Moving from Juche ideology to a Khrushchevite view

[Heather]

Hello;

For quite some time now, I've viewed myself as a Kimist, that is, an adherent of the Juche ideology of the DPRK. I went so far as to start putting together an American political party along the lines of the Workers' Party of Korea. You can see a tiny bit of the website that I was putting together (a blog) at blog.jucheidea.org (no www).

There was actually an entire website to accompany the blog at one point, but it unfortunately got lost when I lost a hard drive (I had taken the main site offline until I worked out whether or not it was really safe to start such an explicitly pro-DPRK organisation). But you can get an idea of what I was trying to do from the fragment linked above that still remains.

Recently, I've been undergoing something of a crisis of conscience. Without intending to find a new ideology, mainly as a result of a lot of reading that I've done, I've begun to think of my leanings as being more Khrushchevite than Kimist. Not that I have anything against the Kims or the Juche ideology by any stretch of the imagination; quite the opposite. However, the more that I read of Khrushchev's writings and speeches, the more that I think that his vision of Communism much more clearly mirrors my own interpretations of Marx.

This has led to a huge amount of confusion and uncertainty for me. It might sound ridiculous, but I've actually had trouble sleeping as a result of this dilemma. I wonder whether anyone else has had similar experiences. I wonder whether anyone else has found themselves increasingly enamoured of Khrushchev as a result of studying his work.

I guess that I don't really have much of a question here. I'm just feeling really lost and confused right now and wonder whether anyone here might be able to relate. Thanks so much for taking the time to read my post.

Solidarity forever,

Comrade Heather.

[Qayin]

Oh lord

[cenv]

Hello;

For quite some time now, I've viewed myself as a Kimist, that is, an adherent of the Juche ideology of the DPRK. I went so far as to start putting together an American political party along the lines of the Workers' Party of Korea. You can see a tiny bit of the website that I was putting together (a blog) at blog.jucheidea.org (no www).

There was actually an entire website to accompany the blog at one point, but it unfortunately got lost when I lost a hard drive (I had taken the main site offline until I worked out whether or not it was really safe to start such an explicitly pro-DPRK organisation). But you can get an idea of what I was trying to do from the fragment linked above that still remains.

Recently, I've been undergoing something of a crisis of conscience. Without intending to find a new ideology, mainly as a result of a lot of reading that I've done, I've begun to think of my leanings as being more Khrushchevite than Kimist. Not that I have anything against the Kims or the Juche ideology by any stretch of the imagination; quite the opposite. However, the more that I read of Khrushchev's writings and speeches, the more that I think that his vision of Communism much more clearly mirrors my own interpretations of Marx.

This has led to a huge amount of confusion and uncertainty for me. It might sound ridiculous, but I've actually had trouble sleeping as a result of this dilemma. I wonder whether anyone else has had similar experiences. I wonder whether anyone else has found themselves increasingly enamoured of Khrushchev as a result of studying his work.

I guess that I don't really have much of a question here. I'm just feeling really lost and confused right now and wonder whether anyone here might be able to relate. Thanks so much for taking the time to read my post.

Solidarity forever,

Comrade Heather.

You need to ask yourself why you're a Marxist in the first place. Is it because you want to establish socialism, a society based on working-class power? If so, then you should shift the way you look at communism and start thinking more about issues that impact the working class and its movement in the present day, and less about dead people and their ideologies. There's an infinite number of dead Marxists, all with their own subtly unique ideologies. As a communist, you need to figure out what you think and how you want to fight for your class. Trying to cram yourself in to an ideological box will only frustrate and confuse you.

PS. maybe you should reread the Manifesto and ask yourself whether you really think the DPRK is consistent with socialism.

[Raúl Duke]

I don't think you'll have lots of political allies in this board...
Virtually all here are not for Juche and all the Marxist-Leninists in this board view Krushchev in a bad light (i.e. revisionist, counter-revolutionary, reactionary).
I'll (an anarchist no less!) may try to make an effort to be helpful in towards helping you solve your problem.
Exactly why did you suddenly become enamored to Kruschev's stuff? What did he say that is in line with your interpretation of Marx?

[JimmyJazz]

PS. maybe you should reread the Manifesto and ask yourself whether you really think the DPRK is consistent with socialism.

What are you suggesting she compare the Manifesto to? CNN coverage of the DPRK? (I'm genuinely curious).

edit: but the rest of your post was some pretty damn good advice imo

[Rawthentic]

The Communist Manifesto is not a blueprint that we can look at and judge socialist states.

Clearly, North Korea is not such a state, and never has been.

Also, we shouldn't underestimate the importance of theory.

Cenv said:
There's an infinite number of dead Marxists, all with their own subtly unique ideologies. As a communist, you need to figure out what you think and how you want to fight for your class. Trying to cram yourself in to an ideological box will only frustrate and confuse you.
This is very wrong.

Embedded within this assumption is that we should ignore the wealth of experience of the past 150 years since communism was founded (as a movement and ideology) and just create our own interpretations of marxism and proceed from there to "fight for our class". It is eclecticism.

I don't think that dogmatism is good either. We shouldn't "box" ourselves up. But I also think we need to be deeply theoretical and dig into how we make revolution, organize the people, etc. Without this, there will never be revolution. A revolutionary movement needs correct policies, lines, theories to proceed.

Mao said, "Ideological and political line is key." And I think this is crucial to understand.

[cenv]

What are you suggesting she compare the Manifesto to? CNN coverage of the DPRK? (I'm genuinely curious).
Heh, you make a good point. The answer is...I don't know? :tt2: But if she is setting up a pro-DPRK site, I figure she has some source of information.


The Communist Manifesto is not a blueprint that we can look at and judge socialist states.

Clearly, North Korea is not such a state, and never has been.

Also, we shouldn't underestimate the importance of theory.
All I meant was that the OP should reevaluate her support for the DPRK in light of fundamental Marxism -- sometimes it's good to get back to the basics. I never said anything about the Manifesto being a "blueprint."


Embedded within this assumption is that we should ignore the wealth of experience of the past 150 years since communism was founded (as a movement and ideology) and just create our own interpretations of marxism and proceed from there to "fight for our class". It is eclecticism.

I don't think that dogmatism is good either. We shouldn't "box" ourselves up. But I also think we need to be deeply theoretical and dig into how we make revolution, organize the people, etc. Without this, there will never be revolution. A revolutionary movement needs correct policies, lines, theories to proceed.
I never suggested that we should ignore the past of Marxism. That's just a straw man. Since you bring it up, I don't think we should ignore the history of our movement. I do think we should transcend it -- and this involves learning from it.

You worry that "there will never be revolution," but let's be honest here: if workers don't have a personal perspective on communism, if they don't understand what revolution means for them, there's never going to be revolution. This is especially important for us, fighting in a time when we are an extreme minority. If we don't figure out what communism means to us as individuals, we will burn out like so many others have.

This is also a reason thousands of revolutionary organizations of all stripes fail to connect with workers. They try to explain communism in ideological and abstract terms without inspiring workers to develop a personal connection to communism and figure out what revolution means to them as individuals.

Look, why d'you think CrimethInc manages to attract support from many people without offering any sort of strategy towards meaningful action or even any formal organization? Because they at least make an effort to make politics personal. If we could give communism that personal appeal, imagine how powerful it would become.

Don't worry, I'm not saying we should ignore our history. Far from it -- I think it's about time we started learning from it. But let's also make sure our politics come from our hearts, not the other way around. Figuring out what communism and political action means to us as individuals won't weaken our movement. It'll give us the strength to keep fighting and to inspire other people to rethink their own views.

[Rawthentic]

Look, communists are leaders. We only exist to lead the people in making revolution.

WE are the ones that need to put revolution and communism as the only solution the horrors of this system. This is our responsibility, not that of the people.

I do think it is important to understand what people think about communism. We should be able to get into that with them, discuss, and hopefully dispell certain misconceptions commonly held about communism.

And this movement also needs to connect with the aspirations of the people it leads. Without that, there is no movement, no revolution.

But to think that the revolutionary movement has failed so far because it has not connected with individuals (and their beliefs about communism) is just not true. Our goal is not to make "politics personal." I think it's wrong because communism needs to connect with the masses. Revolutions are made by classes of people.

If there is not strategy, short-term, and long terms goals, THEN WHERE ARE YOU GOING?

What is the purpose of anything you do if your politics are not consciously building towards a revolution?

Your politics are full of eclecticism and tailism. To you, it clearly doesn't matter if communist politics are at the fore - just as long as we make "politics personal," and connect with individuals' aspirations.

I mean, why should we "give communism appeal"? To me, that seems like you are saying that it should appeal to the lowest common denominator. It underestimates the role of communists as leaders. While you attempt to make it "appealing", you are watering down the core and heard of what communist revolution is all about.

[Dimentio]

No reply from OP yet. I got a bad feeling 'bout this.

[cenv]

I do think it is important to understand what people think about communism. We should be able to get into that with them, discuss, and hopefully dispell certain misconceptions commonly held about communism.
In reality, it's not as easy as "discussing" communism with them and "dispelling certain misconceptions commonly held about communism." By default, people (in the US - I don't have any experience elsewhere) despise and distrust communism. You have to win them over. You don't just do that by talking at them about your politics. You have to inspire them to see what communism means for them personally, to develop a personal connection to communism.



But to think that the revolutionary movement has failed so far because it has not connected with individuals (and their beliefs about communism) is just not true.
For some reason, people don't give a shit about the revolutionary movement. Don't you think that might indicate that communists are having a hard time connecting with them?


Our goal is not to make "politics personal."
Our goal is communism. Inspiring people to develop a personal connection to politics is one of the ways we get there.


I think it's wrong because communism needs to connect with the masses. Revolutions are made by classes of people.

"The masses" are made out of people. You can't "connect with the masses" without connecting with people.


If there is not strategy, short-term, and long terms goals, THEN WHERE ARE YOU GOING?

Are we talking about the same thing? I never said there shouldn't be any strategy or goals...:confused:


To you, it clearly doesn't matter if communist politics are at the fore - just as long as we make "politics personal," and connect with individuals' aspirations.
"Clearly"? Is that really clear to you? Because it's sure not clear to me, and I think I know what matters to me. Communist politics are the only politics that can, as you put it, 'make "politics personal" and connect with individuals' aspirations.' I'm not sure why you see a disconnect between the two.


I mean, why should we "give communism appeal"?
:blink:


While you attempt to make it "appealing", you are watering down the core and heard of what communist revolution is all about.
Really? What part of "the core" of communism is being watered down when people form a personal connection with communism?

I'm also curious how you plan on winning people over to communism without encouraging them to see how it relates to their lives and what it means for them personally.

Finally, I wonder what your advice to the original poster would be if you don't think encouraging her to think for herself was good advice.

[Rawthentic]

Are we talking about the same thing? I never said there shouldn't be any strategy or goals.
We are talking about the same thing:


Look, why d'you think CrimethInc manages to attract support from many people without offering any sort of strategy towards meaningful action or even any formal organization? Because they at least make an effort to make politics personal. If we could give communism that personal appeal, imagine how powerful it would become.

*****
Things are certainly not as simple as you put them. When I hear about revolutionaries attempting to make communism "appealing" that's like a big red flag for tailism. Why? Because it attempts to connect communism (a society connected to the HIGHEST interests of a CLASS of people) with what is in their immediate interests and concerns. This is not what communism or revolution are about. We need to organize the people around faultline struggles (in the US they would immigrant rights, anti war, etc) because those struggles have the ability (if led by communists) to expose the structural nature of the system. A movement based on immediate interests and making communism "appealing" based on personal aspirations does not break out of what Lenin termed "trade union consciousness". Now, this might seem "condescending" to workers, but, in reality, working people don't become communists through that. They need to study history, economics, politics, etc., and engage in REVOLUTIONARY political practice.

I don't mean to say that communism shouldn't connect with people's hopes. Obviously, nothing is possible without that. But the issue is, on what basis? What aspirations? How do we organize for that (higher wages, immediate interests, focus more on broad political work, etc).

Lastly, I of course encourage the OP to think for him/herself. But I am arguing against some of the things you've put out.

[cenv]

We are talking about the same thing:
You misunderstood me. I meant that CrimethInc manages to draw support despite not offering a concrete strategy, not because of it. I never suggested that the way to go is to not have a strategy.


When I hear about revolutionaries attempting to make communism "appealing"...
I've gotta stop you right there. I don't remember saying anything that we should "make communism appealing" -- that implies changing communism to make it easier to swallow. What I meant was that by making communism personal, it will be more powerful and appealing to workers. This is vastly different from changing communism to make it more appealing.


A movement based on immediate interests and making communism "appealing" based on personal aspirations does not break out of what Lenin termed "trade union consciousness".
Just to clarify, I'm not advocating focusing on immediate interests like higher wages, better working conditions. I'm not advocating working within the system or selling out our principles. That's not what I mean by making politics personal. In fact, the complete the opposite.

I want to inspire people to think about how communism relates to their lives. For example, getting people to think about some questions like:

- how does capitalism change the content of your daily life?
- how does capitalism determine how you spend your time?
- what are your ultimate goals in life? how does capitalism impact your ability to reach those goals?
- how does capitalism change the way you feel about people and interact with people?
- how does capitalism change the way you feel about yourself? your life?
- how does capitalism change the way you spend your life in emotional and physical terms? does it make you happy or sad, refreshed or tired, hopeful or defeated, relaxed or stressed?
- how do you wish you could change any of the above?

And so on. If people really think about these things, communism becomes self-evident. I'm not saying that getting people to contemplate questions like these is an end-all-be-all, but I think that it'll allow people to connect with communism on a deeper level, and it'll make our ideas infinitely more powerful.


They need to study history, economics, politics, etc., and engage in REVOLUTIONARY political practice.
So practically, how do you win people over to communism? You can't just tell them to "study history, economics, politics, etc., and engage in REVOLUTIONARY political practice." They'll just ignore you like they have ignored communists for decades. How do you get them hooked communism to begin with?



I don't mean to say that communism shouldn't connect with people's hopes. Obviously, nothing is possible without that.
I'm glad we're on the same page here. The big question facing us is how. Do you have a strategy in mind?

[Pogue]

Moving from the failed and ridiculous ideology of one crack pot dictator to the ideology of another tosser? Neither was an actual ideology, it was just terms applied to the mess those guys ruled over - attempts to justify brutal government and capitalist restoration. There is no such thing as Khrushchevite ideology and Juche is insane.

[Rawthentic]

So practically, how do you win people over to communism? You can't just tell them to "study history, economics, politics, etc., and engage in REVOLUTIONARY political practice." They'll just ignore you like they have ignored communists for decades. How do you get them hooked communism to begin with?
I'm not going to get into how to win over an individual to communism. At least in my opinion, building such a movement requires connection with sections of the people. Reducing this to individuals under the (obvious) pretense that masses are made of individuals doesn't work. We don't organize individuals, we organize collective sections of the people. There is a world of difference. You can't make structural changes by focusing on individual relations or aspirations.

There are times when the people, by their own accord (ie spontaneously) resist and engage in certain struggles. This is where communists need to be and put out their agenda and program. Like I said, a revolutionary consciousness is developed through political practice and study. It is a very collective and social process.

Yeah, those are some good questions you can ask people. Whatever. But once again, you won't create roots amongst them or anywhere using those methods. That is because it is individualized and because communism does not "become self-evident". That is also something deeply wrong with your politics. People don't to come to "see" communism through those questions you posed. This is a form of identity politics in how you believe that because workers are oppressed and have that direct experience, communism is "self-evident" when they realize that capitalism oppresses them. Some might see and understand that there are inequalities inherent in capitalism, but how exactly do they make that leap to a communist worldview? Through practice and study. This doesn't mean that I'm simply going to tell people, "go study." Obviously not.

We win people over to communism by convincing them that it is in their highest interests, through an understanding that needs to involve practice and theoretical engagement. Concretely, how does this happen? I'm not sure, these are things that need to developed, but within a communist framework. I'm not here to present a blueprint.

[cenv]

I'm not going to get into how to win over an individual to communism. At least in my opinion, building such a movement requires connection with sections of the people. Reducing this to individuals under the (obvious) pretense that masses are made of individuals doesn't work. We don't organize individuals, we organize collective sections of the people. There is a world of difference. You can't make structural changes by focusing on individual relations or aspirations.
So how do you connect with "sections of the people" without connecting with individuals?

Workers aren't sheep to be herded around by communists. They will continue to distrust and ignore communists until they realize how communism relates to their everyday lives.



There are times when the people, by their own accord (ie spontaneously) resist and engage in certain struggles. This is where communists need to be and put out their agenda and program. Like I said, a revolutionary consciousness is developed through political practice and study. It is a very collective and social process.
If you're waiting for the kind of large scale resistance necessary for working-class revolution to happen spontaneously, you're going to be waiting a long time.



Yeah, those are some good questions you can ask people. Whatever. But once again, you won't create roots amongst them or anywhere using those methods. That is because it is individualized and because communism does not "become self-evident". That is also something deeply wrong with your politics. People don't to come to "see" communism through those questions you posed. This is a form of identity politics in how you believe that because workers are oppressed and have that direct experience, communism is "self-evident" when they realize that capitalism oppresses them. Some might see and understand that there are inequalities inherent in capitalism, but how exactly do they make that leap to a communist worldview? Through practice and study. This doesn't mean that I'm simply going to tell people, "go study." Obviously not.
Obviously workers will not become communists without having contact with the ideas of communism. Marx is the only guy who can do that. :tt2: However, thinking about how capitalism and communism relate to their daily lives will give workers a deeper understanding of communism that you simply can't get by reading books, and it will give them the personal connection to communism that will make them want to study it more. It will allow them to see the logic of communism with more clarity, and it will save communists all the time they waste trying to reason with people on an abstract, ideological level.

Workers do have direct experience with the realities of capitalism. Communism isn't some abstract system -- it's about people's lives, and the lives of workers enable them to see the effects of capitalism. There's more to understanding what capitalism does to workers than just understanding the labor theory of value. Workers can relate to communism because of their everyday lives. You can call this whatever you want. It doesn't matter.


I'm not here to present a blueprint.
That's a cop out. This isn't about presenting a blueprint. We need to figure out how to connect with people. No one cares about us. No one cares about communism. This is about forging a strategy, because right now, communists in general have about as much of a concrete strategy as CrimethInc does.

[Rawthentic]

The point is not to "connect with individuals" as a means to get to the people. That isn't how things happen. You can't hope to gradually develop a base amongst people that way.

When communists go out to investigate, learn, and lead, they certainly talk to individuals and attempt to win them over, but their methods are different than yours. Communists seek to organize and win over MASSES. There are countless "revolutionary" sects in this country that win people over in their ones and twos, but they cannot hope to make revolution that way. The RCP constantly writes articles about some particular black or latino youth who was won over or whatever. Yeah, thats good, but you can't organize millions (for revolution) without winning over thousands, and this requires methods that are very different from yours.

How did I propose that workers are "sheep herded by communists"? Don't make straw men out of my arguments.

I think you hold a very narrow view of what communism can mean to people. Do you really think that people are only concerned with their immediate interests and day to day lives? Doesn't making communist revolution imply the need for people to broaden their sights away from narrow interests and into say, the need to build a revolutionary society, create new forms of organization, laws, etc?

Communists have, for decades, organized workers and other sections of the people on this basis, and has failed time and time again. Yeah, they "connected" with people's daily lives, but there was no actualy revolutionary practice involved. If communists don't lead struggles that are broad in their nature and expose the system, we won't get anywhere.

In a thread I made titled "On the Consciousness of the People and Revolution" I stated (please read):


As I said, isn't everything a reflection of oppression? From the way teachers talk to students, to what textbooks say, to wage struggles, anti-war; from racism in employment, to the relationship between a heterosexal couple. These are things we can all identify as wrong and oppressive.

But, we can't be everywhere. And, in fact, (as i stated), there are certain struggles that by their nature "raise the sights" (sorry for using RCP terms, I dont support them but I "came up" through that organization) of the masses because they moved beyond the framework of more narrow and immediate demands, and can serve as a means to political education and more developed forms of resistance and organization (as I said - and this depends on conditions and country - anti war, police brutality, immigrant rights, gentrification, and many others).

Economism (and Im not labeling you anything, it is something that ties into this deeply) is the belief that we need to focus the struggles we lead based on what the people percieve to be their own immediate needs at a particular juncture. And, leading from this, the masses will come to "trust us" because we won them over by appealing to such things - assuming that this is how the people will then come to us and be won over to a revolutionary view of society and the world.

For example, if we increasingly focus on the oppression of a particular police dept or individual, landlord, boss, etc., that eventually the people will come to see the "larger system" and be won over to revolution.

And these sorts of struggles have a natural tendency towards reformism and being channeled into bourgeois politics (ie arranging an agreement with a particular employer, negotiations, etc.).

As Lenin correctly stated, communist consciousness comes from WITHOUT. It comes throught studying history, economics, society, etc. And we need to focus on struggles that break from the framework of what is immediate for the people and focus on events that reveal the nature and interplay of all the forces in society (and how they react to events). And it is our responsibility to take this to the people in a creative and scientific manner.

After all, I don't think the people just want to learn how to battle their own oppression. They want to make a new revolutionary society (which would require writing laws, making social and economic transformations in all spheres) and this cant be done if we focus on shitty wages or what are basically factory floor complaints.

[cenv]

Communists seek to organize and win over MASSES. There are countless "revolutionary" sects in this country that win people over in their ones and twos, but they cannot hope to make revolution that way.
Giving people a personal basis for their politics doesn't mean you have to win people over one individual at a time. In fact, putting more effort into showing how communism is about people's lives will enable revolutionaries to win people over on a larger scale. You're creating a false dichotomy by saying that connecting with people means we can't spread our ideas on a larger scale -- and if you're going to keep asserting this, you should back it up.


Yeah, thats good, but you can't organize millions (for revolution) without winning over thousands, and this requires methods that are very different from yours.
What methods are you referring to?


How did I propose that workers are "sheep herded by communists"?
If you only see workers as "the masses" without acknowledging that these "masses" are made out of real people with aspirations and daily lives, you are objectifying the working class and treating it as some uniform thing to be "organized" and "led" by communists. Winning people over to communism requires that you see workers as people with their own thoughts and concerns, not as generic workers waiting to be converted and led.



I think you hold a very narrow view of what communism can mean to people. Do you really think that people are only concerned with their immediate interests and day to day lives? Doesn't making communist revolution imply the need for people to broaden their sights away from narrow interests and into say, the need to build a revolutionary society, create new forms of organization, laws, etc?
Of course revolution implies people broadening our sights -- that's why spreading class consciousness is so important. But realistically, we are living in a time when the working class is not class conscious. Before class consciousness can exist, communists need to get workers' attention by showing them how communism relates to their lives. The bottom line is that communists will never get anyone to listen to them if they don't show people what communism means in relation to their daily lives. Try going and telling workers that by worrying about their everyday lives and their individual aspirations they are just focusing on "narrow interests" -- see if that makes them more receptive to communist ideas.


Communists have, for decades, organized workers and other sections of the people on this basis, and has failed time and time again. Yeah, they "connected" with people's daily lives, but there was no actualy revolutionary practice involved. If communists don't lead struggles that are broad in their nature and expose the system, we won't get anywhere.
Nowhere have I even suggested that communists shouldn't lead broad struggles or expose the nature of capitalism. I don't get why you see this as an either-or. Obviously it's important to lead struggles on a large scale and illuminate the problems with capitalism -- but while doing so, we need to make sure that we are making people think about how capitalism and communism relate to them personally.

Finally, the fact that you find the post you quoted relevant to this discussion makes me think you just don't get what I'm saying. I'm not advocating trying to focus on struggles within the system such as fighting for higher wages as a way of spreading communist thought. I'm as opposed to those tactics as you are. Instead, I'm arguing that we need to spread revolutionary communist ideas and present them within the framework of people's lives, to get people to realize what capitalism does to their lives and how they can change their lives through revolution. That's why I posted those questions, which you dismissed, that we could get people to think about.


After all, I don't think the people just want to learn how to battle their own oppression. They want to make a new revolutionary society (which would require writing laws, making social and economic transformations in all spheres) and this cant be done if we focus on shitty wages or what are basically factory floor complaints.
I've already said very clearly, not only in this post, but in posts before it, that I'm not advocating fighting for higher wages, better work conditions, or other immediate concerns. This has nothing to do with what I'm arguing. You are the one creating strawmen here.

[Rawthentic]

If you only see workers as "the masses" without acknowledging that these "masses" are made out of real people with aspirations and daily lives, you are objectifying the working class and treating it as some uniform thing to be "organized" and "led" by communists. Winning people over to communism requires that you see workers as people with their own thoughts and concerns, not as generic workers waiting to be converted and led.Good point, but it doesn't apply to me. I've maintained that communism needs to connect with the aspirations of the people, but my issue is which aspirations, and how communists relate to that.

Winning people over to communism requires agendas, programs, and correct policies. If you are interested in winning over individuals, then by all means, do it.


Of course revolution implies people broadening our sights -- that's why spreading class consciousness is so important. But realistically, we are living in a time when the working class is not class conscious. Before class consciousness can exist, communists need to get workers' attention by showing them how communism relates to their lives. The bottom line is that communists will never get anyone to listen to them if they don't show people what communism means in relation to their daily lives. Try going and telling workers that by worrying about their everyday lives and their individual aspirations they are just focusing on "narrow interests" -- see if that makes them more receptive to communist ideas. This is exactly the same thing I was referring to lol. We will never win people over (in their masses), if we first cater to their immediate interests and then proceed from there. Things have never worked that way.

The broad vision of revolution and communism, and what that means to people (beyond immediate interests) is what needs to guide everything we do. This does not mean first focusing on what they percieve to be in their day to day interests and then moving on to broader terms. Such narrow interests are ultimately confined with the horizon of bourgeois right, and attempts to build revolutionary movements in this way have failed. Communism is not and has never been about factory floor complaints. Try building a movement based on something like that, and you are recreating the same mistakes that are the REAL reasons why there is no revolutionary movement: reformist, economism, and lowered sights.

You advocate the same tired politics of the past. Let's first get the "workers to trust" us by telling them that communism ends their immediate concerns, and then maybe we can organize for revolution.

In the 1930s, the CPUSA had a base of millions of workers. They were living in a time of depression, world war, socialist revolution, and other events that should have characterized their politics and methods. Instead, they refused any talk of revolution and communism (in any meaningful way) and opted to first win workers over by working and building trade unions. Needless to say, these economist and refomist methods failed and threw out a bright revolutionary possibility. These communists in the CPUSA could have organized the people around broad political issues such as socialist revolution, depression, or world war, but instead they decided to organize around the nearest needs of the workers! Do you see where I am getting at?

To read about the CPUSA and what I briefly described above: take a look at:
Slipping Into Darkness: “Left Economism,” the CPUSA, and the Trade Union Unity League (1929-1935) (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/02/09/cpusa-in-30s-slipping-into-darkness/)
******************************

And of course I understand what you are saying. What I am doing is analyzing the basis of your politics and where they can lead. Intentions are not my concern.

The Bolsheviks led a revolution based on the most pressing, broad issues facing the workers and peasants of tsarist Russia. They were: Peace, Land, and Bread. It encapsulated and triggered the nature of the system. I don't think they would have been able to do what they did if they asked every individual what revolution meant to them personally.

[Rawthentic]

In addition:

today, we face an imperialist war in the middle east, a huge economic crisis, the palestinian conflict and the US' role in that, etc., and yet you still believe that we are going to make a revolution based on how individuals relate to communism? How many more decades of failure will it take for revolutionaries to learn lessons?

To make something clear: I am obviously not against winning over individuals to a communist worldview. But there are two things:

1. It isn't the basis by which a revolutionary movement can be created.
2. When I was with the League, I directed these discussions around the immediate interests of the person I was discussing with. I talked about their workplace and shit in hopes to win them over, but I came to realize that communism is about the emancipation of humanity, and winning either individuals or sections of people over to our worldview requires a spirit of "serving the people" grounded in a broad, internationalist worldview, that, if bound by immediate interests, cannot hope to eliminate capitalism (because its ideology is within its constraints).

And we are talking about the same thing, so that's not an excuse. You want to start with building individual's trust in us by means of connecting communism, and I attempt to give my two cents and why those methods are wrong.

[cenv]

today, we face an imperialist war in the middle east, a huge economic crisis, the palestinian conflict and the US' role in that, etc., and yet you still believe that we are going to make a revolution based on how individuals relate to communism? How many more decades of failure will it take for revolutionaries to learn lessons?

To make something clear: I am obviously not against winning over individuals to a communist worldview. But there are two things:

1. It isn't the basis by which a revolutionary movement can be created.There have been imperialist wars, economic crises, and conflicts taking place for as long as communists have been standing on the corner selling papers -- and communists have been basing their activity on these struggles for just as long. Yes, participating in these struggles is important, but it's clearly not enough. For communists to take things further and build a revolution, they need to gain support on a large scale. To do this, they need to spread the ideas of communism, and the only way to get people to listen to those ideas is by showing them how those ideas relate to their lives.


And we are talking about the same thing, so that's not an excuse.Then why do you repeatedly bring up "immediate interests" and "factory floor complaints" like fighting for higher wages and better working conditions? I've said several times that focusing on "immediate interests" and "factory floor complaints" has nothing to do with what I'm advocating. I even posted those questions to make it clear what I meant by relating communism to people's lives.

[Azurite]

Heather, what exactly is it that attracted you to an ideology like Juche in the first place? I've been interested in groups like the KFA for a while now, and I have to wonder how they became so enamoured with the DPRK in the first place.

For the record, I'm not always entirely against what some might describe as undemocratic measures when they are justified by a progressive end, but it has always seemed to me that Juche and Songun are nothing but dogma to justify the country's independence from outside influence and in turn the rule of the military and the Kim family dynasty. Hell, with the Songun reforms, the state now literally puts the army before the working people of the country. That is not socialism by any stretch of the imagination.

And in regard to Krushchev, outside of his liberalisation and de-Stalinization of the USSR, I don't know much about his personal views and ideology, but I'll be sure to read up on it. I've never felt actual loyalty to any individual leaders, so I can't really understand where your feeling lost and confused is coming from, but in my opinion it's probably best that you value the ideas of a leader above the leader himself from now on.

And like some have already said, it might be an idea to get back to basics.

[Asoka89]

The OP is clearly insane and/or suicide or homicidal. Nuff' said.

[communick]

We don't organize individuals, we organize collective sections of the people.

An individual human being can not be reduced to an abstract concept (collective section of the people). Everyone joins as an individual.

Rawthentic, did you get involved in radical politics as a result of the organization of a collective section of the people? If so, when was this collective section of the people organized by Kasama?

I suspect that you joined as an individual or very small group of individuals.

I also suspect, based on your above quoted outlook and the dwindling interest in Kasama, that you don't actually organize anyone.