Published on Portside (https://portside.org/)
Revolution in the
Air: Lessons from the 1960s
Max
Elbaum
November
30, 2018
Comparative
and Historical Sociology
I think a useful
way to start this discussion is to briefly paint a picture of the outlook of
those of us who turned toward revolutionary politics in and around the
watershed year 1968. From there I will summarize the experience of a large
layer of 1960s revolutionaries who embraced Third World Marxism and built what
was called the New Communist movement.
The Vision of the
1960s: From Fear to Hope
So to 1968, when I
was 20 years old, and the years just before and after: One side of my
generation’s experience is that in our teens we had either directly experienced
or witnessed tremendous shock, horror and destruction. We had been gripped by
fear of imminent nuclear annihilation during the Cuban Missile crisis. We were
jolted by one assassination after another–two Kennedys, Malcolm X, Martin
Luther King. We shuddered as police dogs were unleashed on civil rights
protesters and saw mobs of young whites beating up Black people for the crime
of sitting at a lunch counter.
And then there was
the U.S. war on Vietnam, a war brought into every home every night on TV–not
like today when pictures of the killing are hidden. Just about every day we saw
a Vietnamese person or U.S. soldier shot in a news report, not to mention
photos of the My Lai massacre and watching as a U.S. officer say with a
straight face, “we had to burn down this village to save it.” And of course, if
we weren’t sent to Vietnam ourselves, we all knew someone who had been, or who
was coming back wounded or in a body bag.
So those of us who
came of age in the ’60s lived with pain, fear and often desperation.
But there was
another side. Despite all that, we were filled with optimism and hope. That was
dominant. We were going to win and build a better world.
We had seen
southern governors standing at university doors saying “segregation today,
segregation tomorrow, and segregation forever.” But less than two years later,
Jim Crow was outlawed. After that the Black freedom movement, anchor of the
’60s upsurge, didn’t stop. It gained momentum.
Vietnam was threatened
with genocide, but the Tet offensive in early 1968 shook the U.S. war machine
to its core and made it clear that however long it took, Washington’s
empire-building project was going to lose a war for the first time in its
history. And it wasn’t just Vietnam. All across what we called the “third
world,” freedom movements were shaking colonialism and foreign domination, from
Uruguay to Palestine, from South Africa to the Philippines.
And when, on 31
March 1968, Lyndon Johnson withdrew from the presidential race and announced
that talks with the Vietnamese would begin, every one of us who had protested
believed we had taken part in overthrowing a president of the U.S., not by the
cruelty of assassination, but by engaging in mass political action.
Revolution wasn’t
just in the air in the global south. I recall when the member of my Students
for a Democratic Society (SDS) chapter who had spent 1968 studying in Paris
reported on her experience in the French May. Ten million workers on strike and
students on the night of the barricades came within a hair’s breadth of
overturning a government in the heart of Western Europe. I can still feel my
heartbeat surge when she recounted the slogan they chanted as they marched
through the streets where the Paris Commune of 1871 marked the first working
class seizure of power in world history: “We shall fight, we shall win! Paris,
London, Rome, Berlin!”
Is it any wonder
that so many of us became revolutionaries in the wake of experiences like
those?
We had a vision.
We were part of an unstoppable human surge toward a better world. It was
anchored in the rising of the wretched of the earth, but it embraced and
welcomed all who had a conscience. It had a moral as well as political
foundation. Yes, we knew we had to fight against the “hopeless sinners who
would hurt all mankind just to save their own,” as that wonderful 1960s anthem,
“People get Ready,” by Curtis Mayfield, put it. But we didn’t see it as a fight
of good people vs. evil people. It was a fight against unjust systems of
oppression. These systems hit hardest on the most marginalized, but afflicted
everyone. Our aim was to build a better world for all and usher in a new and
brighter stage of human history. And everyone who joined that fight had a
contribution to make.
Third World
Marxism
Now on from vision
to the messy world of politics on the ground. Especially after Martin Luther
King’s assassination, a whole layer of 1960s protesters decided that the
socio-economic and political system in the U.S. could not be reformed and a
social revolution as necessary to bring about peace, equality and justice. So
we looked around for the kind of theory, strategy, and organization that could
bring such a revolution about. Inevitably, the different directions in which we
went were shaped by the historical moment and, in particular, the contours of
the radical left across the world at that time.
Inspired by the
dynamic liberation movements that threatened to besiege Washington with “two,
three, many Vietnams,” as Ché Guevara put it, we decided that a Third
World-oriented version of Marxism was the key to building a powerful left here.
In tune with the central axes of 1960s protests, Third World Marxism put
opposition to racism and military interventionism front and center. It riveted
attention to the intersection of economic exploitation and racial oppression,
pointing young activists toward the most disadvantaged sectors of the working
class. It linked aspiring U.S. revolutionaries to the parties and leaders who
were proving that “the power of the people is greater than the man’s
technology”: the Vietnamese and Chinese Communist Parties; Amilcar Cabral and
the Marxist-led liberation movements in Africa; Che, Fidel and the Cuban
Revolution.
Third World
Marxism also promised a break with Eurocentric models of social change, and
pointed a way toward building a multiracial movement out of a badly segregated
U.S. left. For many of us, Third World Marxism seemed the best framework for
taking the most radical themes struck by Malcolm X, Martin Luther King and
César Chávez–the US figures that most inspired rebellious ‘60s youth–and
transforming them into a comprehensive revolutionary ideology.
Within the Third
World Marxist ranks, a determined contingent set out to build tight-knit cadre
organizations. These activists believed that new upsurges lay just ahead and
that it was urgent to prepare a united and militant vanguard so the
revolutionary potential glimpsed in the 1960s could be realized the next time
around. To guide this process, not just Marxism but Marxism-Leninism was deemed
indispensable. Partly this was because the Third World parties we looked to for
inspiration advocated Marxist-Leninist ideology. But we were also drawn to
Leninism out of our own experience in exceedingly sharp confrontation with
state repression.
This current on
the left, the New Communist component of the Third World Marxist layer, was not
the only one that attracted 1960s radicals. All sections of the left
grew–traditional communism, social democracy, Trotskyism, anarchism, radical
feminism and others. But this current attracted the largest number, and
especially the largest to come out of the freedom movements in communities of
color. A detailed historical analysis of rise and decline of these movements
can be found in my book, Revolution in the Air. In what follows, I
want to focus on a few critical themes from this historical experience that are
important to draw lessons about the present moment.
Four Lessons
1) Political
strategies and tactics must be tailored to the particular historical moments in
which activists operate. Any strategy or tactic that ignores the broader
historical context will lead to isolation and failure.
First, I want to
target what I think was our most costly error. We mis-assessed the historical
moment we were in, the balance of forces we faced, and the resilience of the
U.S. political system. That error led us to adopt strategies and tactics that
isolated us from the constituencies we were so committed to root ourselves in,
despite all our determination and effort. We had become radical at a time of
intense, rapid change, and when masses of people in the U.S. were in an
explosive mood. We weren’t so naïve as to think that would continue
uninterruptedly. But we did think that after a relatively brief ebb, a broader
upsurge was all but sure to occur, and that it would inevitably be toward the
left. We also thought that because masses had rejected one or two presidents
and taken to the streets, that millions of people were ready to abandon the
U.S. political system, that is, electoral politics, altogether. So we prepared
for offensive battles, regarded electoral involvement as at best a waste of
time, and built narrow organizational forms unsuited for the time.
But the 1970s went
in a completely different direction: the ruling class regrouped and retrenched,
skillfully cultivated a racist, sexist and homophobic backlash against ’60s
movements here and abroad. And once the Vietnam War was over and equality was
proclaimed in law even if not anywhere near realized in reality, the more
progressive masses in their millions understandably tried to resist using the
most legitimate and ready-at-hand tool available, that is, fighting on
electoral and policy terrain. We forgot Lenin’s admonition that what may be
obsolete for revolutionaries is not obsolete for masses, that exhorting people
to be more radical has minimal effect, that only going through the experience
of trying to take what the system offers as far as it can go and then being
stymied, will millions take harder and more risky roads.
The result of all
this was that instead of the 1980s bringing us an even bigger 1968, it brought
us Ronald Reagan. And by the time we realized what had occurred and threw
ourselves into the Rainbow movement connected to Jesse Jackson’s presidential
campaigns, we had suffered too many losses to regain momentum as a collective
and dynamic force.
The point being,
we needed a big dose of hard-headed realism to go along with our revolutionary
passion. We need to keep in mind that forces far more powerful than ourselves
are setting the agenda.
As I explain in Revolution in the Air:
If, when and how
masses swing into motion is generally not something under radicals’ control.
But it is the activity and consciousness of popular constituencies that must
shape radical efforts. Many of us once thought that becoming a revolutionary
meant seeing the world through the filter of passages from Lenin. But we
overlooked one of the things Lenin wrote that actually has a “universal”
meaning – something not particularly “Leninist” at all but common to effective
radical leaders of all persuasions: “politics begin where millions of men and
women are; where there are not thousands, but millions.”
Radicals must
strain every nerve to gain and keep a connection to these millions. We need a
connection in life, sustained over time, though durable organizations and
institutions – not merely in theory or in self-conception or during brief
moments of high-tide protest. This places a premium on resisting all
sectarianism and flexibly adapting to new and often unexpected conditions
2) To be able to
account for the transformations in the historical context, critical and
revolutionary theory should stay away from the “quest for orthodoxy.”
Second, I want to
open up for discussion this movement’s complicated relationship with
revolutionary theory. One of the things that gave the movement great dynamism
in its early years was the proliferation of study groups, forums and debates.
This extended beyond the student milieu and was a prominent feature in our
workplace and community organizing efforts. For some years, the chasm that
usually separates activism, that is either dismissive or even
hostile to big picture theoretical exploration, from the radical
academy, often divorced from and inaccessible to non-academics, was
dramatically narrowed in this sector of the left.
Also, there was
some creative theoretical and historical work done. Movement groups and circles
produced a host of studies exploring the conditions of different communities of
color in the U.S. and debating strategies for meshing the fight for equality
with the working-class project of socialist revolution. At least two strands
within the movement did pioneering work on the white-Black dynamic in U.S.
history, the social construction of race, the development of unique U.S. racial
categories, and the ways slavery and racism were foundational to U.S.
capitalism. One of those strands was pioneered by Noel Ignatin and Ted Allen
under the heading of “the invention of the white race” and the other, which
shaped my thinking, came out of the circles in which Harry Chang was a central
figure.
But it proved
difficult for the movement overall to do the creative work of which it was
capable, and even for its more theoretically-adept sectors to realize their
potential. This was because we pretty much all had bought into what I called a
“quest for orthodoxy”–interpretation of Marxism-Leninism where there was one
true canon and everything had to be squared with and justified by reference to
that canon’s founding fathers. New explorations were inhibited by suspicion of
possible heresy, dubbed revisionism. We therefore had huge gaps in what we even
paid attention to, missing for example absolutely crucial mattes like the
growing environmental crisis and species-threatening character of a fossil-fuel
based economy. And over time, especially as the movement declined, solutions to
political problems were sought in ideological purification rather than
rethinking our theories, assessments, and strategies
3) Any theory and
political strategy for change has to be rooted in particular local histories.
The U.S. is not an exception.
Third, looking to
the Black Freedom Movement as a reference point, anchor, and driving force of
all progressive fights in the particular history of the U.S. was a strength of
those who turned to Third World Marxism. Certainly there has been a great
explosion of new theoretical and historical work illuminating the condition of
African Americans, the dynamics of anti-Black racism, the centrality of slavery
to the development not only of U.S. but of global capitalism since the 1970s and
1980s. And a welcome explosion of new and innovative forms of organization and
communication as a new generation of activists moves center stage.
But the
overarching point is that a strategy for change in this country has to be
rooted in the particular history of the U.S.; and a key particularity of the
U.S. is the way Black labor has built the country and Black movements have most
often been the driving force not only in advancing the struggle of African
Americans but in widening the scope of democracy for everyone. This was true in
the Reconstruction era, which saw the most progressive state governments that
ever existed in the U.S.; it was true in the 1950s and 1960s when it was the
Black-led civil rights movement that broke the back of McCarthyism, defeated
Jim Crow, and opened up space for all the new movements of the 1960s and after
in what is aptly termed the “Second Reconstruction.” It is why the framework
utilized by Rev. William J. Barber and others launching the new Poor People’s
Campaign–the call for a “Third Reconstruction”–has such resonance and potential
today. Rooted in the Black Prophetic tradition, and adding the issue of
defending the natural environment to the three great evils Martin Luther King
named in his “A Time to Break The Silence” speech–racism, militarism, and the
extreme materialism that creates terrible poverty alongside ostentatious
wealth–the Campaign’s vision is to bind together all our fights toward the
Revolution of Values that Dr. King called for.
4) Today’s
challenging task is to defeat authoritarianism in a way that will help
institutionalize the strength of the emergent progressive sections of society
and prepare them for more advanced stages of a struggle for systemic change.
Last, we cannot
help but take note that we live in the era of Donald Trump. A white nationalist
surge drove him to the presidency, and unfortunately, similar regimes based in
racist and xenophobic authoritarianism are afflicting many other countries
across the globe. At the People Get Ready conference in Berkeley right after
Trump’s election, my longtime friend and comrade Linda Burnham, currently
Research Director at the National Domestic Workers Alliance, made this crucial
point in her keynote speech:
We cannot let the
harsh realities of the moment stifle our revolutionary imagination; at the same
time, we cannot let our revolutionary imagination blind us to the harsh
realities of the moment.
The challenge we
face today is that the balance between these two is not as favorable as it was
in 1968. At that time, the initiative was with those full of revolutionary
imagination. Today it is those who are inflicting harsh realities on people all
over the world who are setting the agenda and are putting in place mechanisms
to stay in power and enrich themselves, whether it be voter suppression, mass
incarceration, attacks on the media, freedom of expression and civil liberties,
or outright war.
We need to be
sober-minded about this. The trick is not to deny the challenge, but to
identify and nurture the shoots of resistance which are the building blocks of
the future and the source of our hope.
Today there is a
massive anti-Trump front taking shape in this country. Its core lies in
communities of color and among young people, but it stretches all the way from
corporate power brokers in the Democratic Party through the millions who turned
out for Bernie Sanders and a re-energized women’s upsurge to many Marxist
revolutionaries. So of course it includes players with contradictory interests.
But that is always the case in truly large mass movements. And we need to
remember that no radical project has succeeded when it tried to fight all its
enemies at once. Divisions in a ruling elite, and movements that can and do
take advantage of them, have been a key factor in every successful movement for
revolution or radical reform in history, in the U.S. and around the world.
And within this
huge, complicated coalition against the far right there is a growing and
dynamic progressive sector, showing itself in the women’s marches, in electoral
insurgencies, in defense of immigrants, in demanding an end to police killings,
in the movement for single-payer health care, in the recent teacher’s strikes.
If that layer can coalesce–and if it can make efforts to end militarism and war
as strong as its campaigns on other fronts–an agenda of peace, jobs, justice,
and saving the planet can attain a measure of power.
Let me elaborate a
little bit on this point. There have been three great leaps forward for popular
movements in U.S. history: the surge that ran through abolitionism and the
Civil War through Reconstruction; the organization of workers in mass
production and the broader New Deal-era efforts of the 1930s; and the Civil
Rights Movement-led Second Reconstruction of the 1960s that overthrew legal Jim
Crow, won a number of other important democratic victories, and sparked a host
of new social movements. All had a number of common ingredients: a period of
substantial change in underlying political economy and the shape of global politics
and power relations; militant and sustained mass direct action making a lot of
trouble from below; these factors exacerbating fissures within the ruling class
and turning those into a deep division; an extremely broad front uniting
against the main enemy of the day; and the use of forms of struggle ranging
from electoral action to disruptive protest and even in some cases resorting to
armed self-defense or, in the Civil War, armed offensives. All of these
elements were necessary to accomplish the main task of each period: abolition
of slavery in the 19th century; the end of complete despotism
at the workplace and staving off a corporatist or fascist solution to the
depression of the 1930s; the overthrow of Jim Crow, racist immigration quotas,
and ending the Vietnam War in the 1960s.
It is crucial to
recognize, though, that after the main enemy of each phase was defeated, the
coalition that defeated that enemy splintered. And in each case the
ruling-class sector was able, over time, to weaken or outright crush the
progressive contingent and roll back many hard won gains: Klan terror and
restriction of voting rights in the gutting of Reconstruction; McCarthyism to
roll back the militant workers’ movement in the 1950s; and, after the Second
Reconstruction, the backlash crusade that has unfolded for the last 40 years
and has now reached a zenith with extreme perils to the country and the planet
now that full-blown white nationalism has captured the GOP under Donald Trump.
So our challenge
is two-fold. First, to use all the elements mentioned above, from disruptive
action to truly massive street protests to electoral engagement, in building
the broad coalition necessary to oust the GOP and Trump an all their hangers on
from power. And second, to institutionalize the strength of the progressive
wing of this coalition to the point that, if and when we do defeat the right,
we will not be pushed to the sidelines. Rather, we will be able to fight for
and win the initiative, grab and hold a measure of political power in cities,
states, and at the federal level, and have a foundation on which to move on to
more advanced stages of struggle for systemic change.
And this is where
building not just a progressive realignment, but a revolutionary left force
within it, comes in. A radical left with a transformative vision and effective
strategy is needed to keep that broader progressive current on track; as the
communist manifesto puts it:
The communists do
not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mold
the proletarian movement. The Communists are distinguished from the other
working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the
proletarians of the 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.
Fortunately, there
are more and more young people today who, like the generation of 1968, are
flocking toward a revolutionary vision and looking for illuminating theory and
effective strategy and organization. The task of my generation is to get in
behind the new radicals, support them, offer what we’ve learned from our
experience in the spirit of “take whatever is useful and leave the rest.”
And let’s see if together we can move history along a little further this time
around.
Max
Elbaum is is an American historian, author, and social activist. He
has written extensively about the New Left, Civil Rights Movement and anti-war
movement. He is the author of “Revolution In The Air: Sixties Radicals turn to
Lenin, Mao and Che“.
Donations can be sent
to the Baltimore Nonviolence Center, 325 E. 25th St., Baltimore, MD
21218. Ph: 410-323-1607; Email: mobuszewski2001 [at] comcast.net. Go to http://baltimorenonviolencecenter.blogspot.com/
"The master class
has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles.
The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject
class has had nothing to gain and everything to lose--especially their lives."
Eugene Victor Debs
No comments:
Post a Comment