Revolution in the West

[Dimentio]

There has been one "successful" revolution in a western country recently. I am of course talking about the 2009 protests in Iceland where the people surrounded the Althingi and made sounds which forced the parliamentarians to declare new elections.

In those new elections, the Social Democrats and Greens won, shifting the government from centre-right to centre-left.

Whenever the system is threatened by uprisings, it will respond in that manner. That is why we would never see a "Winter Palace" scenario in the West. The regimes would just dissolve and resolve with different faces.

And most of you, I am sure, would not want to see coups. I won't, for a matter of fact.

The problem is that we need to shift the central point of the political discourse to the left to have any chance to impose lasting reforms.

[Amphictyonis]

elections




reforms.

No thanks :)

[Paulappaul]

when did revolution = reforms?

[Rocky Rococo]

That's a real issue for our times, and the Zapatistas seem to me to have grappled with that issue theoretically in as effective a manner as any I've seen. If taking power is impossible, then attempting to do so becomes counterproductive. They provide an alternative course, not to take power, but to fight power, to work to break power as such.

[Blackscare]

I don't think we've seen anything close to an objectively revolutionary scenario yet, and not really since Germany 1917ish, in the west. Iceland is no example of anything, really, I believe that in the west the economic system will have to be totally brought to it's knees, and we'll likely see a Wiemar republic/pre-Mussolini style electoral impotence that cannot be resolved by merely calling for another election.


What we're seeing here is the fragmentation and degeneration of the Bourgeoisie, on the one hand you have the chronically apathetic and incompetent democrats (I'm speaking of the US now, of course), and on the other a rapidly balkanizing republican party which is seeing the growing dominance of a radical ideological wing (that is most likely unable to actually serve the interests of capital properly in the long term).

[Q]

That's a real issue for our times, and the Zapatistas seem to me to have grappled with that issue theoretically in as effective a manner as any I've seen. If taking power is impossible, then attempting to do so becomes counterproductive. They provide an alternative course, not to take power, but to fight power, to work to break power as such.

Eddie Ford is making a similar point (http://cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004287) in relation to the Arabian uprising:


Just as encouragingly, or at least for communists, some youth leaders have opposed the call for elections in the immediate or near future. Quite correct. We say this not because we are hostile to elections in principle - far from it. Rather, for the straightforward reason that, given the decades-long working class repression, and the absence of any active tradition or culture of democracy, any such elections would by definition be rigged in favour of powerful elites (not that communists have any objections in principle to participating in rigged elections: look at the outstanding record of the Bolsheviks in the tsarist duma). That is, any elections held now would be decisively skewed in favour of those with money, those with intimate connections and contacts with elements of the old regime and, most of all, those with ties to the United States: which, of course, is forging new links with assorted ‘opposition’ figures in preparation for elections and beyond, hoping for an “orderly transition”.

Therefore it is tactically right to oppose the holding of elections at this point - the working class needs the time and space to grow organisationally and politically - which as a necessity requires freedom of the press, freedom of association, freedom to form self-defence units, popular militia, etc. This way, by developing its own organisations - not to mention a strategy and programme for emancipation - the workers in Egypt can become a class for itself, independent of the liberals, Nasserites, Islamists, nationalists, etc.

...

We in the CPGB have no hesitation in calling for the overthrow of all the region’s reactionary regime, ‘anti-imperialist’ or not, and for revolution. But proletarian rule is not on the immediate agenda. Therefore our strategy is for pan-Arab revolution, which can be usefully informed by the Marx-Engels approach to Germany in 1848-51- ie, that of the revolution in permanence. A perspective somewhat different from Lenin’s call for “uninterrupted revolution” in Russia. By 1905, and definitely by 1917, the working class had a distinct and realistic possibility of coming to power in alliance with the peasantry. In the shape of the RDSLP it had a mass workers’ party, with a clear strategy and global vision.

Obviously, this is just not the case anywhere in the Arab world. Hence the working class should avoid premature bids for power, shun all offers of government posts and instead form itself into a party of extreme opposition which guides the process of revolution and democracy ever onwards to the point when it can carry out its full minimum programme.

[Dimentio]

when did revolution = reforms?

They aren't. But any government forced to resign will just cause a new election in a western democracy.

[bcbm]

They aren't. But any government forced to resign will just cause a new election in a western democracy.

we don't know until we try

[Jose Gracchus]

A movement with sufficient power should not simply call for a government to resign, but to form a body to effect constitutional change (hopefully the law could be amended to allow for the use of workers' councils to elect this body). Once the constitutional power is acquired, it should be used to dismantle the bourgeois state apparatus.

In practice, I imagine the rise of a real left to such power would entail a fall in the profitability of business with an undisciplined wage-labor force, balkanization of the state and capitalist apparatus, including far-right reaction, and an increasing disruption and dysfunction of the civil society. Ultimately a scenario like above I think would probably result in large parts of the state apparatus revolting and attempting to put down the revolution. Probably before a free call for constitutional transformation could be called, repressions would be encountered.

[Mather]

There has been one "successful" revolution in a western country recently. I am of course talking about the 2009 protests in Iceland where the people surrounded the Althingi and made sounds which forced the parliamentarians to declare new elections.

A revolution is the overthrow of one class by the other (fuedalism-capitalism and capitalism-communism). The events in places like Tunisia, Libya and Egypt are not revolutions but popular uprisings. Popular uprisings require mass participation and sometimes they can have working class involvement in the form of strikes.

As for Iceland, there was neither a revolution nor a popular uprising. The Icelandic ruling class simply saw that the former Independence Party led government was no longer acceptable and that in order to impose austerity policies on the country, their class interests would be best served by the social democrats and the government of Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir. The Social Democrats are in power simply in order to manage the economic crisis to the benefit of the capitalist class.


In those new elections, the Social Democrats and Greens won, shifting the government from centre-right to centre-left.

Whenever the system is threatened by uprisings, it will respond in that manner. That is why we would never see a "Winter Palace" scenario in the West. The regimes would just dissolve and resolve with different faces.

And most of you, I am sure, would not want to see coups. I won't, for a matter of fact.

The problem is that we need to shift the central point of the political discourse to the left to have any chance to impose lasting reforms.

This all sounds very reformist, why waste time with more political dead ends?

[Dimentio]

What I mean is just to build up some kind of alternative infrastructure and network, to make a lasting, concrete impact in the lives of ordinary people.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I wouldn't go as far as Dimentio does, but alternative culture is the happy medium between doing institutionally nothing and what he's suggesting (for-profit cooperative operations that plow all the profits back into the movement).

[Rakhmetov]

Spoiled brats in the west will never rebel until the capitalist system is destroyed in the backward maldeveloped nations of the Third World. Capitalism is an international system. If it ceases to work internationally, it will break down completely.

[Mather]

Spoiled brats in the west will never rebel until the capitalist system is destroyed in the backward maldeveloped nations of the Third World.

Are you calling the working class of the Western countries "spoilt brats"?

[Thirsty Crow]

Spoiled brats in the west will never rebel until the capitalist system is destroyed in the backward maldeveloped nations of the Third World. Capitalism is an international system. If it ceases to work internationally, it will break down completely.I think that this question should be posed: are you a "third-worldist"?
Judging by some of your recent statements, you indeed are.
Fortunately, this forum has a neat little place for you (if you indeed subscribe to the ideology in question): OI.

[mosfeld]

I think that this question should be posed: are you a "third-worldist"?
Judging by some of your recent statements, you indeed are.
Fortunately, this forum has a neat little place for you (if you indeed subscribe to the ideology in question): OI.

His approach isn't "Third Worldist" but a materialist one. The first world working class has tremendous wealth due to imperialist plunder and the populace is in general pacified compared to their third world counterparts, which have absolutely nothing to lose from rebelling. This doesn't however completely negate the role of first world workers, but simply reinforces Lenin's theories/ideas concerning labor aristocracy, the uneven development of nations and the fact that the "weakest links" of the imperialist world system will always be the first to rebel. In my opinion, you have to be a tad bit delusional if you believe that revolution will happen in the first world before the third world. World revolution can be compared to dominos, with the third world countries, notably South Asia right now, going first, and the first world being the last to fall.

[Dimentio]

His approach isn't "Third Worldist" but a materialist one. The first world working class has tremendous wealth due to imperialist plunder and the populace is in general pacified compared to their third world counterparts, which have absolutely nothing to lose from rebelling. This doesn't however completely negate the role of first world workers, but simply reinforces Lenin's theories/ideas concerning labor aristocracy, the uneven development of nations and the fact that the "weakest links" of the imperialist world system will always be the first to rebel. In my opinion, you have to be a tad bit delusional if you believe that revolution will happen in the first world before the third world. World revolution can be compared to dominos, with the third world countries, notably South Asia right now, going first, and the first world being the last to fall.

By 1975, probably a majority of the population on the globe lived in self-declared "socialist" states. Where was the Domino Effect?

[mosfeld]

Good question :)

It completely depends on what you mean by "socialist states". At that time, there were, in the opinion of Maoists, two socialist states -- Albania and the PRC. Some debate that the DPRK and Vietnam were also socialist states, but since I haven't studied those two states I won't maintain that. Maybe the domino-effect comment would've been more appropriate if I had mentioned that the dominos can turn up again, representing the ever present threat of capitalist restoration.

However, I don't think this changes the fact that the third world will still be the first to start the world revolution, despite whatever setbacks we'll see on the way. Today, the next wave of communist revolution is coming from the third world, mainly, as I mentioned before, from South Asia and not the first world.

[Dimentio]

There are four third world countries which could start an international revolution.

I highly doubt that Nepal for example could become the "vanguard nation". It is extremely poor, completely insular and is squeezed in between two giant, capitalist countries.

Only four third world countries on their own could start the process.

Either:

Brazil

Russia

India

or

China

At the moment, it looks like India would be the first one to fall, and it is incidentally the weakest link in the chain of those four.

Russia is probably the second weakest link, but I think the Russians would rather resort to "National Socialism" than any form of actual socialism.

[Dimmu]

Russia unlikely too fall for a revolution. Putin created strong movements of state-supported nazis who call themselves "anti-fascists" just because he fears that people might revolt.

[mosfeld]

There are four third world countries which could start an international revolution.

I highly doubt that Nepal for example could become the "vanguard nation". It is extremely poor, completely insular and is squeezed in between two giant, capitalist countries.

Only four third world countries on their own could start the process.

Either:

Brazil

Russia

India

or

China

At the moment, it looks like India would be the first one to fall, and it is incidentally the weakest link in the chain of those four.

Russia is probably the second weakest link, but I think the Russians would rather resort to "National Socialism" than any form of actual socialism.

In the CCOMPOSA a few years back, where there are several Maoist parties which are either currently engaged in or making serious preparations for People's War, it was suggested by Prachanda that after the victory of these Maoist revolutions a federation of South Asian states should be created.

Imagine a socialist nation consisting of India, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and maybe even Afghanistan. Don't you think thats a good enough "vanguard nation"? :)

[Dimentio]

It would consist of India, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, which already are Indian puppets.

It is a pipe dream that Pakistan and Afghanistan will fall too. Those who have hijacked the mass popular support there are a variety of reactionary groups known as "Islamists".

I could think it would be realistic with a Naxalite "Greater India" consisting of "India & Puppets", and some kind of medieval Taleban Theocracy dominating in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

During those conditions, I think the USA would give support to the Islamists. At least, Islamists would generally leave capitalist investments in peace.

[mosfeld]

I don't think so. There is already Maoist activity in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, four Maoist parties have united into one around 2004. I don't know the situation in Pakistan very well, but I do know that there is a huge peasant movement and that there is some degree of Maoist activity. Don't you believe that the masses of Pakistan and Afghanistan would be inspired by the Indian example? We could see that after the Russian revolution there erupted several revolutions in neighboring countries, some successful, some unsuccessful.

[Dimentio]

That depends on when the Indian revolution unfolds.

I would say that 2014-2018 would be critical.

One problem though. International Intervention. Already now, the Americans and the Israelis are active inside India training government forces.

At this point however, Naxalite victory is probably inevitable. India is unable to improve the conditions of the masses, since the Indian state is unable to exert any kind of control over it's ruling class.

[Jose Gracchus]

The low-rent Leninoid theory of imperialism is anti-materialistic, and discredited by the 20th C. "socialisms". The fact is "Third World" 'socialism' inevitably fulfills the bourgeois revolution's functions without a mass international workers' movement with revolutionary proletarian internationalist solidarity, including in the First World. Bordiga was right, not Lenin (who routinely made shit up as he went along to justify pragmatic politics).

[Mather]

His approach isn't "Third Worldist" but a materialist one. The first world working class has tremendous wealth due to imperialist plunder and the populace is in general pacified compared to their third world counterparts, which have absolutely nothing to lose from rebelling. This doesn't however completely negate the role of first world workers, but simply reinforces Lenin's theories/ideas concerning labor aristocracy, the uneven development of nations and the fact that the "weakest links" of the imperialist world system will always be the first to rebel.

This is not necessarily true. Russia in 1905 and 1917 was backwards and underdeveloped in comparison to the leading Western capitalist powers but not as backwards as many other capitalist states. The same can be said of the Paris Commune, given that France was in no way the weakest link in the imperialist world system.

The conditions for revolution go beyond the question of which third world country is the weakest link. Revolutionary conditions are based on a number of different factors. Questions concerning the level of unity or division within the ruling bourgeois class, the level of organisation by the working class, the state of the class struggle and level of class friction. This explains why some third world countries that have large working class movements and a tradition and history of class struggle and organisation such as South Africa, India, China, Mexico, Chile and Brazil. In these countries we could see the conditions for revolution develop in the near future. But the weakest links such as Haiti, Afghanistan, Somalia, East Timor etc... have very underdeveloped (near total collapse) economies and very small working classes that struggle to survive. Because of this and the fact that in countries like these there is little or no working class organisation and no history of class struggle, your view that the worlds most poorest and exploited countries and will be the first to have revolutions seems incorrect.


In my opinion, you have to be a tad bit delusional if you believe that revolution will happen in the first world before the third world. World revolution can be compared to dominos, with the third world countries, notably South Asia right now, going first, and the first world being the last to fall.

I believe that if this world economic crisis gets worse we could see working class revolutions, both in the first and third world. Most likely this will happen in some of the European countries such as Greece and maybe Ireland, Spain, Portugal as well as countries such as Mexico, Argentina, maybe Brazil, China and South Africa.

[Mather]

I don't think so. There is already Maoist activity in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, four Maoist parties have united into one around 2004.

The main Maoist party was the Afghanistan Liberation Organisation (ALO). During the 1980s the ALO made the big mistake of allying itself with the reactionary islamist Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and his Hezbi Islami militia, an alliance that saw the ALO being nearly wiped out by Hezbi Islami. The ALO seems dead and it's only presence is an out of date website.

What were these other parties and what did they unite into? Is the ALO involved in this?

[Mather]

The low-rent Leninoid theory of imperialism is anti-materialistic, and discredited by the 20th C. "socialisms". The fact is "Third World" 'socialism' inevitably fulfills the bourgeois revolution's functions without a mass international workers' movement with revolutionary proletarian internationalist solidarity, including in the First World. Bordiga was right, not Lenin (who routinely made shit up as he went along to justify pragmatic politics).

Although I'm an anarchist, I agree with the left communist view that imperialism is a world system and to fight it means doing so along class lines and that this task can only be done by the working class.

[mosfeld]

The main Maoist party was the Afghanistan Liberation Organisation (ALO). During the 1980s the ALO made the big mistake of allying itself with the reactionary islamist Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and his Hezbi Islami militia, an alliance that saw the ALO being nearly wiped out by Hezbi Islami. The ALO seems dead and it's only presence is an out of date website.

What were these other parties and what did they unite into? Is the ALO involved in this?

The ALO did not ally with Hezb-i Islami, they singled them out as as a "nefarious, ultra-reactionary, anti-national and anti-democratic political band" and "underlined the danger this ultra-reactionary band posed for the revolutionary movement and democratic forces in Afghanistan", and that's probably one of the reasons why they murdered Faiz Ahmad. I don't know anything about the current activities of the ALO. The party that I was talking about is called the Communist (Maoist) Party of Afghanistan which is very close to the RIM line and parties. You can take a look at their website here (http://www.sholajawid.org/).

[Queercommie Girl]

The low-rent Leninoid theory of imperialism is anti-materialistic, and discredited by the 20th C. "socialisms". The fact is "Third World" 'socialism' inevitably fulfills the bourgeois revolution's functions without a mass international workers' movement with revolutionary proletarian internationalist solidarity, including in the First World. Bordiga was right, not Lenin (who routinely made shit up as he went along to justify pragmatic politics).

Lenin has done more for the socialist movement in the concrete sense than left communists ever did. Better to err on the side of empiricism than dogmatism. Treating Marx like a religious prophet doesn't work. Marxism is a scientific tradition, not a religious one. If Marxism doesn't change and move forward, rather than just looking back to some prophet-like figure from history, then Marxism is completely dead.

Besides, Lenin never in principle negated any of your points here, obviously class politics is primary. Lenin's Third Worldism is never binary and dogmatic. You have to look at the sentiments of Third World workers and peasants on the ground. If you don't take national and anti-imperialist consciousness into account, then you will never really engage with them.

As for my perspective on Third Worldism: I'm certainly a firm anti-imperialist and anti-colonialist, following Marx and Lenin's anti-imperialist stances. I certainly don't follow the ridiculous line that First World workers are somehow intrinsically reactionary, but on the other hand I don't believe there is some kind of special qualities associated with First World workers either, like a proletarian version of the "white man's burden" idea.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The low-rent Leninoid theory of imperialism is anti-materialistic, and discredited by the 20th C. "socialisms". The fact is "Third World" 'socialism' inevitably fulfills the bourgeois revolution's functions without a mass international workers' movement with revolutionary proletarian internationalist solidarity, including in the First World. Bordiga was right, not Lenin (who routinely made shit up as he went along to justify pragmatic politics).

It was just an outline based on Hilferding's finance capitalism stuff and on Kautsky's own earlier outline of imperialism, which in fact pre-dated Hobson's imperialism musings.

Now, whether the conclusions are consistent with conclusions based directly on Kautsky's outline is a different story.

By the way, Lenin never advocated "Third World socialism" in the sense of really destitute colonies doing the job. Russia was the weakest link amongst the imperialist powers. :confused:

[Queercommie Girl]

By the way, Lenin never advocated "Third World socialism" in the sense of really destitute colonies doing the job. Russia was the weakest link amongst the imperialist powers. :confused:


Lenin never said anything along the lines of "only workers from imperialist or sub-imperialist countries can lead a socialist revolution", you are putting words into his mouth. Empirically the only real criteria was the relative proportion of the urban industrial proletariat relative to the peasantry, since Lenin didn't believe that the peasantry could lead a revolution.

Also, Lenin generally viewed Russia in his time as a victim of West European imperialism to some extent itself.

Lenin was not a dogmatic or narrow Third Worldist, but he was always extremely serious about the importance of national liberation struggles, even allowing Finland to separate from the Soviet Union based on this principle. This is one of the greatest ideological qualities of Lenin.

[red cat]

I don't think so. There is already Maoist activity in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, four Maoist parties have united into one around 2004. I don't know the situation in Pakistan very well, but I do know that there is a huge peasant movement and that there is some degree of Maoist activity.

I don't remember this very clearly, but weren't there two armed struggles in Pakistan, by the pro-Soviet and the pro-China CPs ? I think later they merged and were defeated.


I believe that if this world economic crisis gets worse we could see working class revolutions, both in the first and third world. Most likely this will happen in some of the European countries such as Greece and maybe Ireland, Spain, Portugal as well as countries such as Mexico, Argentina, maybe Brazil, China and South Africa.

This is unlikely to happen, but all revolutionaries from imperialist countries should work harder nevertheless so that if objective conditions for revolution do ripen soon, they can put those to full use.

[Jose Gracchus]

Lenin has done more for the socialist movement in the concrete sense than left communists ever did. Better to err on the side of empiricism than dogmatism. Treating Marx like a religious prophet doesn't work. Marxism is a scientific tradition, not a religious one. If Marxism doesn't change and move forward, rather than just looking back to some prophet-like figure from history, then Marxism is completely dead.

You must be being deliberately obtuse. I cited historical trends and stated that Bordiga was empirically right, that "Third World" or "colonial" revolution only accomplishes the bourgeois revolution's goals. As I've stated endless times, I do not oppose national liberation struggles, but I think beliefs that world revolution will be yielded by successive national liberation struggles in concert is naive. I think it really comes from Mao, not Lenin, and I think it has very little to do with socialism.

I made my point clear; without internationalist solidarity among the global working class - including the First World states - there will be no world revolution, and will not even be room for socialist experimentation in national liberation struggles. The revolution will sweep across blocs which are economically and militarily sustainable autarkically, or it will fail. Trotsky was right.

This IS an empirical and scientific reality. Trying to dodge it is exactly why Maoism lapses into laughable anti-materialism like babbling about "roaders" who somehow emerge in the party-state apparatus due to ideals, without any relation to production and social relations.


Besides, Lenin never in principle negated any of your points here, obviously class politics is primary. Lenin's Third Worldism is never binary and dogmatic. You have to look at the sentiments of Third World workers and peasants on the ground. If you don't take national and anti-imperialist consciousness into account, then you will never really engage with them.

I never said this. First of all, this has nothing to do with Lenin in theory or practice. Romanov Imperial Russia is not Qing Dynasty China or even warlord China. The Russian Empire (and the Second French Empire before it) were not Third World or quasi-colonial states. Furthermore, I never said national liberation among neo-colonies is unimportant. I'm saying it WILL FAIL to the extent it cannot rely upon the internationalist support of the global working class. National liberation always relied historically on leaning to one side or another of inter-imperialist struggle. Furthermore, the low economic development cannot be cured by pure autarky; there must be some solidarituous support by working class sources, hopefully across a suitably sustainable international trade bloc and military defense pact. I think this will have to involve First World or at least "newly industrialized" nations' socialism. I think Maoists have written off the global proletariat because of "labor aristocracy" nonsense and instead think the political way forward is endless cheerleading for national liberation movements they somehow belief will bankrupt the core powers from the outside-in and only then will First World workers participate in socialism.

In response to this, I say you seem to fail to realize that Mao would have failed without the USSR, that Russia was not a neo-colonial state, and that May 1968 in France shows that the First World proletariat can behave in a revolutionary manner.


As for my perspective on Third Worldism: I'm certainly a firm anti-imperialist and anti-colonialist, following Marx and Lenin's anti-imperialist stances. I certainly don't follow the ridiculous line that First World workers are somehow intrinsically reactionary, but on the other hand I don't believe there is some kind of special qualities associated with First World workers either, like a proletarian version of the "white man's burden" idea.

Of course not. Its about where the relations of production are most socialized, capital must accumulated, etc. where the workers may lay their hands upon social production more easily than where the agrarian revolution has hardly been accomplished. Have you read Marx? This is pretty elementary stuff.

I think people who think a "domino effect" of India and South Asian revolution, along with the whole smattering of low-rent "anti-imperialist" states like Iran, Qaddafist Libya, and Venezuela will somehow be able to undercut the "superprofits" to the "labor aristocracy" and allow First World revolution. I think if we look realistically at history, we find this is a silly and fantastic belief. I think if we read Marx, we find this point of view isn't even Marxism (maybe it can justify itself on its own two feet, but the sad "front sign" type of brand-name marketing is pretty lame). You know, it is possible for something to be right and for it to not be Marxism (I should know, I lean quite strongly upon anarchist writings and beliefs).

The revolution must spread to undercut imperialist military and economic power, or the revolution will be isolated, compromised, co-opted, undercut, and eventually destroyed.

Of course, you'll ignore the content of everything I just read and be like OMFG WHITE MAN'S BURDEN! (Of course, the racism of trying to say imperial capitalist powers include only Western Europe and North America is equally absurd, as is saying it to me: hint, my ancestors worked latifundia for Iberian colonial criollo elites).

Materialism means recognizing material realities. The military force, and economic leverage of imperialism must be neutralized to the extent that the revolution's degeneration may be avoided.

[Jose Gracchus]

Lenin never said anything along the lines of "only workers from imperialist or sub-imperialist countries can lead a socialist revolution", you are putting words into his mouth. Empirically the only real criteria was the relative proportion of the urban industrial proletariat relative to the peasantry, since Lenin didn't believe that the peasantry could lead a revolution.

Also, Lenin generally viewed Russia in his time as a victim of West European imperialism to some extent itself.

Lenin was not a dogmatic or narrow Third Worldist, but he was always extremely serious about the importance of national liberation struggles, even allowing Finland to separate from the Soviet Union based on this principle. This is one of the greatest ideological qualities of Lenin.

Are you seriously claiming DNZ is wrong, and Lenin's writings should not be viewed in light of his role as a leading revolutionary in Imperial Russia? Yes Western capital was penetrating into Russia's industrialization, but it was no China. He clearly meant Russia was the weakest link of the imperial Great Powers. Though, given the performance of the Russian Revolution, one would imagine one would at least pause before dedicating themselves to this viewpoint.

[Die Neue Zeit]

You must be being deliberately obtuse. I cited historical trends and stated that Bordiga was empirically right, that "Third World" or "colonial" revolution only accomplishes the bourgeois revolution's goals. As I've stated endless times, I do not oppose national liberation struggles, but I think beliefs that world revolution will be yielded by successive national liberation struggles in concert is naive. I think it really comes from Mao, not Lenin, and I think it has very little to do with socialism.

I made my point clear; without internationalist solidarity among the global working class - including the First World states - there will be no world revolution, and will not even be room for socialist experimentation in national liberation struggles. The revolution will sweep across blocs which are economically and militarily sustainable autarkically, or it will fail. Trotsky was right.

Trotsky was wrong because he emphasized a chain of national revolutions. His bet for "world revolution" was on Poland and the immediate periphery of the Russian Empire, not really Germany or France.

The only way to link class struggle in Ireland with class struggle in Greece, let alone revolution in both extreme ends of Europe, is centralized organization above the national level.


Furthermore, the low economic development cannot be cured by pure autarky; there must be some solidarituous support by working class sources, hopefully across a suitably sustainable international trade bloc and military defense pact.

This is why I criticized Stalin's COMECON for not integrating enough, even with China (which never was a member).

[Die Neue Zeit]

Lenin never said anything along the lines of "only workers from imperialist or sub-imperialist countries can lead a socialist revolution", you are putting words into his mouth. Empirically the only real criteria was the relative proportion of the urban industrial proletariat relative to the peasantry, since Lenin didn't believe that the peasantry could lead a revolution.

Only workers from imperialist or sub-imperialist countries can engage in the class struggle, the key component that is political revolution, and the social revolution necessary for transitioning into the post-monetary lower phase of the communist mode of production. This is the incomplete social-proletocratic revolution.

As for other countries, preferrably on a pan-national basis, Caesarean Socialism is the best way to go, setting the stage for completing the social-proletocratic revolution once its progressiveness is exhausted.

[Queercommie Girl]

You must be being deliberately obtuse. I cited historical trends and stated that Bordiga was empirically right, that "Third World" or "colonial" revolution only accomplishes the bourgeois revolution's goals.


That is not necessarily the case at all. In countries where the bourgeois class is very weak, an alliance of workers and peasants could lead the national liberation struggle.

Also I'm not being "obtuse" at all, since you were explicitly criticising Lenin for being a pragmatist. (Which is by itself a ridiculous view, since all socialists should be pragmatists, as socialism is a matter of political strategy, not quasi-religious dogma)



As I've stated endless times, I do not oppose national liberation struggles, but I think beliefs that world revolution will be yielded by successive national liberation struggles in concert is naive. I think it really comes from Mao, not Lenin, and I think it has very little to do with socialism.
Mao doesn't say that either. I think your knowledge of Maoism is really laughable. National liberation struggles could indeed spur off socialist revolutions, but they in themselves are not the socialist revolution itself.

P.S. You don't monopolise what "socialism" is.



I made my point clear; without internationalist solidarity among the global working class - including the First World states - there will be no world revolution,
Which is self-evident, and I never said otherwise.



and will not even be room for socialist experimentation in national liberation struggles.
That's empirically false, because such "socialist experimentation" have already happened many times. Whether or not they can be made sustainable is another matter.



The revolution will sweep across blocs which are economically and militarily sustainable autarkically, or it will fail. Trotsky was right.
Trotsky didn't quite make such a point. (See DNZ's post above)

And as I told you before in another thread (which you didn't answer), Trotskyism does not believe in economic and military competition with capitalist states as the primary element in a socialist revolution, but rather how fast the revolution itself can spread ideologically among the global working class.



This IS an empirical and scientific reality. Trying to dodge it is exactly why Maoism lapses into laughable anti-materialism like babbling about "roaders" who somehow emerge in the party-state apparatus due to ideals, without any relation to production and social relations.
Your understanding of Maoism, as I said, is poor. The Maoist point about "capitalist roaders" is indeed underpinned by material political and economic considerations, since those who have important posts within the Soviet bureaucracy could influence policies very significantly. So the "ideals" matter in the concrete sense not primarily in themselves, but because powerful people have these ideals.

And you seem to fail to recognise dialectics: that superstructure (e.g. ideals) could significantly counter-act on the base in some circumstances, rather than the base determining the superstructure mechanically at all times.



I never said this. First of all, this has nothing to do with Lenin in theory or practice. Romanov Imperial Russia is not Qing Dynasty China or even warlord China. The Russian Empire (and the Second French Empire before it) were not Third World or quasi-colonial states.
These things are not black-and-white. Rather they are a continuum - again, something your mechanical binary mind doesn't always recognise so well. Imperialism and colonialism always consist of multiple layers of oppression, rather than the binary opposition between "first world" and "third world". Russia was clearly much less advanced than Western Europe, while China at the time was in-between Russia and India.

But you are ignorant of history if you think the Qing was significantly weaker than the Russian Empire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian-Manchu_border_conflicts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Nerchinsk

Qing China was no India, Africa or the Incas. By the turn of the 20th century, there was already a modern armed force in China:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_army



Furthermore, I never said national liberation among neo-colonies is unimportant. I'm saying it WILL FAIL to the extent it cannot rely upon the internationalist support of the global working class.
I don't see why they "must" fail at all. That's a rather idealistic a priori argument. It's more logical to say that the nation as a whole might indeed stand up to Western imperialist aggression, but ideologically and socio-economically it is very prone to transform into state-capitalism.



National liberation always relied historically on leaning to one side or another of inter-imperialist struggle.
Not always true. But the point here for socialists is simply that any isolated revolution, whether in the First World or Third World, would be prone to degenerate into state-capitalism. Whether or not a state can survive economically and militarily is a different matter. And frankly why should we care so much? No matter how well a nation does, if it's a capitalist state, then that's not socialism.



Furthermore, the low economic development cannot be cured by pure autarky; there must be some solidarituous support by working class sources, hopefully across a suitably sustainable international trade bloc and military defense pact. I think this will have to involve First World or at least "newly industrialized" nations' socialism.
The revolution must be internationalist in nature. But then if First World workers are already turning en masse to socialism, why would there be the need for any "military defense pact"? Defense against whom? The whole world would be socialist. If a large section of the First World already transforms into socialism, there is no reason why the workers in other First World regions won't conduct the revolution likewise.



I think Maoists have written off the global proletariat because of "labor aristocracy" nonsense and instead think the political way forward is endless cheerleading for national liberation movements they somehow belief will bankrupt the core powers from the outside-in and only then will First World workers participate in socialism.
As I said, your understanding of both Maoism and the doctrine of Labour Aristocracy (which was first proposed by Lenin, and not Mao) are extremely poor.

The Maoist stance is that national liberation struggles will help to initiate revolutionary waves, not that they are an end in themselves. Maoism also never says First World workers are non-revolutionary. Why don't you show me a Maoist primary source that ever makes such a claim. You are just criticising Maoism blindly and in a rather discriminatory way without any concrete knowledge to back it up.

The Labour Aristocracy refers to certain layers of the working class, primarily but not exclusively located in First World countries, who due to their relatively comfortable socio-economic positions, are less revolutionary and potentially could obstruct revolutionary attempts from lower layers of workers. It does not refer to the numerical majority of workers in Western countries, and certainly not the First World proletariat as a whole.

And frankly it is a stupid idealistic idea to just treat the working class as a whole as a single slab of concrete, as if that would promote working class unity. The working class clearly has a differentiated internal structure, not primarily along any national or cultural lines, but along economic ones. And the Labour Aristocracy is certainly not limited to the First World either. Anyone in their right mind would be able to see that a "white collar princess" working in a Shanghai company or an IT professional in India certainly have much less revolutionary potential than an ultra-poor migrant worker from the rural areas of China or a Chinese coolie working in the US. If you can't see that then there must be something wrong with your fucking head.

Basically put, socialism is something for the poor. Poorer workers have more revolutionary potential than richer workers. If one becomes rich enough to buy luxury cars, then one would be prone to lose his/her revolutionary edge. As Jesus said: It is more difficult for the rich man to enter into heaven than it is for a camel to go through the eye of an needle.

It is not primarily dividing workers along national or cultural lines, but rather economic ones. Because guess what, even today millions of families in Imperialist America cannot even put enough food on their tables. And these poorest layers of the American working class are what a Maoist and any other genuine Marxist would turn to for revolutionary leadership, rather than a professional earning a fucking 100,000 dollars a year.



In response to this, I say you seem to fail to realize that Mao would have failed without the USSR, that Russia was not a neo-colonial state,
That's certainly not so self-evident, given that Stalinist USSR didn't even give full support to the PLA during the Chinese Civil War, but rather wanted to see the CCP and KMT dividing China along the Yangtze River, like Korea and Germany.

Russia in Lenin's day was a sub-imperialist/petit-imperialist country which was oppressing other weaker nations in its own right, but still oppressed by more powerful Western European imperialism in turn. Much like China today.



and that May 1968 in France shows that the First World proletariat can behave in a revolutionary manner.
And no-one ever suggested otherwise. Only that students themselves can never lead a revolutionary struggle, only the poorest layers of the working class can.

You have no understanding of either Trotskyism or Maoism, sorry, but that's the unfortunate truth. Maoism has never ever said that First World workers aren't revolutionary, that's a fucking outright lie against Maoism. Maoism would just always focus on the poorest layers of the Western working class as the layer with the most revolutionary potential - like the millions of Americans who can't feed themselves sufficiently, rather than middle class students, medical doctors, trade union officials or IT professionals.

Maoism isn't anti-West, it's just very pro-poor.



Of course not. Its about where the relations of production are most socialized, capital must accumulated, etc. where the workers may lay their hands upon social production more easily than where the agrarian revolution has hardly been accomplished. Have you read Marx? This is pretty elementary stuff.
Someone with zero understanding of Maoist Third Worldism, Leninist doctrine of the Labour Aristocracy, or Trotskyist Internationalism having the gall to accuse me of not having read Marx? :rolleyes:



I think people who think a "domino effect" of India and South Asian revolution, along with the whole smattering of low-rent "anti-imperialist" states like Iran, Qaddafist Libya, and Venezuela will somehow be able to undercut the "superprofits" to the "labor aristocracy" and allow First World revolution.
These do not "allow" anything, but they could increase the likelihood of a First World revolution. If more American workers fall into poverty, then the American working class as a whole would acquire more revolutionary potential.

What you don't understand is that people who live very comfortable lives economically generally aren't revolutionary. People become revolutionary due to their own poor economic and social conditions, not because they are "enlightened" by some quasi-religious ideology by Marxist prophets.



I think if we look realistically at history, we find this is a silly and fantastic belief. I think if we read Marx, we find this point of view isn't even Marxism (maybe it can justify itself on its own two feet, but the sad "front sign" type of brand-name marketing is pretty lame). You know, it is possible for something to be right and for it to not be Marxism (I should know, I lean quite strongly upon anarchist writings and beliefs).
And your definition of "Marxism" is solely based on whatever Marx himself wrote? This is why I said you treat Marx like a prophet and Marxism like a fundamentalist religion.

It's not such a "silly belief" (well actually I think you misunderstood it anyhow) if you actually bother to read Lenin's text, rather than just hitting on Maoism all the time:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/

Lenin: Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism

And in speaking of the British working class the bourgeois student of “British imperialism at the beginning of the twentieth century” is obliged to distinguish systematically between the “upper stratum” of the workers and the “lower stratum of the proletariat proper”. The upper stratum furnishes the bulk of the membership of co-operatives, of trade unions, of sporting clubs and of numerous religious sects. To this level is adapted the electoral system, which in Great Britain is still “sufficiently restricted to exclude the lower stratum of the proletariat proper"! In order to present the condition of the British working class in a rosy light, only this upper stratum—which constitutes a minority of the proletariat—is usually spoken of.

One of the special features of imperialism connected with the facts I am describing, is the decline in emigration from imperialist countries and the increase in immigration into these countries from the more backward countries where lower wages are paid. As Hobson observes, emigration from Great Britain has been declining since 1884. In that year the number of emigrants was 242,000, while in 1900, the number was 169,000. Emigration from Germany reached the highest point between 1881 and 1890, with a total of 1,453,000 emigrants. In the course of the following two decades, it fell to 544,000 and to 341,000. On the other hand, there was an increase in the number of workers entering Germany from Austria, Italy, Russia and other countries. According to the 1907 census, there were 1,342,294 foreigners in Germany, of whom 440,800 were industrial workers and 257,329 agricultural workers. In France, the workers employed in the mining industry are, “in great part”, foreigners: Poles, Italians and Spaniards. In the United States, immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe are engaged in the most poorly paid jobs, while American workers provide the highest percentage of overseers or of the better-paid workers. Imperialism has the tendency to create privileged sections also among the workers, and to detach them from the broad masses of the proletariat.



The revolution must spread to undercut imperialist military and economic power, or the revolution will be isolated, compromised, co-opted, undercut, and eventually destroyed.
The revolution must in a relatively short space of time spread across the entire world, period. An isolated revolution would always degenerate into capitalism, whether in the First World or Third World. A Third World national liberation struggle would turn into a state-capitalist state. It would survive against Western imperialism, but it's not socialist.

And if sufficient sections of the First World turn over to the revolutionary side so that "we have sufficient economic and militaristic power to defend against imperialism" according to you, then the revolution would be able to spread across the entire world anyway and there will be no imperialism to defend against, so your point here is mote.

Do you imagine for instance, that if Europe becomes a genuine revolutionary socialist state, it would not certainly set off a revolutionary wave in the US as well?



Of course, you'll ignore the content of everything I just read and be like OMFG WHITE MAN'S BURDEN! (Of course, the racism of trying to say imperial capitalist powers include only Western Europe and North America is equally absurd, as is saying it to me: hint, my ancestors worked latifundia for Iberian colonial criollo elites).
If you actually take note, I used the term in inverted commas. One does not have to be white to have imperialism-leaning ideas. Many Chinese people have such ideas nowadays as well.

It's a matter of tactics, if you actually get down from your high horse and starting engaging with the masses of developing countries. You may not mean anything reactionary intrinsically, but some of your comments could be seen as somewhat offensive to Third World audiences. The only thing that matters is that one should try to attract more people to the socialist movement, rather than just dogmatically repeating the same lines all the time.

You are trying to convert people to socialism ideologically, and you would push them away by saying certain things.

As I told you before, Marxism is primarily a human business, not an abstract economic one, like the business of those capitalist bean-counters. This is why amoral Marxism, the Marxism of "abstract dialectical equations", doesn't work, because tactically it cannot empathise with and engage with the masses, which consists of real concrete human relations and human suffering.

There is a reason for why Marxists like Che are so popular, because he is a humanist Marxist, and the masses like that.

[Queercommie Girl]

Only workers from imperialist or sub-imperialist countries can engage in the class struggle, the key component that is political revolution, and the social revolution necessary for transitioning into the post-monetary lower phase of the communist mode of production. This is the incomplete social-proletocratic revolution.


That's BS.



As for other countries, preferrably on a pan-national basis, Caesarean Socialism is the best way to go, setting the stage for completing the social-proletocratic revolution once its progressiveness is exhausted.Your "Caesarean Socialism" is not socialist, because it doesn't even have the working class at the lead.

A much better scheme is the Maoist doctrine of "workers as the leading class, and peasants as the semi-leading class" - an alliance of workers and peasants. And it's totally stupid to think that poor workers and poor peasants have fundamentally divergent interests.

Only those who focus more on rich workers than poor workers would consider the working class and the peasantry to have fundamentally divergent interests.

[Queercommie Girl]

Are you seriously claiming DNZ is wrong, and Lenin's writings should not be viewed in light of his role as a leading revolutionary in Imperial Russia? Yes Western capital was penetrating into Russia's industrialization, but it was no China. He clearly meant Russia was the weakest link of the imperial Great Powers.


And Qing China was no India either. And India was no Africa. It was a "continuum of colonial and imperialist oppression". There isn't some qualitative threshold between the First World and the Third World.

Lenin never explicitly said that Russian workers were somehow "special" just because Russia was an imperialist power, you and DNZ are reading that into him, which is open to interpretation.

[Die Neue Zeit]

That's BS.

I said "the class struggle necessary for" such and such higher stuff, not immediate political struggles that can be engaged at a common level.


Your "Caesarean Socialism" is not socialist, because it doesn't even have the working class at the lead.

A much better scheme is the Maoist doctrine of "workers as the leading class, and peasants as the semi-leading class" - an alliance of workers and peasants. And it's totally stupid to think that poor workers and poor peasants have fundamentally divergent interests.

That's what happened with the Bolshevik forced grain requisitions, under the cheap rhetoric of "class struggle in the countryside."

[Queercommie Girl]

That's what happened with the Bolshevik forced grain requisitions, under the cheap rhetoric of "class struggle in the countryside."


Even if, for the sake of the argument, that the Bolsheviks really made mistakes, does one instance of mistakes mean that fundamentally poor workers and poor peasants must have intrinsic divergent interests? I don't think so. Maybe the Bolsheviks just didn't do the job properly.

[Jose Gracchus]

When has it ever been done properly? Why am I expected to take some abstract bullshit which has turned into propaganda to cover for dictatorships over the poor peasantry and workers 100% of the time, seriously? The only instance I know of where genuinely radical democracy and moves toward socialism were made between both town and countryside are in the various - admittedly limited - anarchist experiments (Spain, Ukraine), and before the Bolsheviks consolidated their party dictatorship (and the latter is more doubtful than the former).

I have never seen anything that resembles Leninist rhetoric of "an alliance of workers and peasants led by the workers in the Communist Party". It always was a propaganda fiction to justify party dictatorship, and judging from the rhetoric around here, always will be.

[Mather]

Lenin has done more for the socialist movement in the concrete sense than left communists ever did. Better to err on the side of empiricism than dogmatism.

It is not a case of who has "done more for the socialist movement", but that the left communists of today have a more consistent and materialist analysis of imperialism than many leninists.


Treating Marx like a religious prophet doesn't work. Marxism is a scientific tradition, not a religious one. If Marxism doesn't change and move forward, rather than just looking back to some prophet-like figure from history, then Marxism is completely dead.

I totally agree, I'm an anarchist-communist but also a marxist. Marxism should be seen not as doctrine but as a method of analysis that is constantly updated and applied to the realities and material conditions of the time.


If you don't take national and anti-imperialist consciousness into account, then you will never really engage with them.

Why does opposing imperialism have to be conflated with national consciousness?


As for my perspective on Third Worldism: I'm certainly a firm anti-imperialist and anti-colonialist, following Marx and Lenin's anti-imperialist stances.

All revolutionary leftist opposes imperialism and colonialism. The differences seem to be over whether imperialism can be defeated along national (national liberation) or class (communist) lines.


I certainly don't follow the ridiculous line that First World workers are somehow intrinsically reactionary, but on the other hand I don't believe there is some kind of special qualities associated with First World workers either, like a proletarian version of the "white man's burden" idea.

No one said that first world workers had special qualities that made them more revolutionary.

[Mather]

I don't remember this very clearly, but weren't there two armed struggles in Pakistan, by the pro-Soviet and the pro-China CPs ? I think later they merged and were defeated.

Yes, the two CPs merged to form the Mazdoor Kisan Party (Workers and Peasants Party) in the early 1970s to wage an armed struggle through rural guerrilla warfare.

It failed and they were easily crushed by the forces of the Pakistani state.


This is unlikely to happen, but all revolutionaries from imperialist countries should work harder nevertheless so that if objective conditions for revolution do ripen soon, they can put those to full use.

I was talking about a best case scenario developing from the world economic crisis and if that were the case, why do you consider the countries I listed as not being ripe for revolution?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Your "Caesarean Socialism" is not socialist, because it doesn't even have the working class at the lead.

"Socialism" /= Post-monetary lower phase of the communist mode of production

As long as there's independent working-class political organization, you can have someone like Lukashenko at the top ("Julius Caesar"), Venezuela-style communal councils and communes at the bottom, and bureaucrats and politicized religious institutions squeezed in the middle as there's public monopoly on the money supply (read: totally nationalized banking), on land and rental tenure (read: no lifetime leases or quasi-private land ownership shit and associated ground rent), on all other environmental commons (including the broadcast spectrum), on all natural monopolies, on foreign trade, and last but not least on whole strategic industries - all complemented by State-Aided cooperative squeezes on the private sector, thus liquidating the bourgeoisie and comprador segments of the domestic petit-bourgeoisie.

[Jose Gracchus]

I think you've walked off the plank if you imagine a strongman populist with some peasant backing and critical workers' party support will actually support and enact such a profoundly anti-capitalist collectivist platform. None of your precedents support this contention. Where's the class interest? I expect that bourgeois property will only be suppressed by proletarian revolution.

[Queercommie Girl]

When has it ever been done properly? Why am I expected to take some abstract bullshit which has turned into propaganda to cover for dictatorships over the poor peasantry and workers 100% of the time, seriously? The only instance I know of where genuinely radical democracy and moves toward socialism were made between both town and countryside are in the various - admittedly limited - anarchist experiments (Spain, Ukraine), and before the Bolsheviks consolidated their party dictatorship (and the latter is more doubtful than the former).

I have never seen anything that resembles Leninist rhetoric of "an alliance of workers and peasants led by the workers in the Communist Party". It always was a propaganda fiction to justify party dictatorship, and judging from the rhetoric around here, always will be.

I'm not going to respond to your anti-Lenin rhetoric because it's not going to be productive.

However, even someone like you can see that DNZ's politics is incorrect, because he seems to think that poor workers and poor peasants fundamentally cannot ally, which is his justification for his admiration of a slavelord from ancient Rome who enslaved millions of Celts in Gaul.

[Jose Gracchus]

What a dodge. Its a simple empirical question. If you allege there is this unique and exotic species called "an alliance of workers and peasants led by the workers in the Communist Party", can you give me even one example? Ever? And I mean an actual one, not one on paper or in theory only that was a pretext for dictatorship of the party leadership over the masses.

[Queercommie Girl]

What a dodge. Its a simple empirical question. If you allege there is this unique and exotic species called "an alliance of workers and peasants led by the workers in the Communist Party", can you give me even one example? Ever? And I mean an actual one, not one on paper or in theory only that was a pretext for dictatorship of the party leadership over the masses.

It isn't a dodge, because I wasn't even talking to you. I was responding to DNZ and you suddenly jumped in.

It's funny how you can be more anti-Leninist than against a political line that is based on a slavelord from 2000 years ago. Shame on you.

As for your question here. It's not an abstract postulate, it's simply based on the idea that productive force determines productive relation, and since workers are more economically advanced than peasants, they would naturally be in the leading position.

The party leadership only becomes a problem due to bureaucratism, there is nothing wrong with "workers leading peasants". It's not the "party leading peasants". The party is nothing but an executive expression of the collective democratic will of the universal working class. If it's not, that's when you will start to have problems.

[Dimentio]

The fun thing was that Caesar's political base was an alliance between urban underclass and small rural farmers against wealthy land-holding aristocrats.

[Jose Gracchus]

It isn't a dodge, because I wasn't even talking to you. I was responding to DNZ and you suddenly jumped in.

Maybe you should have made it via PM not a thread, if people aren't permitted to participate.


It's funny how you can be more anti-Leninist than against a political line that is based on a slavelord from 2000 years ago. Shame on you.

Oh yes, I'm taking his side because I choose to concentrate on your vague allusions to abstractions that have never been realized in real life. To be honest, I don't think anyone takes DNZ's "Caesarian Socialism" seriously, so I don't think its worth much my time. However, everyone digging up their tired Leninist apologia from the 20th C. about "workers and peasants" while Simon Pirani talks about an actual grassroots "Workers' and Peasants' Socialist Party" being suppressed by Lenin's "workers' and peasants' state". Its not an academic question - but a relevant and authentic one for modern revolutionaries. I do appreciate DNZ because at least he will admit historical facts that take the character of unmentionable heresies among Leninist apologists (some Leninists are more honest, I don't want to be unfair).


As for your question here. It's not an abstract postulate, it's simply based on the idea that productive force determines productive relation, and since workers are more economically advanced than peasants, they would naturally be in the leading position.

How can this work? How will democracy be preserved while pressuring peasants to modernize and suppress property relations?


The party leadership only becomes a problem due to bureaucratism, there is nothing wrong with "workers leading peasants". It's not the "party leading peasants". The party is nothing but an executive expression of the collective democratic will of the universal working class. If it's not, that's when you will start to have problems.

How is that accomplished in practice? Do you think the CCP in 1949 was an internally democratic party? Do you think militant workers actually were the key driving force behind its politics and policies?

One can have popular backing without being democratic; this is actual Caesarism. The CCP also crushed urban militant cadre belonging to Trotskyist organizations. How was that justified?

[Jose Gracchus]

The fun thing was that Caesar's political base was an alliance between urban underclass and small rural farmers against wealthy land-holding aristocrats.

Nonsense. Caesar was strongly backed by elements of the rising equites or new aristocracy from former plebeian interests. The urban slum classes were appeased by paternalistic sops; that's not the same thing as political backing.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I think you've walked off the plank if you imagine a strongman populist with some peasant backing and critical workers' party support will actually support and enact such a profoundly anti-capitalist collectivist platform. None of your precedents support this contention. Where's the class interest? I expect that bourgeois property will only be suppressed by proletarian revolution.

Coordinators were able to suppress bourgeois property, too. The ability to suppress bourgeois property isn't a proletarian monopoly. :confused:

EDIT: To paraphrase Lassalle, a "social[ly radical] and [politically] revolutionary people's [elected, non-hereditary] monarchy" is quite possible.


However, even someone like you can see that DNZ's politics is incorrect, because he seems to think that poor workers and poor peasants fundamentally cannot ally, which is his justification for his admiration of a slavelord from ancient Rome who enslaved millions of Celts in Gaul.

Of course they can ally. Otherwise, I wouldn't be positing the Bloc of Dispossessed Classes and "National" Petit-Bourgeoisie, would I? I just think that Third World dynamics aren't favourable for proletarian demographic minorities to be the "leading class," unless they resort to unequal suffrage trickery.


I do appreciate DNZ because at least he will admit historical facts that take the character of unmentionable heresies among Leninist apologists (some Leninists are more honest, I don't want to be unfair).

How can this work? How will democracy be preserved while pressuring peasants to modernize and suppress property relations?

As I said before, the suppression of bourgeois property isn't a proletarian monopoly, and can be augmented by personality cults:

Put yourself in Stalin's shoes (http://www.revleft.com/vb/put-yourself-stalins-t141144/index.html)
NEP: Did Russia need Caesarism? (http://www.revleft.com/vb/nep-did-russia-t146798/index.html)

As stated before and in the first thread of the two above, I also mentioned the need for rapid sovkhozization.

[red cat]

I was talking about a best case scenario developing from the world economic crisis and if that were the case, why do you consider the countries I listed as not being ripe for revolution?

By first world we generally mean the USA. Among the countries you listed, there are some second world countries like China and Greece which are much nearer to revolution than other imperialist countries and perhaps even some third world countries subjectively. But even then, they are not exactly "ripe for revolution" right now, because the objective conditions are not yet strong enough for a considerable portion of the working class to declare revolutionary war.

[Mather]

By first world we generally mean the USA.

What about the countries of Western Europe, Canada, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand?


Among the countries you listed, there are some second world countries like China and Greece which are much nearer to revolution than other imperialist countries and perhaps even some third world countries subjectively.

Indeed, both countries are more or less fully industrialised and have large working class populations with a history and tradition of class struggle and organisation. In China there are now many cases of social unrest, rioting, wildcat striking and other forms of working class resistance against the Chinese capitalist state. We don't hear as much about China as we do Greece, but the Chinese capitalist system is not as stable as many would think.


But even then, they are not exactly "ripe for revolution" right now, because the objective conditions are not yet strong enough for a considerable portion of the working class to declare revolutionary war.

Do you advocate for a revolutionary war as one of the many methods/tactics that the working class can use in a revolution or do you advocate it as a matter of principle?

Also when you mean revolutionary war, what do you mean specifically?

[red cat]

What about the countries of Western Europe, Canada, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand?

All the ones other than Singapore are second world countries. I am not sure whether Singapore should be placed within the second or third world.


Indeed, both countries are more or less fully industrialised and have large working class populations with a history and tradition of class struggle and organisation. In China there are now many cases of social unrest, rioting, wildcat striking and other forms of working class resistance against the Chinese capitalist state. We don't hear as much about China as we do Greece, but the Chinese capitalist system is not as stable as many would think.Agreed. There is another very important feature common to both.


Do you advocate for a revolutionary war as one of the many methods/tactics that the working class can use in a revolution or do you advocate it as a matter of principle?If we assume that both the proletariat and bourgeoisie will not deviate much from their respective optimal strategies, then a revolutionary war is inevitable. There are many other methods, but the working class cannot achieve a revolution by applying even all of them if it does not manage to win the revolutionary war.


Also when you mean revolutionary war, what do you mean specifically?Revolutionary armed struggle and other forms of violent class struggle during ceasefires.

[Hammilton]

There's little to no chance of a revolution in American or many other western countries anytime soon. I don't think the conditions in these countries meet the required criteria. The conditions of the proletariat aren't really that bad. Don't get me wrong, they're not that good either, but the American working class of 2011 can hardly be compared to the Russian working class (or even less the Russian peasantry) of 1917 or earlier.

The American proletariat has little enough, but it has something. They're not going to chance what they do have on a revolution which they could lose.

[Sam_b]

The conditions of the proletariat aren't really that bad. Don't get me wrong, they're not that good either, but the American working class of 2011 can hardly be compared to the Russian working class (or even less the Russian peasantry) of 1917 or earlier.

This is an exceptionally dangerous line to be taking, and one which almost communicates a sense of gratfeulness to the ruling class for having what we do have. I don't buy any of it, really; as the argument is one which often goes hand-inp-hand with arguments against revolution and against fighting.

It's very much akin to saying that workers in Wisconsin should not fight for union rights because people in the Horn of Africa live on a dollar a day; or that we shouldn't be condemning police violence against UK Uncut members because the occupying forces in Afghanistan are more brutal. In short, it doesn't quantify with the experiences real people face and what they will do to fight. The arguments that we make is that the working class should not be afraid of a revolution, not because they 'could lose' but that it has to be a mass action of class forces: which is very capable of making big gains.

[Gorilla]

What the socialist revolutions of the 20th century accomplished was to abolish feudal relations in countries that were only formally subsumed into capitalism - where capital reigned overall, but the actual class composition was almost entirely petty bourgeoisie, peasants and landlords - and make real subsumption into capitalism possible, with a fully functioning native proletariat and bourgeoisie.

Capitalism - full-on proper capitalism - isn't possible without settling the land question. And in many countries imperialism and native bourgeoisies have been unable to do that for various reasons, so it has fallen to the proletariat to lead the peasants in doing it.

There's a couple places left where that still hasn't been accomplished yet - Nepal is one of them - where there's the potential for classical Communist revolution to take place.

But on the whole we are entering a new phase where the majority of the world population is now urbanized (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gizmag.com%2Fgo%2F7334%2F&ei=p4mTTeGkJcrp0gGFm_TMBw&usg=AFQjCNG9cNnQNnbd9QLoS12fRmxvz6ko0w). This changes the lay of the land in many important ways. So-called people power or color-revolution tactics (what we used to call the general strike) will now be of greater importance than ever. This may lead to some shallow thinkers complaining this or that isn't a real revolution, because it doesn't involve protracted slaughter.

Obviously, a major emerging issue is control over natural resources like Venezuela's oil or Egypt's Sinai canal/border with occupied Palestine. I don't think it's terribly unlikely that the current wave of revolutions will end as "unsuccessfully" as the last one did: primitive accumulation (through oil etc. now rather than land) abolished, the rule of capital rationalized and deepened.

But that likelihood would be a terrible reason not to storm the barricades.

[Hammilton]

This is an exceptionally dangerous line to be taking, and one which almost communicates a sense of gratfeulness to the ruling class for having what we do have. I don't buy any of it, really; as the argument is one which often goes hand-inp-hand with arguments against revolution and against fighting.

It's very much akin to saying that workers in Wisconsin should not fight for union rights because people in the Horn of Africa live on a dollar a day; or that we shouldn't be condemning police violence against UK Uncut members because the occupying forces in Afghanistan are more brutal. In short, it doesn't quantify with the experiences real people face and what they will do to fight. The arguments that we make is that the working class should not be afraid of a revolution, not because they 'could lose' but that it has to be a mass action of class forces: which is very capable of making big gains.

You misunderstand my point. The working class isn't clamoring for revolution because their conditions aren't that bad. Should they accept what they have and be okay with that? Surely not, but they're not going to be revolting anytime soon because they're okay with what they have.

There were minor (and sometimes more moderate) uprisings in Russia long before 1905 because the people were pissed off about how badly they were being treated. They had serious reasons for throwing their lives on the line.

That's why we're not going to see revolution in the West until there's a major economic shock (10% unemployment obviously wasn't enough to do it) and people really get pissed off about how they're being treated. It's why it's not going to happen, it's not why it shouldn't happen. Most people are okay with how things are. Sad, but true.

[Sam_b]

I think you're missing the point a bit here. To say that the only factor being a barriacade to revolution is that there is a perception that things "aren't that bad" is a very simplistic analysis of class factors today. You don't equate for divide-and-rule, for instance (things "aren't that bad" for a doctor, but what about the immigrant worker holding down two jobs so their family can eat?) and for the fact that the working class is not a homogenous entity.

I don't really understand your Russian point here: but it ties into the question of why these actions (ie pre-05 etc) were not mass, and that is of class confidence and argument. At this point arguments for revolution were not carried on the scale of the time of 1914-17, and there was still a battle on to break the notion of the autocratic system being something religious rather than political. Class confidence was also much lower. A big reason illegal immigrants ar eless likely to fight, for instance, is that there is a fear of reprisals, deportations etc. Does this mean that they are not standing up for themselves because "conditions aren't that bad"? Of course not!

If something is 'sad, but true' I'm here searching for the true part. Got any empirical evidence? To be honest your arugment smacks of generalisation, with no real understanding of the current divisions and politics within the class itself.

[Le Socialiste]

There has been one "successful" revolution in a western country recently. I am of course talking about the 2009 protests in Iceland where the people surrounded the Althingi and made sounds which forced the parliamentarians to declare new elections.

In those new elections, the Social Democrats and Greens won, shifting the government from centre-right to centre-left.

Whenever the system is threatened by uprisings, it will respond in that manner. That is why we would never see a "Winter Palace" scenario in the West. The regimes would just dissolve and resolve with different faces.

And most of you, I am sure, would not want to see coups. I won't, for a matter of fact.

The problem is that we need to shift the central point of the political discourse to the left to have any chance to impose lasting reforms.


A revolution must represent a fundamental break with the existing order, a movement that severs the collective will of the people from the will of their rulers. What's more, any movement towards the liberation of the masses must be wrought and coordinated by the masses themselves; no parties, no "official" organizations. Any rebellion against the coercive will of the state, if successful, will have the coercive will of the victors to deal with (i.e. the vanguard, opportunists, the Party, etc. etc.)

How are the people, the workers, to deal with the issue of opportunism from their own ranks? You mention the need for people to shift their understanding of the political discourse towards leftism - the problem with such discourse lies in how it is channeled through the official, or recognized, organs of the state, the government. When the people show their displeasure with the current system, the ruling-classes react in much the same manner, that is, the mitigation of said anger/unrest into proper channels of bourgeois parliamentary/republican elections. This does not address the fundamental issues and deficiencies inherent in the present system; rather, it prolongs these problems - and ultimately exacerbates them.

When a genuine uprising rises up in reaction to the social, political and economic conditions around it, Western governments/states react accordingly. They speak of the freedom to express dissent - however, if one attempts to go beyond the acceptable boundaries of protest the bourgeoisie, its media, its politicians and representatives (for they aren't representing the people), its police, military and national guard crush it, demonize it, paint it as against the natural order of normalcy. If faced with a rising tide of unrest, the state offers a carrot: let the masses have their elections. Let the people address their concerns through the common motions of "democratic representation" (which is little more than a hollow promise, seeing as elections serve to legitimize the bourgeoisie and their exploitative measures). So the people rush to the polls, the voting booths, voicing their anger with pen and ballot. Politicians are elected, the suppression of the people's needs and demands continue, and not a promise made is kept. Thus the vicious cycle of exploitation continues on...

Revolution in the West is impossible, unless the workers realize that the answer lies not in the party, but in the organic organizing of the people themselves into political councils/organs independent of the recognized, "official" leftist parties. To reiterate what I've mentioned before above, any revolution must represent a complete, total break with the established Left, and the governing bodies/laws of the state as a whole. Otherwise, we will only run headlong into what has historically been the demise of any potential - significant - workers' movement: compromise with the state, compromise with the existing order, with little more to show for it but the few concessions wrung from the bourgeoisie; concessions that will, given a few years/decades, be reversed - thus leaving the people back where they started. It is a fundamental break, revolution.

Revolution in the West can be achieved if the people acknowledge the hypocrisy and counterrevolutionary nature of the established Left. If they realize the reality of their struggle, they will understand that the complete dismantlement of the state (and the "realities" it propagates) is necessary to constructing a revolutionary society.