Log in

View Full Version : Okay, What the Hell is the Kasama Project?



kasama-rl
23rd February 2011, 02:18
“Keep the necessary, shocking and extreme intentions, cull the lessons from our precious common past, seek contemporary forms of speech, conception and presentation.”

“The old socialist right was famous for saying “the movement is everything the final goal is nothing.” Kasama tries to say (by contrast) “the final goal is our start, the ways of moving there are still emerging for us.”

by Mike Ely

In another, more private forum, someone wrote:
“Okay, I’m sure I’m not the first to ask this, but what the hell is Kasama anyways? Is it a blog, a collective, a groupuscule, a study group, or what?”
Fair enough. Reasonable question. And in answer, I tried to sketch (quickly, too quickly these days) some basic things. Obviously this is my own take on these things, and it is partial — so please add what is missing.

Part of the reason you may not “get it” is deliberate: We have tried to not be your grandfather’s communist organization — in vibe, or culture, or presentation (http://kasamaproject.org/2010/11/16/on-res-proposal-how-do-we-appear-what-do-we-say-how-do-we-choose/). We have avoided being part of an alphabet soup of groupuscules (as much as possible)… and don’t seek to define ourselves in terms of this or that inherited set of previous demarcations. We have tried not to be familiar.

Plus: We are not united around the usual tidy hair-splitting list of formulas about beliefs (dictatorship of the proletariat, democratic centralism, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, one head/three heads/five heads, principles of continuity etc.) — formulas that (however beloved and even largely correct some of them may be) can only at this moment open more questions than they answer.

Listing things in that too familiar catechistic way would be easy. We could whip up a list in an afternoon together. But that would represent precisely an approach of forming a new sect around a relatively closed (and often under-defined) set of inherited assumptions (meaning the ones that a few of us walked in with.)

The Final Goal is Everything

Kasama is first of all a communist project. It is an attempt to help contribute to building a new communist core within a new revolutionary movement.
Our unity in Kasama is first a common desire for radical change and for the most sweeping historical outcome — communism, (http://kasamaproject.org/2008/09/14/communisms-4-alls-capsule-of-our-final-goals-or-discardable-jargon/)the global overthrow of class society, the elimination of the heavy burdens of oppression, the creation of a new epoch of mutual flourishing.

We are, inevitably, involved in working through how to define and present that endgoal — but at our founding meeting (in April 2008) we united around the phrase, “the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions” drawn from the famous closing words of the Communist Manifesto (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch04.htm):

“The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.”

So in one way, we are really trying to put communism center stage — as a goal, as an idea, as something that defines what is done now and at each stage. And (needless to say) that is rather shocking and odd in a left where (I believe) the final goal is treated as a personal nostalgia, and where sights have been so drastically lowered over the last decades. And beyond that, we mainly unite around a list of communist questions (not a pre-chewed, under-examined, inherited list of communist answers).

To be clear: This doesn’t mean we don’t have answers. We have strong views, and often elaborated ones. We have (each of us) fought for the beliefs that brought us here. But what we unite around is the need to examine them, learn and re-synthesize, and where necessary, transform.

This is a way of saying: Kasama is not a project committed to agnostic indecision, eclectic muddle or a talk-shop passivity (all of which we’ve been accused of). But we are refusing to treat un-settled questions as if they are settled, and we are refusing to promote threadbare and exhausted formulas as they were sufficient answers. And we don’t believe the answers are all somehow “there for the taking” and just need a work of popularization and application. No.

The Very Beginning of a Very Presumptuous Work

On the contrary we believe that the rising generation of revolutionaries (and as-yet-unencountered forces from among the oppressed) will have a major role (and say) in developing relevant revolutionary theory and defining the frameworks, focus and forms for a newly revolutionary section of the people.

We are at the beginning, not at the end of our work of thought and summation. And a heavy burden rests on the new generation — which often has barely started to think about these questions.

To settle verdicts too quickly would risk shallow and false conclusions — but more: it would also deny the extent to which the theory and politics we need must be deeply marked by conditions-yet-unseen, and by new people forged in future events. Our work is urgent preparation, training, initiation, reconception and regroupment — but in ways that are designed not to exclude the innovations-to-come.

Part of that means being seriously communist (in a hard-core and uncompromising way) — but to drop old communist nostalgias, exhausted jargon, a fundamentalist impulse, and intolerable know-it-all habits.

Some people assume that being non-dogmatic means being non-revolutionary, or that being militantly communist requires a form of backward-looking fundamentalism. We are determined to prove those things untrue.

Keep the necessary, shocking and extreme intentions. Cull the lessons from our precious common past. Seek contemporary forms of speech, conception and presentation.

Fighting for Theory’s Role

We believe that we are at a moment where a rethinking of communist theory and strategy is particularly urgent — and that a frenetic rush to “do it” (in the absence of real thought) will perpetuate a routinized (and rightist) activism that is only nominally connected to creating alternative society.

This has many aspects: A serious, fearless summation of 20th century communist experience (including the major socialist experiments of China and the USSR), a fresh engagement with the very difficult problems of revolutionary strategy (in a country like the U.S., in a time like the present), a consideration of work being done in the realm of philosophy (including by Alain Badiou and others), an engagement with the ways the world has changed (including by seeking to learn from those who have continued to work on modern political economy), and more.

We have sought to discover a way to be organized (and generate an emerging degree of common belief), yet maintain an open (not closed) approach to ideas and politics. And we assume our project is transitional i.e. that we will help give rise to something together with the contributions of many others. In other words, we are not a “pre-party” formation (though perhaps somewhat more of a post-party formation).

A Communist Movement that can (finally!) learn to listen?

Perhaps this is odd to say: one of the defining features of our political culture is a belief in listening — in learning from others, from opponents, from the people, from people working along tracks parallel (or contrary) to ours. That formal commitment to modesty of course contrasts to the rather immodest habits of many of us… but so be it.

Put another way: The old socialist right was famous for saying “the movement is everything the final goal is nothing.” Kasama tries to say (by contrast) “the final goal is our start, the ways of moving there are still emerging for us.”

Organizationally we are organized in either collectives (http://thefirecollective.org/) or workgroups (so that we have primitive early collectives in several cities (http://kasamaproject.org/2011/01/26/seattle-report-back-on-nepal-the-mountains-tremble/), and a number of non-geographic workgroups — like our moderator teams, theoretical projects, common work on South Asia’s revolutions, possibility some investigative workteams etc. We participate in communist study groups in several cities — and we need to do much more of this. (I am personally part of a challenging study of Alain Badiou taking place here in Chicago, where luckily I can sit as a student to others who have dug in ahead of me.) We are using ways of allowing individuals in many scattered areas make their contributions without having to be connected to a local collectivity.

I would guess that we have folks who identify with our project in ten or twelve cities in the U.S. (and a number of places internationally). We have three websites (Kasama (http://kasamaproject.org/) main, Revolution in South Asia (http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/), and Khukuri (http://www.khukuritheory.net/) theoretical site). One of the most encouraging parts of the last years has been how interest in our road has been expressed by the activity on these sites.

Kasama also (naturally) has some internal means of discussion and debate (which I don’t need to elaborate here).

Internationalism is an important and defining feature of our common work: both in the sense that (I believe) we think there is a tremendous amount to learn from people around the world, and also because we think that the world has become much more tightly entwined (economically, politically ecologically) so that our kind of revolutionary change requires thinking from the standpoint of humanity as a whole.

I also want to mention our take on technology: Our coming movement needs to be on the cutting edge. Personally, I believe the digital distribution of ideas is facilitating a leap that can only be compared with the invention of the printing press in the 1400s. The communist movement somehow “missed” (or threw away) its chance to fully exploit radio and television when they were young — but we must not miss the opportunities created by the current break up of centralized media. The aging of the 60s new left has produced too much cranky and generational indifference to the new media — it is intolerable, and we won’t tolerate it.

This awareness of social media may have become a commonplace understanding now (finally, after the Twitter revolutions of the last year), but we revolutionaries have
not yet seriously started to engage in how we can harvest all this for the people — without exposing everything and everyone to the state.

Investigation into Faultlines: For a Communist Conception of Practice

We are working (in various beginning ways) to identify key places to initiate common campaigns of communist political work (developing approaches of investigation, a concept of what such communist work would be, a revolutionary strategy (http://kasamaproject.org/2010/09/02/a-communist-beginning-what-it-might-look-like/) to embed that work within, identifying places along key political faultlines (http://kasamaproject.org/2010/11/18/are-communist-openings-structural-or-evental/) to concentrate our rather fragile forces etc.) Obviously the point of our work is to chart and then pursue revolutionary political practice (in ways that actually connect with people and have the potential for helping to change the world).

As for Origins…

Obviously I come out of a lifetime (http://kasamaproject.org/2009/07/26/ambush-at-keystone-1inside-the-coalminers-gas-protest/) in the RCP,USA, and a few other people do. In one sense, Kasama is a project build on (or at least out of) the experience of Maoism within the U.S.

But our membership is probably less defined by a common RCP experience than than you think. the RCP’s post-2003 move to the loony margins blew away most of their periphery — both youth and intellectuals. And a number of those forces have been pretty energetic around Kasama (i.e. not former RCP members but people previously interested in revolutionary communism within the U.S.)

Over the last years, we have spoken about “shaking the tree, to see who comes.” And mainly those who have come are revolutionaries of a new generation, with few experiences or investments in the previous communist movement. This is both a strength and a weakness.

A number of people around Kasama come from other places (I.e. non-Maoist “traditions”) — including former anarchists, trotskyists and movementist activists of various kinds. This is extremely important in ways you can imagine — cross-fertilization is desperately needed.

Our Project is not organized in a democratic centralist way — there is no unifying position on each question that anyone is required to uphold. And our structure and lines of leadership remain (still) rather primitive — and will probably need some development over the next year or so.

One of the things that surprised me about the Kasama Project was precisely how my own critiques of the RCP (in the 9 Letters to our comrades (http://kasamaproject.org/pamphlets/9-letters/)) rang true to people who felt frustrated with other similarly-exhausted political schema. So our call to “reconceive and regroup” and our focus on critical thinking and fresh approaches has appeared (to some at least) as offering a way to solve some long standing problems.

We have written some things that talk about our project.

One place to start may be: Shaping the Kasama Project: Contributing to Revolution’s Long March (http://mikeely.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/kasama_pamphlet_shaping_the_kasama_project_pdf.pdf )

Another place to look is our “reading clusters (http://kasamaproject.org/polemics/)” (which speak for themselves):

Feel free to speak here about your own view of Kasama. And if you are interested, feel free to contact us at our email (or in person — including at the coming Left Forum). We are eager to work with you, learn from you, and if possible find deeper forms of unity.

Devrim
23rd February 2011, 07:03
Oh, and I thought it was just another attempt to rehash Maoism to make it seem a bit more palatable.

Devrim

Paulappaul
23rd February 2011, 07:32
Sounds like alot of Elitist hot air and pointless secrets. Same old stuff I suppose :sleep:.

Your links gave me viruses by the way.

Jose Gracchus
23rd February 2011, 07:38
Anyone wanting to see how transparent and open to criticism they are on their articles should look up my Kronstadt debate with the OP.

Here ya go:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/kronstadt-t148322/index.html?

Paulappaul
23rd February 2011, 07:40
^ I can't like that enough :tt1:

Ms. Max
23rd February 2011, 20:35
I checked it out. Kasama is kind of an interesting project. I have thoughts both good and bad.

Good: Some thoughtful critique and analysis, on important issues of tactics and strategy that need to be discussed. And from a communist and Maoist influenced perspective.

Bad: Some "We're not sure what the path ahead is, but in the meantime we need to dismantle the RCP. And also direct shallow insulting stuff at this Bob Avakian guy we envy".

DaringMehring
24th February 2011, 05:08
My question with Kasama is, whether it is really open minded, innovative, and multi-tendency, or if it is just warmed-over Maoism.

I like some of the stuff they say, and the idea of their group in taking a name that is not in the traditional mold.

But I wonder, to what degree do the old Stalinist dogmas, of alliance with the "progressive" or "national" bourgeoisie, Moscow trials / die Partei hat immer recht repressive loyalism, of anti-socialist "anti-imperialism," (supporting brutal strongmen who oppose the US) and all the rest, dominate the thinking of the group.

We need something like what Kasama claims to be, but my question is, are Kasama's claims real or just hot air?

Kassad
24th February 2011, 05:11
I want a t-shirt that says "What the Hell is Kasama Project?"

Zeus the Moose
24th February 2011, 05:40
The shirt would look something like this, yes ;)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v336/DeusExSylvanus/Blob-Avakian.jpg

Devrim
24th February 2011, 14:04
The shirt would look something like this, yes ;)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v336/DeusExSylvanus/Blob-Avakian.jpg

I think the whole point of it is to disassociate themselves from him. Obviously he has become a bit of a joke. Kasama want to keep all the same politics, but don't want to be laughed at so much.

Devrim

Wanted Man
24th February 2011, 15:13
Much of the tone and diction is still the same as in the RCP, although I have not seen stuff like "to dig into" and "wrangle" yet.

Bandito
24th February 2011, 16:20
http://kasamaproject.org/about/

kasama-rl
25th February 2011, 00:51
"But I wonder, to what degree do the old Stalinist dogmas, of alliance with the "progressive" or "national" bourgeoisie, Moscow trials / die Partei hat immer recht repressive loyalism, of anti-socialist "anti-imperialism," (supporting brutal strongmen who oppose the US) and all the rest, dominate the thinking of the group.

We need something like what Kasama claims to be, but my question is, are Kasama's claims real or just hot air?"

How would we work to sort that out? To differentiate hot air from real progress?

Got questions for me? Or things we should discuss?

Devrim
25th February 2011, 01:04
My question with Kasama is, whether it is really open minded, innovative, and multi-tendency, or if it is just warmed-over Maoism.

I like some of the stuff they say, and the idea of their group in taking a name that is not in the traditional mold.

But I wonder, to what degree do the old Stalinist dogmas, of alliance with the "progressive" or "national" bourgeoisie, Moscow trials / die Partei hat immer recht repressive loyalism, of anti-socialist "anti-imperialism," (supporting brutal strongmen who oppose the US) and all the rest, dominate the thinking of the group.

We need something like what Kasama claims to be, but my question is, are Kasama's claims real or just hot air?
How would we work to sort that out? To differentiate hot air from real progress?

Got questions for me? Or things we should discuss?

I think that there is a world of difference between political groups who try to orientate themselves towards the working class and Maoism. If you think that what happened in China is a model for socialist revolution, there is not really a lot of common ground with people who think that there is nothing socialist about it.

Where can you start to discuss? How can you discuss working class politics when one side claims that workers are 'labour aristocrats'?

Devrim

DaringMehring
25th February 2011, 05:08
How would we work to sort that out? To differentiate hot air from real progress?

Got questions for me? Or things we should discuss?

I browsed the site, & found there were at least a spectrum of opinions, though generally oriented around Maoism. However, I noticed that 80% or more of the articles appeared to be written by you and some were somewhat rambling. Seems this grouping is small and somewhat unbalanced right now. I'm interested to hear, what is the plan for developing it.

kasama-rl
28th February 2011, 02:36
the articles are posted by me, but not mainly written by me. That is because i function as the moderator who people submit posting suggestions to.

I also write pieces when i get the time and the impulse.

What does unbalanced mean?

resurgence
28th February 2011, 15:43
Where can you start to discuss? How can you discuss working class politics when one side claims that workers are 'labour aristocrats'?

Devrim

Just to be clear...What Maoists say about the existence and nature of the Labour Aristocracy is no different from what Marx, Engels and Lenin (all of whom Left Communists regard as legit revolutionaires though critically in the case of Lenin, no?) said before us. We are also far from saying that all workers belong to it by a long shot. Or maybe you are confusing Maoism with "Maoism-Third Worldism" which is the spawn of hipster students with to much time on their hands?

Devrim
1st March 2011, 10:38
Just to be clear...What Maoists say about the existence and nature of the Labour Aristocracy is no different from what Marx, Engels and Lenin (all of whom Left Communists regard as legit revolutionaires though critically in the case of Lenin, no?) said before us.

We don't really think that you have to uphold everything that was said by particular communists in the past anyway, but actually I think that it is very different.

Marx's refers a few times to the term 'Labour aristocracy', but in very indirect ways. It doesn't seem to be used consistently, and at times seems to refer to the leaders of the labour movement and at times to skilled unionized workers as a whole.

Engels developed the idea further in private letters to Marx, but interestingly never published extensively on it. He certainly seems to develop the idea beyond just being one that applied to the 'leaders', but one that applied to a 'small, privileged protected minority' of the working class. Note that it is only a 'minority' of the working class, and not huge numbers of workers in the West.

The idea of a 'labour aristocracy' was really fully developed by Kautsky at the turn of the last century. This is the source of inspiration of Lenin's work on imperialism, and ultimately today's maoist theory.

As you seem to have a knowledge of the political basis of the communist left you may know that Lenin's Imperialism is one of the things of which we are most critical.

For us the idea of a 'Labour aristocracy' is a complete rejection of Marxism, meaning Marxism not as a dogma of following what 'great men' said, but as a method. It is basically, in our opinion, a sociological theory to divide the working class (http://en.internationalism.org/node/3101).


Or maybe you are confusing Maoism with "Maoism-Third Worldism" which is the spawn of hipster students with to much time on their hands?

Personally I don't see much of a fundamental difference, merely one of degree.

Devrim

kasama-rl
2nd March 2011, 18:51
to understand questions like "labor aristocracy" we shouldn't mainly examine the "lineage" of the idea, but examine reality to see whether it was true.

Sure Marx used it, and Kautsky, and certainly Lenin (in his major writings on the collapse of the Second International it looms large as a theory of why the Internatinal split).

But is that really how we determine what is true or not? No it is a matter of reality.

Now the question is not whether "labor aristocracy" is a theory to divide the working class, but whether the working class is OBJECTIVELY divided.

If the working class is OBJECTIVELY divided (stratified in ways that produce conflicting interests within the class) then we NEED a theory that analyzes that.

It is strangely idealist to say the Marxist theory of labor aristocrisy divides the working class, when it merely analyzes a situation in which that class is objectively divided.

To be clear: Things have developed very far from the days when Lenin analyzed this phenomenon.

If you look at the working class globally -- and the vast contrast between a kid grinding metal parts in a Kathmandu artisan shop and a skilled tradesman in a U.S. manufacturing complex... it is hard to deny that this class is stratified, and that people at the distant extremes of that class face very different conditions, realities and political impulses.

You can pretend that isn't so. You can insist that because we "want" a united class, we should overlook the impact of stratification. But what is the point of self-deception?

Stratification means that there will not be unity of the working class in the U.S., and that the unification of this class is not a prerequisite for revolution. It is not like we will (a) unite the class, then (b) lead that united class to make revolution, then (c) have a new system led by a united class.

This is metaphysical. We will certainly get and rely on chunks of the working class (especially its more oppressed, impoverished and non-white sectors), but there will be other sections of the working class likely to be neutral (or even hostile) to any radical movement.

We need to take that into account in our strategic preparations.

and the old theory of a "labor aristocrisy" has not aged well -- it doesn't explain well the situation today, and we are in need of an updated and modern communist analysis of working class stratification in a much more ocmplex and integrated world market.

kasama-rl
2nd March 2011, 18:57
"What Maoists say about the existence and nature of the Labour Aristocracy is no different from what Marx, Engels and Lenin said before us."

How can this possibly be true?

Hasn't the world (and the stratification of the working class) gone through major changes since Lenin spoke about these matters?!

Isn't it inevitable that the working class has been restructured in many ways (including the proletarianization of much of the third world, the deepening stratification of the imperialist countries, some recent undermining of the reactionary social contract in those countries, etc. etc.)

Don't we need a modern, contemporary analysis (that isn't a repeat of what was said a century ago when industry was mainly confined to a few countries in Europe)?

On a basic level, the assumption of Marxism as a closed system (where the key concepts are developed and the key verdicts were made long ago) seems anti-scientific and anti-materialist.

red cat
2nd March 2011, 19:24
How can this possibly be true?

Hasn't the world (and the stratification of the working class) gone through major changes since Lenin spoke about these matters?!

Isn't it inevitable that the working class has been restructured in many ways (including the proletarianization of much of the third world, the deepening stratification of the imperialist countries, some recent undermining of the reactionary social contract in those countries, etc. etc.)

Don't we need a modern, contemporary analysis (that isn't a repeat of what was said a century ago when industry was mainly confined to a few countries in Europe)?

On a basic level, the assumption of Marxism as a closed system (where the key concepts are developed and the key verdicts were made long ago) seems anti-scientific and anti-materialist.

The international situation is not in a qualitatively different stage from when Lenin wrote about the labour aristocracy. So any recent modified versions of the theory can be at most quantitatively different from his works.

kasama-rl
7th March 2011, 17:51
the international situation is very different from lenin's time.

but more, the theory of labor aristocracy is about the stratification of the working class (which is separate from the international situation and its own question). And that stratification is incredibly different from Lenin's time -- globally.

The idea that nothing much has changed and so (by rigid and mechanical logic) we don't need some very different theory on stratification (and summation of old theory) is rather dogmatic -- both in verdict but also in method of reaching verdict.