Sam Webb’s “Main report to the CPUSA National Committee, November 17, 2012”

« HPJC Deplores All Violence in Middle East

Response to Sam Webb’s “Main report to the Communist Party USA National Committee, November 17, 2012” »

worker | November 24, 2012 | 3:30 pm | Action

Here is the link to Sam Webb’s most recent report to the CPUSA National Committee:

http://cpusa.org/defeat-for-the-right-victory-for-the-people-democracy/

One comment for this post

worker says:

November 24, 2012 at 3:39 pm

Here are some comments from a comrade from Canada:

Some thoughts on Sam Webb’s election commentary

You don’t always need to mention the need for fundamental social change in an election commentary, but these are not usual times. Global capitalism is meeting more impasses in its constant search for new ways to bolster profit levels. More significantly for everyone who understands the crying need for great revolutionary change, in all continents, the ground is beginning to shift under the feet of global capitalism.

Unfortunately, Webb’s narrative falls mainly within the confines of the debate between the two main bourgeois parties, including remedies for problems such as the next great immediate problem he identifies, the fiscal cliff. As a result, there is little appreciation that solutions may be needed for problems far deeper than those named in this his election commentary.

For Marxists, this is an ideal time to point to the systemic failures of capitalism. It is not a time to be socialism-free.

By focusing on the next immediate task (exposing the fiscal cliff as a ruse to cut “social wages”), Webb takes the spotlight from a host of immediate and long-term problems that urgently need to be addressed. What does Webb do to educate people about their overall tasks?

Reading the commentary, you would not think that capitalism is entering a time of great troubles and that there is a need to develop a broad perspective in all the popular movements. Instead, there is a belief that matters can be made right, the problems are not global or systemic in nature.

Webb does refer to unspecified future issues, noting today’s coalition “will experience victories, like we did on Election Day. But it will also encounter defeats. The main thing is that it never lose sight of the necessity of deepening and extending its reach, unity, and multi-racial, class-based character.” Success or failure at what, though?

Webb writes that “The coalition that mined the country for votes over the past several months and the rainbow electorate that elected the president and defended democracy yesterday must spring back into action.” Why? To prevent social program cuts as a result of a fake fiscal cliff problem.

The labor movement “can’t do it alone.” “Tens of millions must be mobilized. Diverse forms of struggle must be employed.” Yet, people are already in action on these different issues, as noted by Webb. The solution of mobilizing “tens of millions” and using undefined forms of struggle is not very helpful – it is too specific and not specific enough.

More importantly, tens of millions of people already know that the problems confronting US capitalism are far more profound than cutting social programs, and that is probably why people are mobilizing on a range of issues. It is important to identify the next key tasks for the mass movements. However, Webb should explain why a campaign to block cuts to government spending is more urgent than efforts to deal with war, unemployment, impoverishment and climate catastrophe. Why should they be diverted to this one issue?

Webb concludes by saying the movements need to “eclipse (corporate power) in terms of scope, depth, and class and anti-racist understanding and unity.” The problem is presented as one of quantity, when we know that revolution will change the balance qualitatively. Does Webb believe that the people face an endless cycle of success and failure? It is important to avoid the impression that the movement is everything, and the goal nothing.

Webb’s statement offers no sense that the war danger is growing, although he notes the election was “a vote for jobs,… for withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan (and) an end to U.S.-led wars in the Middle East.” (There is no mention of the strategic military targeting of China and Russia, hot campaign issues for both Obama and Romney. )

If, as Webb says, people voted against war and for jobs, what more is needed to eclipse corporate theory? For Marxists, only our theory offers a valid perspective of how capitalism develops, the lessons of existing socialism, and how to fulfill every democratic aim that people harbour in their heart.

Webb writes that Romney, if elected, “would have accelerated to warp drive a capitalist class counterrevolution.” It is unscientific to treat both parties of big business in such stark, opposite terms. The election certainly brought out class differences, but they were expressed more in the peoples’ movements than among the two main parties, a fact that would have been worth mentioning.

The impression must be avoided that the ultra-right is only connected to one big business party, that it can be used like an on-off switch, or that it is a menu selection for the US voter. Elected leaders of the US economy today really have no control if there is slow or fast path for capitalism to follow. The laws of capitalist development are inexorable and increasingly limit (tie the hands) of even Obama when it comes to shoring up profit levels, and the tactics he will use.

We have reached the point where the impoverishment of workers is so dire that a tax increase on them, cuts in social programs, a new war, a new environmental catastrophe, or continued high unemployment, – any extra burden – could tilt the economy over more than just a fiscal cliff. It is these growing impasses and dangers to profit levels, most not mentioned by Webb, that propel the corporate attack on democracy and they are the real reason we need a united front against the far-right.

Webb expresses his belief in the possibility that jobs could grow (and capitalism can be reformed), but the opposite is true, also. The omission gives too much credibility to the main bourgeois parties whose entire purpose is to promote the false belief that only “markets” create jobs. The choice for workers should not be limited to rapacious or reformed capitalism, where reform can be achieved just as easily as in the 1930s.

The problems confronting capitalism today are more serious than in the last Great Depression, and it is permissible to be more dubious about the ability of capitalism to recover from its deepening crises.

Estimating the prospects for the struggle is the most important part of Webb’s commentary. Although Webb acknowledges by his “eclipsing” comment that people must develop far more profound ideas of social change, the nature of that understanding is missing. Although Webb correctly observes people voted for jobs and against war, there is an added point to make.

Millions already have a more profound level of understanding of capitalism. There is a growing rejection of capitalism as a social system. This is widely recognized. Even public opinion firms report that support for capitalism is higher in China than the U.S. The biggest problem we have is one of matching practice to theory, building a revolutionary party equipped with the most advanced revolutionary theory.

Without any evidence, Webb writes “the struggle to put the peopleâ€™s needs and nature before corporate profits and war spending will be a long one.” Webb’s fine-sounding conclusion is that “We are at the dawn of a new era.” There are two problems with the idea that we are in for a long struggle against corporate profits and war spending. There is nothing new about this struggle. Secondly, the prospects for the US people are more hopeful than such a draining defensive struggle that stretches to the foreseeable future.

Is there a “way out” for the American people, a way to avoid the impending catastrophe? Is there a vision for a safe and better future for all people? Is there a way to avoid an endless cycle of defeat and failure, a long struggle against war and for jobs? Not in this election commentary.