You Don’t Need A Weatherman To Know Which Way The Wind Blows
Long Live the Victory of The Leftist People’s War!
-begin my subnotes-
The Quran Says that the Muslims should read The Torah and The Gospel of Jesus, so that all Three Tribes would be the Most Blessed of All The Earth…
Then, http://bit.ly/bLRJcd Muslims make images of Muhammad, Then Bipolar Islamic Clerics says its Illegal?
The [Gospel of Jesus] is to by read by Muslims Quotes From The Quran…
3.3
3.48
3.65
5.46
5.47
5.66
5.68
5.110
7.157
9.111
48.29
57.27
The [Torah of the Jews] is to by read by Muslims Quotes From The Quran…
3.3
3.48
3.50
3.65
3.93
5.43
5.44
5.46
5.66
5.68
5.110
7.157
9.111
48.29
61.6
But The Islamic Political Clerics say Muslims whom Read the Teachings of The Jews and of the Teachings of Jesus The One Named Christ should be Beheaded. Thus, The Public in General Listen to Mankind and Ignore Their own Koran…
Look how Islam Has Destroyed Entire Continent of Africa, furthermore, Look at the innovations, inventions, and inspirations of Africa and Islam as a whole they have not helped mankind with anything, they only come to steal, kill, and destroy. Jesus the Christ said whatever comes around goes around, Thus Africa and Islam began Slavery in thier Kingdoms and even now it Continues. Whitey also fought and died to free the Latina’s in America from Spain and from France, again with not 1 notable thank you…
All of this is ignored by the leftist students of history, and also is ignored in the leftist USA media. Whitey died for the Black man to be free, within 4 years 1 million died, and have never been thanked by the leftist, again a part of history that is ignored, otherwise they couldnt spew their Hatred.
In Conclusion, It is not righteousness to complain of the USA having slavery from 1776-1865 [89] years. Unless you also Complain about Africa having Slaves for over [430] years. Documents in Hebrew Scriptures and from secular Egypt prove that this was so.
-end my subnotes-
Submitted by Karin Asbley, Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, John
Jacobs, Jeff Jones, Gerry Long, Home Machtinger, Jim Mellen,
Terry Robbins, Mark Rudd and Steve Tappis.
From /New Left Notes/, June 18, 1969
I. International Revolution
The contradiction between the revolutionary peoples of Asia, Africa and
Latin America and the imperialists headed by the United States is the
principal contradiction in the contemporary world. The development of
this contradiction is promoting the struggle of the people of the whole
world against US imperialism and its lackeys.
Lin Piao, Long Live the Victory of People’s War!
People ask, what is the nature of the revolution that we talk about-
Who will it be made by, and for, and what are its goals and strategy-
The overriding consideration in answering these questions is that the
main struggle going on in the world today is between US imperialism and
the national liberation struggles against it. This is essential in
defining political matters in the whole world: because it is by far the
most powerful, every other empire and petty dictator is in the long run
dependent on US imperialism, which has unified, allied with, and
defended all of the reactionary forces of the whole world. Thus, in
considering every other force or phenomenon, from Soviet imperialism or
Israeli imperialism to “workers struggle” in France or Czechoslovakia,
we determine who are our friends and who are our enemies according to
whether they help US imperialism or fight to defeat it.
So the very first question people in this country must ask in
considering the question of revolution is where they stand in relation
to the United States as an oppressor nation, and where they stand in
relation to the masses of people throughout the world whom US
imperialism is oppressing.
The primary task of revolutionary struggle is to solve this principal
contradiction on the side of the people of the world. It is the
oppressed peoples of the world who have created the wealth of this
empire and it is to them that it belongs; the goal of the revolutionary
struggle must be the control and use of this wealth in the interests of
the oppressed peoples of the world.
It is in this context that we must examine the revolutionary struggles
in the United States. We are within the heartland of a worldwide
monster, a country so rich from its worldwide plunder that even the
crumbs doled out to the enslaved masses within its borders provide for
material existence very much above the conditions of the masses of
people of the world. The US empire, as a worldwide system, channels
wealth, based upon the labor and resources of the rest of the world,
into the United States. The relative affluence existing in the United
States is directly dependent upon the labor and natural resources of
the Vietnamese, the Angolans, the Bolivians and the rest of the peoples of
the Third World. All of the United Airlines Astrojets, all of the
Holiday Inns, all of Hertz’s automobiles, your television set, car and
wardrobe already belong, to a large degree to the people of the rest of
the world.
Therefore, any conception of “socialist revolution” simply in terms of
the working people of the United States, failing to recognize the full
scope of interests of the most oppressed peoples of the world, is a
conception of a fight for a particular privileged interest, and is a
very dangerous ideology. While the control and use of the wealth of the
Empire for the people of the whole world is also in the interests of
the vast majority of the people in this country, if the goal is not clear
from the start we will further the preservation of class society,
oppression, war, genocide, and the complete emiseration of everyone,
including the people of the US.
The goal is the destruction of US imperialism and the achievement of a
classless world: world communism. Winning state power in the US will
occur as a result of the military forces of the US overextending
themselves around the world and being defeated piecemeal; struggle
within the US will be a vital part of this process, but when the
revolution triumphs in the US it will have been made by the people of
the whole world. For socialism to be defined in national terms within
so extreme and historical an oppressor nation as this is only imperialist
national chauvinism on the part of the “movement.”
II. What Is The Black Colony-
Not every colony of people oppressed by imperialism lies outside the
boundaries of the US. Black people within North America, brought here
400 years ago as slaves and whose labor, as slaves, built this country,
are an internal colony within the confines of the oppressor nation.
What this means is that black people are oppressed as a whole people, in the
institutions and social relations of the country, apart from simply the
consideration of their class position, income, skill, etc., as
individuals- What does this colony look like- What is the basis for its
common oppression and why is it important-
One historically important position has been that the black colony only
consists of the black belt nation in the South, whose fight for
national liberation is based on a common land, culture, history and economic
life. The corollary of this position is that black people in the rest
of the country are a national minority but not actually part of the colony
themselves; so the struggle for national liberation is for the black
belt, and not all blacks; black people in the north, not actually part
of the colony, are part of the working class of the white oppressor
nation. In this formulation northern black workers have a “dual
role”—one an interest in supporting the struggle in the South, and
opposing racism, as members of the national minority; and as northern
“white nation” workers whose class interest is in integrated socialism
in the north. The consistent version of this line actually calls for
integrated organizing of black and white workers in the north along
what it calls “class” lines.
This position is wrong; in reality, the black colony does not exist
simply as the “black belt nation,” but exists in the country as a
whole. The common oppression of black people and the common culture growing
out of that history are not based historically or currently on their
relation to the territory of the black belt, even though that has been
a place of population concentration and has some very different
characteristics than the north, particularly around the land question.
Rather, the common features of oppression, history and culture which
unify black people as a colony (although originating historically in a
common territory apart from the colonizers, i.e., Africa, not the
South) have been based historically on their common position as slaves, which
since the nominal abolition of slavery has taken the form of caste
oppression, and oppression of black people as a people everywhere that
they exist. A new black nation, different from the nations of Africa
from which it came, has been forged by the common historical experience
of importation and slavery and caste oppression; to claim that to be a
nation it must of necessity now be based on a common national territory
apart from the colonizing nation is a mechanical application of
criteria which were and are applicable to different situations.
What is specifically meant by the term caste is that all black people,
on the basis of their common slave history, common culture and skin
color are systematically denied access to particular job categories (or
positions within job categories), social position, etc., regardless of
individual skills, talents, money or education. Within the working
class, they are the most oppressed section; in the petit bourgeoisie,
they are even more strictly confined to the lowest levels. Token
exceptions aside, the specific content of this caste oppression is to
maintain black people in the most exploitative and oppressive jobs and
conditions. Therefore, since the lowest class is the working class, the
black caste is almost entirely a caste of the working class, or [holds]
positions as oppressed as the lower working-class positions (poor black
petit bourgeoisie and farmers); it is a colonial labor caste,, a colony
whose common national character itself is defined by their common class
position.
Thus, northern blacks do not have a “dual interest”—as blacks on the
one hand and “US-nation workers” on the other. They have a single class
interest, along with all other black people in the US, as members of
the Black Proletarian Colony.
III. The Struggle For Socialist Self-Determination
The struggle of black people—as a colony—is for self-determination,
freedom, and liberation from US imperialism. Because blacks have been
oppressed and held in an inferior social position as a people, they
have a right to decide, organize and act on their common destiny as a people
apart from white interference. Black self-determination does not simply
apply to determination of their collective political destiny at some
future time. It is directly tied to the fact that because all blacks
experience oppression in a form that no whites do, no whites are in a
position to fully understand and test from their own practice the real
situation black people face and the necessary response to it. This is
why it is necessary for black people to organize separately and
determine their actions separately at each stage of the struggle.
It is important to understand the implications of this. It is not
legitimate for whites to organizationally intervene in differences
among revolutionary black nationalists. It would be arrogant for us to attack
any black organization that defends black people and opposes
imperialism in practice. But it is necessary to develop a correct understanding of
the Black Liberation struggle within our own organization, where an
incorrect one will further racist practice in our relations with the
black movement.
In the history of some external colonies, such as China and Vietnam,
the struggle for self-determination has had two stages: (1) a united front
against imperialism and for New Democracy (which is a joint
dictatorship of anti-colonial classes led by the proletariat, the content of which
is a compromise between the interests of the proletariat and nationalist
peasants, petit bourgeoisie and national bourgeoisie); and (2)
developing out of the new democratic stage, socialism.
However, the black liberation struggle in this country will have only
one “stage”; the struggle for self-determination will embody within it
the struggle for socialism.
As Huey P. Newton has said, “In order to be a revolutionary
nationalist, you would of necessity have to be a socialist.” This is because—given
the caste quality of oppression-as-a-people-through-a-common-degree-of-exploitation—selfdetermination
requires being free from white capitalist exploitation in the form of
inferior (lower caste) jobs, housing, schools, hospitals, prices. In
addition, only what was or became in practice a socialist program for
self-determination—one which addressed itself to reversing this
exploitation—could win the necessary active mass support in the
“proletarian colony.”
The program of a united front for new democracy, on the other hand,
would not be as thorough, and so would not win as active and determined
support from the black masses. The only reason for having such a front
would be where the independent petit bourgeois forces which it would
bring in would add enough strength to balance the weakening of
proletarian backing. This is not the case: first, because much of the
black petit bourgeoisie is actually a “comprador” petit bourgeoisie
(like so-called black capitalists who are promoted by the power
structure to seem independent but are really agents of white monopoly
capital), who would never fight as a class for any real
self-determination; and secondly, because many black petit bourgeoisie,
perhaps most, while not having a class interest in socialist
self-determination, are close enough to the black masses in the
oppression and limitations on their conditions that they will support
many kinds of self-determination issues, and, especially when the
movement is winning, can be won to support full (socialist)
self-determination. For the black movement to work to maximize this
support from the petit bourgeoisie is correct; but it is in no way a
united front where it is clear that the Black Liberation Movement
should not and does not modify the revolutionary socialist content of its
stand to win that support. From /New Left Notes/, June 18, 1969
IV. Black Liberation Means Revolution
What is the relationship of the struggle for black self-determination
to the whole worldwide revolution to defeat US imperialism and
internationalize its resources toward the goal of creating a classless
world- No black self-determination could be won which would not result in a
victory for the international revolution as a whole. The black
proletarian colony, being dispersed as such a large and exploited
section of the work force, is essential to the survival of imperialism.
Thus, even if the black liberation movement chose to try to attain
self-determination in the form of a separate country (a legitimate part
of the right to self-determination), existing side by side with the US,
imperialism could not survive if they won it—and so would never give up
without being defeated. Thus, a revolutionary nationalist movement
could not win without destroying the state power of the imperialists; and it
is for this reason that the black liberation movement, as a
revolutionary nationalist movement for self-determination, is
automatically in and of itself an inseparable part of the whole
revolutionary struggle against US imperialism and for international
socialism.
However, the fact that black liberation depends on winning the whole
revolution does not mean that it depends on waiting for and joining
with a mass white movement to do it. The genocidal oppression of black
people must be ended, and does not allow any leisure time to wait; if
necessary, black people could win self-determination, abolishing the
whole imperialist system and seizing state power to do it, without this
white movement, although the cost among whites and blacks both would be
high.
Blacks could do it alone if necessary because of their centralness to
the system, economically and geo-militarily, and because of the level
of unity, commitment, and initiative which will be developed in waging a
people’s war for survival and national liberation. However, we do not
expect that they will have to do it alone, not only because of the
international situation, but also because the real interests of masses
of oppressed whites in this country lie with the Black Liberation
struggle, and the conditions for understanding and fighting for these
interests grow with the deepening of the crises. Already, the black
liberation movement has carried with it an upsurge of revolutionary
consciousness among white youth; and while there are no guarantees, we
can expect that this will extend and deepen among all oppressed whites.
To put aside the possibility of blacks winning alone leads to the
racist position that blacks should wait for whites and are dependent on whites
acting for them to win. Yet the possibility of blacks winning alone
cannot in the least be a justification for whites failing to shoulder
the burden of developing a revolutionary movement among whites. If the
first error is racism by holding back black liberation, this would be
equally racist by leaving blacks isolated to take on the whole fight—
and the whole cost—for everyone.
It is necessary to defeat both racist tendencies: (1) that blacks
shouldn’t go ahead with making the revolution, and (2) that blacks
should go ahead alone with making it. The only third path is to build a
white movement which will support the blacks in moving as fast as they
have to and are able to, and still itself keep up with that black
movement enough so that white revolutionaries share the cost and the
blacks don’t have to do the whole thing alone. Any white who does not
follow this third path is objectively following one of the other two
(or both) and is objectively racist.
V. Anti-Imperialist Revolution And The United Front
Since the strategy for defeating imperialism in semi-feudal colonies
has two stages, the new democratic stage of a united front to throw out
imperialism and then the socialist stage, some people suggest two
stages for the US too—one to stop imperialism, the anti-imperialist stage, and
another to achieve the dictatorship of the proletariat, the socialist
stage. It is no accident that even the proponents of this idea can’t
tell you what it means. In reality, imperialism is a predatory
international stage of capitalism. Defeating imperialism within the US
couldn’t possibly have the content, which it could in a semi-feudal
country, of replacing imperialism with capitalism or new democracy;
when imperialism is defeated in the US, it will be replaced by
socialism—nothing else. One revolution, one replacement process, one
seizure of state power—the anti-imperialist revolution and the
socialist revolution, one and the same stage. To talk of this as two separate
stages, the struggle to overthrow imperialism and the struggle for
socialist revolution, is as crazy as if Marx had talked about the
proletarian socialist revolution as a revolution of two stages, one the
overthrow of capitalist state power, and second the establishment of
socialist state power.
Along with no two stages, there is no united front with the petit
bourgeoisie, because its interests as a class aren’t for replacing
imperialism with socialism. As far as people within this country are
concerned, the international war against imperialism is the same task
as the socialist revolution, for one overthrow of power here. There is no
“united front” for socialism here.
One reason people have considered the “united front” idea is the fear
that if we were talking about a one-stage socialist revolution we would
fail to organize maximum possible support among people, like some petit
bourgeoisie, who would fight imperialism on a particular issue, but
weren’t for revolution. When the petit bourgeoisie’s interest is for
fighting imperialism on a particular issue, but not for overthrowing it
and replacing it with socialism, it is still contributing to revolution
to that extent—not to some intermediate thing which is not imperialism
and not socialism. Someone not for revolution is not for actually
defeating imperialism either, but we still can and should unite with
them on particular issues. But this is not a united front (and we
should not put forth some joint “united front” line with them to the exclusion
of our own politics), because their class position isn’t against
imperialism as a system. In China, or Vietnam, the petit bourgeoisie’s
class interests could be for actually winning against imperialism; this
was because their task was driving it out, not overthrowing its whole
existence. For us here, “throwing it out” means not from one colony,
but all of them, throwing it out of the world, the same thing as
overthrowing it.
VI. International Strategy
What is the strategy of this international revolutionary movement- What
are the strategic weaknesses of the imperialists which make it possible
for us to win- Revolutionaries around the world are in general
agreement on the answer, which Lin Piao describes in the following way:
US imperialism is stronger, but also more vulnerable, than any
imperialism of the past. It sets itself against the people of the whole
world, including the people of the United States. Its human, military,
material and financial resources are far from sufficient for the
realization of its ambition of domination over the whole world. US
imperialism has further weakened itself by occupying so many places in
the world, overreaching itself, stretching its fingers out wide and
dispersing its strength, with its rear so far away and its supply lines
so long. —/Long Live the Victory of People’s War/
The strategy which flows from this is what Ché called “creating two,
three, many Vietnams”—to mobilize the struggle so sharply in so many
places that the imperialists cannot possibly deal with it all. Since it
is essential to their interests, they will try to deal with it all, and
will be defeated and destroyed in the process.
In defining and implementing this strategy, it is clear that the
vanguard (that is, the section of the people who are in the forefront
of the struggle and whose class interests and needs define the terms and
tasks of the revolution) of the “American Revolution” is the workers
and oppressed peoples of the colonies of Asia, Africa and Latin America.
Because of the level of special oppression of black people as a colony,
they reflect the interests of the oppressed people of the world from
within the borders of the United States; they are part of the Third
World and part of the international revolutionary vanguard.
The vanguard role of the Vietnamese and other Third World countries in
defeating US imperialism has been clear to our movement for some time.
What has not been so clear is the vanguard role black people have
played, and continue to play, in the development of revolutionary
consciousness and struggle within the United States. Criticisms of the
black liberation struggle as being “reactionary” or of black
organizations on campus as being conservative or “racist” very often
express this lack of understanding. These ideas are incorrect and must
be defeated if a revolutionary movement is going to be built among
whites.
The black colony, due to its particular nature as a slave colony, never
adopted a chauvinist identification with America as an imperialist
power, either politically or culturally. Moreover, the history of black
people in America has consistently been one of the greatest overall
repudiations of and struggle against the state. From the slave ships
from Africa to the slave revolts, the Civil War, etc., black people
have been waging a struggle for survival and liberation. In the history of
our own movement this has also been the case: the civil rights
struggles, initiated and led by blacks in the South; the rebellions
beginning with Harlem in 1964 and Watts in 1965 through Detroit and
Newark in 1967; the campus struggles at all-black schools in the South
and struggles led by blacks on campuses all across the country. As it
is the blacks—along with the Vietnamese and other Third World people—who
are most oppressed by US imperialism, their class interests are most
solidly and resolutely committed to waging revolutionary struggle
through to its completion. Therefore it is no surprise that time and
again, in both political content and level of consciousness and
militancy, it has been the black liberation movement which has upped
the ante and defined the terms of the struggle.
What is the relationship of this “black vanguard” to the “many
Vietnams” around the world- Obviously this is an example of our strategy that
different fronts reinforce each other. The fact that the Vietnamese are
winning weakens the enemy, advancing the possibilities for the black
struggle, etc. But it is important for us to understand that the
interrelationship is more than this. Black people do not simply
“choose” to intensify their struggle because they want to help the Vietnamese,
or because they see that Vietnam heightens the possibilities for struggle
here. The existence of any one Vietnam, especially a winning one, spurs
on others not only through consciousness and choice, but through need,
because it is a political and economic, as well as military, weakening
of capitalism, and this means that to compensate, the imperialists are
forced to intensify their oppression of other people.
Thus the loss of China and Cuba and the loss now of Vietnam not only
encourages other oppressed peoples (such as the blacks) by showing what
the alternative is and that it can be won, but also costs the
imperialists billions of dollars which they then have to take out of
the oppression of these other peoples. Within this country increased
oppression falls heavier on the most oppressed sections of the
population, so that the condition of all workers is worsened through
rising taxes, inflation and the fall of real wages, and speedup. But
this increased oppression falls heaviest on the most oppressed, such as
poor white workers and, especially, the blacks, for example through the
collapse of state services like schools, hospitals and welfare, which
naturally hits the hardest at those most dependent on them.
This deterioration pushes people to fight harder to even try to
maintain their present level. The more the ruling class is hurt in Vietnam, the
harder people will be pushed to rebel and to fight for reforms. Because
there exist successful models of revolution in Cuba, Vietnam, etc.,
these reform struggles will provide a continually larger and stronger
base for revolutionary ideas. Because it needs to maximize profits by
denying the reforms, and is aware that these conditions and reform
struggles will therefore lead to revolutionary consciousness, the
ruling class will see it more and more necessary to come down on any motion at
all, even where it is not yet highly organized or conscious. It will
come down faster on black people, because their oppression is
increasing fastest, and this makes their rebellion most thorough and most
dangerous, and fastest growing. It is because of this that the vanguard
character and role of the black liberation struggle will be increased
and intensified, rather than being increasingly equal to and merged
into the situation and rebellion of oppressed white working people and
youth.
The crises of imperialism (the existence of Vietnam and especially that
it’s winning) will therefore create a “Black Vietnam” within the US.
Given that black self-determination would mean fully crushing the power
of the imperialists, this “Vietnam” has certain different characteristics than the external colonial wars.
The imperialists will never “get out of the US” until their total strength and every resource
they can bring to bear has been smashed; so the Black Vietnam cannot
win without bringing the whole thing down and winning for everyone. This
means that this war of liberation will be the most protracted and
hardest fought of all.
It is in this context that the question of the South must be dealt with
again, not as a question of whether or not the black nation, black
colony, exists there, as opposed to in the North as well, but rather as
a practical question of strategy and tactics: Can the black liberation
struggle—the struggle of all blacks in the country—gain advantage in
the actual war of liberation by concentrating on building base areas in the
South in territory with a concentration of black population-
This is very clearly a different question than that of “where the
colony is,” and to this question the “yes” answer is an important possibility.
If the best potential for struggle in the South were realized, it is
fully conceivable and legitimate that the struggle there could take on
the character of a fight for separation; and any victories won in that
direction would be important gains for the national liberation of the
colony as a whole. However, because the colony is dispersed over the
whole country, and not just located in the black belt, winning still
means the power and liberation of blacks in the whole country.
Thus, even the winning of separate independence in the South would
still be one step toward self-determination, and not equivalent to winning
it; which, because of the economic position of the colony as a whole, would
still require overthrowing the state power of the imperialists, taking
over production and the whole economy and power, etc.
VII. The Revolutionary Youth Movement: Class Analysis
The revolutionary youth movement program was hailed as a transition
strategy, which explained a lot of our past work and pointed to new
directions for our movement. But as a transition to what- What was our
overall strategy- Was the youth movement strategy just an
organizational strategy because SDS is an organization of youth and we can move best
with other young people-
We have pointed to the vanguard nature of the black struggle in this
country as part of the international struggle against American
imperialism, and the impossibility of anything but an international
strategy for winning. Any attempt to put forth a strategy which,
despite internationalist rhetoric, assumes a purely internal development to the
class struggle in this country, is incorrect. The Vietnamese (and the
Uruguayans and the Rhodesians) and the blacks and Third World peoples
in this country will continue to set the terms for class struggle in
America.
In this context, why an emphasis on youth- Why should young people be
willing to fight on the side of Third World peoples- Before dealing
with this question about youth, however, there follows a brief sketch of the
main class categories in the white mother country which we think are
important, and [which] indicate our present estimation of their
respective class interests (bearing in mind that the potential for
various sections to understand and fight for the revolution will vary
according to more than just their real class interests).
Most of the population is of the working class, by which we mean not
simply industrial or production workers, nor those who are actually
working, but the whole section of the population which doesn’t own
productive property and so lives off of the sale of its labor power.
This is not a metaphysical category either in terms of its interests,
the role it plays, or even who is in it, which very often is difficult
to determine.
As a whole, the long-range interests of the non-colonial sections of
the working class lie with overthrowing imperialism, with supporting
self-determination for the oppressed nations (including the black
colony), with supporting and fighting for international socialism.
However, virtually all of the white working class also has short-range
privileges from imperialism, which are not false privileges but very
real ones which give them an edge of vested interest and tie them to a
certain extent to the imperialists, especially when the latter are in a
relatively prosperous phase. When the imperialists are losing their
empire, on the other hand, these short-range privileged interests are
seen to be temporary (even though the privileges may be relatively
greater over the faster-increasing emiseration of the oppressed
peoples). The long-range interests of workers in siding with the
oppressed peoples are seen more clearly in the light of imperialism’s
impending defeat. Within the whole working class, the balance of
anti-imperialist class interests with white mother country short-term
privilege varies greatly.
First, the most oppressed sections of the mother country working class
have interests most clearly and strongly anti-imperialist. Who are the
most oppressed sections of the working class- Millions of whites who
have as oppressive material conditions as the blacks, or almost so:
especially poor southern white workers; the unemployed or semiemployed,
or those employed at very low wages for long hours and bad conditions,
who are non-unionized or have weak unions; and extending up to include
much of unionized labor which has it a little better off but still is
heavily oppressed and exploited. This category covers a wide range and
includes the most oppressed sections not only of production and service
workers but also some secretaries, clerks, etc. Much of this category
gets some relative privileges (i.e. benefits) from imperialism, which
constitute some material basis for being racist or pro-imperialist; but
overall it is itself directly and heavily oppressed, so that in
addition to its long-range class interest on the side of the people of the
world, its immediate situation also constitutes a strong basis for sharpening
the struggle against the state and fighting through to revolution.
Secondly, there is the upper strata of the working class. This is also
an extremely broad category, including the upper strata of unionized
skilled workers and also most of the “new working class” of
proletarianized or semi-proletarianized “intellect workers.” There is
no clearly marked dividing line between the previous section and this one;
our conclusions in dealing with “questionable” strata will in any event
have to come from more thorough analysis of particular situations. The
long-range class interests of this strata, like the previous section of
more oppressed workers, are for the revolution and against imperialism.
However, it is characterized by a higher level of privilege relative to
the oppressed colonies, including the blacks, and relative to more
oppressed workers in the mother country; so that there is a strong
material basis for racism and loyalty to the system. In a revolutionary
situation, where the people’s forces were on the offensive and the
ruling class was clearly losing, most of this upper strata of the
working class will be winnable to the revolution, while at least some
sections of it will probably identify their interests with imperialism
till the end and oppose the revolution (which parts do which will have
to do with more variables than just the particular level of privilege).
The further development of the situation will clarify where this
section will go, although it is clear that either way we do not put any
emphasis on reaching older employed workers from this strata at this time. The
exception is where they are important to the black liberation struggle,
the Third World, or the youth movement in particular situations, such
as with teachers, hospital technicians, etc., in which cases we must fight
particularly hard to organize them around a revolutionary line of full
support for black liberation and the international revolution against
US imperialism. This is crucial because the privilege of this section of
the working class has provided and will provide a strong material basis
for national chauvinist and social democratic ideology within the
movement, such as anti-internationalist concepts of “student power” and
“workers control.” Another consideration in understanding the interests
of this segment is that, because of the way it developed and how its
skills and its privileges were “earned over time,” the differential
between the position of youth and older workers is in many ways greater
for this section than any other in the population. We should continue
to see it as important to build the revolutionary youth movement among the
youth of this strata.
Thirdly, there are “middle strata” who are not petit bourgeoisie, who
may even technically be upper working class, but who are so privileged
and tightly tied to imperialism through their job roles that they are
agents of imperialism. This section includes management personnel,
corporate lawyers, higher civil servants, and other government agents,
army officers, etc. Because their job categories require and promote a
close identification with the interests of the ruling class, these
strata are enemies of the revolution.
Fourthly, and last among the categories we’re going to deal with, is
the petit bourgeoisie. This class is different from the middle level
described above in that it has the independent class interest which is
opposed to both monopoly power and to socialism. The petit bourgeoisie
consists of small capital—both business and farms—and self-employed
tradesmen and professionals (many professionals work for monopoly
capital, and are either the upper level of the working class or in the
dent class interests-anti-monopoly capital, but for capitalism rather
than socialism—gives it a political character of some opposition to
“big government,” like its increased spending and taxes and its totalitarian
extension of its control into every aspect of life, and to “big labor,”
which is at this time itself part of the monopoly capitalist power
structure. The direction which this opposition takes can be reactionary
or reformist. At this time the reformist side of it is very much
mitigated by the extent to which the independence of the petit
bourgeoisie is being undermined. Increasingly, small businesses are
becoming extensions of big ones, while professionals and self-employed
tradesmen less and less sell their skills on their own terms and become
regular employees of big firms. This tendency does not mean that the
reformist aspect is not still present; it is, and there are various
issues, like withdrawing from a losing imperialist war, where we could
get support from them. On the question of imperialism as a system,
however, their class interests are generally more for it than for
overthrowing it, and it will be the deserters from their class who stay
with us.
VIII. Why A Revolutionary Youth Movement-
In terms of the above analysis, most young people in the US are part of
the working class. Although not yet employed, young people whose
parents sell their labor power for wages, and more important who themselves
expect to do the same in the future—or go into the army or be
unemployed—are undeniably members of the working class. Most kids are
well aware of what class they are in, even though they may not be very
scientific about it. So our analysis assumes from the beginning that
youth struggles are, by and large, working-class struggles. But why the
focus now on the struggles of working-class youth rather than on the
working class as a whole- The potential for revolutionary consciousness does not always
correspond to ultimate class interest, particularly when imperialism is relatively
prosperous and the movement is in an early stage. At this stage, we see
working-class youth as those most open to a revolutionary movement
which sides with the struggles of Third World people; the following is an
attempt to explain a strategic focus on youth for SDS.
In general, young people have less stake in a society (no family, fewer
debts, etc.), are more open to new ideas (they have not been
brainwashed for so long or so well), and are therefore more able and willing to
move in a revolutionary direction. Specifically in America, young people
have grown up experiencing the crises in imperialism. They have grown up
along with a developing black liberation movement, with the liberation
of Cuba, the fights for independence in Africa and the war in Vietnam.
Older people grew up during the fight against fascism, during the Cold
War, the smashing of the trade unions, McCarthy, and a period during
which real wages consistently rose—since 1965 disposable real income
has decreased slightly, particularly in urban areas where inflation and
increased taxation have bitten heavily into wages. This crisis in
imperialism affects all parts of the society. America has had to
militarize to protect and expand its empire; hence the high draft calls
and the creation of a standing army of three and a half million, an
army which still has been unable to win in Vietnam. Further, the huge
defense expenditures—required for the defense of the empire and at the same
time a way of making increasing profits for the defense industries—have gone
hand in hand with the urban crisis around welfare, the hospitals, the
schools, housing, air and water pollution. The State cannot provide the
services it has been forced to assume responsibility for, and needs to
increase taxes and to pay its growing debts while it cuts services and
uses the pigs to repress protest. The private sector of the economy
can’t provide jobs, particularly unskilled jobs. The expansion of the
defense and education industries by the State since World War II is in
part an attempt to pick up the slack, though the inability to provide
decent wages and working conditions for “public” jobs is more and more
a problem.
As imperialism struggles to hold together this decaying social fabric,
it inevitably resorts to brute force and authoritarian ideology.
People, especially young people, more and more find themselves in the iron grip
of authoritarian institutions. Reaction against the pigs or teachers in
the schools, welfare pigs or the army, is generalizable and extends
beyond the particular repressive institution to the society and the
State as a whole. The legitimacy of the State is called into question
for the first time in at least 30 years, and the anti-authoritarianism
which characterizes the youth rebellion turns into rejection of the
State, a refusal to be socialized into American society. Kids used to
try to beat the system from inside the army or from inside the schools;
now they desert from the army and burn down the schools.
The crisis in imperialism has brought about a breakdown in bourgeois
social forms, culture and ideology. The family falls apart, kids leave
home, women begin to break out of traditional “female” and “mother”
roles. There develops a “generation gap” and a “youth problem.” Our
heroes are no longer struggling businessmen, and we also begin to
reject the ideal career of the professional and look to Mao, Chef, the
Panthers, the Third World, for our models, for motion. We reject the
elitist, technocratic bullshit that tells us only experts can rule, and
look instead to leadership from the people’s war of the Vietnamese.
Chuck Berry, Elvis, the Temptations brought us closer to the “people’s
culture” of Black America. The racist response to the civil rights
movement revealed the depth of racism in America, as well as the
impossibility of real change through American institutions. And the war
against Vietnam is not “the heroic war against the Nazis”; it’s the big
lie, with napalm burning through everything we had heard this country
stood for. Kids begin to ask questions: Where is the Free World- And
who do the pigs protect at home-
The breakdown in bourgeois culture and concomitant antiauthoritarianism
is fed by the crisis in imperialism, but also in turn feeds that
crisis, exacerbates it so that people no longer merely want the plastic ’50s
restored, but glimpse an alternative (like inside the Columbia
buildings) and begin to fight for it. We don’t want teachers to be more
kindly cops; we want to smash cops, and build a new life.
Photo 2 Bernardine Dohrn announces the expulsion of PL from SDS.
The contradictions of decaying imperialism fall hardest on youth in
four distinct areas—the schools, jobs, the draft and the army, and the pigs
and the courts.
(A) In jail-like schools, kids are fed a mish-mash of
racist, male chauvinist, anti-working class, anti-communist lies while
being channeled into job and career paths set up according to the
priorities of monopoly capital. At the same time, the State is becoming
increasingly incapable of providing enough money to keep the schools
going at all.
(B) Youth unemployment is three times average
unemployment. As more jobs are threatened by automation or the collapse
of specific industries, unions act to secure jobs for those already
employed. New people in the labor market can’t find jobs, job stability
is undermined (also because of increasing speed-up and more intolerable
safety conditions) and people are less and less going to work in the
same shop for 40 years. And, of course, when they do find jobs, young
people get the worst ones and have the least seniority.
(C) There are now two and a half million soldiers under thirty who are forced to
police the world, kill and be killed in wars of imperialist domination.
(D) as a “youth problem” develops out of all this, the pigs and
courts enforce curfews, set up pot busts, keep people off the streets,
and repress any youth motion whatsoever.
In all of this, it is not that life in America is toughest for youth or
that they are the most oppressed. Rather, it is that young people are
hurt directly—and severely—by imperialism. And, in being less tightly
tied to the system, they are more “pushed” to join the black liberation
struggle against US imperialism. Among young people there is less of a
material base for racism—they have no seniority, have not spent 20
years securing a skilled job (the white monopoly of which is increasingly
challenged by the black liberation movement), and aren’t just about to
pay off a 25-year mortgage on a house which is valuable because it’s
located in a white neighborhood.
While these contradictions of imperialism fall hard on all youth, they
fall hardest on the youth of the most oppressed (least privileged)
sections of the working class. Clearly these youth have the greatest
material base for struggle. They are the ones who most often get
drafted, who get the worst jobs if they get any, who are most abused by
the various institutions of social control, from the army to decaying
schools, to the pigs and the courts. And their day-to-day existence
indicates a potential for militancy and toughness. They are the people
whom we can reach who at this stage are most ready to engage in
militant revolutionary struggle.
The point of the revolutionary youth movement strategy is to move from
a predominant student elite base to more oppressed (less privileged)
working-class youth as a way of deepening and expanding the
revolutionary youth movement—not of giving up what we have gained, not
giving up our old car for a new Dodge. This is part of a strategy to
reach the entire working class to engage in struggle against
imperialism; moving from more privileged sections of white workingclass
youth to more oppressed sections to the entire working class as a
whole, including importantly what has classically been called the industrial
proletariat. But this should not be taken to mean that there is a magic
moment, after we reach a certain percentage of the working class, when
all of a sudden we become a working-class movement. We are already that
if we put forward internationalist proletarian politics. We also don’t
have to wait to become a revolutionary force. We must be a
self-conscious revolutionary force from the beginning, not be a
movement which takes issues to some mystical group—”THE PEOPLE”—who will make
the revolution. We must be a revolutionary movement of people understanding
the necessity to reach more people, all working people, as we make the
revolution. The above arguments make it clear that it is both important and
possible to reach young people wherever they are—not only in the shops, but also
in the schools, in the army and in the streets—so as to recruit them to
fight on the side of the oppressed peoples of the world. Young people
will be part of the International Liberation Army. The necessity to
build this International Liberation Army in America leads to certain
priorities in practice for the revolutionary youth movement which we
should begin to apply this summer. …
IX. Imperialism Is The Issue
The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties
by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletariat of different
countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests
of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the
various stages of development which the struggle of the working-class
against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere
represent the interests of the movement as a whole.”
—Communist Manifesto
How do we reach youth; what kinds of struggles do we build; how do we
make a revolution- What we have tried to lay out so far is the
political content of the consciousness which we want to extend and develop as a
mass consciousness: the necessity to build our power as part of the
whole international revolution to smash the state power of the
imperialists and build socialism. Besides consciousness of this task,
we must involve masses of people in accomplishing it. Yet we are faced
with a situation in which almost all of the people whose interests are
served by these goals, and who should be, or even are, sympathetic to
revolution, neither understand the specific tasks involved in making a
revolution nor participate in accomplishing them. On the whole, people
don’t join revolutions just because revolutionaries tell them to. The
oppression of the system affects people in particular ways, and the
development of political consciousness and participation begins with
particular problems, which turn into issues and struggles. We must
transform people’s everyday problems, and the issues and struggles
growing out of them, into revolutionary consciousness, active and
conscious opposition to racism and imperialism.
This is directly counterposed to assuming that struggles around
immediate issues will lead naturally over time to struggle against
imperialism. It has been argued that since people’s oppression is due
to imperialism and racism, then any struggle against immediate oppression
is “objectively anti-imperialist,” and the development of the fight
against imperialism is a succession of fights for reforms. This error
is classical economism.
A variant of this argument admits that this position is often wrong,
but suggests that since imperialism is collapsing at this time, fights for
reforms become “objectively anti-imperialist.” At this stage of
imperialism there obviously will be more and more struggles for the
improvement of material conditions, but that is no guarantee of
increasing internationalist proletarian consciousness.
On the one hand, if we, as revolutionaries, are capable of
understanding the necessity to smash imperialism and build socialism, then the masses
of people who we want to fight along with us are capable of that
understanding. On the other hand, people are brainwashed and at present
don’t understand it; if revolution is not raised at every opportunity,
then how can we expect people to see it in their interests, or to
undertake the burdens of revolution- We need to make it clear from the
very beginning that we are about revolution. But if we are so careful
to avoid the dangers of reformism, how do we relate to particular reform
struggles- We have to develop some sense of how to relate each
particular issue to the revolution.
In every case, our aim is to raise anti-imperialist and anti-racist
consciousness and tie the struggles of working-class youth (and all
working people) to the struggles of Third World people, rather than
merely joining fights to improve material conditions, even though these
fights are certainly justified. This is not to say that we don’t take
immediate fights seriously, or fight hard in them, but that we are
always up front with our politics, knowing that people in the course of
struggle are open to a class line, ready to move beyond narrow
self-interest.
It is in this sense that we point out that the particular issue is not
the issue, is important insofar as it points to imperialism as an enemy
that has to be destroyed. Imperialism is always the issue. Obviously,
the issue cannot be a good illustration, or a powerful symbol, if it is
not real to people, if it doesn’t relate to the concrete oppression
that imperialism causes. People have to be (and are being) hurt in some
material way to understand the evils of imperialism, but what we must
stress is the systematic nature of oppression and the way in which a
single manifestation of imperialism makes clear its fundamental nature.
At Columbia it was not the gym, in particular, which was important in
the struggle, but the way in which the gym represented, to the people
of Harlem and Columbia, Columbia’s imperialist invasion of the black
colony. Or at Berkeley, though people no doubt needed a park (as much,
however, as many other things-), what made the struggle so important
was that people, at all levels of militancy, consciously saw themselves
attacking private property and the power of the State. And the Richmond
Oil Strike was exciting because the militant fight for improvement of
material conditions was part and parcel of an attack on international
monopoly capital. The numbers and militancy of people mobilized for
these struggles has consistently surprised the left, and pointed to the
potential power of a class-conscious mass movement.
The masses will fight for socialism when they understand that reform
fights, fights for improvement of material conditions, cannot be won
under imperialism. With this understanding, revolutionaries should
never put forth a line which fosters the illusion that imperialism will grant
significant reforms. We must engage in struggles forthrightly as
revolutionaries, so that it will be clear to anyone we help to win
gains that the revolution rather than imperialism is responsible for them.
This is one of the strengths of the Black Panther Party Breakfast for
Children Program. It is “socialism in practice” by revolutionaries with
the “practice” of armed self-defense and a “line” which stresses the
necessity of overthrowing imperialism and seizing state power. Probably
the American Friends Service Committee serves more children breakfast,
but it is the symbolic value of the program in demonstrating what
socialism will do for people which makes the Black Panther Program
worthwhile.
What does it mean to organize around racism and imperialism in specific
struggles- In the high schools (and colleges) at this time, it means
putting forth a mass line to close down the schools, rather than to
reform them, so that they can serve the people. The reason for this
line is not that under capitalism the schools cannot serve the people, and
therefore it is silly or illusory to demand that. Rather, it is that
kids are ready for the full scope of militant struggle, and already
demonstrate a consciousness of imperialism, such that struggles for a
people-serving school would not raise the level of their struggle to
its highest possible point. Thus, to tell a kid in New York that
imperialism tracks him and thereby oppresses him is often small potatoes compared
to his consciousness that imperialism oppresses him by jailing him, pigs
and all, and the only thing to do is break out and tear up the jail.
And even where high school kids are not yet engaged in such sharp struggle,
it is crucial not to build consciousness only around specific issues
such as tracking or ROTC or racist teachers, but to use these issues to
build toward the general consciousness that the schools should be shut
down. It may be important to present a conception of what schools
should or could be like (this would include the abolition of the distinction
between mental and physical work), but not offer this total conception
as really possible to fight for in any way but through revolution.
A mass line to close down the schools or colleges does not contradict
demands for open admissions to college or any other good reform demand.
Agitational demands for impossible, but reasonable, reforms are a good
way to make a revolutionary point. The demand for open admissions by
asserting the alternative to the present (school) system exposes its
fundamental nature—that it is racist, class-based, and closed—pointing
to the only possible solution to the present situation: “Shut it down!”
The impossibility of real open admissions—all black and brown people
admitted, no flunk-out, full scholarship, under present conditions—is
the best reason (that the schools show no possibility for real reform)
to shut the schools down. We should not throw away the pieces of
victories we gain from these struggles, for any kind of more open
admissions means that the school is closer to closing down (it costs
the schools more, there are more militant blacks and browns making more and
more fundamental demands on the schools, and so on). Thus our line in
the schools, in terms of pushing any good reforms, should be, Open them
up and shut them down!”
The spread of black caucuses in the shops and other workplaces
throughout the country is an extension of the black liberation
struggle. These groups have raised and will continue to raise anti-racist issues
to white workers in a sharper fashion than any whites ever have or
could raise them. Blacks leading struggles against racism made the issue
unavoidable, as the black student movement leadership did for white
students. At the same time these black groups have led fights which
traditional trade-union leaders have consistently refused to lead—
fights against speed-up and for safety (issues which have become considerably
more serious in the last few years), forcing white workers,
particularly the more oppressed, to choose in another way between allegiance to the
white mother country and black leadership. As white mother country
radicals we should try to be in shops, hospitals, and companies where
there are black caucuses, perhaps organizing solidarity groups, but at
any rate pushing the importance of the black liberation struggle to
whites, handing out Free Huey literature, bringing guys out to Panther
rallies, and so on. Just one white guy could play a crucial role in
countering UAW counter-insurgency.
We also need to relate to workplaces where there is no black motion but
where there are still many young white workers. In the shops the crisis
in imperialism has come down around speed-up, safety, and wage
squeeze—due to higher taxes and increased inflation, with the
possibility of wage-price controls being instituted.
We must relate this exploitation back to imperialism. The best way to
do this is probably not caucuses in the shops, but to take guys to
citywide demonstrations, Newsreels, even the latest administration building, to
make the Movement concrete to them and involve them in it. Further, we
can effect consciousness and pick up people through agitational work at
plants, train stops, etc., selling Movements, handing out leaflets
about the war, the Panthers, the companies’ holdings overseas or relations to
defense industry, etc. After the Richmond strike, people leafleted about demonstrations in
support of the Curaçao Oil workers, Free Huey May Day, and People’s
Park. SDS has not dealt in any adequate way with the women question; the
resolution passed at Ann Arbor did not lead to much practice, nor has
the need to fight male supremacy been given any programmatic direction
within the RYM. As a result, we have a very limited understanding of
the tie-up between imperialism and the women question, although we know
that since World War II the differential between men’s and women’s wages has
increased, and guess that the breakdown of the family is crucial to the
woman question. How do we organize women against racism and imperialism
without submerging the principled revolutionary question of women’s
liberation- We have no real answer, but we recognize the real
reactionary danger of women’s groups that are not self-consciously
revolutionary and anti-imperialist.
To become more relevant to the growing women’s movement, SDS women
should begin to see as a primary responsibility the self-conscious
organizing of women. We will not be able to organize women unless we
speak directly to their own oppression. This will become more and more
critical as we work with more oppressed women. Women who are working
and women who have families face male supremacy continuously in their
day-to-day lives; that will have to be the starting point in their
politicization. Women will never be able to undertake a full
revolutionary role unless they break out of their woman’s role. So a
crucial task for revolutionaries is the creation of forms of
organization in which women will be able to take on new and independent
roles. Women’s self-defense groups will be a step toward these
organizational forms, as an effort to overcome women’s isolation and
build revolutionary self-reliance.
The cultural revolt of women against their “role” in imperialism (which
is just beginning to happen in a mass way) should have the same sort of
revolutionary potential that the RYM claimed for “youth culture.” The
role of the “wife-mother” is reactionary in most modern societies, and
the disintegration of that role under imperialism should make women
more sympathetic to revolution.
In all of our work we should try to formulate demands that not only
reach out to more oppressed women, but ones which tie us to other
ongoing struggles, in the way that a daycare center at U of C
[University of Chicago] enabled us to tie the women’s liberation
struggle to the Black Liberation struggle.
There must be a strong revolutionary women’s movement, for without one
it will be impossible for women’s liberation to be an important part of
the revolution. Revolutionaries must be made to understand the full
scope of women’s oppression, and the necessity to smash male supremacy.
X. Neighborhood-Based Citywide Youth Movement
One way to make clear the nature of the system and our tasks working
off of separate struggles is to tie them together with each other: to show
that we’re one “multi-issue” movement, not an alliance of high school
and college students, or students and GIs, or youth and workers, or
students and the black community. The way to do this is to build
organic regional or sub-regional and citywide movements, by regularly bringing
people in one institution or area to fights going on on other fronts.
This works on two levels. Within a neighborhood, by bringing kids to
different fights and relating these fights to each other—high school
stuff, colleges, housing, welfare, shops—we begin to build one
neighborhood-based multi-issue movement off of them. Besides actions
and demonstrations, we also pull different people together in day-to-day
film showings, rallies, for speakers and study groups, etc. On a second
level, we combine neighborhood “bases” into a citywide or region-wide
movement by doing the same kind of thing; concentrating our forces at
whatever important struggles are going on and building more ongoing
interrelationships off of that.
The importance of specifically neighborhood-based organizing is
illustrated by our greatest failing in RYM practice so far—high school
organizing. In most cities we don’t know the kids who have been tearing
up and burning down the schools. Our approach has been elitist,
relating to often baseless citywide groups by bringing them our line, or picking
up kids with a false understanding of “politics” rather than those
whose practice demonstrates their concrete anti-imperialist consciousness
that schools are prisons. We’ve been unwilling to work continuously with
high school kids as we did in building up college chapters. We will only
reach the high school kids who are in motion by being in the
schoolyards, hangouts and on the streets on an everyday basis. From a
neighborhood base, high school kids could be effectively tied in to
struggles around other institutions and issues, and to the
anti-imperialist movement as a whole.
We will try to involve neighborhood kids who aren’t in high schools
too; take them to anti-war or anti-racism fights, stuff in the schools,
etc.; and at the same time reach out more broadly through newspapers, films,
storefronts. Activists and cadres who are recruited in this work will
help expand and deepen the Movement in new neighborhoods and high
schools. Mostly we will still be tied in to the college-based movement
in the same area, be influencing its direction away from campusoriented
provincialism, be recruiting high school kids into it where it is real
enough and be recruiting organizers out of it. In its most developed
form, this neighborhood-based movement would be a kind of sub-region.
In places where the Movement wasn’t so strong, this would be an important
form for being close to kids in a day-to-day way and yet be relating
heavily to a lot of issues and political fronts which the same kids are
involved with.
The second level is combining these neighborhoods into citywide and
regional movements. This would mean doing the same thing—bringing
people to other fights going on—only on a larger scale, relating to various
blow-ups and regional mobilizations. An example is how a lot of people
from different places went to San Francisco State, the Richmond Oil
Strike, and now Berkeley. The existence of this kind of cross-motion
makes ongoing organizing in other places go faster and stronger, first
by creating a pervasive politicization, and second by relating
everything to the most militant and advanced struggles going on so that
they influence and set the pace for a lot more people. Further, cities
are a basic unit of organization of the whole society in a way that
neighborhoods aren’t. For example, one front where we should be doing
stuff is the courts; they are mostly organized citywide, not by smaller
areas. The same for the city government itself. Schools where kids go
are in different neighborhoods from where they live, especially
colleges; the same for hospitals people go to, and where they work. As
a practical question of staying with people we pick up, the need for a
citywide or area-wide kind of orientation is already felt in our
movement.
Another failure of this year was making clear what the RYM meant for
chapter members and students who weren’t organizers about to leave
their campus for a community college, high school, GI organizing, shops or
neighborhoods. One thing it means for them is relating heavily to
off-campus activities and struggles, as part of the citywide motion.
Not leaving the campus movement like people did for ERAP [Education
Research Action Project] stuff; rather, people still organized on the campus in
off-campus struggles, the way they have in the past for national
actions. Like the national actions, the citywide ones will build the
on-campus movement, not compete with it.
Because the Movement will be defining itself in relation to many issues
and groups, not just schools (and the war and racism as they hit at the
schools), it will create a political context that non-students can
relate to better, and be more useful to organizing among high school
students, neighborhood kids, the mass of people. In the process, it
will change the consciousness of the students too; if the issues are right
and the Movement fights them, people will develop a commitment to the
struggle as a whole, and an understanding of the need to be
revolutionaries rather than a “student movement.” Building a
revolutionary youth movement will depend on organizing in a lot of
places where we haven’t been, and just tying the student movement to
other issues and struggles isn’t a substitute for that. But given our
limited resources we must also lead the on-campus motion into a RYM
direction, and we can make great gains toward citywide youth movements
by doing it. Three principles underlie this multi-issue, “cross-institutional”
movement, on the neighborhood and citywide levels, as to why it creates
greater revolutionary consciousness and active participation in the
revolution:
(1) Mixing different issues, struggles and groups demonstrates our
analysis to people in a material way. We claim there is one system and
so all these different problems have the same solution, revolution. If
they are the same struggle in the end, we should make that clear from
the beginning. On this basis we must aggressively smash the notion that
there can be outside agitators on a question pertaining to the
imperialists.
(2) “Relating to Motion”: the struggle activity, the action, of the
Movement demonstrates our existence and strength to people in a
material way. Seeing it happen, people give it more weight in their thinking.
For the participants, involvement in struggle is the best education about
the Movement, the enemy and the class struggle. In a neighborhood or
whole city the existence of some struggle is a catalyst for other
struggles—it pushes people to see the Movement as more important and
urgent, and as an example and precedent makes it easier for them to
follow. If the participants in a struggle are based in different
institutions or parts of the city, these effects are multiplied. Varied
participation helps the Movement be seen as political (wholly
subversive) rather than as separate grievance fights. As people in one
section of the Movement fight beside and identify closer with other
sections, the mutual catalytic effect of their struggles will be
greater.
(3) We must build a Movement oriented toward power. Revolution is a
power struggle, and we must develop that understanding among people
from the beginning. Pooling our resources area-wide and citywide really does
increase our power in particular fights, as-well as push a
mutual-aid-in-struggle consciousness.
XI. The RYM And The Pigs
A major focus in our neighborhood and citywide work is the pigs,
because they tie together the various struggles around the State as the enemy,
and thus point to the need for a Movement oriented toward power to
defeat it. The pigs are the capitalist state, and as such define the limits of all
political struggles; to the extent that a revolutionary struggle shows
signs of success, they come in and mark the point it can’t go beyond.
In the early stages of struggle, the ruling class lets parents come down
on high school kids, or jocks attack college chapters. When the struggle
escalates the pigs come in; at Columbia, the left was afraid its
struggle would be co-opted to anti-police brutality, cops off campus,
and said pigs weren’t the issue. But pigs really are the issue and
people will understand this, one way or another. They can have a
liberal understanding that pigs are sweaty working-class barbarians who
over-react and commit “police brutality” and so shouldn’t be on campus.
Or they can understand pigs as the repressive imperialist State doing
its job. Our job is not to avoid the issue of the pigs as “diverting”
from anti-imperialist struggle, but to emphasize that they are our real
enemy if we fight that struggle to win.
Even when there is no organized political struggle, the pigs come down
on people in everyday life in enforcing capitalist property relations,
bourgeois laws and bourgeois morality; they guard stores and factories
and the rich and enforce credit and rent against the poor. The
overwhelming majority of arrests in America are for crimes against
property. The pigs will be coming down on the kids we’re working with
in the schools, on the streets, around dope; we should focus on them,
point them out all the time, like the Panthers do. We should relate the daily
oppression by the pig to their role in political repression, and
develop a class understanding of political power and armed force among the kids
we’re with. As we develop a base these two aspects of the pig role increasingly
come together. In the schools, pig is part of daily oppression—keeping order
in halls and lunch rooms, controlling smoking—while at the same time
pigs prevent kids from handing out leaflets, and bust “outside
agitators.” The presence of youth, or youth with long hair, becomes
defined as organized political struggle and the pigs react to it as
such. More and more everyday activity is politically threatening, so
pigs are suddenly more in evidence; this in turn generates political
organization and opposition, and so on. Our task will be to catalyze
this development, pushing out the conflict with the pig so as to define
every struggle—schools (pigs out, pig institutes out), welfare
(invading pig-protected office), the streets (curfew and turf fights)—as a
struggle against the needs of capitalism and the force of the State.
Pigs don’t represent State power as an abstract principle; they are a
power that we will have to overcome in the course of struggle or become
irrelevant, revisionist, or dead. We must prepare concretely to meet
their power because our job is to defeat the pigs and the army, and
organize on that basis. Our beginnings should stress
self-defense—building defense groups around karate classes, learning
how to move on the street and around the neighborhood, medical training,
popularizing and moving toward (according to necessity) armed
self-defense, all the time honoring and putting forth the principle
that “political power comes out of the barrel of a gun.” These self-defense
groups would initiate pig surveillance patrols, visits to the pig
station and courts when someone is busted, etc.
Obviously the issues around the pig will not come down by neighborhood
alone; it will take at least citywide groups able to coordinate
activities against a unified enemy—in the early stages, for legal and
bail resources and turning people out for demonstrations, adding the
power of the citywide movement to what may be initially only a tenuous
base in a neighborhood. Struggles in one part of the city will not only
provide lessons for but [will] materially aid similar motion in the
rest of it.
Thus the pigs are ultimately the glue—the necessity—that holds the
neighborhood-based and citywide movement together; all of our concrete
needs lead to pushing the pigs to the fore as a political focus:
(1) making institutionally oriented reform struggles deal with State
power, by pushing our struggle till either winning or getting pigged;
(2) using the citywide inter-relation of fights to raise the level of
struggle and further large-scale anti-pig movement-power consciousness;
(3) developing spontaneous anti-pig consciousness in our neighborhoods
to an understanding of imperialism, class struggle and the State;
(4) and using the citywide movement as a platform for reinforcing and
extending this politicization work, like by talking about getting
together a citywide neighborhood-based mutual aid anti-pig self-defense
network.
All of this can be done through citywide agitation and propaganda and
picking certain issues—to have as the central regional focus for the
whole Movement.
XII. Repression And Revolution
As institutional fights and anti-pig self-defense off of them
intensify, so will the ruling class’s repression. Their escalation of repression
will inevitably continue according to how threatening the Movement is
to their power. Our task is not to avoid or end repression; that can
always be done by pulling back, so we’re not dangerous enough to require
crushing. Sometimes it is correct to do that as a tactical retreat, to
survive to fight again.
To defeat repression, however, is not to stop it but to go on building
the Movement to be more dangerous to them; in which case, defeated at
one level, repression will escalate even more. To succeed in defending
the Movement, and not just ourselves at its expense, we will have to
successively meet and overcome these greater and greater levels of
repression.
To be winning will thus necessarily, as imperialism’s lesser efforts
fail, bring about a phase of all-out military repression. To survive
and grow in the face of that will require more than a larger base of
supporters; it will require the invincible strength of a mass base at a
high level of active participation and consciousness, and can only come
from mobilizing the self-conscious creativity, will and determination
of the people.
Each new escalation of the struggle in response to new levels of
repression, each protracted struggle around self-defense which becomes
a material fighting force, is part of the international strategy of
solidarity with Vietnam and the blacks, through opening up other
fronts. They are anti-war, anti-imperialist and pro-black liberation. If they
involve fighting the enemy, then these struggles are part of the
revolution. Therefore, clearly the organization and active, conscious,
participating mass base needed to survive repression are also the same needed for
winning the revolution. The Revolutionary Youth Movement speaks to the
need for this kind of active mass-based Movement by tying citywide
motion back to community youth bases, because this brings us close
enough to kids in their day-to-day lives to organize their “maximum
active participation” around enough different kinds of fights to push
the “highest level of consciousness” about imperialism, the black
vanguard, the State and the need for armed struggle.
XIII. The Need For A Revolutionary Party
The RYM must also lead to the effective organization needed to survive
and to create another battlefield of the revolution. A revolution is a
war; when the Movement in this country can defend itself militarily
against total repression it will be part of the revolutionary war.
This will require a cadre organization, effective secrecy, selfreliance
among the cadres, and an integrated relationship with the active
mass-based Movement. To win a war with an enemy as highly organized and
centralized as the imperialists will require a (clandestine)
organization of revolutionaries, having also a unified “general staff”;
that is, combined at some point with discipline under one centralized
leadership. Because war is political, political tasks—the international
communist revolution—must guide it. Therefore the centralized
organization of revolutionaries must be a political organization as
well as military, what is generally called a “Marxist-Leninist” party.
How will we accomplish the building of this kind of organization- It is
clear that we couldn’t somehow form such a party at this time, because
the conditions for it do not exist in this country outside the Black
nation. What are these conditions- One is that to have a unified centralized organization it is necessary
to have a common revolutionary theory which explains, at least
generally, the nature of our revolutionary tasks and how to accomplish
them. It must be a set of ideas which have been tested and developed in
the practice of resolving the important contradictions in our work.
A second condition is the existence of revolutionary leadership tested
in practice. To have a centralized party under illegal and repressive
conditions requires a centralized leadership, specific individuals with
the understanding and the ability to unify and guide the Movement in
the face of new problems and be right most of the time.
Thirdly, and most important, there must be the same revolutionary mass
base mentioned earlier, or (better) revolutionary mass movement. It is
clear that without this there can’t be the practical experience to know
whether or not a theory, or a leader, is any good at all. Without
practical revolutionary activity on a mass scale the party could not
test and develop new ideas and draw conclusions with enough surety
behind them to consistently base its survival on them. Especially, no
revolutionary party could possibly survive Without relying on the
active support and participation of masses of people.
These conditions for the development of a revolutionary party in this
country are the main “conditions” for winning. There are two kinds of
tasks for us.
One is the organization of revolutionary collectives within the
Movement. Our theory must come from practice, but it can’t be developed
in isolation. Only a collective pooling of our experiences can develop
a thorough understanding of the complex conditions in this country. In
the same way, only our collective efforts toward a common plan can
adequately test the ideas we develop. The development of revolutionary
Marxist-Leninist-Maoist collective formations which undertake this
concrete evaluation and application of the lessons of our work is not
just the task of specialists or leaders, but the responsibility of
every revolutionary. Just as a collective is necessary to sum up experiences
and apply them locally, equally the collective interrelationship of
groups all over the country is necessary to get an accurate view of the
whole movement and to apply that in the whole country. Over time, those
collectives which prove themselves in practice to have the correct
understanding (by the results they get) will contribute toward the
creation of a unified revolutionary party.
The most important task for us toward making the revolution, and the
work our collectives should engage in, is the creation of a mass
revolutionary movement, without which a clandestine revolutionary party
will be impossible. A revolutionary mass movement is different from the
traditional revisionist mass base of “sympathizers.” Rather it is akin
to the Red Guard in China, based on the full participation and
involvement of masses of people in the practice of making revolution; a
movement with a full willingness to participate in the violent and
illegal struggle. It is a movement diametrically opposed to the elitist
idea that only leaders are smart enough or interested enough to accept
full revolutionary conclusions. It is a movement built on the basis of
faith in the masses of people.
The task of collectives is to create this kind of movement. (The party
is not a substitute for it. and in fact is totally dependent on it.)
This will be done at this stage principally among youth, through
implementing the Revolutionary Youth Movement strategy discussed in
this paper. It is practice at this, and not political “teachings” in the
abstract, which will determine the relevance of the political
collectives which are formed.
The strategy of the RYM for developing an active mass base, tying the
citywide fights to community and citywide anti-pig movement, and for
building a party eventually out of this motion, fits with the world
strategy for winning the revolution, builds a movement oriented toward
power, and will become one division of the International Liberation
Army, while its battlefields are added to the many Vietnams which will
dismember and dispose of US imperialism.
Long Live the Victory of The Leftist People’s War!
The Truth 