Do Marxist-Leninists truly appreciate Lenin's contributions on imperialism? [Archive]

JimmyJazz

2nd May 2009, 23:24

It seems to me that if Marxist-Leninsts living in the imperialist countries really and fully appreciated how fundamentally the global class struggle is altered by the existence of economic and military imperialism--in other words, if they really appreciated Lenin's main contribution to Marxist theory--then they would realize how radically different revolution is bound to look in an imperialist country as compared to an imperialist-oppressed one, and they would be more open to anarchist and libertarian-socialist ideas as regards the revolution in these countries.

While I agree with taking a materialist analysis of past attempts at socialism, with digging deep into the history and the material constraints that they faced, and defending them against attack, it is precisely because I see imperialism as by far the greatest of these material constraints that I don't expect revolution in the imperialist countries to look particularly at all like these previous attempts at socialism (all of which have taken place in imperialist-oppressed countries).

What is so contradictory about taking a roughly Marxist-Leninist line on past socialist attempts (taking into account, to the greatest extent possible, materialist conditions they faced), and simultaneously a very open-minded approach (basically a complete rethinking, grounded in present material conditions rather than the aping of historical successes) to how socialist revolution will look in the imperialist, economically developed, politically democratic countries? In fact, why doesn't it make perfect sense for one person to simultaneously hold both these positions, especially if s/he believes that imperialism is a major, major factor in all global political developments?

Blackscare

2nd May 2009, 23:51

This is what I've been thinking, and part of the reason I've been getting into Left/Council Communist ideas lately. It seems to me (and it was argued by it's proponents) that Left Communism is much better suited to the industrialized "first world" than Leninism and it's derivatives.

This response to Lenin's "Left Communism: an infantile disorder" by Herman Gorter is a good statement on Left Communism's position in this regard.

Edit
Never actually gave the link:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/gorter/1920/open-letter/index.htm

Die Neue Zeit

3rd May 2009, 00:54

The theory of imperialism attributed to Lenin is in fact a mere outline or framework conceptualized by the bourgeois economist J.A. Hobson, the Marxist Rudolf Hilferding (finance capital), and especially the true founder of "Marxism" well before his "ultra-imperialist" musings (inter-imperialist war having been predicted as early as 1899).

What is so contradictory about taking a roughly Marxist-Leninist line on past socialist attempts, and simultaneously a very open-minded approach (basically, a complete rethinking, grounded in present material conditions rather than the aping of historical successes) to how socialist revolution will look in the "first world", imperialist, economically developed, politically democratic countries? In fact, why doesn't it make perfect sense for one person to hold these two positions?

The answer was provided in 1909:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/luxemburg-vs-kautsky-t105061/index.html

JimmyJazz

3rd May 2009, 02:33

Die Neue Zeit

3rd May 2009, 02:49

Try joining the Workers Party in America.

3rd May 2009, 04:13

I don't know if the board is just slow or if there is little interest in this topic. But I cannot seriously be the only one who is equally sick of hearing:

(1) Anarchists and left communists from imperialist countries speaking dismissively of “Maoist anti-working class gangs”

(2) Leninists talking about the need to follow vanguard tactics (which have failed for the last 90 years to make any level of progress in the imperialist world that could be considered anything short of embarrassing) and reading What Is To Be Done? like it is a handbook to first world communist organizing

Incidentally, this is why I've never found any revolutionary organization I could join (besides the IWW, which is officially apolitical). Because every group does one of these two things, and they both make me roll my eyes.

Excellent post, couldn't agree more, I agree with your initial analysis of the failure of most so called Marxist Leninists to appreciate the relevence of his theory of imperialism to 1st world organizing.

Sorry you only got really shit poorly educated responses to this thread because it raises a profoundly important issue. I'll try to reply in detail when i have time in a week or so.

black magick hustla

3rd May 2009, 04:19

Anarchists and left communists from imperialist countries speaking dismissively of “Maoist anti-working class gangs”

Actually, the people who use that term are generally not from "imperialist countries". Of course we are dismissing of bosses with a red tie. The maoists have so much worker and peasant blood in their hands that is not even funny.

JimmyJazz

3rd May 2009, 05:06

Actually, the people who use that term are generally not from "imperialist countries".

Actually, they usually are. You might be shocked to learn that I didn't have you in mind; I don't really know your positions, because you're one of the few members whose posts I skip over. That's because your posts usually consist of a juvenile sectarian attack with logic as bad as the grammar and spelling. And on a separate note, the fact that you put "imperialist countries" in quotes is incredibly telling.

black magick hustla

3rd May 2009, 06:11

Actually, they usually are. You might be shocked to learn that I didn't have you in mind; I don't really know your positions, because you're one of the few members whose posts I skip over. That's because your posts usually consist of a juvenile sectarian attack with logic as bad as the grammar and spelling. And on a separate note, the fact that you put "imperialist countries" in quotes is incredibly telling.

I am sorry my second language english skills do not impress you young man. Next time i'll try to be born in the US or great britain, maybe that'll impress cats like you. :)

It doesn't matter if you are talking about me though, the people who you are talking about share the same positions I do and most of them come from the third world. In fact, I would argue that a big chunk of "active" left communists come from the third world. (For example, the mexican section of the ICC is the second biggest one) In fact, one of the main poles of "congregation" of the communist left was in venezuela. So yes, we brown people can perfectly understand the perils of national liberation without having some white third worldist tell us that we must submit to our maoist bosses.

black magick hustla

3rd May 2009, 06:13

Also I am going to warn you for being a chauvinist and making fun of my english skills.

manic expression

3rd May 2009, 07:37

Aside from general statements, what exactly in Bolshevism is inapplicable to the so-called "first world"? Sure, every situation is unique and adaptations must be made in most cases, but let's talk about the specifics instead of branding all of Leninism incompatible with imperialist countries.

Historically, I'm not sure the argument really holds up. Leninist parties are quite strong in European countries such as Greece, Portugal and France; they were formerly strong in Spain, the US, Germany, Italy and other industrialized imperialist nations (and still are in some instances). The idea that Leninism has never held sway in imperialist countries is simply incorrect.

Lastly, if we are going to appreciate Lenin's contributions on imperialism, why not appreciate what he had to say about working-class organization in imperialist countries? He consistently and forcefully stated that the example of the Bolsheviks needed to be adopted and tirelessly applied by the revolutionaries of Western Europe. The Bolsheviks were faced with an extremely strong reactionary opposition for decades, and yet they overcame this; through the same principles, revolutionaries in imperialist nations can accomplish as much and more.

PRC-UTE

3rd May 2009, 09:09

I don't know if the board is just slow or if there is little interest in this topic. But I cannot seriously be the only one who is equally sick of hearing:

(1) Anarchists and left communists from imperialist countries speaking dismissively of “Maoist anti-working class gangs”

(2) Leninists talking about the need to follow vanguard tactics (which have failed for the last 90 years to make any level of progress in the imperialist world that could be considered anything short of embarrassing) and reading What Is To Be Done? like it is a handbook to first world communist organizing

Incidentally, this is why I've never found any revolutionary organization I could join (besides the IWW, which is officially apolitical). Because every group does one of these two things, and they both make me roll my eyes.

I'm on the same page with you. I don't get the either/or approach at all. The divide between the workerist types who deny imperialism is an issue, and the types of Leninists that ignore how time has moved on since 1917 annoy me to no end

JimmyJazz

3rd May 2009, 09:53

Also I am going to warn you for being a chauvinist and making fun of my english skills.

Just let me know when you've warned yourself for the post where you said that I consider Mexicans "mud people". :)

Devrim

3rd May 2009, 10:54

(1) Anarchists and left communists from imperialist countries speaking dismissively of “Maoist anti-working class gangs”
Actually, the people who use that term are generally not from "imperialist countries".

Actually, they usually are. You might be shocked to learn that I didn't have you in mind;

Which left communists on here are you actually talking about? What I think is that you just got lazy here, and after dismissing criticism of national struggles in general as coming from those in imperialist countries, you just forgot that it doesn't at all conform to the demographics of the left communist posters on this board.

Devrim

JimmyJazz

3rd May 2009, 11:39

It really doesn't matter where they are from.

But even if it did, the existence of people who share the analysis in non-imperialist countries has no bearing on my statement about people in the imperialist countries who hold it. In my view people who don't face a problem have less right to dictate what choices are at the disposal of someone who does face it; so, for instance, when men are anti-choice there is an added level of hypocrisy that isn't there for anti-choice women, even though all anti-choicers are wrong. That's just my view, I have no wish to argue it.

And obviously I am basing my sample on those I have met in real life and on Revleft. If you have a link to a site that gives the demographic breakdown for the world left communist and anarchist movements, and their positions on Maoist anti-imperialism, I'll give it a look.

But most importantly, it doesn't matter where they are from, and you can snip "from imperialist countries" out of that sentence if it bothers you so much.

JimmyJazz

3rd May 2009, 11:50

Devrim

3rd May 2009, 11:59

It really doesn't matter where they are from.

Your are right it doesn't matter at all. We share the same analysis with members of our organisation in the US, UK, France, and Germany.

However, what you are trying to do, in my opinion, with this phrase is to discredit the argument by implying that it comes from people in 'imperialist countries'. As you say:

In my view people who don't face a problem have less right to dictate what choices are at the disposal of someone who does face it; so, for instance, when men are anti-choice there is an added level of hypocrisy that isn't there for anti-choice women, even though all anti-choicers are wrong.

In which case, you imply that by these people being from the imperialist countries, their argument is less valid.

And obviously I am basing my sample on those I have met in real life and on Revleft.

I image that the people that you tend to meet tend to be people in the same country as you. However, I would really like to know who the left communist from 'imperialist countries' are on RevLeft.

If you have a link to a site that gives the demographic breakdown for the world left communist and anarchist movements, and their positions on Maoist anti-imperialism, I'll give it a look.

On the front page of our website you can see where we have members:

Europe

Great Britain (http://en.internationalism.org/taxonomy/term/3)
France (http://fr.internationalism.org/taxonomy/term/3)
Deutschland (http://de.internationalism.org/)
Schweiz/Suisse (http://de.internationalism.org/)
Italia (http://it.internationalism.org/)
España (http://es.internationalism.org/)
Sverige (http://sv.internationalism.org/)
België (http://nl.internationalism.org/)/Belgique (http://fr.internationalism.org/)
Nederland (http://nl.internationalism.org/)
Türkiye (http://tr.internationalism.org/)

Americas

United States (http://en.internationalism.org/taxonomy/term/4)
Mexico (http://es.internationalism.org/)
Venezuela (http://es.internationalism.org/)
Brasil (http://pt.internationalism.org/)

Asia/Pacific

India (http://hi.internationalism.org/)
Philippines (http://tl.internationalism.org/)

But most importantly, it doesn't matter where they are from, and you can snip "from imperialist countries" out of that sentence if it bothers you so much.

Which begs the question then of why you felt a need to stress it in the first place.

Devrim

*I put imperialist country in inverted commas because we also consider, unlike the vast majority of the left here, that Turkey is an imperialist country.

manic expression

3rd May 2009, 16:17

If you think that you are going to bring about revolution in the U.S. by a vanguard party* after 90 years, feel free to spend your time working in one. It is evident to me, however, that something is fundamentally wrong with this tactic for the environment in which it is being tried.

*will it be the SWP? The CPUSA? The RCPUSA? The PSL?

Again, I'm asking for specifics. What is it in Leninism that makes it incompatible with struggles in imperialist states? I haven't even asked you for an alternative, I'd just like a meaningful explanation and analysis on this point.

As I said historically, the CPUSA was very strong, very influential and very large in the United States at one time. Later, Leninist parties in the Black Panthers and Young Lords shook the foundations of oppression in America. Their example demonstrates that the principles of Leninism can and should be applied in the United States.

I don't have a crystal ball, so I can't tell you for sure who or what will come to be the vanguard. However, I do know that the PSL is growing quite fast and making certain its voice is heard regularly by workers and oppressed people around the country. As Lenin said, it is the task of communists to engage workers, to win them over to revolutionary ideas, with the utmost patience and determination. I see that in the PSL, and that is exactly why I support them. If you have any actual criticisms, feel free to post them.

Random Precision

3rd May 2009, 16:34

If you think that you are going to bring about revolution in the U.S. by a vanguard party* after 90 years, feel free to spend your time working in one. It is evident to me, however, that something is fundamentally wrong with this tactic for the environment in which it is being tried.

I think the problem you have here is more with self-proclaimed vanguards than with actual vanguards. The parties you mentioned (SWP, RCP, CPUSA- don't know about the PSL) each proclaimed itself to be the vanguard party in periods that did not see the emergence of an actual vanguard in the United States. The vanguard only emerges out of the mass workers struggle- this is what transformed the Bolsheviks into the vanguard party for instance. It's an incredibly vulgar understanding of Lenin to establish "the vanguard" and then expect the masses will come to you to lead their revolution- and one that promotes extreme sectarianism and will alienate your group from everyone, sooner or later.

If you want to know what Lenin's actual approach to the vanguard is, outside of reading Witbd?, I suggest taking a read of Lenin and the Revolutionary Party by Paul LeBlanc. My organization for instance does not consider itself the vanguard (we are not the International Socialist Party) but we do consider our fundamental task that of building a Leninist cadre out of current workers' struggles, which will, we hope be some part of a revolutionary vanguard in the future.

JimmyJazz

3rd May 2009, 17:50

I think the problem you have here is more with self-proclaimed vanguards than with actual vanguards. The parties you mentioned (SWP, RCP, CPUSA- don't know about the PSL) each proclaimed itself to be the vanguard party in periods that did not see the emergence of an actual vanguard in the United States. The vanguard only emerges out of the mass workers struggle- this is what transformed the Bolsheviks into the vanguard party for instance. It's an incredibly vulgar understanding of Lenin to establish "the vanguard" and then expect the masses will come to you to lead their revolution- and one that promotes extreme sectarianism and will alienate your group from everyone, sooner or later.

Well, this is a step in the direction of realism, but it doesn't exactly constitute a rethinking of socialism.

Here's what I mean about being open to libertarian socialist ideas. We all want to submit the economy to a single plan, but I am by no means sure that central planning is the best way to do it. Instead of handing complete power over to a small group of people who we trust to always do the right thing simply because they are Marxists, why not create democratic structures by which the public directly decides upon a plan for production? Libertarian socialists and some left communists (like council communists) have put forward various schemes for doing this.

This is actually my main objection. I can understand why a country under imperialist pressure needs, and might choose to have, the kind of decisive economic leadership that only central planning can provide. But I see no reason why it's needed, or even should be tolerated, in an imperialist country. And in my opinion, the record shows that neither do most workers.

JimmyJazz

3rd May 2009, 17:59

Again, I'm asking for specifics. What is it in Leninism that makes it incompatible with struggles in imperialist states? I haven't even asked you for an alternative, I'd just like a meaningful explanation and analysis on this point.

As I said historically, the CPUSA was very strong, very influential and very large in the United States at one time. Later, Leninist parties in the Black Panthers and Young Lords shook the foundations of oppression in America. Their example demonstrates that the principles of Leninism can and should be applied in the United States.

I don't have a crystal ball, so I can't tell you for sure who or what will come to be the vanguard. However, I do know that the PSL is growing quite fast and making certain its voice is heard regularly by workers and oppressed people around the country. As Lenin said, it is the task of communists to engage workers, to win them over to revolutionary ideas, with the utmost patience and determination. I see that in the PSL, and that is exactly why I support them. If you have any actual criticisms, feel free to post them.

You've managed to take a thread about how Leninists aren't open to a complete rethinking of socialism, and turn it into a call for me to produce specific criticisms of the Party for Socialism and Liberation's party program. Thank you for proving my point. :-D

3rd May 2009, 19:43

Also I am going to warn you for being a chauvinist and making fun of my english skills.

Just so people know so they don't have to be paranoid about standing up to obnoxious moderators, this petty and cowardly abuse of Marmot's discretion is under review and I believe it will almost certainly be reversed.

black magick hustla

3rd May 2009, 19:44

I like how "cowardly" gets into internet infractions.

JimmyJazz

3rd May 2009, 21:12

I'm actually OK with being warned for it, it's just a bit silly that Marmot himself does it. Also, Marmot pretty regularly smears me (for what reason, I don't know, other than he is a sectarian asshole) and gets away with it. He accused me of virulent racism, even white nationalism--suggested that I consider Mexicans "mud people"--presumably on the basis of an ignorant thread that I made in Learning close to the time I first started posting here asking about open borders. I spent May Day last Friday marching for full legalization of said "mud people", incidentally; and needless to say, Marmot has no idea what color I am. Another time, when I tried to draw a distinction between drug cartels and the bourgeoisie (on the basis that the bourgeoisie usually has state protection and drug cartels don't, at least not consistently) he said that I hold that opinion "just because [I] like to snort a few lines of coke with my friends" (I don't snort coke, and never said that I do anywhere on this site). Outrageous stuff for a regular member, much less a mod.

Moving on...

Which begs the question then of why you felt a need to stress it in the first place.

I actually don't think that I did "stress" it. You and marmot did.

manic expression

3rd May 2009, 22:05

You've managed to take a thread about how Leninists aren't open to a complete rethinking of socialism, and turn it into a call for me to produce specific criticisms of the Party for Socialism and Liberation's party program. Thank you for proving my point. :-D

:lol: You brought up the PSL in the first place; what, did you expect to make a blanket criticism of just about every socialist organization in America and NOT get called out on it? I offered you the chance to make actual, substantial criticisms of something you're obviously bent upon criticizing, and you respond with a bad attempt at comedy. Fitting.

More importantly, those were the last eleven (11) words of my post, so you conveniently ignored the rest of my argument. I ask you again, What is it in Leninism that makes it incompatible with struggles in imperialist states? Answer the question or admit you're talking nonsense.

Oh, and Leninists aren't exactly open to redefining socialism if you can't come up with an alternative. Lenin (once again I have to outline the history you're oblivious to) articulated what would become Leninism because the Social Democrats wanted to redefine socialism into reformism. Against this, he reiterated the revolutionary character of Marxism, and that is why Leninism is far and away the predominate form of Marxism throughout the world. Unless you tell us what you actually want to redefine socialism as, you have nothing.

And since you apparently only read the last portion of my posts, let me once again say that you have nothing. Still. Have fun dancing around the issue a third time! :laugh:

Rawthentic

4th May 2009, 18:35

I think in each and every country there will need to be a revolutionary vanguard.

You can call it whatever you want, but revolution requires leadership, hierarchy, centers, discipline, etc. How exactly can you organize/lead revolution w/o these things?

And, I also want to chime into a comment Jimmy made about the undesirability of central planning due to workers "not wanting it." And I think this a good example of the type of politics that subordinates itself to what the people are thinking at a given moment, rather than working to actually develop revolutionary consciousness and organization.

Ok. So most workers in the US don't want central planning. Most workers also don't want communism or revolution. Should we abandon that too.

My point is: subordinating our theories to what ppl perceive to be correct at a given time (such as not wanting central planning, itself a product of intense anti-communism) is textbook tailism and reformism. Our goal is to lead (and learn) people and help them understand why planned economies are desirable over market economies. I think that the question of more or less central planning (because THERE WILL be central planning) is an issue to be decided according to material conditions and history.

Do I think that people in the US would tolerate a soviet style political economy? No way. This country was founded on principles of liberal democracy and multiparty competition (in theory, at least) and to think that people will accept a one-party state is ridiculous. Socialism will need conform to our particular history and development (as russia's political economy did - their particular form grew out of their history and conditions).

JimmyJazz

4th May 2009, 21:17

Thanks for the reply, Rawthentic.

Ok. So most workers in the US don't want central planning. Most workers also don't want communism or revolution. Should we abandon that too.

That's pretty weak. :glare:

My point is: subordinating our theories to what ppl perceive to be correct at a given time (such as not wanting central planning, itself a product of intense anti-communism) is textbook tailism and reformism. Our goal is to lead (and learn) people and help them understand why planned economies are desirable over market economies. I think that the question of more or less central planning (because THERE WILL be central planning) is an issue to be decided according to material conditions and history.

Do I think that people in the US would tolerate a soviet style political economy? No way. This country was founded on principles of liberal democracy and multiparty competition (in theory, at least) and to think that people will accept a one-party state is ridiculous. Socialism will need conform to our particular history and development (as russia's political economy did - their particular form grew out of their history and conditions).

I agree, and this is a very thoughtful section of your post. There will have to be some accountable central coordination of the economy no matter what organs of workers' and citizens' control you put into place, and no matter what libertarian/decentralized scheme you try to enact. Central planning will have to be an element of socialist planning, although based on what I observe of Americans' long-standing distrust of government, not the bulk of it.

But admitting that there will be some central planning is a far cry from supporting a ML party like the PSL whose "Who We Are, What We Stand For" pamphlet goes on at length about the history of the world socialist movement and about U.S. imperialism, even Israeli imperialism, but says hardly one word about what they would do with the economy if they had their way--what would replace financial/stock markets as a means of distributing capital? what (exactly) would replace the market as a means of distributing goods? Would everyone work for the government? Would all services be administered by a bureaucracy? Most "vanguard party" websites are the same way, the front page is about defending Cuba* ffs, and you have to dig deep to find where they put forward their economic philosophy assuming that they do so anywhere (or even have one). It seems that they aren't asking workers to follow their ideas about the economy; they're asking workers to follow them, to put them in charge of the economy in the workers' names. But people are smarter than this. The capitalists already loudly claim that they do everything they do in the name of average consumers, and the capitalists own major television networks from which they can get these lies out. So what hope do we have if we're merely saying the same thing, but shoutintg it from the sidelines?

How can anyone really expect that talking primarily about geopolitics is going to whip American workers up into a revolutionary state? Or make them decide that they should for some reason follow you when they already are in one?

*Kasama talks about Nepal, but the principle is the same

JimmyJazz

4th May 2009, 21:21

I'm going to respond to some quotes from the PSL's "Who We Are, What We Stand For", not because I am picking on the PSL (so please save your defense of the PSL as an organization for other threads), but more because it is rather typical of first world vanguardist parties in general.

The pamphlet starts with an intro, followed by a section on the world situation in the wake of the collapse of the socialist camp and of the prospects for U.S. imperialism. Only then, after talking about imperialism at length, does it include a third section entitled "The U.S. Working Class Today". Ah...finally, right? But even that section starts thusly:

The Party for Socialism and Liberation recognizes that the multinational U.S. working class is the indispensable force for revolution in the United States. Its social force is magnified by the central role of U.S. imperialism in the world economy. The task of breaking the chains of wage labor in the U.S. is intimately tied to the struggle of people around the world or national liberation and social revolution.

This is undoubtedly true. Who can deny it? But the inevitable effect of a passage like this is to make working class Americans think that we are asking them to stage a revolution out of altruism (because Smoky the communist Bear says, "only you have the power to prevent imperialism!").

The real job of communists is to point out in clear terms that a socialist revolution is in the self-interest of the American working class. There is nothing altruistic about it.

An opposition to the imperialism of the U.S. ruling class will flow directly from an opposition to the U.S. ruling class on the basis of workers' self-interest. There is no reason to make imperialism the starting point in our dialogue with the working class.

It continues:

More and more, speaking in the U.S. of "foreign" vs. "domestic" policy creates a false dichotomy. The war and occupation in Iraq, for example, is not just an "international" issue. It affects hundreds of thousands of working-class families across the United States--just as the Vietnam War did at an earlier time. Taken together, Washington's policies at home and abroad are integrated in a global war waged by U.S. imperialism against the workers and poor of the world.

"Endless war" against Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine Haiti and other countries inevitably means war against the multinational working class here as well. It is the sons and daughters of the working class, disproportionately people of color, who are subjected to an economic draft--fighting, killing and dying for the interests of profit and empire. Education, health care, public and subsidized housing, jobs and job training, welfare, childcare and other vital social programs have been gutted, privatized or entirely eliminated as real military spending has risen above a half-trillion dollars annually. Social Security is on the chopping block.

Every new military adventure means an acceleration of the miliitarization of U.S. society and of other reactionary, anti-working class trends as well.

U.S. militarism and imperialist globalization policies have a profound impact on the composition and conditions of the U.S. working class.

In my opinion, we need less of the above and more Fast Food Worker Manifestos (http://www.socialistalternative.org/publications/fastfood/).

Rawthentic

4th May 2009, 22:01

How can anyone really expect that talking primarily about geopolitics is going to whip American workers up into a revolutionary state? Or make them decide that they should for some reason follow you when they already are in one?

*Kasama talks about Nepal, but the principle is the same

I think you misunderstood me, Jimmy.

I also don't think that we're going to make revolution if we're solely relying on international events. Clearly, a revolutionary movement needs to be in tune with the desires and aspirations of the people it strives to lead.

But, let's not forget that geopolitics will play a very important role. In the US, the Chinese revolution, african liberation struggles, etc., were critical in the formation of the black liberation and revolutionary struggles in the US.

Kasama does talk about Nepal, of course. We are internationalists. And our purpose is not to talk about Nepal in order to create a movement based on that, but to demonstrate to people that communist revolution is far from over. It's purpose is, as Lenin said, to show the "immediate actuality" of communist revolution as a living, breathing world opportunity. It's a chance to dig deeply into communist theory and question our previous verdicts.

And I think you are correct in underlining the chasm between revolutionary politics and people's desires in the country. That is why Kasama exists. I'm not going to get into the need for what we are doing in this thread, but feel free to PM me if you want to talk further. Many of the shortcomings you do well in recognizing are issues we are taking up as we expand our network of revolutionaries and activists.

One more thing: in our political work, it is crucial we train ourselves and the people to be aware of all events going on in society and how different class forces react. It is the vital element in developing a broad, communist consciousness needed to transform society. And so, when geopolitical events permeate our work (or become central to it) there's a need for everyone to understand what that means and how different strata relate to it (i.e. how does the working class see this? how will the bourgeoisie react and what does that mean?).

good discussion. There needs to be more of this on RL.

JimmyJazz

4th May 2009, 22:49

I also don't think that we're going to make revolution if we're solely relying on international events. Clearly, a revolutionary movement needs to be in tune with the desires and aspirations of the people it strives to lead.

Yes.

One more thing: in our political work, it is crucial we train ourselves and the people to be aware of all events going on in society and how different class forces react. It is the vital element in developing a broad, communist consciousness needed to transform society. And so, when geopolitical events permeate our work (or become central to it) there's a need for everyone to understand what that means and how different strata relate to it (i.e. how does the working class see this? how will the bourgeoisie react and what does that mean?).

Yes.

Kasama does talk about Nepal, of course. We are internationalists. And our purpose is not to talk about Nepal in order to create a movement based on that, but to demonstrate to people that communist revolution is far from over. It's purpose is, as Lenin said, to show the "immediate actuality" of communist revolution as a living, breathing world opportunity. It's a chance to dig deeply into communist theory and question our previous verdicts.

Understandable, but I strongly question the tactic of putting this as front page stuff. I mean, the front page of the Kasama website at the moment is about Prachanda resigning as prime minister. Most workers in the U.S. just could not give a shit. Those that do, are already radical. Others probably are excited by the prospect of another oppressive bunch of commies to have a macho cold war against and liberate the Nepalese people from. Yet others probably laugh ("haha, where is Nepal?") and take the "insignificance" of a country like Nepal as evidence that communism is truly dead. I think radicals' biggest problem is forgetting how their reaction to certain news and events now differs from how it did when they were not radical.

But, let's not forget that geopolitics will play a very important role. In the US, the Chinese revolution, african liberation struggles, etc., were critical in the formation of the black liberation and revolutionary struggles in the US.

That's a good point, especially considering that some groups like the Black Panthers were socialists.

Still, I know from my many discussions with non-leftists that when you start to talk about racial or national oppression, real though these things are, you get a knee-jerk reaction from many members of the oppressor group (whites, people from America and other imperialist nations) thinking you are accusing them of being oppressors. There is often no way to get around this response, even if you immediately follow it up by insisting that you are only talking about a subset of whites or a subset of rich Americans (the 'ruling class'). I don't know what causes this response--probably some mix of human nature and mass media indocrination leading people to divide humanity up along any lines besides class--but it is a very widespread response and not one that can easily be gotten around.

I really think we need to focus hard on class and keep the discussions on racial and national oppression to circles of people who are already convinced of the irreconcilably of class antagonisms (hence are basically socialists). For anyone who is not a socialist, we need to really focus on talking to them about class and the effects of class rule domestically, imo.

Basically, most Leninists seem to think that overcoming racial, gender and national chauvinism is a prerequisite to class consciousness, whereas to me it seems very much the other way around. It's a back-and-forth thing to be sure, but primarily I'd say class consciousness produces a rejection of chauvinism and not the other way around. Like in the movie Salt of the Earth, where a struggle against the bosses leads the workers to reject patriarchy and racism--and leads the women and the Mexicans to make demands for an end to patriarchy and racism. I think that's very realisitic, and historically accurate based on what I've read about labor history.

The biggest obstacle to people rejecting oppression is them not feeling oppressed themselves. The biggest catalyst to them opposing oppression is that they themselves feel oppressed.

Rawthentic

4th May 2009, 23:25

Understandable, but I strongly question the tactic of putting this as front page stuff. I mean, the front page of the Kasama website at the moment is about Prachanda resigning as prime minister. Most workers in the U.S. just could not give a shit. Those that do, are already radical. Others probably are excited by the prospect of another oppressive bunch of commies to have a macho cold war against and liberate the Nepalese people from. Yet others probably laugh ("haha, where is Nepal?") and take the "insignificance" of a country like Nepal as evidence that communism is truly dead. I think radicals' biggest problem is forgetting how their reaction to certain news and events now differs from how it did when they were not radical.

How could this not be "front page stuff"? Because American workers don't give a shit? What kind of logic is that? The point of being a communist is to further the understandings of the people, no matter where they are (ideologically). We need to demonstrate to people that people in Nepal are waging revolution to create a better world. Aren't people in the US struggling as well? Why doesn't that pertain to us? Where is the internationalism?

If I weren't a communist (as most working ppl aren't) I probably wouldn't give a shit about Nepal. But I am a communist, so this is deeply important to us and the people of the world. It's a lesson and statement to all of us that real, radical change is not only possible, but desirable.

Kasama is a communist organization. We've been keen on developing our understanding and support of the revolutions in Nepal and India, not in a cheerleading sense, but to critically support and learn from these radical revolutions.

And in fact, I think these statements and events need to be taken to the advanced. That is, people in the US that are politically awakened and eager to find a way out of this mess. By winning these people over, our (and their) ability to win over the intermediate, those who are stuck between the advanced and backward, is greater. This is the correct strategy in winning people and building alliances. As a matter of strategy, this would not be taken to backward thinking workers or people in general, but to radicalized working people, in attempt to win them over.

The biggest obstacle to people rejecting oppression is them not feeling oppressed themselves. The biggest catalyst to them opposing oppression is that they themselves feel oppressed.
I think there is some value to this, although I'd be careful with it.

Revolution is not about self-interest or dealing with immediate oppression, but about liberating humanity. It's not about "im oppressed, and i want my piece of the pie that's been denied to me".

Rawthentic

5th May 2009, 00:42

in addition:

all posts on the Kasama Project site are "front page stuff." We don't reserve specific articles for the site to display. They are ALL displayed, and move down the screen as new articles are posted.

JimmyJazz

5th May 2009, 02:52

If I weren't a communist (as most working ppl aren't) I probably wouldn't give a shit about Nepal. But I am a communist, so this is deeply important to us and the people of the world. It's a lesson and statement to all of us that real, radical change is not only possible, but desirable.

Kasama is a communist organization. We've been keen on developing our understanding and support of the revolutions in Nepal and India, not in a cheerleading sense, but to critically support and learn from these radical revolutions.

You don't see me complaining that there are too many Nepal threads on Revleft, do you? No, obviously communists are interested in Nepal.

If you want to build a mass party of working people, however, you don't talk about Nepal as a starting point. First you make people into socialists (you rightly said that most working people are not). Afterward they become inherently interested in Nepal (we already agreed that communists are interested in Nepal).

I have no idea what Kasama is trying to do, whether it exists to educate communists who can build a mass movement or itself become a mass movement, so obviously my judgment about whether they should be talking about Nepal all the time depends on what they are trying to do. I'm not singling Kasama out for attack anyway.

I am saying that the vast majority of these vanguard groups are spending most of their time talking about things which are five steps removed from having relevance to working peoples lives, rather than zero steps removed. The labor bureaucrats are preaching to them about things that are zero steps removed (higher wages, cheaper healthcare, dignity and power on the job), which is part of why the labor bureaucrats are more successful than socialists are at connecting with the working class.

I personally see no need for another group that primarily talks about Cuba or about Nepal. I'm interested in building a revolutionary mass labor party, and bringing average workers into that. And that's what I think America needs (given that 90 years of communist clubs have not made any significant progress in affecting politics).

Eugene Debs got a million votes, and he was a revolutionary Marxist. We're not talking about the impossible here. But, he did it at the crest of a wave of working radicalism, by running on a ticket whose platform made it a natural leader of those radicalized workers. At present, we neither have a radical working class, nor a party who naturally appeals to them as the logical extension of their workplace struggles.

And in fact, I think these statements and events need to be taken to the advanced. That is, people in the US that are politically awakened and eager to find a way out of this mess. By winning these people over, our (and their) ability to win over the intermediate, those who are stuck between the advanced and backward, is greater. This is the correct strategy in winning people and building alliances. As a matter of strategy, this would not be taken to backward thinking workers or people in general, but to radicalized working people, in attempt to win them over.

There is no significant number of radicalized working people in the U.S. at present. That's the whole point.

Rawthentic

5th May 2009, 18:40

I am saying that the vast majority of these vanguard groups are spending most of their time talking about things which are five steps removed from having relevance to working peoples lives, rather than zero steps removed. The labor bureaucrats are preaching to them about things that are zero steps removed (higher wages, cheaper healthcare, dignity and power on the job), which is part of why the labor bureaucrats are more successful than socialists are at connecting with the working class.ah, I am glad you wrote this. It gets into what it really means to be a communist and pursue revolutionary politics in a time when such politics are derided as utopian or "out of touch."

You see, we can abandon our revolutionary orientation and become labor bureaucrats, as many self-described communists do. We can work really hard to win the trust of the workers by leading them in their wages, reforms, etc., and then hope for them to "see the light" after we have them under our wing. But, since when is revolutionary consciousness ever developed like that? As I said before, do we subordinate our radical vision to economic demands that are perceived to be in the workers best interests, or do we organize people on the basis of communist politics? I want to create a radical movement that wins people over using line and vision, not building trust through reforms. All communist movements take on and lead reforms by necessity, but the issue at hand is how we relate to that.

And I think you think that people are so self-interested that any talk about nepal or broader political issues is nonsense, since workers just aren't interested (or it doesnt have "relevance" to their lives). Well, using your methods, we'll be recreating the same bullshit, dry left that is the problem in the first place. We don't need any more lowered sights. We need a shocking, creative, and unapologetic revolutionary movemment. We want to fuse our vision of a classless future with the struggles of working people (and bridge their understanding).

So, yeah labro bureaucrats "connect with the working class", but on a completely narrow and reformist basis. Revolutionaries don't win people over like that. Before we conduct political work we need to ask: how does leading X struggle have the possibility of developing revolutionary consciousness?

in addition: communism is not about factory floor complaints (as legitimate as they are). It is about the liberation of humanity. Do you think workplace struggles are the arena where revolution is organized?

JimmyJazz

5th May 2009, 19:16

in addition: communism is not about factory floor complaints (as legitimate as they are). It is about the liberation of humanity. Do you think workplace struggles are the arena where revolution is organized?

I'm a Marxist, so yes.

JimmyJazz

6th May 2009, 06:56

I thought I'd summarize what I've been trying to say very concisely: I don't see any party in the U.S., nor do I know of one in any other comparable (industrialized, democratic) country that is capable of becoming a mass revolutionary labor party. Every party that I am aware of seems incapable of ever hoping to live up to all three of those words.

And one reason that I see for this is that most parties which posture themselves as potential mass revolutionary labor parties start off by preaching at people about what should be graduate-level revolutionary socialist topics, like Nepal or the class nature of the USSR, when they should be reaching out to people with freshman Socialism 101 stuff like the meaning of the word "class" (it's not equivalent to a tax bracket, it's not defined by consumption habits :rolleyes:), the importance of workers organizing for their rights and the meaning of a strike, the basics of what makes capitalism capitalism (the nature of profit, the difference between wages and profit, the difference between workers and owners, what "means of production" are, the fact that capitalism is about 500 years old and that Native Americans trading seashells for furs was not capitalism, etc.). Until we can do this, every new "vanguard" party is destined to be just another communist club, competing to have the "line" that attracts the most pre-made socialists. We shouldn't be fighting over how to divvy up the pre-made socialists, but making new socialists, en masse. We are spending all our time on discipleship and we should be spending it on evangelism.

The idea of communism is to connect the dots for workers. Communists "clearly understand the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement." But there are at least 10 to 20 dots that need to be connected, from shop floor struggles all the way up to what is going on in Nepal. You cannot just start talking to people about the importance of the last dot; you have to connect the other 19 first.

It's possible that I am unfairly blaming communists for limitations that are actually set by present material conditions. But I think that material conditions are less of a limitation at this moment than communists would like to believe. I'm not suggesting that a well-led party could take power this minute, but I do think that we could be doing a lot better, and that some of our mistakes are actually quite easy to identify. Leadership matters.

Nothing Human Is Alien

24th May 2009, 10:57

Jimmy, you are pointing to some important things your first posts in this thread. I think you are looking the right direction.

Most communists in the imperialist countries have been mimicking the Bolsheviks of 1917 (or a caricature thereof) for decades to no avail. All "Leninist" organization more or less organize around a newspaper. The fact that they are still doing that now, in 2009, shows their dogmatism and political bankruptcy. They simply don't know what else to do. Many organizations today resemble reenactment societies more closely than militant political parties. Part of that was the fault of the COMINTERN, but the blame can't be placed there.

Lenin spoke critically of the phenomenon in the years before his death.

"The necessity to concentrate all forces on establishing a regularly appearing and regularly delivered organ arises out of the peculiar situation of Russian Social-Democracy as compared with that of Social-Democracy in other European countries and with that of the old Russian revolutionary parties. Apart from newspapers, the workers of Germany, France etc. have numerous other means for the public manifestation of their activity, for organising the movement -- parliamentary activity, election agitation, public meetings, participation in local public bodies (rural and urban), the open conduct of trade unions (professional, guild), etc., etc. In place of all that, yes, all of that, we must be served -- until we have won political liberty -- by a revolutionary newspaper, without which no broad organisation of the working-class movement is possible."

"At the third congress in 1921 we adopted a resolution on the structure of communist parties and the methods and content of their activities. It is an excellent resolution, but it is almost entirely Russian, that is to say, everything in it is taken from Russian conditions. That is its good side, but it is also its bad side, bad because scarcely a single foreigner – I am convinced of this, and I have just re-read it-can read it. Firstly, it is too long, fifty paragraphs or more. Foreigners cannot usually read items of that length. Secondly, if they do read it, they cannot understand it, precisely because it is too Russian… it is permeated and imbued with a Russian spirit. Thirdly, if there is by chance a foreigner who can understand it, he cannot apply it… My impression is that we have committed a gross error in passing that resolution, blocking our own road to further progress. As I said, the resolution is excellent, and I subscribe to every one of the fifty paragraphs. But I must say that we have not yet discovered the form in which to present our Russian experience to foreigners, and for that reason the resolution has remained a dead letter. If we do not discover it, we shall not go forward."

While I think a global organization is required, I also think it's clear that organization and tactics must vary from one country to another. That especially the case in imperialist and imperialist-oppressed countries. Tactics and organization viable in the former are likely not viable in the latter, and vice versa.

As history has shown, the first countries in which revolution occurs will face harsh attacks from all directions. In imperialist-oppressed countries that is even more true, as they will come under the attack of much more powerful and dominant forces. It should make sense then, that these countries will need to place a high priority on defending themselves, and having the tools to do so.

Once the revolution spreads to the imperialist countries there will be less of a need for that, though the risk of counterrevolution will of course still exist. That's a main reason why it's vital for the revolution to be born out in every country in the world. The first countries to have revolutions need to "put it all on the line" to assist their proletarian sisters and brothers around the world to make that a reality. If the revolution doesn't spread, the ensuing isolation and encirclement of the countries in which revolution has already been carried out can only lead to scarcity and bunker/siege mentality, creating the basis for the rise of a privileged bureaucracy and a distortion of the revolution.

Of course the way in which revolutions will unfold will also be different in imperialist and imperialist-oppressed countries, the first countries to "go socialist" and the last, etc.

I think you're spot on about the need to organize mass organizations in the imperialist countries - and that putting the highest priority on finding out a potential member's stance on the situation in Nepal or something similar is completely counterproductive to say the least.

With all that said, I think your mistake lies in equating central planning with bureaucracy. Without centralized planning on a world scale there will be no communism. Folks are perfectly capable of planning production and distribution on a such a scale without bureaucrats hovering overhead.

24th May 2009, 13:11

Most communists in the imperialist countries have been mimicking the Bolsheviks of 1917 (or a caricature thereof) for decades to no avail.

This is not true. The RSDLP formed because the material conditions at the time demanded it; it was composed of dozens of local and regional organizations and groups, which arose themselves due to the conditions of the time. The communists in the "imperialist" countries have done the exact opposite: they have formed their organizations prior to the material conditions demanding it, and have done so with the purpose of creating such conditions. It's a very backwards approach that has been unsuccessful for decades.

Nothing Human Is Alien

24th May 2009, 22:02

Hence "or a caricature thereof."

JimmyJazz

25th May 2009, 05:44

With all that said, I think your mistake lies in equating central planning with bureaucracy. Without centralized planning on a world scale there will be no communism. Folks are perfectly capable of planning production and distribution on a such a scale without bureaucrats hovering overhead.

I'm not too educated yet on the economic history of the USSR or other socialist countries, so it still kind of comes down to imagination for me at this point.

I agree that accountable central planning is a necessity (otherwise you preserve the "anarchy in production" that prevails under capitalism, causing crises, environmental destruction, etc.), which is why syndicalism is not fully socialist imo. But I also think that you need strong institutional guarantees of workers' control--stronger even than the Soviets, something more like the factory committees--and not just absolute rule by some party that calls itself 'Marxist'.

The scenario that I can imagine that closest approximates all this would be the radical workers' movement taking gradually more control of their industry in a syndicalist fashion, following the IWW model ("The army of production must be organized, not only for everyday struggle with capitalists, but also to carry on production when capitalism shall have been overthrown. By organizing industrially we are forming the structure of the new society within the shell of the old"), with a party or something like it to execute the actual expropriation of all capital at the decisive moment (like right around the time when the capitalists make some move to abandon democracy for a dictatorship--letting them make the first 'illegal' move puts the blame on them).

Then the party should really dissolve (I see no reason for it even to exist in a background role, where it always has the potential to reassert itself again in the future), and where factory committees vote for recallable delegates to some local body, which then sends delegates to a provincial/state-level body, which then sends delegates to a regional/national body, and in that way they would work out the planning of production at each of those levels (the national, regional, provincial, local). And I do consider this a form of centralized planning, or at least of combined centralized/decentralized planning, because I don't have any kind of a fetish for decentralization and would not hesitate to give the national-level body more responsibility in the planning of production than the lower bodies had, if it was desirable for practical reasons, and provided it remained accountable and only composed of recallable delegates.

That's what I see as ideal, but working out the kinks in a system like that would take a year or more almost certainly. That's why I wouldn't really expect it to ever be an option in a country where, the day you expropriate the capitalists, the CIA starts training disgruntled exiles in your neighboring country or loading up the bombs on their F-18s.

For a country like the U.S., however, I don't think anyone else would try to invade it even in the midst of such a vast social upheaval as all that. I could be wrong though, maybe they would.

This is not true. The RSDLP formed because the material conditions at the time demanded it; it was composed of dozens of local and regional organizations and groups, which arose themselves due to the conditions of the time. The communists in the "imperialist" countries have done the exact opposite: they have formed their organizations prior to the material conditions demanding it, and have done so with the purpose of creating such conditions. It's a very backwards approach that has been unsuccessful for decades.

Speaking of this, does anyone know of a good history of the Bolshevik Party, from the beginnings as the RSDLP through October 1917? Everything that I've seen along those lines seems to be a history of Lenin's contributions, not of the party more generally.

There is a history by Zinoviev and a history by the Central Committee of the CPSU (the same book?), but I would really prefer something less likely to be partisan, if there is anything.

What I would really like to read is something that is similar to this essay (http://members.optushome.com.au/spainter/Liebman.html), only covering the whole existence of the party, and not just a single turning point (1905). Something that covers the evolution with regard to tactics (underground versus legal), nature of membership (restricted versus mass), etc., and their relation to historical events going on in Russia. I think a book like that, if there is one, would be a good antidote to the formulaic thinking that sees What Is To Be Done? or some other historically specific book by Lenin as a universal handbook of tactics valid for all times. I haven't been able to find it though.