Re: "Intervening"

["Richard Fidler" <rfidler@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Lou Proyect:

>>Let's assume that the second definition of "intervene" is the one that's
intended: "Of a thing: To come in or between so as to affect, modify, or prevent
a result, action, etc." I still have a big problem with that. It strongly
suggests what unfortunately takes place with "vanguard" formations like the SWP
or the DSP, which is my real concern and not whether "interference" or
"modification" is the more appropriate term.

As a rule of thumb, such groups look at the mass movement as an "arena" in which
to steer events toward a more beneficial outcome. In almost every instance, the
particular expression of the mass movement arose through the efforts of
activists who have no connection to the "vanguard". Furthermore, the "vanguard"
intervenes in such a manner that it will always be viewed as "external". Namely,
it functions as a bloc and votes on the basis of internally decided discussion
rather than through democratic decision making within the mass movement.<<

Comment:

I am not in a position to criticize the British SWP or the Australian DSP in
this regard. But it seems to me that Lou is disputing the very idea that
militants holding a particular view should caucus in advance of a meeting to
ensure that their ideas are most persuasively advanced in that meeting. I would
argue, on the contrary, that to the degree that the advance caucusing by these
militants facilitates clarity in the ensuing discussion in the larger milieu, it
is a positive contribution to the larger movement. To the degree that it helps
to advance the conscious adoption of a correct line of march for the mass
movement, likewise.

The hypothetical situation suggested by Joe Auciello is rather unusual, almost
caricatural. A meeting in which the would-be "vanguard" constitutes half of the
larger body and is content to impose its view despite the opposition of almost
half those present is a rather bizarre scenario. More significant is the
implication that this "vanguard" has an objective interest in capturing the
meeting or somehow imposing its position(s) irrespective of the merits of other
positions expressed in the meeting.

Consider, for example, the U.S. SWP's record in the anti-Vietnam war movement,
which Lou rightly considers exemplary (it was one of the few SWP activities that
had merit; all the other were "crap", remember?). In fact, most of those who
objected to SWP practices in the major antiwar mobilization committee meetings
were fundamentally opposed to its mass-action line. Fred Halstead addresses one
such criticism (in "Out Now: A Participant's Account of the American Movement
Against the Vietnam War"):

"[Dave] Dellinger placed great emphasis on personal consultations, negotiations,
and understandings with certain leading figures. The SWPers did not. We
expressed our views in the large committee meetings and pressed for public
statements of tone and policy. In his book Dellinger reveals the impression that
the SWP packed these meetings during preparations for the Pentagon march. He
says:

     'Since the SWP regularly packed meetings with delegates from exciting, new
"grass roots" Committees to End the War (the East Twenty-third Street Committee,
the West Twenty-eighth Street Committee, the South Philadelphia Committee, the
Morningside Housewives Committee), none of whom identified themselves as members
of the SWP but all of whom were directed by an SWP floor leader, it was not
always easy for a coalition of over 150 national and local organizations to make
a decision that ran counter to a decision already made in the SWP caucus.'

"There is obvious poetic license in Dellinger's illustration, since the
Committees to End the War that he mentions are fictional and nobody ever claimed
to represent them. Fortunately an actual record survives as to the attendance at
most of the meetings of the National Mobilization administrative committee,
which was the policy-making body of the coalition during this period. Those in
attendance were listed in the minutes.

"Neither Democrats, Republicans, Communists, Socialist Workers, nor what have
you made a point of mentioning their party affiliation in their speeches. It
would have been redundant anyway because in general the people who attended
these meetings, and their political views, were well known to most of the others
present.

"In looking over the minutes from the time [Jerry] Rubin was voted project
director, I find the following: At the August 26 meeting, 5 SWPers or YSAers
attended out of a total of 31; September 16, 9 out of 87; September 24, 7 out of
48; September 30, 8 out of 57; October 7, 7 out of 69. I have been unable to
find minutes for two or three of the meetings, but the pattern would have been
similar.

"Dellinger may have the impression the meetings were filled with SWPers, but
they weren't. When it came to maintaining the mass character of the action, the
majority usually agreed with us --- or us with them --- that's all. We stood out
more than some of the others because we were very clear on what we wanted and
fought hard for it. Not all the others --- including moderates --- were bashful
about it either. 'Timidity and vacillation' were not characteristic of such
persons as Cora Weiss, Al Evanoff, and Abner Grunauer --- not to mention Bella
Abzug."

Or consider Halstead's description of an important antiwar conference in 1969
that determined the direction of the movement in coming years. The SWP went into
the conference with a position supported only by a minority of the steering
committee, represented by Jerry Gordon:

"The members of the credentials committee from the steering committee majority
were apparently afraid that the SWP and YSA would pack the conference with
voting delegates. They started by challenging almost every delegate they didn't
know. The result was that all sorts of people were challenged, and they were
fighting mad. The credentials committee majority even challenged some people who
had been elected by their local unions to attend the conference --- a bold step
for a local union in those days --- and these just wouldn't take no for an
answer. By the middle of the second day, even I was feeling sorry for the
members of the steering committee who were being besieged by irate petitioners.
In the end a sizable number of additional delegates were accredited, but by then
it didn't really matter as far as the relationship of forces on the issues was
concerned. The discussion had been full and there was no question the great
majority supported Gordon's approach and rejected [Mark] Rudd's in spite of
other differences.

"In truth the SWP and YSA had made no attempt to pack this conference in the
sense of having SWPers and YSAers who were not legitimate representatives of
antiwar groups demand delegate status. We were a minority of the voting
delegates throughout. We made no secret of the fact that we encouraged antiwar
groups to send participants, either as delegates or observers, but we had no
desire to go through the exercise of capturing ourselves. We wanted a
representative conference that would be a real test of where the activists stood
on the issues, and that would have the authority to call masses into action on
an unprecedented scale."

And that's really the point. A "vanguard" that seeks to impose its views on a
recalcitrant majority is not a vanguard, by any reasonable definition of the
term. The vanguard necessarily seeks to lead the mass movement by democratically
winning over the majority to a perspective that can lead the movement forward,
as a whole. It has no interest in "capturing" the movement.

Joe Auciello:

>> In retrospect, what we needed to do was relax our discipline, especially when
working in city or campus feminist organizations or coalitions. The SWP, like
any other organization, did need to establish its own point of view on women's
liberation and other political issues, but we did not need to micro manage the
membership. Particularly on the local level, we did not need a floor whip in
meetings to make sure all of our members said the right things and voted the
right way. It would have been enough to establish a general political line to be
applied nationally and allowed a great deal of flexibility in carrying it out
locally.<<

But the purpose of a floor leadership in such situations is not to discipline
one's own members. Rather, it is to ensure the most effective presentation of a
particular viewpoint or proposal for action. From that perspective, yes, no
doubt there are occasions when in practice "centralism" will be misapplied
through excessive rigidity. As I said in my earlier post, the merit of the
"intervention" depends on the nature of the intervention, i.e. whether the
policy is geared to winning a conscious majority for one's position.

Blanket proscriptions on prior discussion or organizing in support of a "line"
where conflicts or confusion or unclarity exist in the larger movement do not
contribute to democratic decision making.

I leave aside whether, as Lou suggests, "mass movements" are always or even
usually composed of "activists having no connection to the vanguard". In
practice, most mass movements, at least in their organized ongoing expressions,
are traversed by established political currents, each with its own line. The
anti-Vietnam war movement was no exception.

Richard Fidler
rfidler@xxxxxxxxxx