I’ve read with interest over the past few months the numerous articles that have become the “What’s in a name?” discussion. I think all of the articles have displayed a high-level of integrity and maturity; all have tried to honestly and sincerely address different and difficult aspects of an on-going and important discussion around the name of our organization and its purpose. Undoubtedly, all of the articles and discussions are part of a healthy process, exemplifying internal democracy, transparency, openness to change and new ideas. In other words, it has been a rich and engaging discussion.

Unfortunately though, in many regards the discussion has been too narrowly focused. To-date, we have largely focused on questions of internal substance and form, on redefining what it means to be a communist (substance) and organizing ourselves accordingly (form).

In fact, the discussion has raised very important questions: How do we define ourselves? Should we change our name? What does communism mean to us? What is our purpose? Are we a Party?

While all of these questions are necessary and deserve attention, they only peripherally deals with what I see as the real issues - our size and possible tactics for growth, which is what I hope to address.

Additionally, the nature of this discussion has caused what I would call miss-the-forest-from-the-trees analysis, an analysis that has lost sight of the most relevant point – our desperate need to grow.

Furthermore, I think it is unfortunate that as a materialist organization grounded in science, we are more comfortable talking about names, identities and definitions than about results – demonstrable, concrete, tangible results. I think it is unfortunate that we are more comfortable talking about names, identities and definitions than actually developing a concrete, coherent plan for growth that includes deliverables, timelines and a much higher level of stakeholder accountability.

This may not make me any friends, but I think we need a different approach to how we have this discussion. I think any organization that is serious about growth, influence and building power has to continually develop new and verifiable approaches to growth. New approaches by themselves aren’t enough; we need to be able to verify that our new approaches are actually getting the desired results.

In other words, we need to set criteria for discussion and debate that is grounded in results; we need a rubric by-which we can gauge our successes and failures, by-which we can assess if we are actually gaining ground or moving backwards.

In short, I am arguing that we take ourselves more seriously; that we really embrace living-breathing Marxism by getting results, not by quoting from Marx, Engels or Lenin’s many volumes; not by having another internal ideological discussion.

In that regard, what follows is decidedly non-ideological. Let me be clear, my approach isn’t anti-ideological. We have a proud Marxist heritage and we have made many wonderful contributions to the ideology, which we will undoubtedly continue to do. However, in this article my goal is to approach pertinent organizational questions as a results-based field organizer first, and then secondly as a communist, as I believe the discussion thus-far has suffered from too much communist analysis.

Steps in our organizational rubric

In my opinion as an organizer, we desperately need an organizational rubric by-which we judge our performance, as rubrics focus on measuring a stated objective, use a range to rate performance and then indicate the degree to-which the objectives are reached.

For the sake of clarity, a rubric is defined as a scoring tool for assessments; it is a set of criteria and standards used to assess performance; it allows for a standardized evaluation according to specific criteria, which makes assessments transparent; it eliminates inconsistencies, while providing ground for self-evaluation, reflection and review.

Rubrics include one or many different steps by-which performance is rated. Some rubrics employ a rating scale for each dimension, goal or criteria; others are considerably less complex. For our purposes, I think a simple rubric with five steps will suffice.  

Most importantly, as we move forward, we should keep in mind that rubrics help participants become thoughtful evaluators of their and other people’s work; having a thoughtful, honest evaluation of our work is the first step towards becoming the organization we envision – a mass organization with real influence and power.

The first step in our rubric should have participants look at and develop agreed upon models of good vs. "not-so-good’ work. This could be an analysis of past practices or of victories/defeats; I would urge that we look at our actual work, as it is our organization that we have a primary responsibility in building and as a stronger Communist Party necessarily leads to a stronger movement for economic and social justice.

The second step in our rubric should be to list the criteria to be used and allow for discussion of what counts as "quality" work. Asking for feedback is important, as we will have very different definitions of "quality" work based on experience, location, history, etc.

The third step in our rubric should be to articulate our shared definition of "quality" work and highlight acceptable gradations. Hierarchical categories should concisely describe the levels of "quality," while allowing for fluctuations that exist given the nature of our work, the ebbs and flows of the movement, red-baiting, etc. Currently, in my opinion, our shared definition of "quality" is very low.      
 
The forth step in our rubric should be practice; discussion and role-playing of sample assignments provides an opportunity to build confidence by demonstrating how successful and/or best-practices have been implemented. Practice also facilitates reliability, while providing for a common approach to common problems.   

The fifth, and probably most important step in our rubric is self and peer-assessment or evaluation. It is okay to honestly assess peer skill level, capacity at getting results and ability to work collectively/independently. We should have peer assessments at every level of our organization; in my opinion, no individual or collective is above assessment or evaluation. Most often, poor peer performance is due to a lack of clarity; we usually do not clearly identify the expected demonstrable results that are expected of our peers.

Additionally, one of the main weaknesses of our movement (and this is true of all grassroots, democratic organizations) is our inability to objectively assess performance and skill, and when necessary ask people to step down. We rarely say, “It just isn’t working out. We expect more. We want results.”

Don’t misunderstand me: this doesn’t mean that there isn’t a place for members who lack the above mentioned skills, capacity and ability; nor does it mean we shouldn’t take the time to train people. In my opinion, we need to devote a lot more time and energy to hands-on leadership development. Obviously, we need to make room for all types of members (passive members, activist members, leaders, etc.). However, my primary focus in regards to step five of our rubric is developing and training leaders; people who are proficient, professional and results-based.

We have finite resources and we should develop a culture of transparency, high expectations and accountability, especially when identifying and training leaders. See my article “Towards a Leadership Criteria” for a more detailed analysis.

While rubrics are often used as a means by-which to assess a students’ educational capacity, they can also be used to reflect a process of developing “real-life” approaches to organizational necessities. Of special importance for us is a mutually agreed upon negotiated contract for success that incorporates input from relevant stakeholders, i.e., for example, leaders in our organization who reflect and speak-for a defined membership base and bring-in a defined amount of money.

In my opinion, while other input is appreciated, the main criteria for moving forward with our organizational rubric should be agreed upon by those who in-fact represent dues paying members and in-fact fund our organization. Their input is especially needed, as they are the ones who organize and mobilize our base; if these stakeholders are not bought-in our organizational rubric is meaningless and we will not be successful. Conversely, if our stakeholder definition is too broad – if it includes people who do-not represent dues paying members and do-not fund our organization – then any plan we develop will be largely meaningless, as our stakeholders will lack the on-the-ground organizational capacity and infrastructure to actually get anything done.

In short, we currently have too many cooks in the kitchen.

Additionally, a key advantage in this type of analysis is that it forces stakeholder clarification of a shared definition of success by establishing clear benchmarks for achievement. Concomitantly, as stakeholder buy-in is collectively agreed upon, collective benchmarks are developed objectively and consistently with an eye towards verifiable goals creating a culture of high expectations.

The Party is arguably already moving in this direction, albeit without the actual rubric steps and stakeholder definitions employed above. The increased focus on setting People’s World and Political Affairs readership goals, on district sustainer goals, on member contact in organized and unorganized areas, and on leadership development (schools) all argue for and demonstrate a willingness to move our organization into a more practical, results-based direction that acknowledges our necessity for growth, though much more work needs to be done.

Our agreed upon short-term to mid-term goals should be coupled with long-term tactical and strategic objectives. While our Party program outlines our external strategic objective of defeating the ultra-right, it does very little to address our internal strategic objectives, nor does it address the necessary tactics needed to building our organizations’ real, demonstrable influence and power.

Power: “In a conflict between two rights, power is the final arbiter.” – Karl Marx

For our purposes, power is the ability to control, create or prevent change. So first and foremost, let’s dispense with other notions and definitions of power. It isn’t bourgeois; it isn’t elitist; it isn’t egotistical; it isn’t any of the things we’ve been taught. It is the ability to control, create or prevent change.

Organizationally, we cannot be so naive as to not address issues of power – how we build it, what it means and how we employ it to achieve stakeholder benchmarks and organizational objectives.

Most importantly, stakeholder benchmarks discussed and agreed upon as part of our organizational rubric should be inseparable from our desire to become a more influential, more powerful organization. If employed correctly, the dialectical relationship between getting concrete results and becoming a more influential – more powerful – organization should be abundantly clear, as it is only through power and influence that we are able to live out our communist values in real life.

So the question emerges: How do we become more powerful as an organization, and as a result grow? Coupled with questions of power are concerns regarding our actual relevance. Are we relevant? I think, in most places we are not relevant, which has a direct bearing on our ability to grow.

In my experience as an organizer, people want to be a part of an organization that can get results, that can make a demonstrable impact on their day-to-day lives; people want to be part of an organization that is relevant. An African American trade union leader once told me, “No one wants to be a member of a chump organization.” I think he is absolutely right.

Stakeholders should take this hard reality into account as we move forward and accept as fact that we are largely irrelevant in most places; they should then begin a process of rebuilding with an eye towards becoming relevant.

In relation to power, I will offer three concrete suggestions that I think will streamline our work, maximize our resources and begin the process of moving us towards broad influence and power; the suggestions also directly relate to our relevance. The first suggestion requires very little actual work on our part; the second and third suggestions require a shift in how we work, not necessarily more work.

Additionally, the above rubric can be employed locally and nationally, and forms the basis for my suggestions below.

First, stakeholders should do an honest and objective assessment or survey of our actual, on-the-ground organizational capacity, membership, financial resources and ally support: What can we do? Who can we move to act? How many people can we turn-out to a strike, picket, rally, electoral campaign, etc.? How much money can we move to fund coalition partners and campaigns? Can we employ our resources strategically? Do we have the capacity to make-or-break local elections? Do our actions empower us and build support for future action? Are we seen as an essential part of local coalitions, groups and unions? What is the "quality" of our work? These are just some of the questions we should ask ourselves.

Currently, if we answer these questions honestly, we are lacking in every arena. In other words, our actual, on-the-ground capacity is at a very low level. While some individual communists (in some areas) have influence in their unions, community groups and coalitions – influence that far out-weighs our actual size – the Communist Party as an organization does not; and we should not confuse the two.

We should honestly address this issue as it directly relates to our actual on-the-ground organizational capacity: If we hope to be a mass organization capable of influencing change, can we afford to confuse moving other organizations’ members with moving our own?

Second, after an honest assessment is made of our capacity, we should agree to stop spending money, time and resources on activities that don’t build capacity. If our goal is to grow, we should not spend money, time and resources on activities that do not facilitate quantifiable growth; we should be able to quantifiably gauge the results of our actions, our success vs. failure ratio. Additionally, publicly quantifying our work is a condition for developing a new membership and investor base. We should not think of ourselves as selfless, behind-the-scenes martyrs; it is inconsistent with our values, and it does not build our organizational capacity. If we want to live-out our values publicly, we should publicly claim our work.

In short, we should invest money, time and resources primarily to the degree that we will get a return on our investment, to the degree that we will get money, time and resources in return.

In many regards the Party is already moving in this direction; National Board and National Committee discussions have recently emphasized the need to eliminate administrative tasks and bottlenecks (especially in-regards to online work), activities that cost time and money, but do not contribute to our core capacity. Undoubtedly, more work needs to be done in many different areas.   

Third – after the honest assessment of our actual capacity, after the refocusing of energies into activities that result in increased capacity – we should consciously employ tactics that grow our organizations’ influence and power. For example, we should consciously target our energies, consolidate our presence, develop investor bases, and then move-on to new target areas. If our internal strategic objective is to grow into a more influential, more powerful organization then we should employ tactics that achieve that objective. 

Whether it is in an aldermanic or city council ward, a state representative district, a key industry or union, we need to target our energies to maximize effectiveness and get results. As any honest assessment of our capacity will easily demonstrate, we (the Communist Party) are entirely too small to accomplish anything of consequence if we are not focused. It is easily a matter of deduction: we must target organizations, communities and campaigns to be effective; to maximize our effectiveness we must focus our members’ energies. This requires stakeholders who in-fact represent members.

In short, stakeholder benchmarks should focus the effectiveness of a small membership to get results.

We should not work under the illusion that large numbers of people will join or fund our organization for altruistic reasons. Furthermore, our ideas should not be the basis of our on-the-ground organizing strategy. Our organizing strategy should be centered on getting results and becoming relevant, on engaging people in real-life struggles, as our ideas matter very little if we lack the troops on-the-ground to implement them.   

We should not work under the illusion that large numbers of people will join or fund our organization for anything other than self-interest. In my opinion, we should embrace and acknowledge that people will join our organization, fund or volunteer for it, because it is in their self-interest to do so.

In fact, we want people to join or fund our organization out of self-interest, as that will mean we are an effective, results-based, relevant organization capable of controlling, creating or preventing change.

If self-interest is identified as a key reason for joining or funding our organization, it is easily a matter of deduction to assess whether-or-not we are living up to our part of the tacit member-to-organization relationship. In other words, we will be able to assess if we are in-fact getting the type of on-the-ground results that justify membership.
   
If we want to build a new membership and investor base of people who are invested in our success precisely because their success depends on our effectiveness, then we have to get results.

A strong Party organizational presence in target areas not only strengthens the coalitions, communities and unions that we are a part of, it inextricably links our organizational capacity to the broad people’s movement ensuring our participation and leadership on-the-ground, which is where we need to grow. Concomitantly, by building a membership or investor base that relies on our effectiveness, on our ability to get results, on our ability to impact their lives, we become relevant.

Like any effective political machine, we should target areas for concentration, consolidate a membership base, develop investors among that base, and then move-on to the next target area. Additionally, as we consolidate our base and develop investors, we make it impossible to easily extricate or disentangle our organization as success depends on our members’ work, which gives us organizational power and influence.

As I said above, power is the ability to control, create or prevent change. In my opinion, if we are to build any semblance of power we need to honestly assess our capacity, stop doing things that don’t build capacity and employ tactics that grow our organizations’ influence and power, all with an eye towards identifying member and organizational self-interest.

For purposes of clarity, the above is an attempt at developing a “real-life” approach to our organizational necessity for growth; I make no claim to possess a monopoly on tactical best-practices. Other approaches may fit other communities’ realities better. However, as a results-based grassroots organizer analyzing our actual organizational on-the-ground capacity, I would urge strongly that we develop tactics that have clearly defined stakeholder benchmarks and are coupled with a very clear understanding of our member and organizational self-interest.

My point: we currently lack a cohesive approach to becoming relevant, to getting results and building power. And as long as we are largely irrelevant and powerless there is very little incentive for people to join our organization. What do they get out of it? How do we make their lives better?

A hard look at a proud organization

The above is probably a hard pill to swallow, especially for people who have devoted the entirety of their lives to our organization; to an organization “as it was,” not an organization in the process of becoming. However, we need precisely this type of wake-up-call if we are to survive, grow and eventually become a real force for progressive change, something we haven’t been for many, many years.

Additionally, I have probably made some people very angry; some people will say that our primary role is within the realm of ideas, not results; some people will say we can’t quantify everything; some people will not stomach my emphasis on power and influence. For those comrades, we will have to agree to disagree.

Obviously, my analysis is decidedly non-ideological; what I’ve outlined above could be employed by any organization, coalition or union – by organizations that have been much more successful at getting results. Undoubtedly, ideology should play an important role in our organizational development as we move forward, primarily through the education of our members and the broader public.

Additionally, I did not touch on our online work, especially in regards to online members. I think our approach to online work is still developing. In my experience, we are making every attempt to contact and consolidate online members as quickly as possible. While I agree that we should not set-up men of straw (i.e. internet organizing vs. on-the-ground organizing), we should however address questions of how we build power with an online membership base. How do we get them involved in real, demonstrable ways? How do we mobilize them? How do we turn them into sustainers? Among many, many other questions.   

I believe the pendulum of organizational priorities should be balanced; not weighed too-much in one direction or the other. As is probably obvious, I think our priorities are currently weighed too much towards ideology, to the detriment of our actual on-the-ground capacity.

In my opinion, our goal as communists is to create change. While we can undoubtedly change peoples’ consciousness by doing a better job within the realm of ideas, we ignore the on-the-ground realm of political necessity at our own peril.

Furthermore, as an organization we cannot build a base of power in the abstract; power is concrete; power is the ability to control, create or prevent change. If we agree that our goal is to change the world then it is incumbent upon us to build a relevant and powerful organization capable of leveraging  its power for member and organizational self-interest. As Marx said, “In a conflict between two rights, power is the final arbiter.”

In his comment on Sam Webb’s article “A Party of Socialism in the 21st Century,” C.J. Atkins wrote: “I think power and relevance are at the heart of what we need to be thinking about as a political movement. Power, in the sense of political influence and the ability to move people and policy in a desired direction, should be central to any party or political organization.”

Atkins’ comments are good advice. We need more members and stakeholders who share this perspective.

Our history is a proud history and our country is undoubtedly better-off because of the Communist Party. However, unless we take a hard look at ourselves and seriously commit to substantial strategic growth – membership, financial and influential growth – we will remain an organization with a proud history. And no amount of discussion or debate about names, identities or definitions will matter because we will have lost any claim to relevancy in the eyes of the class we represent.

Photo by AFL-CIO/cc by 2.0/Flickr