redstar2000
20th June 2004, 12:13
An odd but rather interesting item I came across on another board...
Excerpts from: "Letter to Comrade Lobov"
Grigory Isayev (Samara, Russia) -- April 1, 1999
Let me say a few words in defense of my position by referring to history. We find in it one analogy with what is happening to our communist movement. I have in mind the appalling opportunism of the Second International at the time of World War I. You know this history. Answer this question: Why did Lenin not even try to talk sense into the heads of the "lost ones" and to return them to Marxism? On the contrary, from the very beginning he waged a merciless struggle against them. Why? Wasn't it because the anti-Marxist mutation of those social-democratic leaders was irreversible? They all had to be thrown into the smelting pot! Moreover, Lenin even rejected the formerly glorious name of "Social-Democracy" in order to separate it from the social-traitors. Otherwise, the Communist International would not have been born . . .
Today we have communist-traitors. History did not know a more horrendous degeneration of the communist movement. It's terrifying! . . . if one does not understand the nature of what is happening. [...]
The traitors still hide under red flags. And on these flags there are the same dear words, ideas, portraits. How to oppose this? Without hesitation, we resolutely rejected the words "socialism," "Bolshevism," "communism" because these words which in the past were sacred to every worker have been now distorted, slandered, defiled. This is a fact, one cannot escape it.
So today we say not "socialism" but "proletarism," not "communists" but
"proletarists." Let it sound unusual, even odd but then we stand out clearly and do not get confused with the rest of the crowd. And second, these words in no way contradict classical Marxism. Indeed, if we closely reread Marx, Engels and Lenin it becomes clear that for them socialism in the political sense meant first of all the strong power of the working class. Everything else is secondary. Which is to say that the road to communism leads only through a revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.
In connection with this, more should be said about the term "proletarism."
Proletarism designates what Marx and all his loyal followers meant by the "lower phase of communism" or "socialism," i.e., the period of transition from capitalism to communism, from class to a classless society. Everything seems clear.
But the traditional term "socialism" in no way reflects the class essence of this transition from one form of society to another. Rather it obfuscates, clouds this essence. Not by accident most reactionary regimes, but not the power of the
proletariat, exist under the the name of socialism.
In contrast, the term "proletarism" clearly designates not the power of the party, let it be even trice proletarian, not the power of the leaders, even if they are absolutely devoted to the proletariat, not the power of the state, even if controlled by the organized proletariat--but the power of the class itself. The power which is political and economical, the power at the center and locally, the power which is absolute and shared with no one.
The term "proletarism" follows the logic of history. When slaveholders were the masters of society it was a slaveholding society, when feudals--feudalism, when
capitalists--capitalism. That is every society was defined by the name of its ruling class. Why then right after the revolution, after the proletariat has taken power not call this social order proletarian? And proletarian it is! To sum it up, communism is the goal, proletarism is the road to it.
But even a great goal is not worth much without the knowledge of how to reach it. Someone has said: "Cry sugar, sugar as you wish, it won't become sweet in your mouth." This could be said about those who today cry "communism, communism, communism," even if they cry sincerely, bleeding in their souls. In other words, if communism is not an empty sound for us but a really great goal then we have to direct all our efforts at showing workers the right road to communism. If we get on this road we will achieve the goal.
It also means that we have to resolutely introduce the term "proletarism" in our everyday work. We should not be afraid that the new term will lead to a conceptual confusion or disorient the "dark" masses. As our experience shows, workers accept this new term as their own after a minimal explanation. Apparently, it is because the term is simple, understandable and precise. Besides, the phonetics of this word, the way it sounds won't let any one to forget whose power it is, what kind of society we live in and, above all, who is its Master!
There is no analogy in the past with the tragedy of our proletariat. There were hard, and even terrible times but there was always some light in the end of the tunnel. The
thought that sooner or later but "we will build our new world" never died in the consciousness of our working class.
But not now, today.
Never before the proletariat was so betrayed by all. It seems as if history itself has betrayed us.
The ideas, the goals, the meaning of the struggle have been lost. The very faith in the possibility of changing the world has been killed. The great majority of our workers are completely demoralized.
What is to be done in such a situation, if one remains a Marxist? [...]
Would you like to know the reason for the universal crisis of labor movement? It is the profound crisis of Marxism, the theoretical base of the labor (communist) movement. There is simply no and cannot be any other reason. [...]
We, who have taken upon ourselves the organization of labor movement, need to shake off the stupor and acquire the boldness of a special kind. I mean not personal courage but the boldness of thought. We need to stop at last wallowing in the past and the present. We need to free ourselves from the entanglements of old ideas. One cannot go forward with one's head turned back. We need ideas so new and astonishing that one cannot immediately believe in them, yet so true that it is impossible not to believe in them after all.
We have to immediately and resolutely acknowledge that the leaders of the communist movement have betrayed the interests of the working class. We have to acknowledge this and to proceed from there. What it means is that the work has to begin anew, from the very bottom, however hard it would be. Lenin was not afraid of this. He was always ready to address the masses directly...
----------------------------------
In English-speaking countries, the words would presumably be workerism and workerist.
Setting aside some of the Leninist confusion in this document, how would you feel about calling yourself a workerist and calling our goal workerism?
:redstar2000:
The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas
Excerpts from: "Letter to Comrade Lobov"
Grigory Isayev (Samara, Russia) -- April 1, 1999
Let me say a few words in defense of my position by referring to history. We find in it one analogy with what is happening to our communist movement. I have in mind the appalling opportunism of the Second International at the time of World War I. You know this history. Answer this question: Why did Lenin not even try to talk sense into the heads of the "lost ones" and to return them to Marxism? On the contrary, from the very beginning he waged a merciless struggle against them. Why? Wasn't it because the anti-Marxist mutation of those social-democratic leaders was irreversible? They all had to be thrown into the smelting pot! Moreover, Lenin even rejected the formerly glorious name of "Social-Democracy" in order to separate it from the social-traitors. Otherwise, the Communist International would not have been born . . .
Today we have communist-traitors. History did not know a more horrendous degeneration of the communist movement. It's terrifying! . . . if one does not understand the nature of what is happening. [...]
The traitors still hide under red flags. And on these flags there are the same dear words, ideas, portraits. How to oppose this? Without hesitation, we resolutely rejected the words "socialism," "Bolshevism," "communism" because these words which in the past were sacred to every worker have been now distorted, slandered, defiled. This is a fact, one cannot escape it.
So today we say not "socialism" but "proletarism," not "communists" but
"proletarists." Let it sound unusual, even odd but then we stand out clearly and do not get confused with the rest of the crowd. And second, these words in no way contradict classical Marxism. Indeed, if we closely reread Marx, Engels and Lenin it becomes clear that for them socialism in the political sense meant first of all the strong power of the working class. Everything else is secondary. Which is to say that the road to communism leads only through a revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.
In connection with this, more should be said about the term "proletarism."
Proletarism designates what Marx and all his loyal followers meant by the "lower phase of communism" or "socialism," i.e., the period of transition from capitalism to communism, from class to a classless society. Everything seems clear.
But the traditional term "socialism" in no way reflects the class essence of this transition from one form of society to another. Rather it obfuscates, clouds this essence. Not by accident most reactionary regimes, but not the power of the
proletariat, exist under the the name of socialism.
In contrast, the term "proletarism" clearly designates not the power of the party, let it be even trice proletarian, not the power of the leaders, even if they are absolutely devoted to the proletariat, not the power of the state, even if controlled by the organized proletariat--but the power of the class itself. The power which is political and economical, the power at the center and locally, the power which is absolute and shared with no one.
The term "proletarism" follows the logic of history. When slaveholders were the masters of society it was a slaveholding society, when feudals--feudalism, when
capitalists--capitalism. That is every society was defined by the name of its ruling class. Why then right after the revolution, after the proletariat has taken power not call this social order proletarian? And proletarian it is! To sum it up, communism is the goal, proletarism is the road to it.
But even a great goal is not worth much without the knowledge of how to reach it. Someone has said: "Cry sugar, sugar as you wish, it won't become sweet in your mouth." This could be said about those who today cry "communism, communism, communism," even if they cry sincerely, bleeding in their souls. In other words, if communism is not an empty sound for us but a really great goal then we have to direct all our efforts at showing workers the right road to communism. If we get on this road we will achieve the goal.
It also means that we have to resolutely introduce the term "proletarism" in our everyday work. We should not be afraid that the new term will lead to a conceptual confusion or disorient the "dark" masses. As our experience shows, workers accept this new term as their own after a minimal explanation. Apparently, it is because the term is simple, understandable and precise. Besides, the phonetics of this word, the way it sounds won't let any one to forget whose power it is, what kind of society we live in and, above all, who is its Master!
There is no analogy in the past with the tragedy of our proletariat. There were hard, and even terrible times but there was always some light in the end of the tunnel. The
thought that sooner or later but "we will build our new world" never died in the consciousness of our working class.
But not now, today.
Never before the proletariat was so betrayed by all. It seems as if history itself has betrayed us.
The ideas, the goals, the meaning of the struggle have been lost. The very faith in the possibility of changing the world has been killed. The great majority of our workers are completely demoralized.
What is to be done in such a situation, if one remains a Marxist? [...]
Would you like to know the reason for the universal crisis of labor movement? It is the profound crisis of Marxism, the theoretical base of the labor (communist) movement. There is simply no and cannot be any other reason. [...]
We, who have taken upon ourselves the organization of labor movement, need to shake off the stupor and acquire the boldness of a special kind. I mean not personal courage but the boldness of thought. We need to stop at last wallowing in the past and the present. We need to free ourselves from the entanglements of old ideas. One cannot go forward with one's head turned back. We need ideas so new and astonishing that one cannot immediately believe in them, yet so true that it is impossible not to believe in them after all.
We have to immediately and resolutely acknowledge that the leaders of the communist movement have betrayed the interests of the working class. We have to acknowledge this and to proceed from there. What it means is that the work has to begin anew, from the very bottom, however hard it would be. Lenin was not afraid of this. He was always ready to address the masses directly...
----------------------------------
In English-speaking countries, the words would presumably be workerism and workerist.
Setting aside some of the Leninist confusion in this document, how would you feel about calling yourself a workerist and calling our goal workerism?
:redstar2000:
The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas