on making mistakes

[kasama]

Recently, we have started to serious work on raising our methods of discussion. And this has involved mutual criticism of method and posts.

And sometimes this is new. And people are shocked to discuvoer they have "made mistakes" in what they said or did.

So the question comes up: How do we respond to it when we make mistakes? Do we say "geez, I am the problem, i'm fucking things up"? Is it correct to withdraw and say "If I don't do anything, I am guaranteed not to fuck up again"?

I think this would be a big mistake (often a BIGGER mistake!!)

And so I want to post a valuable essay by our main man that gives some orientation on this. And the fact that he wrote an essay on this shows that this problem of "retreat after a mistake" is not a personal, but a general, problem that has come up more widely.

[kasama]

[glow=red,2,300]Part 8: Taking Responsibility, Taking Initiative, and Not Being Paralyzed by Mistakes
by Bob Avakian[/glow]

Revolutionary Worker #1203, June 15, 2003, posted at rwor.org/a/1203/bareach8.htm


I want to talk a little bit about "what it takes," that is, what is required to rise to the responsibility of leading, being a part of the vanguard and even being part of the leadership of the Party. In the Constitution of our Party it makes the point that Party members should be prepared to take any post and fulfill any task that is required to carry out our responsibility to the international proletariat. That's a very serious challenge for us. Now, it is important to make an honest assessment of what you are capable of contributing at any given point--if you're called on to do something you're not really capable of doing, you should say so. That's part of objectively analyzing reality, as well. But that shouldn't become a sort of rationalization for not rising to challenges when they're presented. We have to have an orientation of wanting the ball, an orientation of rising to the responsibilities and the challenges we face -- those that are brought forward by the objective development of things, and those that result from what the Party, through its collectivity, its channels and its leadership, calls on us to do.

We should not take this up uncritically, unthinkingly, but we have to have that orientation of taking up any post and any responsibility we are called on to assume. We have to have a conquering spirit, not in some sort of quasi-religious sense, but grounded in materialism and guided by dialectics. And this means not being intimidated or overawed by things. This is an important aspect of being able to lead and to take responsibility on whatever level you're called on to do it. Of course, we should all realize that the stakes of things these days are very great, and are constantly being raised. If we make mistakes they have real consequences. We don't have state power to lose, unfortunately, but we could lose a lot if we make serious mistakes. So that can be intimidating, that can be paralyzing. But that's why we have collectivity, and why we have a structure to the Party and leadership, why we have guidelines, why we have various documents as well as the Revolutionary Worker to orient people. But, within that framework, we need people to take initiative. And we need people not to be intimidated or overawed.

We have to handle a very acute contradiction between, on the one hand, the fact that if we make a serious mistake we could really screw things up, and on the other hand, needing an attitude on a certain level of: if you make mistakes, so what? That's another unity of opposites. You have to handle that correctly. You can't have either just one or the other. "Oh, if I make a mistake, so what -- so I caused a real setback -- that's OK." Well, it's not OK. On the other hand, if for fear of that you don't take initiative, you are always waiting for people to tell you what to do about every aspect of things -- or even when they do tell you what you should do, when they give you basic orientation and guidance, you don't do it because you're afraid of making mistakes, you're afraid of your own shadow, you're paralyzed by fear of causing dire consequences. Clearly, that won't lead anywhere positive either. We have to take responsibility for everything, including what we do and our own mistakes. And taking responsibility for that means being willing, on the one hand, to risk things in the framework in which we should-- which is ultimately and fundamentally determined collectively, but also has an individual component, an aspect in which individual initiative, on the basis of the common line and policy, is very important. It also means taking responsibility for recognizing and correcting our errors and openly discussing them with others and helping others as well as ourselves to learn from them when we make them, and doing our best not to repeat errors.

At the same time, let me emphasize it again: it is of decisive importance not to be paralyzed by our mistakes, or by the fear of making mistakes--there is an aspect in which it is correct to say "so what?" with regard to mistakes that we may make. In this regard, it is worth looking at the document "Revisionists Are Revisionists...and Revolutionaries Are Revolutionaries...," which was written as part of the struggle within our Party over what stand to take toward the revisionist coup in China following Mao's death in 1976.*

"Revisionists/Revolutionaries" is full of "so what's": the Chinese leadership, after they overthrew the "gang of four," they had a big demonstration and millions of people denounced the gang of four...so what? It's full of a lot of "so what's" like that, and those "so what's" have meaning. It's not just being oblivious to reality and going blithely along--ignorance is bliss. It's saying, "Look, let's keep our eye on the big things, on the essential questions here." As it points out, anybody can organize a demonstration of a lot people if they have state power. That's not so hard to do, at least in the short run. That doesn't answer the question of what line different forces represent and what road this or that program will take people on.

So, it's important to have an orientation of, on the one hand, taking all this very seriously, and taking responsibility for all that we do, including our mistakes; but, on the other hand--and correctly understood-- we need that "so what" orientation of being unafraid, including being unafraid to make mistakes, even while working very hard to minimize mistakes as much as possible, and to learn from them as much as possible when mistakes are made.

______________________
FOOTNOTES:
* "Revisionists Are Revisionists and Must Not Be Supported; Revolutionaries Are Revolutionaries and Must be Supported" was written by Bob Avakian and played a key role in uniting the majority of the RCP around the line of exposing and opposing the revisionist coup and the restoration of capitalism in China and in defeating a line within the RCP that would have supported and mirrored the line of the revisionists in China who came to power through the coup. This document and other key documents, on both sides of the struggle within the RCP over this decisive question, are reproduced in the book Revolution and Counter-Revolution (Chicago: RCP Publications, 1978). [Return to article]

[kasama]

in short:

I think we need to discuss (collectively!) the whole issue of "mistakes" -- and how we respond to our own mistakes.

[Andrei_X]

On the other hand, if for fear of that you don't take initiative, you are always waiting for people to tell you what to do about every aspect of things -- or even when they do tell you what you should do, when they give you basic orientation and guidance, you don't do it because you're afraid of making mistakes, you're afraid of your own shadow, you're paralyzed by fear of causing dire consequences.

Very very true!

In my brief nearly-3 years of being a Maoist, I can say that I have struggled deeply with what it means to make a mistake and how to fix it. My own personal problems with self-hatred and beating myself up really mixed into this, and when I made a political error, I had this idea that I was some fucked-up revisionist or capitalist-roader on the same level as Deng or Liu. However, in struggling with comrades over this, I have realized that if such were true, then everyone would be "revisionist"! No one is born a Communist, and no one is perfect, so why should I expect myself to be?

As long as I try to avoid errors, and rectify any errors that I do make in a Marxist way, there is no need to be so hard on myself. This is STILL a very big struggle though.

[redstar2000]

Bob Avakian wrote: In the Constitution of our Party it makes the point that Party members should be prepared to take any post and fulfill any task that is required to carry out our responsibility to the international proletariat.

When I wrote several posts awhile back about the "military" outlook of the Leninist paradigm, this example would have been useful.

The subtext is "just tell me what you want me to do and I'll do it".

If the task is a responsible one, you might be able to talk your way out of it by claiming lack of qualification. But if it's "shit work", you're stuck.

But why would anyone want to do that? It's all "for the revolution" and "somebody" has to do this work...why not you?

Presuming that you're not inherently "lazy and selfish" (why would someone like that be interested in communism at all?), there might be many possible reasons.

1. You're exhausted already.

2. You really don't like that particular job and would much prefer some other variety of "shit work".

3. There's some other kind of political work that you feel much more competent at...and that is what you really want to spend your time doing.

4. You actually disagree with the focus of your proposed assignment, for either political or practical reasons or both.

Whatever your reasons might be, you will find yourself in an extremely awkward position vis a vis your party superiors. Voicing your objections in a clear way may be the most principled course...but you will lose "brownie points" (if you care about that...some don't). You may try to concoct a "politically correct" excuse to get out from under the odious task...but that's not as easy as it sounds.

You're not exactly "a soldier under orders"...but it partakes of that atmosphere. You are definitely vulnerable to "guilt-tripping" in such situations.

I recall one ex-Leninist writing about what it was like after he departed his particular party...he said something along the lines of how it took him a year or so to "get used to being a civilian again".

Living a political life under the direction of others definitely has its drawbacks...even if you don't make any mistakes.

[RosaRL]

rs2000 -- wow! reading over your post I find it very very hard to see how you can hold the view that it would be possible to go strait to communism.

There are other ways of doing things than the 'worker/boss' relationship.. where you have this head down attitude -- 'yes massa'

But the point of this post was not about taking up 'shit jobs' (which everyone has to do things that they dont like from time to time and what one person considers a shit job, another might really fucking love doing), but rather it was about being willing to take on new things, being willing to take the risks to learn to lead -- to step up -- even when you might feel like backing down and saying 'let the other guy with more experience do it'.

And even when, having given it a try, you find that you are making mistakes that the other more experienced guy might not make -- but if you dont get a chance to do certain things then you can never learn to do them well. But when we are trying to learn how to do things that are new to us we cant just give up after the first mistake and HOPE someone else will do it. That way we would NEVER learn.

And ultimately what you would be doing if you avoided taking up and learning how to do new things would just reinforce the differences between mental and manual labor.

[redstar2000]

Yes, RosaRL, I realize that I was slightly "off-topic" in my last post...but the quote from the RCP Constitution "tempted me and I did eat".

I agree with your point that in order to learn new skills we must be prepared to make mistakes...no one "gets it right" the first time.

But my observation is that there is work that "attracts us" -- even if we don't know how to do it yet -- and work that repels us...and would repel us even if we did know how to do it.

For example, years ago I worked on several underground newspapers...not just writing material, but also type-setting and paste-up. I essentially taught myself how to do that stuff and found it very enjoyable "shit-work". Yet in all those years, I don't think I ever sold a single copy to the general public.

Why not? I hated selling! There was nothing I wouldn't stoop to in order to avoid it...on one occasion going so far as to put up a substantial sum of my own money to purchase newspaper vending machines.

Imagine my fate in a Leninist party -- they all have their weekly or bi-weekly tabloids. And all but a very few leaders have to get out on the streets and "push the rag". (Back in the days of the old CPUSA, people would pick up their consignments of the Daily Worker, take the money to pay for them out of their own pockets, and dump the papers themselves into the trash. Modern Leninist parties avoid that by sending out teams to sell their papers.)

My approach is different.

Yes, I think we should encourage people to engage in new tasks and learn new skills...yet we must be sensitive to the personalities of those people and what they feel comfortable in doing.

If a group uses "peer pressure" or "commandism" to get people to do stuff, then people will quickly grow tired of that crap and leave. If instead we allow people to "gravitate" towards work that they feel competent in, that they enjoy doing, etc., then they will be more likely to "hang in there" for the long haul.

It does little good to train someone in the rudiments of Marxism, extract a burst of activity from them, and then watch them leave after a year or two.

There are many useful activities and talents required in the revolutionary process...we should let people find the ones they like and do them.

[MundoQueGanar]

To bring the discussion back around to the original topic--

I found this sentence to be the heart of the essay: We should not take this up uncritically, unthinkingly, but we have to have that orientation of taking up any post and any responsibility we are called on to assume. We have to have a conquering spirit, not in some sort of quasi-religious sense, but grounded in materialism and guided by dialectics.

To me, this means that people are called on to really understand for THEMSELVES "what is to be done" and be ready to DO it. Part of this means that YES in fact that leadership and discipline are necessary, but that in NO way relieves anyone of the responsibility for THINKING, and being firmly "grounded in materialism, and guided by dialectics". You've got to be RADICALLY grounded as a "tribune of the people", out deeply amongst the people, restlessly deepening your understanding and taking intiative, while also firmly grasping that you are part of a revolutionary movement that requires leadership and organization in order to go over the top and continue onward toward the final goal of communism.

[I couldn't resist making this side note: Some people (hell, LOTS of people) make a big deal about the leadership part. But ingrained in this whole "what is to be done"-ist approach is the requirement that at the same time that we build a disciplined, democratic-centralist organization, we are unleashing people to BECOME leaders, to TAKE initiative and to constantly be laying the groundwork for overcoming (and actually overcoming) the leadership/led contradiction. The more we ground people in the revolutionary science of MLM, the more possible this is.]

This was an important essay for me to re-read because I know that the mistakes I tend to make are about being subjective--especially in getting distracted by my disagreements with the lines of other forces, and giving more attention to those contradictions than what is warranted. Getting more grounded in "what is to be done" always helps me see past the smaller conflicts (that can sometimes take on a "personal" character) and realy get into the important questions of line and practice.

I thought that the part on how to handle mistakes that you've made was especially illuminating. Making sure that you don't fall off on one side or the other ("Ah, I've fucked up! Now the revolution will NEVER happen, and it's ALL MY FAULT!" vs. "Aw, fuck it, so a dozen comrades got rounded up because I couldn't keep my mouth shut, big deal, we've got more") is also about knowing what you've gotta do, which, again, means being radically grounded and possessing the conquering spirit.

And it's also been important for me to re-read this article because getting caught up in "movement-ism" subjects me to the STRONG pull of spontanaeity, and can cause me to lose sight of the bigger goal. It's important for revolutionaries to never be "going through the motions" or be content with being "the best organizer" or the person who makes the phone calls, sends the emails, and so on. Again, it's the distinction that Lenin made between the "trade union secretary" mentality and the "tribune of the people" in WITBD.

Thanks for posting this article Kasama!!!

[XiaoDi]

A veteran comrade told me this story some years ago when a series of mistakes had left me politically paralyzed:

Back in 1959 or thereabouts, W E B Dubois went on a trip to China. He visited with Mao, who ask Dubois how the struggle for Black liberation was going in the US. Dubois lamented the lack of progress and sighed, “I have made so many mistakes.” The Chairman’s response was simple: “Phhht, mistakes,” he said, spitting out the word. “We have all made many mistakes. But there is only one real mistake, and that is to fail to make revolution.”

Bottom line: it is far better to make mistakes in making revolution than to succeed perfectly in not making revolution.

[Sting like a Bee]

It is also important not to negate the need for self-criticism and actually recognizing that errors are being made (and proceeding to rectify those errors), in the name of recognizing that errors are inevitable and should not paralyze us. Some of the tone of the above, IMHO, seems to be heading down the road of negating self-criticism and the actual correction of errors in the name of 'not letting errors paralyze us.'