964, Watts in 1965, Newark and Detroit in 1967. No single organization
or political personality can claim credit or take responsibility for
what happened. The people who were responsible and to whom recognition
must be given was a nameless mass. No one had to tell them what to do:
they mobilized and organized themselves and did what had to be done.
Organization was their âleastâ problem. More black organizations
mushroomed in the United States with the tremendous upsurge of the black
masses during the 1960âs than during any other period in American
history. But none of those organizations could gain hegemony (total
control) over the movement. Their roles and longevity were determined by
the social forces from which they sprung. Some of the organizations
which emerged, only lasted a day or so, and the only form some of them
took was mass action. But that is less important than the impact they
had and the content of their activity.
Seemingly, the âBlack Revolutionâ blossomed overnight. The new militancy
which was contained in the political banner, Black Power; and symbolized
by the Black Panther Party, had been brewing since 1963. It was a direct
consequence of the violent experiences of the Civil Rights Movement.
What appeared to be little insignificant, isolated and incidental
conflicts between a black person and âofficialâ symbols of authority
(police, teachers, social workers, etc.) only served to bring this
militancy to its boiling point. Of course, the media also helped to heat
the pot. The media did that unintentionally by distorting,
sensationalizing and vulgarizing this new militancy in an attempt to
discredit it.
However, the new militancy of the black community could not be
discredited. Once it was set into motion it immediately found a place in
the âsouls of black folksâ: consequently, it was impossible to prevent
it from spreading. As soon as activity broke out in a town, country or
city, black people living there would get on their telephones and inform
their friends and relatives living in other places. If they did not
call, they would write letters and describe what was happening. When
letter writing and telephoning failed, independent black newspapers
carried the news from one area to another.
Black people effectively exploited the advance communications system,
which has been developed inside the United States. Even the people in
the most remote rural areas of the country were aware of what was
happening because they have access to radios, television, newspapers,
magazines and telephones, just like people in highly industrial urban
communities. Since the majority of black people are city dwellers
anyway, keeping the majority of the black population abreast of
developments was not a major problem, except that so many things were
occurring so fast.
Local state and national governmental agencies tried with little success
to prevent the spread of this new black militancy. The Model Cities
Demonstration Agency Act (which was passed by the United States Congress
in 1966), was the first major step taken to curb the rise of âBlack
Powerâ and the influence of the Black Panther Party. Millions and
millions of dollars were air- marked for cities which had either
experienced the wrath of the black masses, or which had been identified
as possible hot spots. Over twenty million dollars was poured into
Detroit, Michigan alone. Immediately after the 1967 rebellions, large
sums of monies were poured into most relatively large black communities
via such agencies as: Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW): Housing and
Urban Development (HUD): Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO), etc.
These monies went into programs which were specifically designed either
to co-opt localized movements or to violently repress them if cooptation
proved impossible.
Most black organizations were suckered into accepting monies from
governmental agencies. Those organizations which refused such monies and
continued to aggressively challenge the appendages of American
capitalism were categorized as âBlack Extremists.â The so-called
extremists became victims of constant police harassment and brutality.
The extremists were jailed, murdered, or forced into exile.
The Black Panther Party suffered the most serious blows during this
period. That organization was singled out by the United States
government as the most serious threat to the internal security of the
nation. Subsequently, a national campaign was initiated to destroy the
Black Panther Party. That campaign reached its most violent height with
the raid on the Black Panther Partyâs headquarters in Chicago, Illinois.
Fred Hampton and Mark Clark were assassinated by the Chicago police
department in that particular raid.
The Black Panther Party was unable to withstand the swift and violent
assualts emanating from a national plan to destroy them. No organization
functioning as a vanguard had any possible chance of doing so. But,
instead of moving away from the notion of building a Marxist-Leninist
Party , the Black Panthers sunk deeper into it. New recruits were forced
to memorize certain Marxist cliches. After memorizing these cliches,
these up-starts in the Black Panther Party went around quoting Marx and
Lenin without understanding Marxism- Leninism, particularly its
application to the black movement in the United States.
As a Marxist- Leninist Party based on Leninâs theory of the vanguard
party, the Black Panthers had no choice but to attach a fundamental
importance to organization. As a vanguard organization, it had to have a
party âlineâ which all members were bound to follow. The representatives
of the party had to be agents whose sole function was to carry out
decisions made for them by the Central Committee. Anyone that was caught
in serious violation of party rules and regulations had to be exposed in
the party newspaper and purged. The maintenance of the party âlineâ and
discipline had to prevail at all times.
The leadership of the Black Panther Party failed to realize that it was
impossible to concentrate the revolutionary energies of the black masses
into a party bureaucracy. They did not understand the dialectic
relationship between organization and spontaneity. That is, the Central
Committee of the Black Panther Party did not realize that their strength
as an organization came as a result of the self-organization and
creativity of the black masses. The major reason why that organization
had become a national threat is because black youths across the United
States initiated action in the name of the Black Panther Party. Also,
the reason why the Panthers werenât totally destroyed is because black
people spontaneously rose to their defense.
Black political leadership in general should have learned a great deal
from the experiences of the Black Panther Party. The leadership of the
League of Revolutionary Black Workers, in particular, should have
learned from mistakes the Panthers were making. Like the Panthers, the
leadership of the League of Revolutionary Black Workers also tried to
build a Marxist-Leninist Party. They failed miserably too, except their
failure was not a result of violent police repression.
Even though the national impact of the Black Panther Party was much
greater than the Leagueâs impact, the potential of the League was much
greater than the Pantherâs potential. The membership of the League was
largely people at the point of production. That in itself gave the
League an advantage that most other organizations didnât have: it didnât
have to rely heavily upon adventurous and militaristic intimidation.
Instead it could use the threat of a general strike as its most powerful
weapon by black workers.
The League of Revolutionary Black Workers grew out of the
self-organization of black workers in the automobile plants in Detroit
in 1967. The first organization to develop out of this spontaneity was
the Dodge Revolutionary Union Movement (DRUM) in 1968 in the Hamtramck
Assembly Plant of the Chrysler Corporation. DRUM served as a catalyst
for the Eldon Axle Revolutionary Movement (ELRUM); Ford Revolutionary
Union Movement (FRUM): Chevrolet Revolutionary Union Movement (CRUM),
etc. The League of Revolutionary Black Workers wasnât actually organized
until in 1969. It was formed to serve as the umbrella organization (i.e.
it was a federation of various movements).
The formation of the League of Revolutionary Black Workers cemented
Detroitâs reputation â âThe heart of the Black Revolution. â No other
organization of its caliber existed anywhere in the United States. The
closest federation of black workers resembling the League of
Revolutionary Black Workers was ITAC which is essentially a trade union
movement based in Jamaica (West Indies). Unlike ITAC, the League did not
view itself as a federation of trade unions. In July 1970, the League
published The Overall Program of the League of Revolutionary Black
Workers. That document stated that the League was first and foremost a
political organization. âMost importantly, the direction of our
organization is clearâ, the document read. âWe are not talking about
dealing with a single issue as the only factor, nor are we talking about
reforms in the system; but we are talking about the seizure of state
power.â
Just as Lenin saw the vanguard party as a necessity for seizing state
power in 1905, the leadership of the League saw the vanguard party as a
necessity for seizing state power in the United States. The
aforementioned document outlining the League program contained the
following statement: âIt is clear to us that the development of our
struggle based on concrete realities dictates the need for a black
peopleâs liberation political party. We state, unequivocably that this
must be a black Marxist-Leninist party designed to liberate black
people; dedicated to leading the workers struggle in this country and
resolved to wage a relentless struggle against imperialism.â
It was a mistake for the leadership of the League of Revolutionary Black
Workers to concentrate its energies upon building a Marxist- Leninist
party. Like most organizations today which view themselves as a vanguard
party, the League developed an unmanageable bureaucracy. All decisions
and directives flowed from the hierarchy down through the various
sub-leadership groups to the rank- and-file. This led to the rise of
commandism and dogmatism within the organizational structure. Thus, the
leadership became overly concerned with the administration of the
organization.
By the end of 1971, the League of Revolutionary Black Workers had
totally disintegrated. Even though the Leagueâs executive body was
composed of seasoned young black politicals, very little theoretical
work had been undertaken by this leadership group. That leadership group
had made very few attempts to expand the Leagueâs contact with workers
outside the Detroit area. Essentially, it had limited itself to
superimposing an obsolete organizational form upon an organization which
by its very existence negated the whole notion of the necessity for a
vanguard organization.
Despite the disintegration of the League of Revolutionary Black Workers,
black workers are still organizing themselves in opposition to inhuman
working conditions, inadequate wages, excessive working hours,
discriminatory employment practices, etc. They are waging a relentless
struggle not only against their employers and miserable working
conditions, but also against the unions, which, in theory, represent
them. More important, black workers are beginning to consciously and
systematically support the struggle against colonialism and Imperialism.
In the states of Maryland and Louisiana, black dock workers
(longshoremen) refused to unload chrome from Rhodesia (Zimbabwe). Black
workers at Polaroid Camera Company have taken the lead in exposing that
company and the United States involvement in the exploitation and
oppression of black people in South Africa.
The activity of black workers in the United States is not dependent upon
any vanguard party â an organized body of professional revolutionaries.
With or without a formal organizational structure, black people in
general will voice their opposition to oppression and exploitation.
Usually new forms of organization emerge out of the spontaneous and
creative political activity of workers. But there is nothing necessarily
final or permanent about any organization which grows out of
spontaneity. The League of Revolutionary Black Workers, for example, was
a logical result of the self-organization and creative activity of black
workers primarily in the automobile plants in Detroit. When that
organization became a fetter, it disappeared. However, the hostility and
the revolt of the black workers didnât disappear with it.
All one had to do is go into a bar where employed, underemployed and
unemployed workers hang-out and listen very carefully. People will be
discussing how fed-up they are with the excessive hours they have to
work and also the hazards confronting them on their jobs. Quite often,
people will be talking about the things they do to make sure they donât
kill themselves by overworking. Very few people will say anything about
retiring from a job. However, when they do, their major concern is will
they be able to last long enough to retire; and, if so will they live
long enough afterwards to enjoy the meager pension benefits their
employer will send them.
The economics of the epoch breeds discontent among the working class as
a whole. Black people tend to be the most hostile and rebellious element
of the working class, primarily because of their historical relation to
the productive process, as both an exploited class and race. Actually,
black people have been conditioned for political struggle by modern
capitalist society itself. Their capacity for self-organization has been
enhanced tremendously by the rapid development of the United States.
The mistake most black political leaders make is to view the black
masses as backward, unorganized and undisciplined. That is the attitude
which has driven them into the pit of the vanguard party theory. It is
also the attitude which literally destroyed the momentum of the âBlack
Powerâ movement. Once black leaders fell prey to vanguardism they
subsequently became a brake of the âBlack Revolutionâ. Instead of trying
to discover new ways to unleash the revolutionary energies of the black
masses, they began to figure out ways to harness and control these
energies.
The creation of an independent black political party became the
overriding concern of black leadership. The Role of the Vanguard Party,
an essay by James and Grace Boggs, reflects the tremendous importance
black leaders attached to this idea. âFor the Black movement and the
Black community the necessity for the rapid development of a party able
to give revolutionary leadership to the masses is not an abstract
question,â James and Grace wrote. They stated that it was âa matter of
the utmost urgencyâ. And those personalities who considered themselves
revolutionary nationalist agreed strongly with James and Graceâs
position.
A Manifesto For A Black Revolutionary Party, by James Boggs, is probably
one of the most widely circulated pamphlets advancing the vanguard
organization theory. Boggs contends that: âwithout such a party, the
masses are without revolutionary leadership, and without revolutionary
leadership there is no successful revolution.â Whereas, there is some
truth to the latter part of Boggsâ statement, it is totally incorrect to
say implicitly that revolutionary leadership only emerges from the
creation of a political party. Historically, revolutionary leadership
has emerged from the lowest depths of mass movement itself. Two of the
most widely read revolutionary theoreticians and practitioners â Malcom
X and George Jackson â emerged out of the struggle below. Both of them
were primarily self-educated men who spent a great deal of time in
prison. In fact, George Jackson never left prison after he was sent
there. Like Malcolm, he was murdered, except Malcolm was killed on the
outside and George on the inside.
Before the life was snuffed out of the firery EI-Hajj Malik El Shabazz
(Malcolm X), he had been like a âvoice crying in the wildernessâ
preparing both black leadership and the black masses for the events we
witnessed during Black Powerâs heyday. In his Message to the Grassroots,
Malcolm brought back the dynamism of black nationalism which had
disappeared with the decline of the Universal Negro Improvement
Association and its charismatic leader Marcus Garvey. Malcolm told his
audience, âA revolutionary is a black nationalistâŠIf youâre afraid of
black nationalism youâre afraid of revolution. And, if you love
revolution, you love black nationalism.â
While Malcolm X was affiliated with the Nation of Islam, he stressed the
need for a separate black nation. But after Malcolm X left the Nation of
Islam and traveled extensively in Africa, Malcolm began to talk about
nationalism in terms of the importance of black solidarity. In 1964 he
formed the Organization of Afro- American Unity for the specific purpose
of advancing the cause of the Afro- American struggle. And, Malcolm
began to emphasize the need for black people to resist and struggle
against the repressive and exploitative forces of American capitalism
more so than he had previously.
Unlike Malcolm X, most black leaders who defined themselves as black
nationalists continued to push the idea of forming a separate nation.
Limiting or defining black nationalism merely as a demand for a separate
black nation only forced black leadership to further concern itself with
the creation of some sort of political party. Imamu Amiri Baraka (Leroi
Jones) came forward with a pamphlet entitled, Strategy and Tactics of a
Pan-African Nationalist Party. In that document Imamu said, âif we are
talking about nation, we must talk about party, because a party is
finally the only structure able to govern coherently.â Not only is
Imamuâs statement ideologically incorrect, but it presupposes that the
vast majority of black people in the United States want to form a
separate black nation. And that, definitely, is not reflective of the
present attitude of the mass of the black population.
Black people may eventually be forced to embark upon a totally
autonomous course of nationhood. At the moment, however, they are
struggling to control the communities in which they live, especially
those communities in which they are a majority. Each battle that has
been fought around issues of âcommunity controlâ has heightened the
consciousness of black people tremendously and sharpened the
contradictions. But the level of consciousness and sharpness of
contradictions varies in relation to the objective socio-economic
conditions and political struggles black people are experiencing in
their various communities. That is why the appeal for black nationalism
has varied from one community to the next. That is also why the form
black nationalism takes will vary from one community to another.
In 1948, Oliver Cox stated in Caste, Class and Race that Afro- Americans
would never become nationalistic: âThe numerical balance of the races
will not allow the development of nationalistic antagonism on the part
of colored people,â Cox said. But Cox was incorrect. Throughout the
1960s black nationalism grew at a phenomenal rate. Racial antagonisms
took on a new militant twist, quite similar to the militancy which
emerged in 1919 and caused the poet Claude McKay to write: âIf we must
die, we will die fighting back.â
Black nationalism in America has seldom been expressed in the form of a
demand for a separate nation. Instinctively, black people stray away
from the nation-state idea; recognizing its obseleteness in light of the
domination of international capitalism. Usually black nationalism is an
expression of resistance to capitalist exploitation and oppression. That
is only natural because the roots of black nationalism are to be found
in the very conditions under which black people have participated in the
development of American capitalism.
Black middle class leadership, however, has failed to undertake a
thorough analysis of the rise of black nationalism in the United States.
They see the rise of black nationalism as a psychological phenomena,
rather than a logical, historical development. This blindness has led
many well-meaning black politicals to the party concept, which has only
served to increase their blindness. That is, it has caused them to
attach more importance to organization than to spontaneity â to place
the interest of organization before the interest of the people.
Throughout the 1960s, black leaders continually defined lack of
organization as black peopleâs most serious problem. Today, the cry is
still for an independent political party. But what the black movement
needs more is a clear and decisive ideological position and a solid
theoretical basis. If black leadership has any function, then one of its
most important functions is to undertake the new theoretical and
practical tasks which the black masses create from it. That is the only
way leadership can continuously provide clarity and keep before the mass
movement a sense of purpose and direction.
It has been the irresponsibility and outright betrayal of black
political leadership, which has ushered the black movement into a total
state of disarray in the United States. And it is going to take a
tremendous amount of time and energy to get the black movement back on
its feet again.
Cleaning up the mess which bankrupt black political leaders have created
seems almost like an impossible task. But it is a task that must be
undertaken with confidence. As we proceed, we must not hesitate to
expose the corrupt elements among our ranks.
Our first order of business is to wipe out professionalism. On the
contrary, politics is not an activity to be undertaken solely by a small
privileged and professional band of men and women. It must encompass the
entire world body politic, for politics is in actuality a highly
concentrated form of economics.
While we are systematically ridding ourselves of professionalism, we
must simultaneously reorganize our thinking. The reorganization of our
political thinking is necessary because it has become too narrow,
limited and elitist. Unless we immediately begin to expand our vision,
we will constantly find ourselves submerged in cynicism, pessimism and
despair.
A feeling of hopelessness and powerlessness has already begun to surface
inside the black movement. But that particular feeling can easily be
overcome. All we have to do is start at our last high peak â Black Power
â and show through analyses the heights we reached. Not only must our
analyses show our accomplishments, they must also show our failures and
mistakes. If such analyses are properly done, we will have the type of
transmission fuel needed to transcend feelings of hopelessness and
powerlessness.
Continuous theoretical work will be necessary to keep our motors running
well. Theoretical work, however, cannot be carried on in a vacuum. Every
effort must be made to take theory out of the world of academics and to
integrate it into the day-to-day struggles of the mass of the population
where it rightfully belongs. That is, theoretical jargon must be broken
down into understandable language and placed before the masses, and the
ordinary man and woman must be encouraged to undertake theoretical work
not only in cooperation with intellectuals, but also without the
influence of any âofficialâ symbols of leadership.
Many people think it is ridiculous to encourage the ordinary man and
woman to involve themselves with theoretical problems facing the
movement. It is not as ridiculous as it sounds. It may, however, be
somewhat idealistic. That is, the ordinary man and woman has so little
free time, if any, to pursue in depth studies and to formulate their
ideas in writing. Nevertheless, it is they who will bring about a
resolution of our theoretical problems.
Normally, intellectuals only pose certain theoretical questions. They do
not resolve them except on paper. But even to do that they must be in
close contact with the movement below. Furthermore, those intellectuals
who have totally integrated themselves into the mass movement have
discovered that the ordinary man and woman is also quite capable of
posing theoretical questions. The average person, however, does not pose
things in the same manner and tone as those who have been thoroughly
educated in educational institutions of âofficialâ society. Their
language is usually void of most of the sentimental idealism contained
in the oral and written presentations of those who have been formally
trained in âofficialâ schools of thought.
The language of the average black person is also usually void of
mystical notions of âblacknessâ. However, a great deal of mysticism has
filtered down from black middle class âcultural nationalistsâ to the
movement below. Therefore, an effort has to be made to put âblacknessâ
back into its proper historical context..
âBlacknessâ is a political banner which the black masses will always
rally around when itâs necessary to do so. Outside of the framework of
revolutionary struggle, âblacknessâ has no meaning. Itâs like âa pitcher
before an empty fountain.â Or, itâs like an empty well â in which one
sees no hope of quenching ones thirst.
Under the disguise of âblacknessâ, a number of black âmilitantsâ have
tried to superimpose outdated feudal relations upon the black movement
in the United States. Such relations have stifled the political
development of black women who are tremendous revolutionary force in
this society. Also, under the disguise of âblacknessâ we have seen
ambitious black politicals engage in petty capitalist projects which are
designed to maintain the wholesale exploitation of black people. In
other words, being âblackâ cannot be the sole criteria for judgement.
Some black politicals feel that they only have to study the black
struggle. But as George Jackson said in Blood In My Eye, âEach popular
struggle must be analyzed historically to discover new ideas.â A study
of revolutionary movements outside the United States will not only
broaden our perspective but it will also give us insights on questions
related to how we must organize ourselves.
We have to watch every new development in the world body politic. For a
tremendous upsurge of oppressed people is taking place and literally
wrecking the world market system. International capitalism is,
therefore, in a desperate state of crisis. Profits are falling steadily
and national economies are collapsing simultaneously. Along with these
things has developed a full-scale âEnergy Crisisâ affecting all
industrial countries.
Euro-American capitalists and their agents are running around hopelessly
searching for a solution to the crisis and paralysis that is descending
upon the social order. The mass of the population needs to know this.
But more importantly, they need to know that things like the âEnergy
Crisisâ are insoluble as long as the capitalist mode of production
dominates the world body politic. They also need to know that millions
of workers and peasants are rising up in direct opposition to the forces
of oppression.
âThis great humanity has cried enough.â That was evident when the mass
of the population in Chile went to the polls and voted for Salvadore
Allende, an avowed socialist and Marxist, for president. The election of
Allende represented something new in the development of the world. Never
before had an avowed socialist come to power through the electoral
process.
The violent overthrow of Allendeâs regime is only another example of how
far the capitalists will go to save themselves. Although a military
junta executed the coup, everyone knows that it was planned by the
United Stateâs State Department and financed by American capital.
Unfortunately, the Chilean masses were not sufficiently armed to defend
their revolution. However, through the defeat of the Chilean workers and
peasants we have learned many lessons.
The most important lesson we have learned is that a revolution is
helpless unless the mass of the population is sufficiently armed with
both military and ideological weapons. For while the revolution is in
progress, the counter-revolution is also in progress. But the
counter-revolution cannot succeed in the face of the spontaneous upsurge
of the mass of the population whenever the masses are adequately
equipped to protect their revolution and they donât have the fetters of
state bureaucracy upon their shoulders.
When the United States attacked Cuba in 1961(the Bay of Pigâs episode)
Fidel Castro had to call upon the peasants and workers to defend the
Cuban Revolution. When the Portuguese launched an invasion against
Guinea in November 1970, President SekouToure had to arm as many workers
and peasants as he could and call upon the total population to defend
the sovereignty of Guinea. These are just two incidents in which we see
spontaneity being applied to a given situation.
New universal-historical facts have shown, with no uncertainty, that
spontaneity is absolutely necessary to bring about fundamental changes
in our society. Black politicals, therefore, must grab this new
universal conception and apply it in a scientific way to the problems,
given the peculiar entanglement of the black masses in the net of
international capitalism. However, those problems have to be faced with
sober senses to avoid panic and disintegration inside the black
movement.
That is exactly what the black movement is confronted with now â panic
and disintegration. Of course, there are some objective reasons for
this; and one has to always expect these things. But the degree of panic
and disintegration taking place is an âabnormalâ development when we
look at the revolutionary potential of the black masses. Particularly,
when we look at it in light of the strategic position black people
occupy in the cogwheel of American capital.
The degree to which black people have been integrated into industrial,
military, educational, and political institutions poses a grave threat
to American society. Although black people resemble a captive nation on
one hand, they are an integral part of the American body politic on the
other hand. That is, the black movement cannot be isolated or contained,
whatever happens inside the âGhettoâ spreads rapidly and influences
other developments in American society.
By 1976 it is estimated that 55 percent of the total population of about
twelve major cities in the United States will be black. This is
significant because even though the numerical strength of black people
is small in relation to the total population â they are highly
concentrated in the urban-industrial areas and are approaching an
overwhelming majority. For instance, 60 percent of the inner city
population in Detroit is already black. Coupled with this is the fact
that the black masses in Detroit form one of the most explosive and
revolutionary sections of the âBlack Revolutionâ in America.
The international headquarters of the automobile industry is located in
Detroit. In some automobile plants black workers represent more than 70
percent of the work force. This type of information is very, very
important in determining our relative strength in relation to the whole
process of production in this country. Also, in determining how we must
move to effect the changes we seek.
In the coming decades we must call upon black workers to utilize their
clout. Throughout the sixties we saw our political strength in terms of
racial solidarity. But we seldom saw the importance of black unity in
respect to our relation to the productive forces of society. That is,
black political leadership did not call upon workers to take positive
action at the point of production. Such a step could have given us a
decisive edge in certain battles around issues of community control.
Not too long ago longshoremen were asked to refuse to unload shipments
of chrome from Zimbabwe (Rhodesia) in protest to the super-exploitation
of blacks by a small white regime. In Baltimore and New Orleans
longshoremen also responded to such a request in a very positive manner.
They did not unload the chrome or any subsequent shipments from
Zimbabwe. That only goes to show us the level of consciousness of
certain elements of the working class.
Now, it is quite obvious that black women as an organized segment of the
population are a very powerful and conscious force. However, no serious
effort has been made to unleash the revolutionary energies of women.
Usually black women are classified as âsupportiveâ elements and thrown
into political cadres which stifle the political development and
creativity of women. Consequently, one of our greatest, if not the
greatest, sources of power has gone literally untapped.
That wonât do! Women must organize and mobilize themselves like they
have done in the past. Although it is seldom mentioned, women were in
the forefront of some of the fiercest battles to establish âcommunity
controlâ in many localities during the 1960s. Quite often, however,
black politicals overlook the significant role women have played and are
capable of playing. The general tendency today is to pay lip service to
the importance of women and to shove the âWoman Questionâ off on
aggressive women to deal with. But not only are women capable of
providing leadership on the âWomanâs Questionâ, they are also very
capable of providing leadership on all other political concerns.
Today, more than ever before, it is necessary to unleash those
revolutionary energies which have been diverted and suppressed by
capitalist society. Through the process of revolutionary struggle, those
elements which form the movement below will organize themselves in quite
unimaginable ways, to ensure the successful development of a new social
order. Our task, therefore, is to discover ways to unleash the
creativity and revolutionary energies of the black masses. But that is
not a task for a small band of men and women to undertake by themselves.
That is a task which can only be accomplished through the collective
thought and action of the revolutionary forces which make up the black
movement.
[1] C.L.R. James, World Revolution, 1917â1936 Kraus Reprint,
Nendlen/Lichtenstein, 1970. Pp. 48â49
[2] V.I. Lenin, What Is To Be Done, Collected Works Vol. 5, Foreign
Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1916. P. 450.
[3] V.I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vo. 5, P. 464.
[4] Rosa Luxemburg, Selected Political Writings, Monthly Review Press,
New York, 1971. P.295.
[5] Ibid.
[6] V.I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vo. 5. P. 452.
[7] Raya Dunayevskaya, Marxism and Freedom, Twayne Publishers, New York,
1958. P. 182.
[8] V.I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 5, P. 369.
[9] One of the Fundamental Questions of Revolution, Vol. 25. Pp. 368 &
373.
[10] lmpending Catastropheand How To Combat It, Vol. 25. P. 331.
[11] âOn Co-operationâ, Vol. 33. P. 474.
[12] âBetter Fewer, But Betterâ, Vol. 33. P. 501
[13] A point George Rawick emphasized in a letter to Damali in response
to the first draft of this document.