The two principle tasks facing serious revolutionaries are (1) to integrate ourselves in the struggles of the working class and other oppressed people, learning from them, molding ourselves in these struggles and win the respect and confidence of the masses; and (2) to create an organization which can unify our wisdom, experience and energies so as to effectively accomplish (1), and eventually assume the position, of leadership in working class and other progressive struggles. These two tasks are not separate and distinct processes but must occur together. Some dogmatists, e.g., the Communist Labor Party and the groups formerly associated with the Revolutionary Wing argued that the party had to be created before work among the masses could commence, since a scientific strategy and analysis had to be worked out so revolutionaries would know what to do. Others, argue that we don’t need a national or a disciplined organization yet, because we are not yet sufficiently integrated into the working class, nor do we have enough experience to justify such an organization (which would have no intelligent basis on which to make strategy and which would thus get in the way of a diversified and multifaceted practice that will some day serve as the basis for the formation of such an organization). Both these latter positions are mistaken. Neither the party nor the mass movement is the precondition of the other. Both historically have grown together, shaping each other in the process. The basis for unity and strategic decisions can only come from direct and contemporary involvement in mass struggles, but struggles can best be advanced through the leadership of organizations that are not yet the acknowledged leaders of the class.
What is thus called for is the creation of both somewhat disciplined and high energy local collectives and national organizations which do not claim or aspire to be the party, but frankly admit that they are contributing just one experience to the overall process of building a revolutionary movement and organization and at first are rather loose associations of local collectives and national organizations who share a general anti-reformist/anti-ultra-leftist perspective. This loose association can only gradually grow into a more and more disciplined body as experience is achieved in leading mass struggles, and most people sum up the meaning of their experiences in the same way. The process can not be forced as both the RCP and the OL have attempted to do. Patience is a virtue and we must take as long as necessary to achieve both the experience and consensus necessary to create an organization with a serious potential for becoming a party, i. e., which is accepted by the working class and others as the leading force in their struggles. At first a loose national association would concentrate on providing literature pamphlets, books, a journal, and perhaps a newspaper, hold regional and national conferences to allow revolutionaries to exchange experiences, and from time to time sponsor a national or regional action (on the basis of near consensus among the participating organizations). Gradually as experience was gained, and the unity of most of the people in the association rose organically on the basis of mutual trust and collective wisdom achieved on the basis of struggling together, a genuine pre-party organization would emerge. As a pre-party grouping, however, such a national center would not claim to be the only revolutionary force in the country, nor would it have a single detailed strategy which everyone had to work around. The multiplicity of experiences would still be a valuable thing since the working class has not yet come to accept the leadership of any revolutionary tendency. One of the primary thrusts of this organization will be to achieve organizational unity among all revolutionary forces, build a united front with all socialists and working class organizations and build a popular front with all progressives, all while preparing its cadre and its supporters in the working class for the eventuality that the outcome of the decisive struggle will depend on who has military hegemony.
The task of fighting sectarianism may well prove to be equal of the tribulations of Job. Refusing to answer hostile polemics in kind, bearing accusations of revisionist, adventurist and centrist with a smile, supporting actions led by the CP, the IS, the OL and the RCP without bating an eyelash, consistently and without guilt or hesitation repeating over and over in a comradely supportive manner the argument against sectarianism, dogmatism, and ultra-leftism, can and should prove very persuasive in defeating these three banes on the working class movement. By gradually winning the respect and confidence of supporters of other tendencies through comradely behavior, even in the face of the worst insults, and through hard work in the mass movement which is bound to win us leadership of some struggles, we will turn heads around in organizations which have had nothing but failures. We should be able to win over most, or at least large numbers of, folks from the seven tendencies discussed above, thereby creating the groundwork for a healthy national organization.
On the local level the primary task must be to build up local organizations on the model of the Bay Area Communist Union, the Philadelphia Workers Organizing Committee or the Marxist-Leninist Organizing Committees called for by the Guardian. Such local organizations must focus on the same tasks as face all serious revolutionaries in the current period. (1) integration into the working class and progressive movements, at first mainly to learn from them, but increasingly to provide revolutionary leadership, (2) overcoming sectarianism, building unity among revolutionary forces, united fronts among all socialists and working class organization and popular fronts with all progressives.
Concretely, a BACU-PWOC local Marxist-Leninist type organization must be oriented to the tasks of building up a broad local organization, contributing to the growth of a national organization, and helping to develop the working class and other progressive struggles on the local level. Everything done must be judged by the criteria of how well a given project, strategy or tactic advances the probability of making a socialist revolution and building an organization that can lead the process of transformation. The four basic goals of a BACU-PWOC type organization should be:
(1) Agitation and propaganda in the working class to raise the level of class consciousness and understanding of what socialist revolution means. This must include participation in the mass organizations of workers (trade unions), support groups and strikes. Just as important as our contribution, and at the early stages even more important, is what we learn from integration with workers and workers struggles.
(2) Participation in other struggles which are also anti-capitalist. In these struggles, we must always keep in mind that our goal is socialist revolution. Thus, we must subtly and in a non-sectarian manner, guide these various struggles towards socialism. Success at this implies (a) comradely work styles that do not turn people off by being too advanced, pushy or sectarian, (b) offering good practical day-to-day leadership including willingness to volunteer for shit work which establishes credibility and shows that our leadership can result in small victories, (c) not hiding our Marxist-Leninism and our socialist goal. We must be above board and honest rather than manipulative. Again, especially in the early stages of our involvement in such activities what we learn is at least as important as what we can teach.
(3) Relate in an active, not a passive way, to the ongoing development of the movement in the U.S. to create a non-dogmatic, non-ultra-left, non-sectarian revolutionary organization, e.g., active participation in the center called for by the Philadelphia Workers Organizing Committee and its associated groups.
(4) Attempt to bring unity to the local anti-dogmatic, anti-ultra-left forces, building firm ties through working together, studying together, treating people with respect, supporting actions of other groups, etc., so that we can eventually form into the nuclei of the local manifestation of a nation wide pre-party formation, and eventually in the rather distant future, into the national organization itself.
The actual development of local Marxist-Leninist groups should proceed in more or less the same manner as the development of the national center. At first people should come together to form groups which spend equal amounts of time (a) studying the classics of Marxism-Leninism, reading position papers of various groups which relate to local work analyzing local conditions, etc., and (b) discussing and evaluating the individual practice and on the job problems of various members of the groups, giving support and guidance to people where possible – without yet developing a collective practice or group discipline around external practice. Gradually, as the members of the group gain confidence in each other, lose their fears of being manipulated and forced to do something they don’t want to do, and begin seeing the magnification of both wisdom and strength that joint political action gives our individual action, a collective practice can begin to develop. At first perhaps the group as a whole will do common action, e.g., participate in a picket line organized by someone else. Later, perhaps organize a demonstration or picket on their own. At the same time the informal support given individual members should organically and gradually turn into collective decision making and commitment as people gain trust in the decisions of the group and come to feel that they can be more effective, acting collectively rather than individually. Thus discipline and democratic centralism should gradually evolve on the basis of experience and growing trust. The amount of democratic centralism realistically possible in a local group, however, of necessity should be rather less than necessary in a party, since the limited experience of a local group gives only a limited basis for developing scientific lines and correct practice outside of the limited areas in which the group is involved. A high level of democratic centralism and discipline must wait until the development of a national organization with in-depth and multifaceted experience and the necessity for disciplined national actions. Too much centralization and discipline prematurely could well inhibit creative practice and promote splits among people who do not accept the group’s line and, probably rightfully, argue that the group does not have a sufficient basis to make a given decision.