[WB-Discuss] WM GRP Program Notes

[PHWernick at aol.com]

Enclosed below please find a note I had planed to send a GRP activist.It was 
unsent since at the time I was not sure the recipient was willing and able to 
listen to the message.Please feel free to send off responses. 
___________________________________________________________________-

Hi XXXXX

To clear the air on the middle east and other matters-I used to go to Tikkun 
meetings,where many members favor the creation of  a secular one state for 
both Jews and Arabs.Somehow those advocating a one state coexist in the same 
organization with those advocating a two state solution- one for Jews and one for 
Palestinians.Diversity of views in an organization  may be as significant as 
diversity around other issues.There is a difference between scathing vitriol 
and discussion.

Of course,those oppressed are entitled to and should use every method at 
their disposal for ending their oppression.Where it gets complicated is the 
problem that not every person thinks the same about oppression and ways to end it. I 
myself see economic oppression and the class struggle as key.So ,if the GRP 
is to have any  major inroads to the electorate,there needs to be serious 
thought as to limiting personal attacks and accommodating diverse views within the 
guidelines of the 10KV. This has not occurred thus far. 

In this respect, one STRUCTURAL model for the GP and GRP might be the 
Socialist Party in America from 1900-1920 with many wings and a left, right and 
center.This has the advantage of gainsaying that there are  differences around a 
unified idea of bringing about change.In this context,refining program and 
platform to accommodate all the wings, both nationally and locally, could be 
helpful.I am not suggesting that GRP name itself a Socialist Party.

I'm as radical in my heart as the first day I read the Manifesto.I'm ready to 
mount the barricades tomorrow. Always  have been,always will be hopefully. 
But my sense over the years is that such is probably not in the cards and the 
most we can hope for is to try for structural or radical reform of 
capitalism.For old revolutionaries, reform used to be a dirty word and the entire fiber of 
my radical background has been to scorn reformists.

It seems to me that one choice today is to maintain radical purity and act as 
a goad to change capitalism.I'm not knocking that position.There is a long 
and noble history of men and women acting as radicals and revolutionaries and my 
own hope is that someday,both Lenin and Trotsky will be seen as great working 
class emancipators.

The other choice also comes through in the electoral  work of the  GP and the 
GRP.It is to try through reform to restructure the economic and political 
system through developing a majority party.I see my efforts today  as oriented 
more in this latter tradition.The strength of the GP and the GRP seems to be a 
dual one of advocating radical change while pursuing more moderate reform in 
the electoral arena.I'm not always  sure how these fit together.

In regards to the GRP, many people have put their passions into developing 
the party and my own style these days is to put certain ideas out there and see 
if they resonate at all.I'm not very good at arguing with folks these days and 
this may be a failure of mine in that after years of going through the Punic 
wars of Socialism, I have not much taste for either factionalism or 
sectarianism.Also ,it's a fine line between offering ideas for change and being seen as 
one who wants to tear down the hard work others have accomplished.

The bottom line is what resonates with the public- and my own opinion is that 
the message of the GRP,without compromising its principles, could be more 
oriented to working class and middle class economic concerns.I think there are on 
the statecom,in the GRP membership, and in the tens of thousands of potential 
supporters,many folks who might occupy what I call the center of the left.I 
have no way of proving such, except to take a long look at American history and 
present voting trends. This suggestion is apt to come off as an old tired  
radical urging his young(and not so young in some cases) comrades to after all 
recognize reality and be more practical. Through the days of the New Left,I 
scoffed at such messages of moderation and it's quite a turn of events that I now 
find myself as one of those urging such direction.It's not entirely clear to 
me that it is only a  question of left, right, and center within a left 
party.It may be some of the other attributes of GRP as well.Is the culture of the 
GRP truly one that working class and middle class folks can feel part of?

I hope within the GP and the GRP there will be room for a left, right, and 
center since that is the usual breakdown in political groupings.The right and 
center of the GP and GRP is of course tremendously more radical and more left 
than the population at large. That's the paradox. I have talked about  the the 
lib-lab constituency before, so no need to repeat here.The issue is to what 
extent the electorate in general can be radicalized and will stay radicalized.My 
thoughts are  that ideology tends to crumple  in terms of the Horatio Alger 
myth and the efforts of the working class and the middle class to better 
themselves.In connecting to the working class,on the basis of where it is, political 
parties can be opportunistic or exercise leadership.

Assuming the inertia and conservatism,to an extent, of the lib-lab grouping, 
the task seems to be one of energizing it and pushing it further to the 
left.There is a big difference between the democratic electorate and the party 
bosses.My suggestion would be for the GP and GRP to try working closer with other 
groupings as a start, though it is the unaffiliated public that GRP should be 
after. I'm not a shill for the party bosses and have fought this democratic 
party machine for the past 25 years in my job. From a personal point of view, I 
am probably more hostile to the Democratic party bosses than most, having 
struggled against them for decades. However, the issue is whether the GRP  can work 
with JWJ,CPPAX,NARAL ,the trade unions,and other established groupings and 
enlist them in its work. Admittedly, this will not be easy.

"Coalitions" with other small progressive groups is not at all an answer ,but 
might lead to GRP recruitment of members,both activists and the electorate at 
large, since part of the progressive electorate sees these organizations as 
their leadership.

In regards to program,I tend to favor bread and butter issues such as a jobs 
program,senior care, health care, and tax reform in terms of electoral work, 
instead of focusing on imperialism. When it comes to international issues, 
these are the toughest sell to the public and for international issues I would 
like to see the GP and GRP focus in on world poverty,hunger, and the lack of 
medical care.On the domestic front, I once mentioned the notion of a Marshall Plan 
for Massachusetts.While not having any answers to what will work, I favor the 
approach used in Jill's campaign.

Re diversity, I have pretty much expressed my views on this in my Summer 
Plans note and I can only repeat that while I absolutely support diversity, I 
personally am more attuned to economic issues that affect the working class.I just 
am not convinced that focus on diversity within an organization is the route 
to growth.It may very well be that persons of color and women are 
underrepresented on the various GRP committees.My own attitude on this is to remedy the 
situation internally and move on. This may not satisfy those who want to focus 
on racism, gender discrimination, and similar issues either internally or 
externally, and again we will have to agree to disagree on where individually we 
wish to place effort.In this connection, you may get an edge on my views re 
diversity by reading my two  recent membership posts.I prefer not to argue the 
nuances and the issue is-can there be diversity about diversity within the GRP?

Will probably take it easy over the summer since I will be away for part of 
the time and work on trying to develop the Watertown-Belmont club as well as a 
method to seek  recognition of the various tendencies in GRP and ways to have 
these tendencies cooperate.Disagreement is not the end goal.Unity 
is.Recognizing the diversity of viewpoints may actually help the process of consensus,not 
hinder it.

In trying to recognize shadings of opinion, my only goal is to belong to a 
mass based unified party,not to aggravate dissension,though this might sound 
paradoxical.And though a rationalist to the end, the fragility of my own life 
situation has led me more often these days to see the human heart as having the 
capacity for leading the way.

Finally, I try to end all my critiques with a loud and resounding debt of 
gratitude to those like yourself and your colleagues who have labored to keep 
alive the hopes of a significant third party challenge to the bankruptcy of the 
other  two parties.

Best regards
Paul Wernick