Why don't Marxists engage in more radical tactics? [Archive]

View Full Version : Why don't Marxists engage in more radical tactics?

ellipsis

30th March 2013, 13:03

MP5

30th March 2013, 17:24

Sadly it was not always this way. There where many times in the past where in the west Marxists where every bit as radical in terms of action as any Anarchist is. Back in the fairly early days of labor unionism the take over of buildings and dealing with scabs with ruthless violence was the order of the day for any Communist Marxist or not. However both Marxists and Anarchists have been somewhat pacified over the years atleast in the west. Marxists just feel prey to this abit more.

Many Marxists seem to be afraid of police crackdowns and also getting branded as terrorists weakening the movement. This is where i totally disagree with them as i think there are very few ways better to show the working class that they have the strength to take on Capitalists better then violent confrontation. Violence serves 2 purposes really. To get rid of the bourgeois and also to help workers realize that they are anything but powerless when they are a mass organization who are willing to use violence to suppress bourgeois reaction. It is liberating in and of itself.

Overall the left has been less willing to shed blood in the past 30 years or so anyway. It was not long ago when full on riots where not uncommon.

The Douche

30th March 2013, 17:31

Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist

30th March 2013, 17:38

Well there is alot of positive stuff coming out of the Canadian Maoist scene. There are a couple documents in particular that are positive. Quicedently, a platformist organization recently merged into the RCP-Canada. For one there is this document demonstrating their direct action orientated approach to the student movement in Canada:

Whither the Student Movement in Ottawa? (2010)
This article originally appeared in Social Revolution Volume #1, Issue #2, published in the summer of 2010. It was written as response to fractures developing within the student “movement” at the time. The student “movement” has not remained static since the publication; there have been numerous developments (such as: the almost complete degeneration of the social-democrats at Carleton University, the deepening of tensions between radical and reformist trends within the student “movement”, the establishment of the Marxist Students’ Associations at Carleton and uOttawa, and the founding of the Revolutionary Student Movement) that render much this article obsolete. Despite this, the author feels that the article still consists of a decent appraisal of the class forces at work within the student “movement”, and the developments since this was written have served only to reinforce the predicitions and solutions suggested herein.

Whither The Student Movement in Ottawa?

I. Introduction
It was after the University of Ottawa Board of Governor's (BoG) April meeting that I first decided to write something of a brief critique of the status-quo for the student movement. After the adoption of the resource optimisation plan by the BoG, I became increasingly frustrated with the lack of ability of students to both influence university policy and excercise power in relation to the current governing bodies of the university. While we have made progress over the last five years in terms of building our movement we are at risk of stagnating. This is the basis on which this article is being written.
For those of you who exist outside of the immediate uOttawa campus context (which is hopefully quite a few!), the Board of Governors is the primary governing body of our university and is in charge of “the overall governance and management”1 of uOttawa as an institution. Most of its members are appointed by the uOttawa administration and include representatives from organisations such as the Bank of Canada, L'Oréal, The Ottawa Citizen, and other large firms who, in some way or another, feel entitled to make decisions on behalf of the 36000+ students, faculty, and support staff who keep the university running. There is one seat reserved for undergraduates on the BoG, but we have no 'right' to it; the seat is granted, on a person-to-person basis, by the BoG whenever undergraduates elect a new representative. It goes, almost without saying, that one of the primary enemies of the working class at uOttawa is this body.

The scope of this article then will be as follows: I will seek to explain the context and events that led up to this article. I will explain the nature of my frustrations. I will then take a brief aside to talk about the issue of 'demands', and what ours should be (if any) in relation to the student movement. Finally I will suggest a path forward that those serious about pushing our movement to the left should consider in relation to our next actions.

II. Context and History
The student movement at uOttawa has, in conjunction with the Canadian Federation of Students - Ontario (CFS-O), focused primarily on tuition fee increases over the past three years. Through rallies on February 7th 2007, November 5th 2008, and November 5th 2009, thousands of students have voiced their opposition to being powerless in the midst of constant fee increases. Pressure was directed to a certain extent at the University administration, but the primary target was the Ontario provincial government, under whose jurisdiction tuition fees lie. Our yearly rallies condemning the increase of fees have become business as usual.

It was, however, brought to the attention of Student Federation of the University of Ottawa (SFUO) that, supposedly due to the economic crisis, uOttawa's budget would be markedly different for the 2010-2011 school year. What we uncovered was that the University, while increasing tuition fees the maximum allowed amount, would also be asking faculties to cut 5% of their budgets. Cuts included fewer teaching positions being renewed, cuts to the library's selection of books, and increased additional fees in some programs. The administration, having mastered beautifully the art of Newspeak, referred to the changes as “Resource Optimization”.

What followed was several months of mobilising against the budget cuts, primarily through raising awareness as to what the effects of the cuts would be. Meanwhile, the administration allegedly consulted the faculty and students to receive their input; in actual fact almost no consultations took place, and repeated requests for more information on the budget were denied. The mobilisation finally culminated in a free barbeque, put on by the SFUO, on April 27th right before the BoG meeting. Several hundred people showed up to the BBQ which, all things considered, given our current political climate, organisational methods2, and the fact that the event was in the middle of exams, was not a bad turn out. Around 40 students were present at the BoG meeting where we made it incredibly clear that not only were we against the “optimisation”, but were frustrated with the lack of consultation.

It is perhaps best here to make a brief aside and describe the class and political natures of the “student movement”. As of right now, with communists coming out of nearly 70 years of retreats, the “student movement” is a broad coalition of leftists that is led by social democrats (both those associated with the NDP and not) and takes on social democratic demands in relation to the power structures that it confronts. It constantly seeks to align itself with the social democratic unions of the CLC. This is all to say that in class terms, the student movement right now is dominated by bureaucratic collectivists and the political line being issued is one within that class horizon. Communists, through their engagement in the student movement, are in a temporary alliance with the bureacratic collectivist social democrats; while this alliance is, for now at least, both productive and necessary, we should constantly be struggling to change the terms on which this alliance is formed in our favour.
It was at the April BoG meeting that fractures within the student movement began to show. After the BoG voted in favour in principle of the budget cuts and tuition hikes (in lieu of being given any real budgetary information), the students present caucused to discuss our strategy for the next part of the meeting. It was generally agreed upon that we were too few in number to physically shut the meeting down. What was then suggested was an amendment to the budget motion that would have seen tuition increased by half as much as was suggested by the administration. Whether or not we should support this amendment was the fault-line on which the fracture formed, with the SRP members present coming out strongly against the amendment and many others coming out in favour. Ultimately the amendment was put forward, and was voted down. The tuition hikes were tabled to the next BoG meeting in order to give the administration time to prepare budget information for the Governors.

At the debrief that followed the BoG meeting, the split was discussed further. It was pointed out that this BoG meeting had proven definitively that the students and the administration could not negotiate; even when we retreated from our slogan of “Drop Fees!” to “Raise Fees Less!”, the administration still raised our fees the maximum amount and voted against the amendment. As a matter of political strategy, supporting an incredibly moderate amendment knowing that the administration would vote against it would give us a better argument towards the necessity of building student power. Admittedly I conceded on this point, but critically. I pointed out that past interactions over things such as the Non-Academic Code of Conduct3 and tuition fees showed that we already knew that the administration could not be negotiated with (irrespective of whether we actually should be negotiating, no less!), but that if we were to mobilise and agitate around the administration's non-negotiation on the failed amendment, perhaps it was, after-all, a worthwhile thing to put forward.
Over the next month virtually no agitation took place. The BoG met again on May 31st and adopted the budget in full, including the program cuts and tuition hikes. A town-hall meeting on the budget was held two days after the BoG passed it; a final slap in the face after a wholly undemocratic and ridiculous 'consultation' process. It is as a result of our stagnation in the fight against the administration that I felt compelled to write this article. Now that the context has been explained, it is worthwhile to re-examine the proposed amendment from the April 27th meeting and come to conclusions as to what our demands relative to the administration should be.

III. On Demands and the Amendment
In the January 21, 2010 issue of Weekly Worker, the organ of the Communist Party of Great Britain, a fantastic letter was printed dealing with the issue of demands. Here is that letter in full:

James Turley’s use of the term ‘demand’ rather than ‘policy’ is both an anachronism and infantilism (Letters, January 14).

Infants make demands for things that they are unable to get for themselves: they demand an ice-cream, an Xbox or a new Barbie. Adults go out and buy them for themselves. If a leftwing party puts forward a list of ‘demands’, they appear in a similar childish light.

There is also an anachronistic element to them in that they refer back to a time before universal suffrage or the establishment of parliamentary sovereignty - a time in 19th century Bismarckian Germany. In a period when the working class movement aimed to achieve full civil rights that they did not yet have, there appeared no alternative to demanding them.

But more than a century has passed since such formulations. Communist parties that gained power did not have ‘demands’ in their programmes: they had policies that they intended to carry out once in power. Gottwald and the Czech party did not demand the expropriation of the landlord class or the nationalisation of industry: they promised it. Mao and the Chinese party did not demand New Democracy: they organised an army to win it.

When socialists address economic problems, they should formulate policies that, when put into practice, would solve the problems. They have to break with the mentality of small campaigning groups and say what they would do if they had power. If they criticise government policies, it should be in terms of saying exactly what should be done instead.

This point is independent of how you think power is to be won. If you are an old Attlee or Benn-style social democrat, you are talking of what an elected government will do. If you are an advocate of direct democracy, you are talking about what policies you hope to put forward and argue for in citizens’ initiatives. But in either case concrete policies are needed.

As communists we are trying to build a world without classes or the state. In order to do this, we need to begin thinking like the new proletarian state as opposed to levying demands at the old bourgeois state. In relation to the university and tuition fees then, what does this mean?

Without getting too deeply into the pedagogy of liberation, or critical theory in relation to the university, we must imagine a new type of institution that first and foremost does away with the power dynamic between student and teacher. In doing away with alienation and the commodity (this includes both the commodification of education and the labour that goes into producing it), people will be free to learn what they want on their own terms, without fear of future gain or employment. The division of labour that forces one to be a student and only a student for a set amount of time will be done away with in exchange for a continual learning process that takes place at ones leisure over the course of one's life. In short, we are imagining the freest possible educational experience free of any external constraints and coercion; this is the university, or more aptly education, under communism.

Now that we have identified what it is that we want in relation to education (in very loose terms of course), we can look at our goal more concretely in relation to the demands of the student movement. While I did not go into detail about the fate of the university after the revolution (this is the topic for another article), it becomes immediately clear that the power structures that currently exist internally to the institution must be smashed. It would therefore be ridiculous to suggest that we formulate a “demand” for the current power structures to carry out; they can not abolish themselves, nor do they have any desire to. For communists then the answer is clear: for us to accomplish what we want, we can not issue demands, but rather we must put forward a program that says what we are going to do when we seize power.

As communists we know the way forward, but the direction is less clear for our social-democratic allies. They are stuck between a rock and a hard place: on one hand, the demands that they raise are proving to be impossible to realise within the current epoch we find ourselves in. On the other hand, they are unwilling or unable to attack the power-structures that define the university under capitalism in order to help transcend it. Therefore the demands raised become incredibly fluid and opportunistic based on the situation: we go from “Stop the Hikes!” in 2007 to “Drop Fees!” in 2008, to attacking split-fees in early 2009, to “Drop Fees!” again for November of 2009 to abandoning that demand altogether for 2010. In so doing, by cow-towing to the waverings of social-democrats, the student movement loses legitimacy in the eyes of the masses and becomes internally confused.
What then happened on April 27th? Instead of sticking to the demand we had been campaigning around, as soon as the administration showed resistance the student movement retreated and adopted a demand far to the right of our original one. This is problematic on three counts. First, it is dishonest; regardless of how we feel about the demand “Drop Fees!”, “Raise Fees Less!” was not the demand that we campaigned on. Second, adopting a demand to the right of our original one moves the general discourse to the right; we are no longer debating as to whether or not education should be a commodity, but rather how expensive a commodity it should be. Third, it isn't what we actually want; for communists, anything short of reinventing education is a retreat, and even for social-democrats tuition increases represent a retreat from the slogan of “Stop the Hikes!” issued three years ago.

For communists, two glaring questions are then raised: First, how do we push the student movement to the left? Second, how do we achieve success in our current struggles? The following section will seek to provide a brief outline of how to accomplish both.

IV. The Way Forward
1. Begin agitating on and spreading the news that the university administration is both unwilling and unable to negotiate. Despite the fact that we did not support the amendment, we should take advantage of it having been passed.

2. Increase the level of agitation against the administration as an institution, rather than certain policies of the administration. This should include an analysis of the power relations involved.

3. We need to begin to conceive of the university under communism. Even the best agitation doesn't matter unless we have a solution to offer. A program is necessary.

4. Advertise the program. Show students, staff, and support workers how a democratic institution can run. Engage in discussions that force our alternative to the fore-front.

5. Build alliances with revolutionary workers on campus. Any movement that seeks to challenge the administration can not succeed with students alone.

6. Begin organising our alternative power structures. If we do this along SRP lines/democratic mass line, the basic unit should be groups of between 8 and 13 people (see The Manual). This should be organised at the very least into some sort of an over-arching institution, be it the SFUO or a revolutionary student union (RSU) existing alongside our current one. This step largely depends on the size of the SRP; this is impossible to do, due to the energies required, when we have 10 people active within the student movement. We would need closer to 30 for this to be feasible even to start.

7. Use the newly formed RSU to win small victories. If there is a service not being performed, have the RSU do it. If there are supplies not available, have the RSU acquire them. Strive to show to both members and non-members that the university administration is not needed, and that due to the democratic nature of the RSU, it can respond better to problems that students, support staff, and faculty are facing.

8. At this point, even if the RSU is not directly confronting the administration, the administration will surely be directly confronting the RSU. The state may even begin confront the RSU. This will take both passive and aggressive forms: the passive will involve reforms that were agitated for earlier as we saw in the wake of May 1968, and the aggressive will involve direct confrontation with the RSU in the form of expulsions, possible banning, and other actions. Be prepared for a fight, perhaps even physically, to save the RSU.

9. From this stage on, what happens next depends on the mood of society as a whole. The RSU can not win anything beyond reforms if the rest of society is not ready to move beyond capitalism. If, on the other hand, we have built mass organisations of the working class capable of seizing state power, the RSU should join in the radical transformation of society and build institutions of free education out of the old bourgeois university.

V. Conclusion
The path forward is not an easy one. Even if tomorrow everyone involved in the student movement were to adopt our recommendations, it would still take years to actualise our plan. But it is necessary. In order for us to push the student movement beyond piece-meal reforms and towards gaining what we actually want, we need to embrace a new politic with new styles of organisation and tactics of confrontation. Social democrats are leading the movement to stagnation; as communists we need to agitate internally to the student movement, reach out to those disillusioned with it, and begin building a better world. Onwards!

Skyhilist

30th March 2013, 17:41

Because only us anarchists have enough time to read books on theory AND throw shit at cops :D

MP5

30th March 2013, 17:57

Because only us anarchists have enough time to read books on theory AND throw shit at cops :D

I was throwing shit at cops back when i was a teenage hooligan who had read little of Socialism besides Marx and Engels as well as Irish republican Socialism. So i got ye all beat there already :p

ellipsis

30th March 2013, 18:11

I should specify that I'm talking the United States, not globally. Obviously the situation is very different in Nepal for example.

Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist

30th March 2013, 18:14

I should specify that I'm talking the United States, not globally. Obviously the situation is very different in Nepal for example.

The document wasn't about Nepal, it was about Canada. But yea there is no good MLM scene in America, the closest we've got are some cool anarchists. we have some ML-MZT folk but most of them are all boring shitheads. Though supposedly the Ray'O Light organization is good but literally no one knows anything about them since they refuse to have an internet presence. Since you are active in the American scene, have you encountered any Ray' O Light fellows?

ellipsis

30th March 2013, 18:23

conmharÃ¡in

30th March 2013, 18:26

When your ideology hinges on taking state power, its not strange to see some people take the path of least resistance to accomplish their goals. And that means mediation and moderation, not occupations and revolt.

Yeah. It's a real kick in the seat for us ML's to see the rise of global anarchist powers that threaten the hegemony of the West.

Oh wait.

ellipsis

30th March 2013, 18:30

Yeah. It's a real kick in the seat for us ML's to see the rise of global anarchist powers that threaten the hegemony of the West.

Oh wait.

When you are branded terrorists by the us federal government, you know that you are on the right track. :p

conmharÃ¡in

30th March 2013, 18:33

When you are branded terrorists by the us federal government, you know that you are on the right track. :p

No. You're on the right track when you're branded an "Evil Empire." ;)

MP5

30th March 2013, 18:34

The document wasn't about Nepal, it was about Canada. But yea there is no good MLM scene in America, the closest we've got are some cool anarchists. we have some ML-MZT folk but most of them are all boring shitheads. Though supposedly the Ray'O Light organization is good but literally no one knows anything about them since they refuse to have an internet presence. Since you are active in the American scene, have you encountered any Ray' O Light fellows?

The Maoists in Quebec are the closest organization to me geographically. The next closest would be Irish and British Socialists across the pond. Although i am not a Maoist i would be more then happy to lend any support i could to them in terms of getting people out in mass rallies and also to lend some muscle to the revolutionaries involved in these mass rallies. They also seem to be the only Communists in Canada that are actually in touch with the concerns of the working class people. Most Marxist-Leninists and Trotskyists in Canada seem to be very out of touch with the concerns of the working class and the students. We could get alot of support by actually getting people out there to express the concerns of students and also the working class. Why more Socialists aren't doing this is beyond me.

Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist

30th March 2013, 18:35

No I got that, I just couldn't think of a better example than an active insurgency/protracted people's war(does it qualify? I'm not a
Maoist). I've never heard of ray o light, only Maoist group that I have encountered is the rcp-USA. What does the mzt mean? Mao zedong thought?

Ok sorry, and yea no problem, I like anarchists and generally we on the Maoist left view anarchism as the most revolutionary trend on the left.

The RIM released an article about the differences between Marxist-Leninist-Maoism and Marxist-Leninist-Mao Zedong Thought a while ago. Although I don't think it is relevant to our context I'll link it anyway.

But basically, the organizations who uphold ML-MZT don't really have a coherent line on what MZT actually is and simply use it as an excuse to be "non-dogmatic". Back in the 60's MZT wasn't a coherent tendency but simply expressed a rejection of the Soviet Union and reformism in general. Later it became associated with the ultra-left praxis of 68 and the cultural revolution that establish MZT as a more coherent, ultra-leftist trend, to the point that there were Anarchist groups in France that took up the label of "Mao Zedong Thought" while neglecting Marxist Leninism as a "dogma". However in the modern context, when there is no more Soviet Union and Marxist-Leninist-Maoism has created a coherent ideology from the rejection of reformism and revisionism, Mao Zedong Thought is only claimed by groups who don't really have a coherent idea of rejecting revisionism (Because that is what MLM is for) or ultra-leftism (Because that is what MLM is for) so they simply think it means "Mao-Was-A-Cool-Guyism" and that since all the good stuff was taken by MLM, they don't have any actual coherent principles and just spend their time defending revisionist states on the internet, running for elections and playing good boy like every other shit sect, and in the case of FRSO, endorsing Barrack Obama. So we MLM's don't like the MZT folk very much.

Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-tung Thought Are Not The Same
by Ajith, CPI(ML)[Naxalbari]

Over the past decades, the Maoists have gained significant achievements through ideological struggle and revolutionary practice in establishing Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (MLM) as the commander and guide of world proletarian revolution. This is seen in two inter-related aspects. More than ever before, waging People's War or actively preparing to launch it is now recognized as the central task of a Maoist party. In turn with this, the polarization within the broad Marxist-Leninist movement that emerged in the 1960s, between genuine communists and various trends of right opportunism, has also sharpened. Right opportunism, centrism and dogmato-revisionism are increasingly forced to reveal their counter-revolutionary essence. The space for concealing this under the flag of Mao Tse-tung Thought is being steadily cut down. Earlier, right opportunist trends had tried to block the adoption of MLM by raising the bogey of Lin Piaoism and creating confusion over the era question.1 That has failed. Those who tried this have now been forced to show their true colors by deviating from MLM and the revolutionary road even more explicitly.2 Yet right opportunists have not given up. Some have now turned to accepting Maoism without making any decisive break from their past. For such people, MLM is nothing more than a convenient sail to pick up, now that their own ones are in tatters.

It is a law of revolution that revisionism and other alien trends will adopt new forms with each advance of class struggle. Therefore, such an opportunist adoption of MLM is not surprising. But Maoists certainly have the responsibility of countering such opportunist tactics. Unfortunately, a wrong understanding persisting within the Maoist ranks is becoming a hurdle in this struggle. It is also giving some room for such right opportunist tactics. What is this erroneous understanding? It is the thinking that MLM and Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-tung Thought are one and the same. The change in terminology from Mao Tse-tung Thought to MLM is certainly a more precise and scientific explanation of Mao's contributions. It is also necessary in order to draw a sharper line of demarcation from modern revisionism. But, if we fail to make it clear that MLM and Mao Tse-tung Thought are not the same, adopting MLM becomes merely a matter of change in terminology. Room is left for the new trend of right opportunism mentioned above.

What is the source of this erroneous thinking? It emerges from a formalist view of the whole issue. As explained in an earlier article, "It is true that a formal checklist comparing Mao Tse-tung Thought and Maoism will not reveal anything new. But that is hardly the point and we must be alert to avoid this trap of formalism held out by the opponents of Maoism. Mao Tse-tung Thought and Maoism are not the same. There is something new here. Something new of great ideological importance is achieved by adopting Maoism. Andthis newness is not so much in the word as such. It resides in the rupture from an incomplete or fractured understanding of the universality of Mao's contributions taken as a whole and in the leap to a qualitatively higher, better, deeper grasp of our ideology. Evidently, any reasoning, which harps on emphasizing that nothing new is added, will fail to mobilize the whole Party and lead it in carrying out this rupture. The task of actualizing this grand potential for a vigorous ideological rectification, for achieving a better grasp of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, will be done in a partial manner Even worse, it will be left to spontaneity."3

The founder leaders of the new Marxist-Leninist parties founded in the 1960's had made the adoption of Mao Tsetung Thought as the new, third and higher stage of Marxism-Leninism the cornerstone of the rupture from revisionism. They had applied this ideology to build revolutionary line and guide practice. All the Maoist parties existing today derive their origins from such leaps. But from there to the present adoption of MLM was not a straight line. We need not get into a detailed account of this whole process. But it is quite clear that this advance was achieved by struggling against tendencies, which worked against a firm grasp of the universality of Mao Tsetung's contributions. It is a struggle that remains to be completed.

Let us examine a specific issue, the theory of People's War. Even while Mao Tsetung Thought was upheld, for a long period, the dominant trend was to see this as something specific, relevant and applicable solely to the semi-feudal, semi-colonial countries. Shades of this continue to exist among Maoist parties, even today. Yet, the founder leaders of the new Marxist-Leninist parties in the 1960's were quite clear about the universality of People's War. The writings of Comrade Charu Mazumdar are an example. So how can we explain the emergence of the mistaken view that restricts People's War to oppressed nations? This was a deviation. It was not challenged till the forceful presentation of Maoism as the new stage of Marxism-Leninism and the universality of People's War by the PCP.

The Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (RIM) and its participant parties accept that "Mao Tsetung comprehensively developed the military science of the proletariat through his theory and practice of People's War." and that this is "... universally applicable in all countries, although this must be applied to the concrete conditions in each country..."4. Evidently, this is one of the issues where "a still incomplete understanding" of the new stage attained through Mao's contributions was rectified through the adoption of Maoism. But was this merely restating what was said in the 1960s? No, it reflected a deeper, fuller grasp. And it was based, at that time, on the lessons of the advanced experience gained through the People's War in Peru, which in turn were guided by an advanced grasp of Mao's contributions, and more specifically, the theory of People's War. This grasp has been further enriched through the People's War in Nepal, particularly in its integration of armed insurrection tactics, such as political intervention at the central level, with the protracted People's War. Today, to speak of accepting the universality of People's War while refusing to recognize and take lessons from this advanced grasp is meaningless. To adopt Maoism and deny the contributions in understanding made by these People's Wars would be an incomplete understanding of the universality of Maoism.

Why does this happen? In the '60s, Comrade Charu Mazumdar wrote, "... today, when we have got the brilliant Thought of Chairman Mao Tsetung, the highest stage of the development of Marxism-Leninism, to guide us, it is imperative for us to judge everything anew in the light of Mao Tsetung Thought and build a completely new road along which to press ahead."5 The adoption of Maoism calls exactly for this sort of 'judging and building anew'. It demands a fresh look at the whole question of ideology and its development in general and of Mao Tsetung's contributions in particular. To do this in a meaningful and comprehensive manner it must be linked to a thorough evaluation of the party's line and practice. And it must learn from the fresh, advanced, experiences of the international proletariat. For some parties it will be a matter of carrying out a decisive break from basic deviations and regaining the revolutionary road. For others, already in revolutionary practice, it will be a matter of rectifying specific issues. What is common is the task of ideological-political rectification. This is the essential point in 'judging and building anew'. It is missed when Maoism and Mao Tse-tung Thought are declared the same and the issue is reduced to one of adopting a better expression.

The adoption of Mao Tse-tung Thought in the 60's was a matter of rupturing from revisionism and building a new party on fresh foundations. When that has already been done, when the rupture from revisionism was further consolidated and sharpened through decades of revolutionary armed struggle, does the adoption of Maoism again call for ideological-political rectification? The experiences of the international communist movement and in India give a clear reply to this. Persistence on the path of People's War certainly provides a powerful basis for identifying and rectifying mistakes. But whether this rectification is done at the very roots in a comprehensive manner or whether it is limited to correcting certain positions, is not something guaranteed by revolutionary armed struggle alone. It cannot be verified by immediate practice also because the outcome of this difference in approach will be revealed only in the long run. This is principally a matter of being firm and persistent in ideological struggle. It is a matter of fully applying 'line is principal'. It is a matter of steeling the party and the masses in the decisiveness of this Maoist teaching for now and for the protracted revolution all the way up till communism.

Moreover, even if the adoption of Maoism is only seen as a better expression sharpening the demarcation with revisionism, doesn't this also call for ideological-political rectification? "Fight self, repudiate revisionism" was an important call of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. Modern revisionism within the broad Marxist-Leninist movement tries to spread its poison by presenting a distorted or fractured vision of the teachings of Mao Tsetung. To repudiate and destroy this, Maoists must sharpen their own ideological grasp, particularly their grasp of the universality of Maoism. Both these tasks are inseparably linked. If our own ideological sharpening, rectification, is kept aside under the plea that we have been Maoists all along, then the fight against modern revisionism will be weakened. To quote from a PCP document, "...it is vital and urgent to analyze Maoism again, aiming to define more and better its content and meaning, guided by the judgment that to hoist, defend and apply Maoism is the essence of the struggle between Marxism and revisionism in the present."6

Earlier we mentioned that taking a fresh look at our ideology also involves learning from the fresh, advanced, experiences of the international proletariat. How do we judge whether it is advanced or not? Verification in practice is no doubt the criterion. But how this is understood has become an important issue in the struggle over whether or not the experiences of the People's Wars in Nepal and Peru represent an advanced grasp. Judging this mainly in terms of immediate advance or setback or of the level of armed struggle and repression would be a wrong application of the practice criterion. Similarly, to minimize these lessons as those of small countries with weak states and so on is also wrong. In both these views, ideology is glaringly missing. Without it, the criterion of practice gets reduced to empiricism. The dialectic of universality and particularity is broken. One important lesson of the struggle to establish MLM was a deeper grasp of Mao's observation that, in the development of proletarian ideology, "The basis is social science, class struggle".7 Backed by rich experiences of revolutionary class struggle, ideology can develop. New, deeper, advanced grasp of existing theories can emerge. New concepts can be developed. Whether this is so, must be judged principally on the basis of MLM. No doubt, the lessons of a particular revolution cannot be mechanically applied elsewhere. But that is true of MLM itself. If the lessons of a particular revolution stand the test of MLM, if they show a new way of knowing and doing, then those lessons must necessarily be upheld and applied. And that too is a test of a party's adoption of MLM.

What is lost by turning away from a conscious grappling with this advanced grasp? To give a specific example, a couple of years back, the undivided CC of the CPI (ML) Janasakthi had come out with a review document. This document identified the reason for the setbacks they faced as the failure to take up tactical counteroffensives. What is instructive for us is the fact that this 'rectification' could be put forward without any rapture whatsoever from the 'phase theory'8 of CP Reddy line (a variation of the Nagi Reddy line). In fact, the whole document itself was an eclectic effort to combine two into one?the right opportunism of CP Reddy with Charu Mazumdar. But why is it instructive? The prominent trend within the Maoist critique of the 'phase theory' has always targeted the failure of the Janasakthi to take up armed struggle against the state. This was also projected as the crux of 'phase theory'. It was contrasted to the growth of the revolutionary movement led by Maoists who persisted in armed struggle and raised it to the level of a Peoples' War against the state. This comparison made in the context of the experiences in India is certainly useful in exposing this anti-Maoist theory. But this singular emphasis on one form of manifestation of the 'phase theory' was also a distraction from probing further and pin-pointing its negation of the dynamism of war, which is the real essence. It weakened the criticism against 'phase theory'. It allowed room for such manoeuvres like the one made by the Janasakthi leadership to pass off as rectification. One reason for this was the failure to examine the whole issue from the vantage point of insights from new, advanced grasp and experiences of People's War, instead of being limited to the experience in India. In the particular instance of the Janasakthi, a group of comrades who seriously tried to review their past from precisely this vantage point succeeded in achieving rapture, unlike other sections that still flounder at various depths of the Nagi Reddy morass. This led these comrades to arrive at the firm position that correct grasp of Maoism, more than just adopting it, is the key question in the unification of the Maoists in India into a single party, into a party based on MLM and united with the RIM. Today, when right opportunism pays lip service to MLM in order to hitch on to the ongoing unification process of genuine Maoists, this development is of great significance. It once again stresses the vital importance of deepening our grasp of MLM, particularly Maoism, and struggling against views that blur the distinct leap achieved through adopting Marxism-Leninism-Maoism in the place of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-tung Thought.

MP5

30th March 2013, 18:38

When you are branded terrorists by the us federal government, you know that you are on the right track. :p

Anarchists are branded as terrorists by the US government? Wow i knew they hated Anarchists but i mean comon there aren't many really violent Anarchists in the US at all. When was the last time some Anarchist went and shot abunch of innocent people? Like never. Right wing reactionaries on the other hand cannot say the same.

The Douche

30th March 2013, 18:40

Yeah. It's a real kick in the seat for us ML's to see the rise of global anarchist powers that threaten the hegemony of the West.

Oh wait.

Typical of revleft, interpret a statement of historical fact to be a sectarian bait.

When "communists" sit in parliament and act as members of a bourgeois government what threat are they to "the hegemony of the west"?

Am I talking about Maoists engaged in PPW? Am I talking about ML students in Chile facing off with riot police? Or am I maybe talking about the PCF or the PCI?

ellipsis

30th March 2013, 18:50

No. You're on the right track when you're branded an "Evil Empire." ;)

I'm not sure if you are being serious.

One example; Orlando food not bombs was called food terrorists by the mayor, for giving people food.

Aurora

30th March 2013, 19:00

conmharÃ¡in

30th March 2013, 19:04

I'm not sure if you are being serious.

One example; Orlando food not bombs was called food terrorists by the mayor, for giving people food.

Quite serious. Imagine a country in which most people have a standard of living comparable to the median standard of living in the United States. Now imagine being told these same people are being oppressed and starved.

conmharÃ¡in

30th March 2013, 19:05

When "communists" sit in parliament and act as members of a bourgeois government what threat are they to "the hegemony of the west"?

I like how this was followed by a bunch of examples of Leninists doing the exact opposite of that.

MP5

30th March 2013, 19:18

Marxists do support building takeovers when workers do it themselves but mostly communists aren't strong enough in workplaces to be at the forefront of these types of struggle and it would be adventurist to try and create an occupation when there isn't the movement for it.

About community programs, the struggle for communism is primarily a political struggle any move by the party away from that has a danger of reformism or bureaucratism, this doesn't mean though that communists don't support these initiatives just that they don't fall under the party's raison d'etre.

If you're also alluding to other 'direct action' it's because a lot of this is either individualist, adventurist or substitutionalist. When communists were involved with this stuff it was a really low point characterised by communist professors and academics as leaders and student terrorists i.e communism was turned from the organisation to mass action of the proletariat into petite-bourgeois individualism.

See this is the exact type of shit i mean when i say that most Marxists are out of touch with the concerns of the working class and are too busy thinking of reasons not to act as opposed to getting out there and off your asses. If mass rallies that occasionally turn violent are petite bourgeois individualism then i would rather have this label slapped on me then someone who always comes up with a reason not to fight. We could get workers on our side easy enough by actually helping them attain simple goals such as better working conditions, not getting fucked around on pay by the company and getting better benefits. They would not become dedicated Communists over night but chances are if we had the same interests at heart they would atleast back us. The best propaganda is having the deeds to back up your claims.

So whether it is mass demonstrations, building take overs or just riots where the goal is simply to send as many cops home with as many lumps from sticks and as many burns from Molotov cocktails as possible i am all for it. Atleast it is some action anyway.

The Douche

30th March 2013, 19:51

I like how this was followed by a bunch of examples of Leninists doing the exact opposite of that.

Oh, did you notice that?

Maybe you should go back and read the posts again and see if you can understand this time. If not, thats ok, I'll break it down, crayola style for you:

See now, here is a particularly relevant portion of my first post:

In the US marxism usually expresses itself through Trotskyism or Marxism-Leninism, and as history has shown, there is room at the table of capital for Trotskyists and MLs if they are willing to moderate themselves to some extent.

I even made the most important part bold for you.

And still more from that same post:

its not strange to see some people take the path of least resistance to accomplish their goals.

Boldened again for you.

From my second post, in direct response to your suggestion that my comments are somehow sectarian in nature:

Am I talking about Maoists engaged in PPW? Am I talking about ML students in Chile facing off with riot police? Or am I maybe talking about the PCF or the PCI?

Again I have made bold, the important part of my comment, so that nothing is lost on you.

So are we done here with your boring ass attempt to make everything about a tendency war, or do you need me to hold your hand a little bit longer?

conmharÃ¡in

30th March 2013, 20:17

You seem upset with me, The Douche.

Let's Get Free

30th March 2013, 20:22

conmharÃ¡in

30th March 2013, 20:23

The way I see it, the more militant and direct an action is, the less people are willing to engage in it. The more soft and tame an action is, such as writing letters and signing petitions, the greater the number of people are willing to participate in it.

Why is that, though? How have people become so complacent if the stakes are as high as we see them?

The Douche

30th March 2013, 20:25

You seem upset with me, The Douche.

You seem purposefully thick, troll.

A Revolutionary Tool

30th March 2013, 20:25

I would love to take over a building or something. The most radical people even near me are Modesto Anarcho and I was the most radical out of all the political I've met including anarchists. Anyways there really aren't buildings to occupy where I live and the homeless population gets a filling at churches already which I've volunteered at. There's not much activity where I live sadly. What anarchists are taking over buildings though in the U.S.? Haven't really heard of any.

conmharÃ¡in

30th March 2013, 20:31

You seem purposefully thick, troll.

Well, The Douche, I can clearly see you're upset. And I understand that you feel I had some responsibility in your feeling that way. But I don't think you're handling it as best you can. If you'd like, we can take this to PM and talk it out or we could just drop it altogether and talk about radical direct action as utilized by Marxists. Whatever works for you, but let's not derail the thread any more, huh?

Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist

30th March 2013, 20:32

Well, The Douche, I can clearly see you're upset. And I understand that you feel I had some responsibility in your feeling that way. But I don't think you're handling it as best you can. If you'd like, we can take this to PM and talk it out or we could just drop it altogether and talk about radical direct action as utilized by Marxists. Whatever works for you, but let's not derail the thread any more, huh?

1. You started it so don't pretend to take the high road.
2. Yea, let's get back to the topic at hand.

RaÃºl Duke

30th March 2013, 20:33

The way I see it, the more militant and direct an action is, the less people are willing to engage in it. The more soft and tame an action is, such as writing letters and signing petitions, the greater the number of people who are willing to participate in it.

Because legal ramifications.

Every political organization that want to be mass organization should have a legal defense fund and/or be connected with a legal organization willing to provide attorneys pro-bono.

Sure, having a legal fund may not exactly spring your activists out of jail in it of itself, but it does give the impression that when someone is apprehended you still got their back.

This was one of the main problems I noticed with my local Occupy. Once the police began fining and arresting people, the people left because they couldn't afford such fines or legal fees involved with arrests/being charged.

The Douche

30th March 2013, 20:35

Well, The Douche, I can clearly see you're upset. And I understand that you feel I had some responsibility in your feeling that way. But I don't think you're handling it as best you can. If you'd like, we can take this to PM and talk it out or we could just drop it altogether and talk about radical direct action as utilized by Marxists. Whatever works for you, but let's not derail the thread any more, huh?

http://andstillipersist.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/yawn-1.jpg

Yeah, I'm raging behind my screen right now.

conmharÃ¡in

30th March 2013, 20:36

1. You started it so don't pretend to take the high road.
2. Yea, let's get back to the topic at hand.

I don't agree.
I agree.

In any case, someone made a point earlier about people having become complacent, particularly in the United States. I was wondering what people's thoughts were as to how, if the stakes are so high to find an alternative to capitalism, we have allowed ourselves to become so passive.

Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist

30th March 2013, 20:36

Because legal ramifications.

Every political organization that want to be mass organization should have a legal defense fund and/or be connected with a legal organization willing to provide attorneys pro-bono.

Sure, having a legal fund may not exactly spring your activists out of jail in it of itself, but it does give the impression that when someone is apprehended you still got their back.

This was one of the main problems I noticed with my local Occupy. Once the police began fining and arresting people, the people left because they couldn't afford such fines or legal fees involved with arrests/being charged.

This is actually a good point. I know my Canadian comrades are trying to make an international "Red Aid" similar to the anarchist red cross, but I can see them getting demoralized if the police keep at it. Actually, since alot of representatives from various organizations hang around r/communism, including one for the student branch of the RCP Canada, I'll pass on the idea. Thanks, I'll credit you.

conmharÃ¡in

30th March 2013, 20:38

http://andstillipersist.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/yawn-1.jpg

Yeah, I'm raging behind my screen right now.

Well, The Douche, I can see by the photograph you took of your face right before you posted that you're being sarcastic; rather, you're just tired. I can appreciate that, but let's move this discussion elsewhere that we won't derail this discussion any further.

The Douche

30th March 2013, 20:45

This is actually a good point. I know my Canadian comrades are trying to make an international "Red Aid" similar to the anarchist red cross, but I can see them getting demoralized if the police keep at it. Actually, since alot of representatives from various organizations hang around r/communism, including one for the student branch of the RCP Canada, I'll pass on the idea. Thanks, I'll credit you.

ABC (its actually called Anarchist Black Cross) doesn't really do much to help anybody. We're all poor, there is nothing we can really do but hope to get away with our crimes, cause once we get pinched we're pretty well fucked.

We need zones of opacity (as the readers of Tiqqun would call it) or red zones, as the maoists might call it. What we need is space where we can be in and become invisible to the forces of the state.

Like, in Greece, right, you can flee onto a university campus, and the police can't follow you, or you can make it into a neighborhood like Exarchia, where there is such a collection of radicals grouped up together that you can find space to blend in and lay low and you know nobody is gonna help the police find you.

We're never going to have enough money in the legal fund, we need to accept that and figure out how to work around it.

conmharÃ¡in

30th March 2013, 20:51

We need zones of opacity (as the readers of Tiqqun would call it) or red zones, as the maoists might call it. What we need is space where we can be in and become invisible to the forces of the state.

Like, in Greece, right, you can flee onto a university campus, and the police can't follow you, or you can make it into a neighborhood like Exarchia, where there is such a collection of radicals grouped up together that you can find space to blend in and lay low and you know nobody is gonna help the police find you.

Would a strategy like red zones be feasible in the US? The state has permeated a lot of the country. I daresay the only potentially safe areas would be out in the undeveloped countryside.

RaÃºl Duke

30th March 2013, 20:51

This is actually a good point. I know my Canadian comrades are trying to make an international "Red Aid" similar to the anarchist red cross, but I can see them getting demoralized if the police keep at it. Actually, since alot of representatives from various organizations hang around r/communism, including one for the student branch of the RCP Canada, I'll pass on the idea. Thanks, I'll credit you.

Thanks

It's especially important for what I call "broad 'mass' campaigns," those 'campaigns' (they're kinda like semi-independent ad-hoc organizations), which are open to the general affected public, around an issue like say housing/homelessness that are set-up by left parties (I think they do this, maybe my memory is making it up). Particularly if the campaign focuses on direct action (one such organization/campaign I've heard of is one where they place people into foreclosed, unoccupied/abandoned houses; here I suggest that legal assistance is quite important).

Ele'ill

30th March 2013, 20:52

I was going to ban myself but it looks like this thread is 'okay' now.

The Douche

30th March 2013, 20:58

Would a strategy like red zones be feasible in the US? The state has permeated a lot of the country. I daresay the only potentially safe areas would be out in the undeveloped countryside.

I think they are, but I don't know how realistic it is to expect to see them be constructed.

Within the cities there is definitely a degree of opacity that can be gained. If you know the right people, and you earn their trust you're never gonna get pinched by the cops, unless you start doing real big things (murder, bank robberies) or shit that is particularly reprehensible, even to criminals (rape, fuck with kids).

There are neighborhoods and housing projects where the police cannot effectively operate, nobody will talk to them, and they run the risk of being attacked if they try to enter in a forceful manner. But bourgie white leftists have no connection to these people, and we do sort of have the opportunities to make these connections sometimes (not often), but we normally blow it with dumbass leftist navel gazing.

That said, there is some degree of opacity in rural areas, and obviously rural areas are going to be necessary in building our opacity, because they can do things like grow food and sustain us, in addition to allowing us to lay low. The big problem with rural areas is that there is little transience, so new people coming and going can be quite suspicious.

MP5

30th March 2013, 21:15

The way I see it, the more militant and direct an action is, the less people are willing to engage in it. The more soft and tame an action is, such as writing letters and signing petitions, the greater the number of people who are willing to participate in it.

This is simply because the more direct the action is the higher the possibility of violence and legal ramifications resulting from it are. I see no reason why a organization can't have direct physical force action against the bourgeois and state lackeys like the pigs as well as non violent action. Not everyone is cut out to bash the heads of the police and scabs but their place in the revolution would be just as important none the less. Plus we have to have some people around without black eyes and blood on them after demonstrations to get up and speak without looking like abunch of skeets who had a hard night on the whiskey :grin:

There is a place for violent and non violent action. I don't much like the whole petitioning and holding signs in front of buildings during demonstrations because both can be ignored rather easily. Know one ever ignores a bomb going off however or gun shots ringing out. If we learned nothing from the Occupy movements it's that non violent demonstration only goes so far. What did most people do when the cops told them to leave? They fuckin got up and left right away! What's the fucking point of civil disobedience if we arent even going to be disobedient? A better thing would be to make them force you off the property as they would be itching to crack some heads by then. Let them get the first hit in and then hit back as hard as you can this way when they try to spin it in the press we can fall back on the fact that they hit first and that we where simply protecting ourselves and our right to protest. Granted the mainstream media are usually arselickers for the cops even more so in Canada then the US but abit of knowledge in the art of propaganda would not go astray on our part.

I also think that a legal defense fund to bet set up within a organization for bailing good comrades out of prison is a great idea. It really really does help morality when you know someone has your back instead of just being left in a cell with noone even thinking of you much less trying to get you out of there.

There are neighborhoods and housing projects where the police cannot effectively operate, nobody will talk to them, and they run the risk of being attacked if they try to enter in a forceful manner. But bourgie white leftists have no connection to these people, and we do sort of have the opportunities to make these connections sometimes (not often), but we normally blow it with dumbass leftist navel gazing.

That said, there is some degree of opacity in rural areas, and obviously rural areas are going to be necessary in building our opacity, because they can do things like grow food and sustain us, in addition to allowing us to lay low. The big problem with rural areas is that there is little transience, so new people coming and going can be quite suspicious.

I grew up in what has been described by a certain Globe and Mail (aka the Mop n Pail) columnist as the most scenic rural ghetto in the world. Shes a goddamn prejudiced idiot and the only thing she got right is that this place is alot easier on the eyes then Toronto that's for damn sure. But distrust of the police runs rather high and many people just will not talk to the police. This place has always been working class and people here do support Socialist ideas but lefties never seem to fail to blow it when it comes to talking to your average working class person from a rural or urban ghetto. Hell even my friend from the city who is a Stalinist pissed off a few friends of mine when he came down here to party and crash at my place. If i had not of been there to say nope he's alright he may have gotten a few smacks. He was your classic academic middle class type and that crowd just do not get along to well in the rough and tumble world of rural working class neighborhoods. They fair equally as well in urban working class neighborhoods.

ABC (its actually called Anarchist Black Cross) doesn't really do much to help anybody. We're all poor, there is nothing we can really do but hope to get away with our crimes, cause once we get pinched we're pretty well fucked.

We need zones of opacity (as the readers of Tiqqun would call it) or red zones, as the maoists might call it. What we need is space where we can be in and become invisible to the forces of the state.

Like, in Greece, right, you can flee onto a university campus, and the police can't follow you, or you can make it into a neighborhood like Exarchia, where there is such a collection of radicals grouped up together that you can find space to blend in and lay low and you know nobody is gonna help the police find you.

We're never going to have enough money in the legal fund, we need to accept that and figure out how to work around it.

This got me thinking abit actually. The place i live would be perfect for hiding out in plain sight because the police are always mainlanders who have no connection to the community who they impose on. Now one could pretty much live off the land here anyway as you can grow lot's of vegetables, people don't mind you using their land if they are not using it and there is alot of land with nobody doing anything with it, alot of really good stuff like apples and berries grow wild, if you had a gun there is lot's of moose around to hunt and 1 moose would feed a person for about a year and as a added bonus there are lot's of people more then willing to show you how to make untaxed and tasty liquor out of whatever is lying around. If your laying low you need to have some fun so you don't crack up. Between the fact that cops are virtually powerless in many respects here and the fact that you can pretty much sustain yourself through growing and hunting your own food and trading with people this place would make one hell of a revolutionary hide out :D . Hell with all the Forrest around this part of the island and the abundance of guns you could have a revolutionary hide out and revolutionary training camp.

kasama-rl

31st March 2013, 03:46

A maoist analysis:

Violence & Street Fighting: Who Says It Alienates the People? (http://kasamaproject.org/revolutionary-strategy/2404-36violence-street-fighting-who-says-it-alienates-the-people)

It starts like this:

An anarchist wrote in a neighboring thread:

"i find it a little odd the way Marxists in the US always associate militant action with anarchists almost exclusively."

That is a misunderstanding. I think you are talking to the wrong Marxists. The experience of the Maoist movement in the U.S. (to take just one example) is closely tied with many forms of militancy -- starting with the Black Panther policies of armed self defense, and then also with the militant combativity of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). And denoucing militancy is (in my view) associated with very particular currents within the Left -- whose strategic errors are closely tied up with those tactical views....

The Douche

31st March 2013, 03:51

ellipsis

31st March 2013, 05:51

Quite serious. Imagine a country in which most people have a standard of living comparable to the median standard of living in the United States. Now imagine being told these same people are being oppressed and starved.

Maybe I'm dense. In your first post you were agreeing with me?

I think the median standard of living in the us is oppressed and starved, not of food but of nutritious food. Also 1/2 of all Americans are food insecure.

So I'm still confused.

edit: lololol I was being dense, I went back and reread your post, now I understand your point, although dont agree.

I would love to take over a building or something. The most radical people even near me are Modesto Anarcho and I was the most radical out of all the political I've met including anarchists. Anyways there really aren't buildings to occupy where I live and the homeless population gets a filling at churches already which I've volunteered at. There's not much activity where I live sadly. What anarchists are taking over buildings though in the U.S.? Haven't really heard of any.

1) I guarantee I could find a building to occupy in your town. IIRC you live in a desert shit hole (jk, not really) and there is always stuff to be found in places like that.

2) you need to read Indy bay more often. Homes not jails has been doing building take overs for 20 years, the most recent iteration of it was almost exclusively anarchists. Also all of the building occupations associated with occupy San Francisco were planned by anarchists. Also the occupy wall st model is based on a lot of anarchist ideas/models.

The way I see it, the more militant and direct an action is, the less people are willing to engage in it. The more soft and tame an action is, such as writing letters and signing petitions, the greater the number of people who are willing to participate in it.

Ha! At least in the Bay Area, take overs of buildings would attract hundreds of people. Bay Area anarchist black cross letter writing events wouldn't attract 5.

Jimmie Higgins

31st March 2013, 12:03

Why is it that anarchists seem to be the only ones engaging in radical direct action? Why don't we see Marxist groups organizing building take overs? Or public food programs like food not bombs/bpp breakfast program?

I understand what mass line organizing is but still, take some action!

I think this is a false division because I think the divide isn't marxists vs. anarchists on this question, but class-organization focus vs. insurrectionary viewpoints. This would put some marxists and some anarchists (say, Trotskyists and Wobblies) in a similar vein of trying to promote class organization (though maybe different approaches) on the one hand, and on the other insurrection/black bloc anarchists and maoists (though anarchists would see their actions as inspiring others to follow their action, whereas the Maoists might see their actions as inspiring people to follow their group or general politics).

In addition due to the low level of class struggle, a lot of organizing sort of work doesn't produce instant or tangible short-term results compared to a more flashy action or building occupation, but I don't think "flashyness" is the best way to determine the usefulness. For example, I think the anti-forclosure work by Occupy was less flashy but was potentially a much more important thing then, say, a secrect attempt by activists to take a forclosed building. The slower work could help link communities to raidicals as well as teach communities how to collectivly push back against these sorts of things; a building takeover by activists, however only cultivates specialists in dealing with how to take buildings or deal with the authorities and so ultimately creates a sense among even regular supporters that "they" the anarchists or the BPP or whoever are the ones who do things.

I know lots of marxists and anarchists who are constantly doing things and many of the things they do are below the radar, slow, rather boring work in coalitions or whatnot. But for me, I think this is the important groundwork that helps create organic networks with connections to larger layers of people; it helps create organizers and this may help create a movement whereas some more direct methods create activists in certain tactics or whatnot. The BPP were organizing after a general radicalization had occoured and they grew larger than any contemporary radical group very rapidly. This created problems, but also possibilities for more organizing among people who were already politicized by years of the civil rights movements and then more immediately a string of large urban rebellions. So to a certain degree they could jump over some of the slower things we have to deal with today, but generally, strong and confident movements by larger numbrs of workers have some connection to a lot of slow networking and building up beforehand.

ellipsis

31st March 2013, 13:38

I think that's kind of a false division as well,, either flashy action or slow boring organization building. One hand washes the other.

Jimmie Higgins

31st March 2013, 15:12

I think that's kind of a false division as well,, either flashy action or slow boring organization building. One hand washes the other.Maybe it's a poor way to describe the difference, but I think it's just false to say that "anarchists" are doing something and "marxists" are not. I also wasn't trying to be dismissive or anything, I think direct action is a very important tactic. But Direct Action isn't a thing by itself, IMO, the direct action of the IWW, for example may help workers organize themselves whereas the direct action of a Maoist doing a symbolic stand regarding something doesn't help people organize themselves. Or sometimes a direct action can't accomplish much beyond the immediate participants because there is a disconnect between the willing few activists and a more general passivity or demoralization among people about the potential for accomplishing anything. A food program can help organize people in certain circumstances in one instance, but devoid of a movement, the BPP food program can just be charity used for the opposite political purpose.

IMO the main barrier to struggle right now, is not that people don't necissarily know how to do direct action or how to fight, but that they don't think it will get them anywhere. If someone does an action that's not rooted in helping people organize for themselves, then it can sometimes have the effect of being the activist as savior thing - this was a problem in the 1970s IMO.

Capitalism is a sponge and tactics alone are not really a challenge to capital in my view, they can be obsticals or temporary barriers, but the only real challenge to capital is an organized and militant working class. Direct Action is definately part of how workers will need to struggle, illegality, and many other tactics and strategies,

ellipsis

1st April 2013, 05:07

ellipsis

1st April 2013, 05:09

Maybe it's a poor way to describe the difference, but I think it's just false to say that "anarchists" are doing something and "marxists" are not. I also wasn't trying to be dismissive or anything, I think direct action is a very important tactic. But Direct Action isn't a thing by itself, IMO, the direct action of the IWW, for example may help workers organize themselves whereas the direct action of a Maoist doing a symbolic stand regarding something doesn't help people organize themselves. Or sometimes a direct action can't accomplish much beyond the immediate participants because there is a disconnect between the willing few activists and a more general passivity or demoralization among people about the potential for accomplishing anything. A food program can help organize people in certain circumstances in one instance, but devoid of a movement, the BPP food program can just be charity used for the opposite political purpose.

IMO the main barrier to struggle right now, is not that people don't necissarily know how to do direct action or how to fight, but that they don't think it will get them anywhere. If someone does an action that's not rooted in helping people organize for themselves, then it can sometimes have the effect of being the activist as savior thing - this was a problem in the 1970s IMO.

Capitalism is a sponge and tactics alone are not really a challenge to capital in my view, they can be obsticals or temporary barriers, but the only real challenge to capital is an organized and militant working class. Direct Action is definately part of how workers will need to struggle, illegality, and many other tactics and strategies,

Maybe it's a poor way to describe the difference, but I think it's just false to say that "anarchists" are doing something and "marxists" are not. I also wasn't trying to be dismissive or anything, I think direct action is a very important tactic. But Direct Action isn't a thing by itself, IMO, the direct action of the IWW, for example may help workers organize themselves whereas the direct action of a Maoist doing a symbolic stand regarding something doesn't help people organize themselves. Or sometimes a direct action can't accomplish much beyond the immediate participants because there is a disconnect between the willing few activists and a more general passivity or demoralization among people about the potential for accomplishing anything. A food program can help organize people in certain circumstances in one instance, but devoid of a movement, the BPP food program can just be charity used for the opposite political purpose.

IMO the main barrier to struggle right now, is not that people don't necissarily know how to do direct action or how to fight, but that they don't think it will get them anywhere. If someone does an action that's not rooted in helping people organize for themselves, then it can sometimes have the effect of being the activist as savior thing - this was a problem in the 1970s IMO.

Capitalism is a sponge and tactics alone are not really a challenge to capital in my view, they can be obsticals or temporary barriers, but the only real challenge to capital is an organized and militant working class. Direct Action is definately part of how workers will need to struggle, illegality, and many other tactics and strategies,

I don't mean to say that marxists aren't doing anything, or not doing anything worthwhile/productive. I am wondering why they don't complement their existing work with more radical tactics. ISO can keep having its "socialism 20xx" conferences, PSL can keep doing standard formula marches, and I might even show up as the "token anarchist" but that doesn't preclude them from starting a breakfast program in Oakland or starting a community food growth oasis or being more confrontational with the police or anything else for that matter.

What I see the problem is, at least with PSL, (as I have told you and the board in the past I have little experience with the ISO) is that no matter how radical the rank and file of the bay area chapter is, or even how radical gloria la riva and dick becker are, they are subservient to national leadership.

Also I got the feeling that PSL was way more willing to stand in solidarity with a building occupation such as the 4/1/2012 SF Commune AFTER its been evicted, than show up and support it with their sizable and capable membership while its happening. My conversations with individuals in two separate northern California PSL/ANSWER chapters leaves me with the impression that the rank and file is definately down, support such tactics and maybe even show up as individuals, but the PSL signs are always printed up later. It almost as if they want credit ("Party for Socialism and Liberation" is on the signs) AFTER its proven to be successful and a politically safe action to support in rhetoric.

Jimmie Higgins

1st April 2013, 09:07

I don't mean to say that marxists aren't doing anything, or not doing anything worthwhile/productive. I am wondering why they don't complement their existing work with more radical tactics. ISO can keep having its "socialism 20xx" conferences, PSL can keep doing standard formula marches, and I might even show up as the "token anarchist" but that doesn't preclude them from starting a breakfast program in Oakland or starting a community food growth oasis or being more confrontational with the police or anything else for that matter.Well I think this represents a misunderstanding in an apple and oranges sort of way because a "Socialism confernce" is not the "activism" we do. Publicity and outreach can't be compared to action, it's a different thing. What the ISO does in each branch is probably participate in several coalitions or unions. This would not be considered "direct action" but could develop and lead to things using direct action or other tactics.

But also, in general, outside of a movement I think at this point a group of socialists confronting the police or organizing a breakfast program would be a kind of substitutionism. I don't mean that people would have bad intentions or whatever, I think these examples would both be good developments generally, but I also don't think there's much of an organic basis for them right now. Again, the BPP breakfast program came at the height of black consiousness and at a time when people were also hitting the limits of liberalism and begining to question capitalism generally. Now, if the same thing was attempted, more than likely, it would be a big effort that resulted in an NGO type operation that maybe could expose some more people to some propaganda, but wouldn't help people organize their workplaces or communities themselves. Confronting the police, again, that burnt out Occupy and it's hard to keep a Copwatch operation going without a larger organized opposition to the cops because you have little time to do much else. There's nothing wrong with either of these approaches and I'd like to see both develop, but unless it's an organic development then I think there's a danger that a tactic can just become an end to itself rather than part of building up a more general class resistance.

So in the bay area currently, we have people doing anti-police coalition work, walmart worker coalition work, there's an anti-forclosure group, and so on. In my small branch we have three coalitions where we put a collective effort into in addition to smaller long-term work that some members do on their own (either because the work is slow-going so it doesn't make sense to have a group effort or they just happen to be in a position to work on something other's can't - such as being the only ISO member in their union local or something). So none of this is "flashy" none of this has a big sign on it saying "ISO" but it's a lot of the slow networking and helping to build up organic coalitions of more than just the convinced left.

We don't want to create an ISO police brutality front group or whatnot, instead, we'd love to see and help create organic grassroots groups that do those sorts of things in a way that creates new organic leadership and organizers. That way the next time the cops kills someone, it will be less likely to be swept under the rug by the police and media while the community is still trying to get something organized; people who have daily harassment issues or grivineces have a place to turn that's community-based and grassroots, not some municiple complaints board or whatnot. One of the great things about Occupy Oakland is that it created that organizing space and while we had the camp, when community issues came up, there was a place for people to go and seek allies and try and build some kind of responce. Without that, I think it's coalitions and so on that can play that role.

So I think it's really a question on the orientation and aims of the activism involved IMO. Some on the left, see confronting capital right now as the main means, wheras we see the immediate task for current revolutionaries in helping people generally fight along their class interests and helping to build organic movements which will allow large numbers of people to confront their bosses and problems in their communities themselves.

ellipsis

1st April 2013, 09:23

I know you guys do more than conferences, i didn't mean to imply otherwise, just being a smart ass. Like I said, i don't keep up on it, and I appreciate all the insight that you give me.

Rusty Shackleford

1st April 2013, 09:42

I personally have been asking this question.

One of my thoughts on it is that because communist orgs are allowed to freely operate (within the law of course) in the US today, it has generated a bit of complacency, or at least a loss of a sense of urgency. So with that, you have a bunch of marches and forums with some coalition work and other forms of assistance.

Another is that no doubt a communist/socialist/marxist organization would allow for an undocumented person to join their ranks, it creates a somewhat precarious position for both the organization and said person. The action of the individual under the name of the organization means all members are tied to it. It an organization makes a move that jeapordizes some of their members' residency then that organization will probably implode under guilt alone. So, that is an area which is honestly justifiable that creates a bit to want in the ways of action regarding these orgs.

like i said: one reflects on all and all reflect on one in a C/S/M organization unlike more loosely affiliated federations and collectives.

ellipsis

1st April 2013, 09:51

yah the fact that many people can't just go to jail for 24 hours or face bullshit charges or whatever, for many reason, immigration status is a big one obviously. Its easy for somebody with no/little employment, no kids, etc. like myself to take an arrest for the team, not everybody is so privileged.

black magick hustla

1st April 2013, 09:54

i dont think "anarchists" and "marxists" are that different in the us sociologically.. i mean, i personally get along more with anarchists than boring trotskyists/tankies/whatever. however, both millieus are extremely subcultural and usually exist to self-reproduce themselves and not really have any meaningful links with communities. whether some anarcho throws a rock at a window or some trotskyist sells a paper, its pretty much ritualistic. while the actions of anarchists are more "daring", they aren't really more "radical", they are just faster tickets to a jail cell imho.

its not really the fault of anyone. i'm just tired that anarchists posture themselves as the most "radical", while their substitutionist form of politics is really just a dumber way of doing reformism imho

Forward Union

1st April 2013, 16:40

The Douche

1st April 2013, 16:50

Whats radical about Anarchist direct action? Or "Stuntism" as it's properlty called, its not working at all. Not only is it not working, but anarchists have no coherant organisation or political platfrom around which to organsie, recruit, or argue for. Radical means, by the way, "of or going to the root or origin; fundamental: a radical difference." does a food not bombs stall or smashing a window get to the root of the problem of Captialism in a fundemental way? are the results of these actions fundementally changing the basis of capitalism?

How do the economistic deamnds and engagements of syndicalists get to the root of the problem of capitalism? How does settling a contract with the bosses constitute radical action?

Obviously breaking windows or giving people free hummus is not moving the communist project forward in a meaningful way, but neither is the unionism of anarcho-leftists or the movementism and populism of the marxists.

Forward Union

1st April 2013, 17:10

Obviously breaking windows or giving people free hummus is not moving the communist project forward in a meaningful way

So we agree. And you also ask an entirely valid question;

How do the economistic deamnds and engagements of syndicalists get to the root of the problem of capitalism?

Well in my view the reconstruction of the base of the labour movement is vital for all of us regardless of our stripes. Your party or federation is not tiny and powerless because it has the wrong position on Hoxa's foreign policy, but because the basic organs of class power on which it should be based are a shadow of what they once were. Modern syndicalism is commited (generally speaking) to building inclusive economic bodies of workers, fighting for radicalism and democracy within the Unions etc. I'd say that is the very definition of getting to the root of the problem. Hitting the boses at the point of production, where the two classes meet in actual not political conflict, where the power actually lies.

The Douche

1st April 2013, 20:22

Well in my view the reconstruction of the base of the labour movement is vital for all of us regardless of our stripes.

The labor movement is an integral part of empire, capital could not continue to function without the aid of the labor movement. The labor movement exists to organize and direct the class in production, or, to meet the goals of empire.

Your party or federation is not tiny and powerless because it has the wrong position on Hoxa's foreign policy, but because the basic organs of class power on which it should be based are a shadow of what they once were.

Which has everything to do with the way that capital is organized now, and nothing to do with the will of certain workers who see themselves as organizers or whatever. You cannot just want unions bad enough, and will them into existence, and no matter what your arguments are, you're never going to convince people who as precarious as we all are now, that unions are the modes of struggle to gain what they need. I'm talking practically here, not even touching on the real issue with unions, which is (as I mentioned above) their integral position at the table of state and capital.

Modern syndicalism is commited (generally speaking) to building inclusive economic bodies of workers, fighting for radicalism and democracy within the Unions etc.

Modern syndicalism is a historical society of people role-playing at 20th century revolution. And on the rare occasion that it is able to practically express itself on the ground and in the workplace, it means settling contracts and limiting the ways through which workers can autonomously express themselves.

I'd say that is the very definition of getting to the root of the problem. Hitting the boses at the point of production, where the two classes meet in actual not political conflict, where the power actually lies.

If the root of the problem is "how do we organize workers for the production of commodities" then yes, I think syndicalism is an excellent idea, and thats why I used to be interested in it. But thats not communism, bro.

DROSL

1st April 2013, 20:34

Unfortunately, western culture thinks marxists are the scum of the earth. So generation after generation people started to change and they left the left. lol. anyhow, now there's just few radicals and they are heavily repressed by police. Here in canada, montréal, we no longer have the right to protest. In fact we do but the police stops us right away, so much for democracy. I personally think democracy is rotten and corrupted. sadly I have more and more proof everyday.

MarxArchist

1st April 2013, 21:22

We've focused more on the state and reforms (not reformism -see bold further down the post). Many organizations still support strikes and do work within the community but broadly speaking a sort of new left atmosphere has somewhat damaged Marxism in America because many organizations, no matter what tendency, seem to focus on fractionalized struggle of various oppressed groups fighting for reform separate from a focused struggle for communism, things are getting better though. Marxists tend to focus more on organization with specific targets for action with broad support from workers or the community. Building broad support does indeed entail 'direct action' but not through means which could invalidate the political viability of the organization. Unorganized 'direct action', for instance- smashing a window, is seen as counterproductive and meaningless in the grand scheme of things. Building takeovers and such I'm sure Marxists take part in but not in the name of any organization.

Many Marxists in the USA want to infiltrate the state in order to seize state power whilst also using the state (reforms) to nurture class consciousness via struggle for better lives while building support for seizing state power. Power is the end goal. The power of controlling the state and anarchists have ZERO interest in that so they have different tactics. Political power in the name of building a socialist society doesn't really leave room for property destruction as it would invalidate the political legitimacy of the organization but Marxists do indeed take part in building bonds with the community. Community gardens, actions to support oppressed peoples, fighting racism etc. It's just not done in an every man/woman for themselves manner, like I said when action is taken usually it's done with the goal of building support for the seizure of state power which wouldn't necessarily be a peaceful process but in building a broad community base, currently, political legitimacy is important. As in, the broad acceptance of future Marxist control of the state. This is why Marxists don't take part in property destruction but Marxists do indeed work within the community.

Jimmie Higgins

2nd April 2013, 14:52

How do the economistic deamnds and engagements of syndicalists get to the root of the problem of capitalism? How does settling a contract with the bosses constitute radical action?Not as an end to itself, but workers organizing where they have power in relation to capitalism, the workplace, helps to potentially create the networks of radicalized workers who can gain and build ways to work together, gain an understanding of how the system actually operates first-hand, and generally build the confidence of people to fight back and demand more and more.

Obviously breaking windows or giving people free hummus is not moving the communist project forward in a meaningful way, but neither is the unionism of anarcho-leftists or the movementism and populism of the marxists.Food programs can also be a method for helping to organize a community, the main difference between organizing and broadening class solidarity and networks is that workers have no inherent power as just community members and so while you can shut down insdustries, cities, and even countries through organized work-stoppage, you can take over society through working class takeovers of production and distribution, you can't feed people enough that the system can't continue. But there is nothing inherently wrong with a radically-oriented food program -- though outside of bringing people together on the basis of solidarity, it tends to be more like outreach and propaganda opportunities IMO. But like I said it can bring people together and if you can sucessfully connect the charity-type work with more of an activist and organizing vision then it can also help people struggle on their own behalf.

Which has everything to do with the way that capital is organized now, and nothing to do with the will of certain workers who see themselves as organizers or whatever. You cannot just want unions bad enough, and will them into existence, and no matter what your arguments are, you're never going to convince people who as precarious as we all are now, that unions are the modes of struggle to gain what they need. I'm talking practically here, not even touching on the real issue with unions, which is (as I mentioned above) their integral position at the table of state and capital.Hmm, well but what conditions did the IWW or other early unions organize around? I'd say that migrant workers, immigrant mill workrs dockworkers (before unions), and loggers (who also tended to be migrants), were pretty precarious. If workers who are precarious did get organized, what do you think their demands might be in general? More control over working conditions, stable wages that they can actually live off, a contract so that if the boss tries to make them work overtime without notice they can say no?

In general I think you conflate union beurocracy with the rank and file what unions do in the big picture or potentially which is help workers to organize themselves, fight for their common intrests at the job-place, and fight for more power compared to the bosses. They are primarily a defensive structure in regards to class struggle and since those who aren't born with wealth can't afford not to work, outside of a revolution class stuggle is "within capitalism" no matter what the rehtoric. Because of this there is always a tendency towards accomodation in times of low working class struggle (i.e. without workers pushing or removing the beurocrats) and become reformist, but alternately strategies and things where workers can get together and struggle also have the potential to develop a revolutionary movement and confidence among people to fight back.

ellipsis

3rd April 2013, 13:47

Well just see who has the biggest actions this May Day.

kasama-rl

4th April 2013, 02:26

Generally I find ya'll a little uninteresting, but I did enjoy this article (for the most part), and generally enjoy hearing about your experiences from that period.

Did you check out the other example I raised (of Maoist combativity)?

http://kasamaproject.org/repression/2218-50kent-jackson-state-1970-a-firestorm-they-could-not-contain

Forward Union

4th April 2013, 17:11

The labor movement is an integral part of empire, capital could not continue to function without the aid of the labor movement. The labor movement exists to organize and direct the class in production, or, to meet the goals of empire.

I consider the Communist party, the Anarchist Federation, The Revolutionary Union and the yellow union or workers guild all to be parts of "The labour movement" I don't understand how it is an integral part of Empire. Bosses being pragmatic and negotiating with us when we have some level of power is just called real life.

You cannot just want unions bad enough, and will them into existence, and no matter what your arguments are, you're never going to convince people

That sounds like something you've tried to convince yourself of as a means of avoiding the responsibility of having to organise. Because in my political career I've managed to organise several hundreds of people into Community groups and Unions... and very few into exclusive political organisations. All I can say is that my entire life experience contradicts yours.

Modern syndicalism is a historical society of people role-playing at 20th century revolution.

Actually most Syndicalists I now don't know much about syndicalist history at all. Certainly not the massive community campaigns I've been involved in, or the attempts to build shop steward level democracy as a Syndicalist faction within the NSSN... Or the SAC, Swedens only independent Union, with around 8000 members... I'm just not sure where you're getting this from.

If the root of the problem is "how do we organize workers for the production of commodities" then yes, I think syndicalism is an excellent idea, and thats why I used to be interested in it. But thats not communism, bro.

I don't care.

ellipsis

5th April 2013, 01:53

Good thread, thanks for all of the discussion.

DROSL

9th May 2013, 02:30

Back in the 70s many radicals marxists existed (United Red Army, German Revolutionnary Cells and the Front Libération du Québec in north america) however due to the fall of the U.S.S.R. and capitalist propaganda we are no longer able to maintain a national network without the feds behind us.