What do we find today among those who are interested in justice, who are concerned, disturbed, saddened by the suffering we find in our midst? What do we find among those committed to doing something about the problems of our society?
There are those who make their vocation – paid in addressing this or that social issue. And as jobs go, they are not unpleasant. The demands of commercial employment are far greater, for productivity there is a life-and-death issue in the fiercely competitive environment of private enterprise. One’s performance in such a setting translates into less or more money in someone else’s pockets. The atmosphere in a social service agency is, on the other hand, much more relaxed. And whatever the state of society, no matter if problems intensify sharply, one has the comfort of knowing that at least one and one’s agency has done some good, helped some people, to the limit, more or less, of one’s resources. And so there seems to be more meaning in one’s job, more intrinsic satisfaction than one could find in the totally meaningless and often downright obnoxious tasks associated with working for companies dedicated to profit. The problem with this is that the philanthropic work done by not-for-profit agencies tends to dull the urgency of participating in revolutionary political struggle, usually entirely substituting it.
Some social welfare agencies are private, some function within a governmental structure which, while sometimes directing substantial resources to the goal of fulfilling mass human needs, are most often permeated with the vindictive spirit that comes from being part of a mechanism controlled by a ruling class who has nothing but contempt for the masses. The work of government agencies involved in welfare work universally has a begrudging character, for after all, this work was imposed on it by mass struggles in the streets.
Then there are the “activists” who pursue social justice outside the framework of a career. These people, the vast majority of whom do not belong to any party formation, select some issue that they are drawn to out of purely personal predilection. They resolve to do their “little bit” to “make things better.” After all, what can one person do in the face of the enormity and scope of social problems? So what we have are thousands and thousands of little circles dealing with infinite facets of what is basically one problem, and dealing with them in a wholly disconnected fashion. These people content themselves with tiny victories. After all, how much can an individual or a small group accomplish? When the need is felt to link up the issues, the only vehicle that these activists can conceive of is electoral politics, usually involving support for the most liberal candidate in Democratic Party primaries, and then voting for the “lesser of the two evils” in general elections a completely futile exercise, to put it as charitably as possible.
In almost all instances, the activists move in middle class circles and address themselves to middle class audiences, even when the object of their concern are the poor and oppressed.
In the case of the social welfare agencies, while there is more often direct contact with the poor and working people, these are overwhelmingly merely objects of philanthropy. And despite the occasional rhetoric to the contrary, the poor and oppressed are not encouraged to take charge of the struggle for their own liberation. Very rarely do these agencies rise above a paternalistic approach. Rarely do they see the power and wisdom residing in the masses but rather seek through various forms of lobbying to influence those whom they believe are the real movers and shakers of society, the office holders.
Now to step back a moment…
What is the fundamental lesson of history – certainly the history of the last 150 years of social struggle? First, that every movement which has resulted in real change, which has made a real difference in the way people live, which has
truly expanded the possibilities of people asserting their dignity, of broadly meeting at least the modest requirements of a healthful existence, of broadly expanding the people’s intellectual and cultural horizons, of ridding themselves of fundamental forms of oppression, etc., every such movement has required the participation of huge masses of people. Nothing of any consequence has been accomplished without the masses. Nothing can be done by some advanced group, no matter how determined, how active, how desperate, how intelligent, how self-sacrificing, without the active participation of the masses.
On the other hand, history shows that the masses cannot spontaneously find their own way, master the intricacies of the struggle, the science of the struggle, absorb the vast lessons of past experience, master the scientific disciplines which are a vital part of the social struggle, cannot spontaneously and unaided develop the clarity of vision and master the tactical conceptions to carry them onto the road that leads to victory.
History shows that while no serious social progress has ever been made without mass participation, it also shows that the masses require the guidance of the most dedicated, disciplined, self-sacrificing, morally and intellectually enlightened elements of the population but who achieve a complete identification with the masses, people who are clear on the goal and on the way to achieve that goal. We call such a group a vanguard. And in order for such a vanguard to be effective, they must themselves be well organized, just as the masses to be effective must become well organized.
A vanguard, when linked closely to the masses, multiplies its force a thousand times. So one who is a member of a vanguard organization, even a relatively small one, if linked to the masses, if it has earned the confidence of the masses, this person does not merely add his or her “little bit” to the social process but makes a major contribution to the creation of a society which will be truly a human society, truly worthy of human beings.
Now, of course, one does not often have the good fortune of participating at that moment of revolutionary upsurge where one has a strong, even if relatively small vanguard, and a revolutionary mass ready to follow that vanguard.
Revolution is a process, a road of struggle. Our obligation is to measure up to the possibilities of the times we live in. If the vanguard does not yet exist that is needed for the final assault, it is our duty to do whatever is necessary to prepare the ground for its creation. If the vanguard requires tens of thousands of members for the final assault, at least we can begin to develop the number of cadres possible in today’s conditions. Perhaps they will total no more than 50 for the moment. But these 50 will be vital to developing 500, the 500 becoming 5,000, etc.
And similarly with the masses. The masses today are depressed, fearful, sluggish, ignorant in many respects, beaten down, filled with self-defeating attitudes and behaviors. We do not expect to change the masses overnight. But we can begin to make contact with the most promising segments of the masses, small as they may be, and work to mobilize, educate and organize them. In the process of this work, we rid ourselves of many of our own misconceptions. For the masses educate us as we educate them. And these more promising segments begin to have an impact on other segments.
Revolutionary work is the only work that really matters. The country is sinking into barbarism. The lot of tens of millions will be stavation, homelessness, the most brutal assaults on the people’s physical and spiritual well-being. Fascism draws ever closer. Repression is constantly tightening the screws around every aspect of our lives. Do we have the right to be anything less than revolutionary? We live in a slave society, modern slavery, capitalist slavery. What comfort can we take in slightly ameliorating the conditions of a few slaves while the lot of the masses of slaves must continue to deteriorate?
Human beings are entitled to more than this vicious social structure. Marxism has demonstrated that a just, healthy and prosperous society is not just a utopian dream but corresponds to the real possibilities created by modern science and technology – in fact, has demonstrated that such a society is not only possible but inevitable.
The liberation struggle is a war. And one learns to fight in a war by engagement in it. The nature of that engagement is determined by the maturity of the political situation. Engagement means engagement with the enemy. It means attacking the enemy, dealing blows to the enemy. The engagement need not always be physical. A large part of the terrain of engagement is the minds of the people.
Engagement often means raising political consciousness, exposing enemy propaganda, and most importantly, exposing those who, sincerely or insincerely, call themselves the people’s friends but who in reality, consciously or unconsciously, act to stop or derail the liberation movement.
There is no real struggle without confrontation. Again, this can be physical confrontation, but the largest part of confrontation is the confrontation of ideas, challenging the ideology of the enemy, challenging the distorted picture of reality projected by the enemy.
One important barometer of the effectiveness of one’s efforts is the enemies one makes. If one is doing work that is non-controversial, then one obviously is not threatneing the system nor any of the myriad of forces that serve to protect the system.
The calling of the revolutionary is the highest calling. It is a calling that requires total emotional commitment. Revolutionaries are most sorely tested not in periods of revolutionary upsurge, not in periods when the greatest physical courage is demanded – participating in guerrilla warfare, for example, or in revolutionary uprisings and in clashes with the various repressive organs of the State. In my opinion, revolutionaries are most sorely tested in periods such as this, in periods of mass lethargy, of general despair, cynicism, and lack of faith in the possibility of resistance, much less the possibility of victory, the possibility of ever attaining a humane society.
There is no glory in being a revolutionary in such times as these, only the personal satisfaction of non-capitulation, of keeping the flame alive, tiny as that flame may be, knowing that those tiny flames shall spread and eventually engulf the foundations of everything evil on this planet.
