Iranian People's Fedaee Guerillas

[elijahcraig]

I have been in touch with the Iranian People's Fadaee Guerillas, and asked them what their stance on the Stalin/Trotsky issue was.

This group has been fighting US Imperialism, the Shah, and Islamic Fundamentalist government since I think 1971. Here is a link to information on the group: IPFG (http://www.ashrafdehghani.com/frames/frameset.htm)

I thought this was an interesting analysis, I thought I'd post it for anyone else who might want to find about the group or their views.


Concerning your question about our view on Stalin and Trotsky, we must say that the IPFG’s standpoint is as follows:



1- Both Stalin and Trotsky were among the leaders of the Russian revolution; a fact that should not be undermined. Therefore, generally speaking, we recognize and respect their revolutionary efforts.

2- Stalin and Stalinism have been the primary targets of rightwing socialists as well as bourgeois propagandists who, not surprisingly, fight communism! Precisely in this direction, they have demonized Stalin and Stalinism in order to demonize communism and the dictatorship of the proletariat.

3- As a revolutionary, Stalin’s personality was shaped in the course of intense class struggles in Russian society and Stalinism was the outcome of that intense social-historical period. In other words, unlike idealist conception of history, dialectical materialist understanding of history tells us that Stalinism was a socio–historical current. As you know, besides Stalin there were many other revolutionaries in Russia such as Plekhanov, Zasulich, Martov, Bukharin, Trotsky and others. But what happened that among them, Stalin receives such crucial place? To put it plainly, the answer is that the very social and historical necessities that brought the demise of intellectual giants like Plekhanov, also called for the rise of personalities such as Stalin.

4- However, we believe that Stalinism did make some fatal errors. These errors were, in fact, the historical errors of the proletariat. But what were these errors? The errors of Stalinism, in our understanding, were basically in the treatment of the deviations within the party. In dealing with those deviations, Stalin made two significant errors:



One was that he thought that once bourgeois production was eradicated and when private (non-government) financial and commercial activities were dismantled, then the bourgeoisie would be overthrown completely and there would be no antagonistic classes left within society. Thus, he thought the only threat to Russian society would be the threat of outside forces, i.e. the imperialists. This misconception led to the Stalinists lacking a correct understanding of the class nature of diverting views within the party whereby the Stalinists saw those party members advocating such views as spies working for the imperialists!



Another error of Stalinism was the method of confronting the deviations within the party. This error was basically generated due to the first one. In other words, since Stalin did not correctly comprehend that his struggle with those deviations was a class struggle and therefore did not correctly comprehend as to which class must fight which other class, thus, instead of more adequately and systematically engaging the masses in class struggle and relying on their partaking in social, political issues, he employed the bureaucratic means and relied on bureaucracy. And by doing so, instead of unmasking the class nature of those diverting views to the masses and mobilizing the people through public meetings, debates and rallies and so on to confront those views, Stalinism simply sent those party members advocating such views (some of whom were amongst the leading figures of the revolution) to the hands of the Stalinist courts. It is our firm belief that it was not Zinoviev, Bukharin and Kamenev that had to die but their misleading views. Trotsky, too, should not have been sent into exile. He had to remain in the country and exposed to the masses (as he had been defeated earlier in the course of party debates, for example, in the 10th Party Congress in 1921 when Lenin was alive or in 13th Congress in 1924 or in the middle of the debates waged before the 15th Congress in 1927).



Of course, this issue can be thoroughly discussed in a few paragraphs. However, we hope that the points mentioned above will be adequate as an answer to your question.





All the best,

[Vinny Rafarino]

One was that he thought that once bourgeois production was eradicated and when private (non-government) financial and commercial activities were dismantled, then the bourgeoisie would be overthrown completely and there would be no antagonistic classes left within society. Thus, he thought the only threat to Russian society would be the threat of outside forces, i.e. the imperialists. This misconception led to the Stalinists lacking a correct understanding of the class nature of diverting views within the party whereby the Stalinists saw those party members advocating such views as spies working for the imperialists!



Another error of Stalinism was the method of confronting the deviations within the party. This error was basically generated due to the first one. In other words, since Stalin did not correctly comprehend that his struggle with those deviations was a class struggle and therefore did not correctly comprehend as to which class must fight which other class, thus, instead of more adequately and systematically engaging the masses in class struggle and relying on their partaking in social, political issues, he employed the bureaucratic means and relied on bureaucracy. And by doing so, instead of unmasking the class nature of those diverting views to the masses and mobilizing the people through public meetings, debates and rallies and so on to confront those views, Stalinism simply sent those party members advocating such views (some of whom were amongst the leading figures of the revolution) to the hands of the Stalinist courts. It is our firm belief that it was not Zinoviev, Bukharin and Kamenev that had to die but their misleading views. Trotsky, too, should not have been sent into exile. He had to remain in the country and exposed to the masses (as he had been defeated earlier in the course of party debates, for example, in the 10th Party Congress in 1921 when Lenin was alive or in 13th Congress in 1924 or in the middle of the debates waged before the 15th Congress in 1927).



What this response leaves out is the fact these "revolutionaries" were attempting to formulate a civil war to seize power in the Soviet Union by waiting until the Nazi invasion sufficiently displaced enough troops to the front line so they could perform a radical coup with the hope of forming a treaty with Hitler to cease the invasion before it entered Moscow. So, playing dice with the fate of the revolution and people and relying on Hitler to be "nice" and remove his troops from the USSR is "in the best interest of the revolution and proletariat"? I think not.

This group may say they support "all people of the Soviet Union" but their message is all to clear;

"We support everyone in the Soviet revolution ESPECIALLY TROTSKY."

[elijahcraig]

They do not support Trotsky over Stalin. I've talked with them through email about this. You should read some of their "tactics" etc, works. All they are saying with this, is that it may have been better if the "accused" had had more of a "people's trial", as opposed to the Stalinist trial, which involved bureacracy. I don't like debating "for" people, they could probably describe it better. I'm not sure I did accurately.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2003, 03:35 AM
They do not support Trotsky over Stalin. I've talked with them through email about this. You should read some of their "tactics" etc, works. All they are saying with this, is that it may have been better if the "accused" had had more of a "people's trial", as opposed to the Stalinist trial, which involved bureacracy. I don't like debating "for" people, they could probably describe it better. I'm not sure I did accurately.
Have you read the transcripts from Pitt of this "stalininst" trail? It makes the judicial system in the USA look like "The Hitler Court".

The defendents chose to confess in court.

The defendents chose to not be represented by council.

The defendents were give any amount of time they deemed fit to speak on their own behalf.

The punishment for treason is death. In most any country. Not just the USSR.


I only wish a trial could be as fair and subjective as this "stalinist" trial was.

Perhaps then OJ would not be playin' golf in West Palm Beach with Jeb Bush and would be where he belongs, in a cell with six other men that can't wait to get a piece of the "juice".

[elijahcraig]

I really can't defend their arguments for them. If you want to you can contact them, otherwise debating what they "mean" doesn't do much.

My interpretation of the words could be all wrong.

I do know that they have lost many guerillas fighting against the Totalitarianistic Islamic government. Fallen Comrades of the IPFG (http://www.ashrafdehghani.com/frames/frameset.htm) I think I respect them for what they are fighting against.

[elijahcraig]

Here is their basic analysis. It has the problem, and their solution.

The Principal Thesis of the Iranian People’s Fadaee Guerrillas on the Socio-Economic and Political Conditions of Iranian Society





Our country is under the domination of imperialism.


The dominant socio-economic system ruling the country is imperialist-dependent capitalism.


This system has transformed Iran into an organic component of the world imperialist order.


As a result, the national economy has been fundamentally destroyed and all classes and strata of the people are under the direct exploitation and oppression of capitalist and imperialist domination.


Imperialist-dependent capital has been plundering the national resources, severely exploiting the workers and appropriating the labour product of the peasants and the petit-bourgeoisie of the urban and the rural areas.


The national bourgeoisie has been totally crushed. The comprador bourgeoisie, with direction from and as the representative of imperialism, rules in the political and economic spheres.


Export of oil to the imperialist markets plays a determining role in the life of the country’s dependent economy.


Income from the sale of oil accumulated in the hand of the state has given it a crucial position in the economic life of the country. This has led to the state bureaucracy dominating the lives of the people more than ever before.


Violent repression is the essential factor for the survival of this dependency.


10. Therefore, as long as imperialist domination remains, the form of government in our country will continue to be naked and ruthless dictatorship.



11. This dictatorship relies principally on the imperialist-built army, which is armed and organised by imperialism.



12. This does not prevent imperialism and its dependent forces from organising other armed groups, independent of the government, to suppress the people’s movement.



13. The principal contradiction in our society is between the people and imperialism.



14. The workers, the peasants and the petit-bourgeoisie of the urban and rural areas are confronting imperialist oppression, exploitation and suppression.



15. The character of confrontation between the people and imperialism, determines all of the tasks at this stage of the revolution.



16. Due to imperialist domination, the heightening of any political and economic struggle depends on the existence and intensification of the armed struggle.



17. Therefore, not only the final resolution of the contradiction between the people and imperialism but any struggle at any level against imperialist domination depends upon the pursuit of armed struggle.



18. The principal and pivotal form of struggle in the present stage, i.e. what will resolve the contradiction between the people and imperialism, is the protracted people’s war, during which the people’s forces will gradually join the struggle. With the formation of the People’s Army, the native imperialist-built army and the forces which may possibly be sent to its aid from abroad will be crushed.



19. The intensification of the contradiction between the people and imperialism together with the revolutionary dynamism of the urban masses causes sporadic urban upsurges. But these upsurges alone are not sufficient to overthrow imperialist domination. Correct organisation and utilisation of these upsurges toward protracted armed struggle could accelerate its development.



20. All popular classes are participants in the struggle against imperialism; however, the victory of the democratic, anti-imperialist revolution depends upon the establishment of the hegemony of the proletariat.



21. The establishment of the hegemony of the proletariat in the revolution necessitates the existence of the militant organisation of the working class i.e. the communist party.



22. The party will be formed in the process of the intensification of the armed struggle, and the linking of this struggle and the organisations engaged in it to the working class, and the growth and escalation of the struggles of this class.



23. The class base of the state apparatus, which will be formed after the victory of the present stage of the revolution, will accordingly consist of those classes engaged in the present anti-imperialist revolution: the workers, the peasants and the urban and rural petit-bourgeoisie. In this state, the working class has, of necessity, a hegemonic role and a New Democratic Government will, thus, be established.



24. In accordance with the concrete conditions under which this government establishes power, it will plan for: a) the reconstruction of the national economy, b) the obliteration of all vestiges of dependency to imperialism, c) the crushing of counter-revolutionary forces and d) preparation of the ground work for the transformation to socialism. It will bring under its management the whole economy of the society. The hegemony of the proletariat in this State is a guarantee for the socialist direction of the new democratic order.

[redstar2000]

21. The establishment of the hegemony of the proletariat in the revolution necessitates the existence of the militant organisation of the working class i.e. the communist party.

By the "hegemony of the proletariat", they mean them.

No surprise there.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[elijahcraig]

Now RS, that just shows how utopian you actually are. You actually think the people who are bleeding in the fields of battle for over three decades are "fascist Leninists"? They "just want power"? Iran is so underdeveloped it is IMPOSSIBLE for a revolution to occur without a vanguard. They are backward, disorganized, and religiously brainwashed people. They get accused of fucking over the people by you, sitting at your computer, adding bolds, and italics to your post, while they bleed for the people. One is "changing history", the other is "interpreting it".

[redstar2000]

You actually think the people who are bleeding in the fields of battle for over three decades are "fascist Leninists"? They "just want power"?

I'm sure they "mean well" and have the "best intentions". From a Marxist standpoint, what's that got to do with anything?

Iran is so underdeveloped it is IMPOSSIBLE for a revolution to occur without a vanguard. They are backward, disorganized, and religiously brainwashed people.

Your strongest argument...and you're probably right. But I hope that you grasp the fact that if you are right, then when they raise the red flag over Tehran...it will be a bourgeois revolution.

Do you understand that there are only two possibilities: if Iran is as backward as you think, the outcome can only be a bourgeois revolution; or, if it's not as backward as you think and is developed enough for a genuine proletarian revolution, then your vanguard is unnecessary at best and an obstacle at worst.

As I said, I think you are probably right...Iran needs a new, modern and more vigorous bourgeoisie to clear away all the medieval theological muck...perhaps in the heady days following the revolution, they'll exile or shoot most of the mullahs.

But I hope you're not kidding yourself that they will "build socialism"...they won't. They will become the new bourgeoisie.

...you, sitting at your computer, adding bolds, and italics to your post, while they bleed for the people.

While you, presumably, are "bleeding" all over your keyboard. :lol:

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[elijahcraig]

You actually think the people who are bleeding in the fields of battle for over three decades are "fascist Leninists"? They "just want power"?

I'm sure they "mean well" and have the "best intentions". From a Marxist standpoint, what's that got to do with anything?

People fighting for the masses like this do not, "want power" for themselves. They want it for the masses.



Iran is so underdeveloped it is IMPOSSIBLE for a revolution to occur without a vanguard. They are backward, disorganized, and religiously brainwashed people.

Your strongest argument...and you're probably right. But I hope that you grasp the fact that if you are right, then when they raise the red flag over Tehran...it will be a bourgeois revolution.

No, it will be a proletarian revolution. Everyone in the party is from the proletariat. But I guess you oppose this...you'd rather the oppression continue.


Do you understand that there are only two possibilities: if Iran is as backward as you think, the outcome can only be a bourgeois revolution; or, if it's not as backward as you think and is developed enough for a genuine proletarian revolution, then your vanguard is unnecessary at best and an obstacle at worst.


You're wrong on both. When the most militant workers come out to revolt, that is not "bourgeois". Any notion of "intellectual revolution" as you accuse Leninists of doing/being, is completely absurd.


As I said, I think you are probably right...Iran needs a new, modern and more vigorous bourgeoisie to clear away all the medieval theological muck...perhaps in the heady days following the revolution, they'll exile or shoot most of the mullahs.

They do need revolution, but it is not a "bourgeoisie revolution".


But I hope you're not kidding yourself that they will "build socialism"...they won't. They will become the new bourgeoisie.

Really? Great prediction based on absolutely nothing but your own arrogant anarchist ass.



...you, sitting at your computer, adding bolds, and italics to your post, while they bleed for the people.

While you, presumably, are "bleeding" all over your keyboard.

Did I say that? I said "they". Nice one jackass.

[redstar2000]

People fighting for the masses like this do not, "want power" for themselves. They want it for the masses.

Yeah, right! :lol:

No, it will be a proletarian revolution. Everyone in the party is from the proletariat.

No, everyone in the party if almost certainly not from a proletarian background, especially the leadership.

And calling a revolution "proletarian" does not make it one. A proletarian revolution is defined as a rising of nearly all of the working class, the smashing of the old bourgeois state, and the establishment of organs of public authority directly under the control of the working class.

When the most militant workers come out to revolt, that is not "bourgeois". Any notion of "intellectual revolution" as you accuse Leninists of doing/being, is completely absurd.

You miss the point again. What is wrong about Leninists is not that they are "non-proletarian" or "intellectual". What is wrong is that they believe they have the "right" to run the show "in the name of the proletariat".

That's your history, like it or not. I know of no evidence that the Iranian Leninists are any different and their 21st point quoted above points straight towards a party dictatorship.

Why do you keep trying to weasel out of the obvious?

In fact, your use of expressions like "arrogant anarchist ass", "jackass", etc. give you away. You are angry because you have no legitimate response...so you hurl epithets and hope that no one will notice your absence of substance.

The strategy of a loser.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[Bianconero]

redstar2000, when is your 'proletarian revolution' that 'is defined as a rising of nearly all of the working class' going to happen? Do you think it is simply a matter of time? Do you think the left is today simply 'doomed to wait' for it to happen? And then, what is your prediction? Will we whitness it? Will it happen within the next, let's say 100 years?

[elijahcraig]

People fighting for the masses like this do not, "want power" for themselves. They want it for the masses.

Yeah, right!

You are an idiot.



No, it will be a proletarian revolution. Everyone in the party is from the proletariat.

No, everyone in the party if almost certainly not from a proletarian background, especially the leadership.

Ashraf Denghani, one of the leading members of the organization, is from the proletariat. And many others as well. Proof would be needed of this "not from a proletarian background".


And calling a revolution "proletarian" does not make it one. A proletarian revolution is defined as a rising of nearly all of the working class, the smashing of the old bourgeois state, and the establishment of organs of public authority directly under the control of the working class.

And who is saying this isn't what they are attempting to accomplish? Right now they are fighting against repression. They aren't anywhere near revolution now. A guy I know who lives in Iran (about 19-20 years old) thinks this group is one of the last real hopes for Iran. He's thinking of joining. They are taking out corporations and that sort of stuff right now.



When the most militant workers come out to revolt, that is not "bourgeois". Any notion of "intellectual revolution" as you accuse Leninists of doing/being, is completely absurd.



You miss the point again. What is wrong about Leninists is not that they are "non-proletarian" or "intellectual". What is wrong is that they believe they have the "right" to run the show "in the name of the proletariat".

Really? I don't agree. This is a charge foundationless and ignorant made by 13 year old anarchists who spray paint cement walls in the night.




That's your history, like it or not. I know of no evidence that the Iranian Leninists are any different and their 21st point quoted above points straight towards a party dictatorship.

No, it says it will establish a party which governs through the working class. Nice interpretation there RS. :lol:


Why do you keep trying to weasel out of the obvious?

Weeping RS when he's twisted the words like the nuts in his sack. :lol:


In fact, your use of expressions like "arrogant anarchist ass", "jackass", etc. give you away. You are angry because you have no legitimate response...so you hurl epithets and hope that no one will notice your absence of substance.

Really? I've provided an argument against everything you've said. You've avoided that and continued along the line of "Leninist ruling class" tisk tisk tisk RS, so pathetic.


The strategy of a loser.

Coming from an old man, used up? :lol:

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2003, 12:34 PM
redstar2000, when is your 'proletarian revolution' that 'is defined as a rising of nearly all of the working class' going to happen? Do you think it is simply a matter of time? Do you think the left is today simply 'doomed to wait' for it to happen? And then, what is your prediction? Will we whitness it? Will it happen within the next, let's say 100 years?
Well, Bianconero, if you want me to guess, I'm willing to take a shot at it: in France and Germany, sometime between 2050 and 2100.

But that's a guess! It could happen in Argentina in the next three years or Brazil in the next 15 years or Japan in the next 25 years.

The problem is that there is no way to reliably predict the future in useful detail.

We communists do whatever we can to help things along...but, as the Leninists generally fail to grasp, material conditions are the determining factor.

They believe that they can substitute their own will for the revolutionary class consciousness of the proletariat...something that simply does not work.

Does that mean that people "should" just "sit back and wait for the proletariat to rise"? Truthfully, it's up to you. If you want to be active in spreading communist ideas, that will help...a little. If you want to sit on your ass and wait, that will hurt...a little. And by "little" I mean too small to measure.

Subjectively, we naturally see our individual selves as crucially important. We can't help it.

In the "great sweep of history" we are drops of water in the ocean. Under certain conditions we are mostly calm; when conditions change, so do we. That's what it means when Marxists say that history is ultimately made by the masses.

When an individual communist tries to spread communist ideas, s/he is responding--whether s/he knows it or not--to the slow maturing of material conditions for proletarian revolution. If s/he gives up in despair or boredom and takes up some other activity, that's likewise in response to material conditions...a temporary period of "class peace" perhaps.

We really don't understand (and may not ever understand) exactly what the necessary combination of circumstances are that generate a sudden and dramatic upsurge in class consciousness in the working class--though there certainly are some plausible hypotheses. But we know it happens.

And IF Marx was right, it will happen again.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[Bianconero]

But basically you'd say that it's just a matter of time. For you, if I didn't misunderstand you, there's no way the revolution is not going to happen, is there?

And then, do you think the majority of the working class needs no education at all? Do you think it is, so to speak, within the nature of their situation to one day revolt against the ruling class? Don't you think that there could simple never be a revolution? That the masses will simply starve in their 'stupidity'? And then, do you really think endless poverty will create class consciousness (the consciousness that the enemy are the capitalists)?

[redstar2000]

But basically you'd say that it's just a matter of time. For you, if I didn't misunderstand you, there's no way the revolution is not going to happen, is there?

And then, do you think the majority of the working class needs no education at all? Do you think it is, so to speak, within the nature of their situation to one day revolt against the ruling class?

Yes, I think it is just a matter of time; material conditions will--all by themselves--compel workers to educate themselves and "do the deed". Communists can speed up that process...slightly. But the very existence of communists is itself a product of the maturing material conditions for proletarian revolution.

When there are only a few conscious communists...that's a sign all by itself that material conditions are far from ripe; when there are many conscious communists, that's a sign that material conditions have grown favorable.

I should add that this is not a linear process; material conditions can and do "ebb and flood"...become more favorable, then less favorable, then more favorable again.

It also seems as if very favorable conditions tend to accelerate into even more favorable conditions quite rapidly...sometimes within a period of days!

The way history works, in detail, is incredibly complicated...we may never really understand it.

Don't you think that there could simple never be a revolution? That the masses will simply starve in their 'stupidity'?

No, because, unlike the Leninists, I don't think the masses are "stupid". The course of history to this point shows that humans are painfully slow at learning...but learn they do.

If, as is now thought, the modern human species is 150,000 years old, look how long it took just to learn how to read and write?

And how much longer to read and write anything even remotely sensible?

Yet, in the end, it happened. And it's still happening, faster than ever. Evidently, it takes a very long time to learn how to use "a big brain"...but once you do, things really take off.

I really can't see anything short of global thermonuclear war delaying the proletarian revolution more than two or three centuries at the most. If there is massive nuclear war, then, of course the survivors will have a different agenda...the transition from savagry to barbarism.
:o

And then, do you really think endless poverty will create class consciousness (the consciousness that the enemy are the capitalists)?

It's not really "endless"--"poverty" has a constantly changing definition. It has been observed that in the years immediately preceeding the great French Revolution, the living standards of ordinary people in Paris were actually rising...the catch is that they weren't rising as fast as people expected.

When people are degraded to the bare minimum of survival, it's survival that occupies every waking moment. When things get a little better, then they reflect on broader concerns...and perhaps reach revolutionary conclusions.

When the old ruling class weakens and things begin to improve may turn out to be the very time when people's demands rise at such a steep angle that revolution comes onto the agenda of history.

But there are many factors at work; as I said before, history in detail is horrendously complicated.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[elijahcraig]

Welcome to Fantasy Island RedStar, your utopian dream:

http://wsp3.wspice.com/~bsawyer/imagemills/fantasy-island.jpg

:lol:

[redstar2000]

Welcome to Fantasy Island RedStar, your utopian dream

I guess in your eyes, that constitutes a "crushing rejoinder".

I'm crushed. :lol:

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[elijahcraig]

Of course you are. :lol:

[Bianconero]

material conditions will--all by themselves--compel workers to educate themselves and "do the deed".

That's the point really. I simply do not think that material conditions will 'all by themselves' educate the workers, or compel them to educate themselves. The workers will maybe realize that there is something corrupt going on, yet they will not know what it is. They sure will rise against some local puppet politicians, but they'll not be able to challenge those in power, the 'big shots' so to speak.

Argentina 3 years, eh?

Believe me, friend, I'd be glad if this was true.

[redstar2000]

Argentina 3 years, eh?

Believe me, friend, I'd be glad if this was true.

Me, too! :D

Here's the problem: there are a number of countries in the world today that strongly resemble France, Germany, England, etc. as they were shortly before World War I.

Argentina, Brazil, South Korea, Taiwan, Venezuela, and Mexico come to mind. If they were the only countries on an otherwise empty planet, they would be poised on the brink of inter-imperialist warfare, empire building, etc.

But they can't do that...the old imperial powers--especially the United States--have already pre-empted that option. So they are "stuck" at a point where their "natural development" cannot proceed.

There are some ways around this, of course. South Korea wants very much to "acquire" North Korea. Taiwan is building a mini-empire on the east coast of mainland China.

For Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela and Mexico...things are more difficult still. Where to expand? How to get out from under the United States while avoiding being sucked into orbit around another Latin American "giant"?

I trust you are not misled by talk of "common markets", continental friendship, etc. The ruling classes of those countries are just like all capitalist ruling classes...looking for fresh investments, fresh conquests, fresh wealth to acquire at the expense of the working class in their own country or any other.

At the present time, therefore, there is considerable "strain" on the relations of production in Argentine, Brazil, Mexico and Venezuela...which could lead to proletarian revolution in this decade or shortly thereafter.

Since all of the Leninist parties in those countries are of trivial significance, such revolutions--if they take place--will be essentially spontaneous uprisings involving most of the working class. (Note that in Brazil, the landless peasantry could play a significant role as well.)

The details of such uprisings are impossible to predict, of course. If one takes place in Venezuela, I would imagine Chavez & Co. would be swept aside by more radical proletarian elements. Should one take place in Mexico, the United States would almost certainly invade and conquer that country...it would be relatively "easy".

But you can see how really difficult it is to figure out "in advance" how these things will play out.

I simply do not think that material conditions will 'all by themselves' educate the workers, or compel them to educate themselves. The workers will maybe realize that there is something corrupt going on, yet they will not know what it is. They sure will rise against some local puppet politicians, but they'll not be able to challenge those in power, the 'big shots' so to speak.

Well, the best historical example we have of a modern proletarian revolution--February 1917 in Russia--is agreed by reputable historians to be primarily the result of a spontaneous rising of the working class in Petrograd. Yes, there were Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, anarchists, etc. involved and they did play a role. But they were far from "decisive" or "crucial"...the workers themselves in their tens of thousands "did the deed".

If Marx was right, that is how it's supposed to happen.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[Bianconero]

I don't feel there's much to argue now as I simply don't agree. Again, if your theory will turn out to be correct, I'll be the happiest person in the world. But I simply don't think it will.


If Marx was right, that is how it's supposed to happen.

Marx was a human being. Using Marx as some kind of authority doesn't help. It's about truth here and truth only. Marx sure made mistakes too.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2003, 07:14 PM
Iran is so underdeveloped it is IMPOSSIBLE for a revolution to occur without a vanguard.
Iran already had a revolution without a vangaurd. 1979, spontaneous rebellion by workers & peasants toppled the Shah. Workers councils, called Shoras, were formed. The vanguards were all left behind by the popular rebellion until 1979 when one of them decided to impose it's will on the masses. These were the Islamic clerics, who took advantage of the revolution to impose themselves as new rulers. After seizing power this new elite suppressed the Shoras. This was very similar to previous revolutions that established new ruling classes, which RedStar2000 calls 'bourgeois revolutions.' The Russian Revolution started with spontaneous rebellion of the workers & peasants, the vangaurds were left behind. The bolsheviks then took advantage of this to establish themselves as a new elite, destroying independant soviets. The French Revolution was the same, with the Jacobins destroying the sections.

[redstar2000]

Marx was a human being. Using Marx as some kind of authority doesn't help. It's about truth here and truth only. Marx sure made mistakes too.

On that, we are actually in agreement. Note that I said "if" Marx was right...a phrase that I repeat often in my posts. It's always possible that he was wrong.

But when you draw attention to the fundamental contradiction between Marx's expectations of massive proletarian uprisings and Lenin's strategy of vanguardist coups "in the name of the working class", then you have the obligation to say precisely why you prefer Lenin over Marx.

It can't be papered over with a oxymoron like "Marxism-Leninism".

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[Bianconero]

But when you draw attention to the fundamental contradiction between Marx's expectations of massive proletarian uprisings and Lenin's strategy of vanguardist coups "in the name of the working class", then you have the obligation to say precisely why you prefer Lenin over Marx.

It can't be papered over with a oxymoron like "Marxism-Leninism".

I don't see a 'fundamental contradiction' here, I see 'fundamental improvement.' Picking out the best things of Lenin and Marx, that's what Marxism-Leninism is - in my humble oppinion. For me, Marx was simply wrong concerning his theory of 'collective proletarian uprising.'

[redstar2000]

For me, Marx was simply wrong concerning his theory of 'collective proletarian uprising.'

Fair enough, I suppose.

But the tough part follows: why do you think Marx was "wrong"?

You can't say because it hasn't happened yet, though you could say because it's never happened successfully.

But then you'd be back to an argument like RAF's or elijahcraig's: it "can't" happen successfully because most people are "sheep". As I've indicated, it's difficult to believe in a "progressive" future society from those who hold the masses of working people in such contempt.

"Contempt" may seem a harsh word...but I know of none other to describe the phenomenon. You propose to "make" a revolution "on behalf" of the oppressed and exploited...on the grounds that you will be "nicer" bosses than the ones you overthrow...but you will still be a boss.

How do you square any of that with the realities of a class society? The material conditions of being "boss" generate "boss-consciousness", do they not? It's not so much what you (or other Leninists) are like now--though figures like Bob Avakian should be a sobering illustration--but rather what you will turn into if you are successful?

As you know, I rarely question anyone's personal sincerity on this board...I don't think people become Leninists out of some perverted "lust for power" or any of that crap. I think Lenin was sincerely convinced of his strategy and theory...that it was "the only way that would work". Ordinary Leninists today doubtlessly feel the same way...even in the face of the disasters suffered by the Leninist paradigm in the 20th century.

But consider what you are really asking of yourself and your comrades, should you be successful. Do you really think that you can "soar above" the material conditions of your new society? How long can you be a boss and not start thinking like one?

Or, when Marx asserted that "being determines consciousness", do you think he was wrong about that too?

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[elijahcraig]

But then you'd be back to an argument like RAF's or elijahcraig's: it "can't" happen successfully because most people are "sheep". As I've indicated, it's difficult to believe in a "progressive" future society from those who hold the masses of working people in such contempt.

RS, you sound a little like a Chrisitan..."ONE DAY WE WILL ALL BE ENLIGHTENED AND MARCH GLORIOUSLY INTO THE SUNSET!" I don't see it happening that way, and I don't intend to die without attempting to further the cause drastically.


"Contempt" may seem a harsh word...but I know of none other to describe the phenomenon. You propose to "make" a revolution "on behalf" of the oppressed and exploited...on the grounds that you will be "nicer" bosses than the ones you overthrow...but you will still be a boss.

Bosses? What are you talking about? Ever heard of mass participation, workers' councils, trade unions, etc etc etc? We're not going to march in and start militarizing labor like a Trotskyist.


How do you square any of that with the realities of a class society? The material conditions of being "boss" generate "boss-consciousness", do they not? It's not so much what you (or other Leninists) are like now--though figures like Bob Avakian should be a sobering illustration--but rather what you will turn into if you are successful?

Fuck Bob Avakian, the guy needs to read a Mao quote on dogma.

I have no intention of being the boss, and if any of my fellow Leninists do, I will be happy to see them destroyed by the people.


As you know, I rarely question anyone's personal sincerity on this board...I don't think people become Leninists out of some perverted "lust for power" or any of that crap. I think Lenin was sincerely convinced of his strategy and theory...that it was "the only way that would work". Ordinary Leninists today doubtlessly feel the same way...even in the face of the disasters suffered by the Leninist paradigm in the 20th century.

Disasters? The greatest living conditions of all-time in the countries they occured in are "disasters"? You are insane.


But consider what you are really asking of yourself and your comrades, should you be successful. Do you really think that you can "soar above" the material conditions of your new society? How long can you be a boss and not start thinking like one?

I think being recalled at any time, being paid the same as workers, etc should keep that in check.

[redstar2000]

I have no intention of being the boss, and if any of my fellow Leninists do, I will be happy to see them destroyed by the people.

I rarely make "predictions", but here's one for you, elijah: you are going to get into serious difficulties in any Leninist party.

In fact, I'll bet that Comrade RAF just "wrote you off" after reading that statement.

The greatest living conditions of all-time in the countries they occurred in are "disasters"?

That's obviously not true; you need to read some books about the countries that you admire.

But even if it were true, it's all gone now. Doesn't the formal restoration of capitalism in Russia, eastern Europe and China fit the definition of "disaster" in your dictionary?

Of course this is not a "failure of Leninism" in your book, but rather the result of "evil men" coming to power. How "Marxist" of you. :lol:

And note that for all your babble about working class "power" in those countries, the workers were unable to prevent either the rise of "evil men" or the success of their "treason" to "socialism".

I think being recalled at any time, being paid the same as workers, etc should keep that in check.

Yes, the Bolsheviks began things that way. But they didn't stay that way very long, did they?

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[elijahcraig]

I have no intention of being the boss, and if any of my fellow Leninists do, I will be happy to see them destroyed by the people.

I rarely make "predictions", but here's one for you, elijah: you are going to get into serious difficulties in any Leninist party.


In fact, I'll bet that Comrade RAF just "wrote you off" after reading that statement.

Actually you make "predictions" quite often old man. :lol:

If a party ever has notions of becoming a "boss", I would not join it. Period.

You wrote me off as a fascist a while back, so...



The greatest living conditions of all-time in the countries they occurred in are "disasters"?

That's obviously not true; you need to read some books about the countries that you admire.


But even if it were true, it's all gone now. Doesn't the formal restoration of capitalism in Russia, eastern Europe and China fit the definition of "disaster" in your dictionary?

The boys of Capital, they also chortle in their martinis about the death of socialism. The word has been banned from polite conversation. And they hope that no one will notice that every socialist experiment of any significance in the twentieth century -- without exception -- has either been
crushed, overthrown, or invaded, or corrupted, perverted, subverted, or destabilized, or otherwise had life made impossible for it, by the United States. Not one socialist government or movement -- from the Russian Revolution to the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, from Communist China to the FMLN in Salvador -- not one was permitted to rise or fall solely on its own merits; not one was left secure enough to drop its guard against the all-powerful enemy abroad and freely and fully relax control at home.

It's as if the Wright brothers' first experiments with flying machines all failed because the automobile interests sabotaged each test flight. And then the good and god-fearing folk of the world looked upon this, took notice of the consequences, nodded their collective heads wisely, and intoned solemnly: Man shall never fly.
-William Blum

That's how I feel.


Of course this is not a "failure of Leninism" in your book, but rather the result of "evil men" coming to power. How "Marxist" of you.


And note that for all your babble about working class "power" in those countries, the workers were unable to prevent either the rise of "evil men" or the success of their "treason" to "socialism".

Capitalism is the evil, not man.

Babble? The workers cannot see to all ends, and neither can the party.



I think being recalled at any time, being paid the same as workers, etc should keep that in check.

Yes, the Bolsheviks began things that way. But they didn't stay that way very long, did they?

Under Stalin, as much as 48% of all officials were recalled at one time or another.

I call that "working class power".