Re: [Marxism] The "turn to industry" of the 70s and 80s

["Joaquin Bustelo" <jbustelo@xxxxxxxxx>]

Comrade Bhaskar writes: "I don't have a great knowledge of this period, and
obviously the move was an abject failure, but in the wake of the anti-worker
attitudes of a lot of the New Left in the 1960s and considering the rut of
identity politics that plagued the 80s and 90s, how bad was the general idea
behind a 'turn to industry'."

I don't know what "anti worker attitudes" of the New Left the comrade might
be referring to. Generally, by the time of the Nixon administration (1969),
when I turned 18, workerism of various flavors was MUCH MORE of a problem
than "anti-worker attitudes," at least among the revolutionary-minded youth,
of which there were many hundreds of thousands back then. 

And MOST OF ALL and especially on the organized left. As is evidenced by all
the groups that "made the turn" "industrialized" adopted a "proletarian
orientation" "made their home in the working class" and so on.

True, it does show that "the SWP and the other groups who made the turn
didn't completely discount the American working class," but more than
"discount the working class" was involved. 

In the SWP's case, there was the contention that the working class had
moved/was moving/would move to center stage in U.S. politics, and if it
hadn't already happened, it would, in the next week or month or year or two.


Other groups made analysis with similar bottom lines, albeit with all sorts
of different catch-phrases, metaphorical crutches and event horizons on the
time line.

I believe they ALL blew it. 

What needed to be done to cohere and preserve a revolutionary Marxist
current was to  articulate a credible, materialist analysis of WHY the
working class DID NOT "move to center stage" once the more spectacular
quarter-century of the post-WWII capitalist boom ended circa 1970.

You say their "turns" shows that at least these groups did not discount the
working class. There is an implicit dimension to that sort of statement
about not discounting the working class when it is made in our kinds of
circles. It means, not discounting the working class as a central force in
politics, not underestimating its capacity for battle and its instinctive
but powerful groping towards political independence and political power.

Frankly, when it comes to the U.S. working class (taken as a whole) of
recent decades, I have YET to see anyone succeed in actually UNDERestimating
its capacity for battle, its longing for political independence, its
coherence as a class, its "nose for power."

ON THE CONTRARY, what we have seen in the analysis and projections of the
left, not once, but 192,786 times --and counting-- is an OVERestimation of
the U.S. working class, and especially AS A CLASS. AS SUCH. Bereft of all
"identity politics" and "sectoral interests," what is left?

I sometimes analogize "our class" to (at least the name of) the ultra-feeble
force in Nuclear physics, which was some wag's renaming of the weak
interaction. But --at very close range-- the weak interaction does, IN FACT,
interact, make its presence felt. The U.S. working class's POTENTIALLY
POWERFUL PRESENCE has been almost always in the activist lifetimes of 99% of
the comrades on this list manifested BY ITS ABSENCE on the domestic
political scene.

ALL the groups that did NOT "discount the American working class" during the
last half of the 20th Century were simply wrong. I say the last half of the
20th Century to set a cut-off date and not get into a discussion about
current prospects. Certainly we can all agree that the U.S. working class,
acting AS A CLASS, AS workers conscious of their condition as such, was
quite simply NOT even a minor factor in US politics from Truman's
re-election through Clinton's regime. 

Comrades who actually see the reality of those decades differently should
contact me privately, as due to unrelated personal circumstances, I have
great need for what they've been smoking.

*  *  *

Louis praises Solidarity's version of a "turn to industry" or "proletarian
orientation." 

This was an organization that I belonged to for several years recently, that
I consider NOT JUST the "least bad" but actually the BETTER of all the left
groups in the U.S., and that I hope to rejoin when there is an adequate
local unit functioning in my town, if they'll have me.

But in the five years I was a member of Soli, I did not meet a SINGLE person
among our 300+ members that had been recruited OUT OF "the labor work." I
DID meet probably DOZENS of students and ex-students who joined Soli in part
due to the attractiveness of Soli's "labor work." 

Yet if I had bothered to do so, I could have documented the cases of dozens
of comrades who were recruited OUT of the socialist movement by the labor
work. Now it may be that if it had not been the labor work, it would have
been blogging, film-making or astrophysics that would have seduced these
ex-members. But it remains true nevertheless that it WAS "the labor work"
that led them to break with our movement, at least for the time being.

But it IS striking that "Labor work" --functioning on a day-to-day basis in
the Union Movement-- would draw people AWAY from revolutionary Marxist
organizations. That is, however, the truth. And it's not just a 1-1/2 to
one, 2-1 or 3-1 ratio in terms of people lost/won by socialist groups
through the direct participation of their members in the labor movement. It
is AT LEAST dozens to one. 

*  *  *

Does this mean I consider the labor work a failure, or, worse, "economist
garbage"?

First, I must admit I do believe there is a problem, with lack of success
and narrowness in the labor work of groups like Soli, FRSO, and others. That
said, I believe that is due OVERWHELMINGLY to circumstances that are
"objective" in relation to the force socialist groups can muster. 

Yet when confronted with the mass upsurge of working class Latino immigrants
three years ago, pretty much the ONLY group that did succeed in actively
*developing* immigrant rights as an area of work was the ONE group that by
no stretch of the imagination could be accused of having "a proletarian
orientation." That was the ISO.

And even among the much more modest work done by Soli comrades, those
involved were generally NOT the one most intensely involved in the labor
work. There was even a tendency to counterpose the labor work to this work,
as for example in the decision by comrades working on a reform candidate
election campaign for international president that they did not have the
resources to actively relate to a big immigrant rights national convention
held that august in Chicago.


But still, is it just a "waste of time"? Perhaps, in an immediate sense, in
some cases. But unless one has the option to become a millionaire, we're all
going to wind up working for a living, and in any given profession, trade,
craft or industry, you are better off with a union, whether you lead
graduate seminars in cosmology or just pick fruit for a living. And if
you're going to be IN a union, you might as well try to make it as strong
and progressive, as successful, as you can. 

Those of us who have kids often wind up contributing substantial money and
time to making their swim teams or soccer teams or school plays successful.
Those of us who may have been religiously active might have contributed to
the church, parish, synagogue, temple or mosque we associated with. From
where most working people sit, a union isn't that different in principle.

BUT this DOES mean that an OVERRIDING "strategic" focus on "industry," or on
"making our home in the working class" or on a "proletarian orientation" are
a crock. 

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Back around 1980, the *organized,
dues-paying forces* of "New Communist Movement" numbered at LEAST
2,000-3,000 cadre. Those around the SWP close to 2,000, if not right then,
then certainly a couple of years earlier. The CPUSA's activist base (my
guess) was at least as large as the main trot and maoist current combined,
perhaps twice as much.

The "state cap" ISO was a few dozen.

TODAY the ISO is two or three times the size, and ten times as dynamic, as
any other group. Is this due to their unique insight that Cuba is still
capitalist, or because they publish the scribbles of professional
che-and-fidel-hater Sam Farber? I don't think so.

The ISO owes its success quite simply to having done an HONEST balance sheet
in the early 1980's that showed they could not sustain their current from
recruitment in the labor movement. They came to the conclusion that the
central task was the preservation of the "socialism from below"
political/ideological current (as they conceive of it), and that this was
best done --and perhaps only possible-- with a strong campus focus given the
then-current political conditions, which have largely continued to our day.

Finally, there is Bhaskar's reference to groups with a proletarian
orientation not falling "into the trap of third worldism." I'm not sure what
Bhaskar means by this. In fact, I haven't a clue. But if it means carrying
out a lot of solidarity work wikth struggles abroad, generally I think that
is not a "trap" but a good thing. 

Joaquin


________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40archives.econ.utah.edu