What Is To Be Done: Part Two
The Red Line
The time comes in the life of any nation when there remain only two choices - submit or fight. That time has now come to South Africa. We shall not submit and we have no choice but to hit back by all means in our power in defence of our people, our future, and our freedom"-The Manifesto of Umkhonto we Sizwe
It is time for us to face one simple truth.
It is a hard truth, despite the fact that many of us privately acknowledge it, we publicly beat around the bush for fear of inevitable repressions. However, we no longer have the time to meekly beg for scraps from the table as the world burns. We must cross this red line, to say what has always been implied.
The United States Government must be destroyed. This should be our foremost goal.
It cannot be negotiated with. It cannot be reformed. It cannot be remade. It has no right to exist, nor should it. It must be destroyed, root and stem, and the earth must be salted underneath it to ensure it can never return. This government, and the system which it perpetuates on this earth, is a machine that exists to kill and poison. It converts our blood and suffering into endless profits for a tiny minority of humanity.
The government long ago lost the trust of it’s people. According to the capitalists own research, only around 20% of Americans trust their government under any circumstances. The vast majority do not believe that it ever has their best interests in mind. This mistrust, combined with the constant creation of more desperate workers, gives us the objective conditions to build a revolutionary coalition in America.
The United States government is the lynchpin of global capitalism and imperialism. Without it’s muscle, this system would collapse, as would the fetters it places on the world. This would benefit not just foreigners in far away lands, western workers have much to gain as well from reversing the de-industrialization caused by international monopoly capitalism that this government exists to protect.
Even thinking purely from self interest, it is obvious that the United States government is a parasitic entity and it’s destruction would free the majority of this nation’s people from the inevitable grinding of capitalism in it’s final stage.
This truth leads to another uncomfortable fact.
History has shown us that the only realistic way to defeat this monster is through armed struggle. Thanks to America’s unique position in the world, insulated by two vast oceans and with neighbors kept docile by imperialism, no foreign force can or will come to save us. This leaves us with only one option. We must organize an army of the working class, gradually building the forces necessary to engage and eventually destroy it.
We are, in truth, a long way from this goal or even meeting the requirements to initiate armed struggle. However, the contradictions continue to sharpen with or without our input and so it is imperative that we lay the groundwork for a prolonged period of struggle before the situation moves beyond our control.
This is uncharted territory for the American left. There have been sporadic outbreaks of violence from small vanguardist groups, but there has been no sincere attempt at organizing an army of the working class. The idea that a small group can act as "detonators”, that “a single spark can start a prairie fire” has been decisively disproven by history. Such misguided theories caused the eradication of the New Left in America. It is not enough to have a small group of militants, we need a real army with broad-based popular support.
We have correctly rejected the 'pure detonator theory' which is based on the belief that the localised military actions of professional armed cadres automatically generate growing resistance and support from the people. But on the other hand to postpone all armed activity until political mobilisation and organisational reconstruction have reached a level high enough to sustain its more advanced forms, is to undermine the prospects of full political mobilisation itself. Experience of South Africa and other highly organised police states has shown that until the introduction of a new type of action it is questionable whether political mobilisation and organisation can be developed beyond a certain point. Given the disillusionment by the oppressed mass with the old forms of struggle, demonstration of the capacity of the liberation movement to meet and sustain the challenge in a new way is in itself one of the most vital factors in attracting their organised allegiance and support. Thus we have been taught to avoid two extreme positions - in the one case the pure detonator theory and in the other case the pure reconstruction theory which implies that no organised armed activity should be undertaken until we have mobilised the people politically and recreated advanced networks of nationwide organisation. The first has within it the seeds of a dramatic adventure which could be over before it started. The second holds out little prospect for the commencement of armed struggle and the conquest of power in our lifetime.-Joe Slovo “10 Years of Umkhonto we Sizwe”
A careful balance must be struck between the sort of aggressive movement necessary to reach our end goal and a realistic, pragmatic movement which does not waste it’s strength on doomed enterprises. To embark on an armed struggle before we are fully prepared would be suicidal, a criminal waste of lives and resources which would not bring about any real gains. However, we cannot progress past a certain point of organization without the addition of armed action to our repertoire.
This balance can be reached only through analysis of the conditions facing us, as viewed through the lens of dialectical and historical materialism. Fortunately, those who came before us have left us with a considerable amount of work on the topic of transitioning from a party to an army. Differences in material conditions must be taken into account and carefully analyzed but if we are to embark on such a serious mission, we must be well-educated in both revolutionary history and revolutionary theory.
This is so because even in the typical colonial-type situation, armed struggle becomes feasible only if:
• there is disillusionment with the prospect of achieving liberation by traditional peaceful processes because the objective conditions blatantly bar the way to change;
• there is readiness to respond to the strategy of armed struggle with all the enormous sacrifices which this involves;
• there is in existence a political leadership capable of gaining the organised allegiance of the people for armed struggle and which has both the experience and the ability to carry out the painstaking process of planning, preparation and overall conduct of the operations;
• and there exist favourable objective conditions in the international and local planes.
In one sense, conditions are connected and interdependent. They are not created by subjective and ideological activity only and many are the mistakes committed by heroic revolutionaries who give a monopoly to the subjective factor and who confuse their own readiness with the readiness of others.-Strategy and Tactics of the ANC
While there is widespread disillusionment at the prospect of creating real change through legal and non-violent means and favorable material conditions both nationally and internationally, the requirements for armed struggle are not met.
There is no appetite for sacrifice among either the people or the parties which have unsuccessfully tried to lead them. American movements have mostly stayed within the realm of legal dissent, unwilling to violate the law owing to the state’s severe and wanton violence. If police can get away with shooting unarmed people, they have plenty of justification to shoot dangerous rioters.
This leads to a meek movement which often collaborates with the state to ensure it’s own security. When you ask permission from the government, they will only authorize methods of protest which do not threaten them. We must move beyond that, into forms of struggle that exist specifically to physically erode the authority of the United States government. It is necessary that the party prepare the people for a prolonged period of illegal struggle and the repressions that will begin from there.
While there have been some recent illegal actions in America such as the George Floyd uprisings, the university encampments, Standing Rock and et cetera, they have been sporadic and have predictably brought no results. These random outbreaks of popular discontent will never be sufficient and represent a terrible waste of people, blood and time. As Communists, we must oppose random violence. It is our duty to organize these spontaneous events into organized, targeted and effective actions.
The answer to government terror is not wild rioting, but organized and planned mass self-defense and resistance. Police and military violence against peaceful pass-burners or strikers cannot succeed if the brave and disciplined young freedom fighters are organised and prepared to stand up in defense of their homes, their lives and the security of their own people.-The African Communist, Vol 13 “The Revolutionary Way Out”
These deficiencies are our failures, driven by a lack of a clear goal in our organizing. We have created amorphous movements with vague demands when we should be focusing everything towards one goal, the defeat of the United States government.
In order to reach this goal, it is necessary to radically re-imagine the role of a party. Rather than a simple book club, the party must take the form of a unified military-political structure, with clear, realistic goals. It is the job of the party to prepare the people for a prolonged, extreme period of struggle, to instill discipline and lay the groundwork for the creation of an army. When the time comes to initiate armed struggle, it must represent a natural progression in our organizing.
This does not mean that all our operations must be military in nature. An armed struggle can and must exist in concert with a political struggle. War is nothing more than the continuation of politics. Without the threat of military action, political action has no teeth. Without political action, military action has no purpose. The two are not opposites, they are twins.
Theory and Practice
We see, therefore, that War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means. All beyond this which is strictly peculiar to War relates merely to the peculiar nature of the means which it uses. That the tendencies and views of policy shall not be incompatible with these means, the Art of War in general and the Commander in each particular case may demand, and this claim is truly not a trifling one. But however powerfully this may react on political views in particular cases, still it must always be regarded as only a modification of them; for the political view is the object, War is the means, and the means must always include the object in our conception."-Carl von Clausewitz
One example of the type of organizing that will be necessary could be seen in South Africa. While not directly comparable, the two situations share more in common than America and China or Russia, where the class basis of society was wildly different. Both the United States and South Africa are fully developed, imperialist capitalist nations, and both had advanced forms of racial exploitation and discrimination.
In particular, we can analyze the time when South Africa came to accept the uncomfortable truth of armed struggle to give us an example of how to transition from a party into an army.
Despite concerted attempts to whitewash the movement by the liberal elite, from 1961 on, the African National Congress maintained an extensive armed guerrilla wing called Umkhonto we Sizwe or Spear of the Nation1. MK started from a handful of novices in Joe Slovo’s office and matured into a real army capable of engaging and defeating the South African armed forces and police in pitched battle both at home and abroad.
By the 1970s, MK had armed cadres in all neighboring countries and had dragged the apartheid regime into a bloody, ruinous war of attrition across the region as their political organizers paralyzed the economy and increasingly isolated South Africa from it’s friends and finances abroad. In the end, struck by the twin hammer blows of political and military action, minority rule was defeated in South Africa.
Once again, without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement. Joe Slovo, the South African Communist Party and the MK general staff left us with a vast corpus on strategy and tactics. We can no more ignore our comrades from Africa than we can Marx and Lenin. In their works, they call for the sort of unified military-political decision making which must be used by a revolutionary movement.
As correctly put in the Strategy and Tactics of the African National Congress: "When we talk of revolutionary armed struggle we are talking of political struggle by means which include the use of military force". All our activities whether directly military or political are calculated to help bring about a situation in which insurrectionary conditions will mature.-Joe Slovo, 10 Years of Umkhonto we Sizwe
Even before they turned to the armed struggle, the ANC imagined the role of the party was to unify all the forces that could be unified against the government and mobilize the masses into a disciplined, courageous and self-sacrificing body which was capable of withstanding the severe repressions of the apartheid state’s security forces.
The African National Congress started in the early period of its existence by using the methods that were common at that time — protest demonstrations, resolutions adopted at conferences, various ways of trying to demonstrate the rejection of the system by the majority of the people. As time went on, the African National Congress began to rally under its banners all of the forces that were opposed to the system, especially during the era of apartheid, when a unity began to develop among the Africans and other racial groups in the country, including the whites. This force created problems for the regime; it compelled the regime to resort to naked force to repress the struggle for democratic change. In the period between 1950 and 1961, the people’s movement, which involved the peasantry, young people and of course the working people, was confronted with such violence that the most natural thing to do at that time was to reply to this violence with violence. The African National Congress advocated nonviolence — again as a means of mobilizing the masses, disciplining them and preparing them for brutal repression. By these methods the African National Congress also sought to win over more of the white population which supported the regime and to appeal to international opinion. The regime used not only armed police at the time. At that point, in 1961, the people decided to move away from non-violence and embrace violent methods, adopt the strategy of armed struggle.- Oliver Tambo, “The Struggle Continues”, 1978
Rather than simply waiting for the situation to mature, for some arbitrary point to be reached which would allow them to act, these disciplined cadres were able to force the issue by using all tactics short of violence. Through dogged determination and aggressive, targeted political actions such as civil disobedience and general strikes, the ANC was able to shepherd the movement towards a revolutionary path. This non-violent action was necessary to build discipline and organization among the people, and to psychologically prepare them to face the state’s repression. When the state finally moved to crush the movement, the people were already prepared to fight back and therefore armed struggle represented a natural progression.
Of course favourable conditions for armed struggle ripen historically. But the historical process must not be approached as if it were a mystical thing outside of man which in a crude deterministic sort of way sets him tasks to which he responds. In this sense to sit back and wait for the evolvement of objective conditions which constitute a "revolutionary situation" amounts in some cases to a dereliction of leadership duties. What people, expressing themselves in organised activity, do or abstain from doing, hastens or retards the historical process and helps or hinders the creation of favourable conditions for armed struggle.-Joe Slovo, Prospects for Armed Struggle in South Africa
When the battle was joined and the party transitioned to the path of armed struggle, they maintained an active political apparatus to maintain their base of support. This was always analyzed from a military-political lens.
In order for both the state and the struggle against it to be successful, they required a mass base. However, the mass base can only be drawn from the South African people. This means that the state and ANC were essentially competing for the same base of support, but in different ways. It was the state’s role to prevent a revolution by any means, while it was the ANC’s role to foment one. Even in a settler-colonial situation like South Africa, the state had many ways to ensure compliance beyond just violence.
The ANC could counter terror through organization and instilling discipline among the people, but other methods proved more insidious. For example, since the state controlled the educational system and the media, it was used to perpetuate apartheid via propaganda and indoctrination. In order to counteract that, the ANC had to make political education and agitation a top priority. To build and maintain a people’s army, it was necessary to conduct thorough and never-ending political work.
Military action needed clear political goals, with an eye towards maximizing agitation and mobilization of the people. All military activities had a political characteristic, and vice versa. However, military action was not enough. It was necessary to fight this struggle on all fronts, be they legal or illegal, violent or non violent. Tactics had to be carefully selected based on the individual circumstances and what could be gained. The goal was always to mobilize the maximum amount of people possible, instill them with revolutionary discipline and prepare them for the struggle.
What is our approach to the relationship between the political and military struggle?
The preparation for People’s Armed Struggle and its victorious conclusion is not solely a military question. This means that the armed struggle must be based on, and grow out of, mass political support and it must eventually involve our whole people. All military activities must, at every stage, be guided and determined by the need to generate political mobilisation, organisation and resistance, with the aim of progressively weakening the enemy’s grip on his reins of political, economic, social and military power, by a combination of political and military action.
The forms of political and military activities, and the way these activities relate to one another, go through different phases as the situation changes. It is therefore vital to have under continuous survey the changing tactical relationships between these two inter-dependent factors in our struggle and the place which political and military actions (in the narrow sense) occupy in each phase, both nationally and within each of our main regions. The concrete political realities must determine whether, at any given stage and in any given region, the main emphasis should be on political or on military action.
The creation of a national liberation army, with popularly-rooted internal rear bases, is a key perspective of our planning in the military field. Such an army unit must, at all times, remain under the direction and control of our political revolutionary vanguard.-The Green Book
While the material conditions of 20th century South Africa are not directly comparable to those of the 21st century United States, their experience shows that Leninist tactics are still valid and can be implemented in an industrialized, settler-colonial nation.
However, we must take into account the differences in historical and material conditions. South Africa had a system of minority rule, wherein only a small sector of the population (in this case, whites) had any civil rights and the majority were excluded from any political processes. The dividing lines of Apartheid were clearly drawn, allowing the ANC to focus it’s maximum efforts on the sections of the population that had the most to gain.
In America, the system has become more complex. First, we must reckon with the differences and similarities of the “democratic” systems. Although legally enfranchised, the majority of Americans of all races still have no real say in political affairs owing to the characteristics of our bourgeois “democratic” system. Since the candidates are all chosen by capitalists, they all speak for capitalists and no one else. While this was also true in South Africa, only whites were allowed to participate in elections until 1994. The illusion of bourgeois democracy did not apply to the majority of citizens, whereas in America it serves as a relief valve, making organizing more difficult. In South Africa, the majority could be organized around a clear goal, democracy. In America, our “democracy” is the problem.
Because of their great economic power and wealth, the owners of the means of production dominate in every capitalist country. They run parliament and the press; their ideas prevail in educational and religious institutions. The laws are made to suit their interests. The State, the army, the police and the courts, defend, in the first place, their property. However democratic it may appear on the surface, every capitalist state is in reality a dictatorship of the capitalist class. -The road to South African Freedom, 1962
While America’s system of racial segregation has legally ended, nothing was done to reverse the social damage it caused, meaning that it is still present at similar levels to those prior to the Civil Rights movement. Both American and South African apartheid were economic systems, not just social, and without any attempt to correct the economic imbalances the systems have continued in all but name. Minority communities still suffer from severe economic deprivation, leading to extreme differences in health, income and incarceration.
We must also take demographics into account. In South Africa, the black population represented an absolute indigenous majority. This gave the ANC a solid base from which to draw massive popular support. In America, there is a slim white majority, but this is when all minority groups are considered to be a unified bloc, a situation which has little bearing in reality. In reality, racial politics in modern-day America is much more complicated than it was in South Africa, with it’s clearly drawn lines of apartheid.
Unlike in Africa, the indigenous people of America have been virtually wiped out and replaced with new settlers, both willing and otherwise. An incredibly complex system of race, racism and racial discrimination was the natural result of this. An in-depth discussion of this system is beyond the scope of this article, but we can still draw basic conclusions from history and theory.
The simple truth is that while the majority class basis of all races is the same, racial politics has been used as a wedge to divide them, making all-around political organization very difficult. Because of this, it is more important than ever that we maintain an active educational and propaganda apparatus, capable of educating people and instilling them with the militant class consciousness that will be necessary for the upcoming struggle.
The solution to the problem of racial division is both incredibly simple and incredibly difficult. It is to foster a unity based around class, rather than race, and create a program which broadly benefits all workers, regardless of race or ethnicity. Once again, we can find inspiration from the struggle of the South African Communist Party. They never denied the unique suffering of the black population under apartheid, but still made the case that a Communist South Africa would benefit white workers, too.
The relatively high standards of life and wages enjoyed by White workers represent, in reality, a share in the super profits made by the capitalists out of the gross exploitation of the non-Whites. Systematically indoctrinated with the creed of White superiority, the White worker imagines himself to be a part of the ruling class and willingly acts as a tool and an accomplice in the maintenance of colonialism and capitalism. However, in reality, the White worker, like the non-White worker at his side, is subjected to exploitation by the same capitalist owners of the means of production. White workers’ wages in general are high in comparison with those of non-Whites. But many categories of White workers are paid little more than non-Whites, and also struggle to support their families. The White worker is subject to the insecurity of the capitalist system, with its constant threats of depression, short-time and unemployment. The division of trade unions on racial lines weakens all sections of workers in their constant struggle with the bosses for better pay and conditions and shorter hours of work. The fundamental interests of all South African workers, like those of workers everywhere, lie in unity: unity in the struggle for the day-to-day interests of the working class, for the ending of race-discrimination and division, for a free, democratic South Africa as the only possible basis for the winning of socialism, the overthrow of the capitalist class and the ending of human exploitation.-The Road to South African Freedom, 1962
None of this is set in stone. We must reject all dogmatism and create our own path that matches our unique material conditions. However, in order to do that, we must be well-educated in both history and theory in order to learn from the successes and failures of the past. The process of building a new America will not be just like the process of building a new South Africa, or a new Russia, or a new China. The struggle will be unique and take on it’s own characteristics, which we must always be ready to adapt to. This is the essence of historical and dialectical materialism.
The struggle will be long and hard, and it will require sacrifice the likes of which this country has never seen before. However, the alternative is worse. The future needs our help. We must stand up now and slay the dragon called Capitalism before it’s flames consume us all.
It seems like we have no chance, but we already have everything we need.
The little thrush of history has shown us the weak spot on the dragon’s belly. The black arrow of theory waits in the quiver for the hand of a hero. We must become the archers who slay this dragon. No one else can. It has been done before, and it can be done again, if only we have the courage to try.
“Arrow!" said the bowman. "Black arrow! I have saved you to the last. You have never failed me and always I have recovered you. I had you from my father and he from of old. If ever you came from the forges of the true king under the Mountain, go now and speed well!-
MK for short