A re-intro.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

At this point, I think it may be prudent to go ahead and just re-introduce myself to the community, given everything that's changed about my politics since I initially joined and especially over this last summer, being especially that most of these changes have thus far been behind-the-scenes.

A lot of you probably know me as the RCP (Revolutionary Communist Party, USA) supporter. Over the course of this summer, that identifying position of mine, however, has slowly but surely changed. I'm a relatively new communist in that I've only been studying Marxism for the last 2 and a half years or so. For most of that period, I've been sorta "with" the RCP on one level or another. Here and there I've flirted with going in different directions, but always quickly wound up back where I started, so to speak. The change in orientation that I'm describing here is not such a flirtation, but rather has been allowed plenty of time and research to fully develop. It represents a fairly concrete break with the RCP. At this point, I have very basic disagreements with the RCPs...

-structure
-strategy
-tactics
-version of the history of socialism
-vision of socialism
-etc.

In all honesty, I can't find a single party or organization on Earth that adequately supports my thinking at present. Hence I'm now considering myself independent.

I'm re-introducing myself also in part because I want there to be a precedent established before I just start leaping into broad discussions on the content of the new theory I've developed over the course of the summer. And yes I do want to get into those kinds of far-reaching discussions very soon (as in beginning perhaps tomorrow, in the Theory forum).

As a brief preview though of what sorts of views I'm currently leaning toward politically, I'll below loosely outline a few aspects of my new theory:

-The Soviet Union became a capitalist country in 1935 (and a specifically imperialist country in 1939), not 1956.

-Partially as a result of that, Mao significantly underestimated the direness of the situation in the mid-'60s and hence prescribed an inadequate solution.

-The Cultural Revolution should have been continued to its logical conclusion: the complete destruction and replacement of the old state and the old party with a new union of socialist communes and a whole new communist party, with the Cultural Revolution Group, the Red Guards, and the Shanghai Commune being the embryos thereof.

-The short-lived Shanghai Commune is what I consider an approximate model of socialism for the future.

-Socialist parliaments, secondary as they must always be, should be divided into two chambers: one featuring open elections and the other featuring contested elections between party members (who must be free to run on their individual political positions). The second chamber of which I speak may also allow general members of its revolutionary united front to contest perhaps one-third of the seats. Ultimately, once communism is entered into, this second chamber can be abolished. Its role must also progressively diminish over the course of the world revolution.

-Socialist countries shouldn't have and shouldn't seek diplomatic relations with capitalist countries, period.

-No socialist country should feature a national constitution. National constitutions should be understand as bourgeois implements, designed to perpetuate a certain status quo, whereas socialism by contrast must always be revolutionary in nature.

-Socialist states encompassing multiple nations must take the form of a confederation, not that of a federal system.

-Traditional forms of democratic centralism must be abolished. All command structures within communist parties must be abolished and organized factions recognized and tolerated. Only a party organized on this foundation can provide the atmosphere of open debate necessary to get at the truth of things and make the party's politics (both internally and externally) truly democratic in nature.

-Correct revolutionary tactics entail communists playing a genuinely vanguard role, taking part in and leading militant resistance, not just being "good protesters" and pamphleteers. In countries like the USA, our propaganda/political work should also initially be disproportionately online, where it can have a broader social impact.

-Correct revolutionary strategy entails establishing real base areas (no, bookstores don't count as "base areas") more or less immediately, not at some vague point in the distant future. Also, some variation of people's war (whether mostly urban or mostly rural) is a correct revolutionary strategy virtually everywhere.

-Third world communists can and should seek to unite with nationalist elements that are in opposition to comprador regimes. (Including yes jihadist nationalists.) Comprador forces can be united with tactically (not strategically, a.k.a. permanently) in the event of...and only in the event of...an outright foreign invasion.

-And more.

Just to give you all the update.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

I don't think that there is anything in there that I haven't heard before really, but congrats for leaving that party nonetheless.

[Q]

In all honesty, I can't find a single party or organization on Earth that adequately supports my thinking at present. Hence I'm now considering myself independent.

Join a multi-tendency party and start a tendency or opposition if you feel strongly enough about it. If you're still interested at all in parties that is. Parties shouldn't be organised around theories, but around class unity and basic principles. In my opinion anyway.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

I have no intention of simply being an opportunist and still find theory very important.

In fact, I still ultimately regard the RCP as the most advanced party in America, even with all their major flaws. I mean, looking at the other various Mao-orbit parties/organizations/networks in the U.S., all but the RCP either oppose the most basic Maoist principles and concepts (e.g. the theory of social-imperialism, the Cultural Revolution, etc.), are mainly organized around racist politics (e.g. the Leading Light Communist Organization), or generally favor electoral strategies and other types of blanket reformism (yep, looking at you Kasama and FRSO (LRF) folks). There's no existing comparison. My point though is that we need to do much, much better than this. I think a whole new communist party and a whole new international movement for world revolution are required. I intend to do what I can to initiate a broad dialogue toward that end here on RevLeft and elsewhere.

[Kassad]

So what are you going to do with your Bob Avakian t-shirts now?

In all sincerity, it's nice to see you getting away from the RCP. I honestly feel like they are not recruiting young people at all and I feel like members are leaving in droves. Kasama took a lot of RCP members and supporters and I feel like a lot of individuals are just leaving on their own terms. I just don't see the RCP playing a major role in any struggles in the near future. Bob Avakian's name is not going to be a clarion call to the working class and until the party understands that, they're pretty much finished.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Well, based on my experience with the RCP, once again I wouldn't be so negative toward it as to say that it's at all "finished" or what have you, or that they have nothing correct in their line. Rather, what my experience working with the campaign to make BA a household name, resisting the new anti-immigrant law in Arizona, working with the Emergency Committee to Stop the Gulf Oil Disaster we led the way to establishing, and participating in the U.S. Social Forum in Detroit, has shown me is that the RCP is definitely getting somewhere now in terms of raw numbers of people that express some vague interest in revolution. I think we've probably distributed the "message and call" flyers to more than 500,000 people over the summer at this point, and maybe even to way more than that (although of course only a small proportion have responded positively to that). But the thing is, it's just marching and passing out leaflets and flyers and dialoguing with people on a low level (we're talking the level of more or less just yelling at people over loudspeakers and repeating standard talking points in discussions) and getting them loosely affiliating with the party. i.e. It's just mindless activism. Take a look at the RCP's theoretical journal, for example. It's supposed to be updated quarterly (and in my opinion it really should be updated at least monthly), yet the most recent entry (which is the only entry) is now more than a year old. In other words, once the RCP began this campaign to make BA a household name, which was in that same time frame, as BA would say "the lights went out" in terms of critical thinking to a very large degree. The RCP isn't really getting anywhere theoretically and isn't really trying. In my view, the further development of communist theory is the single most imperative task at present because, let's face it, the world communist movement is largely dying out. What this signifies is that clearly we're getting something, and probably a lot, wrong at a very basic level. We need to dig deeply into what that is (without going the crackpot revisionist (e.g. Prachanda) route, that is) or communism will, however temporarily, cease to exist in the world...and that's not an acceptable option!

Numbers mean nothing unless there's something substantive that people are united around. I think a lot of the people we hooked up with the revolution earlier in the summer are becoming discouraged because we gave the impression we were serious, but aren't really carrying out any corresponding action. We're not setting up base areas in these key hot spots. We've just gone there, done 'our thing', and left. So what does that accomplish in the long run? If all we can offer people in terms of building a revolutionary movement is just more flyers to pass out, that's not saying much. Substantive progress is required and to make substantive progress we have to get to a theoretical position first wherein such progress is actually possible and a corresponding strategy and general political line and organizational structure are developed.

It's not so much that people are leaving the RCP, it's whose leaving that should be a real concern. The fair array of people that are joining with the RCP are just joining loosely and getting turned off by the mindless drone mentality. It's the hitherto more "solid" members and supporters that are leaving. That, I think, is in part the result of this yes anti-intellectual turn. And those that are departing are moving into revisionist politics overwhelmingly. It's a bad situation. And it will only be remedied when "the lights come back on". But they haven't really been on for most of the decade within the RCP (or, frankly, anywhere for that matter). Dogma pervades RCP politics largely, I find. At least it's not the far more common eclectic dribble, but within the RCP's current framework and mentality, I don't think there's really the possibility of getting anywhere substantively, either in theory or in revolutionary practice.

[Soviet dude]

-The Soviet Union became a capitalist country in 1935 (and a specifically imperialist country in 1939), not 1956.

This is completely and utterly bizarre, though makes sense in light of RCP basically being a crypto-Trotskyist party.


-Socialist parliaments, secondary as they must always be, should be divided into two chambers: one featuring open elections and the other featuring contested elections between party members (who must be free to run on their individual political positions). The second chamber of which I speak may also allow general members of its revolutionary united front to contest perhaps one-third of the seats. Ultimately, once communism is entered into, this second chamber can be abolished. Its role must also progressively diminish over the course of the world revolution.Sounds like mostly a recipe for social-democracy.


-Socialist countries shouldn't have and shouldn't seek diplomatic relations with capitalist countries, period.This is very naive. Capitalists are gonna force you have to have some sort of diplomatic relations. It is also ignores the fact that contradictions in the global capitalist class can be exploited to the benefit of people all over the world. This just reminds me of the bizarro-criticism of the RCP towards Chavez.


-No socialist country should feature a national constitution. National constitutions should be understand as bourgeois implements, designed to perpetuate a certain status quo, whereas socialism by contrast must always be revolutionary in nature.This doesn't make any sense, in light of your ideas regarding "socialist parliament."


-Traditional forms of democratic centralism must be abolished. All command structures within communist parties must be abolished and organized factions recognized and tolerated. Only a party organized on this foundation can provide the atmosphere of open debate necessary to get at the truth of things and make the party's politics (both internally and externally) truly democratic in nature.This is basically the prescription for the complete destruction of any revolutionary party.


-Correct revolutionary tactics entail communists playing a genuinely vanguard role, taking part in and leading militant resistance, not just being "good protesters" and pamphleteers. In countries like the USA, our propaganda/political work should also initially be disproportionately online, where it can have a broader social impact.

-Correct revolutionary strategy entails establishing real base areas (no, bookstores don't count as "base areas") more or less immediately, not at some vague point in the distant future. Also, some variation of people's war (whether mostly urban or mostly rural) is a correct revolutionary strategy virtually everywhere.Adventurism.

It seems your new politics are an eclectic grab-bag of adventurism, social-democracy, crypto-Trotskyism, and madness.

[Q]

I have no intention of simply being an opportunist and still find theory very important.

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. Of course theory is vital. Without communist theory, there can be no communist programme and without that there can be no communist party. What I meant was that a party shouldn't elevate theory to dogma and organise exclusively around it (and perhaps other theories in combination). This is not the way of building a class party, but of a confessional sect, which is sadly the dire state of most of the left today.

Theory should be posed and counterposed in a dialectical sense, for this we need an open party in which tendencies can and must exist and in which disagreements are debated in an open way within the party press and other places in which the working class as a whole can learn from and contribute to. This in itself forms one of the mechanisms in which to build a communist political leadership within the working class.

No opportunism or disregard of theory here, but principled positions and open disagreements. I think this is fundamentally a scientific way to approach working class politics and leadership.

I for one disagree with many of your positions, but that is no reason why we shouldn't be in the same party, acting in a united fashion. The basics of party organisation for me should be around working class independence, internationalism and democracy. All the rest is subject for discussion, be they theory, programme, strategy or tactics.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Soviet dude wrote:
It seems your new politics are an eclectic grab-bag of adventurism, social-democracy, crypto-Trotskyism, and madness.Thanks for that non-constructive, sectarian criticism. See, this is the type of mentality I'm lamenting! All you really did in your whole response to me was just repeat some talking points without any explanation or substantiation thereof. That's because, let's face it, your only intent was to insult me, not to initiate a productive dialogue.

Furthermore though, you have zero room to (arbitrarily) accuse me reformism when you yourself admit to embracing reformist governments like that of Chavez, oh ye so principled revolutionary.


Q wrote:
I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. Of course theory is vital. Without communist theory, there can be no communist programme and without that there can be no communist party. What I meant was that a party shouldn't elevate theory to dogma and organise exclusively around it (and perhaps other theories in combination). This is not the way of building a class party, but of a confessional sect, which is sadly the dire state of most of the left today.

Theory should be posed and counterposed in a dialectical sense, for this we need an open party in which tendencies can and must exist and in which disagreements are debated in an open way within the party press and other places in which the working class as a whole can learn from and contribute to. This in itself forms one of the mechanisms in which to build a communist political leadership within the working class.

No opportunism or disregard of theory here, but principled positions and open disagreements. I think this is fundamentally a scientific way to approach working class politics and leadership.

I for one disagree with many of your positions, but that is no reason why we shouldn't be in the same party, acting in a united fashion. The basics of party organisation for me should be around working class independence, internationalism and democracy. All the rest is subject for discussion, be they theory, programme, strategy or tactics.Not a bad thought! Personally though, I'm prone to thinking that at some point in this ongoing process, an overall theory should probably be synthesized. As in you have a process in which theory is, as you say, "posed and counterposed", but then ultimately synthesized before being re-posed and re-counterposed based on the outcome of the application thereof. But you may be right: even that may really be too suppressive by nature, I'm not yet (anymore) decided. What do you think of this idea of the party at large, not just in sections, synthesizing theory (not just general principles) at various points and of that being an important aspect of the development and application thereof?

I definitely disagree though with what you consider the crucial basis of unity for communists (as contrasted with the crucial basis of unity for a radical united front). I think communists should definitely be united around, at the very, very least, objectives like socialism, communism, and revolution, not just vague notions of "independence, internationalism, and democracy". This and nothing less makes for a serious, principled vanguard party. (On the other hand, communists should unite on the basis or independent resistance to oppression with the 'external' masses.)

[mossy noonmann]

you should really get out more

really!

[Soviet dude]

Thanks for that non-constructive, sectarian criticism. See, this is the type of mentality I'm lamenting! All you really did in your whole response to me was just repeat some talking points without any explanation or substantiation thereof. That's because, let's face it, your only intent was to insult me, not to initiate a productive dialogue.

Your ideas don't really have that much merit to discuss in lengthy fashion. For instance, if you think you can have a revolutionary party without democratic centralism, you don't understand anything about history or the reality of being a serious part of a revolutionary organization. It is probably just a knee-jerk reaction you have from being a low-level cadre in the Avakian cult. That you think we should start preparing for People's War in the US shows just how disconnected your thinking is from the masses.


Furthermore though, you have zero room to (arbitrarily) accuse me reformism when you yourself admit to embracing reformist governments like that of Chavez, oh ye so principled revolutionary.

You don't deserve to kiss Chavez's boots. Chavez has done more to stick a thorn in the side of Western imperialism than basically every single communist party in the entire West combined. Not to mention he is actually constructing socialism in his country. That you and the bourgeoisie hate Chavez is an indication something is seriously wrong with you, not that there is anything wrong with me. RCP is called crypto-Trotskyist for a reason, and it has to do with this sort of disgusting capitulation to US imperialism you often find in their circles.

[Chambered Word]

Welcome back to the realm of the living. :thumbup1: No, seriously.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Soviet dude wrote:
For instance, if you think you can have a revolutionary party without democratic centralism, you don't understand anything about history or the reality of being a serious part of a revolutionary organization. It is probably just a knee-jerk reaction you have from being a low-level cadre in the Avakian cult.And precisely what party structure do you suppose it was that led to the 'Avakian cult'? Or for that matter, the Stalin cult, the Mao cult, the Kim Il Sung/Kim Jong Il cult, etc. etc. etc...? I'm not per se opposing democratic centralism, but rather, like I said, the traditional interpretation of that, as largely invented in the months after Lenin's death. We have to be intellectually honest with our history and admit that there really has been some truth underlying the (usually exaggerated) bourgeois 'totalitarian' allegations of socialist countries. Almost every socialist government has been turned into its opposite not from without by foreign invaders, but from within, through the regular institutional processes. That indicates we need some different ones, and of course ones that won't tend to structurally lead to the abandonment of the rule of the proletariat. And if you don't have those structural differences in the party itself, then I don't think you're going to be able to have them in the wider society either. i.e. I think that the party should be organized more in accordance with the sort of principles we'd aim to see brought to the wider society and to the world as a whole.


That you think we should start preparing for People's War in the US shows just how disconnected your thinking is from the masses.I can substantiate why I think an urban variant of people's war is a correct revolutionary strategy for a country like this one, but I'd kind of like to know what brilliant alternative strategy you'd offer?


You don't deserve to kiss Chavez's boots. Chavez has done more to stick a thorn in the side of Western imperialism than basically every single communist party in the entire West combined. Not to mention he is actually constructing socialism in his country. That you and the bourgeoisie hate Chavez is an indication something is seriously wrong with you, not that there is anything wrong with me. RCP is called crypto-Trotskyist for a reason, and it has to do with this sort of disgusting capitulation to US imperialism you often find in their circles.And you call me a revisionist.

Chavez is a political representative of the national bourgeoisie and acts in accordance with their interests, not those of the proletariat. And the state of Venezuela today reflects that fact. It remains fundamentally an oil-trade-centric economy and indeed today features the weakest economy in the region as a direct result. The difference between Chavez's Venezuela and say Columbia is that Chavez's Venezuela simply tolerates imperialist domination rather than welcoming it with open arms. The only real reason he's even still allowed to remain in power by the U.S. is because America is pretty militarily bogged down in the Middle East at the moment and increasingly tied up in major trade rivalry with China. (Which shows just how irrelevant Chavez's Venezuela remains as a "thorn" in America's side next to real popular uprisings and imperialist rivalries.) People like Chavez could be potential allies of the proletariat were they not the principle forces oppressing it in the region. i.e. If say Chavez and his forces were overthrown by a U.S. invasion, then it would probably become possible for Venezuelan communists to unite with them toward the goal of defeating the occupiers through real revolution. In the absence of such a situation, however, Chavez and his political forces are an enemy of the proletariat.

[Soviet dude]

And precisely what party structure do you suppose it was that led to the 'Avakian cult'? Or for that matter, the Stalin cult, the Mao cult, the Kim Il Sung/Kim Jong Il cult, etc. etc. etc...?

Party structure doesn't lead to cult of personalities in the first place. They arise for a complex number of interacting reasons, though I would say the dominate one is a way to gain the support of the masses through a theoretically low-level approach. A secondary cause is internal struggle. Cults of personality are rarely created by the icons themselves, though they can be later promoted by the icon. Stalin is probably the best example of a leader who held deep suspicion of the cult of personality around him, and actively tried to suppress it inside the party, while understanding the real role it plays for the masses. I suggest you think very carefully about the real cult of personality that exists around Obama to get a better understanding of what it means to normal people.


I'm not per se opposing democratic centralism, but rather, like I said, the traditional interpretation of that, as largely invented in the months after Lenin's death.This is simply not true. I suggest you re-read the documents of the 10th party Congress.


We have to be intellectually honest with our history and admit that there really has been some truth underlying the (usually exaggerated) bourgeois 'totalitarian' allegations of socialist countries.I have spent several years studying the history put forth by anti-communists. I have basically exhausted the capacity to learn anything further theoretically from this literature. The primary lesson I learned is just how thoroughly bankrupt bourgeois history is, how propaganda has a stranglehold on all aspects of ideology in our system. The stuff is not only false, it would be literally laughed at by any historian from any less-propagandized field of history.

Most people who consider themselves communists will never study this very deeply. The lessons learned from it are not very important, and are so much more dramatically learned from just watching CNN and Fox talk about anything of any importance. The college experience should be more than enough to teach any communist just how controlled and stifling academia is. And there currently exists no real, useful, ground-breaking Marxist analysis of the USSR that will advance our understanding of how to build socialism. Most serious Left-leaning researchers are simply in the business of refuting bourgeois lies, of which there are a never-ending supply of, with little in the way of improving our theoretical understanding of what went wrong. Grover Furr's work is an example of this. One day the communist movement will be able to do a serious analysis of the USSR, but that day is not anytime in the near future.


Almost every socialist government has been turned into its opposite not from without by foreign invaders, but from within, through the regular institutional processes.This is simplistic and wrong understanding of actually what has took place, and what is taking place, in socialist countries today. What people actually think they know, say, about the DPRK, is laughable in the extreme. The RCP is a great example of a party whose members literally know nothing about this country, and can't explain anything about why they think it is 'bad' when asked. They don't even possess a crude so-called 'anti-revisionist' analysis, they just instinctively reject it, like most of the so-called Left on this forum. When the broader Left can articulate it, is nothing more than the most racist and absurd propaganda created by the West imaginable.

The real problem is the "Left" in America is dominated by white pseudo-intellectual people who have long ago completely accepted the dominate bourgeois framework for thinking about the world.


That indicates we need some different ones, and of course ones that won't tend to structurally lead to the abandonment of the rule of the proletariat.Rule by a class is an abstraction. The capitalist class as a whole doesn't rule America. Bill Gates isn't calling the shots just because he has the most money. There isn't any ruling coalition of the 20 richest capitalists all sitting in a room deciding how they're gonna run America for the next 4 years. Yet only a fool would think our government is anything but a Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie.

Yet despite that, lots of "Leftists" imagine rule by the working class has to take on some simplistic, rigid form. It most do this and do that, otherwise it isn't socialist, which usually ends up as a cheap mimicking of the bourgeois parliamentarian they are all familiar with, something which you have basically articulated here. The problem, of course, is that socialism never has and never will look like bourgeois democracy.


I think that the party should be organized more in accordance with the sort of principles we'd aim to see brought to the wider society and to the world as a whole.Hence your descent into social-democracy and liberalism.


I can substantiate why I think an urban variant of people's war is a correct revolutionary strategy for a country like this one, but I'd kind of like to know what brilliant alternative strategy you'd offer?The mass-line. Communist parties in America are divorced from the masses and their real struggles of the day. Marxism is divorced from the labor movement. This has to change before there can even be talk of People's War in America.


And you call me a revisionist.Revisionism might be a step up for you, cause at this point you are abandoning fundamental concepts of what a communist organization even is.


Chavez is a political representative of the national bourgeoisie and acts in accordance with their interests, not those of the proletariat.This is, of course, a total lie, but it doesn't surprise me this is the crap Avakian is feeding his people. After all, you can't let excitement for Chavez get in the way of excitement for Avakian...


And the state of Venezuela today reflects that fact.In fact, it doesn't at all. It is reflecting a state that is making the transition to socialism faster than the Bolsheviks were able to do.


It remains fundamentally an oil-trade-centric economy and indeed today features the weakest economy in the region as a direct result.This is just ridiculous nonsense.


The difference between Chavez's Venezuela and say Columbia is that Chavez's Venezuela simply tolerates imperialist domination rather than welcoming it with open arms.You simply live in a fantasy world to even be able to say this. I'm taken back just by how ridiculous the Avakian-cult programming is.


The only real reason he's even still allowed to remain in power by the U.S. is because America is pretty militarily bogged down in the Middle East at the moment and increasingly tied up in major trade rivalry with China.The US is spending over 40 million dollars every year to overthrow Chavez. The US is doing everything it can, short of militarily invading, to overthrow Chavez. Do you live under a rock?



(Which shows just how irrelevant Chavez's Venezuela remains as a "thorn" in America's side next to real popular uprisings and imperialist rivalries.)Chavez is vastly more popular than the RCP will ever be or ever was.


People like Chavez could be potential allies of the proletariat were they not the principle forces oppressing it in the region. i.e. If say Chavez and his forces were overthrown by a U.S. invasion, then it would probably become possible for Venezuelan communists to unite with them toward the goal of defeating the occupiers through real revolution. In the absence of such a situation, however, Chavez and his political forces are an enemy of the proletariat.That you could even suggest something so utterly ridiculous shows just how utterly reactionary and cyrpto-Trotskyist the RCP is.

[scarletghoul]

Those are some interesting ideas, Monkey Riding Dragon. Would you mind expanding on the reasoning behind each of them ??

[Lenina Rosenweg]

It represents a fairly concrete break with the RCP. At this point, I have very basic disagreements with the RCPs...

-The Soviet Union became a capitalist country in 1935 (and a specifically imperialist country in 1939), not 1956.
Complicated. It comes down to how you define socialism and capitalism. If socialism is the self rule of the working class, that was not true of the SU. It had elements of socialism. On the other hand some, but not all of the requirements of the capitalist law of value were fulfilled.It was an economy in transition.The question is, transition to what?Anyway,what happened in 1935?
or 1939? However the fSU is classified it has to be based on material conditions, not foreign policy or statements of leaders.


-Partially as a result of that, Mao significantly underestimated the direness of the situation in the mid-'60s and hence prescribed an inadequate solution.

-The Cultural Revolution should have been continued to its logical conclusion: the complete destruction and replacement of the old state and the old party with a new union of socialist communes and a whole new communist party, with the Cultural Revolution Group, the Red Guards, and the Shanghai Commune being the embryos thereof.

Why did the GPCR end? My understanding is that the PLA really held the cards throughout. "Bomb the headquarters" because the boss said so.There certain nly were egalitarian trends in the GPCR but also deeply authoritarian trends.


-The short-lived Shanghai Commune is what I consider an approximate model of socialism for the future.


I agree, 100%.My understanding is that this was suppressed by Mao.



-Socialist parliaments, secondary as they must always be, should be divided into two chambers: one featuring open elections and the other featuring contested elections between party members (who must be free to run on their individual political positions). The second chamber of which I speak may also allow general members of its revolutionary united front to contest perhaps one-third of the seats. Ultimately, once communism is entered into, this second chamber can be abolished. Its role must also progressively diminish over the course of the world revolution.I don't know. A bicameral type legislature is a product of classic 18th century bourgeois political theory and revolutions-the British Parliament, Montesquiu, the US constitution, French Revolution.Many Marxists advocate a one house legislature based on Rousseau. Elections in the transitional period anyway would be contested by worker's parties.I'm not sure we can really say what the legislature would be like. Perhaps a national legislature composed of delegates from worker's councils. No dual power, worker's councils are the "state".


-Socialist countries shouldn't have and shouldn't seek diplomatic relations with capitalist countries, period.

This is the most interesting part of this post. Its worthy of debate. In the early SU (or a future revolution) the power of the working class had to be expressed in the form of a state. Depending on the world situation the worker's state (oxymoron, I know) may have to function for a time as a bourgeois state in a world of bourgeois states. The need for this would depend on the strength of the international working class.There is a story that because of the need for an alliance with Kemal Ataturk's Turkey,Lenin and Trotsky worked to suppress the early Turkish Communist Party.This may or may not have been legitimate in that specific situation.

Say, a few years from now a system of Greek worker's councils evolving out of strike committees is able to contest and then take state power. What is the first task Greek working class would face? International solidarity. Diplomacy can actually be used as a tool in the class struggle.You get to have an embassy or at least some people in the enemy territory. This is useful for intelligence and propaganda. Foreign trade is a legitimate concern as well, as long as its managed to strengthen socialist institutions.



-No socialist country should feature a national constitution. National constitutions should be understand as bourgeois implements, designed to perpetuate a certain status quo, whereas socialism by contrast must always be revolutionary in nature. Agree. A constitution is a framework of a state, a system which we want to go beyond.


-Socialist states encompassing multiple nations must take the form of a confederation, not that of a federal system.


I don't know. Rosa Luxemburg was a "federalist" and disagreed with Lenin's policy of giving independence to Finland and other areas. This came back to haunt the Bolsheviks. There's a lot to be said for both views.It would depend on the feeling of the working class of a particular area. Would the working class of Free Quebec want to be part of an English speaking North American federation or independent? What about Cree or other First Nations people in Quebec? What about English speaking enclaves in the Five Townships north of Vermont? There are no easy answers but I think the best solution would be a socialist federation guaranteeing cultural autonomy.



-Traditional forms of democratic centralism must be abolished. All command structures within communist parties must be abolished and organized factions recognized and tolerated. Only a party organized on this foundation can provide the atmosphere of open debate necessary to get at the truth of things and make the party's politics (both internally and externally) truly democratic in nature.
Mostly agree but some "control mechanisms" should be kept in place. What will keep a communist party communist? If there's a revolution in a largely peasant based society, what is to keep a faction from orienting itself towards a conservative religion or a single ethnicity? (I'm thinking of India here).


-Correct revolutionary tactics entail communists playing a genuinely vanguard role, taking part in and leading militant resistance, not just being "good protesters" and pamphleteers. In countries like the USA, our propaganda/political work should also initially be disproportionately online, where it can have a broader social impact.


Today no single group can be the vanguard. The revolutionary left as a whole can be. It that sense we are all different factions of the same movement. Political work should be in workplaces and areas of struggle-immigrant rights rallies,lgbt demos,on the picket line, etc.


-Correct revolutionary strategy entails establishing real base areas (no, bookstores don't count as "base areas") more or less immediately, not at some vague point in the distant future. Also, some variation of people's war (whether mostly urban or mostly rural) is a correct revolutionary strategy virtually everywhere.
What would be a "base area" in Greece? What do you mean by "people's war"? Its not applicable in developed countries. Movements like these failed in the 70s.Correct revolutionary strategy entails raising class consciousness of workers and building institutions, rooted in the working class, capable of contesting state power and assuming the management of society.


-Third world communists can and should seek to unite with nationalist elements that are in opposition to comprador regimes. (Including yes jihadist nationalists.) Comprador forces can be united with tactically (not strategically, a.k.a. permanently) in the event of...and only in the event of...an outright foreign invasion.

-And more.

The working class should always maintain its independence. Temporary tactical alliances can be valid. Jihadists are not our friends. They would kill 90% of everyone on RevLeft. The Iranian Islamists killed around 30,000 leftists in 1988. Jihadists do not depend on and actually do not want, working class support. They are generally of upper middle class-lower middle class petit bourgeois background.They speak a different language and are going in a different direction than the left.

I 'm glad you are moving away from the RCP.

[Chimurenga.]

-The Soviet Union became a capitalist country in 1935 (and a specifically imperialist country in 1939), not 1956.


Uhh.. wat?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

. And there currently exists no real, useful, ground-breaking Marxist analysis of the USSR that will advance our understanding of how to build socialism.


Sure there is. In terms of economics off the top of my head I could recommend "The Life and Death of Stalinism ,A Resurrection of Marxist Theory" by Walter Daum. There's the work done by Hillel Tiktin. The British LC group Aufheben has an interesting take on why the SU collapsed.Other RevLefters could probably suggest many other works.


Rule by a class is an abstraction. The capitalist class as a whole doesn't rule America. Bill Gates isn't calling the shots just because he has the most money. There isn't any ruling coalition of the 20 richest capitalists all sitting in a room deciding how they're gonna run America for the next 4 years. Yet only a fool would think our government is anything but a Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie.

Yet despite that, lots of "Leftists" imagine rule by the working class has to take on some simplistic, rigid form. It most do this and do that, otherwise it isn't socialist, which usually ends up as a cheap mimicking of the bourgeois parliamentarian they are all familiar with, something which you have basically articulated here. The problem, of course, is that socialism never has and never will look like bourgeois democracy.
I agree with this. Well said.



That you could even suggest something so utterly ridiculous shows just how utterly reactionary and cyrpto-Trotskyist the RCP is.Those diabolically evil, reactionary Trots! Anyway MRD said she is moving away from the RCP.

MRD, I see you are extrapolating from what you perceive as mistakes of the Chinese revolution. You are moving in some interesting directions. I would be wary of a mechanical over generalization. When the revolution again comes to China, it will be a First World working class based revolution.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

scarletghoul wrote:
Those are some interesting ideas, Monkey Riding Dragon. Would you mind expanding on the reasoning behind each of them ??

There's way too much material concentrated in this theory to fully elaborate on it all in a single post. However, I actually have begun work on a series of articles in which I aim to more fully elaborate the main points of my theory. And I've already posted the contents of one such article for discussion here on RevLeft, which I'll link to in just a moment.


Lenina Rosenweg wrote:
This is the most interesting part of this post. Its worthy of debate.

I have, in fact, initiated a full-fledged debate on the topic in the Theory Forum. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/diplomatic-relationships-capitalist-t140173/index.html) Feel free to check it out and contribute your thoughts!

However...


Depending on the world situation the worker's state (oxymoron, I know) may have to function for a time as a bourgeois state in a world of bourgeois states.

...this I consider a revisionist position. The proletarian state does not just automatically degenerate into bourgeois politics depending on the external circumstances. There's a lot of fatalism in that formulation.


I don't know. Rosa Luxemburg was a "federalist" and disagreed with Lenin's policy of giving independence to Finland and other areas. This came back to haunt the Bolsheviks. There's a lot to be said for both views.It would depend on the feeling of the working class of a particular area. Would the working class of Free Quebec want to be part of an English speaking North American federation or independent? What about Cree or other First Nations people in Quebec? What about English speaking enclaves in the Five Townships north of Vermont? There are no easy answers but I think the best solution would be a socialist federation guaranteeing cultural autonomy.

Rosa Luxemburg's views on the subject were pretty social-imperialist. The Tibet model is hardly something worth repeating, in my view. (Let alone the 'Czechoslovakia model' if you mistakenly consider the late Soviet camp socialist.)

There has historically been a strong and very wrong tendency in the communist movement to view whatever form of multi-national relations is more centralized as more authentically internationalist. But communist internationalism isn't about some foreign army marching in and imposing a certain order on an unwilling population. It's about achieving an order in which all people freely share all the world. Accordingly, I think the right of nations to self-determination is to be absolutely respected by communists. I don't even think we should have more "internationals" in the Comintern vein. I think we should have an organized international communist movement for the purposes of thrashing out ideological/theoretical questions at the international level, but the greater expressions of organized, uniform actions of the Comintern were pretty consistently oppressive, always tending toward social-imperialism, with the Soviet Union determining the policies of all the CPs aligned with it therein according to its own national interest. I really think Mao was correct on this point. It's even more wrong to seek to construct a single worldwide communist party, as some organizations do.


Complicated. It comes down to how you define socialism and capitalism. If socialism is the self rule of the working class, that was not true of the SU. It had elements of socialism. On the other hand some, but not all of the requirements of the capitalist law of value were fulfilled.It was an economy in transition.The question is, transition to what?Anyway,what happened in 1935?
or 1939? However the fSU is classified it has to be based on material conditions, not foreign policy or statements of leaders.

You know, just yesterday I responded to an almost identical question in a PM. So, to make things a bit easier on myself, I'll go ahead and copy and paste the (relevant) contents of that PM below:

"...I see it actually in much the same way that the "left communists" do: During, but especially after the civil war, a new regime of two types of states emerged in the Soviet Union: one being the socialist state established by the revolution, and the other being an essentially bourgeois state dominated by party bureaucrats in close connection with actual capitalists who during the NEP were somewhat out in the open, and subsequently formed the "black market". Unlike the "left communists", however, I see the period from 1928 to 1933 as sort of an interruption of the process of attrition, wherein to a certain degree the capitalist class was suppressed to make way for what Stalin saw as imminent world revolution. After the Nazis came to power in Germany though and suppressed the communists there, then I think Stalin's line of thinking started to get more opportunistic and specifically nationalist. He and other Marxists around the world now increasingly felt that world revolution wasn't imminent and that you needed to form a "united front against fascism" for the USSR's national protection. At the August 1935 session of the Comintern, this reactionary position was forced on all the member parties by Stalin, who overwhelmingly, and wrongly, obeyed. In that same year, and in concert with these developments on the foreign scene, a national constitution was established in the Soviet Union in order that a certain lasting "norm" might be instituted, rather than maintaining a revolutionary orientation. This constitution did away with all the remaining vestiges of independent people's power and established a non-elected parliament as the new governing body of the country. That was the essential defeat of socialism in the USSR. In the subsequent years (1936-1938), this new regime was consolidated by way of political genocide and that was the decisive end of socialism.

As for social-imperialism, I see the 1939 agreement with Hitler to mutually snatch up parts of Poland as clearly signatory of the Soviet Union's emergent imperialist status.

It's also during this same period, in concert with the decline of socialism in the Soviet Union, that we find things turning around in a positive new direction in the Chinese revolution. This period of 1934-35 is when Mao came to the helm of the Chinese Communist Party and in which people's war began to become the new revolutionary strategy utilized there. As soon as this new strategy was adopted, the plight of the party began to turn around. Previously, following Stalin's prescribed approaches, they had been nearly driven to annihilation. Now, under Mao's leadership, they were to go all the way to the revolutionary seizure of power nationwide and to the consolidation of socialism at a more advanced level that the USSR had ever achieved. And I really think it went progressively like that up through the Cultural Revolution: as Mao's thinking progressively gained influence, the Soviet line became increasingly exposed as reactionary."


I agree, 100%.My understanding is that this was suppressed by Mao.

More or less. Mao's view was more conservative than that of the masses and of the Cultural Revolution Group.


Mostly agree but some "control mechanisms" should be kept in place. What will keep a communist party communist? If there's a revolution in a largely peasant based society, what is to keep a faction from orienting itself towards a conservative religion or a single ethnicity? (I'm thinking of India here).What suggestions might you have in mind?


The working class should always maintain its independence. Temporary tactical alliances can be valid. Jihadists are not our friends. They would kill 90% of everyone on RevLeft. The Iranian Islamists killed around 30,000 leftists in 1988. Jihadists do not depend on and actually do not want, working class support. They are generally of upper middle class-lower middle class petit bourgeois background.They speak a different language and are going in a different direction than the left.

This is overall a pretty dogmatic perspective, I think. It basically equates the proletariat to an identity group. When it comes to the non-exploiting, but also non-proletarian strata in society, there are basically two positions we can take: we can win them over to the side of the proletariat, or we can forfeit them to the enemy. Your position amounts to the latter. As for the more bourgeois strata of third world countries, here, courtesy of another post I made today in a private RevLeft forum, is the summation of my views on that:

-It's possible to unite strategically (i.e. permanently) with the national bourgeoisie in opposition.

-It's not possible to unite with governing national bourgeois elements because, to the degree they are governing, they are then the principle enforcers of the old order.

-It's possible to unite tactically (i.e. temporarily) with the comprador bourgeoisie in resistance to a more repressive force toward the specific objective of defeating that more repressive force. (e.g. A foreign invading force or a more tyrannical regime.)

-Both of these described possible unities, again, must be revolutionary in nature.

(Once again, we should note that many third world capitalists are actually less affluent than and have less access to capital than many first world workers. Hence if one opposes uniting with the potentially insurgent strata among these elements on principle grounds, you might just as well also oppose uniting the whole proletariat here!)

As for jihadists in particular, it occurs to me that, if anything, failure to unite with these elements is a major reason why Maoists have yet to make significant revolutionary breakthroughs in the Middle East since the time of the Iranian Revolution. These elements may take a large array of reactionary positions (especially with respect to women's rights), but they also have significant progressive qualities that shouldn't be dogmatically ignored. The Taliban, for example, is resisting a U.S. occupation of Afghanistan and redistributing land where it takes power. Whereas a U.S. puppet regime is the central government of Afghanistan, it is the main enemy of the people there at present. Understanding the main contradiction is important. The fact that the U.S. is, by virtue of its occupation of the country, the main enemy of the people of Afghanistan at present, means that leading resistance to the occupation should indeed be the main task for Afghan communists at present. History shows that similarly forces can indeed be successfully united with to take state power. (You may not like this example, but consider Cambodia, and namely the positive working relationship that developed between the former king, who had been a reactionary, but nationalist, theocrat in power, and the Khmer Rouge after he was deposed in a U.S.-backed military coup. Now in power, Sihanouk had to be opposed. But in opposition, it became possible to establish a working unity with him that would go all the way to the revolutionary seizure of power.) Trying to simultaneously take on both the occupation government on the one hand and suppress a genuine popular uprising against that occupation on the other is a formula for isolation.

(Now of course in my defense of the Taliban above, I'm not intending to defend all their tactics, which stem from the type of leadership they have.)

[Brother No. 1]

My understanding is that this was suppressed by Mao.

Er no, the Shanghi commune was ultimately crushed by the Nationalist Kumontaing forces undr Chang Kai Chek.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Brother No. 1:

We're speaking of the Shanghai People's Commune. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_People%27s_Commune)

[Brother No. 1]

Er..how is the USSR Imperialist in 1939? The "secret agreement" said as thus:


The Secret Protocols, Articles I and II

Article I. In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement in the areas belonging to the Baltic States (Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), the northern boundary of Lithuania shall represent the boundary of the spheres of influence of Germany and U.S.S.R. In this connection the interest of Lithuania in the Vilna area is recognized by each party.
Article II. In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement of the areas belonging to the Polish state, the spheres of influence of Germany and the U.S.S.R. shall be bounded approximately by the line of the rivers Narev, Vistula and San.
The question of whether the interests of both parties make desirable the maintenance of an independent Polish States and how such a state should be bounded can only be definitely determined in the course of further political developments.
In any event both Governments will resolve this question by means of a friendly agreement.


hmm...gee no split agreement of Poland there.


Not convinced?

Up to September 7th Hitler was considering making peace with poland if they sued for peace. By this basically going into the Soviet Sphere of influence then suing for peace.



posted by General Franz Halder, Chief of the General Staff of the Army in Kriegstagebuch. Tägliche Aufzeichnungen des Chefs des Generalstabes des Heeres 1939-1942

7 September 1939
The High Command with the Fuehrer (second half of the day 7 September): Three different ways the situation may develop.

1. The Poles offer to begin negotiations. He [Hitler - GF] is ready for negotiations [on the following conditions]: [Poland must] break with England and France. A part of Poland will be [preserved and] recognized. [The regions from the] Narev to Warsaw - to Poland. The industrial region - to us. Krakow - to Poland. The northern region of the Beskidow mountains - to us. [The provinces of the Western] Ukraine - independent.


And ukraine wasnt even apart of the deal...oh goodie is USSR Imperialist stil?



September 9: Bring to the attention of the Supreme Command: ... b) The independence of the Western Ukraine. (page 67)

September 10th: Warlimont: a) A call to the Western Ukraine is imminent. (page 68)

(Col. Walter Warlimont was deputy head of operations at the German High Command.)

An Annoted text in the diary reads : That is, for the setting up of an independent state out of Polish Ukraine.

September 11th: The flight of active Polish soldiers [= combat troops] into Rumania has begun. (71)

September 12th: Noted "Talks between High Command and Fuehrer" then said; The Russian apparently does not want to come in…. [The Russian] believes it possible that Poland wants [to conclude a] peace [with Germany]. (72)

He also noted: "Rumania does not wish to accept [the entry of] the Polish government; will close [its borders]. He [Hitler] is prepared to be content with the Eastern part of Upper Silesia and the Polish Corridor, if the West doesn't interfere. " (72)



During post-war interrogation by Soviet authorities General-major Erwin von Lahousen of the Abwehr (German Military Intelligence) said: Lahousen: In conformity with the foreign policy doctrines officially announced by von Ribbentrop and the orders recieved by Admiral Canaris from General-Fieldmarshal Keitel, Chief of Staff of the Supreme Command, Abwehr-2 carried out the preparation for an uprising in Galicia, the main goals of were the liquidation of communists, Jews and Poles. As far as I know this decision was taken at a meeting in Field Marshal Keitel's railroad car.

... from Canaris' handwritten notes in the battle journal it follows that this meeting took place on September 12, 1939. The sense of the arrangements formulated by von Ribbentrop and given as an order by Keitel to Admiral Canaris, is as follows: The OUN (Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists), which collaborated with the Abwehr on military questions, was to begin an uprising in Poland, relying upon the Ukrainian emigrants who lived there. The goal of the uprising was the liquidation of Poles and Jews.


The Polish goverment also fled to Rumania, a German general recalls


When the Polish government realized that the end was near on September it fled from Warsaw to Lublin. From there it left on Septmbrer 9 for Kremenetz, and on September 13 for Zaleshchniki, a town right on the Rumanian border. The people and the army, which at that time was still involved in furious fighting, were cast to the whim of fate. (General Kurt von Tippelskirch, Geschichte des Zweiten Weltkrieges)

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Yeah, I guess I had slightly misunderstood the exact stipulations of the agreement. However, the essence of it was clearly imperialist. In summing up the portion you highlighted, Wiki describes it this way: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov-Ribbentrop_pact)

"In addition to stipulations of non-aggression, the treaty included a secret protocol dividing Northern and Eastern Europe into German and Soviet spheres of influence, anticipating potential "territorial and political rearrangements" of these countries. Thereafter, Germany and the Soviet Union invaded their respective sides of Poland, dividing the country between them. Part of eastern Finland was annexed by the Soviet Union after the Winter War. This was followed by Soviet annexations of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Bessarabia."

It's pretty hard to miss the imperialist essence of straight-up annexations, I would think.

[Brother No. 1]

Soviet annexations of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Bessarabia."

But yet you fail to mention Bessarabia was taken by the Romanians in which, due to being loyal to Germany, they gave to the USSR. Though they did not give South Bessearabia though, but most of the industry of this territory was in the capital, tristapole. Some of the northern territory of Bessarabia was incorperated into Ukranie for reasons of the population. But the Moldovan SSR was created through this. And need I remind you that Lithuania, and Lativa were solely Fascist sympathizers? It was more of a liberation campaign that had no blood shed, peasants cheered at the Red Army rolling in.

The Whole thing of the Winter War was to secure a better defense for Finland, which also had communists supporting it since it was originally to finally liberate finland from the white guards who took it in 1918. But, with the stress of the Western powers on what they might do in such an event and the war itself, the Red army didnt want to procede to capital of Finland and got its better defense for Leningrad. The Karelia SSR was created to help the finns.

EDIT: information:


After the formation of the USSR , and until 1940 Transnistria was a part of the Ukrainian SSR . In 1924 initiated GI Kotovs'kogo , PD Tkachenko , etc. are created Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic ( MASSR) of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. It was to be a springboard for the return of Moldovan districts, located on the right bank of the Dniester , occupied by Romania in 1918. The Soviet Union never recognized their rejection. The official languages were declared Moldovan , Ukrainian and Russian . The capital city has become MASSR Balta ( Ukrainian city passed into the MASSR with neighboring districts to increase its territory ), but in 1929 it was moved to Tiraspol, which retains these functions until 1940.
In the late 30 's. , according to the secret protocols of the Soviet- Germanic Non-Aggression Pact , Bessarabia was included in the sphere of influence of the USSR . June 26, 1940 the USSR demanded that Romania's return to the Soviet Union territory of Bessarabia was occupied by Romania in 1918 , as well as Northern Bukovina and district Hertz . Royal Romania was forced to take the Soviet Union's ultimatum . Liberated from the Romanian occupation of Bessarabia (with the exception of South Bessarabia, transferred to Odessa Oblast Ukraine) was attached to the side MASSR and transformed into the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic with its capital in Kishinev. Balta and adjacent areas remained in the USSR , but without the autonomous status . Nordic Bukovina, Bessarabia, part Khotyn county and district Hertz were ottorzheny from the rest of Moldova and made Chernivtsi Oblast Soviet Ukraine .
Following the establishment of the Moldavian Transnistria send numerous immigrants from Russia and Ukraine , helping to create local industry . Most industrial enterprises of the Moldavian SSR was initially concentrated in Transnistria , because the economy the rest of Moldova ( Bessarabia ) with Romanian occupation of 1918-1940 was largely agrarian , and was most backward of all the provinces of Romania , and industries engaged mostly processing of agricultural products.
The new geopolitical situation to continue for long - in 1941 Germany and its allies attacked the USSR, and Romania was able to regain the territory , joined a year ago, the Soviet Union. Also forming part of Greater Romania (România Mare) Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, under the supervision of the Romanian administration was the whole area between the rivers Dniester and Southern Bug (including the Baltics , Vinnitsa , Odessa, and right-bank part of the city of Nikolayev ) , called Transnistria ( Zadnistrovya " ). In 1944 , with the release of the Red Army in the Balkans, the border had returned to the status quo at the time of the Great Patriotic War. In the postwar years in the USSR, including in the MSSR were actively restoring the national economy, development of economy , agriculture , social affairs , science , education , culture and art . In 1990, before the dismemberment of the USSR, Transnistria gave 40% of GDP in Moldova and produces 90 % of electricity. The volume of industrial and agricultural production exceeded pre-war , many times. 14- Army posted in Transnistria since 1956 . She remained here after the Soviet collapse , guarding stores of arms and ammunition - stocks that are created in the event of hostilities in the south -eastern theater of war in Europe . In 1984 the army headquarters was transferred from Chisinau to Tiraspol .


More EDIT:
Yeah, I guess I had slightly misunderstood the exact stipulations of the agreement.

No, you have not 'slightly' misunderstood the Non-agression pact, you totally ignore whats in it and instead go on a cliffite liberal road in saying the USSR. You called this action "Imperialist". That is not a slight misunderstanding, that is a huge 'misunderstanding' or perhaps not even a misunderstanding. A theory that will not help our movement at all and make us blind to the history of the USSR.


However, the essence of it was clearly imperialist.

If I remember correctly Imperialism also implies that monopolies be created and the industry posted for this new territory shall be a colonial one. Why hasnt there been an SSR Poland or a puppet state that came out of Eastern Poland from the time between 1939-1941.

To quote "Foundations of Leninism":


Imperialism is the omnipotence of the monopolist trusts and syndicates, of the banks and the financial oligarchy, in the industrial countries. In the fight against this omnipotence, the customary methods of the working class -- trade unions and co-operatives, parliamentary parties and the parliamentary struggle -- have proved to be totally inadequate... (Foundations of Leninism, page 4)


Imperialism is the export of capital to the sources of raw materials, the frenzied struggle for monopolist possession of these sources, the struggle for a redivision of the already divided world, a struggle waged with particular fury by new financial groups and powers seeking a "place in the sun" against the old groups and powers, which cling tenaciously to what they have seized. This frenzied struggle among the various groups of capitalists is notable in that it includes as an inevitable element imperialist wars, wars for the annexation of foreign territories. This circumstance, in its turn, is notable in that it leads to the mutual weakening of the imperialists, to the weakening of the position of capitalism in general (Foundation of Leninism, page 5)



Imperialism is the most barefaced exploitation and the most inhuman oppression of hundreds of millions of people inhabiting vast colonies and dependent countries. The purpose of this exploitation and of this oppression is to squeeze out super-profits. But in exploiting these countries imperialism is compelled to build there railways, factories and mills, industrial and commercial centres. The appearance of a class of proletarians, the emergence of a native intelligentsia, the awakening of national consciousness, the growth of the liberation movement -- such are the inevitable results of this "policy." (Foundation of Leninism, page 5)

I believe that is Imperialism.



imperialist essence of straight-up annexations

By this, we can only conclude to that every single nation is Imperialist and every nation before has. So Imperialism as 'existed' before Capitalism was thought up in the minds and in the days before fuedalism perhaps. So then this is a rather vauge explanation for Imperialism...just annexation is Imperialism? Nothing else?

[kasama-rl]

If the 1939 non aggression pact was imperialist, was Lenin's 1918 Brest Litivost agreement with German imperialism also imperialist? Because it ceded territory to the Germans? Is any agreement that concedes territory to imperialists itself imperialist? Or was it imperialist for the socialist country to remove parts of poland and the baltics from immediate german threat?

The logic here is mechanical.

The Soviet Union faced invasion by a 3.5 million man army (the most modern in the world). The Germans were about to invade a fragile and weak poland. The Soviets could have a) fought them, and triggered a war they couldn't win. or (b) demanded that Germany only take half of poland, move Soviet front lines hundreds of miles further west, prevent millions (including most of the worlds Jews) from falling under German control in 1939 and postponed the German-Soviet war by two years.

Why is choice (b) imperialist? It was a difficult tactical move to gain time. And to encourage the imperialist powers to fight each other.

It was a socialist move, not an imperialist one.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

kasama-rl wrote:
If the 1939 non aggression pact was imperialist, was Lenin's 1918 Brest Litivost agreement with German imperialism also imperialist? Because it ceded territory to the Germans? Is any agreement that concedes territory to imperialists itself imperialist?I have no idea where you're getting this rather poor comparison from, but I certainly didn't make it.


Or was it imperialist for the socialist country to remove parts of poland and the baltics from immediate german threat?In the first place, I again point out that, from my perspective, this inquiry is false because the Soviet Union was already a capitalist country, not still a socialist one, in 1939. In the second place, yes I rather think the concept of the savior nation imperialist in nature. The neo-conservatives in this country and other imperialists throughout history have relied on these pseudo-moral appeals all the time. (e.g. Supposedly America invaded Iraq to save it, including specifically the oppressed Kurdish minority, from the despotism of Saddam, from Al Qaeda terrorists, etc. Or America sent 500,000 troops into South Vietnam to save it from North Vietnamese invasion, right? Or the Soviet Union in 1968 invaded and occupied Czechoslovakia to save it from counterrevolutionaries, right?) If in your view socialism and conquest are synonymous, then I call that social-imperialism. Indeed, we might even go as far as to argue that there were distinctly Russian-imperialist tendencies emerging in the USSR even before 1939. Consider for example the purging of the party organizations of the union republics in 1936-37.

I don't think we've adequately understood or respected the importance of self-determination as a component of world revolution. And yes I think authentic socialist countries have historically made some mistakes in this connection as well. Take the historical Tibet/China relationship, for example, and perhaps even China's opting to create a uniform Chinese language, for another possible example of a certain hegemonic mindset. If we were to apply the principle of a uniform national language here, such as the GOP fascists would prefer, that here would be correctly regarded as indeed a far right wing position. We need to do much better on the national question in the future.

[Kotze]

People like Chavez could be potential allies of the proletariat were they not the principle forces oppressing it in the region. i.e. If say Chavez and his forces were overthrown by a U.S. invasion, then it would probably become possible for Venezuelan communists to unite with them toward the goal of defeating the occupiers through real revolution. In the absence of such a situation, however, Chavez and his political forces are an enemy of the proletariat. I wonder what your words would have been if you had been asked about Salvador Allende in 1972.

[Communist]

.

I asked the OP if this thread would be better off in Learning, where members would be more likely to read it, and it was agreed to.

To Learning, from Introductions.

Moved.

.

[Brother No. 1]

In the first place, I again point out that, from my perspective, this inquiry is false because the Soviet Union was already a capitalist country not still a socialist one, in 1939.

By 1935? Tell us how the USSR even became such in a situation where Capitalism came in the mid 1930s and how the 1936 Consitution is in any way Capitalist.

And to be honest, I just explained Imperialism to you and that if you go by that classification of Imperialism then every single state since the foundation of goverment has been imperialist which is 'odd' since Imperialism was born through Capitalism.



yes I rather think the concept of the savior nation imperialist in nature.

let me say this very clearly: The USSR did not give an arse about the state of Poland. Poland and the Soviet Union at the time of the 30s were more like enemies then ever so allies. The USSR sent troops in Eastern Poland due to that Germany might send its own troops to secure Poland for itself. The USSR was doing it for its own protection and for the protection of the people of Poland. The Goverment fled into Rumania, they had nothing to defend them. Plus this was an ample opportunity to re-unite Ukraine and Belarus.



Or the Soviet Union in 1968 invaded and occupied Czechoslovakia to save it from counterrevolutionaries, right

So you purposely deny that any CIA involement in Eastern Europe or any pro-capitalist activity was ever present inside Eastern Europe?The Nazbols have been present in Russia since the 30s (they were repressed heavily by the purges and after). Or did the event in 1989 come not of counter-revolutionary action but of 'worker revolution' which somehow 'deformed' into a capitalist, xenophboic, crypto-fascist area we now call Eastern Europe?



If in your view socialism and conquest are synonymous

So, you really do mind that the Mensheviks were having revolts by the peasantry and workers and with the help of the Red army were crushed due to their selling out to the Imperialist powers?



then I call that social-imperialism.

So you just add the words Social from Socialism together with Imperialism or will you give us a good fond definiation of the word?




, we might even go as far as to argue that there were distinctly Russian-imperialist tendencies emerging in the USSR even before 1939.

Yes for Stalin was such the Russian Nationalist and/or Imperialist wasnt he? :rolleyes:



Consider for example the purging of the party organizations of the union republics in 1936-37.

Yes, no military threat here...

"On May 26th, 1937, Marshal Tukhachevsky and commanders Yakir,Uborevich,Eideman,Kork, Putna, Feldman and Prikakov were arrested and tried in front of a military tribunal. Their execution was announced on July 12th. They had been under the suspsicon since the beginning of May.On May 8th, the political commissar system, used during the civil War, was re-introduced in the army. Its reintroduction reflected the party's fear of Bonapartist tendencies within the amry." (J. Arch Getty, Origin of the Great Purges: The Soviet Communist Party Reconsidered, 1933-38, p. 167)


A May 13th, 1927 Commissar of Defence directive ended the control that the political commissars had over the highest officers. The military commander was given the responsibility for `general political leadership for the purpose of complete coordination of military and political affairs in the unit'. The `political assistant' was to be responsible for `all party-political work' and was to report to the commander on the political condition of the unit.

(Edward Hallet Carr,Foundations of a planned Economy, 1926-29, Volume 2, p. 325)


Journalist Alexander Werth wrote in his book Moscow 41 a chapter entitled, `Trial of Tukhachevsky'. He wrote: "I am also pretty sure that the purge in the Red Army had a great deal to do with Stalin's belief in an imminent war with Germany. What did Tukhachevsky stand for? People of the French Deuxieme Bureau told me long ago that Tukhachevsky was pro-German. And the Czechs told me the extraordinary story of Tukhachevsky's visit to Prague, when towards the end of the banquet --- he had got rather drunk --- he blurted out that an agreement with Hitler was the only hope for both Czechoslovakia and Russia. And he then proceeded to abuse Stalin. The Czechs did not fail to report this to the Kremlin, and that was the end of Tukhachevsky --- and of so many of his followers.''



(Alexander Werth, quoted in Harpal Brar, Perestroika: The Complete Collapse of Revisionism (London: Harpal Brar, 1992), p. 161.)



"Had a fine talk with Litvinov. I told him quite frankly the reactions in U.S. and western Europe to the purges; and to the executions of the Red Army generals; that it definitely was bad ....

"Litvinov was very frank. He stated that they had to ``make sure'' through these purges that there was no treason left which could co-operate with Berlin or Tokyo; that someday the world would understand that what they had done was to protect the government from ``menacing treason.'' In fact, he said they were doing the whole world a service in protecting themselves against the menace of Hitler and Nazi world domination, and thereby preserving the Soviet Union strong as a bulwark against the Nazi threat. That the world would appreciate what a very great man Stalin was.''


(Joseph E. Davies, Mission in Moscow, p.103)
In 1937, Abdurakhman Avtorkhanov was working for the Central Commitee of the Bolshevik Party. A bourgeois nationalist, he had close ties to opposition leaders and with the Central Committee members from the Caucausus. In his book The Reign of Stalin, he regrets that Tukhachevsky did not seize power in 1937. He claims that early in 1937, after his trip to England, Tukhachevsky spoke to his superior officers as follows: `The great thing about His Britannic Majesty's Army is that there could not be a Scotland Yard agent at its head (allusion to the rôle played by state security in the USSR). As for cobblers (allusion to Stalin's father), they belong in the supply depots, and they don't need a Party card. The British don't talk readily about patriotism, because it seems to them natural to be simply British. There is no political ``line'' in Britain, right, left or centre; there is just British policy, which every peer and worker, every conservative and member of the Labour Party, every officer and soldier, is equally zealous in serving .... The British soldier is completely ignorant of Party history and production figures, but on the other hand he knows the geography of the world as well as he knows his own barracks .... The King is loaded with honours, but he has no personal power .... Two qualities are called for in an officer --- courage and professional competence.''

(Alexander Uralov (Abdurakhman Avtorkhanov), The Reign of Stalin (Westport, Conn.: Hyperion Press, p. 1975), p. 50.)




Take the historical Tibet/China relationship, for example, and perhaps even China's opting to create a uniform Chinese language, for another possible example of a certain hegemonic mindset.

So you have a problem with the ending of a fuedal state controled by the British, and then it becoming apart of the People's Republic of China?




I have no idea where you're getting this rather poor comparison from, but I certainly didn't make it.

He most likely got it for your own conclusion was poorly made. In simplicity neither acts were Imperialist and we are still awaiting proof for the contrary.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I have no idea where you're getting this rather poor comparison from, but I certainly didn't make it.

In the first place, I again point out that, from my perspective, this inquiry is false because the Soviet Union was already a capitalist country, not still a socialist one, in 1939. In the second place, yes I rather think the concept of the savior nation imperialist in nature. The neo-conservatives in this country and other imperialists throughout history have relied on these pseudo-moral appeals all the time. (e.g. Supposedly America invaded Iraq to save it, including specifically the oppressed Kurdish minority, from the despotism of Saddam, from Al Qaeda terrorists, etc. Or America sent 500,000 troops into South Vietnam to save it from North Vietnamese invasion, right? Or the Soviet Union in 1968 invaded and occupied Czechoslovakia to save it from counterrevolutionaries, right?) If in your view socialism and conquest are synonymous, then I call that social-imperialism. Indeed, we might even go as far as to argue that there were distinctly Russian-imperialist tendencies emerging in the USSR even before 1939. Consider for example the purging of the party organizations of the union republics in 1936-37.

I don't think we've adequately understood or respected the importance of self-determination as a component of world revolution. And yes I think authentic socialist countries have historically made some mistakes in this connection as well. Take the historical Tibet/China relationship, for example, and perhaps even China's opting to create a uniform Chinese language, for another possible example of a certain hegemonic mindset. If we were to apply the principle of a uniform national language here, such as the GOP fascists would prefer, that here would be correctly regarded as indeed a far right wing position. We need to do much better on the national question in the future.

A few questions. What is your theory of state capitalism? How do we know the USSR became state capitalist by 1939? How is this played out in class relations to the means of production?The Cliff version is simplistic but I think you have something else in mind.

How do you define imperialism? In my understanding most Marxists define imperialism as the economic relations in one country or region being subordinated by a system of unequal exchange to that of the ruling class of another country, backed by political/military power. There are various causes-an overabundance of capital, the need for markets, Lenin;s and Hilferding's theory of the concentration of finance capital, etc.Its primarily an economic relationship.

The Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 was political rather then economic. When the Soviet Union occupied the Baltics, Bessarabia, parts of Poland, etc. the economies there were collectivized. The capitalist/feudal landowner systems were ended. This wasn't imperialism as usually defined.

The nationalities question is very complicated. Basically nations are more than lines on a map.There are groups like the Romany, many Armenians, and other groups who don't have a territory. Other national territories have an enormous amount of overlap. The Hopi and Navajo peoples today are experiencing problems with this. Before the First World War southeastern Europe was extremely diverse. Germans, Greeks, Romany, Turks, Jews, Slavic speaking peoples, all lived in close proximity to one another. To advocate complete self determination there would be 100s of micro-states. Under the socialist mode of production the national issue would boil down to cultural autonomy. Rather than advocate more states, we should work to abolish the state system in favor of the worker's self rule.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Lenina Rosenweg wrote:
What is your theory of state capitalism? How do we know the USSR became state capitalist by 1939?

Here's a key quote by Marx that informs (from Critique of the Gotha Program) me:

"The question then arises: What transformation will the state undergo in communist society? In other words, what social functions will remain in existence there that are analogous to present state functions?

Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."


Here Marx sets out two key criteria: 1) that the state must be essentially ruled by the proletariat, and 2) that it must be a specifically revolutionary state, actively engaging in "the revolutionary transformation of the one [capitalist society] into the other [communist society]".

Many people don't grasp this deeply. All too often here on this message board I find people attempting to define socialism as essentially economic in nature: that if you have so much in the way of state ownership or so much in the way of cooperatives, etc., that means you have socialism. But that's not correct. Socialism is specifically political in character. The proletariat must essentially command the state in order for it to be a socialist state. Even more people, however, neglect to consider the "revolutionary transformation" criteria. Either you are promoting the revolutionary transformation of the nation and the world toward the goal of communism or the old society has effectively returned.

Hence at the point that the Soviet Union jettisoned the trajectory of world revolution for the formation of a patriotically-motivated "united front against fascism" and established a constitution reorganizing the state into a bourgeois form, the basic feat of returning to the old society was thereby accomplished. It met with controversy and was consolidated by force of political genocide in the ensuing few years.

In terms of what led up to this, I see Soviet history in much the same way that the "left communists" do: During, but especially after the civil war, a new regime of two types of states emerged in the Soviet Union: one being the socialist state established by the revolution, and the other being an essentially bourgeois state dominated by party bureaucrats in close connection with actual capitalists who during the NEP were somewhat out in the open, and subsequently formed the "black market". Unlike the "left communists", however, I see the period from 1928 to 1933 as sort of an interruption of the process of attrition, wherein to a certain degree the capitalist class was suppressed to make way for what Stalin saw as imminent world revolution. After the Nazis came to power in Germany though and suppressed the communists there, then I think Stalin's line of thinking started to get more opportunistic and specifically nationalist. He and other Marxists around the world now increasingly felt that world revolution wasn't imminent and that you needed to form a "united front against fascism" for the USSR's national protection. This was an expression of surviving bourgeois ideology increasingly taking hold of the state and of the party itself.


The Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 was political rather then economic. When the Soviet Union occupied the Baltics, Bessarabia, parts of Poland, etc. the economies there were collectivized. The capitalist/feudal landowner systems were ended. This wasn't imperialism as usually defined.

I disagree. To take other, comparable examples, the fruits of which are still with us today, let's consider the historical examples of say Cuba, North Korea, and Vietnam. Each of these countries at a certain point established a dependent relationship toward the USSR, much as did the states of Eastern Europe generally. In each case, they were either bankrupted precisely by that ostensibly helpful, internationalist relationship thereto or effectively forced to privatize industry generally and open up broadly to foreign direct investment, despite all nominal collectivization and nationalization. (In regards to the latter case, I'm speaking of Vietnam and particularly of their reforms in the 1980s closely mirroring the perestroika project in the Soviet Union getting underway in that same time frame.) All three of these countries have thus far only managed to survive the USSR's demise by latching on to other great power nations and imperialist states, e.g. China, Venezuela, and even the USA. The relationship between the Soviet Union and its various satellite states was never principally different from this. It was always parasitic. In 1968, the Soviet Union was concerned that Czechoslovakia might be taking a Yugoslavia-like road, seeking out alternative patron states. Brezhnev was particularly concerned that Czechoslovakia, or at least part of it, might, as a result, wind up under the U.S. nuclear umbrella, much as Yugoslavia had. Military force was used to subdue this tendency and prevent that end result.

[Brother No. 1]

Many people don't grasp this deeply. All too often here on this message board I find people attempting to define socialism as essentially economic in nature: that if you have so much in the way of state ownership or so much in the way of cooperatives, etc., that means you have socialism. But that's not correct. Socialism is specifically political in character. The proletariat must essentially command the state in order for it to be a socialist state.

Hmm...Wasnt the Entire Central Committie and Bolshevik party itself composed of workers? (Some interbreughites like Trotsky came as CC members but only 3 came.)

But basically like this the Revolutionary Vanguard must ENTIRELY be composed of workers? No other class? While I can stand that the stance with the Peasantry Class can be a bit both positive and negative seeing that they can be inheritly counter-revolutionary and stop progress (like in the 30s how they did not allow their crops to go to the cities hence starvation) or how they stick to old beliefs vastly. But this seems to be inheirtly idealistic on how you should structure The revolutionary vanguard.




Hence at the point that the Soviet Union jettisoned the trajectory of world revolution for the formation of a patriotically-motivated "united front against fascism"

Yes, yes how dare they fight as a united front agaisnt Fasicsm and not move to World Revolution while the Great Patriotic War consumed all of Eastern Europe and the USSR. How dare the peoples opressed by Fascism rise up agaisnt it, how dare the partisans fight them,etc. Think before you post. Though right now it'd be strange and dangerous, in that era it was necessary. Or do you forget Spain's fall to Fascism or the Fascist tendencies rising in Germany, Poland, Baltics, Bulgaria, Romania and Finland?


and established a constitution reorganizing the state into a bourgeois form

How in any way or form did the 1936 constitution 'reorganize' the state in capitalist forms? You havent even read it have you?



After the Nazis came to power in Germany though and suppressed the communists there, then I think Stalin's line of thinking started to get more opportunistic

Yes, so opportunistic to try and ensure the safety of Eastern Europe, or form an collitation to end Nazi Germany before it presented a real military threat to the Communist movement and the world. :rolleyes:


He and other Marxists around the world now increasingly felt that world revolution wasn't imminent and that you needed to form a "united front against fascism" for the USSR's national protection.

Or to, you know, form a united Front to end Fascism?




This was an expression of surviving bourgeois ideology increasingly taking hold of the state and of the party itself.

The Descent into Liberalism deepings..




In each case, they were either bankrupted precisely by that ostensibly helpful

Yes for cuba/Vietnam/Eastern Europe was such the Soviet colony wasnt it...?


All three of these countries have thus far only managed to survive the USSR's demise by latching on to other great power nations and imperialist states

You know in Reality you can not solely survive by just producing products and just selling to yourself or do you have the inherit belief that it is somehow possible to literally become alone on the earth and survive without any capitalist diplomacy even when they threaten military force..?

Tell me how the Venezuelan republic is, you know, Imperialist or Capitalist.



In 1968, the Soviet Union was concerned that Czechoslovakia might be taking a Yugoslavia-like road, seeking out alternative patron states.

Isnt that worse then being apart of the "Evil Soviet Empire"?

[bots]

Left Maoist? Looks like somebody is almost ready to join my rad ass sect. Part of the induction ritual is you gotta hang a picture of Mao over your bed and every night you spit beer at it. Other than that it's pretty much play it by ear.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

I have serious reasons for describing myself that way, which I've explained here. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/case-new-commune-t140877/index.html?p=1847634#post1847634)

[Brother No. 1]

Oh gee, now we get to hear how the cultural Revolution wasnt done 'enough' and how we should all base ourselfs on the successful paris commune.:rolleyes:

[The Intransigent Faction]

Oh gee, now we get to hear how the cultural Revolution wasnt done 'enough' and how we should all base ourselfs on the successful paris commune.:rolleyes:

Yeah, haha, the "Paris Commune". Good thing Marx never took that seriously.
Let's all talk about the successful proletarian paradises such as the Soviet Union and China! Oh, wait...

[Brother No. 1]

Let's all talk about the successful proletarian paradises such as the Soviet Union and China! Oh, wait...

We can discuss about theirs faults and successes and not be political failures like the OP here. Unless you too believe the USSR was capitalist by 1935, and Imperialist by 1939 and that we should structure our party in a social-democratic fashion and immiedately discredit any communication or relation with the capitalist powers be it hostile or neutral or even 'friendly'.

[bots]

I have serious reasons for describing myself that way, which I've explained here. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/case-new-commune-t140877/index.html?p=1847634#post1847634)

So are you going to join this tendency or wha? Honestly after reading that essay it seems you're pretty close to the anarcho-maoist line. As a doc door in the anarcho-maoist sectkult I am prescribing moderate to heavy doses of LSD followed by heavy to extreme doses of early Soviet era cartoons. I am not screwing around here.

[Qayin]

Because tons of theory about who was exactly right is going to bring revolution.