Why do we focus on the past

[The Cheshire Cat]

This may be a useless thread, but I'm just wondering why we focus so much on the past? There are tons of threads about the Soviet Union, Mao, Guevara, etc. but very few about our present and even fewer about our future, wich is far more important than the past.

Ofcourse we should look at the past and learn from it, but we have had time enough to learn. I really think we should look more to the future, more to developing revolutionairy circumstances in countries and also focus more on action. But every time I start a thread about our future, I instantly get the reply: 'We can't plan ahead, we will have to adept to the circumstances.'

Ofcourse we have to adept to circumstances, but if we don't plan anything at all, revolution will just be a leap of faith into a dark pit.

So why are we so reluctant to think about our future, and why do we prefer to discuss dead people* and our dogmatic views with people with their own dogmatic views?

*With all the respect for Marx, Engels etc. ofcourse, but they have already written their idea's down and they themselves are of no more use to us.

[Robespierres Neck]

You can always learn from someone's mistakes.

And we should learn our political history (and history in general). It's the synthesis to our thought.

I see many threads about current events and people, so I don't really know what you're getting at.

[hatzel]

Because some people find their present insignificance depressing and prefer to cling on to past glories. Or at least I assume that's the reason, even if they won't admit it...

[Black_Rose]

This may be a useless thread, but I'm just wondering why we focus so much on the past? There are tons of threads about the Soviet Union, Mao, Guevara, etc. but very few about our present and even fewer about our future, wich is far more important than the past.

Ofcourse we should look at the past and learn from it, but we have had time enough to learn. I really think we should look more to the future, more to developing revolutionairy circumstances in countries and also focus more on action. But every time I start a thread about our future, I instantly get the reply: 'We can't plan ahead, we will have to adept to the circumstances.'

Ofcourse we have to adept to circumstances, but if we don't plan anything at all, revolution will just be a leap of faith into a dark pit.

So why are we so reluctant to think about our future, and why do we prefer to discuss dead people* and our dogmatic views with people with their own dogmatic views?

*With all the respect for Marx, Engels etc. ofcourse, but they have already written their idea's down and they themselves are of no more use to us.

Yes, there is indeed more to socialism/communism than hagiographies of deceased communist leaders and rhapsodizing about former paragon socialist states such as the DDR. However, it is important to have some historical knowledge to defend the reputation of venerable socialist leaders and countries by the ubiquitous anti-communist propaganda perpetuated by the bourgeois media and educational system. An awareness of the past and the general benignity of former socialist countries (and in addition to the knowledge of the quintessential exploitative nature of capitalism) is critical component of the argument that a socialist political and economic system is desirable and not merely quixotic idealism, since there are historical precedents illustrating that. However, bourgeois historiography often misinterprets the failure of the former socialist states as the inevitable consequence of socialism's alleged intrinsic foibles and incompatibility with human nature, rather than incessant economic, military and political hostility from the capitalist world.

Regarding our present circumstances, you have to realize that a lack of proper theoretical and historical understanding of socialism by the general population is a primary factor preventing them from embracing a socialist political agenda.

As socialists, we have to have a sense of our own righteousness; we have to know that we are morally superior to our capitalist adversaries. But that is not enough; we are less concerned with demonstrating our sense of political righteousness and more interested in eventually seizing political power on behalf of the victims of capitalism. Nevertheless, we need to convince others the our goals are desirable, and that requires a knowledge of history.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Nihil novi sub sole, there is nothing new under the sun.

I find history and the discussion of history not only to be of vital importance in a general sense but also in terms of revolutionary struggle and discussion. Certainly nothing that can just be swept under the rug following the logic of "the past is past, the future is now." That would be incredibly foolish. Within reason of course, discussions of what was Hoxha favorite food? That's of course silly and trivial but then again, we are on a discussion board and I'm sure some here would find this to be of great importance.

[Pretty Flaco]

i think pretty much most of the historical discussion that goes on here is completely irrelevant today.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Discussion of theory and history is important, of course, but not anywhere near as important as action. I admittedly am pretty much politically inactive, but I don't see any opportunities to stop this. My goal is to become much more active this summer.

[Yuppie Grinder]

i think pretty much most of the historical discussion that goes on here is completely irrelevant today.

That's because its almost entirely bickering between different personality cults. Analyzing the past to learn from it is one thing, debating the exact length and width of Stalin's mustache is another.

[Deicide]

Because some people's current 'ideology' is the party line of dictators from the 20th century.

[Pretty Flaco]

i feel like so many people here focus on one single leaders policies from a century ago and act as if they can just straight apply that to any country around today. i dont think thats a good idea and i think that turns a lot of people off. theres too much emphasis on theories, policies, and politics. i'm not saying that there's nothing to be learned from situations, but i am saying that taking policies cookie cutter style from stalin is a shitty and delusional thing to do.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Taking politics from Stalin period is a stupid thing to do, especially in the year 2012. Its what's holding Marxism back.

[Prometeo liberado]

Taking politics from Stalin period is a stupid thing to do, especially in the year 2012. Its what's holding Marxism back.

And the proverbial head sinks further into the sand. It couldn't be that the working class has been so brainwashed at this point that we refuse to recognize the suffering we endure and who it is that inflicts it upon us. No, your right, it's Stalin again.:thumbup1:

[Ilyich]

And the proverbial head sinks further into the sand. It couldn't be that the working class has been so brainwashed at this point that we refuse to recognize the suffering we endure and who it is that inflicts it upon us. No, your right, it's Stalin again.:thumbup1:

I'm not sure if he was actually blaming Stalin in particular for the problems of the left today. Rather, I think he was referring to how many leftists refuse to move their politics past the "Stalin period," the first half of the 20th century.

[Yuppie Grinder]

And the proverbial head sinks further into the sand. It couldn't be that the working class has been so brainwashed at this point that we refuse to recognize the suffering we endure and who it is that inflicts it upon us. No, your right, it's Stalin again.:thumbup1:

The reason why class consciousness is so weak is cultural hegemony. We do not own our own cultural and political sensibilities.
I am not blaming Stalin worship for all of the left's problems, but it certainly doesn't help. Ordinary people aren't any more likely to join a party of Stalin apologists than they are to join a party of Hitler apologists, and for very good reason. Joining a personality cult won't give them higher wages or health care or things people are actually concerned with.
Also, as a Stalinist you should probably avoid bringing up brainwashing in arguments as it's pretty hypocritical.

[TheMyth]

We should remember the past to avoid that Revisioniost Like Lenine Stalin and so on became to power and destroy communism name .
We should Focus on Paris Commune, Soviet revolution ( The soviets not the party ) , Coucnil republic led by Bela Kun in Hungary and in Portugal in 74-75 with Vasco Gonçalves and it's People's Power when he allow people to take over houses buildings to form Medical care, Child playgrounds and the great Agrarian reform wich led to people who doesn't have land to have a piece of it .
Also consisted in Councils and comissions elected by people to represent them along with Ownership of means of production

[Prometeo liberado]

The reason why class consciousness is so weak is cultural hegemony. We do not own our own cultural and political sensibilities.
I am not blaming Stalin worship for all of the left's problems, but it certainly doesn't help. Ordinary people aren't any more likely to join a party of Stalin apologists than they are to join a party of Hitler apologists, and for very good reason. Joining a personality cult won't give them higher wages or health care or things people are actually concerned with.
Also, as a Stalinist you should probably avoid bringing up brainwashing in arguments as it's pretty hypocritical.
So now in since you dont agree with my post I am a Stalinist? "I am not blamming Stalin worship....., but" My point proven. How are we to "own our own cultural and political sensibilities" when you yourself bring up Stalin and brainwashing? Let it go and cultivate a healthy take on the here and now, or keep blamming Stalin if thats all you have.

[Yuppie Grinder]

So now in since you dont agree with my post I am a Stalinist? <y point proven. How are we to "own our own cultural and political sensibilities" when you yourself bring up Stalin and brainwashing? Let it go and cultivate a healthy take on the here and now, or keep blamming Stalin if thats all you have.

I call you a Stalinist because you are a member of the Marxist-Lenninist group. If you don't get the "we don't own our own cultural and political sensibilities" line, you must not be familiar with Gramsci's concept of cultural hegemony.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_hegemony
Through their exclusive control of the means with which cultural and political sensibilities are developed, using private ownership of media and control of education through the state, the bourgeoisie condition the proletariat into bourgeois cultural and political sensibilities.
Brainwashing, coercive resocialization as a tool of class warfare, plays a role in sustaining cultural hegemony.
There is no denying the enormous damage Stalin, his chums, and Stalinism have done to the revolutionary left. I am not blaming our current abysmal situation squarely on braindead tankies and their dear leader.

[Hexen]

We focus on the past to avoid future mistakes during the present.

[wunks]

The reason why class consciousness is so weak is cultural hegemony. We do not own our own cultural and political sensibilities.what does that mean?

why should leftists "own" their own cultural sensibilities? I think the left is actually very subcultural, and I don't think that's a good thing at all.

[Magón]

There are plenty of people on here, and out there doing activist work, who seem to want to just recreate what was already tried and failed (whether Anarchist or Marxist, both are equally at fault for this.) They look at the history and say, "Why can't we recreate that?" We can't recreate it because the situations and conditions we live in today, are not like it was. Spain in 1936 is not the same as Spain in 2012. Russia 2012 is not Russia, October 1917. Germany 2012 is definitely not Germany 1918, etc.

It's good to focus on the past, learn from it, but take from it what we can and leave the past the past. Don't try and rehash what was already done, because in the end nobody's going to get anywhere. No ground will be gained, but most likely lost since many are so stuck in the past and want to recreate it, they're just ignored since they're not going about it by a modern, present way.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

I'm not sure if he was actually blaming Stalin in particular for the problems of the left today. Rather, I think he was referring to how many leftists refuse to move their politics past the "Stalin period," the first half of the 20th century.

As Deicide beautifully demonstrates below.


Because some people's current 'ideology' is the party line of dictators from the 20th century.

Ultra-leftists always seem so keen on playing the Stalin card. It's blatantly clear to anyone else that they're just as stuck in the past as "Stalinists".

I'd be completely wrong if I said that Marxist-Leninists aren't just as much to blame, though. The vast majority of Marxist tendencies are to blame for dogmatically refusing to compromise on anything with other tendencies. That's one of reasons why I've gradually come to support the idea of a multi-tendency party, anyway.

It's nothing short of incorrect to say that most MLs want to recreate Stalin's USSR. The next socialist revolution will play out very differently from 1917, I'd imagine, but that doesn't mean we should abandon the revolutionary strategy and theory of Lenin, Stalin, Hoxha, and I'm sure even some of the figures that leftcoms take their ideology from.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

There were two main strains on the left that led to disastrous defeat in the twentieth century:
Reformism and Stalinism. (E.G., August 4 when the parties of the Second International all voted war credits to their respective governments [except the Bolsheviks], Germany 1919 to 1924, China 1927, Germany 1933, The Spanish Civil War, Western Europe right after WWII, etc.) These are still with us in spades, especially reformism. It seems that the workers movement does not readily learn from its mistakes. The only way to understand the present, is to understand that which led to the present, i.e., the past.

[Prometeo liberado]

I call you a Stalinist because you are a member of the Marxist-Lenninist group. If you don't get the "we don't own our own cultural and political sensibilities" line, you must not be familiar with Gramsci's concept of cultural hegemony.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_hegemony
Through their exclusive control of the means with which cultural and political sensibilities are developed, using private ownership of media and control of education through the state, the bourgeoisie condition the proletariat into bourgeois cultural and political sensibilities.
Brainwashing, coercive resocialization as a tool of class warfare, plays a role in sustaining cultural hegemony.
There is no denying the enormous damage Stalin, his chums, and Stalinism have done to the revolutionary left. I am not blaming our current abysmal situation squarely on braindead tankies and their dear leader.

And the sadness continues... The latest accusation is that I dont understand Gramsci? Or maybe if you were able to analyze like a true marxist you would have seen that I just don't answer you the way in which you are used to. I don't feed candy to children. Stalin, stalin, stalin! You understand ML so well that the name Stalin is your entire arsenal when confronted by this science? Bed time is near young one and I see from your posts you need the sleep.

[WanderingCactus]

I'm not opposed to discussions of history and such. The past informs the present and all that. But I do agree with your specific sentiment. Many of the discussions surrounding past revolutionary events and figures are worthless. Perhaps that is more because of the people participating in those exchanges (Stalinists, Trotskyists and other [Name]ists) than the contents of the discussion.

[Questionable]

The fact that people will come into this thread and blame everything on the Stalinists, while no ML has arrived to blame things on Ultra-leftists, is very telling on who's causing the most disruption.

The proposition that the abstract ideal of "Stalinism" is what's holding back the left, and if we could just get rid of that ideal and choose the right one we'd be fine, is non-materialist at best.

[Pretty Flaco]

The fact that people will come into this thread and blame everything on the Stalinists, while no ML has arrived to blame things on Ultra-leftists, is very telling on who's causing the most disruption.

The proposition that the abstract ideal of "Stalinism" is what's holding back the left, and if we could just get rid of that ideal and choose the right one we'd be fine, is non-materialist at best.

i think they were proposing that marxist-leninism itself is outdated for todays conditions, as are many other tendencies that are active on this site.

[Yuppie Grinder]

And the sadness continues... The latest accusation is that I dont understand Gramsci? Or maybe if you were able to analyze like a true marxist you would have seen that I just don't answer you the way in which you are used to. I don't feed candy to children. Stalin, stalin, stalin! You understand ML so well that the name Stalin is your entire arsenal when confronted by this science? Bed time is near young one and I see from your posts you need the sleep.

I did not accuse you of not understanding Gramsci, I accused you of not having heard of one of his ideas. You are getting pretty riled up for no good reason. It's time to calm down, it's time to stop posting.

[wsg1991]

history is important , people who do not learn from their previous mistakes will repeat the same mistake . for instance using the same formula that didn't work before and expect it to work this time is FUCKING STUPIDITY . but i see here over obsession with the past , lack of any new idea \ theories .

[Raúl Duke]

I agree with what Hetzel mentioned earlier, to some extent a numerous portion of the left is stuck thinking about the past due to "past glories" of revolutions and riveting class struggle. Who can blame them though, the left is pretty weak in many parts of the world and the revolutionary or even radical sentiment isn't so widespread anymore. A lot of people on revleft are people who live in "middle of nowhere" USA or are young and thus aren't active/busy and even those who are activists or members of a party aren't really doing anything that seems, even to their own eyes (if they're being honest), to be going anywhere. Only a few places and 'realms' are things seemingly hot, like Greece, and over there maybe the leftists are doing whatever.

But it's also a weakness. As some said, we're no longer living in the 20th century. We don't have "peasants" and the population of the industrial worker is shrinking in what is termed "the first world." We have a "service industry," with many "paper-pushers" that do things that may in fact be (viewed within a vacuum) useless (i.e. in the sense that many jobs only make sense within capitalism). Hell, even some elements of the ruling class have 'non-sensical' jobs, like investors, stock-brokers, and such; all whose work revolves around things that only have value because capitalism has given it so. They don't even "manage" anything concrete like other members of the bourgeoisie (CEOs, executive-level managers, business owners, etc).
The conditions in the past don't correlate as strongly to the present; sure we still have capitalism but the nature of the advance stages of capitalism is quite different.

Doesn't necessarily mean that looking into the past is a useless endeavor, after all we can learn from mistakes. But I do agree with what someone mentioned previously that certain inquiries and apologetics are useless.

[Magón]

while no ML has arrived to blame things on Ultra-leftists, is very telling on who's causing the most disruption.

Did you overlook MustCrushCapitalism's post at the top of the page?

[Questionable]

Did you overlook MustCrushCapitalism's post at the top of the page?

MCC only posted that as a response to users who were blaming all of the left's woes on Stalin. Before him, the only Marxist-Leninist posts were:


You can always learn from someone's mistakes.

And we should learn our political history (and history in general). It's the synthesis to our thought.

I see many threads about current events and people, so I don't really know what you're getting at.And:


Yes, there is indeed more to socialism/communism than hagiographies of deceased communist leaders and rhapsodizing about former paragon socialist states such as the DDR. However, it is important to have some historical knowledge to defend the reputation of venerable socialist leaders and countries by the ubiquitous anti-communist propaganda perpetuated by the bourgeois media and educational system. An awareness of the past and the general benignity of former socialist countries (and in addition to the knowledge of the quintessential exploitative nature of capitalism) is critical component of the argument that a socialist political and economic system is desirable and not merely quixotic idealism, since there are historical precedents illustrating that. However, bourgeois historiography often misinterprets the failure of the former socialist states as the inevitable consequence of socialism's alleged intrinsic foibles and incompatibility with human nature, rather than incessant economic, military and political hostility from the capitalist world.

Regarding our present circumstances, you have to realize that a lack of proper theoretical and historical understanding of socialism by the general population is a primary factor preventing them from embracing a socialist political agenda.

As socialists, we have to have a sense of our own righteousness; we have to know that we are morally superior to our capitalist adversaries. But that is not enough; we are less concerned with demonstrating our sense of political righteousness and more interested in eventually seizing political power on behalf of the victims of capitalism. Nevertheless, we need to convince others the our goals are desirable, and that requires a knowledge of history.Both well thought out, informative posts that admit to the left having flaws, but don't pass the blame onto any other tendency and actually attempt to answer the OP's question.

And to address the OP's question, one reason it is important to analyze the past is because if we don't understand our past, the bourgeoisie will lie about it. The failure of the Soviet Union is constantly cited as a reason why socialism will never work, why it will always lead to needless bloodshed, why we shouldn't even bother. Regardless of what conclusion you arrive at about the USSR, it is a part of our history, and if we ignore the question, the capitalists will answer it for us.

[Ismail]

I am not blaming Stalin worship for all of the left's problems, but it certainly doesn't help. Ordinary people aren't any more likely to join a party of Stalin apologists than they are to join a party of Hitler apologists, and for very good reason. Joining a personality cult won't give them higher wages or health care or things people are actually concerned with.The PLP and RCPUSA (or Revolutionary Union, as it was known then) did pretty well in the late 1960's to the 1980's, better than most leftist parties in the USA at the time. Their decline was not due to any support they have for Stalin.

The two biggest hits to the US left were the end of the Vietnam War and the fall of the USSR. The former led to many "student radicals" turning into yuppies while the latter unleashed a wave of "socialism in the 20th century has been a catastrophic failure" sentiments which were naturally followed by an end to any revolutionary pretensions and confirmed that this subsequent watered-down Marxism in the US was going to be a force only in academia, not amongst the working-class.

It seems in the 2002-2003 period a lot of leftists thought that the Iraq War was going to bring forth a new period of Vietnam-era mass protests. Well, it certainly brought a lot of them out, but communist influence and radical sentiment was significantly lower.

I mean what's the chance of something like this being in the news again in their near future: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzTEIPXP8K0

[TheMyth]

I will focus on M-l as whole and not only Stalin Period .
Take a look at what is DoTP in Engels definition :
Of late, the Social-Democratic philistine has once more been filled with wholesome terror at the words: Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Well and good, gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
Frederick Engels
London, on the 20th anniversary
of the Paris Commune, March 18, 1891.

Now that happen in Soviet Union ?
Soivets had more power than Party ?
They have the choice of chosing the government ?
Why happen the Kronstad uprinsing ?
Workers Had the ownership by themselfs of means of production ?
They elected comissions to choose waht people they want to rule the factory ?

All that questions came from the definition made by Marx of People's Power

[Yuppie Grinder]

The PLP and RCPUSA (or Revolutionary Union, as it was known then) did pretty well in the late 1960's to the 1980's, better than most leftist parties in the USA at the time. Their decline was not due to any support they have for Stalin.

The two biggest hits to the US left were the end of the Vietnam War and the fall of the USSR. The former led to many "student radicals" turning into yuppies while the latter unleashed a wave of "socialism in the 20th century has been a catastrophic failure" sentiments which were naturally followed by an end to any revolutionary pretensions and confirmed that this subsequent watered-down Marxism in the US was going to be a force only in academia, not amongst the working-class.

It seems in the 2002-2003 period a lot of leftists thought that the Iraq War was going to bring forth a new period of Vietnam-era mass protests. Well, it certainly brought a lot of them out, but communist influence and radical sentiment was significantly lower.

I mean what's the chance of something like this being in the news again in their near future: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzTEIPXP8K0
Thank you for having an actual argument to back up what you believe in rather than stooping to bickering. I stand by my belief that Marxism-Lenninism cannot build a mass working class movement in America today, and never will be able to. In times of war or economic instability we often see an increase in membership of communist organizations, but America hasn't anything resembling a mass leftist organization for nearly a hundred years now. It isn't an archaic ideology like ML that's going to fix that in my mind.

[Thirsty Crow]

I
The conditions in the past don't correlate as strongly to the present; sure we still have capitalism but the nature of the advance stages of capitalism is quite different.

Well, it seems to me that this is the crux of the issue: the pervasive notion that we are living in a different historical era. The problem is that only rarely is such a notion coupled with well constructed arguments.

For instance, the issue you bring up, the "paper pushers" whose jobs don't make sense outside the perspective of a capitalist economy - this really says nothing of the current situation with regard to: a) the balance of class forces (political), b) reorganization and recomposition of the global working class, and the consequences for both immediate organizing and political organizing, c) changes in ideological, or if you will, cultural life of the working class.

Don't get me wrong - I'm far from being an advocate of an unsupportable thesis that nothing has changed. But I can't help but recognize that many radicals hold such a vague opinion which can entirely exhaust itself in stating that things have changed. Okay, it's blatantly obvious, but you may wish to go deeper and inquire about the concrete ways things have changed, and about the implication for revolutionary politics.

So, what actually is this nature of the advanced stages of capitalism (supposedly different from previous historical periods)?

[blake 3:17]

To the OP:

I think it is worthwhile to look at all attempts that people have made to liberate themselves. This isn't to fixate one perfect way of doing so, but that those of us fighting for equality, democracy and socialism need to learn from the successes and failures of the past.

[Prometeo liberado]

I did not accuse you of not understanding Gramsci, I accused you of not having heard of one of his ideas. You are getting pretty riled up for no good reason. It's time to calm down, it's time to stop posting.

You forgot to blame Stalin in this last post, son.