Marxist-Leninist, Existential Humanist

[Lee Van Cleef]

Hello, everyone. I have been reading this site off and on for the last three years, and have finally registered. I am an American anthropology student attending a university in Philadelphia.

I was turned on to leftist thought at a very young age, when I first read George Orwell. Thus, while I rejected Trotskyism and settled on Marxism-Leninism quite some time ago, I am still not a particularly strong supporter of Stalin. Party-wise, I mainly support the PSL in the US. I have neglected to join due to paranoia about future employability and such, but have had an increasing urge to join as I see the rise of far-right elements across Europe, and with the reactionary Tea Party here at home.

Two years ago I was introduced to existentialism through the films of Ingmar Bergman. I quickly became a big fan of Sartre's brand of "existential humanism," as I felt it dovetailed quite nicely with Marxism. One of the reasons I chose now to register is because I ran across criticisms of existentialism by Dunayevskaya and George Novack of the SWP (links removed due to my postcount - see MIA). I was wondering what other users, especially Leninists, think of Sartre.

I look forward to engaging in debate while continuing to learn from the community here.

[Q]

Welcome :)

I look forward to your contributions.

Are you familiar with the Radical Anthropology Group (http://www.radicalanthropologygroup.org/new/RAG.html)?

[Lee Van Cleef]

Thank you, and no, I had never heard of it. Their journal looks interesting and I will take a look at it when I have the chance. Thank you for the link.

[Q]

On a different subject: Why do you specifically reject Trotskyism?

[Lee Van Cleef]

A very good question, and one that I like to revisit from time to time.

In the historical sense, I don't believe in the concepts of "degenerated workers state" and "permanent revolution." I also don't believe Stalin was a revisionist.

As far as modern Trotskyist groups go, I have several key complaints. The first is that I I often see them as focusing their organizations around students or infiltrating liberal "progressive" interests, rather than building a working class base. In addition, I think they often take anti-imperialism to irrational ends. I've seen some support the Taliban, for instance. Another grievance is that many Trotskyists seem intent on simply converting bourgeois parliamentary democracy and bringing it into their conception of a socialist system.

I've also seen some argue the sanctity of bourgeois "rights" such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly. Though to be fair, I think that this is a minority opinion, and hope that these people are swiftly corrected by those more knowledgeable.

In regards to our earlier chat, yes I admit that my view of Trotskyism are colored by run-ins with groups like ISO, Socialist Action, and the SEP. I looked through the website of the US Socialist Alternative that you linked me, and it didn't seem so bad. They do have a chapter in my city. I have yet to run into them, but perhaps I will.

The thing that stands out to me is the lack of any noticeable "Events" or "Organization" page on the site; or really anything at all except world news and theory. Do you know what kind of activities Socialist Alternative, or any other branches of the CWI are involved in? Another thing that troubles me about the left in general is how many parties exist only as intellectual clubs. I'm sorry to say that, at least in the US, this seems to be a bigger problem with Trotskyist groups; though that may be simply because there are more Trotskyist parties in the US.

[Q]

In addition, I think they often take anti-imperialism to irrational ends. I've seen some support the Taliban, for instance.
Well, this isn't just a Trotskyist thing, although I agree that this is rather stupid. Last year quite a few anti-revisionists here took the position that the Iranian revolts must have been staged by the CIA or a similar organisation. They couldn't possibly imagine the working class acting against the Iranian theocratic "anti-imperialist" regime.

A correct position in any case is to build solidarity links with the workers movement in Iran (or Afghanistan if you will), against the reactionary regime and against imperialist intervention. But this position seems to be too complicated for some people.


Another grievance is that many Trotskyists seem intent on simply converting bourgeois parliamentary democracy and bringing it into their conception of a socialist system.
We discussed this briefly on irc and I agree there needs to be a sharp criticism made against any left-reformist illusions. That said, do you disagree with participating in elections per se? I think that excludes us from a useful platform. CWI MEP Joe Higgins for example does exactly use his position in European Parliament to fight for workers interests. Recently he used his position to get a hearing in the EP on the oppression of the working class in Kazakhstan. You can read more on his work here (http://www.joehiggins.eu/).


I've also seen some argue the sanctity of bourgeois "rights" such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly. Though to be fair, I think that this is a minority opinion, and hope that these people are swiftly corrected by those more knowledgeable.
Why do you oppose them? In fact, these democratic rights are essential for working class organisation as a class. It is the task of communists to defend these essential rights and fight for more radical democratic measures, as only such a programme can bring our class effectively to power.

This doesn't mean we should defend the farce of "democracy" that is parliament. We should unmask that instrument of the ruling class for what it is and fight for real democracy.


In regards to our earlier chat, yes I admit that my view of Trotskyism are colored by run-ins with groups like ISO, Socialist Action, and the SEP. I looked through the website of the US Socialist Alternative that you linked me, and it didn't seem so bad. They do have a chapter in my city. I have yet to run into them, but perhaps I will.
There is no problem in checking things out I guess. But, and I just read your comments on irc after I left, I'm not trying to recruit you ;) I'm just having a debate here on your views.


The thing that stands out to me is the lack of any noticeable "Events" or "Organization" page on the site; or really anything at all except world news and theory. Do you know what kind of activities Socialist Alternative, or any other branches of the CWI are involved in?
Maybe our international site (http://socialistworld.net/) helps, or here is our English site (http://socialistparty.org.uk/main/Home), here Irish (http://socialistparty.net/) and here the Australian (http://www.socialistpartyaustralia.org/), to name just some English language websites. Perhaps this gives more of an idea. Our activities differ from country to country depending on objective circumstances and size of our local section. But general activities include holding public meetings, intervening in the concrete class struggle, propaganda activities, organising workers into collectives. In Pakistan (http://socialistpakistan.org/) we're currently involved in building a new trade union federation that in its few months of existence already has reached over half a million members.


Another thing that troubles me about the left in general is how many parties exist only as intellectual clubs. I'm sorry to say that, at least in the US, this seems to be a bigger problem with Trotskyist groups; though that may be simply because there are more Trotskyist parties in the US.
I have the same experience here in the Netherlands, but I believe this is a reflection of the general small size of the revolutionary left at the present time. The point is about (re)building our forces and the class movement as a whole.

[Lee Van Cleef]

Thank you for the detailed response.


We discussed this briefly on irc and I agree there needs to be a sharp criticism made against any left-reformist illusions. That said, do you disagree with participating in elections per se? I think that excludes us from a useful platform.
I am not particularly against leftist participation in capitalist democracy. Although I doubt an elected official's ability to get much done within the system, I do think it could generate positive PR at the very least. I was referring to the fact that some Trotskyists at least come across as wishing to have a parliamentary-style government after the revolution, which I feel can only lead to the same bureaucratization and career politicians we have today.


Why do you oppose them? In fact, these democratic rights are essential for working class organisation as a class. It is the task of communists to defend these essential rights and fight for more radical democratic measures, as only such a programme can bring our class effectively to power.
I support these rights whole-heartedly as it concerns the class-conscious proletariat. However, I would hope a socialist state would never dream of allowing pro-capitalist journalists, or demonstrations by groups like the KKK or BNP. The absolute sanctity of such things as "natural rights" is a purely bourgeois notion.


There is no problem in checking things out I guess. But, and I just read your comments on irc after I left, I'm not trying to recruit you I'm just having a debate here on your views.
The recruitment remarks were made in jest. ;)


In Pakistan we're currently involved in building a new trade union federation that in its few months of existence already has reached over half a million members.
This is no small achievement. I am glad to hear of your success, and I hope it continues.



I have the same experience here in the Netherlands, but I believe this is a reflection of the general small size of the revolutionary left at the present time. The point is about (re)building our forces and the class movement as a whole.
I think everyone on this web site would probably agree on this point. Well said.