user preferences

Search author name words: Jan Makandal

Independent Response on the Exchange Between The League of the Revolutionary Party and Batay Ouvriye

category international | imperialism / war | other libertarian press author Monday October 13, 2008 20:19author by Jan Makandal Report this post to the editors

I am supporter of Batay Ouvriye [BO] and wish to participate in this debate not only as a supporter of BO but also as a revolutionary militant who shares a common vision of radical change from a proletarian alternative.

In a way I do understand BO is a mass organization of workers and laborers (working people). I fundamentally agree with BO on the manner they have answered this question and also do recognize the limitative nature of these answers reflecting the level of organization in which BO functions. My relation with BO has always been a relation guided on the principle of Unity-Struggle-Unity, a relationship of struggle with a commonly shared desire of building unity to fight capitalism and imperialism in our respective levels of the political spectrum. I had very strong reservations about BO’s response to the League of the Revolutionary Party [LRP], reservations shared with BO, on the manner this response was addressed and also on limitations based on their use of the English language. The content of this letter did not allow BO to engage in a constructive debate with LRP and also I think the text was a French letter loosely translated to English, a common problem with some of the texts produced by BO in English. I do recognize this recurring problem limits, really limits, the accessibility of BO in the English speaking international arena. But this technical aspect, although very important, should not in any way impede and overlap the limitative aspect of the political content of the response.

I have always delineated two aspects in my contribution to the defense of BO. The first is dealing with demagogues and provocateurs who are using the funding questions to denigrate BO in order to continue their marketing work for the reactionary Lavalas Governments as a “popularly elected government”. Most of them are paid lobbyists of Aristide, some being paid as much as 20 million US dollars, money taken from the Haitian State that could have been used to help the Haitian masses improve their living conditions. Some of these lobbyists have been paid for services rendered sums equal to what 200 workers would earn in five to ten years. The debate with them is not a political debate since their defense of Aristide is a business matter. The second aspect is dealing with genuine progressives and revolutionaries who do have concerns, understandably so, about some of the sources of limited funding that BO has received. I think it this is a debate and struggle worth having in order to build and reinforce unity amongst progressives and revolutionaries in the advancement of the struggle, in particular its most advanced form: PROLETARIAN STRUGGLE.

The first problem I will raise is that the LRP tried to link two aspects together in their political position. The question of funding and the positions of BO, which I am in agreement with, on the reactionary pro-imperialist positions of the Lavalas regimes and LESPWA headed by Preval. The LRP posted a link to theoretically consolidate their positions and declared that BO’s positions in identifying the struggles within the dominant classes was an excuse not to take sides in the conflict between Aristide and US imperialism over who has the right to govern Haiti. For me this argument is simplistic and the conclusion, in using this argument, will only benefit the fractions of the bourgeoisie and imperialism that the LRP seems to be adamantly against. This is the problem when a complex phenomenon is being addressed simplistically and pragmatically. In the final analysis, such methodology seems to benefit the bourgeoisie and it supporters, the demagogues and the provocateurs. I think BO took, at its level, the most advanced position by identifying the secondary nature of the contradictions in the dominant classes and called on the masses to organize autonomously under the leadership of the working class. Furthermore BO insisted on the fact that no sector of the dominant classes, fractions of the bourgeoisie or imperialism have any solutions, even for the short term, to bring any resolve whatsoever to the structural crisis facing the Haitian social formation. It would have been suicidal to even think of that allying with the pro-imperialist Lavalas regime “against” imperialism would have been an anti-imperialist stand. The proletarian revolutionary and the working class autonomous mass movements need to construct their own alternatives on the battlefield, whether we are talking about Haiti or in the belly of the imperialist beast, instead of tailgating reactionary bourgeois politicians. Workers and the popular masses have no common interests with and should not support, or give some sort of legitimacy, to bourgeois anti-popular, anti-national political factions, notwithstanding their “popularity”.

I do not wish to put the cart before the horses. I think there is a need to analyze the theoretical basis of LRP position. I visited their link, Self-determination and Military Defense Marxist Method. I will try to address here only some points that are the source of their criticism of BO. Let’s be clear on something, Lenin or any other proletarian revolutionary did not will to us, as continuators of the proletarians struggle, a recipe on how to wage struggle. They left us with experiences and theory that we need to either consolidate or breakaway with. Some of these theories have been proven to be totally erroneous in practice. Proletarian theory can’t be, should never be, a compilation of anecdotes totally disconnected from our social practices. Also, some of these theories were the result of a lack of understanding, or of a limitative interpretation of historical and dialectical materialism. At the same time, it is imperative to demarcate ourselves from petit-bourgeois revolutionary elements and their misinterpretations based on their narrow class interests. The relative scientific truth of historical materialism can’t be used as theory deposited in a bank of knowledge that can be withdrawn or borrowed, whenever we see fit, in different isolated moments of time, regardless of social context. The relative scientific truth of historical materialism is not a recipe, a take-out ready-made solution to our problems, but rather a complex structure, a position on problems, a scientific interpretation based on a complex formal abstract theoretical framework. Historical materialism is based on the objective dialectical relation of our thought process [theory] to the social practice of the proletariat. This is what makes revolutionary science, because the energetic source of that theory is a response to bourgeois ideology, a pathway combating bourgeois theory in order to construct and fortify proletarian ideology, meaning a science that is building a class ideology of the class capable of taking humanity to an historically new stage. It would have been fruitless, very fruitless, in the production of Historical materialism to try to assimilate by force, either general or specific methodology, even if it was scientific, to new existing realities. This method is simply dogmatic. Our interpretation of any given reality will be viable when our usage of concepts is historically determined and their values also are historically determined.

In the early stages of capitalism, the relation of capitalism with other dominated social formations was identified as a colonial relation. There was a specific relation, economic and political, that existed inside these colonies with the colonizing countries. The relative autonomy of the colonies was very, very limited and most of the surplus value was going back to the colonizing countries. Within these colonized social formations there were levels of resistance that were developing through which dominated social formations became independent [US] or relatively independent [Haiti]. Now we are at the stage of imperialism. The question of proletarian revolutions and proletarian-led revolutions is the key issue, a problem that needs to be addressed now.

At this historical stage it is very limiting to identify peripheral countries as oppressed nations or colonies. The concept of oppressed nations tends to look at these social formations predominantly from a political perspective of their relation with imperialism. The concept of oppressed nations tends to negate the internal contradictions and class struggles in these social formations. Proletarian revolutionaries were totally wrong, and social realities have proven that to us, in believing that capitalist colonizers would help develop these countries by developing their productive forces.

At the early stage of imperialism, industrial capital was a dominant aspect of imperialism in relation to these countries. To think this was a condition of capitalist development was an erroneous assessment and has proven to be wrong. The relation of imperialist countries to neo-colonial countries is one of domination. The economy of dominated countries is totally determined by the interest of imperialism and in that process, for it to be an overall domination, it must also be a total dependency.

This not a war of words or semantics, these are two concepts that lead two different interpretations and also to two quite opposite political lines. At the stage of imperialist development, imperialism has stripped itself up of any form basic humanism in the pursuit of surplus value.

In looking at the relationship of dominated nations to imperialism it important that we look at two different aspects in their relative autonomy, the internal contradictions of these societies and the contradictions between imperialism and these dominated nations. The internal contradictions of these dominated nations are the determining factor that explains the domination. In a sense we cannot look at these nations as a whole being oppressed by imperialism. There are classes that not only allied themselves with imperialism but are and have been also the facilitators of imperialist domination, and if and when they manifest any resistance to imperialism, it is simply in trying to compete to determine which fractions or classes will benefit the most by imperialist domination.

These dominated countries as well as imperialist countries are primarily social formations: meaning all the social classes are historically constituted. It is this relationship of classes that constitutes the structure of class struggle. A social formation is a complex phenomenon of relationships of production and the circulation of material goods and a superstructure of political and ideological relations. This complex reality of class relations produces complex processes, based on a contradictory unity of the reproduction of these relations of productions, which in final analysis are determinant. This contradictory unity only exists in this concrete form, based on the development of a particular social formation and specific modes of production. The objective of scientific analysis is, in each particular process of class struggle, to understand each particular aspect of class struggle and to have the capacity to equally determine their unequal development.

The concept of social formation is the uninterrupted political practice of the proletariat to constantly define and consistently rectify the political strategy and tactic of a revolutionary struggle for the ultimate goal of taking power. This is the importance of the autonomous struggle of the proletariat. The proletariat has to measure its own strength in different conjunctures, also to measure its own strength in relation with all classes in struggle. The interpretation (of Lenin, Stalin or Trotsky) of oppressed nations is totally wrong and metaphysical. If we, as the continuators of a proletarian alternative, continue to uphold these theories after more than 50 years, our ideas also become outdated, even the ones who were once proven to be a guide for revolutionary actions.

In the case of Haiti, soon after 1804, imperialism continued to pursue its political orientation to dominate the Haitian social formation. Many imperialist countries made Haiti pay heavy indemnities for any pretext they could conjure, often coupled with a practice of outrageous humiliation. Finally in 1915, in the midst of its inter-imperialist struggles, the US occupied Haiti and became the hegemonic imperialist country to dominate Haiti. Again before going further, I would like to reiterate that the determining factor was the weakness of the Haitian ruling classes in allowing that domination and the different forms that domination tended to reproduce itself in the Haitian social formation.

Imperialist domination, although not the fundamental aspect, had pertinent effects on the way the relations of productions developed and reproduced in Haiti. I will randomly and schematically mention some of these effects. Since before 1915, the relationship of Haiti with imperialist countries such as France, Germany and the United States had always been a relation of domination. This relation was not only a political one. It was not only an oppressive relation. It was more than that. It was mainly an economic, political an ideological relation. Before 1915, the dominated relations of Haiti with imperialism existed mostly at the trade level. In its commercial relations with imperialism, Haiti was always at the loosing end. Trade relations were based on very lopsided systems benefiting imperialism. Haiti was selling its goods far below cost and Haiti was forced to buy imported goods at a cost far greater than their real value. This kind of relation basically limited any real economical development of the Haitian social formation. Besides these unequal types of trade exchanges, there were also so-called loans with high interest rates and all the so-called indemnities Haiti was forced to pay based on military interventions. In 1850, Haiti was forced to pay an indemnity to the U.S, in 1873 to Germany, in 1877 to England, in 1874/84 to France, and in 1914, U.S imperialism pillaged the Haitian National Bank.

All these forced payments were accompanied by military interventions and a lot of humiliation aimed at breaking the will of the Haitian masses. These military interventions were also aimed at maintaining the political domination of Haiti by many imperialist countries even if Haiti was independent. Even if these interventions were aimed at forcing Haiti to pay these indemnities, their real purpose was aimed at weakening Haiti’s independence. They meant that Haiti could not consolidate its economy. It was a brutal, barbaric practice that allowed values created inside the Haitian society to benefit mainly the dominant classes in other social formations. These practices consolidated imperialist economic domination over Haiti.

These relations did not happen by accident. First and foremost, inside Haiti, the anti-national, anti-popular dominant classes collaborated with and facilitated this imperialist domination. They implemented their class dictatorship over the masses and the people’s camp. It is thru the anti-national, anti-popular domination of these classes that imperialism, with out any form of resistance, was able to dominate us.

It must be clear for us there are two types of contradictions facing Haitian society: on one hand, there are the contradictions opposing the Haitian masses against the Haitian dominant classes, their allies and the State Apparatus, the fundamental aspect of which is the contradiction between capital and labor. On the other hand, there are the contradictions of the Haitian masses against imperialist domination and occupation. The struggles against occupation could overlap the other contradiction without displacing the antagonistic aspect of the contradictions of the masses against the Haitian dominant classes and capital and labor. This point is very important because there are political forces that don’t have a clear understanding of this contradictory reality of class domination and imperialist domination. These political forces even push for unity with reactionary forces that articulate some reactionary nationalist positions benefiting their anti-popular, anti-national class interests or that are in disagreement with some aspects of imperialist policies, while embracing imperialism on the whole.

1915 to 1934 marks the first US occupation of Haiti. France no longer had hegemony. In inter-imperialist conflicts, U.S imperialism seized control of Haiti. It was not because we are a black nation, or because they wanted us to pay for our arrogance or for getting our independence. U.S. domination was part of US strategy to become hegemonic in Latin America and in the Caribbean Basin. While many European countries were involved in their first inter-imperialist war, the U.S. started applying the Monroe Doctrine. The U.S. began to invest in capitalist enterprises in Haiti, in industry and in agriculture and at the same time implement a political economic line to get rid of Haiti’s national production. In 1928, under the occupation, U.S. imperialism passed a law that contributed to the bankruptcy of more than 100 small capitalist enterprises, mostly in alcohol refinery, landing a mortal blow to the emerging national bourgeoisie.

Although the capitalist mode of production developed in the Haitian society, because of the existing dominated structure already in place and because of the dominated and dependent type of capitalism, and even tough feudalism was already in decomposition, this particular type of capitalism was not able to eradicate and replace the feudal mode of production. In Haiti, two antagonistic modes of productions, one totally deformed and the other in decomposition, are in existence side by side in the interest of the dominant classes and imperialism. These two modes of productions, the way they co-exist inside the social formation are the root cause of many of problems we are witnessing now. The questions of unemployment, the manner and the limitations in which bourgeois democracy is being implemented, the political instability, the way bourgeois democratic rights are applied and the total dependency of Haiti on imperialism are objective effects of this structure. In fact, imperialism did not favor a full-blown development of the productive forces in dominated social formations, and a totally dependent complex bankrupt structure emerged.

Again before delving deeper into my political position (that I fundamentally share with BO, at a certain level, and proletarian revolutionaries inside and outside BO), I would like to make some schematic clarifications.

We have fought against that opportunist political line of alliance and class collaboration with one fundamental enemy against another. We have fought that opportunist line in the Haitian Left movement in the struggle against Duvalier in the so-called United Front where the opportunist left suspended all anti-imperialist struggles to guarantee some sort of unity with the ultra-reactionary right. We also participated in the international arena on the opportunist anti-government struggle, as we have seen in Nicaragua and San Salvador. This political line was opportunist in the sense that anti-government struggle wasn’t an anti-capitalist and clearly anti-imperialist struggle. These political fronts not only disbanded into many bourgeois organizations and when some took control of the State Apparatus, they became the organizers of a restructuration of bourgeois democracy within these social formations. To date, the latest example is Nepal.

This position of the proletarian movement on Aristide and his government precedes the funding in question. It was based on our level of understanding of the Haitian social formation. The political position on Aristide was not an excuse not to take a side. The proletarian alternative is also a side. It is the most advanced side under capitalism and imperialism.

The question of proletarian-led revolution in social formations must be resolved and addressed now, as we speak. No class or fraction from the dominant classes is capable of offering any alternative to the structural crisis now facing Haiti. They have no solutions. The Haitian petit-bourgeoisie has also shown it incapacity to face the situation. They are historically incapable of offering any alternative outside of capitalism. Only the working class, by unifying the people’s camp under its leadership, can historically offer a viable solution to capitalism and imperialism.

Now it is very important we get something clear. Based on LRP’s own position on imperialism and oppressed nations, does that political line imply that the proletarian left needed to support, FRAHP tactically when they were opposed to the occupation to re-install Aristide as head of State and denounced Aristide for supporting the occupation? Would it then mean that three years later, we should have allied ourselves with Aristide against the same opposition when he fell out of imperialism’s favor? Both sides have shown themselves clearly to be subservient and vile sycophants of imperialism.

Now really, LETS BE SERIOUS, BO’s capitulation to imperialism, as stated by the LRP, is based on the fact they did not support a pro-imperialist populist element, that was serving imperialism, conceded fertile land to build Free Trade Zones, oppressed sectors of the masses and the people’s camp, such as students, workers and peasants just because he fell out favor, based on secondary contradictions within the dominant classes and imperialism. At the same time that the LRP denounces BO, you also point out that the only way for the self-determination of Haiti is to fight against the dominant classes, the determining factor on allowing US domination and now occupation. What is wrong with this picture?

To answer your question on who has the right to govern Haiti from a class perspective, if you choose the Haitian dominant classes, make your choice clear. The Haitian social formation is full of a reservist force of politicians ready to take the rein, and articulate a pseudo-nationalist and sometimes anti-American rhetoric, to serve the Haitian dominant classes and imperialism. Francois Duvalier was a chief master manipulator. In order to manipulate imperialism he even called himself a Bolshevik and a comrade of Lenin. Maybe in his periodic squabbles with imperialism, the support of the left was also needed periodically.

From a proletarian perspective, the bourgeoisie and imperialism have no right to govern and dominate Haiti or any other social formation. To recognize their right to govern would be objectively a capitulation from a revolutionary perspective. As we do not recognize their right to govern we will use contradictions among them to further our own struggle with the objective to weaken them and render them obsolete.

Proletarian theory can’t be a compilation of scriptures with a bunch of verses we pull out from our night table and try to apply to any given reality. We must develop a CONCRETE ANALYSIS OF A CONCRETE REALITY. Even the forbearers of proletarian theories are products of class struggle and their contributions are determined by these class struggles. In fact, how Marx and Engels rectified some of their positions after the Paris Commune is a prefect example.

To claim BO was absent in the face of US occupation is totally erroneous. In fact, for any fraction of the dominant classes to control the state apparatus, the whole dominant classes, in their total state of bankruptcy, as a bloc need the occupation. Even now, the demand for the return of Aristide can’t be achieved outside the framework of an occupation. Talking about the right to govern, the Haitian social formation is totally dilapidated. For any class or fraction of the dominant class to continue their dictatorship over the popular masses, they have to rely on imperialist occupation.

Related Link: http://www.lrp-cofi.org/statements/bo_exchange.html
author by legba2publication date Wed Oct 15, 2008 02:12author address author phone Report this post to the editors

After reading this article and with my knowledge of Haitian history, I am still wondering why Haiti continues to have relations those countries that are hell bent on destroying the Haitian people. Relations with those countries are devastating to Haiti and the Haitian people while enriching the U.S. ,France, and their allies and is there a reason any Haitian government have never brought charges against these nations. Although those same nations cantrolled all of the world organizations and economy, criminal charges against the U.S. and France especially would enlighten the world as to the kind of society we are living in.
The United States is a nation created on atrocities and slavery, yet it continues to fool the world while ravaging Haiti and Africa.
As for France, Haiti would be wise to close the so-called francophonie, and adapt spanish as the second language. For what france has done to us, we should all be ashamed to speak that silly french language.

author by Toddpublication date Fri Oct 17, 2008 21:08author address author phone Report this post to the editors

The poster above- national relations are not really something you can just choose in this instance. An island economy destroyed by hundreds of years of barbaric capitalism is kept in dependence. Without a fundamental shift of power in haiti, such antiimperialists stances are not possible.

author by Walter Daum - League for the Revolutionary Partypublication date Fri Nov 07, 2008 08:02author address author phone Report this post to the editors

The following is the letter from the League for the Revolutionary Party to Jan Makandal, in response to the document by Makandal entitled “Independent Response on the Exchange Between The League of the Revolutionary Party and Batay Ouvriye.”

November 5, 2008

Dear Comrade Makandal,

Thank you for your contribution on the “Exchange between LRP and Batay Ouvriye,” published on our website. The Exchange included a letter from the LRP to Batay Ouvriye (BO) sent last spring, the reply by Batay Ouvriye (BO) to us last summer, and an introduction by us. It is at (http://www.lrp-cofi.org/statements/bo_exchange.html).

Our letter to BO addressed two differences with them. We consider opposition to U.S. intervention in Haiti a matter of principle and an internationalist duty for revolutionaries. For this reason, we opposed the U.S.-backed overthrow of Aristide in 2004 (as we had opposed the imperialist intervention which had put Aristide back into power earlier in 1994.) On the contrary, in 2004 Batay Ouvriye took the position that "it didn't make a difference for the workers whether Aristide left power or not."

Your response to us included a lengthy discussion against political support to bourgeois figures such as Aristide, adding an exposition about the inevitable capitulation of bourgeois nationalists to imperialism in general. But of course we agree with all that. Frankly we do not see how it is possible that you read our material on Haiti, and our other material, and yet failed to acknowledge that we are definitively opposed to all such figures. We have an unstained record of upholding the necessity of political independence of our class in every case. The question in 2004 was that the U.S. was forcibly removing him from office – a direct imperialist violation of Haiti’s right to self-determination. There was never a political endorsement of Aristide on our part and never would be.

The Funding Dispute
But the other dispute, which you do not really address, relates to the BO accepting funding from an imperialist agency. On this matter your response does not let us, or other readers, know exactly where you stand. We would like to know.

As we have explained, “One big issue has been BO’s policy of accepting grant money from the AFL-CIO’s American Center for International Solidarity, often just called the ‘Solidarity Center.’ The U.S. government via the National Endowment funds the Solidarity Center for Democracy (NED), whose pro-imperialist and counterrevolutionary aims are well established. Along with other working-class, left and anti-imperialist organizations and individuals, we have always opposed the acceptance of funding and relations with the Solidarity Center, given its well-known association with the NED.”

And so we wrote them, “We therefore urge Batay Ouvriye to consider repudiating your prior decisions, in order to alleviate the compromising and politically dangerous course that we believe you have taken with regard to U.S. government funding.”

BO responded by writing us a lengthy reply that did include the comment that they had decided against accepting more funds from the Solidarity Center. However, as we noted, their response as a whole showed that “BO still maintains positions that, at best, seriously compromise a consistent fight against imperialism. They stated that in July they had decided to stop taking funds from the AFL-CIO Solidarity Center, but they refused to take political responsibility for their past record of indirect relations with NED, stating rather ‘Batay Ouvriye has never had any relations with NED. That the Solidarity Center’s funds come from NED is another question...’ Further, they even bring out the supposedly positive attributes of the Solidarity Center, stating that it ‘has at times had a verified bearing on struggles, particularly through pressure exerted on the “brands” within the United States.’ (“Brands” refers to particular struggles against Nike, Coca-Cola and other multinational operations in Haiti.)”

BO insisted they had been right to take the money (and did not state they would stop taking money from the Solidarity Center permanently.) In fact, they indicated that criticisms by us -- and others from the left -- were a factor for them but not the main reason for their policy shift. In this regard they wrote, “Consequently, to a certain extent, this has played a role in our decision. But to tell the truth, this hasn’t been our main preoccupation. The fact of the matter is that we were alerted that while the Solidarity Center contributed 60 to 90,000 dollars to Batay Ouvriye workers’ struggles over the past 18 months, its administration pocketed $350,000 (!!!) for its own bureaucracy!”
We have recapitulated much of BO’s arguments on the funding matter in the hopes that you will clarify your point of view in specific about their varied arguments. We certainly recognize the difficulties and frustrations of communicating across language barriers. Nevertheless we do not think basic political differences between the LRP and BO got lost in translation.

You wrote to us that you had “very strong reservations about BO’s response to the LRP” but you never spell out those “reservations.” Again, we hope you will.

Internationalist Greetings
Walter Daum
LRP-COFI
(www.lrp-cofi.org)

Related Link: http://www.lrp-cofi.org
author by Jan Makandalpublication date Fri Nov 14, 2008 20:11author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Solidarity to the LRP for their response to my comments on the ongoing debate with BO! I hope this debate will allow us to consolidate unity or at least to demarcate ourselves until unity can be achieved. I do agree with you that opposition to the US occupations (three times historically), and imperialist domination is a matter of principle and is an internationalist duty for revolutionaries, especially proletarian revolutionaries. Also, for Haitian non-proletarian revolutionaries and proletarian revolutionaries and for the working class and the people’s camp under the leadership of the proletariat, resistance to occupation and to foreign domination need to be a fundamental aspect of their struggle in the Haitian social formation. The opposition and solution must come from the political struggle of the working class, fundamental conditions, in order to maintain a principled and internationalist stand.
I do agree with BO, without compromising any anti-imperialist position, that, if we look at reality from a working class perspective and class interest, it did not make much of a difference whether Aristide stayed in power or not. But that is not the question we should be asking ourselves. It was not as if BO had a choice to support or not support Aristide, and if was not as if that choice had anything to do with Aristide’s ouster. Aristide’s ouster was the result of his Machiavellian power grabbing, his attempt at reconstituting a bureaucratic fraction of the bourgeoisie (like Duavlier), which led to alienating his imperialist sponsors along with significant portions of the Haitian dominant classes. Aristide’s complete sell-out to neoliberal dictates, the wholesale corruption rampant in his administration, its total disregard for the demands and interests of the popular masses, and its active role in repressing the struggles of the popular masses while defending the interests of the ruling classes, these were also factors that led to massive popular disenchantment with and disapproval of his administration, making the Aristide regime an easy prey for a band of 200 or so CIA funded mercenaries who crossed over the border from the DR. This had nothing to do with BO’s stand on the matter but was a result of Aristide’s own failure and corruption. But more fundamentally, a proletarian advocate must place himself/herself in the position of the working class when making such an analysis. From the standpoint of the working class, there was only one possible position to take vis-à-vis the Aristide regime. There was no choice in the matter. The only course of action to take was to pursue our autonomous struggles, to organize and lead the popular masses in the defense of our interests, and in that process to defend ourselves from the increasingly active repression from the State as directed by the Aristide regime. There are ample facts to document these increasing and repeated attacks on the popular camp. Therefore, it was not a “matter of choice”. The wrong question to ask is: should we have supported an imperialist agent because he was falling out of favor with his masters, simply to appear to be opposed to that imperialist master? The enemies of my enemies are my friends? Clearly, some of the enemies of my enemies are also my enemies! To frame the question in this manner is to completely disregard reality and to disregard the interest and the standpoint of the working class and the people’s camp as a whole. The support for Aristide was not even a possibility. In trying to understand the class viewpoint and class origin of this political position, only a few possibilities appear, either 1) buying into the populist propaganda portraying Aristide as a defender of the people’s camp through lack of knowledge or because of political affinity with populism, or 2) because of lack of experience or intellectualism, simply not understanding the priorities involved, on the ground, in developing the organized autonomous struggles of the people’s camp, under proletarian leadership, as the only way to move the struggle forward in the interest of the working class as a whole, nationally and internationally. The struggle of the people’s camp should be waged from the fundamental aspect of the fundamental contradiction against capital, regardless if Aristide or any other sycophant was heading this deformed capitalist state apparatus.
I have also encountered the argument for supporting Aristide as a way of opposing imperialism, our principal enemy, framed as part of the “united front” against imperialism. And in that respect, references have been made to various historical alliances going back through the Russian and Chinese revolutions. Those who advocate an alliance with a “national bourgeoisie” (where is that fictional class creature in Haiti?) have also made this argument. Although there are significant differences in these various arguments, and I do not wish to make an amalgam of them, they do share something in common.
First, they are soaked in the notion that the popular movement in support of Aristide could be a viable force mobilized against imperialism. What happened in 1994? Didn’t we learn anything from supporting “the popularly-constitutionally elected legitimate president?” This notion is in complete disregard of the class nature of Aristide and his administration. In fact the struggle to bring Aristide back to power, as evidenced by the 1994 military intervention and Aristide’s call for imperialist intervention on his behalf days before his ouster, is itself dependent on imperialist intervention. Aristide still says that the US can correct its mistakes, meaning that imperialism will come to realize that in the final analysis, he is their best choice!
Secondly, the proponents of these arguments all fail to understand the dynamic of the development of a class based anti-imperialist movement. They are enamored with the notion of the masses of Aristide’s ardent supporters (led by gangs of drug dealers) rising up in the slums. We are led to believe that if the proletarian forces also call for Aristide’s return we can take the direction of this “political movement”, in a “united front.” These are the same gangs that stood by while 200 mercenaries forced Aristide’s ouster. These are the same gangs that are engaged in wholesale practices of extortion, drug trade, contraband, terrorizing, raping and kidnapping! These are the same gangs whose leaders stand ready to negotiate their impunity and their turf with any and all those who come to power. These are the same gangs who once more have become entrenched in the corrupt political power structure.
The development of a class based anti-imperialist movement can only come from the upsurge of popular mobilization and consciousness as the popular masses organize and fight to defend their interests against neo-liberal and occupation policies and confront the repression of occupation forces against these struggles. Most importantly, our struggle must also confront a historical necessity: we must fight against and denounce populism and its demagogues! If we are to succeed, the struggle against populism is necessary and unavoidable. Our struggles must denounce demagogic populists and instill faith in the power of an organized autonomous movement. Or we will be doomed to repeat our blind devotion to those who lead us in our enemies’ interests, to watch as once more, our mobilizations are taken over by our enemies and their proxies.
A serious debate on the question of the united front, in general and as it pertains to the situation in Haiti, could be very fruitful.

I do think the position of the LRP of denouncing the occupation was totally correct and I am in unity with them on that point. My disagreement with the LRP was with the defense of a member of the dominant classes just because it was being disfavored by imperialism. I do think the correct articulation should have been to denounce the occupation while at the same time exposing Aristide for what he really is: a sycophant of imperialism. Revolutionaries and proletarian revolutionaries should and must expose our class enemies, the only alternative for the proletariat to build its own autonomous ideology. We need to expose, denounce and distance ourselves from our fundamental enemy even if they are being disenfranchised from their bosses. Elements such as Saddam Hussein, Noriega and Aristide should be exposed at the same time that we revolutionaries are denouncing the intervention of imperialism and its domination of these social formations.

Bourgeois nationalism and the national bourgeoisie:
The national bourgeoisie is a fraction of the bourgeois class. They are part of the dominant classes in a given social formation. We, as proletarians revolutionaries, characterize them as national because a] their economic structure and practice are geared toward the development of national production b] surplus value is being redistributed for the reproduction of a national economy and the development of the national productive forces c] for a period of their development and due to their class interests, the national bourgeoisie may articulate political positions against imperialism and imperialist economic policies, while eventually capitulating to imperialism.
The working class, mass movement and revolutionary organizations, will define a political line addressing, with no opportunism and dogmatism, this fraction of the bourgeoisie in general and through different conjunctures, in their struggle against capital. The reality in Haiti is that since the first US occupation, imperialism dealt a deadly blow to the national bourgeoisie in order to pursue its political and economical objectives of domination and tutelage. This fraction disintegrated and its remnants fused and diluted into different fractions of the dominant classes, including feudalism, especially those who were involved in capitalist and feudal practices in agricultural production.

Bourgeois nationalism:
In the midst of internal contradictions and either because of secondary contradictions amongst the dominant classes and contradictions with imperialism, some Haitian bourgeois elements, even some of the representatives of the bourgeoisie in the petit bourgeoisie, will, in some instances, articulate some pseudo-nationalist political positions. These so called nationalist positions need to be viewed from the perspective of the working class and the people’s camp as a whole to understand their true nationalist value. In the final analysis, those nationalistic positions are nothing more than a demagogic ploy either to pacify the masses or to put themselves in a better bargaining positions with imperialism. We have seems the likes of Saddam Hussein, Noriega, Duvalier, Raoul Cedras and Aristide come up with these positions while being servants of imperialism. We need to denounce them while at the same time denouncing imperialism.

On the question of the funding:
BO is sending a response to the LRP in which some of my reservations should be raised. I will await the response, to avoid any overlap, in order to continue and participate in this debate. Although I have reservations on the response of BO, I must tell you, I am of the current that did support and participated in the defense of BO’s acceptance of the funding.

author by Nicolaspublication date Mon Nov 17, 2008 01:36author address author phone Report this post to the editors

I agree with Comrade Jan,

I don't understand the failure to distinguish between being anti-imperialist, and not supporting the dominating classes that oppress movements for liberation and equality. It is just intuitive to me that we oppose imperialist aggression, and as workers we oppose the ruling class that repress our movements. From a class standpoint giving nominal support to regimes does nothing, it doesn't even help the rulers themselves. If it did help the rulers, it undermines our work through perpetuating the illusion that change comes from individual positions and lobbying, or even collective action aimed at getting other people to do things for us, and it provides a base for the rulers to coopt. Instead revolutionaries pursue prefigurative activities that demonstrate collective power and build embryonic organization.

I am not sure how we overlook these issues to support a capitalist class without abandonment of class, and thereby our commitment to anti-capitalist struggle. This is not merely a matter of principle (though it is a matter of principle as well) as a strategy for working class movements and revolutionaries, the struggles to support the national ruling class transform its participants just as class struggle does. This transformation leads to a regrouping of the ruling class ideology within our movements and undermines the overt ideology we argue for through contradictory activity. It is an abandonment of praxis for a short-term pragmatism, that historically has yielded only failure for left movements in terms of death to militants, repression of workers, peasants, women, and queer folk world wide.

author by mitch - (strictly per. cap.)publication date Mon Nov 17, 2008 13:14author email wsany at hotmail dot comauthor address author phone Report this post to the editors

Dear comrades,

I think the situation with the attacks, by forces close to Arstide, are unfortunate.
I think BO did tremendous work in the Free Trade Zones. They did work that none of the larger unions tried to do, in part, because the CODEVI (free trade zone) was established by the Aritides government.

I've tried to find links from multi. sources of the grand fight of the SOKOWA-CODEVI workers. The SOKOWA union is an BO affilitate.

http://morehouse.edu/~chewitt/GENESIS/MSN%20Campaigns%2...s.htm
http://www.cleanclothes.org/urgent/05-04-05.htm
http://haitisupport.gn.apc.org/zonefranche2.htm
http://www.counterpunch.org/jg06162004.html
http://mondediplo.com/2004/09/10ouanaminthe
http://www.grassrootsonline.org/news-publications/press...-zone
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0511/S00505.htm
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2004/03/10/16730181.php
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Haiti/FreeMarket_Deat....html
http://www.tulane.edu/~libweb/RESTRICTED/WEEKLY/2004_02...2.txt
http://www.oit.org/ilolex/cgi-lex/pdconv.pl?host=status...ext=0

That said, in this struggle, the BO clearly compromised itself by taking some assistance from the AFL-CIO. See: http://www.solidaritycenter.org/content.asp?contentid=531 This allowed the BO to be attacked hard by those seeking to gain advantage over the BO.

Clearly an error of judgement was made. It was made in an effort to secure help for the Grupo-M workers. Workers who did subcontract work for the US jean company Lvi Strauss.

I think that an error was clearly made by BO. Many of us can, in a comradely way, recognize this error made in th heat of a fight---- the fight of the workers to organize the first union in the free trade zone. .An error that occured by comrades who probably know better. I recognize that BO may not be in a position to be self-critical, at least publically. Perhaps BO leaders think this would show weakness. Perhaps it shows a bit of that when one can not admit an error, place it in context and move forward. To dance around the error makes it, in my humble opinion, worse.

author by nicolaspublication date Mon Nov 17, 2008 23:48author address author phone Report this post to the editors

I appreciate the reply of the poster above. I think that the issue isn't failing to admit a mistake, but disagreement about whether taking the funding was a mistake. BO comrades have made the argument that since the money had no strings attached and the conditions in haiti were as they were, it was justified. It is worth saying that there's a double standard given to the unscrupulous pillaging by the haitian unions and state machinery, while they question BO's taking of money for striking workers, but that does not resolve the principled argument of whether a workers organization should accept funding from an overtly imperialist source. I can see both sides of that debate. Personally I think that funding can transform organizations, and think that our funding needs to be autonomous, but fund raising in a country wrecked by unrestrained imperialism like Haiti is a different situation that I don't pretend to know.

author by batay@batayouvriye.org - Batay Ouvriyepublication date Wed Nov 26, 2008 21:39author email batay at batayouvriye dot orgauthor address author phone Report this post to the editors

Port-au-Prince, November 21 2008

Note #2 for LRP

This note is addressed to the LRP. It is meant as a follow up to the previous exchanges, with the intent to help advance our relations in the interest of the working class internationally. We think we should try to resolve the contradictions that have emerged because, objectively, we have a role to play in the development of the international working class movement. Certainly, many erroneous practices have occurred and they have not led to this kind of exchange of ideas and positions. The fact that this ongoing exchange is developing without intellectualism means that we ought to take it seriously and approach it in the spirit of unity-struggle-unity, guided by the interest of the working class.

In their respective autonomy, each organization has its own evaluative criteria. There can be differences in political positions, different appreciations, and divergent positions. We should start from the unity that exists between us to resolve these differences, without opportunism or wishful stubbornness. Our political practices will eventually lead us to a resolution, as long as it is possible or necessary.

We have issued a statement concerning the Solidarity Center (SC). It would be good to take it into account. It is an added element to this subject. We had announced for some time that we would be issuing this statement, but other priorities prevented us from doing so until very recently.

Taking into account our previous exchanges, we can focus on three main points:
1- The question of the Solidarity Center and funding,
2- How one should view Aristide, the military intervention and the occupation,
3- Solidarity, and the struggle against “big brands.”

Before we proceed, not to justify some of the positions we have taken, we should take into account that in our political practices and in our political theory, we distinguish the level of democratic struggles from the level of revolutionary struggles. We do not put a union or a broad student organization on the same level as an organization that sees itself as being a revolutionary organization. That is, even if in the democratic level there should be no opportunism or sole focus on limited economic gains. That being said, Batay Ouvriye functions on the level of democratic struggles.

We have already issued our positions with regards to the funds from the SC. And the positions the LRP has taken on its website also have summarized these positions. There is no need to revisit this question. But we should mention that we knew who we were dealing with. We were well aware of the past practices of AIFLD and how the Solidarity Center was filling in its role. We discussed this internally and made our decisions knowingly. We were vigilant to ensure that taking the funds would not interfere with maintaining our complete autonomy and would have no adverse effect on our struggles with respect to the SC and the AFL-CIO along with all the corrupt labor federations they always support. We focused on using them as much as possible, where we could and where we needed. We were successful in doing so, particularly in the context of their campaigns against major brands, in the Ouanaminthe Free Trade Zone for example. This had a positive effect, even if they were not the only ones intervening. We were also successful in taking the funds and using them in the struggle against the imperialists and the ruling classes. And we knew they would distance themselves from our struggles and eventually break with us. On that level, we think that we were able to achieve our goals. But we cannot look at this only from the point of view of our own direct struggles. This course of action led to a confusing situation. It enabled some to use it to try to weaken us. It reduced the level of unity between the anti-imperialist forces on the international level, (regardless of their actual strength or their relative organizational weakness.)
It is in that context that some political tendencies accused us of taking money from the NED, an imperialist agency. In some instances, we think this vigilance was legitimate, in others, we think there were willful negative interventions. A clear delimitation could have been made between these two cases and holding an open debate between the tendencies with which there was a minimum level of unity to enable a fruitful debate could have enabled it. But this did not take place. And we fell into diatribes that eventually played into the hands of the imperialists. Examples of this are statements like “BO is on CIA payroll!” Nonetheless, there was a limited level of discussion and exchanges. We were able to silence the opportunist detractors on the Haitian political scene and their operatives. But the debate is still open with organizations with which we have relations. But we should be aware that throughout all these debates, BO’s interventions remained on the democratic level while many of the criticisms leveled at BO were directed at a revolutionary level. We need to take into account the limit of BO’s political line and the level at which BO functions, as reflected in all of BO’s public interventions. Nonetheless, there are 3 points we would still like to address.
1- Our attitude with regards to Aristide, the US and Aristide, and the GNB (the mostly right wing opposition to Aristide). Our positions on this matter have been clear and, once again, they were summarized by the LRP. We think that principles are very important, but that they should not be made into dogma. We should examine the concrete reality carefully. Haiti has been subjected to several interventions/occupations. Aristide solicited the 1994 intervention in a context where his political line of “marriage with the army” had laid the groundwork for the 1991 coup. Nothing was done to build up a popular force to support the government at a time when the potential for popular mobilization made for a situation that was favorable to the popular movement and difficult for the dominant classes. This led to the 1991 coup that eventually led to the US intervention that Aristide asked for, with 20,000 marines. We should be aware that long since that time, Aristide had already dropped all positions and practices of opposition to imperialism. It was the result of his opportunist maneuvering, the overriding pursuit of his individual interests combined with his own limited capacities, that led the same forces that had taken him away to bring him back to power through an occupation. We should ask ourselves, using the same logic, when the US imperialists arranged Duvalier’s ouster in 1986, should we have also mobilized against this?
We were against the 1994 intervention that Aristide asked for. We were opposed to all the imperialist conspiracy, planning and participation in the 1991 coup. But we were also opposed to any imperialist military intervention to bring Aristide back to power. We were opposed to the Aristide who was saying: “Thank you Mr. Clinton!” and who dropped all opposition, even verbal, to US policies.
We analyzed the transformative processes under way in Haiti, the reconstruction of a reactionary bureaucratic bourgeoisie with the help of an anti-popular paramilitary force. We analyzed the various anti-popular repressive measures (Guacimal, for example) and the complete selling out of Haiti to imperialism (the 18 free trade zones) by the Aristide administrations.
The contradictions between Aristide and imperialism must be seen for what they were. The rebuilding of a bureaucratic bourgeoisie was not part of the imperialist agenda. This was something that was taking them back to era of Duvalier (they had already dumped Duvalier) in a new social context where the social crisis had deepened and the potential of surging popular struggles was much higher.
It is from this standpoint that the imperialist interventions can be best understood. In this context, we believed and we still believe that the fundamental most important goal to strive for was building up the autonomous mass popular movement, even as the influence of populism on the movement was already very negative and made the development of this autonomous movement even harder. We were never neutral! We took a clear stand vis-à-vis both fractions of the enemies of the people. One was apparently nationalist, the other more openly pro-imperialist, but in final analysis, both were: “two rotten buttocks in same torn trouser.”
With regard to the occupation, we not only took very open positions opposing it, but this stand had a place in our mobilizations and we have led and taken part in several campaigns against the occupation. We have an international position on this matter. We have analyzed the reality of the masses and their current level of consciousness, and we have taken these into account in defining our political line. We believe that major struggles will be needed to end the occupation in the interest of the masses. But on top of that, these must come with the necessary level of consciousness or else the struggles will always be limited, easily deviated and recuperated. We believe we must move forward with the battles that will advance the struggles of the masses, and that these struggles will force the occupation forces to unmask themselves and will push them out. This must also be accompanied by ongoing anti-occupation campaigns inside the occupying countries themselves. That is the direction in which we are engaged.

Regarding the funding question and the SC: Our actions have not been without effect. There are other political tendencies that also disagree with what we did. Although we prioritized standing up to our detractors, we also took note of the preoccupations of all those who expressed their reserves or disagreements. We have stopped all relations with the Solidarity Center and we hope to have a constructive debate with the political tendencies that were opposed our actions. This note is part of this process. Even if we still hold that we are justified in accepting funds from any source as long as we can maintain our autonomy and our ability to struggle against our enemies, as you can see, at this time we are giving priority to the unity of anti-imperialist forces. We have better conditions to know them and move forward with them. We acknowledge that we underestimated the negative impact of our practices with the Solidarity Center. We mostly focused on their utilization.
We also prioritized defending ourselves against our detractors, against the CIA-like practices. Our relations with our real allies took second place and we did not consider them as we should have. This affected their development. This means that we must give greater emphasis applying internationalism in our evaluations and our analyses.
This leads to considering an even greater issue: the need to count on our own strength. We have always acknowledged this need and agreed with its necessity. We are working, with great difficulty, to achieve it. But this also means looking at international solidarity from a political and material standpoint. At this level, there are many problems. Imperialist domination is brutal. We must dare to consider this question. There must be an open debate around it and concrete practices must be undertaken. We must move forward in this debate and we must learn from the way things used to be done during the days of the USSR and its allies, and all the problems that existed around these practices.
We must avoid false debates. Some people have denounced BO’s acceptance of funds from the SC but, at the same time, they support a government that served imperialism by wholly enabling the neoliberal agenda, a government that took funds from the imperialists to engage in wholesale corruption and in anti-popular repressive practices. Without any serious research, without any serious reflection, they proclaimed: “BO is on the CIA payroll”… More thought must be given to these questions, to what needs to be done on an international level, without dogmatism.
There is a danger: struggles in dominated countries need funds. There are various ways to obtain those funds. We must avoid all moralist attitudes in this matter. There are serious difficulties and they need solutions! There are principles. And practices must conform to the real nature and interest of the working class.
There is a relationship between the two previous points. BO and the LRP have different political positions regarding the Aristide government. We also may have a different understanding of the occupation and of how to struggle effectively against it. We respect the positions of the LRP and the debate can go on, even if we must take into account the limitations of BO’s role in it. BO will contribute to it on its own level and others may contribute to it from a revolutionary perspective.
There is one more aspect that needs to be considered, without arrogance or tit for tat. This debate needs to also weigh in on the development of the struggle inside imperialist countries. All the various agencies of imperialism are functioning without any opposition. While some denunciations have been made, they have only had marginal effects. For them to be effective, it might mean that they need to be part of mass struggles. At this time, the ability to confront these agencies is limited. We understand that we will only surmount these limits with the upsurge of struggles on the whole. We say “we” because we consider ourselves a part of this struggle. Within the limits of our possibilities, we must contribute to the struggles of immigrants and to the struggles in the imperialist countries on the whole. We believe we must also look at these questions even though, as stated, we believe the organizations in dominating and dominated countries must delimit themselves clearly from all negative forces and must find the best ways to do this. They must oppose them frontally, finding the best way to do so, whether confronting local organizations (the corrupt union federations), or confronting imperialist agencies concretely on the ground. But they must also take into account the international unity of anti-imperialist forces. We have acknowledged problems with our past actions regarding this last point. Regarding the others, we have always applied this line and will continue to do so in our practices on the ground.

Regarding the struggle against “big brands”: For us, this is also a form of struggle against imperialism. We are conscious that it is only a limited form. But it should not be ignored or misrepresented. It needs to be put in perspective as part of the evolution of productive processes inside imperialist countries, as part of the displacement of manufacturing processes towards dominated countries with lower wages… This is part of the democratic struggles. One can try to avoid it or one can pretend to take part in it under false pretenses (SC) to achieve other goals. But it is still a necessary struggle. If there is to be a truly internationalist workers struggle waged around this issue, it should be the truly progressive and revolutionary organizations that should take it in hand. But that is not the case. The organizations that we encounter in this struggle are Charles Kernighan’s NLC (in the struggles against Disney), and the Solidarity Center is active in several countries around this issue. Certainly, there are other organizations such as the WRC, but they are related in one way or another to the SC or Kernighan. We have always acknowledged the contributions of these organizations, but when we have had to, we have also criticized them thoroughly.

From the standpoint of workers interests, from the standpoint of the interests of the working class, it is necessary to take all these questions into consideration, keeping an open mind.

On a last note, we should mention that many people, including some who are close to us, have shown that our previous letter was not conducive to advancing this debate. Some have even said it was sterile. We are taking these criticisms into consideration. We are not sure that this note will achieve more, but that is our intention. Without dogmatism, without arrogance and with a spirit of unity, as long as there is a base for unity, let’s put the interests of the working class and of laborers at the forefront.

Ps. We hope that like the previous letter, this note, along with the LRP’s reply will be posted and that the debate will advance.

author by Batay Ouvriye - Batay Ouvriyepublication date Wed Nov 26, 2008 21:43author email batay at batayouvriye dot orgauthor address author phone Report this post to the editors


October 2008
ONE LAST NOTE CONCERNING THE SOLIDARITY CENTER

There is always a considerable amount of complexity in political struggle, whether it concerns the internal practices of an organization or its dealings with other organizations. In this context, even when two organizations claim to have the same goals, they often define different political lines to try to achieve them. Principles, criteria and concepts are presented to analyze these positions and to determine to what extent they are or are not correct, but even then, there can be varying degrees of sensibility to certain points, different appreciations of others, which can lead to divergent positions. We should strive to always take the standpoint of the workers fundamental interests to define what is to be done, applying criticism and self-criticism as we move forward, without pretense of false apologies.
It is within this framework, based on our practices and on those of other organizations concerning our practices, that we see the need to issue this statement, in the interest of the working class as a whole. It concerns our relationship with the Solidarity Center, where it has ended up, and to clarify our position on this matter. We think that from the standpoint of workers’ interests, this note should help those who are truly concerned with the advancement of workers’ struggles internationally to define themselves and to define a political line to best lead the advancement of these struggles.
Before we go any further, we should say that for many organizations, based on our previous declarations, this case has already been closed. For others, with good will, it may still be open. And others still will be trying to take advantage of this to oppose workers’ struggles, and we won’t be able to stop them from trying to do so. But on the whole, this is a matter that has moved on, and through moving forward, it has lost much of its relevance. We do not wish to give it life again, but rather to bring it to a close once and for all. Ongoing practices and developing struggles will shed more light on this matter if necessary. We are moving on.
To reiterate previously issued statements, that can also be found on our website, our relations with the Solidarity Center started in the context of concrete workers struggles which developed in the Free Trade Zone. We were confronted with various difficulties and material needs, struggling against big companies… Batay Ouvriye appealed for international solidarity and various organizations answered our appeal, amongst them, the Solidarity Center. The Solidarity Center proposed to support 2 instances of our struggles, one in Port-au-Prince and the other in Ounaminthe. They looked for funds to contribute, and that was the root of all the trouble: the funds originated from the NED, an imperialist agency that tries to thwart popular struggles all over the world, and the Solidarity Center itself has taken an active part in various reactionary imperialist plots, particularly in attempts to overthrow Chavez, among others.

In our prior statements we insisted on 2 things:
• Struggles require funds in order to advance. And we said that we would accept all funds as long as they don’t tie our hands and don’t compromise our autonomy, as long as we maintain the ability to denounce and struggle against all our enemies, including those who give us funds, and most importantly, that our political line in the defense of workers’ interests remains uncompromised.
• That was the basis of the political differences and debates that ensued, although we can say that these positions themselves have not really been debated.

Taking into account workers and laborers interests and the interest of the working class as a whole, notwithstanding some negative impact for ourselves, we decided it was necessary to break totally with the Solidarity Center. This is why for over a year now, we have totally and openly broken with the Solidarity Center, and we have made them aware of our decision.
We have said it, and we say it again: Batay Ouvriye does not have any relationship with the Solidarity Center. There is no financial relationship. There are no relations whatsoever.
This has had an implication: the form of our struggle against Solidarity Center has changed. Before, as part of our relations, Batay Ouvriye was engaged with various other organizations in other countries where the Solidarity Center was trying to immix itself in workers struggles. This was an avenue that Batay Ouvriye used to fight against the Solidarity Center’s influence, to thwart their attempts to co-opt workers struggles and to reorient these struggles in the workers interests. Although this double struggle was fraught with difficulties, we had managed to make some headway. This avenue of struggle is no longer available to us. Instead, we have tried to contribute to these struggles from the standpoint of international proletarian solidarity. Batay Ouvriye has decided to keep up this struggle everywhere against the Solidarity Center. This is the case in Haiti, where the Solidarity Center has spread its influence into the rotten and corrupt central labor federations with the help of the International Labor Federation. This also applies to the Solidarity Center’s presence throughout Latin America. In effect, in its attempt to replace AIFLD throughout the world, the Solidarity Center is replicating AIFLD’s old practices. But we should be aware that other organizations are also trying to play the same role through their relations with corrupt labor federations. Without making any amalgams, we will stand up to them in a manner corresponding to their nature.
In the struggle against the Solidarity Center, we not only have to confront their practices, but we must also confront their political line which finds easy ground to spread its corrupting influence in dominated countries and goes hand in hand with the corrupt yellow unions that they tend to support.
In our struggles against the Solidarity Center, we always denounced its role in the global imperialist agenda. These struggles took various forms. Not only did we denounce them in our autonomous struggles, but when we could, we also forced them to answer to the denunciations others made of them. Till the end, they never took a clear stand, publicly, for everyone. That was the case about their practices in Venezuela and Chavez. Their silence further confirmed their reactionary activities. We will continue to denounce their past actions along with all those to come.
The Solidarity Center has access to substantial funds through its implication with imperialist subversion. It receives money in the name of other organizations while it only gives them a pittance. That’s how some of its members are living it up on the backs of workers while trying to co-opt, corrupt and subvert workers movements. We denounce these practices in general and we denounce their practices with us. From a total of $440,000 they got from the NED in our name, we only received $90,000 while they kept $350,000! On top of that, they simply refused to give us the remaining $6,000 that had been granted to us and they simply used it for their own needs. Not only are they doing the bidding of imperialism, but they also maintain imperialist relations of domination with those organizations with which they are involved. We forced them to take clear positions vis-à-vis their superiors and through statements we issued. There again they balked.
While the Solidarity Center’s nature is clear for most, some are still not sure. There are some who will “never be sure”. We will continue to take part in the struggle to block them. We know they will continue to attempt to subvert workers struggles. More damning evidence is continuing to come out against them, particularly with regards to their practices in Latin America. We will continue to denounce them.
But we also know that some will only look at the fact that we once took money from them. We will not fall into that trap. Concrete practices on the national and international levels, through the struggles in which we are taking part, throwing all our weight in the interest of the working class, will show clearly the reality of the situation. We will see!
We were never aligned with them. We were using them, and we know they came to realize this. We were like a fish bone stuck in their throat. We have broken off all relations with them, both formal and in the field and we are standing up against them in new ways. We appeal to all organizations that understand the role they play to stand up to them everywhere, in the US as well as in dominated countries. This common struggle should help clarify the situation.
Some would like us to simply state that our previous practices were wrong. We still think that the situation was more complex than that. If necessary, the debate on this matter will continue. We think we have offered a better framework to decide this matter. At this time, there are exchanges with the LRP. They are public, for all who wish to follow them, even if they are not the main aspect of our practices on the international level.
We think that the debate on Batay Ouvriye and the Solidarity Center was fruitful and that, on the whole, it contributed to weakening the Solidarity Center’s efforts. We must look for ways to extend this struggle against the Solidarity Center.
For us, victory will be for the working class, for workers organized to defend their real interests through their concrete struggles in organizations they truly control.
Down with the imperialists! Down with all imperialist operatives, including the Solidarity Center! Long live the international working class!
Please consult our website for more information concerning our practices and our positions, the struggles in which we are engaged and the debate around this issue.

author by Jan Makandalpublication date Wed Dec 03, 2008 18:12author address author phone Report this post to the editors

I Agree with Nicolas on the response articulated in by Mitch. I think also BO has argued on many occasions the logic of accepting funding by the SC [Solidarity Center]. To summarize: BO has achieved and consolidated a certain level of political unity with some and with others there is an ongoing discussion on this issue. I do agree with BO that this ongoing discussion should not be endless. It will need to be assessed and determined by the level of political unity that has been achieved and the political practice that could come from that political unity without any manifestation of opportunism and dogmatism. At the same time, we need to keep a combative stand against provocateur and opportunist elements either that are using this question of funding to denigrate BO.
I usually apply a philosophical position at the level of my political practice that is One is divided into two. It allows me to have a self-critical approach in my political activities. For me, in every political orientation, in life in general, there will always be positive and negative aspects in our collective and individual activity where the positive needs to be consolidated and reinforced and the negative needs to be rectified and safeguards need to be implemented so the negative doesn’t reproduce itself.
In the funding questions were there errors: YES. But error, as articulated by Nicolas, can’t be taken for disagreement over political orientations. One will have to prove to me the transformation of BO into a collaborationist working class movement with capital, feudalism [Haitian dominant classes] and imperialism. One will have to prove to me that, at the level of the trade union movement, BO has been transformed into a yellow union and is selling out the workers’ struggles. At the same time, these same political currents that are pointing fingers at BO, some of them strong supporters of the pro-imperialist Lavalas regimes, are supporting so-called unions who called themselves service unions and that are collaborating with the government on the HOPE VI project and are also participating in the provisional electoral council. We should not forget also that an organization such as the CTH when it used to be named CATH, a service union, was also denounced by peasant groups in the 1980’s for their participation in the massacre of poor and dispossessed peasants in Jean Rabel. One more thing, BO is not simply a trade union. BO is a working class movement organizing workers and laborers on different aspects in the life of workers as well as combating bourgeois and feudal ideology foremost amongst workers, agricultural workers, poor and dispossessed peasants.
Nicolas the points you raised on the question on funding are valuable and need to be elaborated on.
First point:
There is autonomous political practice for funding. These fundraising practices are fundamental although their results are meager. They are fundamental because they are paving the way to breaking away from that dominant conception of dependency that the Haitian dominant classes and imperialism strive on in order to reproduce their policies of domination. They are a part of that political conception of counting on our strength. Progressive and revolutionary forces should uphold this approach, even confronting our natural disasters, in order to build up the sense of empowerment into the popular masses and within ourselves. The ideological mentality of dependency runs through all the classes in the Haitian social formation based on the class interests of these classes. The anti-occupation, the anti-imperialist movement will not be able to advance if the Haitian working class and the rest of the fundamental masses don’t breakaway with that mentality of dependency. The anti-occupation / anti-imperialist movement will not be able to achieve it full potential outside a deep ideological struggle for a radical rupture from counting on our enemy, the Haitian dominant classes and imperialism, to bring any solutions to the crisis facing Haiti.
Soon after our independence, imperialist powers and the Haitian dominant classes have done their best to appease and pacify the nationalist combative spirit. The Lavalas movement was one of the tools used to continue that process. The struggle against occupation and imperialism can’t lead to victory outside a political ideological struggle among the masses to breakaway totally from the dominant ideology of dependency.
The movement is weak; the combative sectors of the workers are also weak. Although very important and fundamental, autonomous fundraising can’t at this time permit BO to sustain its political activities even for the short term. How does one deal with that reality from a political perspective of autonomy? This reality cannot be dealt with simply by saying dogmatically and pragmatically that if you accept funding you are on the payroll, you are a sellout while at the same time supporting political organizations and politicians that are sycophants of imperialism. This is a complex reality that I will address in my next answer to the points Nicolas raised.

author by Jan Makandalpublication date Wed Dec 03, 2008 18:17author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Nicolas I do agree with you on your assessment on the Haitian social formation. It is totally ruined by imperialism, and even further by the anti-national, anti-popular policies of the Haitian dominant classes with the state apparatus at their service. In fact, the free trade zone that Mitch spoke of is a continuation of these policies.
Two aspects need to be considered: This FTZ, established in Ouanaminthe, is the concession of one of the most fertile agricultural lands in Haiti that will have short and long term effects on the Haitian economy. Second, the FTZ, in general, has nothing to do with the Haitian economy. The only economic stimulus, if we call it that, is that it creates employment that is basically slave labor under the harshest working conditions. There is no connection with other aspects of the Haitian economy.
The Haitian workers make less than a dollar a day, with present day inflation, and sometimes the bourgeoisie does not respect the minimum wage. They come up with measures that sometimes make the workers work more days for the minimum wage. Even with a high level of determination and combativity, the workers are not able to pursue their struggles due to a lack of funds and also due to their level of political consciousness.
There is not enough political unity in the international arena, even with contributions from proletarian internationalism, to correctly address this contradiction. We need to recognize that workers, Haitian workers, are waging a fight against capital in a period of reflux of our class internationally. This period of reflux affects the struggle of the working class as a whole, but we can’t let a lack of funding be a deterrent to, an appeasement of our struggles.
First and foremost, with or without funding we must continue the battle at all levels to defeat capital, especially at this time, internationally. We must use every tool necessary with creativity, even those of the enemy against them, to defeat them. The working class and the people camp should have the maturity and the political consciousness to understand the need to use all the infrastructures of the enemy, without being taken in by their reactionary propaganda on bourgeois democracy, to defeat the enemy. As long as it doesn’t violate the principles guided by proletarian internationalism and it doesn’t go against the interest of our class internationally. The way we will use our enemy infrastructure against them will also be determined by the rapport of forces at different conjunctures.
Since its inception, in the midst of struggle, BO has remained a combative working class organization and none of our critics on the funding question can state otherwise. By the way, this reality on funding did not parachute on BO’s lap, it is a question our movement needs to address outside any petit bourgeois morality. The people of Vietnam had to deal with that reality, the petit bourgeois revolutionaries in Cuba had to deal with that reality. Historically, the revolutionary movement needs to use our enemy and the internal contradictions among the dominant classes and the contradictions between the dominant classes and imperialism, all these contradictions in our best interest without implementing that opportunist tactical line of allying with one sector of the dominant classes and its representatives in the petit bourgeoisie against other sectors. Our tactic should be determined, at all cost, to defeat capitalism, not to favor one sector against the other. We could only defeat the bourgeoisie when our class builds its own autonomous practice independently from the bourgeoisie and also builds its own theory while participating in the struggle to radically transform reality.
The money aspect, the lack thereof, sometimes has pertinent effects on the struggle of the Haitian working class and I am sure on the proletarian struggle of our class internationally. Pertinent effects, meaning it slows the advancement of the struggle. It will impact the fighting spirit of the workers depending on their level of political consciousness. It will even create periods of reflux especially if these struggles are being waged from anti-capitalist positions emanating from proletarian struggles. From a proletarian perspective, we can’t address the questions of funding for our struggle outside the ideological struggles of our class against petit bourgeois progressives and moralists that do not think our class, that is naturally short of funds, needs to creatively finds many ways to find money in order to defeat capital, the creator of our problems. The danger to be co-opted by the reactionary class is present, but it does not come from the funding but rather from the ideological capacity of the class [collectively and individually] to withstand, the corruptive attack of the dominant classes.
I do think in order to build unity and lay the groundwork to build a new proletarian international, our class needs to break from petit bourgeois revolutionary and, better yet, to rebuild our proletarian organizations to define an international proletarian platform of struggle, recognize the needs for workers to create their own avenue of survival, for workers to plan and coordinate their struggles against their common enemy, for genuine autonomous proletarian struggle not to be isolated.

author by Kevin S.publication date Thu Dec 04, 2008 08:16author address author phone Report this post to the editors

First, about Lavalas, funding etc. etc. I agree mostly the points that Jan has made, and also with Batay Ouvriye's argument. For my part, I was always, and to a large extant remain, sympathetic to the popular movement at the base of Lavalas, and even to an extant with Aristide as an individual. But individual sympathy is not a firm enough basis for a political line, and after reading both sides (BO and Lavalas) of the debate on funding, I was disillusioned with the hypocrisy of "lavalasiennes" who were denouncing Batay Ouvriye for denouncing Aristide and accepting foreign funding, while they supported Aristide who after all agreed to the free trade zone and even paying State funds to the bourgeois opposition in a sad attempt to entice foreign imperialist funding! It was also interesting to see opportunist "revolutionary" currents like Haiti Progres, which had shared in denouncing Aristide and even supported Batay militants against the government in 2002, reverse their to jump onto the Lavalas bandwagon after the February coup.

In my opinion, the only significant error on Batay Ouvriye's part with regard to funding was their neglect to more clearly and forcefully explain it long before the accusations about being in foreign pockets -- which is hardly worst error to make, considering one cannot predict every accusation that will be made against you, especially ones coming not only from your traditional enemies but from people who not so long ago had shared in denouncing the Lavalas regime.

Second, I want to say a few words about the issue that Jan has been discussing of proletarian organization etc. There is a internal tension over the form and content of proletarian internationalism between two factors: one, the central role of the working class in the dominant countries to the international movement; two, the contradiction between the class interests of workers in the dominant countries and the interests of proletarian internationalism. This is a basic but difficult problem arising from the distinctly different interests of the "working middle class" in the richer nations forming a distinctly different class from the traditional proletariat, in contrast to the working class of the the poorer nations. The problem is that this ambiguous class defines itself as, and largely identifies with, the traditional working class or proletariat, but it has distinctly different interests and lifestyle, what in the poorer nations would be looked upon as bourgeois or petty bourgeois.

From the standpoint of proletarian internationalism, defining the working class not in national but rather social and economic terms, the working class of the dominant countries inevitably cannot be lumped in with the proletariat of the poorer countries. This tension can only be resolved by negating the simplistic line of workers' "class interest" (the source of tension) and adopting a militant line of working-class rebellion against bourgeois interests, even if it requires the working class of the richer countries to negate its own interests by way of eliminating its internal contradictions and asserting a proletarian line. That also requires guidance and instruction from proletarian revolutionaries in the exploited, not to mention unflinching support for those revolutionaries and defiance of imperialism, although "unflinching support" should not be misconstrued into a negation of critical analysis. In that respect Batay Ouvriye stands out above most of the organizations in either the dominant or exploited countries for its blunt approach to criticism and its disciplined work at organizing and fighting for both the proletariat specifically and the more general popular masses in Haiti. For that reason alone it is important for revolutionaries to expose the opportunism and hypocrisy of those accusing Batay Ouvriye and to defend our comrades there, while keeping a critical attitude and pointing errors, which I think that Jan has done quite well (although I do share not all of his Marxist-oriented views, being an anarchist myself).

Thanks a lot for your contributions, Jan.

author by Jan Makandalpublication date Thu Dec 18, 2008 09:27author address author phone Report this post to the editors

To Kevin
An important side note
Solidarity to you also for your contribution to this important debate. First, in order to pursue an objective to consolidate unity, I would like you to expand on which of my Marxist views you do not share. I remember once in a debate with a member of the RCP that after at least 3 hours of debate, we were mostly in agreement on important issues. Just because I had announced to the RCP’s member that I was not a Maoist, I suddenly became a revisionist.
I mostly tend to engage in debates from the interest of the proletariat, not from any pre-conceived idea, or what I usually call a backyard mentality. No one could deny the important contributions that revolutionary militants such as Marx brought to the theory and struggle of the working class. It does not mean that their contributions are engraved in steel and cannot be questioned. It is our mutually task to engage in struggle in our camp to further deepen our proletarian science in order to pursue our path to burry capital.
I do agree with some critical points the Anarchist trend has raised in some of its criticisms. In fact, if we see the result of the past 100 years of proletarian struggle, we can safely point out critique that are valid and need to be tackled with. I think the question of bureaucratic practices, the cult of personality, the problematic of hierarchy, vanguardism [self-proclamation] are valid points. At the same time, there are points raised by Anarchists that are divergent with any reality. It is like trying to fit rectangular theory perfectly to a round reality. I do consider Anarchism and Marxist Leninism two trends that came from proletarian struggles at the same time and are nowadays totally taken over by petit bourgeois radicals that brought their own brand of petit bourgeois class interest and deviated them from proletarian struggles.
By the way, this one of the reasons I do support Batay Ouvriye. I do think BO, in the working class movement internationally, will have an impact in the struggle for workers to regain and retake ownership of their struggle. (Unfortunately, most of the leaflets and political work of BO are in Creole.)
Many people only see the trade union activity of BO. They do not see other fundamental aspects of BO’s political work. BO is organizing many debates on different issues. These debates are sources not only for developing workers intellectual capacity but also for waging political and ideological struggles in order to break with the dominant ideology. For workers to be gravediggers of capital, for working class emancipation, this kind of proletarian politics is essential.
The theory and ideology of the working class doesn’t come from outside our class but from within our struggle. The working class needs to be the producer of the theory that will guide our class destiny in facing two realities: capitalist exploitation and proletarian struggle. It will not come from petit bourgeois intellectuals, independently of their valuable contributions, in their particular denomination. I think Marx, Lenin, Bakunin, Mao and others contributed greatly to our proletarian science, negatively [things we should never reproduce] and positively [things we should consolidate]; but making these contributions our backyard and developing a backyard mentality [sectarianism and dogmatism] is not helping our class develop. By the way, having a central committee doesn’t equate to hierarchy. I have seen very Stalinist practices applied by Trotskyite structures and some very bureaucratic anarchist organizations. We do not become immune to these ideological deviations by claiming to be of a certain tendency. Our salvation is our political line and the ideological struggles in our midst to struggle against these deviations. Believe me, they will appear, class struggle will dictate that. Even in our most basic forms of struggle, trade union struggle, our class will need a command center where proletarian democratic principles should be determinant. The danger for deviation and transformation into its opposite is there. They will appear side by side with proletarian concepts of struggle. Bourgeois ideology really does not care whether you are an anarchist or of any other tendency; it will try to recuperate any struggle or organization. Our only safeguard is our capacity to resist and struggle against bourgeois ideology in our midst. Let’s build a proletarian alternative.

author by Jan Makandalpublication date Thu Dec 18, 2008 09:44author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Response to Kevin
For my part, I never supported the Lavalas movement or, most importantly, its leadership. It was a populist movement with no future, no long-term objective, and, in the tradition of all populist movements, delivered the masses in a silver platter to the dominant classes. Their demagogic position on the funding issue is a continuation of their reactionary politics against genuine popular movements while at the same time serving imperialism. The base of Lavalas is popular and is mostly composed of a sous-proletariat/ unemployed. This was, by the way, the same social base that served Duvalier and that was recruited into the Tonton Macoutes, now called Chimères. Under the leadership of Lavalas, this base now is articulating a political position that is not in its class interest and is a negative aspect in the popular camp. Our task as revolutionaries is to struggle to break that base from that leadership, isolate these good for nothing leaders, including Aristide, and allow this base to be part of the real autonomous popular movement to struggle against the dominant classes, their State apparatus and imperialism/occupation.
I do agree with you on the significant error of BO. This is one of the concerns some comrades raised, including myself. BO really underestimated the impact that taking the money would have, outside a prior political and ideological struggle in our camp on how to use the enemy in our best interest.
I would like some clarifications on the third paragraph. On the fourth also I do agree with you except for the last part. But also I do think we need to engage in constructive discussions to consolidate unity in our struggle in the belly of the beast, also in the support of genuine working class movements.

author by Kevin S.publication date Thu Dec 18, 2008 11:45author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Jan,

I want to address this question of Lavalas and "populism," which has some important consequences to one's political and social line that are worth looking at critically. I agree with you entirely about avoiding dogmatism, and a possible example of dogmatism could be the over-simplified attitude taken toward the Lavalas base groups by organizations like Batay Ouvriye who denounce Lavalas for otherwise good reasons. Of course, my opinions could be wrong but I will argue them anyway and look forward to constructive debate as you have said, and I'm sure you understand.

To start, you say: "For my part, I never supported the Lavalas movement or, most importantly, its leadership. It was a populist movement with no future, no long-term objective, and, in the tradition of all populist movements, delivered the masses in a silver platter to the dominant classes."

I cannot agree with it had no long-term objective, although I disagree with most of its program. You hit the mark better later when you say: "Under the leadership of Lavalas, this base now is articulating a political position that is not in its class interest and is a negative aspect in the popular camp." But let's specify that program.

From what I can tell, the ideology and program of Lavalas is a mixture of bourgeois democratic ideals (e.g. "rule of law" and constitutionalism, democratic elections etc. etc.), populist peasant talk about "people's capitalism" (this was a substitute for socialist tendencies in the early days of the movement that could not be made good on for opportunistic reasons by Aristide & Co.), and a general effort at alleviating poverty and providing basic services (e.g. literacy and healthcare) -- in these respects Lavalas achievement were highly limited and for the crumbled on themselves. In addition there is a certain religious tendency inspired by liberation theology which exerts a powerful influence on the movement (many of its main leaders are or have been priests, including Aristide, and much of its base support comes from parishes and church groups), and could even be described as a kind of fundamentalist tendency with "leftist" leanings.

Now, the more interesting question to me is about the militant base groups of Lavalas, which have come to be labelled by anti-lavalassiennes as "chimeres." Programatically, the movement mostly kowtowed to the whims and "needs" of Aristide's government and therefore lost its momentum and its militancy steadily from 2001-2004, not to mention the chaos it was under the 1994 occupation. But there has been a lot of dispute over certain "gang" tendencies in the movement, and you made reference to this in a previous comment ("Response to the LRP" Nov. 14):

"... the proponents of these arguments all fail to understand the dynamic of the development of a class based anti-imperialist movement. They are enamored with the notion of the masses of Aristide’s ardent supporters (led by gangs of drug dealers) rising up in the slums. We are led to believe that if the proletarian forces also call for Aristide’s return we can take the direction of this “political movement”, in a “united front.” These are the same gangs that stood by while 200 mercenaries forced Aristide’s ouster. These are the same gangs that are engaged in wholesale practices of extortion, drug trade, contraband, terrorizing, raping and kidnapping! These are the same gangs whose leaders stand ready to negotiate their impunity and their turf with any and all those who come to power. These are the same gangs who once more have become entrenched in the corrupt political power structure."

Obviously there is a lot of truth to claims about gang activity; however, I do not agree with your assessment entirely. Actually, I was rather disappointed by the dismissal made by Batay Ouvriye against the popular uprising in Sept.-Oct. 2004 in Port-au-Prince. To my mind, I think there is no question that the rising in the slums (Belair, Cite Soleil etc.) in those days was definitely a popular revolt against the foreign troops and internal repression (government and paramilitary) which was killing lavalassienes and others left and right. Unfortunately, the slum resistance was of a mixed character, as some of the "gangs" were genuine fighters for the people (as in Dread Wilme) but most of the gangs running around after the initial uprising were petty criminals as you pointed out. It is a similar story with the "gang" support for Aristide before the February coup -- one very questionable case which I am not entirely clear in Amiot Metayer.

Mostly I agree with you, this tendency was going nowhere politically and socially, but it is a grave error in my opinion to denounce flatly as "demagoguery" the same way the bourgeois "opposition" was doing for years before the coup. I agree with you when you say in the same previous comment quoted above: "The development of a class based anti-imperialist movement can only come from the upsurge of popular mobilization and consciousness as the popular masses organize and fight to defend their interests against neo-liberal and occupation policies and confront the repression of occupation forces against these struggles ..." and also when you say in your last post: "Our task as revolutionaries is to struggle to break that base from that leadership, isolate these good for nothing leaders, including Aristide, and allow this base to be part of the real autonomous popular movement to struggle against the dominant classes, their State apparatus and imperialism/occupation."

However, to achieve those ends requires that advanced proletarians comprehend more fully the perspective and the activity of the people, including those in the slums and even a few of the "gangs" or "chimeres" who are not thugs (that is a case-to-case issue that is difficult, but important not to follow in the pattern of the bourgeoisie lumping all slum militants into "chimere" category), and then adopting a method of discourse and social activity with these elements suited to the goal you have described.

author by Kevin S.publication date Thu Dec 18, 2008 14:29author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Jan,

It would be hard to pinpoint your specific Marxist-oriented views which I disagree with in the cotnext of our discussion at this point, and maybe a more accurate statement would have been that you probably do not share all of my anarchist views. But anyway, as I agree with your intent of consolidating unity I will simply skim over some theoretical points which would be a basis for unity or disagreement. I agree with your approach of taking useful contributions from Marx, Bakunin, Lenin etc. and leaving behind useless ones; however, I am inclined to think what you and I take from these might be somewhat different.

First let me address right off the bat anarchism and Marxism. I do recognize many valuable contriubtions from Marx, Lenin, Guevara and others in the Marxist tradition, that should not be discarded as an anarchist because of, as you call it, "backyard mentality" ... so I agree with you there. However, I definitely identify with the anarchist tradition, specifically I hold to a number of ideas explored and developed in anarchism which are irrelevant to our present discussion, but also specifically I definitely reject the "proletarian State" as a bourgeois corruption of the historical ideal and tendency of proletarian social revolution -- primarily responsible for Leninist authoritarian deviations, which ideologically has its main basis in Marxism. On this count I firmly identify with the basic idea (not every detail, in which there is much variation and internal disagreement) put forward by the anarchists, rejecting the State as something to be detested and opposed by proletarian revolutionaries. The extent to which the State has polluted proletarian ideas and led to the worst deviations of Lenin, Trotsky as well as Stalin, Mao, etc., points in my view to the importance of this problem and the necessity of expelling all statism from our ideology and program. I will only say one other thing on this point, which is that to some extent I can concede terminological and rhetorical differences between what a Marxist calls "proletarian dictatorship" and what an anarchist would call "stateless" -- i.e. there is enough similarity of substance there, theoretical terms and labels aside, to work together concretely toward the Revolution etc., but nonetheless differences remain that prevent complete unity and anarchists must remain wary and suspicious of Marxists who claim to want "unity" which in too many cases means "subordination" and often ends in outright betrayal.

At the same time, you are certainly right in saying that there are bureaucratic anarchists etc., and pointing out that it is not enough to claim to be of a certain tendency or party, because it is the real work that counts in the end. As I see it, there are multiple complex and dynamic aspects of proletarian organizing and struggle. For me, as an anarchist, it is necessary for anarchists to organize themselves independent of other political parties and tendencies, to elaborate our theory and put forward a program to influence the working class and the masses toward anarchist ideas and in some cases to initiate social struggles even without mass support. Second, anarchists and proletarians have to organize directly within the working class to develop an autonomous social movement with its own coherent program and (self-)direction. But this occurs at two levels, which in turn involve complex dynamics making it all the more crucial for anarchists to organize along ideological lines, although they might be accuses of "sectarianism" and "dogtmatism."

The two levels consist, on the one hand, of independent working class as well as broadly popular mass organizations -- i.e. proletarian organizations and popular organizations -- and on the other hand, of more definitely advanced revolutionary mass organizations of the same type. The difference between the two levels is the degree of advancement. For instance, revolution can occur spontaneously with only minimal or even no mass organizations, but it can only be completed successfully if the proletariat and the masses develop and internalize revolutionary ideas and organize accordingly. So as far as organizations go, there are class organizations of workers along with popular organizations which can engage in day-to-day social struggles, and then there are revolutioanry organizations of the masses and the proletariat. Batay Ouvriye is an interesting case in that its work involves elements of both levels, although its theoretical framework is different.

I also want to try to resolve your confusion as to my previous comment on the third paragraph, about the "working middle class" and internationalism etc. What I am saying there is that what is called the "working class" of the richer dominant countries is, to a large extent, not the same class of proletarians which you find in the poorer countries. There is a mixed bag of definitely exploited and property-less workers plus unemployed and "lumpen-proletarians," and the "middle class" of wage-earners who own a significant stake in capitalism and imperialism. Furthermore, even the exploited workers largely identify with imperialism and even have a stake in it, to that even the lower layers of the working class lose their combativeness and militancy toward the bourgeoisie or the State, and mainly only regain it when they are desperate as some now are due to the financial crisis. My point is simply that it is crucial for the terms of proletarian internationalism not be arrogantly set by the workers of the imperialist countries, and domestically they have free themselves on bourgeois imperialist baggage by negating some of their self-interest and adopting an uncompromisngly militant line of working-class rebellion. Otherwise, it will fail to develop to its fullest extent into a proletarian and revolutionary movement.

author by Jan Makandalpublication date Thu Jan 22, 2009 18:30author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Sorry for the time it took to respond.
On the May Day Thread, I posted some views on the question of the two levels. I do disagree with the political orientation of revolutionary mass organization. I do not think there could be a revolutionary mass organization. For me there is the revolutionary level with a strategic objective and there is a mass organization/democratic level with a tactical objective. Batay Ouvriye is the ladder and will never transform into or become a revolutionary mass movement. Batay Ouvriye [BO] is a democratic level a movement that reflects the unequal development of class consciences and also of working class organization at the democratic level. One of the important consequences of this conceptual structure is also to address the negative tendency of bureaucratic practices, even if it is not fully safe proof. Another important consequence is a demarcation from reformism. When the revolutionary level, whatever denomination it is from, only intervenes in content and objective at the mass level and only defines an orientation for the mass level for me it is a manifestation of reformism. There are the autonomous practices of the two levels as well as their inter-relations. The revolutionary levels can’t survive and reproduce themselves outside a political line defining their autonomous and independent practices at the same time recognizing it can’t survive outside the mass level/democratic level. This relation should be as Mao pointed out like fish in water. The mass level is the training ground for the workers to train themselves in the struggle against capital at the democratic level. At the same time allowing workers to build democratic structures where the class can function with all its diversity. For example in Haiti, BO called for a new state instead of that bankrupt one that is now in Haiti. This is the limitation of that level. It will be the role of proletarian revolutionaries, in the midst of struggle in the mass level, to democratically convince the workers that a proletarian state is /must be the only solution for Haiti to advance. In fact one of the limitation of the Haitian working class movement is that outside Haiti many combatants only see the democratic level, not the autonomous presence of the proletarian revolutionary level.

author by Jan Makandalpublication date Sun Jan 25, 2009 22:32author address author phone Report this post to the editors

To Kevin on Populism/ and Lavalas
I do think some of our differences are of secondary nature. I will not dwell on them. I would like to briefly clarify some points: The non-objective of the Lavalas movement is in relation to the popular masses. They were no organized structures in front of an enemy that has a tradition of totally disregarding the most basic democratic needs of the Haitian popular masses. I do not think BO or myself for that regard over simplified the Lavalas movement. On the contrary, our assessment of them was the most appropriate interpretation, in general, of the limited perspective and objective of that movement at the level of conquering some minimal popular democratic gains. I think your interpretation of that movement was overrated and did not dialectically relate to the objective reality. I think the Creole staying of “Bri Sapat” or “Gwo van san lapli” meaning big wind with no rain best fit that movement. Nevertheless, I still think there are some general valuable lessons to be learned from that specific experience. I do think they were some genuine progressive elements within the Lavalas movement. These elements were at a specific stage of political and class-consciousness. Arming them under the direction of a fraction of the bourgeoisie was basically the result encountered in Haiti. This is why the leadership of the working class is imperative in these struggles. Without proletarian leadership, these struggles will tend to degenerate and serve the bourgeoisie. One of the fundamental questions facing Haiti and the proletarian revolutionary movement is the structural collapse of the Haitian social formation. No class or fraction of a class in the power block can take Haiti to a new direction. The Haitian petit bourgeoisie is so opportunist that it can’t play that role for the bourgeoisie. In some of my other postings, I emphasized a lot that there is no room left for pacific struggles or for reforms. Even the working class is doomed to degenerate if the class doesn’t surmount is relative weakness and play its historical role.
Popular struggles don’t mean or equate to poor people taking the streets, even violently. Not all uprisings are popular. There are popular demonstrations, pacific or violent, meaning that the popular masses are demanding democratic rights in their own interest. Even in these types of popular demonstrations, the danger for recuperation by the dominant classes is present. Also, there are demonstrations where the masses are participating but their content and objectives are not popular; especially those where the dominant classes are in the leadership. The massive participation of the popular masses in voting the 1988 Constitutions is an example. The general strike called by the now defunct 184 the continually and dwindling marches demanding Aristide’s return are another example. There is nothing popular about these demands because, in the final analysis, the content of these demands is not in the interest of the popular masses, especially those of the working class.
The working class and proletarian revolutionaries can’t win these battles over capital without unifying the fundamental popular classes and the popular masses, in general, under its leadership. The working class will have to construct is autonomous organizations, independently from bourgeois ideology, built is own ideology and take is historical responsibility.

author by Jan Makandalpublication date Mon Jan 26, 2009 05:30author address author phone Report this post to the editors

The two lines struggles in the people’s camp
For the same reasons you point out, I do consider our differences emanating from our camp. They are a reflection of political and class line struggle, the product of an interpretation of an objective reality from a class line interest. Some of the Trotskyites, Anarchist interpretations represent empirical knowledge at best, and, at worst are non-corresponding to objective reality. I only learned from these comrades. Their objective reality is quite different from the one we are living now. The dogma is to dangerously keep repeating their interpretation of an objective reality that has surpassed these guys. It is now our task to keep up and continue in their path of producing new theory interpreting new complex realities in the interest of the proletariat, primarily, and the popular mass in general. For the proletariat to be the gravedigger of capital it has to not only fight bourgeois ideology from its own interest but also build its own. This theory will be the scientific guide of the struggle of the working class against bourgeois dictatorship. The theory of our class can’t be absolute but rather functions within an absolute relativity that is in constant mode of rectification and in an uninterrupted process of deepening. It can only affirm things that can be demonstrated. We need to differentiate things that exist, objective reality, our interpretation of that objective reality or complex reality and the criteria or a theory in our understanding of the development of that objective reality and also, most importantly the contradictory mechanism that allows that objective reality to reproduce itself. So, what really exists in reality is totally different from our interpretation, belongings to two different spheres of existence. What really exists is objective and our interpretation is subjective. Our objective thought [subjective] may correspond closely to that reality, objective reality; our subjective thought will always be separate and different. Objective reality doesn’t come from our ideas, but our ideas take root from that objective reality. Our interpretation on what really exists, whether relatively illusional, relatively delusional, or relatively objective, has its root in that reality itself. In Haiti, if it rains on a very hot sunny day, it is said that the devil is beating his wife. There is only one reality and many interpretations. Our ideas will originate from our place of history, our class interest and our class struggle. A low level of class struggle, affects also the development of our ideas . From this approach, I will try to address some of our divergent views.
Your rejection of “the proletarian state as a bourgeois corruption of the historical ideal and tendency of proletarian social revolution -- primarily responsible for Leninist authoritarian deviations, which ideologically has its main basis in Marxism”: on this count I firmly identify with the basic idea (not every detail, in which there are much variation and internal disagreement) put forward by the anarchists, rejecting the State as something to be detested and opposed by proletarian revolutionaries. Let us agree amongst different political currents, even in the same denomination, as you correctly mention there is an ongoing struggle. So, in reality there is not only a struggle between Anarchism and Marxism but also a struggle, with the input, of different tendencies in giving their interpretation of that objective reality. The state apparatus is not a creation of Marx or Lenin, it is an objective reality. Their contribution was simply an interpretation of that objective reality, complex reality. The state apparatus, as a political instrument of class dictatorship, precedes Marx and one of the problems with Anarchism is not to understand this objective reality. So, for me, detesting the State or being opposed to it is like detesting atoms because they contributed to making the atom bomb. By rejecting this objective reality, we will never understand the limitative contributions in all their deviation of revolutionaries such as Lenin. We do need to profoundly criticize Lenin not because he gave an interpretation to this objective reality but because of the erroneous aspects of some of his interpretation as a guide. For example, I do not think he correctly addressed the question of class control and class leadership. The question of the role of the Party and the class was not properly addressed. The question of vanguard was elitist and led to bureaucraticism. The Haitian slaves were not Marxist in paving the way for a struggle to radically transform the social relations in Saint Domingue and at the same time building a new Nation, however limited it turned out to be. They came up with a political line correctly addressing the objective reality and they understood also the need of class dictatorship in order to preserve their freedom, even if this dictatorship was led by the slaves for a short time and then taken over by a reactionary class of feudal landlords.
For me the question of proletarian leadership is necessary in the transition from a capitalist mode of production to a classless society. One of the reasons is that only the working class has historically shown its capacity to guarantee such transition. Class struggle will not disappear automatically in that transitional period where a new mode of production is being built and reproduces itself again, the proletariat will need to lead the popular camp in that period. The question of Proletarian leadership and statelessness are not divorced from each other [this is one of the mistakes made by Marxists and Anarchists] these two objectives must exist in what I call a contradictory reality. There must be a dialectical relation between proletarian leadership and non state [stateless] and in that dialectical relation; the non-state should be the determining factor. I posted some similar comments on the May Day 2008 thread. Some of this posting may purposely lack some theoretical input, in the hope of discussing this further.

author by Kevin S.publication date Tue Feb 10, 2009 04:33author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Sorry it has taken me some time to respond. I will reply point-by-point to you as best I can. Apologies if it is a bit long-winded.

On the "two levels" ...

I should clarify my words about the different levels and Batay Ouvriye. As I said already, Batay is interesting as it involves elements of both a mass and a mass-revolutionary level. The latter has to be distinguished from the political (or "specific" theoretical) level, which is what you mean by revolutionary level. My concept here is somewhat different from yours, the reason being you frame it as a "tactical" mass-democratic level and a "strategic" political-revolutonary level. Some of your idea is useful, for instance, the "democratic level" acting as a school of struggle for the working class. I also think there some merit in your saying: "When the revolutionary level, whatever denomination it is from, only intervenes in content and objective at the mass level and only defines an orientation for the mass level for me it is a manifestation of reformism" [although I think reformism is maybe not the right word].

But you make a mistake in placing revolutionary goals apart from the masses, a very dangerous mistake that is typical of Marxist orientations. Revolution has to be the work of masses, and if it is "commanded" separately by, say, a political party, then it inevitably turns into party dictatorship. But, for instance, in the last post you talked about "a dialectical relation between proletarian leadership and non state [stateless] and in that dialectical relation; the non-state should be the determining factor." ... So, how would non-state be the determining factor in that relationship if the revolution is determined at a political level rather than a mass level?

My own thinking is, the "dialectical relationship" of mass and revolutionary levels is only resolvable through a mass-revolutionary line, that is, the masses autonomously (some would say, "spontaneously") taking the revolution in hand. The job of a revolutionary political or "specific" group should be to precede, influence and initiate struggles, but not to control it at a mass level. Mass struggle has to be autonomous or else it ends in party dictatorship. Even Marx, who was not as "vanguardist" as Lenin, made the same mistake, which is why Bakunin pointed out more-or-less the same problem decades before it was experienced in the Russian Revolution.

(Note here ... Batay Ouvriye, in my opinion, not exactly a "revolutionary organization" and definitely not a specific political party [which at any rate is not an objective need, but important to influence the subjective conditions for revolution]. But, it definitely has some elements of a mass-revolutionary orientation, in particular its ideological attack on the bourgeois State, its demand for complete working-class autonomy etc., even if its practical work is at the democratic level. The very fact they frame their work in such a way also indicates an advanced understanding of the dynamics of popular struggle, including its revolutionary level.)

On popular struggles, Lavalas etc. ...

I mostly would agree with your assessment of Lavalas. On the "popular struggles" "popular demands" though, that is a trickier issue and I think you might be oversimplifying it. The difference, for instance, between a "popular demand" as in a demand that is in the interest of the popular classes, and a "popular demand" as in a demand that is has mass popular support. Likewise, the difference between "popular struggle" as a struggle FOR the masses or a struggle BY the masses. What "for" means is then a complicated thing as well, given there is a struggle to satisfy popular aspirations (as formulated at the mass level) and also a struggle for the interests of the popular classes (as analyzed at both revolutionary and mass levels). These two different ideas are subjective, but are based in two objective facts:

1) That the people's struggles are determined by what the people want, and opposing those struggles (even if you interpret a struggle as being against the people's interests) naturally makes you "anti-popular" (even you percieve you are fighting for the people's interest). Anarchists have always had to contend with this dilemma, making life very difficult for us as plenty are keen to point out the supposed "contradiction" of anarchists opposing the State even if the people support it (falsely making us appear dictatorial).

2) That, objectively, the people do many times fight against their own interests or for the interests of their oppressor, and therefore the even a popular struggle can be "anti-popular" in its direction despite having popular support. That is a primary obstace confronting Batay Ouvriye and other proletarian groupings in Haiti marginalized by Lavalas.

So it is a difficult problem, to say the least. As for the slum rising in 2004, I still am of the opinion that both in terms of mass support, and in fighting against the unbelievable oppression they were facing from the foreign troops, the police and the bourgeoisie's paid thugs, it was definitely a popular uprising. That is, despite having some backward elements (mostly composed of lavalassien, demanding Aristide's return and lacking a coherent revolutionary tendency), which made it easy to degenerate very quickly. But it was also important as it initiated intense mass resistance and had the people in the slums articulating their own demands and aspirations directly, instead of being "spoken for" all the time by a few politicians -- which, by the way, is a crucial step toward (as you put it before) breaking the popular base from the leadership of Lavalas.

On the State and class dictatorship ...

First, I want to mention I share your understanding of "objective reality" and "subjective interpretations" etc. To me, it is a very important way to understand, and simply, very complex realities without getting into sterile dogmatism in one's analysis of things. However, I disagree with you that the state apparatus is objective reality -- at least, it is not "objective" is a simple sense that most people think of it. The is an element of objectivity in the power exerted by the State over individuals and as an instrument of class rule. But there is also a subjective element in the perception of individuals that there is a static structure to "institutions" like the State, or even that "the State" is one institution when it is actually many. Such perceptions are an illusion, as evidenced by the constantly changing "common" definitions of the State.

So far as the State is objective reality, it is not simply controlled by, but part of, and also a perpetrator of class oppression and exploitation. To think that the State can be fundamentally controlled by the masses is a profound error. It is one thing to use the State for this or that specific purpose, or to pressure the State into doing this or that; but the State will always be a power separate from the masses. Its interests are diametrically opposed to popular power at the base, that is, to the autonomy of the popular classes and especially the working class. The State is definitely not, and can never be (except maybe for very short moments), an instrument of "proletarian power" in a real sense.

It is strange to me that you look upon the slave revolt as coming up with a "correct" political line of class dictatorship. Clearly, in my interpretation at least, the "class dictatorship" (i.e. concentration of power by a military elite, starting with Toussaint and later Dessalines) was harmful to the Revolution, leading to reactionary measures by none other than Toussaint himself (putting the old white managers in charge of the "free" plantations and even killing insurgents who resisted the former owners) and, after independence, making it easy for a feudal elite to overthrow the ex-slaves' (Dessalines) regime and impose a backward economic system (which you yourself mentioned). I think the "class dictatorship" did less to preserve their freedom than dismantle their insurgent power. Indeed, there are a few comparisons to be made with emancipation in the South after the U.S. Civil War. One could hardly call Lincoln's government, or even the anti-slave Republicans, a "class dictatorship" of the slaves, despite emancipating them from slavery. I think it is a similar case with Haiti, as also with the resort to semi-feudal relations after independence or after Reconstruction.

author by Jan Makandalpublication date Wed Feb 11, 2009 20:45author address author phone Report this post to the editors

On popular struggles at the level of mass democratic movement

Kevin,
I really don’t mind if our interventions are long winded. I do think these kinds of debates are necessary for the advance of our struggles. Most importantly, they are fruitful if we are able to build some political rapprochement/political unity and are able to coordinate our common struggles in the battlefield. Of course, the level of unity will determine the level of coordination and should be based on the principle of Unity Struggle Unity.
For me, popular demands are an intricate part of a popular struggle. In fact, the totality of popular demands makes up popular struggle. For example the demands for minimum wage, the demands for the rights of workers to organize in their work place, the struggles for students to have an education reflecting a national interest, the struggle to eliminate the feudalistic social relations, (…) are all popular demands. In content and in objective they should be waged by the popular masses from their autonomous interest. In capitalist society, or societies dominated by capitalism, an autonomous popular struggle is a struggle waged from the interest of the working class. The concept of popular should not be equated solely to a quantitative outlook. It should also be qualitative. If we do not look at it from a class content and class interest, if we do not look at it from the ultimate class interest of the class capable to bury capital, our approach of popular struggle will objectively be a populist approach. In the dialectical relation of quality and quantity, the quality aspect should and must be determinant. At the end of the day, these struggles will benefit the interest of a class.
Your delimitation, of popular demands and popular struggles, is not quite a correct interpretation. If the popular masses, massively participate in a struggle, we can’t call it popular if the struggle they are engaged in is not in their interest either from a short term, mid-term or long term objective. It is not because the masses participate that these struggles becomes popular. This is a populist approach in analyzing the content and objective of a struggle. If workers are members of an organization, that organization should not be identified automatically as a popular organization. In this case the Catholic Church, the American trade Union in the US might be identified as such. During the Vietnam War, some American workers took a position to support the war. Their support was not popular (qualitatively). I do not think the participation of Anarchists or any other tendency is anti-popular. We may be in disagreement, we may diverge, but by no way should any participation in the struggles in practice and in theory be called anti-popular. I have made my position clearly from the onset. I think our differences are contradictions, however important or fundamental they may be, from within the people’s camp. So a popular struggle can’t be popular and anti-popular at the same time. Because there are differences, there are class struggles in our midst, they should be dealt with intransigence, in a non-opportunistic approach, using the guideline of demarcation to construct unity, and building political rapprochement. But they are secondary contradictions. The political line, in the final analysis, is the determining factor. A position, a wrong interpretation, an opportunistic orientation could lead us to erroneous practice and eventually facilitate a popular organization even a revolutionary organization to be transformed into a reactionary organization. This is true for an Anarchist, Marxist, M-L structure, or any other denomination. This is class struggle.
Now there are two types of contradictions:
1- The contradictions between the dominant classes and the masses, where the fundamental aspect of that contradiction is capital and labor.
2- The contradictions within the dominant classes. The contradiction between the Democrats and Republican in the US is an example. The contradiction between Feudalism and the bourgeoisie, the contradictions between different fractions of the bourgeoisie for hegemonic power, and or a better restructuration of bourgeois democracy in Haiti are another example.
To resolve these contradictions, depending of the solidity of bourgeois structure in these social formations, the dominant classes will try to resolve these contradictions violently or using bourgeois democratic structure and practice such as election. The bourgeoisie will, most of the time, lean on the petit bourgeoisie to achieve its political objective. Obama leaning on the “middle class” is an example. Using the petit bourgeoisie as crutches is also contradictory. This class also has its own political demands. At times, these political demands can overflow. In some my articles posted in Anarkismo I did expend, with limitations, on that subject. This is the ultimate importance of a Proletarian Alternative. The financial crisis boiling now in the U.S creates a revolutionary condition but the subjective factors are lacking. An autonomous organized mass movement is lacking or is weak in the most advanced capitalist country in the world. My ultimate interest is for us to collectively participate in correcting that reality. We are retroactively responding to an objective condition instead of coming forth with our own alternative. Notwithstanding our divergent views, we could define a structure to debate them [Anarkismo is an example, a step ] in order to solidify our unity or at least define the level of our unity for common practice at the same respecting each other’s independence and autonomy. If we are engaging in this debate from the class interest of the working class, we shall overcome our differences. The only way to build trust is to build it by engaging in the battlefield.
On the two levels
I think you are putting your own words in my thought process by stating:
“But you make a mistake in placing revolutionary goals apart from the masses, a very dangerous mistake that is typical of Marxist orientations.” If you read most of my posting, you would find this to be in total disagreement with my positions. In fact I do agree with you. For me an advanced political idea, a theory doesn’t automatically become revolutionary if it is not tested in the masses and if it doesn’t become a guide for revolutionary practice. I have insisted the revolutionaries need to be in the masses like fish in water. Outside that dialectical relation the revolutionaries become useless. The revolutionary structure, organization, supreme minority, active minority or a group of instigators have two tasks facing them ; their own autonomous practice to achieve a strategic role and their role in the masses to develop class consciousness. Their role is quite different. The active minority, the revolutionary organization should not aim to remain a constant minority. It will transform them into a small elitist group, It should objectively militate to popularize revolutionary ideas and concepts, develop the capacity of the masses, fundamentally the working class. How could we[ working class] lead humanity to a new society if revolutionary knowledge remains the property of a few, however unequally that knowledge develops in the masses and in particular in the proletariat. The peoples struggle is not only a want but also a manifestation of the subjective into the real. It will be historically determined. Again the first portion of the first statement in your first paragraph on POPULAR STRUGGLE, Lavalas.... is very close to populism. Going or coming from a minority position is not dictatorial if we define a correct political line of winning the masses to our side. Look I do not care to be labeled a dictator if everybody is jumping off a cliff to a certain death and I refuse to go along. At the same time if I am proven to be incorrect in practice I will be at the forefront of rectification. I will address you last paragraph later.

author by Kevin S.publication date Fri Feb 13, 2009 15:53author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Jan,

Before you continue, I want to clarify something. That is, I am not saying a minority position is dictatorial or even "anti-popular" at a level of class interest. Please read again my points on "popular struggles." I did not distinguish between "popular demands" and "popular struggles," rather, I distinguished between "popular" in the sense of mass demands or struggles and "popular" in the sense of demands or struggles in support of the people, even at a minority political level -- the "vanguard."

I pointed to two objective facts as a basis for this subjective contradiction of "the people" fighting against their own interests, or alternatively of a minority fighting for popular rights against the majority's will, which I will quote again:

1) That the people's struggles are determined by what the people want, and opposing those struggles (even if you interpret a struggle as being against the people's interests) naturally makes you [or me, or anyone] "anti-popular" (even you percieve you are fighting for the people's interest). **Anarchists have always had to contend with this dilemma, making life very difficult for us as plenty are keen to point out the supposed "contradiction" of anarchists opposing the State even if the people support it (falsely making us appear dictatorial).**

2) That, objectively, the people do many times fight against their own interests or for the interests of their oppressor, and therefore even a popular struggle can be "anti-popular" in its direction despite having popular support. That is a primary obstacle confronting Batay Ouvriye and other proletarian groupings in Haiti marginalized by Lavalas.

**Note the part on anarchists contending with this problem. That is, anarchists (like me) are nearly always in a minority opposing the State, leading some to label us "anti-democratic" or "anti-popular." But I still oppose the State and do not backtrack on this one bit in the name of "popular support." The masses can be wrong like anyone, and even fight against their own interests, leading to a certain contradiction in terms of "popular demands" and, following from that, "popular struggles."

So I think you are misunderstanding my comment when you describe it as a populist approach. Also, I am not trying to label you as dictatorial, and my apologies as well if I distorted your words about the "mass level" and "revolutionary level." My only point here has been to underline the difference between a simple mass or popular level that has no revolutionary consciousness, and a revolutionary mass or popular level, which in turn is distinct from a simple political-revolutionary level without a mass-popular base.

author by Jan Makandalpublication date Thu Feb 19, 2009 18:18author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Clarifying clarification
Kevin,

On the question of “dictatorial”, I was basically injecting some humor into our debate. My point is that not all struggles that the masses participate in are popular. To think so is populism, or “workerism” in the case of the working class. When people fight against their own interest obviously and objectively these types of struggle can’t be popular in nature and popular for their objectives. Nevertheless, some struggles in the interest of the dominant classes or some fractions thereof, because of mass participation, can carry in their content some popular demands benefiting sectors of the dominated and exploited classes. It will be the task of revolutionary forces: proletarians and non-proletarians revolutionaries forces to decipher these struggles, delimitate them from bourgeois struggles and struggle among the masses, while deciphering these struggles, for them to wage their autonomous struggles and at the same time rendering the contradictions of the dominant classes, as a block, more acute. Our task is to defeat them. We can’t and should not contribute to the reinforcement of one sector against the other. In this case, we are putting a hanging rope around our own neck and the political forces of the dominant classes will just push the chairs from under our feet. We have many experiences we could learn from .. The anti apartheid struggles, in South- Africa, is one of the most recent struggles we could learn from. When the workers came up with their own demands of wages, after participating as viable force in the struggle, they were called adventurist and identified as a destabilizing force. In Nicaragua, the workers went thru similar attacks. In Haiti after leaning on the masses to uproot a fraction of the dominant classes thru elections, none of their demands were met. In fact, the masses, in Haiti. are in even worse conditions, deterioting tendencies are higher than any other alternatives. I could safely say similar conditions may exist in South Africa and Nicaragua.
The marginalization of authentic popular movements such as BO and proletarian revolutionaries movements are due also to the nature of the Haitian social formation, very ripe for populism. We had before Lavalas, the Woulo Konpresè of Daniel Fignole, and Lerouge in Cap Haitian. But most importantly, our own limitations, our movement has been dominated by, and is sick from, opportunism for sometimes. Some proletarian revolutionaries in transition from the petit bourgeoisie still carry their political class position into the proletarian struggle. This is what I call having one leg in proletarian struggle and one leg in non-proletarian struggle. The authentic revolutionaries of the class are not historically at the level of taking owernership of their own struggle. The petit bourgeoisie, since 1946, and even before in the struggle against the first occupation are incapable of historically offering an alternative. We are at a very complex threshold in a revolutionary objective condition. The international proletariat is, also, at a very important Carrefour in their struggle against imperialism. We do need to retake our struggle from the petit bourgeois and their NGO and be the gravediggers of Capital.

Number of comments per page
  
 
This page can be viewed in
English Italiano Deutsch
© 2005-2024 Anarkismo.net. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by Anarkismo.net. [ Disclaimer | Privacy ]