The Communist League

[redstar2000]

This seems to be a period in which people want to set up new groups.

Here is an interesting thread about the Communist League over on the Another World is Possible board...

http://awip.proboards23.com/index.cgi?boar...&num=1110904578 (http://awip.proboards23.com/index.cgi?board=politix&action=display&num=1110904578)

They have a unique approach: they won't admit anyone who is not a worker or who does not come from a working class background into their group.

Something to think about, eh?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[fernando]

Im still not sure what is considered a worker? Would a doctor be considered a worker? Would a middle class salesman be considered a worker? Or are they the enemy?

[Redmau5]

Working-class background ? Karl Marx was from a middle-class background.

Sounds like a great party <_<

[RedLenin]

Ok only workers. Except Marx, Lenin, Castro, Che, etc were all from well-to-do backgrounds. I have a problem with blocking people from entering because of their class. Sometimes the most dedicated revolutionaries are middle class.

[viva le revolution]

I believe it is a smart decision not to admit middle-class and high-class people in this movement because a wide majority of the middle-class in america hold evengelist beliefs and is bush&#39;&#39;s power base, the other has the most to gain from the collapse of the movement.

[JustinG]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 01:56 AM
This seems to be a period in which people want to set up new groups.

Here is an interesting thread about the Communist League over on the Another World is Possible board...

http://awip.proboards23.com/index.cgi?boar...&num=1110904578 (http://awip.proboards23.com/index.cgi?board=politix&action=display&num=1110904578)

They have a unique approach: they won&#39;t admit anyone who is not a worker or who does not come from a working class background into their group.

Something to think about, eh?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
That&#39;s a good way of keeping conservitives in power and further liquifying solidarity movements

[redstar2000]

I think some of you folks are missing the point.

The view of the Communist League appears to be that the overwhelming majority of middle class people do not want communism because it&#39;s not in their material class interests to want communism.

What "middle class communists" want is a more humane version of class society with the elimination of all the big capitalists and their lackeys and, instead, themselves in the driver&#39;s seat.

Sound familiar?

And further: do any of you really think that it&#39;s "impossible" for the working class to produce a "Marx" or a "Che"? Or, for that matter, a "Bakunin"?

Why?

As to how they define a proletarian -- we didn&#39;t really get into that in the AWIP thread. But the traditional Marxist definition is one who must work for a capitalist in order to survive.

I don&#39;t know the details of their individual decisions, of course -- it&#39;s none of my business. But I would imagine that there&#39;s a certain amount of pragmatism involved; e.g., a 30-year-old adult from a middle-class background who has become proletarianized over his/her adult working life would probably be considered by them to be a proletarian and eligible for membership.

And you should also keep in mind that just because they exclude "middle class communists" from membership does not mean they are "unwilling" to learn from middle-class scholars and theorists.

It&#39;s just that they think that when it&#39;s time to make decisions...the workers should decide.

If that doesn&#39;t "make sense" to you, why doesn&#39;t it?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[RevolverNo9]

Interesting.

So a doctor, which is, technically, a proletarian profession may not be admitted because he or she may have the means not to work for the bourgeoisie? Is a middle-class man who chooses to become proletarian admitted despite the fact that he may still have an intellectual mindset predisposed to what you see as &#39;humane&#39; class society?

I&#39;m just thinking aloud really.

Of course it is a question tha can&#39;t be hidden; where are the working class theorists of the revolution? Proudhon?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by RevolverNo9
Of course it is a question that can&#39;t be hidden; where are the working class theorists of the revolution?

In the time of Marx and even Lenin, access to education was very much a class privilege...and now that&#39;s no longer really the case in the advanced capitalist countries.

In addition, of course, the internet is something entirely new...a cheap and easy way to access the accumulated theoretical and practical knowledge of the human species.

The material conditions are "in place" for a proletarian "Marx"...which doesn&#39;t mean that one is "inevitable" but simply that one is now possible.

The thesis of Kautsky and Lenin that revolutionary theory could not arise from the proletariat was a historically specific observation...and I think it&#39;s obsolete.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[MC_Communist]

The thesis of Kautsky and Lenin that revolutionary theory could not arise from the proletariat was a historically specific observation...and I think it&#39;s obsolete.


It is obselete ( In the first world ) .. but that wasnt the thesis of lenin .

In WITBD Lenin says that the Intelegensia needs to instill Socialist Counsince in the workin&#39; class . However , this was accomplished when the intelegensia creates the Vangaurd Party , and at that point the Intelegensia served its purpose . So I would agree that in this stage and in these 1st world circumstances , The prolatariat must divore its self from the Intelegensia .

[Jesus Christ!]

Originally posted by viva le [email protected] 16 2005, 08:52 PM
I believe it is a smart decision not to admit middle-class and high-class people in this movement because a wide majority of the middle-class in america hold evengelist beliefs and is bush&#39;&#39;s power base, the other has the most to gain from the collapse of the movement.
What a gross over generalazation. What about dedicated people who are not working class cough marx. I&#39;m dedicated and I guess I would be considered middle class.

[coda]

Higher Education is still a privilege in Developed Captialist countries as well as ...hmmmm... everywhere.

so, I guess the Communist LEAGUE, discounts the main porportion of college students that make up the Left and whom more than likely will go on to make middle-class incomes.

So that leaves.....

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 11:50 PM
Higher Education is still a privilege in Developed Captialist countries as well as ...hmmmm... everywhere.

so, I guess the Communist LEAGUE, discounts the main proportion of college students that make up the Left and whom more than likely will go on to make middle-class incomes.

So that leaves.....
Getting into a "top-rated" American university is still a class privilege...but I think lots of working class kids go to the second and third tier colleges and junior colleges. Sometimes, they only go for a year or two...but that may well be sufficient to give them a "taste for ideas".

The Communist League doesn&#39;t necessarily "discount" the "main proportion of college students that make up the Left and whom more than likely will go on to make middle-class incomes."

It simply does not want them as members of a proletarian organization.

Also, you cannot assume that a leftist college graduate is "going to go on" to make a middle-class income. Some of them will find the rampant ass-kissing of middle-class employment intolerable. And others will be simply unable to secure a middle-class job and have no choice but to return to the proletariat.

"And that leaves"...proletarians.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[bolshevik butcher]

I think it&#39;s active discrimination, surley the communist movement needs all the support it can get.

[coda]

Surely, the Left needs All the people it can get.

I guess Red Star has not tried to enter a second or third tier university or college recently and doesn&#39;t realize the expense. Proletarian, as you seem to be defining the term, i.e. the working poor, don&#39;t always have &#036;4-6 k. hanging around to even go to a community college nor have favorable credit to secure a loan. So, it is a privilege for a lot of us. On the other hand, in the US a Bachelor&#39;s degree is pretty much becoming the basic minimum standard of education and according to Salary.com the median salary for a BA/BS is 43 k. and 2-year 33 k. Not exactly proletarian poverty. The main proportion of the current Left is college educated or on the brink of college. That&#39;s just the way it is. The Left that still needs to be reached is not. So, what is the advantage of the Communist League or any other Communist organization cutting off their nose to spite their face when the main objective is to get the majority of All people to Communism.

http://salary.com/learning/layoutscripts/leal_display.asp

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 17 2005, 07:23 AM
I think it&#39;s active discrimination, surely the communist movement needs all the support it can get.
The Communist League argues that "middle-class support" is objectively unreliable.

What good does it do to make a proletarian communist revolution if, immediately afterwards, middle-class "communists" take over from the old ruling class?

And create a society that is, at best, a slightly more humane version of what we already have?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 11:02 PM
What "middle class communists" want is a more humane version of class society with the elimination of all the big capitalists and their lackeys and, instead, themselves in the driver&#39;s seat.


What "middle class communists" want is the same thing as every other communist. If not, then they are NOT truly communist.

Communists don&#39;t want any version of the class society, let alone a humane one.

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by Makaveli_05+Apr 17 2005, 02:05 PM--> (Makaveli_05 &#064; Apr 17 2005, 02:05 PM)
[email protected] 16 2005, 11:02 PM
What "middle class communists" want is a more humane version of class society with the elimination of all the big capitalists and their lackeys and, instead, themselves in the driver&#39;s seat.


What "middle class communists" want is the same thing as every other communist. If not, then they are NOT truly communist.

Communists don&#39;t want any version of the class society, let alone a humane one. [/b]
I agree. How can someone be a communist if they don&#39;t want a classless society?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Makaveli_05+--> (Makaveli_05)Communists don&#39;t want any version of the class society, let alone a humane one.[/b]


Clenched Fist
How can someone be a communist if they don&#39;t want a classless society?

You should not direct that question to me but to your neighborhood Leninist party.

All of them are led by "middle class communists" and most of their members come from the same class. A genuine proletarian is as out of place in those groups as a penguin at a convention of elephants.

And what is their "universal" goal? Capitalism without capitalists. (They call it "socialism" and promise us that "later on", they&#39;ll give us communism "when we&#39;ve proven ourselves worthy of it".)

What it means in practice is that the middle-class "communists" just become the new ruling class...and the rest of us are still in the shit.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Redmau5]

Yeah im sure Lenin wrote so much anti-capitalist works and spent so much time in exile because of his beliefs just so he could create a new ruling class when he got the chance.

What happened under Stalin should not be blamed on Lenin. We have to remember Lenin was only in power for 7 years and Russia was in turmoil. He did the best he could. What was he going to do ? Overthrow the Provisional Government and then hand things over to the workers when there was so much opposition ? I don&#39;t think so.

When Lenin first issued the Workers&#39; Decree which gave workers control of the factories it was very popular. But workers voted themselves ridiculous pay rises and production fell drastically so Lenin had to step in. The whole idea of communist society is for the workers to run things themselves. But in this instance it was a complete shambles. The Bolsheviks stepped in and got thing rolling again. And yet they are criticised for not letting the workers control things themselves.

What would you have done ? Let production continue to fall and let the workers have money that wasn&#39;t there ? Somehow i don&#39;t think so.

[PRC-UTE]

Sadly this site is full of more middle class kids who are enjoying their more radical than thou days before working for doddy.

I think this new CL group has a lot of potential, since the spectre of independent working class action clearly frightens these middle class trainspotters so much. :lol:

The problem I&#39;ve always had with the Left were the middle class types who like to talk down to others. I&#39;ve experienced this with both the SP and SWP of Ireland. These groups can&#39;t possibly understand the needs and challenges of the working class cos they haven&#39;t grown up as it, or struggled to survive in those conditions.

[shadows]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 05:18 PM


All of them are led by "middle class communists" and most of their members come from the same class. A genuine proletarian is as out of place in those groups as a penguin at a convention of elephants.






I thought &#39;middle class&#39; was a sociological concept, more obfuscatory than real. Perhaps an ideological buffer. But I get your point about access to privilege for the so-called &#39;middle&#39; class. Yet the Marxist definition of class is based on relationship to the means of production, and to one&#39;s position within these social relations. It does seem a little off-base to have a litmus test on class background, as if proletarian (as in manual labor or more overtly exploited labor) status guaranteed revolutionary purity. I mean, isn&#39;t this kinda empiricist? What, the workers can&#39;t be &#39;bought off&#39; as in an aristocracy? Is consciousness really so automatic?

[Forward Union]

designed to aid the proletariat and its task of elevating itself to a ruling class

Sounds like bunch of Leninists that haven&#39;t read their history books. Though my dad was a factory worker, and my mother a charity worker, by income standards I am middle class. I don&#39;t need to justify myself to these bigots, if they don&#39;t accept my views due to the conditions in which I was born they&#39;re no worse than fascists.

[1949]

Originally posted by Anarcho Rebel
Sounds like bunch of Leninists that haven&#39;t read their history books.
Actually, when asked at AWIP, in the thread redstar2000 linked to at the beginning of this thread, if the CL was a "back to Leninism" group, Miles wrote the following:

"We&#39;re more of a "back to Marx" group than anything else. But we also recognize that several self-described "Marxists" have contributed elements of communist theory that remain valid and important today: Lenin&#39;s writings on imperialism and the state; Stalin&#39;s writings on the national question; Trotsky&#39;s analysis of fascism; Mao&#39;s writings on "revolutions within revolutions"; DeLeon&#39;s writings on "Socialist Industrial Unionism"; Luxemburg&#39;s writings on general strikes and mass action; C.L.R. James&#39; writings on dialectics; etc."


Though my dad was a factory worker, and my mother a charity worker, by income standards I am middle class. I don&#39;t need to justify myself to these bigots, if they don&#39;t accept my views due to the conditions in which I was born they&#39;re no worse than fascists.
And why do you associate that with Leninism? Have you seen none of the work by the RCP on the middle class in the U.S.? Or, for that matter, Lenin himself, who wrote in "Left-Wing Communism, An Infantile Disorder":

"The abolition of classes means not only driving out the landlords and capitalists -- that we accomplished with comparative ease -- it also means abolishing the small commodity producers, and they c a n n o t b e d r i v e n o u t, or crushed; we must live in harmony with them; they can (and must) be remoulded and re-educated only by very prolonged, slow, cautious organizational work." (p. 32)

http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/LWC20.html

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Indigo+--> (Indigo)The main proportion of the current Left is college educated or on the brink of college. That&#39;s just the way it is. The Left that still needs to be reached is not. So, what is the advantage of the Communist League or any other Communist organization cutting off their nose to spite their face when the main objective is to get the majority of All people to Communism.[/b]

No, I don&#39;t think that&#39;s the best way to summarize our goal.

What we need is to win the vast majority of the working class to communism...not "all people". The latter might be nice...but it&#39;s not required for proletarian revolution.

And, significantly, it would be wrong to sacrifice the class interests of the proletariat in order to "appease" or "reassure" or "recruit" the middle class. The Communist League seems to think that&#39;s what would happen if they admitted members from the middle class.


Originally posted by Makaveli_05+--> (Makaveli_05)But workers voted themselves ridiculous pay rises and production fell drastically so Lenin had to step in.[/b]

Do you understand what you&#39;re saying here? The working class will "fuck up" unless the middle class is around to "manage things".

But if all the working class is going to get from a revolution is a new set of middle class managers, why bother making a revolution at all?


[email protected]
I thought &#39;middle class&#39; was a sociological concept, more obfuscatory than real. Perhaps an ideological buffer. But I get your point about access to privilege for the so-called &#39;middle&#39; class. Yet the Marxist definition of class is based on relationship to the means of production, and to one&#39;s position within these social relations. It does seem a little off-base to have a litmus test on class background, as if proletarian (as in manual labor or more overtly exploited labor) status guaranteed revolutionary purity. I mean, isn&#39;t this kinda empiricist? What, the workers can&#39;t be &#39;bought off&#39; as in an aristocracy? Is consciousness really so automatic?

The Communist League actually uses the term "petty-bourgeoisie", not "middle class". The latter term was brought up early in this thread and I just "went with the flow"...perhaps a mistake on my part.

They don&#39;t seem to think that one&#39;s class position or class background "guarantees" anything at all. Their point is that what is needed are proletarian communists...with both words receiving equal emphasis.

And, further, that a communist group in the Marxist sense, should consist exclusively of proletarians. As I believe I noted earlier, they have no objections to middle class groups forming "communist" organizations -- they just think such groups will "back away" from communism "in the crunch". They will follow the class interests of the petty-bourgeoisie rather than the class interests of the proletariat.

Also, they don&#39;t deny that a small number of middle class people will "proletarianize" themselves or be proletarianized as a consequence of the normal operations of capitalism...and they&#39;d probably admit such people into their group provided this was demonstrated over a significant period of their adult lives.

What they don&#39;t want are people who have the mind-set of "managers"...which is generally what characterizes the middle class. Whether they are born into the middle class or move up to that as a consequence of their own efforts, they have a genuine "superiority complex" with regard to working people.

A real communist organization should not permit that to happen within its own ranks.


Anarcho Rebel
Though my dad was a factory worker, and my mother a charity worker, by income standards I am middle class. I don&#39;t need to justify myself to these bigots, if they don&#39;t accept my views due to the conditions in which I was born they&#39;re no worse than fascists.

Why are you so angry?

It sounds to me like your class background is proletarian (income is not really a definitive criterion).

They&#39;d want to know how you make your living, of course. If your ambition is to be some kind of a boss...then you don&#39;t belong in a communist group.

That may seem or even be "bigoted"...but it&#39;s not "fascist". Fascist parties admitted anyone who agreed with them -- and were, in fact, dominated by ambitious middle class types.

Adolph Eichmann was, in a way, a kind of "laboratory Nazi"...interested in "bettering himself" and "moving up socially". And who was quite willing to do anything to accomplish those goals.

To him, becoming a Nazi was "a good career move".

The Communist League does not want people who think that joining a communist organization is "a good career move".

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Severian]

There&#39;s no inherent virture in working in a factory, by itself, that necessarily makes you more revolutionary...certainly nothing about who your parents are, fer crying out loud, if that&#39;s what these folks mean by "working-class background."

This was one of the points where Rosa Luxemburg was right against a comment Lenin made in "What is to be done." He said working in a factory teaches discipline....she pointed out that it teaches only bourgeois, compulsory discipline, and the kind of voluntary discipline needed in the class struggle can only be learned in the struggle.

Doing communist political work as part of the working class, now that makes you revolutionary...but these people clearly ain&#39;t doing that, they see themselves as the left wing of a coalition which includes the Democratic Party. Basically, the CPUSA&#39;s old concept of the "anti-monopoly coalition" under a new name.

There is a tremendous problem on the left with its middle-class composition - as well as program and orientation - but focusing on individuals&#39; sociological background ain&#39;t the solution. What is? I&#39;d suggest a program that reflects the interests of the working class, an orientation to the struggles of working people, and organizing to get the majority of a group&#39;s membership into industrial jobs, doing general communist political work as well as participating in union struggles.

The SWP (in the US) and groups called, coincidentally, the Communist League in a number of other countries have been doing this for a number of years.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 04:46 PM
I don&#39;t see why people have a problem with this organization being exclusively proletarian. The Industrial Workers of the World is the same way, and it&#39;s one of the things that influenceed me in joining the IWW.
That&#39;s apparently a change from the way things used to be, SoR.

In the 60s, a lot of SDS kids signed up with the IWW so they could tell their draft boards that they were members of an organization listed on the "Attorney General&#39;s List of Subversive Organizations" -- it was seen as just another useful tactic to stay out of the draft.

No one who did that ever told me about any effort on the part of the IWW to "make sure" these kids were proletarians.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[JC1]

No one has posted the CL&#39;s actual site . Here it is : http://www.communistleague.tk/


There&#39;s no inherent virture in working in a factory, by itself, that necessarily makes you more revolutionary...certainly nothing about who your parents are, fer crying out loud, if that&#39;s what these folks mean by "working-class background."


Being a prole dosent mean workin&#39; in a factory . Go read the thread , he [miles] ansewers this qestion as follows


Originally posted by "Miles"
Seriously, the modern proletariat is composed of three main areas: industrial (including transportation); service (including office/clerical and some teaching positions); and, agricultural (including migrant farmers; farm laborers; "undocumented" workers; etc.).


Doing communist political work as part of the working class, now that makes you revolutionary...but these people clearly ain&#39;t doing that, they see themselves as the left wing of a coalition which includes the Democratic Party. Basically, the CPUSA&#39;s old concept of the "anti-monopoly coalition" under a new name.


Here is Miles&#39; responce to simalar charge


You seem to think that the only form of "political struggle" is a bourgeois election. We do not. In fact, given the structure of the U.S. electoral system, as well as the overall political situation in the country in this period, the last thing in the world that communists should be doing is wasting their time trying to gain a spot in the officialdom.



There is a tremendous problem on the left with its middle-class composition - as well as program and orientation - but focusing on individuals&#39; sociological background ain&#39;t the solution. What is? I&#39;d suggest a program that reflects the interests of the working class, an orientation to the struggles of working people, and organizing to get the majority of a group&#39;s membership into industrial jobs, doing general communist political work as well as participating in union struggles.


Without admiting only prolatarians how can you orient youreself to said class ? Rember brother, Social Being determines social cousince .

[SonofRage]

Well, we don&#39;t run a "background check" but we do ask what you do for a living. If you&#39;re not a worker, you can&#39;t be a member.

This wouldn&#39;t stop "paper members" who aren&#39;t active and join via the internet, but actual active Wobblies would probably be found out (I&#39;d hope).

I can&#39;t speak for the union as a whole, but a lot of us here are pretty hardline about it. There&#39;s currently a debate as to whether or not Security Guards should be excluded from membership because they would have jobs that are "not compatible with the goals of the union."

[SonofRage]

getting back on topic...

I think the Workers&#39; Opposition (http://www.marxists.org/archive/kollonta/works/1921/workers-opposition/index.htm) was right on this issue:



What shall we do then in order to destroy bureaucracy in the Party and replace it by workers&#39; democracy? First of all it is necessary to understand that our leaders are wrong when they say: &#39;Just now we agree to loosen the reins somewhat, for there is no immediate danger on the military front, but as soon as we again feel the danger we shall return to the military system in the Party. We must remember that heroism saved Petrograd, more than once defended Lugansk, other centres, and whole regions. Was it the Red Army alone that put up the defence? No. There was, besides, the heroic self-activity and initiative of the masses themselves. Every comrade will recall that during the moments of supreme danger, the Party always appealed to this self-activity, for it saw in it the sheet-anchor of salvation. It is true that at times of threatening danger, Party and class discipline must be stricter. There must be more self-sacrifice, exactitude in performing duties, etc. But between these manifestations of class spirit and the &#39;blind subordination&#39; which is being advocated lately in the Party, there is a great difference.

In the name of Party regeneration and the elimination of bureaucracy from the Soviet institutions, the Workers&#39; Opposition, together with a group of responsible workers in Moscow, demand complete realization of all democratic principles, not only for the present period of respite but also for times of internal and external tension. This is the first and basic condition for the Party&#39;s regeneration, for its return to the principles of its programme, from which it is more and more deviating in practice under the pressure of elements that are foreign to it.

The second condition, the vigorous fulfilment of which is insisted upon by the Workers&#39; Opposition, is the expulsion from the Party of all non-proletarian elements. The stronger the Soviet authority becomes, the greater is the number of middle class, and sometimes even openly hostile elements, joining the Party. The elimination of these elements must be complete and thorough. Those in charge of it must take into account the fact that the most revolutionary elements of non-proletarian origin had joined the Party during the first period of the October revolution. The Party must become a Workers&#39; Party. Only then will it be able vigorously to repeal all the influences that are now being brought to bear on it by petty-bourgeois elements, peasants, or by the faithful servants of Capital - the specialists.

The Workers&#39; Opposition proposes to register all members who are non-workers and who joined the Party since 1919, and to reserve for them the right to appeal within three months from the decisions arrived at, in order that they might join the Party again .

At the same time, it is necessary to establish a &#39;working status&#39; for all those non-working class elements who will try to get back into the Party, by providing that every applicant to membership of the Party must have worked a certain period of time at manual labour: under general working conditions, before he becomes eligible for enrolment into the Party.

The third decisive step towards democratization of the Party is the elimination of all non-working class elements from administrative positions. In other words, the central, provincial, and county committees of the Party must be so composed that workers closely acquainted with the conditions of the working masses should have the preponderant majority therein. Closely related to this demand stands the further demand of converting all our Party centres, beginning from the Central Executive Committee and including the provincial county committees, from institutions taking care of routine, everyday work, into institutions of control over Soviet policy. We have already remarked that the crisis in our Party is a direct outcome of three distinct crosscurrents, corresponding to the three different social groups: the working class, the peasantry and middle class, and elements of the former bourgeoisie - that is, specialists, technicians and men of affairs.

(emphasis added) source: http://www.marxists.org/archive/kollonta/w...sition/ch03.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/kollonta/works/1921/workers-opposition/ch03.htm)

[Severian]

I think you missed the point in all respects.

For example, I don&#39;t care if somebody&#39;s in coalition with the Democratic Party during elections, during other times, or whenever: it&#39;s class collaboration in any case.

Incidentally, any group whose website is on geocities with all the advertising that involves, and lists no addresses in the physical universe that I can see, is probably a "united combination of 3 people" or maybe even fewer, and not particularly worth discussing. I just wanted to make a few points about the question of proletarian composition of the revolutionary party, which is an important question.

[redstar2000]

Of course the Workers&#39; Opposition was right.

But it makes you wonder...all those delegates at the 10th Party Congress that voted against the WO -- weren&#39;t they voting just to save their own jobs?

(And perks, of course.)

I also agree with you about all the pissing and moaning about the CL excluding the middle class...when I read about the CL policy, I felt a "sharp pang" of immediate empathy with them. I think they&#39;ll be under tremendous pressure to weaken that policy...but I really hope they stand firm on this.

The "optimal result" is that they&#39;d end up attracting the small number of middle class people who were really serious about joining the proletariat...to the point of renouncing their class privileges.

And I can&#39;t see anything but good coming from that.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 07:31 PM
In the time of Marx and even Lenin, access to education was very much a class privilege...and now that&#39;s no longer really the case in the advanced capitalist countries.

In addition, of course, the internet is something entirely new...a cheap and easy way to access the accumulated theoretical and practical knowledge of the human species.

The material conditions are "in place" for a proletarian "Marx"...which doesn&#39;t mean that one is "inevitable" but simply that one is now possible.

The thesis of Kautsky and Lenin that revolutionary theory could not arise from the proletariat was a historically specific observation...and I think it&#39;s obsolete.
I have a partial disagreement with this post. The brilliant theorists you named have several factors in common, and you rightly identified access to scholarly materials (libraries, internet resources, increasing access to higher education)among them.

But there is more to it.

Marx, Lenin, and Bakunin were walking encyclopedias not just because they had access to thousands of books. Just as importantly, they had time and energy to read all those books. Many workers, especially the super-exploited with the fewest delusions of capitalist idealism, do not have the time or energy to pour over the resources now available to them.

We have access to a thousand newspapers a day. No one has time to read all of them. Noam Chomsky, in his material privilege, has time to read ten daily papers. I do not have that kind of time, because my dishwashing job affords me less time. And I am not even a full-time worker. How do you expect someone working 50-60 hours a week, maybe raising children on top of that, to find time?

[Martin Blank]

OK, comrades, now you can talk directly to a member of the League, and not just to comrade RedStar. But, a comment or two first.

I noticed that a lot of you on here have an issue with the fact that we only admit proletarians as members of the League. Some of you have been thrown into such fits of apoplexy over this that you seem to think that means we would cast your petty-bourgeois arses into the ocean in the event of a proletarian revolution. To those of you who think that, all I can say is that you not only have an unbelieveably narrow view of who is going to make the revolution, but you also have an unusually infantile view of the relationship between a revolutionary communist organization and the revolutionary proletarian movement (and I stress the word, "infantile"). Honestly, is all the childish namecalling and cybersulking necessary?

To the two comrades who have expressed positive views on the League, I thank you for your open-mindedness, and invite you to engage in an honest and friendly conversation on the positions of the League.

Finally, we have Severian, who seems good at understanding little but saying a lot. First of all, I did write a response to your comments about being part of a "coalition [with] the Democratic Party". (Comrade RedStar said it was from a "Trotskyist", but I see that, in fact, you&#39;re a Barnesite -- a member of an organization whose ties to Trotskyism are only as strong as Pathfinder&#39;s grip on the copyrights.) Let me quote me reply, posted a AWIP, here:


Impressionistic and shallow. This is the typical Trotskyist economism shining through. A congenital defect of the Trotskyist animal is its relative inability to understand demands that don&#39;t evolve directly from the Transitional Program. They can understand sliding scale of wages and hours, they can understand state-ization of banks, they can even understand factory committees (though they&#39;ll likely never build one in their lives), and they&#39;ll even understand that these economic demands could very well be implemented under capitalism. But raise a political demand that is just as "transitional" as a sliding scale of wages and hours (or more), and they&#39;ll wail out like they&#39;re being skinned alive.

What the comrades don&#39;t realize is that they are actually saying more about their own method than ours. For them, the raising of revolutionary-democratic demands is tantamount to being in a "coalition which includes the Democratic Party". Why? Because that is the only way they can conceptualize raising such demands. In effect, they expose their own opportunism through their failure to understand how such demands can be raised in an independent, revolutionary manner.

I would suggest this comrade spend some time reading and studying the communist approach to democratic questions, and less time denouncing position he or she clearly does not understand.

Continuing on, comrade Severian writes:


There is a tremendous problem on the left with its middle-class composition - as well as program and orientation - but focusing on individuals&#39; sociological background ain&#39;t the solution. What is? I&#39;d suggest a program that reflects the interests of the working class, an orientation to the struggles of working people, and organizing to get the majority of a group&#39;s membership into industrial jobs, doing general communist political work as well as participating in union struggles.

What you&#39;re suggesting is idealism substituted for materialism. "A program that reflects the interests of the working class"? Do you expect a group of petty-bourgeois to ever be able to understand, much less draft a program that reflects, "the interests of the proletariat"? Moreover, an "orientation to the struggles of working people" means nothing unless you actually have working people involved in those struggles. Otherwise, you&#39;re on the outside looking in -- and that is all you&#39;ll ever do.

As for "organizing to get the majority of a group&#39;s membership into industrial jobs", this is perhaps one of the most arrogant, parochial conceptions ever to emerge from the bowels of the Trotskyist (and Barnesite) movement. A friend of mine has a term for this kind of "work" that is more than appropriate: slumming. That&#39;s what you&#39;re proposing. It&#39;s the old concept of petty-bourgeois college kids hanging out in "the ghetto" in order to "help out". Thanks, but no thanks. We don&#39;t need that kind of "help" any more than we need yet another bunch of "condescending saviors" thinking they know what&#39;s best for the working class.

Finally, your snide comment about a "united combination of 3 people" only exposes your own ignorance about your own organization&#39;s history. I seem to recall reading about "three generals without an army". Have you ever heard that phrase before, comrade? Luckily, our Communist League has started out on a qualitatively better footing.

Miles

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Marxist in [email protected] 19 2005, 06:11 AM
Marx, Lenin, and Bakunin were walking encyclopedias not just because they had access to thousands of books. Just as importantly, they had time and energy to read all those books. Many workers, especially the super-exploited with the fewest delusions of capitalist idealism, do not have the time or energy to pour over the resources now available to them.

We have access to a thousand newspapers a day. No one has time to read all of them. Noam Chomsky, in his material privilege, has time to read ten daily papers. I do not have that kind of time, because my dishwashing job affords me less time. And I am not even a full-time worker. How do you expect someone working 50-60 hours a week, maybe raising children on top of that, to find time?
I work a full-time industrial job, am raising a teenage daughter, and do my work as a member of the League -- which includes a lot of reading and researching. There are ways to do it. But, yes, many comrades cannot do it alone, and we do not expect them to. In the League, we are attempting to establish a "culture of liberation" within the organization, which is made up of policies and rules designed to give members the time and space needed to develop politically. I discussed this with comrade RedStar over on the AWIP boards. You&#39;re welcome to go over there and see a list of some of the things we do to help comrades to further their political education and development (or perhaps someone could re-post that list here).

Miles

[Severian]

It occurs to me where I&#39;ve seen this type of thinking before...the primacy of sociological background stuff, that is. The kind of thinking that leads the CL to reject anyone from the wrong class background, even if they&#39;re willing to completely cut loose from that and join the working class and its struggles, that&#39;s "slumming".

(Incidentally, people who join the SWP include workers as well as students...in either case, the challenge is suprisingly similar, of making job decisions on a political basis, in order to get into the best position to do political work on the job and in the union, preferably as part of an organized group in the same workplace.)

It&#39;s identity politics.

By which I mean, the people who go on about not just racism and sexism, but heterosexism, genderism, ablebodiedism, ageism, looksism, fat oppression, speciesism...every conceivable variation of oppression. With a little mention of "classism" thrown in, though they have a hard time dealing with it since it&#39;s not really the same kind of category as the others.

For this milieu, "I&#39;m more oppressed than you" is the ultimate, crushing argument. Especially since it&#39;s an article of faith that all whites are racist, all males are sexist etc etc. (You can&#39;t claim to have eradicated all prejudice from your subconscious, can you?)

So here we have yet another variant of it, with class brandished as a badge of "more oppressed than thou."

Of course, as the example of the CL&#39;s blatant class-collaboration shows yet again, there&#39;s nothing about being a worker or from a working-class background, by itself, that guarantees a revolutionary Marxist line of action.

I&#39;m pleased to say that I&#39;ve never seen this kind of attitude from even a single rank-and-file union militant....perhaps oddly, even the labor bureaucracy rarely if ever tries it as a weapon against the SWP. (The CL, pretty clearly, are not union militants, their political orientation is to frustrated Democrats.)

If anything, a lot of workers make the opposite error....overestimating the importance of what college-educated people can contribute to the workers&#39; movement that others can&#39;t. That&#39;s one of the strengths of the labor bureaucracy.

***

MiNebraska, in my experience there&#39;s a layer of workers out there who, from reading and self-education, have a broader and deeper education than a lot of people with more formal schooling....many formally well-educated people are pretty ignorant outside a narrow specialty.

Chomsky actually pointed this out once...I&#39;m not real impressed with him overall, though. Mostly there&#39;s just one thing you can learn from Chomsky, the total rottenness of capitalism in all its wings and factions, and now he&#39;s undermined even that by endorsing Kerry.

The contributions of some people from upper- and middle-class backgrounds, like Marx and Engels themselves, have been important historically, and there&#39;s no reason to reject others like them in future. But let&#39;s not think it&#39;s impossible for workers to make siimilar contributions...one challenge for a workers&#39; party, IMO, is to enable at least some worker-Bolsheviks take a break from the job grind occasionally and do some serious study of politics and Marxism.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 12:21 AM
For them, the raising of revolutionary-democratic demands is tantamount to being in a "coalition which includes the Democratic Party".
Um, no, the fact you say you are in a coalition with the Democrats means you are in a coalition with the Democrats.

"On the other hand, the Democratic Party does find itself represented in our movement; the liberal-democratic wing of our movement is composed of self-identified Democrats. This fact cannot be ignored, and we cannot afford to ignore these brothers and sisters — even if we see their party as part of the reason why we are in this situation."link (http://www.communistleague.tk/)

And anyone who complains about a supposed "coup" by Bush is giving backhanded support for the Democrats; basically they&#39;re just loudmouthed liberals of the Michael Moore variety. The truth is that Democratic administrations are just as bad for workers&#39; democratic rights as Republican administrations; Ashcroft&#39;s detentions of immigrants, etc. have been based more on Clinton&#39;s anti-terrorism laws than on the PATRIOT Act. That&#39;s a far more real problem with the Democrats than their acceptance of Bush&#39;s electoral victories.

That&#39;s worth pointing out since the delusion&#39;s far more widespread than the CL.

[shadows]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 06:21 AM


What you&#39;re suggesting is idealism substituted for materialism. "A program that reflects the interests of the an "orientation to the struggles of working people" means nothing unless you actually have working people involved in those struggles. Otherwise, you&#39;re on the outside looking in -- and that is all you&#39;ll ever do.


There is &#39;theory&#39; and &#39;practice&#39; (from the petty bourgeoisie to the proletariat) and there is &#39;theory from practice&#39; (an organic unity, in which the social relations of the workers generate consciousness that leads to practice). The issue seems to be the definition of &#39;working class&#39; and this itself is a question of theory. And another issue arises: what about struggles that are not strictly class defined, such as the struggle for women&#39;s rights, for gay rights, for immigrant rights, for civil rights. The working class develops consciousness of itself as a class as it intersects with these issues. And, finally, the question of a vanguard. Whence does this come? From a layer within the working class (isn&#39;t the proletariat stratified?)? I find the little I&#39;ve seen of CL (from its website) of interest, and seemingly a &#39;return&#39; to Marxism, perhaps out of a tainted Leninism. But I would hope that CL doesn&#39;t indulge (petty bourgeois fashion) in some sort of purism (exegetical or otherwise) or trendy autonomism. Yet, it seems refreshingly different from the postmodernist left.

[red_che]

With due respect to the Communist League, I think their non-admittance to people who belong to classes other than the working class is some sort of extreme isolationism for themselves.

I don&#39;t think there is a question of who can be called a proletariat or not. This has been clear to all communists. A proletariat or worker is the one who sells its labor force in exchange for wages. A worker works in a collectivized and advanced mode of production. I think all of us knew it.

But the Communists League&#39;s non-acceptance of people who are not workers is somewhat intriguing :huh: . I&#39;m sure even Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao or Che would not agree with them. Marx and Lenin emphasized the need for the working class to tie itself with other oppressed and exploited classes in order to defeat the class domination of the Bourgeoisie. Chairman Mao exemplified this by creating and advancing the United Front strategies and tactics. Even Lenin did admit that the proletarians cannot win alone in the struggle and achievement of socialism.

Of course, the middle class people have their own agenda. But what is important here is weakening the power of the Bourgeoisie first. As what Chairman Mao and the CCP did in the Chinese Revolution. The United Front can do more than just weakening the base of the ruling bourgeoisie, along the way in the tactical alliance with the middle class, many can be remolded into becoming true revolutionaries and communists. There is no question here now about Marx, Engels, Lenin, Che and even Mao who were not workers. Many more can be like them.

While we should respect their (ComLeague) decision not to allow non-workers in their group, it is also noteworthy, for us fellow communists, to express our disapproval with their rules.

In this time that the world is reeling from a crisis never before seen, the working class, the communists and revolutionaries need all the help from all the oppressed and exploited calsses in the world to dismantle the US Imperialism and establish socialist societies in all or most of the countries all over the world.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 06:53 AM
It occurs to me where I&#39;ve seen this type of thinking before...the primacy of sociological background stuff, that is. The kind of thinking that leads the CL to reject anyone from the wrong class background, even if they&#39;re willing to completely cut loose from that and join the working class and its struggles, that&#39;s "slumming".

(Incidentally, people who join the SWP include workers as well as students...in either case, the challenge is suprisingly similar, of making job decisions on a political basis, in order to get into the best position to do political work on the job and in the union, preferably as part of an organized group in the same workplace.)

It&#39;s identity politics.

By which I mean, the people who go on about not just racism and sexism, but heterosexism, genderism, ablebodiedism, ageism, looksism, fat oppression, speciesism...every conceivable variation of oppression. With a little mention of "classism" thrown in, though they have a hard time dealing with it since it&#39;s not really the same kind of category as the others.

For this milieu, "I&#39;m more oppressed than you" is the ultimate, crushing argument. Especially since it&#39;s an article of faith that all whites are racist, all males are sexist etc etc. (You can&#39;t claim to have eradicated all prejudice from your subconscious, can you?)

So here we have yet another variant of it, with class brandished as a badge of "more oppressed than thou."

Of course, as the example of the CL&#39;s blatant class-collaboration shows yet again, there&#39;s nothing about being a worker or from a working-class background, by itself, that guarantees a revolutionary Marxist line of action.

I&#39;m pleased to say that I&#39;ve never seen this kind of attitude from even a single rank-and-file union militant....perhaps oddly, even the labor bureaucracy rarely if ever tries it as a weapon against the SWP. (The CL, pretty clearly, are not union militants, their political orientation is to frustrated Democrats.)

If anything, a lot of workers make the opposite error....overestimating the importance of what college-educated people can contribute to the workers&#39; movement that others can&#39;t. That&#39;s one of the strengths of the labor bureaucracy.

Here we have the arrogance of the petty bourgeois socialist all fleshed out. At once, Severian thinks he knows everything about us: how we think, what we do and who we are.

Perhaps Severian is not aware that some League members have an intimate understanding of the SWP/US&#39;s methods of "embedding" petty bourgeois elements in proletarian jobs. In fact, it should be said that the only members of the SWP that can successfully carry out this kind of "embedding" are their petty-bourgeois elements. The Barnesites rely on such petty bourgeois and expect them to maintain their previous class ties, because those ties provide much-needed resources for the SWP&#39;s road show -- as their members bounce from auto plants to steel plants to meatpacking plants to garment shops. Most SWP members from proletarian backgrounds that try to be a part of this project usually end up leaving the organization after one or two hops, usually because of both the material and physical drain.

All of Severian&#39;s talk of "identity politics" is little more than the hue and cry of a petty-bourgeois economist. It is telling the way this comrade considers the centrality of class questions, as well as the way he denigrates issues of racism and sexism. Apparently, Severian is not an actual member of the SWP, but a sycophantic follower; even the Barnesites have standards, and Severian&#39;s subjective marginalizing of anti-racist and anti-sexist politics would not allow him through the door.

Severian also exposes his own rank ignorance of basic communist political thought. It was Marx who called the proletariat the only really revolutionary class. But for this comrade, such a statement is bunk. He may try to hide such an anti-proletarian line by couching his missives in narrow language (i.e., "there&#39;s nothing about being a worker or from a working-class background, by itself, that guarantees a revolutionary Marxist line of action"), but the meaning is clear.

There is, however, one thing Severian gets right: we are not "union militants". We are proletarian communists; we are more than mere "militants". But, unlike Severian, we are actually quite active in the unions we belong to: the UAW, NEA, UTU, UFCW, AFGE, etc. And, unlike the SWP, our work in the unions goes far beyond selling copies of our newspaper or corralling unsuspecting co-workers into going to Militant Labor Forums. In all the years that League members have been active, we have organized unions from the ground up, we have spread organizing drives from one workplace to another, we have helped to organize strikes (both official and "wildcat" -- economic and even political), strike committees and strike support committees, we have had comrades elected as stewards, contract negotiators, picket captains and even local officers. How many members of the Barnesite SWP can say that today? They are still living off the sops of a struggle led 70 years ago by people who would not even be allowed to be members of the SWP today (i.e., Trotskyists).

It is truly sad when someone like me, who is not even a denizen the left organizations that comrades like Severian uphold, has to sit down and explain their own history to them. It explains a lot about why those left organizations have consistently failed to make a positive mark on humanity.

Miles

[bolshevik butcher]

What about teachers, journalists civil servants and social workers. They all &#39;sell there labour&#39;. Are they poraletarians?

[bolshevik butcher]

Miles isn&#39;t a bit ironic that on your pic you have a picture of a middle class philosopher? Your organisation would not allow a marx, lenin, che or trotosky in.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 19 2005, 12:39 PM
Miles isn&#39;t a bit ironic that on your pic you have a picture of a middle class philosopher? Your organisation would not allow a marx, lenin, che or trotosky in.
If the petty bourgeoisie could still produce a Marx or Lenin, we wouldn&#39;t have this position. Times change, and class relations have underwent a qualitative transformation. Even Lenin and Trotsky recognized that, though neither of them took the time to analyze those changes.

Miles

[bolshevik butcher]

Prove it,w hy should hte next lenin or che not come form the middle classes? I suppose my family could be classified as lower midddle class what makes you any more communist than me?

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 08:08 AM
With due respect to the Communist League, I think their non-admittance to people who belong to classes other than the working class is some sort of extreme isolationism for themselves.

I don&#39;t think there is a question of who can be called a proletariat or not. This has been clear to all communists. A proletariat or worker is the one who sells its labor force in exchange for wages. A worker works in a collectivized and advanced mode of production. I think all of us knew it.

But the Communists League&#39;s non-acceptance of people who are not workers is somewhat intriguing :huh: . I&#39;m sure even Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao or Che would not agree with them. Marx and Lenin emphasized the need for the working class to tie itself with other oppressed and exploited classes in order to defeat the class domination of the Bourgeoisie. Chairman Mao exemplified this by creating and advancing the United Front strategies and tactics. Even Lenin did admit that the proletarians cannot win alone in the struggle and achievement of socialism.

Of course, the middle class people have their own agenda. But what is important here is weakening the power of the Bourgeoisie first. As what Chairman Mao and the CCP did in the Chinese Revolution. The United Front can do more than just weakening the base of the ruling bourgeoisie, along the way in the tactical alliance with the middle class, many can be remolded into becoming true revolutionaries and communists. There is no question here now about Marx, Engels, Lenin, Che and even Mao who were not workers. Many more can be like them.

While we should respect their (ComLeague) decision not to allow non-workers in their group, it is also noteworthy, for us fellow communists, to express our disapproval with their rules.

In this time that the world is reeling from a crisis never before seen, the working class, the communists and revolutionaries need all the help from all the oppressed and exploited calsses in the world to dismantle the US Imperialism and establish socialist societies in all or most of the countries all over the world.
The petty bourgeoisie is not an oppressed and/or exploited class -- not here, not anywhere. Their role in society is that of policeman, manager and bureaucrat. There may be individuals from petty-bourgeois backgrounds that may tie their wagons to the proletarian movement, but unless they are willing to cut all of their ties to the petty bourgeoisie and irreversibly assimilate into the proletariat, they are of no use and are likely only tagging along in order to carve new privileges out under the new system (if one is built).

Now, if the petty bourgeoisie wants to build their own petty-bourgeois communist organization, we would be willing to work with it when and where we can (we would also break with them when they inevitably turn toward counterrevolution). In a time of proletarian revolution, the petty bourgeoisie is part of the reactionary mass opposed to genuine workers&#39; power (workers&#39; control of production, assemblies of elected workers&#39; representatives, etc.) and we will have to fight them as much as the bourgeoisie itself (or more than, actually, since there are more of them and they are more likely to actually take up arms against a working people&#39;s republic).

Miles

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 19 2005, 01:06 PM
Prove it,w hy should hte next lenin or che not come form the middle classes? I suppose my family could be classified as lower midddle class what makes you any more communist than me?
First, we&#39;re talking about objective reality, not subjective choice. The material reality of class relations today does not allow for a new "Marx" or "Lenin" to emerge. You get a lot of pretenders to the title (Avakian, Robertson, Grant, Taaffe, North, Baines, Barnes, Marcy, etc., etc., etc.), but pretenders is all they&#39;ll ever be. Many of them have had decades to "show and prove", and all they&#39;ve shown and proven is that they are just another link in the chain of self-described "leaders" who have consistently failed.

Second, what makes a proletarian more of a communist than someone from the petty bourgeoisie (and, in all reality, I do not know your class background or class position at the moment, so do not consider this a personal address) is the fact that they are proletarian -- i.e., they have that relationship to the means of production that makes it possible to be one of capitalism&#39;s gravediggers. The petty bourgeoisie is on the other side of that class line, and unless they irreversibly cross over that line and join the proletariat, their position in class society will compel them to fight the proletariat -- sometimes openly, sometimes covertly ... and sometimes "in the name of the proletariat".

Miles

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Miles
In the League, we are attempting to establish a "culture of liberation" within the organization, which is made up of policies and rules designed to give members the time and space needed to develop politically. I discussed this with comrade RedStar over on the AWIP boards. You&#39;re welcome to go over there and see a list of some of the things we do to help comrades to further their political education and development (or perhaps someone could re-post that list here).

Here is the post by Miles from the AWIP board on the Communist League&#39;s "culture of liberation"...


The specifics vary from person to person. However, for the sake of explanation, and bearing in mind that I will not go into great detail about the League&#39;s internal life, here are some policies that a new comrade might experience:

1. In the process of recruiting a comrade, we would be able to gauge their basic interaction skills: reading, writing, speaking, etc. If there are problems with literacy, we help the comrade improve their skills, using basic works by communist authors as primers.

2. If a comrade is not familiar with using a computer, we will help them learn to use one. This helps a comrade in two ways: first, they can use the Internet to deepen their own knowledge and understanding of the world; and, second, they can improve skills that can be applied on the job. (In general, if comrades need skills -- either job skills or skills associated with organizational duties -- and other members are familiar with the tasks, the new comrades will be offered a type of "apprenticeship", where they will work with the skilled member one-on-one.)

3. If comrades have children, we arrange for other, single (and male) members to watch the kids, allowing the comrade to be able to participate in meetings, educationals, aggregates, etc. As a rule, the comrades chosen for childcare duty are veteran members.

4. Comrades in need of assistance in the battle of survival (e.g., maintaining utility services) will be helped by other members as much as humanly possible, including financially (including assistance "in kind") or in ways that, by bourgeois standards, would be considered illegal.

5. We find there is value to a "free-ranging" discussion, which would move from current events to general political issues to cultural questions to economics to ... well, whatever. This helps comrades improve their extemporaneous speaking and discussion skills, as well as see connections between areas that are often considered "separate issues".

6. When having political/educational discussions, the "answers" are never given. Comrades are encouraged to think through the issues themselves, to assess the material situation and apply the communist scientific method (materialist dialectics). Veteran comrades are expected to only offer "points to consider", which will add to the comrades&#39; understanding of the overall political picture, and overall guidance.

7. Perhaps one of the most important things we do is imbue new comrades with a class consciousness that goes beyond merely recognizing their role in the production relations. We try to undo years of cultural and social stereotypes, often manifested as a feeling of "inferiority", by instilling a "pride" in their place in society -- in their being a worker. There is no shame in working for a living, and yet that is a common point of view that many workers have. In a sense, we combat the effects of bourgeois ideology, one comrade (or small groups of comrades) at a time.

As new circumstances arise, we take the time to sit down and see what kind of new policies we can adopt that fit with the "culture of liberation". These are the ones we&#39;ve had to face so far. Over time, as the League grows, we hope to expand these kinds of efforts in a more public, generalized manner, helping proletarians regardless of their relationship to the organization.

-----------------------------------------

I must say that this sounds very different -- and more advanced -- than anything along these lines that I&#39;ve heard about other "communist" groups.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Karl Marx's Camel]

The majority of workers in the US are just as conservative as the capitalist class.. In some cases, even more reactionary.

I honestly can&#39;t see the point of a new communist party in the US, if the ideology of the party does not correspond with the view of the american working class.

The working class in the US is perhaps the most conservative and reactionary in the West. It&#39;s pointless. At least for now.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Miles
Perhaps Severian is not aware that some League members have an intimate understanding of the SWP/US&#39;s methods of "embedding" petty bourgeois elements in proletarian jobs.

Not just the League.

Back in the 60s and 70s, a number of Maoist groups tried the same approach...and while there were a few "success" stories, it was mostly a disaster for the middle class kids themselves.

Nothing in their class backgrounds had prepared them for work in heavy industry...and since they were mainly motivated by idealism and a desire to "do good things", they were very much like "fish out of water".

Some of them talked up their politics right away...and got fired. Others were so overwhelmed by it all that they couldn&#39;t think of anything to say.

After six months or so, most of them quit the job, the party, and radical politics altogether...returning to the middle class with a great sigh of relief.

From what I could gather in the way of anecdotal evidence, the workers were not so much hostile as puzzled -- what were these kinds of kids doing here???

One such young volunteer was bluntly asked: "are you some kind of a priest?" :lol:

My conclusion was that if a young middle class person wants to "proletarianize themselves", the best way to do that is to try for some form of unionized white collar work -- some of your co-workers will be from a similar background and you won&#39;t feel so totally "lost". And it will be work that you can handle over a long period of time -- allowing you to build up some genuine friendships with working people as well as developing your own proletarian consciousness.

A popular movie among lefties in that period was called The Organizer...about some Italian guy who travels around getting factory jobs and three weeks later leading the workers out on strike -- and afterwards moving on to the next factory.

Maybe things were like that in Italy (in 1910&#33;)...they were not like that in American factories in 1970 and I very much doubt if they are like that in any modern workplace of any kind now.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by NWOG
It&#39;s pointless.

To a communist, resistance to the despotism of capital is never "pointless".

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Andy Bowden]

I&#39;d probably be considered middle-class, but I resent the idea that because of my background I&#39;m somehow "untrustworthy" or "decadent" - Che Guevara was middle class - would you turn him away from your ranks?

[Karl Marx's Camel]

To a communist, resistance to the despotism of capital is never "pointless".

You can say that on a moral basis, but realistically speaking pointless there is little to no point. The american working class hate us more than any other working class, and does not have any interest in us. You can&#39;t make people communists.

It&#39;s like Nazis promoting Nazism to blacks. It won&#39;t work. Wait until the black man bleach, and you might have a chance.

[Brennus]

Most bourgeoisie wouldn&#39;t join a communist organization in the first place, and the petit-bourgeoisie would not be able to hijack a revolution if it was kept democratic. If Bill Gates wanted to fund a revolution, on the condition that he be allowed into the Communist Party, who would honestly try to stop him?


Originally posted by NWOG
You can say that on a moral basis, but realistically speaking pointless there is little to no point. The american working class hate us more than any other working class, and does not have any interest in us. You can&#39;t make people communists.

It&#39;s like Nazis promoting Nazism to blacks. It won&#39;t work. Wait until the black man bleach, and you might have a chance.


You can educate fellow workers and help them understand they&#39;re being screwed by the capitalist system. It is in their material interests to liberate themselves. Besides, if they were as truly as helpless as you say, we might as well shoot ourselves in the heads right now.

[shadows]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 05:23 PM


You can educate fellow workers and help them understand they&#39;re being screwed by the capitalist system. It is in their material interests to liberate themselves.
The U.S. working class, a vast sea of wage slaves who don&#39;t see themselves that way at all but rather as middle class homeowners and stockholders, is relatively privileged, and it is this that reduces or erodes the proletariat&#39;s consciousness of its liberating mission. Many workers in the upper stratum of the proletariat don&#39;t see their material interests in socialism but in the maintenance of the status quo. The stratification of the U.S. working class must be addressed.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

The working class is not sardines in a box.

If you have the narrow-minded, tunnel vision, you might just see "opressed" and the "oppressed", but the world is not black and white.

A lot of people do work in order to become wealthy. A lot of people support capitalism on the basis of that. But a lot of people also do it because of the philosophy of capitalism. Have you ever actually read into capitalist theory?


Has it ever crossed your mind that a lot of people are actually well read regarding Marxism, and still is not a marxist, and has no intention of becoming one in the future?

Marxism is just an ideology. It&#39;s not the solution to doomsday. Let&#39;s face it. Most people hate marxism. They hate it all. They do not want to hear about you. They don&#39;t want to hear about what you have to say. They don&#39;t like you.


You live in the past. You have Marx, who is fucking dead by the way, on the front of your newspaper. You praise Marx/Engels/Lenin/Whatever like they were saints. Prophets.


You dig into theory, but are hesistant, or even refuse to do something practical.

You quote Marx and Lenin. You sometimes even write articles about Marx and Lenin, and you drink coffee. To tell you the truths, I&#39;m tired of all the Cappuccino-Commies. All you do is whine, whine, whine. Pick up a gun and fight for your own damn cause, but your preaching just make other people sick and tired. You&#39;re not great. You do not hold any "higher" morals than anyone else. Marxism is not divine.

So pick up that gun, and start shooting down police officers and soldiers. It&#39;ll be a great step to equality and


At least there is something honorable to fight when you are truly oppressed, but I bet most of you have roof over your head, and you eat plenty of food. Some of you, I bet, even got a Playstation, or even an XBox&#33; You sure got a computer, don&#39;t you?

"Oooh, I&#39;m oppressed. Look at me, I have a computer, but I&#39;m still sooo oppressed"


It just goes on to absurd length. If you were living in Somalia or Sudan, or even Haiti, I would understand. But you live in the West. You go to the cinema. You play video games for christ sake&#33;&#33;





, if they were as truly as helpless as you say, we might as well shoot ourselves in the heads right now.

Who are "they"?

My guess is that you think of the working class. It&#39;s funny how you all describe them as "they". Isn&#39;t it pretty damn obvious that you think your higher than them? They&#39;re sheeps with no shepherd. You&#39;re the shepherd. You&#39;re supposed to guide those stupid, stupid sheeps. They are stupid and weak, and you need to enlighten them. You are the prophet, messenger of God.


So your solution if you can&#39;t make "them" convert to your faith, and all you have is your ideology, then be my guest.

But of course, with your blind faith, you might just convert to Christianity, and be a good American. Or, if you really want to be bad-ass, Islam&#33;

It&#39;s the one where you kneel and praise Allah, just like some of you like to praise Marx. And instead of quotes from prophet Marx, you get quotes from Prophet Mohammed&#33; And besides, Islam is a much stronger force today, than marxism, so why not do a little changing?

It&#39;s the same thing. It&#39;s all about faith, faith, faith, faith.


Now, pick up a gun and start shooting some soldiers. And if you can&#39;t hit &#39;em, the revolution failed, and then you might as well just shoot yourself&#33; The masses didn&#39;t want you&#33;&#33;

And if you chicken out, like a lot of you do, then you can just go back and play some playstation, or watch a DVD on your computer.

[JC1]

A lot of people do work in order to become wealthy. A lot of people support capitalism on the basis of that. But a lot of people also do it because of the philosophy of capitalism. Have you ever actually read into capitalist theory?

Most peoople work to live . Unless you live amongst a Petty Bougoise Group ,
wealth is the last thing in peoples minds. Even if you live witrh members of the petit bourgoise , wealth is the last thing on there mind .


Has it ever crossed your mind that a lot of people are actually well read regarding Marxism, and still is not a marxist, and has no intention of becoming one in the future?


Jus&#39; cuz someboidy skimmed the communist manifesto for the grade 11. SS class
dosent make them well read by any means .

I have never met someone who read marx thourhly and didnt become a marxist .


You live in the past. You have Marx, who is fucking dead by the way, on the front of your newspaper. You praise Marx/Engels/Lenin/Whatever like they were saints. Prophets.



If there organ was a journal of natural science , instead of marxist econoimic science , they would have a photo of darwin . So what ? If Mrxism was a religion then why would we critisize our leaders ?


You quote Marx and Lenin. You sometimes even write articles about Marx and Lenin, and you drink coffee. To tell you the truths, I&#39;m tired of all the Cappuccino-Commies. All you do is whine, whine, whine. Pick up a gun and fight for your own damn cause, but your preaching just make other people sick and tired. You&#39;re not great. You do not hold any "higher" morals than anyone else. Marxism is not divine.

So pick up that gun, and start shooting down police officers and soldiers. It&#39;ll be a great step to equality and


At least there is something honorable to fight when you are truly oppressed, but I bet most of you have roof over your head, and you eat plenty of food. Some of you, I bet, even got a Playstation, or even an XBox&#33; You sure got a computer, don&#39;t you?

"Oooh, I&#39;m oppressed. Look at me, I have a computer, but I&#39;m still sooo oppressed"


Morals dont exist in marxism for one . Two , the CL isd active in helpin out felklow members of our class AND active in the Anti-War movement . Three , killin coips wouldnt get me any kless hungry , it would just alienate people . Four , having a computer doisent make " Bourgoise " . Most people i know wjo are fellow workers and have computers a) Got it Cheap , or B) Got it stolen .


It just goes on to absurd length. If you were living in Somalia or Sudan, or even Haiti, I would understand. But you live in the West. You go to the cinema. You play video games for christ sake&#33;&#33;


I live in the murder captial of my country , and if my city was american it would be 14 place in per capita murders. My neiboorhood was called " Murders Half Acre " for gods sake .

And i go to cinema . So im not oppressed . THe Capoitial takes my familys Surplus Value , but im not a worker ? If your going to argue from a marxist point of view , you have to have facts ands utilize marxist heorys . Acording to marx , im a worker cuz &#39; i have Surplus Value extracted from me .

What kind of drivvel are you posting ? You should get your ass kicked from the Commie Club , becuase youre not Communist .



What about teachers, journalists civil servants and social workers. They all &#39;sell there labour&#39;. Are they poraletarians?


The U.S. working class, a vast sea of wage slaves who don&#39;t see themselves that way at all but rather as middle class homeowners and stockholders, is relatively privileged, and it is this that reduces or erodes the proletariat&#39;s consciousness of its liberating mission. Many workers in the upper stratum of the proletariat don&#39;t see their material interests in socialism but in the maintenance of the status quo. The stratification of the U.S. working class must be addressed.

It has been , let me qoute the CL .


Seriously, the modern proletariat is composed of three main areas: industrial (including transportation); service (including office/clerical and some teaching positions); and, agricultural (including migrant farmers; farm laborers; "undocumented" workers; etc.).

[h&s]

OK, I don&#39;t see the problem with barring petty-borgeois people from a working class revolutionary organisation. Just think about it - a real revolutionary is one who sees everything political in a class perspective, and more importantly from a working class perspective.
Anyone who is middle class and claims to be a communist blatantly does not see things from that working class perspective. If they calim that they do they will claim to be &#39;liberating the proletariat one at a time&#39; which further proves that their class views are false. Any communist ideals that they do have are utopian ideals, and we are not utopians are we? So why should we let these people in?
However, if someone who was born into a middle-class background should not automatically have that used against them. If they are prepeared to renounce that lifestyle and live and work like a normal person, they should be welcomed.

[shadows]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 06:48 PM
The stratification of the U.S. working class must be addressed.

It has been , let me qoute the CL .


Seriously, the modern proletariat is composed of three main areas: industrial (including transportation); service (including office/clerical and some teaching positions); and, agricultural (including migrant farmers; farm laborers; "undocumented" workers; etc.). [/quote]
Stratification within the working class concerns income, educational, and geographical distribution as well as type of work. These sociological variables express material differences that set layers of workers apart from each other. In this sense, the working class is not an undifferentiated mass, though each segment or stratum has in common the required sale of labor for a wage. Most workers do not and cannot survive by income from their limited stockholdings in capitalist institutions, so one might consider investment as an ideological barrier to consciousness with some economic boost overall for capitalism. That is, while the ultimate aim of the proletariat in the US is to eliminate wage slavery and transition to communism via socialism, many people have short and medium term gain from the very system that oppresses them.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 07:30 AM
Um, no, the fact you say you are in a coalition with the Democrats means you are in a coalition with the Democrats.

"On the other hand, the Democratic Party does find itself represented in our movement; the liberal-democratic wing of our movement is composed of self-identified Democrats. This fact cannot be ignored, and we cannot afford to ignore these brothers and sisters — even if we see their party as part of the reason why we are in this situation."link (http://www.communistleague.tk/)

And anyone who complains about a supposed "coup" by Bush is giving backhanded support for the Democrats; basically they&#39;re just loudmouthed liberals of the Michael Moore variety. The truth is that Democratic administrations are just as bad for workers&#39; democratic rights as Republican administrations; Ashcroft&#39;s detentions of immigrants, etc. have been based more on Clinton&#39;s anti-terrorism laws than on the PATRIOT Act. That&#39;s a far more real problem with the Democrats than their acceptance of Bush&#39;s electoral victories.

That&#39;s worth pointing out since the delusion&#39;s far more widespread than the CL.
What you call being "in a coalition" we call acknowledging a simple fact: many of those who want to fight for democratic rights and against the corporatism of the Bush regime identify themselves with the Democratic Party. They are not Democratic Party officials or elected politicians, they are Democratic voters or, at the most, rank-and-file supporters of the Democratic Party.

As for the coups d&#39;etat in 2000 and 2004, I recall that your organization in fact sided with the Bush regime-in-waiting and their suppression of the African American vote in Florida. But, yes, you&#39;re right that the Democratic Party officialdom is no better on these issues than the Republicans. That&#39;s one of many reasons why we are intervening on our own platform with our own methods.

Miles

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 07:30 AM
And another issue arises: what about struggles that are not strictly class defined, such as the struggle for women&#39;s rights, for gay rights, for immigrant rights, for civil rights.
Actually, within the dynamics of all struggles of oppressed people, class differences quickly emerge. We saw that, for example, with the Civil Rights movement, when the Black bourgeoisie and a significant section of the petty bourgeoisie split from the Black working class over how far the democratic struggle should be carried. That was when you began to see the rise of the Black Power movement in the mid-1960s. The same is true for the gay rights movement in the aftermath of the Stonewall Rebellion of 1969, when organizations like Red Butterfly and the GLF emerged and displaced organizations like the Mattachine Society and Daughters of Bilitis among poor and working-class gays and lesbians.

Miles

[shadows]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 08:58 PM

Actually, within the dynamics of all struggles of oppressed people, class differences quickly emerge.


True enough, but what of the proletariat preserving the gains from the bourgeois revolution? That is, even the decripitude of the US bourgeoisie cannot completely conceal the legacy of the destruction of pre-bourgeois relations. This preservation of the achievements, say, of the Enlightenment is critical to the struggles the proletariat engages in, and class distinctions do emerge quickly within mass struggles like those for Black freedom and for the rights of women, yet even when these distinctions are not apparent, the interests of the proletariat are involved, for if the revolution is not a sublimation (in the Marcusean sense of transformation of the past in the present) as well as a dialectical leap into the future, then it risks failure, or mere economism.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 05:35 PM
The U.S. working class, a vast sea of wage slaves who don&#39;t see themselves that way at all but rather as middle class homeowners and stockholders, is relatively privileged, and it is this that reduces or erodes the proletariat&#39;s consciousness of its liberating mission. Many workers in the upper stratum of the proletariat don&#39;t see their material interests in socialism but in the maintenance of the status quo. The stratification of the U.S. working class must be addressed.
That strata of the proletariat that has been effectively bought off by the bourgeoisie (the "labor aristocracy") is: a) not very large in comparison to the class as a whole (about 5-10 percent); and, b) not the section of the class to whom we orient and with whom we work. Our work is conducted among the poorer and more exploited layers of the proletariat, especially among proletarians from oppressed backgrounds, not only because those strata are more open to communist politics, but also because that is where most of the members of the League come from. It&#39;s as good a place to start as any.

Miles

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by h&[email protected] 18 2005, 07:07 PM
However, if someone who was born into a middle-class background should not automatically have that used against them. If they are prepeared to renounce that lifestyle and live and work like a normal person, they should be welcomed.
We agree completely. That, in fact, is our position. If there are comrades from petty-bourgeois (or even bourgeois) backgrounds that want to join the League and fight for a working people&#39;s republic, we expect them to irreversibly assimilate themselves into the proletariat as a precondition of membership.

Miles

[shadows]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 09:14 PM

That strata of the proletariat that has been effectively bought off by the bourgeoisie (the "labor aristocracy") is: a) not very large in comparison to the class as a whole (about 5-10 percent)
I concur, but with these observation: the ideological effect of this 5-10% on the middle mass of the proletariat is significant, though perhaps waning as hope for entering this well-off layer crumbles with each fresh economic defeat (say, the UFCW grocery strike).

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 09:12 PM
True enough, but what of the proletariat preserving the gains from the bourgeois revolution? That is, even the decripitude of the US bourgeoisie cannot completely conceal the legacy of the destruction of pre-bourgeois relations. This preservation of the achievements, say, of the Enlightenment is critical to the struggles the proletariat engages in, and class distinctions do emerge quickly within mass struggles like those for Black freedom and for the rights of women, yet even when these distinctions are not apparent, the interests of the proletariat are involved, for if the revolution is not a sublimation (in the Marcusean sense of transformation of the past in the present) as well as a dialectical leap into the future, then it risks failure, or mere economism.
We see that as a class issue as well. If the history of the recent period has shown us anything, it is that the bourgeoisie and its petty-bourgeois agents are incapable and/or unwilling to defend even the limited bourgeois-democratic norms that existed in the U.S. before 2000. That is why we raise a democratic platform of action as an independent, revolutionary intervention. We believe that only the proletariat can defend even basic bourgeois democracy, due to the bourgeoisie&#39;s view that such rights are interfering with their ability to intensify exploitation.

Miles

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 09:22 PM
I concur, but with these observation: the ideological effect of this 5-10% on the middle mass of the proletariat is significant, though perhaps waning as hope for entering this well-off layer crumbles with each fresh economic defeat (say, the UFCW grocery strike).
Very true. The labor aristocracy is little more than a transmission belt for bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideology (from Capital and its "labor lieutenants"). But, yes, that process is breaking down, and proletarians in the middle and lower strata are increasingly looking for new solutions to society&#39;s crises.

Miles

[SonofRage]

I don&#39;t see why people have a problem with this organization being exclusively proletarian. The Industrial Workers of the World is the same way, and it&#39;s one of the things that influenceed me in joining the IWW.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 04:08 PM
Back in the 60s and 70s, a number of Maoist groups tried the same approach...and while there were a few "success" stories, it was mostly a disaster for the middle class kids themselves.

Nothing in their class backgrounds had prepared them for work in heavy industry...and since they were mainly motivated by idealism and a desire to "do good things", they were very much like "fish out of water".
I may be showing my age here, but one of my favorite movies is the 1970s film "Car Wash". In that movie, they poke fun at what you&#39;re talking about; the owner&#39;s son is a Maoist, constantly reading the Little Red Book, and he wants to work at the car wash because it would make him a "real proletarian". If you get a chance, rent it sometime. You&#39;ll get a kick out of how "true" the young Maoist character is.

Miles

[shadows]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 01:17 PM

The petty bourgeoisie is not an oppressed and/or exploited class -- not here, not anywhere. Their role in society is that of policeman, manager and bureaucrat. There may be individuals from petty-bourgeois backgrounds that may tie their wagons to the proletarian movement, but unless they are willing to cut all of their ties to the petty bourgeoisie and irreversibly assimilate into the proletariat, they are of no use
I thought the petty bourgeoisie, a rather nebulous category, was caught between the proletariat and the big bourgeoisie. This group serves to convey the false consciousness of capitalism&#39;s &#39;me first&#39; ideology to the workers, to whom the petty bourgeoisie is much closer socio-economically than is the big bourgeoisie. Not only does it translate bourgeois ideology to the workers, but it indulges in the fantasy of individualism. The fate of this class is clear, but persons within it might use their relative privilege to enter the proletariat. As the gap between proletariat and bourgeoisie widens in terms of exploitation, the ideological function assigned the petty bourgeoisie becomes increasingly significant. The contradiction is that even the petty bourgeoisie suffers, and many fall into the proletariat while a few cling to the coat-tails of their masters. I consider the petty bourgeoisie to be the small businesspersons, entrepreneurs, et al.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 10:08 AM
Back in the 60s and 70s, a number of Maoist groups tried the same approach...and while there were a few "success" stories, it was mostly a disaster for the middle class kids themselves.

Nothing in their class backgrounds had prepared them for work in heavy industry...and since they were mainly motivated by idealism and a desire to "do good things", they were very much like "fish out of water".

Some of them talked up their politics right away...and got fired. Others were so overwhelmed by it all that they couldn&#39;t think of anything to say.
The ISO (the US equivalent of the British SWP) also had an unsuccessful attempt at a turn to industry. Their conclusion was their members in industry mostly adapted to their new surroundings by becoming pure-and-simple trade unionists, reactionary on most other positions.

The RCP had a certain success for a time, gaining a certain influence and some recruits among coal miners in some areas...if you see the movie "Harlan County", some of the people in it went on to join the RCP. I once worked in a railcar place where the RCP had once - long ago, before it shut down and reopened - had a fraction, and knew one of the old-timers who was I guess pretty influenced by their politics, he was an adadamant admirer of Stalin anyway. The RCP&#39;s attempt at a working-class orientation ultimately flamed out under, basically, a string of huge tactical mistakes.

The tactical decisions in mass work are harder than in anything else, and the consequences for a wrong decision are high.

The CWP also acquired a certain influence in Greensboro, there are still people there who remember them positively as fighters...but the larger lasting effect was intimidation, because of how they got gunned down by Klansmen. Again, tactical mistakes were involved.

The SWP has been successful where others have failed. Why? I&#39;d suggest, one, the SWP&#39;s always had a certain proletarian core and union experience. Going back to a layer of experienced worker-militants from the CP who founded it (in contrast to most Trotskyist groups in the world, BTW.)

Two, timing. The SWP&#39;s reorientation was carried out at a time - 1978 or so, when there was a certain upturn in labor struggles...the 1977-78 miners strike for example. Timing&#39;s a big part of the art of politics, of course...one, you&#39;ve gotta have a good program, but two, you&#39;ve gotta know what part of it to implement when and where.

Three, the SWP, unlike the ISO, had enough confidence in the class not to think you had to approach workers on a purely trade-union level or that you couldn&#39;t do rounded political work, with trade-union activity only part of it.

Four, the SWP, unlike the various Maoist groups, has a modicum of tactical sense and seriousness. Frankly, the kind of ultraleftism that makes you flame out right away, like say not waiting til you get off probation, is not really a mark of leftism or militancy, but just a lack of seriousness or concern for what effect you&#39;ll have on the class relationship of forces in that workplace long-term.

The CPUSA should also be mentioned: it&#39;s always had a certain layer of workers...as well as labor officials...and, on paper, a policy of "industrial concentration." That policy&#39;s recently been recinded even on paper, and it&#39;s older worker-members are dying off. Still, the CPUSA is probably more proletarian in composition than most far-left groups, and that&#39;s reflected in that it does pay more attention to union actions than most...also stuff like the Black farmers&#39; struggle, and other stuff that does require a certain class instinct and orientation to see its significance. It&#39;s participation has a wholly class-collaborationist direction, of course, and is a negative factor...just wanted to point out it is a factor, where most far-left groups ain&#39;t.

***

As to Miles&#39; rant: the truth hurts, apparently.

Could be interesting to have a thread on identity politics.

Or one on why left groups that agree on nothing else can unite on attacking the SWP. And not just that, but attacking from the same direction. E.g. here&#39;s Miles, one post going on about the horrors of "Trotskyism", next post it&#39;s the awfulness of the "Barnesite" betrayal of "Trotskyism", uncritically repeating the accusations of self-described Trotskyists against the SWP. Perhaps that&#39;s just a case of "any stick is good to beat a dog with", but you see that kind of thing a lot and I think it has a more general poltical cause.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 07:52 AM
As to Miles&#39; rant: the truth hurts, apparently.

Could be interesting to have a thread on identity politics.

Or one on why left groups that agree on nothing else can unite on attacking the SWP. And not just that, but attacking from the same direction. E.g. here&#39;s Miles, one post going on about the horrors of "Trotskyism", next post it&#39;s the awfulness of the "Barnesite" betrayal of "Trotskyism", uncritically repeating the accusations of self-described Trotskyists against the SWP. Perhaps that&#39;s just a case of "any stick is good to beat a dog with", but you see that kind of thing a lot and I think it has a more general poltical cause.
You&#39;re kidding, right? Do you honestly think that what you wrote was either the "truth" or that it "hurt"? It amazes me how full of yourself you are. You whiny denigration of the central role of the proletariat in the struggle for a communist world only exposes your own petty-bourgeois view of the world. Yes, definitely, let&#39;s have a discussion on "identity politics". Perhaps we can talk about how certain organizations, like the SWP, tail bourgeois organizations like NOW and the NAACP.

By the way, is Mary-Alice Waters still sporting her Islamic veil? Does she still think it represents the "anti-imperialism" of the Iranian Mullahs?

And as for that so-called "attack", which was one line in a long message, I just think it&#39;s dishonest and disingenuous for an organization like the SWP to claim credit for a struggle carried out by people that: a) would not politically qualify for membership in your organization; and b) would not want anything to do with it today anyway.

So, is there "a more general political cause" behind what I wrote. Yes. It&#39;s called honesty.

Miles

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by sha[email protected] 19 2005, 07:27 AM
I thought the petty bourgeoisie, a rather nebulous category, was caught between the proletariat and the big bourgeoisie. This group serves to convey the false consciousness of capitalism&#39;s &#39;me first&#39; ideology to the workers, to whom the petty bourgeoisie is much closer socio-economically than is the big bourgeoisie. Not only does it translate bourgeois ideology to the workers, but it indulges in the fantasy of individualism. The fate of this class is clear, but persons within it might use their relative privilege to enter the proletariat. As the gap between proletariat and bourgeoisie widens in terms of exploitation, the ideological function assigned the petty bourgeoisie becomes increasingly significant. The contradiction is that even the petty bourgeoisie suffers, and many fall into the proletariat while a few cling to the coat-tails of their masters. I consider the petty bourgeoisie to be the small businesspersons, entrepreneurs, et al.
First, the petty bourgeoisie is not a "nebulous" category. They have definite relations to production and with other classes. And in the age of large-scale production over a worldwide system, they have in fact become a relatively stable class. This is because, as Marx and Engels pointed out, as older professions in the petty bourgeoisie had been proletarianized, new ones took their place. For example, as certain categories of functionaries, like secretaries, were proletarianized, they were replaced with new categories: consultants, "efficiency experts", new layers of managers and officials, etc.

While it is true that there are still some hangovers from older epochs, like small shopkeepers, those elements make up only a very small proportion of the petty bourgeoisie today. And many of those "small shopkeepers" and "entrepreneurs" you mention are proletarians who have invested their life savings in a gamble to break out of their class. Most of them end up failing and falling back into the proletariat; others sell their small businesses to a larger capitalist entity and take the "buyout" of becoming a manager. Only a very select few are able to pass on their "gains" directly to the next generation.

It is true, however, that elements of the petty bourgeoisie "suffer" at the same time as the proletariat. But that "suffering" does not translate into a shared standpoint. On the contrary, in this epoch, the petty bourgeoisie is ruined much faster than elements of it are proletarianized. That ruination -- and the threat of that ruination leading them into the proletariat -- is what leads the petty bourgeoisie to mobilize en masse under the banner of reaction, in a desperate move to save capitalism. This is even more intensified in a period when the proletariat is insurgent -- thus the rise of mass fascist movements.

As for those from the petty bourgeoisie who are inclined to "use their relative privilege to enter the proletariat", it is not possible for them to do so unless they cut those ties and reject those privileges. Otherwise, they are not able to integrate themselves into the proletariat -- and are, thus, of no use to the proletariat.

Miles

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Severian
Could be interesting to have a thread on identity politics.

Ok with me...but it is, as you know, a real "can of worms".


Or one on why left groups that agree on nothing else can unite on attacking the SWP.

Not very interesting...maybe in Chit-Chat.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[shadows]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 01:58 PM


While it is true that there are still some hangovers from older epochs, like small shopkeepers, those elements make up only a very small proportion of the petty bourgeoisie today. And many of those "small shopkeepers" and "entrepreneurs" you mention are proletarians who have invested their life savings in a gamble to break out of their class. Most of them end up failing and falling back into the proletariat
I have yet to surmise the functional definition of &#39;petty bourgeoisie&#39; if this class is other than the great mass of small shopowners who own franchises to retail stores, run consulting businesses, small production units, warehouses, etc. The word &#39;bureaucrat&#39; is so vague that it encompasses far too many roles and economic relations. This doesn&#39;t mean that I don&#39;t think the category &#39;bureaucrat&#39; exists, just that it seems, well, &#39;external&#39; to Marxism economically, but related to the sociological superstructure of a society. Having an objective, structured material interest in the perpetuation of capitalism or in its negation helps define &#39;class.&#39; Basically, a relation to the means of production, I guess. This doesn&#39;t cloud, I hope, the problem. Even workers can bourgeoisify, especially as distance from direct production increases and consciousness of class recedes correspondingly. Whether &#39;petty bourgeoisie&#39; are shopowners or &#39;managers,&#39; (I can&#39;t help thinking you might mean &#39;middle class&#39; here when you speak of &#39;petty bourgeoisie&#39;), the need to neutralize if not ideologically convert this group might be significant if as you imply this group (petty bourgeoisie/middle class) has potential for reaction. So, is there a means test (like for medicare) to enter the CL? How is class empirically established? Could one be income impaired yet petty bourgeois? And vice versa, one might have a hefty income yet be proletarian? I assume &#39;yes&#39; to both. Forgive my self-indulgent sarcasm here.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 12:53 AM
I have yet to surmise the functional definition of &#39;petty bourgeoisie&#39; if this class is other than the great mass of small shopowners who own franchises to retail stores, run consulting businesses, small production units, warehouses, etc. The word &#39;bureaucrat&#39; is so vague that it encompasses far too many roles and economic relations. This doesn&#39;t mean that I don&#39;t think the category &#39;bureaucrat&#39; exists, just that it seems, well, &#39;external&#39; to Marxism economically, but related to the sociological superstructure of a society. Having an objective, structured material interest in the perpetuation of capitalism or in its negation helps define &#39;class.&#39; Basically, a relation to the means of production, I guess. This doesn&#39;t cloud, I hope, the problem. Even workers can bourgeoisify, especially as distance from direct production increases and consciousness of class recedes correspondingly. Whether &#39;petty bourgeoisie&#39; are shopowners or &#39;managers,&#39; (I can&#39;t help thinking you might mean &#39;middle class&#39; here when you speak of &#39;petty bourgeoisie&#39;), the need to neutralize if not ideologically convert this group might be significant if as you imply this group (petty bourgeoisie/middle class) has potential for reaction. So, is there a means test (like for medicare) to enter the CL? How is class empirically established? Could one be income impaired yet petty bourgeois? And vice versa, one might have a hefty income yet be proletarian? I assume &#39;yes&#39; to both. Forgive my self-indulgent sarcasm here.
The bourgeoisie has been reshaping the petty bourgeoisie to suit its needs, just as it shaped the proletariat for the same reasons. As the means of production grew in size and scope, the bourgeoisie needed layer upon layer of "middle men" between them and the workers, as well as "specialized" subofficials that handled certain aspects of the basic process of the transformation of money to capital (and vice versa). These were the origins of the modern manager and bureaucrat. They are at once a buffer and an appendage. They are a buffer in the sense that when the workers in a particular shop or workplace begin to struggle against their material conditions, their first opponents are the managers, co-managers, assistant managers, etc. They are an appendage in the sense that their existence is tied directly to the maintenance of private ownership of the means of production.

We do think that classes are defined by their relations to the means of production, as well as their relations to other classes. Given the position of the petty bourgeoisie in relation to the means of production, as well as in relation to other classes, they do indeed have "an objective, structured material interest in the perpetuation of capitalism". Without private ownership of capital, their functioning would be in jeopardy; without private control of capital, their role (as delegated authority) would be immediately obsolete. We do agree there is a need to neutralize sections of the petty bourgeoisie that may, at the decisive moment, vacillate and question their role in society. We are fully in favor of taking the steps necessary to do that -- up to and including possible temporary concessions to such elements (but only to such elements, not the petty bourgeoisie as a whole).

As for how the League determines the class background of someone, no, there is no "means test". Class is not based on income. To reiterate: classes are defined by their relations to the means of production, as well as their relations to other classes. You simply find out what they do (and, if necessary, what their parents did) and go from there. It&#39;s really not that hard to figure out. In fact, given the fundamental differences in educational style, training, personal development, etc., that young people from different classes get, sometimes you don&#39;t even need to ask those questions; the answer will sometimes jump right out at you.

Case in point: this discussion board.

Miles

[Black Dagger]

I pretty much understand, and respect the idea(s) behind the CL, the only thing i dont&#39; really &#39;get&#39; is how the league expects the so-called bourgeois communists to &#39;proletarianise&#39; themselves. If they live with their parents, are they to move out? To get a job in a factory? Quit school? university? college?... and work 40 hours + a week? I&#39;m not quite sure what is &#39;acceptably&#39; proletarian. You touched on it a bit in your last post, but for example, if commie X is the daughter of two banker parents (or one banker or one accountant etc.), are they automatically excluded because of their parents backgrounds? If commie Y is the daughter of a teacher and a doctor are they excluded? If X & Y are unemployed, are they excluded? Do you have to be a &#39;working proletarian&#39; to be in the CL?

[Sabocat]

Perhaps the better question Black Dagger, is to ask can one be "acceptably proletarian" if they&#39;ve never had a wage job and been a part of the working class, and are provided for by parents?

I would agree that in the instances you cite, (students living at home for example) someone may be able to sympathize with the working class, but they would certainly have less "urgency" about the elimination of the class structure.

I would think it would be decidedly difficult to fully appreciate the tribulations of the proletariate without ever being of it.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 20 2005, 12:09 PM
I pretty understand, and respect the idea(s) behind the CL, the only thing i dont&#39; really &#39;get&#39; is how the league expects the so-called bourgeois communists to &#39;proletarianise&#39; themselves. If they live with their parents, are they to move out? To get a job in a factory? Quit school? university? college?... and work 40 hours + a week? I&#39;m not quite sure what is &#39;acceptably&#39; proletarian. You touched on it a bit in your last post, but for example, if commie X is the daughter of two banker parents (or one banker or one accountant etc.), are they automatically excluded because of their parents backgrounds? If commie Y is the daughter of a teacher and a doctor are they excluded? If X & Y are unemployed, are they excluded? Do you have to be a &#39;working proletarian&#39; to be in the CL?
Actually, these are good questions to ask. Let me answer each question individually:

1. If they live with their parents, are they to move out? It&#39;s preferrable -- especially if they are already working -- but not mandatory. Many youth from proletarian backgrounds continue to live with their parents after leaving school for economic reasons. We understand that situation, and can accept a young comrade living with their family as a temporary measure. Youth from the petty-bourgeoisie, on the other hand, we would expect to leave their parents&#39; house and begin the process of proletarianization. Either way, however, the League would offer any and all assistance we can.

2. To get a job in a factory? Quit school? university? college?... and work 40 hours + a week? We anticipate we will get very, very few young people enrolled in "academia" or "business" courses wanting to join the League (in fact, we expect none of them). What we do expect, and it has so far been the case, is that young people interested in joining would be from proletarian backgrounds, attending college to acquire skills for a working career (e.g., teaching, nursing, etc.). In those cases, we would extend probationary membership, but would not favor advancing them to full membership until after their studies are complete and they are working. (In such cases, if there are a sufficient number of such young comrades to make it worthwhile, we would also encourage them to establish their own communist youth organization, as a sister organization of the League.)

3. For example, if commie X is the daughter of two banker parents (or one banker or one accountant etc.), are they automatically excluded because of their parents backgrounds? No. If "commie X" is willing to leave the class privilege of her parents behind for good and join the proletariat, she would be welcome as a probationary member during the process of integration into the class, with the goal of moving her forward to full membership after a time.

4. If commie Y is the daughter of a teacher and a doctor are they excluded? Again, no, provided they are willing to give up the class privileges associated with being a doctor&#39;s daughter.

5. If X & Y are unemployed, are they excluded? And again, no. We would, however, expect them to get jobs and begin working if they are unemployed. League members would help them find such jobs as much as they can. For "commie X", we would expect gainful employment before admitting them as any kind of member; for "commie Y", it would be a judgement call based on our discussions and experiences (in order to see which of the two differing classes had a greater influence on her outlook and consciousness).

6. Do you have to be a &#39;working proletarian&#39; to be in the CL? No. We understand that proletarians suffer from unemployment. In our view, an unemployed worker is still a worker, regardless of their temporary condition. But we expect that they would be seeking work (if possible -- in the case of permanently disabled or retired proletarians, we would not have such expectations).

I hope this clarifies this policy more.

Miles

[Edelweiss]

I haven&#39;t read the whole thread now, so maybe this point came up before, but what about unemployed people? Aren&#39;t their allowed into the Communist League, or what? Will you be exluded, if you lose your job??? If so, this is just insane and stupid, and has nothing to do with a communist group at all.
Many communists are doing the mistake to be "proud of their class", in case they are workers, and they are celebrating their wage slave live, but this is entirely wrong IMO. It&#39;s not about class pride, it&#39;s about class consciousness&#33; It&#39;s the wage labour what has to be abolished, not to be celebrated.
Also, at least here in Germany, I would classify 80% of all workers as part of the (at least lower) middle class, so what&#39;s the point of this at all?

[bolshevik butcher]

Actually my mums a teacher and my dad works for the council, in finnancing housing proucts, so i suppose in some ways they are workers. Both are in a trade uniion. I hardly live in the most desirable place, and go to bloody drummond community high school. My point is if someone of similar thinking is rich or poor what stops them form being marxist?

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 12:38 PM
I haven&#39;t read the whole thread now, so maybe this point came up before, but what about unemployed people? Aren&#39;t their allowed into the Communist League, or what? Will you be exluded, if you lose your job??? If so, this is just insane and stupid, and has nothing to do with a communist group at all.
Many communists are doing the mistake to be "proud of their class", in case they are workers, and they are celebrating their wage slave live, but this is entirely wrong IMO. It&#39;s not about class pride, it&#39;s about class consciousness&#33; It&#39;s the wage labour what has to be abolished, not to be celebrated.
Also, at least here in Germany, I would classify 80% of all workers as part of the (at least lower) middle class, so what&#39;s the point of this at all?
We do not "celebrate the wage-slave life". That&#39;s not what we mean by having a sense of pride in being proletarian. For us, it is the fact that we, as workers, built everything in this world. Without us, society could not have advanced. In that sense, it is tied directly to class consciousness. We do not "romanticize" or "celebrate" the horrors of being a proletarian under capitalism. We combat the alienation that proletarians experience through the development of pride in the achievements of their class, which in turn fuels the development of class consciousness.

For the other two points in your post, I would encourage you to read through the other posts I have made, all of which address your comments.

Miles

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 20 2005, 12:43 PM
Actually my mums a teacher and my dad works for the council, in finnancing housing proucts, so i suppose in some ways they are workers. Both are in a trade uniion. I hardly live in the most desirable place, and go to bloody drummond community high school. My point is if someone of similar thinking is rich or poor waht sops them form being marxist?
Technically speaking, nothing can stop them from identifying themselves as a "Marxist". But, what stops them from being an effective or useful "Marxist" is the contradiction between their objective reality and their subjective views. I think the Black Panthers once put it best: Middle-class (petty-bourgeois) radicals can cut their hair, put on a suit and join the establishment like nothing ever happened. We&#39;re here for life. And, from the way it sounds, so are you.

Miles

[shadows]

Class, I think, divides humanity, oppresses the vast majority, and distorts even those who oppress. It is the elimination of class that communists struggle to achieve. The privileges some possess are not merely to be abandoned, as if one could do so anyway, like a choice, but are to be extended. Maybe I&#39;m not clear here, but I think the idea is not to level down, but to expand and create a society where not only a crippling division of labor and class oppression are relegated to pre-history but humanity&#39;s potential exponentially expands.
On a different note, I&#39;d find interesting the organizational precursors of CL. My hunch is that there is a Trot heritage somewhere (comments on Barnes&#39; regime lead me to this, yet there is no mention of the Revolutionary Tendency that developed in the American SWP in opposition to SWP (pre-Barnes) indulging in Castroist fantasies and in opposition to abstention from the African-American struggles for freedom - SWP being &#39;hands off&#39; and RT being &#39;revolutionary integrationist&#39; a&#39;la Fraser). ?

[Edelweiss]

If X & Y are unemployed, are they excluded? And again, no. We would, however, expect them to get jobs and begin working if they are unemployed. League members would help them find such jobs as much as they can.

Why are you so bent on getting someone back into serving the system? What are you, a communist group, or a employment center? Are you aware that you fully fullfiling the interest of the ruling class with that kind of attitude? What you do than is delivering the beast it&#39;s prey, and you are even trying to prevent that the prey escapes (=going to college/university). Your stratagy is completely wrong IMO, as I already said, we have to fight wage labour and get rid of it, not supporting it like you practically do. You are even making a quasi-religion out of (wage) labour, which its contrary against the interests of communists, it&#39;s also completely beyond the needs of our time, where industrial nations like Germany and France have constant unemployment rates above 10%.

I would rather embrace an communist organisation which focuses on the revolutionary potential of the umemployed, that would be the right strategy for the times we live in, what you do is nonsense.

Higly recommended further reading for you, also I wouldn&#39;t support this text 100% myself: Manifesto Against Labour (http://members.blackbox.net/oebgdk/krisis_manifest-englisch.html).

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 01:53 PM
Class, I think, divides humanity, oppresses the vast majority, and distorts even those who oppress. It is the elimination of class that communists struggle to achieve. The privileges some possess are not merely to be abandoned, as if one could do so anyway, like a choice, but are to be extended. Maybe I&#39;m not clear here, but I think the idea is not to level down, but to expand and create a society where not only a crippling division of labor and class oppression are relegated to pre-history but humanity&#39;s potential exponentially expands.
On a different note, I&#39;d find interesting the organizational precursors of CL. My hunch is that there is a Trot heritage somewhere (comments on Barnes&#39; regime lead me to this, yet there is no mention of the Revolutionary Tendency that developed in the American SWP in opposition to SWP (pre-Barnes) indulging in Castroist fantasies and in opposition to abstention from the African-American struggles for freedom - SWP being &#39;hands off&#39; and RT being &#39;revolutionary integrationist&#39; a&#39;la Fraser). ?
In an ideal world, it would be best to do what you say: extend the privileges to all as a means of achieving a better equality. Yes, that&#39;s the kind of world communists want. But it is not the kind of world we live in today.

We live in a class society, where bourgeois ideology dominates. In such a situation, the maintenance of class privileges within an ostensibly communist organization would in fact lead to the reproduction of class divisions (and class antagonisms) within it. You would have the petty-bourgeois and bourgeois members doing all the theoretical, philosophical and otherwise "thinking" work, while the proletarian members are sent out to "organize", sell newspapers, do the heavy lifting and "grunt work". Such a set-up leads inevitably to a situation where proletarian members are kept busy and theoretically undeveloped, while the petty-bourgeois and bourgeois members are squirreled away writing documents and formulating political positions, with no input (or challenge) from the rest of the membership (i.e., the proletarian rank-and-file).

I, and other members of the League, have seen this process unfold many times over the years I have been active politically. In a sense, it can be said that as much as it is necessary to have the dictatorship of the proletariat in the transition from capitalism to communism, it is also necessary to have a similar dictatorship of the proletariat in the movement fighting for the transition from capitalism to communism. You are welcome to draw your own conclusions about that.

As for the histories of League member, yes, some of us came from Trotskyist backgrounds. Others came from Maoist backgrounds. Still others came from "official" Communist, Social-Democratic or even radical-liberal backgrounds. What binds us together is our shared outlook and principles.

But it seems that you are influenced directly by a specific strand of Trotskyist thought: the Spartacist tendency. They are, after all, the organizational heirs of the RT you mention, and your take on the pre-Barnes SWP bears all the markings of their doctrine. I can imagine that the arguments between you and Severian get rather heated at times. ;)

Miles

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 02:09 PM
Why are you so bent on getting someone back into serving the system? What are you, a communist group, or a employment center? Are you aware that you fully fullfiling the interest of the ruling class with that kind of attitude? What you do than is delivering the beast it&#39;s prey, and you are even trying to prevent that the prey escapes (=going to college/university). Your stratagy is completely wrong IMO, as I already said, we have to fight wage labour and get rid of it, not supporting it like you practically do. You are even making a quasi-religion out of (wage) labour, which its contrary against the interests of communists, it&#39;s also completely beyond the needs of our time, where industrial nations like Germany and France have constant unemployment rates above 10%.

I would rather embrace an communist organisation which focuses on the revolutionary potential of the umemployed, that would be the right strategy for the times we live in, what you do is nonsense.

Higly recommended further reading for you, also I wouldn&#39;t support this text 100% myself: Manifesto Against Labour (http://members.blackbox.net/oebgdk/krisis_manifest-englisch.html).
Is it really necessary for me to point out the problems with this line of argument? I mean, only someone who is the son or daughter of a petty bourgeois or bourgeois can live up to the "principles" contained in this statement. This is nothing more than bourgeois ideology turned inside out and decorated with "revolutionary" flourish.

You don&#39;t get rid of wage labor by being permanently unemployed. You starve to death or die of exposure to the elements. And then what good are you to the revolution, comrade?

I guess the old saying is true: Don&#39;t pity the martyr; he loves his job.

Miles

[OleMarxco]

I think Miles overlooked a question from that other page:

Originally posted by TC
Yo, Miles&#33;

Is the Communist League a "back to leninism"-group in ideology? Or do you recognize the contributions of both Stalin and Trotsky?

Perhaps you could answer that here, I&#39;d like to know atleast.
And cut out that "signature" name you add at the end of every post, it&#39;s driving me insane, arr ;)

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by OleMarxco+Apr 20 2005, 02:32 PM--> (OleMarxco &#064; Apr 20 2005, 02:32 PM) I think Miles overlooked a question from that other page:

Originally posted by [email protected]
Yo, Miles&#33;

Is the Communist League a "back to leninism"-group in ideology? Or do you recognize the contributions of both Stalin and Trotsky?

Perhaps you could answer that here, I&#39;d like to know atleast.
And cut out that "signature" name you add at the end of every post, it&#39;s driving me insane, arr ;) [/b]
Actually, I did answer that question. Here&#39;s what I wrote:


CommunistLeague
We&#39;re more of a "back to Marx" group than anything else. But we also recognize that several self-described "Marxists" have contributed elements of communist theory that remain valid and important today: Lenin&#39;s writings on imperialism and the state; Stalin&#39;s writings on the national question; Trotsky&#39;s analysis of fascism; Mao&#39;s writings on "revolutions within revolutions"; DeLeon&#39;s writings on "Socialist Industrial Unionism"; Luxemburg&#39;s writings on general strikes and mass action; C.L.R. James&#39; writings on dialectics; etc.

Miles :cool:

[OleMarxco]

I just didn&#39;t see it in your reply after, so I thought it were too "small" for you so it were never noticed, heh, I &#39;spose ;)

AND STOP THAT IMMEDIATLY&#33; Who the hell signs their posts anyways, like some goddamn letters...aarrgggghhh....nevermind my drivel....

[Edelweiss]

Originally posted by CommunistLeague+Apr 20 2005, 08:30 PM--> (CommunistLeague &#064; Apr 20 2005, 08:30 PM)
[email protected] 20 2005, 02:09 PM
Why are you so bent on getting someone back into serving the system? What are you, a communist group, or a employment center? Are you aware that you fully fullfiling the interest of the ruling class with that kind of attitude? What you do than is delivering the beast it&#39;s prey, and you are even trying to prevent that the prey escapes (=going to college/university). Your stratagy is completely wrong IMO, as I already said, we have to fight wage labour and get rid of it, not supporting it like you practically do. You are even making a quasi-religion out of (wage) labour, which its contrary against the interests of communists, it&#39;s also completely beyond the needs of our time, where industrial nations like Germany and France have constant unemployment rates above 10%.

I would rather embrace an communist organisation which focuses on the revolutionary potential of the umemployed, that would be the right strategy for the times we live in, what you do is nonsense.

Higly recommended further reading for you, also I wouldn&#39;t support this text 100% myself: Manifesto Against Labour (http://members.blackbox.net/oebgdk/krisis_manifest-englisch.html).
Is it really necessary for me to point out the problems with this line of argument? I mean, only someone who is the son or daughter of a petty bourgeois or bourgeois can live up to the "principles" contained in this statement. This is nothing more than bourgeois ideology turned inside out and decorated with "revolutionary" flourish.

You don&#39;t get rid of wage labor by being permanently unemployed. You starve to death or die of exposure to the elements. And then what good are you to the revolution, comrade?

I guess the old saying is true: Don&#39;t pity the martyr; he loves his job.

Miles [/b]
I think you have missed my point here, or you have willingly ignored it. I don&#39;t want to "get rid of wage labor by being permanently unemployed". That is not what I meant. I do crticize YOU for accepting and even practically supporting the enforcements of capitalism, by making an elitist cult out of wage labour like you do, by making it a condition to join your organisation, and by your general "a true yommunist has to work" attitude. With your worker&#39;s cult YOU are advocating "bourgeois ideology turned inside out" at it&#39;s best, actually not even turned inside out, you have the exact same bourgeois "only the one who works is worth anything" attitude, which is one of the cornerstones of bourgeois ideology.
No, you don&#39;t "get rid of wage labor by being permanently unemployed", but do you really think you do get rid of wage labour by encouraging it like you practically do?? I don&#39;t think so. It should be clear that this is not our task as communists. We have to do the exact opposite, get the masses to stop selling their labour for the profits of the ruling class. This is truely subversive to capitalism, not what you are doing. As it&#39;s written in the "Manifesto Against Labour":
Workers of all countries, call it a day&#33;.

[codyvo]

The problem I have with a group that doesn&#39;tt admit middle class citizens is that it is hard to draw the line between classes.When is it fair to say "oh you make too much money you can&#39;t be with us." It seems absurd that the people that fight for better wages and equality would deny access to those who have succesfully fought for their wages and equality. Also, saying that middle class citizens don&#39;t work is nonsense, some middle class citizens are just well payed workers.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I think it&#39;s been stated before, but I what I got from the League was that they don&#39;t admit petty-bourgeois persons into their membership, I don&#39;t recall anything about excluding &#39;Middle Class&#39; workers, though I could be wrong.

Basically, what I get from their materials and Miles is that if you sell your labor you may be a member. I don&#39;t really see the issue with this at all -- Marxism is based on the Class Struggle&#33; As Miles said they [bourgeois and petty-bourgeois] can only act in their class interest, which is counter disposed to the ideology of the proletariat.

[shadows]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 06:24 PM
it is also necessary to have a similar dictatorship of the proletariat in the movement fighting for the transition from capitalism to communism.
This concordance of means with end makes sense. A proletarian organization not only seeks to advance the dictatorship of the proletariat as the aim of socialist revolution but as the means of organizing the revolutionary struggle. On another note, what is the organizing principle for uniting ex-Maoists, Trots, ex-&#39;official&#39; (revisionist?) Communists, DeLeonists, et al.? I recall Marx&#39;, and Engels&#39;, line "all that is solid melts into air" from the Manifesto. A union of the once-disparate but doggedly Marxist?

[Encrypted Soldier]

Originally posted by viva le [email protected] 16 2005, 08:52 PM
I believe it is a smart decision not to admit middle-class and high-class people in this movement because a wide majority of the middle-class in america hold evengelist beliefs and is bush&#39;&#39;s power base, the other has the most to gain from the collapse of the movement.
Lenin was an aristocrat you dipstick. That means high-class. The best revolutionaries often come from the middle-class as some people already pointed out. Castro was a lawyer, making him high-class also.

Revolutionaries come from all walks of life.

P.S. Could I be considered a person from a prole family? My Dad is a floor supervisor in a casino, my mom is a teacher at Wayne State University, my step-dad is an engineer, and my step-mom is an elementery-school teacher. It&#39;s pretty middle-class but still... they all still work for someone.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Miles+--> (Miles)We live in a class society, where bourgeois ideology dominates. In such a situation, the maintenance of class privileges within an ostensibly communist organization would in fact lead to the reproduction of class divisions (and class antagonisms) within it. You would have the petty-bourgeois and bourgeois members doing all the theoretical, philosophical and otherwise "thinking" work, while the proletarian members are sent out to "organize", sell newspapers, do the heavy lifting and "grunt work". Such a set-up leads inevitably to a situation where proletarian members are kept busy and theoretically undeveloped, while the petty-bourgeois and bourgeois members are squirreled away writing documents and formulating political positions, with no input (or challenge) from the rest of the membership (i.e., the proletarian rank-and-file).[/b]

I don&#39;t see how anyone with the slightest familiarity with "Marxist parties" (at least in the U.S.) can deny the plain truth of this observation.

Even when a working class kid is allowed to write stuff for the "party", s/he is told to write about strikes or other working class insurgencies...and, in so many words (or hints), to leave the "big political questions" to the party&#39;s leadership.

I don&#39;t know if Miles would agree with me about this or not; but my observation is that membership in these parties for a proletarian is like having a really shitty second job.


Miles
In fact, given the fundamental differences in educational style, training, personal development, etc., that young people from different classes get, sometimes you don&#39;t even need to ask those questions; the answer will sometimes jump right out at you.

Case in point: this discussion board.

Too harsh. Both middle class and working class kids come here to learn stuff...and they do it largely by arguing with each other.

In the best cases, they learn (or begin to learn) how to "think like communists". Even if many of them do ultimately end up amongst the petty bourgeoisie, they will -- at various times and places -- be valuable (even if temporary) allies of the revolutionary proletariat.

And some, I think, will become proletarian revolutionaries.

The benefit for us older commies is different. We are unlikely to live to see a proletarian revolution ourselves...but we get the chance to "pass on" what we&#39;ve learned (or think we&#39;ve learned) to new generations -- for them to use or discard as they see fit, of course.

Once in a while, I must confess, they even teach "this old dog" a new trick or two.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[red_che]

CommunistLeague said: I noticed that a lot of you on here have an issue with the fact that we only admit proletarians as members of the League. Some of you have been thrown into such fits of apoplexy over this that you seem to think that means we would cast your petty-bourgeois arses into the ocean in the event of a proletarian revolution. To those of you who think that, all I can say is that you not only have an unbelieveably narrow view of who is going to make the revolution, but you also have an unusually infantile view of the relationship between a revolutionary communist organization and the revolutionary proletarian movement (and I stress the word, "infantile"). Honestly, is all the childish namecalling and cybersulking necessary?

It is also unbelievable that CommunistLeague said that those who have an issue over their League&#39;s not admitting a non-worker "have an unusually infantile view of the relationship between a revolutionary communist organization and the revolutionary proletarian movement". I think it is not infantility but rather a sign of maturity on the part of a communist or proletarian organization. A revolutionary proletarian movement cannot be waged without a revolutionary communist organization (which is a political party of the proletariat). And those who can join the communist party or any communist organization should not be limited to the working class only. The proletarian movement is not exclusive to the proletariat as well as a communist organization is not an elite proletarian organization.

Absolutely, anyone who wish to join a communist organization must be a communist, no question about that. But limiting it only to proletarians is a real manifestations of having an infantile view of the proletarian movement. I&#39;m sorry for intruding into your organization&#39;s view. I cannot really understand the reason for your non-admittance of people from other classes. Of course, there are other oppressed classes in a society. There are those peasants who were enslaved and exploited as much as a worker was. They as much cause to wage a revolution as a worker does. Their revolution is also part of the World Proletarian Revolution. :marx:

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 09:12 AM

Or one on why left groups that agree on nothing else can unite on attacking the SWP.

Not very interesting...maybe in Chit-Chat.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif


Heh. Not a bad suggestion. This is basically gossip I&#39;m responding to.

But since my goal is to raise the subject above gossip...I&#39;m putting it in History.

Others seem more interested in the subject than I am, actually, since it&#39;s up til now always been others who&#39;ve brought it up, spreading various pieces of misinformation about SWP history...including you once accusing the SWP of having had an overly hostile reaction to the Cuban Revolution, which is even more ironic than Miles complaining of the SWP supposedly betraying Trotskyism or whatever....

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Severian
...including you once accusing the SWP of having had an overly hostile reaction to the Cuban Revolution...

Don&#39;t remember doing that.

In fact, I don&#39;t remember ever discussing the SWP&#39;s attitudes towards Cuba at all.

Of course, my memory isn&#39;t what it once was...:lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 02:27 AM
It is also unbelievable that CommunistLeague said that those who have an issue over their League&#39;s not admitting a non-worker "have an unusually infantile view of the relationship between a revolutionary communist organization and the revolutionary proletarian movement". I think it is not infantility but rather a sign of maturity on the part of a communist or proletarian organization. A revolutionary proletarian movement cannot be waged without a revolutionary communist organization (which is a political party of the proletariat). And those who can join the communist party or any communist organization should not be limited to the working class only. The proletarian movement is not exclusive to the proletariat as well as a communist organization is not an elite proletarian organization.

Absolutely, anyone who wish to join a communist organization must be a communist, no question about that. But limiting it only to proletarians is a real manifestations of having an infantile view of the proletarian movement. I&#39;m sorry for intruding into your organization&#39;s view. I cannot really understand the reason for your non-admittance of people from other classes. Of course, there are other oppressed classes in a society. There are those peasants who were enslaved and exploited as much as a worker was. They as much cause to wage a revolution as a worker does. Their revolution is also part of the World Proletarian Revolution. :marx:
You act as if everyone who is or should be involved in the proletarian revolution is or should be in the communist organization. If there are elements of the petty bourgeoisie that want to take sides with the proletariat and help in making the revolution, they will do so regardless of whether they hold a membership card in a communist organization. That is what I meant by having an "infantile" view of that relationship.

Secondly, not all peasants are the same. We view landless peasants, sharecroppers, tenant farmers, etc., as part of the proletariat. They are not petty bourgeois, although the line does blur at certain points.

Miles

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Apr 20 2005, 11:06 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Apr 20 2005, 11:06 PM)
Miles
In fact, given the fundamental differences in educational style, training, personal development, etc., that young people from different classes get, sometimes you don&#39;t even need to ask those questions; the answer will sometimes jump right out at you.

Case in point: this discussion board.

Too harsh. Both middle class and working class kids come here to learn stuff...and they do it largely by arguing with each other. [/b]
I can see that there are young people here from both proletarian and petty-bourgeois backgrounds. In fact, that was what I was trying to say in that passage: you can tell by the writing styles and language which ones are from proletarian and which ones are from petty-bourgeois backgrounds. I was not trying to imply that everyone here is petty bourgeois. Far from it.

Miles

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 04:49 PM
On another note, what is the organizing principle for uniting ex-Maoists, Trots, ex-&#39;official&#39; (revisionist?) Communists, DeLeonists, et al.? I recall Marx&#39;, and Engels&#39;, line "all that is solid melts into air" from the Manifesto. A union of the once-disparate but doggedly Marxist?
We were able to come together like we did because we spent a lot of time discussing the points of principle before forming the League. That&#39;s why we all carry the "ex" designation. We all learned from each other, brought to the table those elements of communist theory we thought were genuine contributions, debated out the issues, and then -- and only then -- did talk of a common organization begin.

Miles

[red_che]

(Miles @ Aprill 22, 2005 5:46 AM)
You act as if everyone who is or should be involved in the proletarian revolution is or should be in the communist organization. If there are elements of the petty bourgeoisie that want to take sides with the proletariat and help in making the revolution, they will do so regardless of whether they hold a membership card in a communist organization. That is what I meant by having an "infantile" view of that relationship.

Secondly, not all peasants are the same. We view landless peasants, sharecroppers, tenant farmers, etc., as part of the proletariat. They are not petty bourgeois, although the line does blur at certain points.

I did not say everybody. What I mean is that those who are eligible to become members of a communist organization should not be limited only to one class. If some elements in the petty bourgeoisie and other classes wanted to take side with the workers in the proletarian revolution they must do so without even becoming members of the communist organization. However, some of them must also be admitted in a communist organization when they have embraced and considered themselves as proletarians by deeds and words.

These remolded petty bourgeois elements should not be discredited and discriminated merely by becoming petty bourgeois by birth. Even Marx did not say anything about not admitting a non-worker in a communist party or organization. Even Marx himself is not a worker. He became communist because of his actions and teachings and by embracing and advancing the proletarian cause.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 03:56 AM
I did not say everybody. What I mean is that those who are eligible to become members of a communist organization should not be limited only to one class. If some elements in the petty bourgeoisie and other classes wanted to take side with the workers in the proletarian revolution they must do so without even becoming members of the communist organization. However, some of them must also be admitted in a communist organization when they have embraced and considered themselves as proletarians by deeds and words.

These remolded petty bourgeois elements should not be discredited and discriminated merely by becoming petty bourgeois by birth. Even Marx did not say anything about not admitting a non-worker in a communist party or organization. Even Marx himself is not a worker. He became communist because of his actions and teachings and by embracing and advancing the proletarian cause.
Comrade, the only way that someone from the petty bourgeoisie can be considered a proletarian "by deeds and words" is for them to sever all ties to their previous class relations, and to join and integrate themselves into the proletariat. If they are willing to do that, then they would be welcome as members of the League.

Miles

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 07:28 AM
...which is even more ironic than Miles complaining of the SWP supposedly betraying Trotskyism or whatever....
Are you and the Maoists on AWIP taking the same hallucinogens? You all are spending a lot of time fabricating statements and positions.

Miles

[shadows]

In The German Ideology Marx is seen by many as beginning the shift away from an amorphous humanism and groping toward dialectical materialsim, i.e., from petty bourgeois Feuerbachian Man (the 1844 Manuscripts) toward left Hegelianism (The German Ideology) and to a scientific view of history as class differentiated. I guess I&#39;m assuming the CL takes a position on the Marxist Marx, and rejects the humanism of the Manuscripts (say, the News and Letters group, of CLR James).

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 01:20 AM
In The German Ideology Marx is seen by many as beginning the shift away from an amorphous humanism and groping toward dialectical materialsim, i.e., from petty bourgeois Feuerbachian Man (the 1844 Manuscripts) toward left Hegelianism (The German Ideology) and to a scientific view of history as class differentiated. I guess I&#39;m assuming the CL takes a position on the Marxist Marx, and rejects the humanism of the Manuscripts (say, the News and Letters group, of CLR James).
Yes and no. Obviously, our principles place us more firmly on the side of the Marx that emerged after the writing of The Holy Family and The German Ideology, during which time he made his final break with Feuerbach and his vulgar materialism. But there is nothing formal on this issue, since passing judgement on that kind of minutae of doctrine seems rather silly. That said, there is still value in the Marx of the time of the Manuscripts, and some of the more humanistic writings he penned. Likewise, there is value in the writings of self-described "Marxist-Humanists" like Raya Dunayevskaya, C.L.R. James and their movement -- especially James, who had an uncanny ability to talk about dialectics in a manner that most people can understand (if only intellectually).

Miles

[shadows]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 06:29 PM
since passing judgement on that kind of minutae of doctrine seems rather silly.
Not silly, given that the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat was central to the split in the international communist movement in the sixties and this split (though complicated by Sino-Soviet disputes that had simmered for some time) expressed issues of humanism (the post-Stalin Soviet period, declaring the dictatorship of the proletariat obsolete and for a humanist Marxism) and orthodoxy (Mao&#39;s restatement of the proletarian dictatorship). The history of Marxism is interesting to me, as I&#39;ve been reading Althusser (Theoretical Humanism vs. Marxism was more than mere theoretical interest, as it was a battle against the emergence of Eurocommunism, a break with the dictatorship of the proletariat and an embrace of humanism - in France, Roger Garaudy, in Spain, in Italy, etc.) I guess, on a more practical plane, I&#39;m wondering about the CL&#39;s views on the dictatorship of the proletariat and the role of a vanguard organization that leads the class to triumph over capitalism. This is such a big issue, but the position of the US proletariat to the neo-colonial masses, the division in the world economy between the postindustrial nations (a loose term, I know) and the industrially developing economies, etc.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Comrade, the only way that someone from the petty bourgeoisie can be considered a proletarian "by deeds and words" is for them to sever all ties to their previous class relations, and to join and integrate themselves into the proletariat. If they are willing to do that, then they would be welcome as members of the League.

So, in other words, you think it is actually better to work for a capitalist, rather than working independently?

[Edelweiss]

There is some confusion here about what middle class and petty borgeosie really means in the Marxist sense. So let me clarify:

The petty bourgeoisie is the "traditional middle class". It&#39;s a mixture of a bougeois and a worker. The petty bourgeois is an owner of means of production, but still needs his own labour to live (small peasants, the independent craftsman or grocer, the doctor with it&#39;s surgery, or the attorney with it&#39;s own law firm).

Than there is the new middleclass. The new middleclass conists of the public servants (military, police, magistrates, judges etc.), and private servants (chauffeurs, gardeners etc., everyone who makes live easier for the bourgesie for it&#39;s paid labour). Both are dependent from the bourgesie, and share common interests with them, since they directly benefit fom the gowth of wealth of their lords. Private servants are paid from the profits of the bourgeoisie, unlike wage workers who get paid from the capital of the bourgeoisie in advance, in hope to increase their capital.

Nowadays those categories are of course not as easy to draw than during Marx&#39;s times. The sector of private servants has grown enormously, and are not serving exclusively the bourgesie anymore. Also, public servants aren&#39;t paid anymore nearly only from taxes of the bourgeoisie as in Marx&#39;s times, but also from taxes of the working class. Also, wages of the working class (at least in the welfare states of Europe) have increased, so that there is little difference between private servants and workers in terms of actual paid wage.

[redstar2000]

Just a thought...

The problem of determining objectively who is part of the petty bourgeoisie is so evidently difficult and...

The popularity of various forms of bourgeois ideology is so wide-spread in the current period...

That perhaps revolutionary groups in the present period have little choice but to rely on a heavily subjective definition, to wit:

Anyone who behaves like a member of the petty bourgeoisie will be excluded.

Displaying "managerial" attitudes is petty-bourgeois; we&#39;re not just looking to change bosses.

Sending the message that one is, in some way, "inherently superior" to others is petty-bourgeois; we should be able to explain what we know and what we can do without the implication that we are "vital" and "irreplaceable" or that "no one else" could "possibly" equal our abilities or our deeds.

Consumption for the sheer sake of consumption is petty-bourgeois. (That&#39;s not to say that a "vow of poverty" is required -- but I&#39;m sometimes a bit shocked to learn that someone on this board has just spent hundreds of dollars on a single item of clothing, for example.)

I&#39;m just thinking out loud here...so shoot this idea down if you like.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[shadows]

Either one sells one&#39;s labor to survive or one buys another&#39;s labor to exploit. In the narrowing middle sits the petty bourgeoisie, objectively (by virtue of its existence) a lure to the proletariat that one day, with enough hard work, one might &#39;move up&#39; the class ladder. Today&#39;s entrepreneurs serve this function; the &#39;new middle class&#39; refers to the so-called professional class of managers, those who neither produce nor own (much) but rather &#39;police&#39; for the bourgeoisie. As the ranks of the proletariat swell, those of the petty bourgeoisie diminish unless some proletarians are co-opted into the professional/new middle (the buffer zone). This schema does not address the bourgeoisification of the proletariat, especially the proletariat in the developed economies who, it might be viewed, survive at a standard of living beyond the sale of their labor, maybe from the surplus extracted from superexploitation during the decay of imperialism.

[red_che]

Comrade, the only way that someone from the petty bourgeoisie can be considered a proletarian "by deeds and words" is for them to sever all ties to their previous class relations, and to join and integrate themselves into the proletariat. If they are willing to do that, then they would be welcome as members of the League.

Miles

Therefore, on that point, we had a unity in our understanding on the proletarian class and the proletarian revolution. Now, I know that you admit those remolded petty bourgeois into your League. I thought you would not admit them. Well, I guess I don&#39;t have any more questions on your policies regarding recruiting your members.

Good luck and continue in advancing the Proletarian Revolution&#33;

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 03:17 PM
So, in other words, you think it is actually better to work for a capitalist, rather than working independently?
This is not a moral question -- "better" or "worse". Working "independently" means isolation from fellow proletarians at the point of production, which means that organizing to take control of those means of production is that much more difficult. Let me put it this way: Ten thousand workers employed at a key industrial facility can do more to bring the bourgeoisie to its knees than ten million "independent" (isolated, atomized) workers.

Miles

[American_Trotskyist]

I agree and disagree with this.

I hold little respect for the college student; in fact I see him as a joke most of the time. Let us look at this. The so called, "Radical" 60s weren&#39;t radical at all with the middle and upper class students, because they were trying to integrate their class with socialist ideas which only lead to backward, incoherent ideas. The really revolutionary threat come from the oppressed classes, the middle and upper class kids hardely ever, if not never, physically fought for the new world. People tried to integrate Maoism and Buddhism, religion and socialism and many just shut their eyes to the world and rejected revolutionary doctrine, I.E. Red&#39;s anti Leninist philosophy and John Lennon’s petty bourgeois humanism being good examples. Red I have to say your generation was a complete and utter waste of revolutionary potential, too much acid and not enough organization. Had there been the organization to move the oppressed classes and youth who were dedicated, thing might have been different/

With that said, I don&#39;t believe that it is right or practical to exclude from the revolutionary party people who don’t lack dedication from the middle class, people like Marx Engles Lenin Trotsky Che Fidel, fill in the blank would never have lead anything. I believe that it will harm any future solidarity. The youth of these backgrounds aren&#39;t allowed to join in building a new world because of where they were born? I do not doubt that the middle class, the petty bourgeois, cannot be trusted, but it does not good to discriminate because of economic birth.

[OleMarxco]

Anyone born with alot of wealth of their parents efforts and become communists should realize that they do not deserve it and spread it out to the people ;)

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by CommunistLeague+Apr 20 2005, 04:54 PM--> (CommunistLeague @ Apr 20 2005, 04:54 PM)
Clenched [email protected] 20 2005, 12:43 PM
Actually my mums a teacher and my dad works for the council, in finnancing housing proucts, so i suppose in some ways they are workers. Both are in a trade uniion. I hardly live in the most desirable place, and go to bloody drummond community high school. My point is if someone of similar thinking is rich or poor waht sops them form being marxist?
Technically speaking, nothing can stop them from identifying themselves as a "Marxist". But, what stops them from being an effective or useful "Marxist" is the contradiction between their objective reality and their subjective views. I think the Black Panthers once put it best: Middle-class (petty-bourgeois) radicals can cut their hair, put on a suit and join the establishment like nothing ever happened. We&#39;re here for life. And, from the way it sounds, so are you.

Miles [/b]
But do small buissness owners count as petty beuroirse? i mean for instance a guy who is self employed and runs his own shop? Because they often earn less than say social workers or teachers? And another point, why shouldnt they be any use, i mean why can&#39;t a middle class person organise strikes, go on strike or go to protests or make speaches?


We&#39;re here for life. And, from the way it sounds, so are you.

:D thankyou comerade.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by American_Trotskyist
Red I have to say your generation was a complete and utter waste of revolutionary potential, too much acid and not enough organization.

Why thank you, AT, I :wub: you too.

Before you make sweeping generalizations about periods that you are obviously ignorant of, you should really try to learn a little bit about them.

You can start here...

The Legacy of SDS (http://redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1111681637&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

The proposition that all we did in the 60s was smoke weed and drop acid is just another bourgeois myth.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[codyvo]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Apr 28 2005, 10:22 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Apr 28 2005, 10:22 PM)
American_Trotskyist
Red I have to say your generation was a complete and utter waste of revolutionary potential, too much acid and not enough organization.

Why thank you, AT, I :wub: you too.

Before you make sweeping generalizations about periods that you are obviously ignorant of, you should really try to learn a little bit about them.

You can start here...

The Legacy of SDS (http://redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1111681637&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

The proposition that all we did in the 60s was smoke weed and drop acid is just another bourgeois myth.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
I agree, groups like the Weathermen or later known as the Weather Underground tried revolution but were unsuccesful. Also as far as I know the atmosphere in the sixties was pretty peaceful (only pertaining to the leftist movement) so a violent revolution wasn&#39;t the aim of the people.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 02:59 PM
Not silly, given that the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat was central to the split in the international communist movement in the sixties and this split (though complicated by Sino-Soviet disputes that had simmered for some time) expressed issues of humanism (the post-Stalin Soviet period, declaring the dictatorship of the proletariat obsolete and for a humanist Marxism) and orthodoxy (Mao&#39;s restatement of the proletarian dictatorship). The history of Marxism is interesting to me, as I&#39;ve been reading Althusser (Theoretical Humanism vs. Marxism was more than mere theoretical interest, as it was a battle against the emergence of Eurocommunism, a break with the dictatorship of the proletariat and an embrace of humanism - in France, Roger Garaudy, in Spain, in Italy, etc.) I guess, on a more practical plane, I&#39;m wondering about the CL&#39;s views on the dictatorship of the proletariat and the role of a vanguard organization that leads the class to triumph over capitalism. This is such a big issue, but the position of the US proletariat to the neo-colonial masses, the division in the world economy between the postindustrial nations (a loose term, I know) and the industrially developing economies, etc.
I understand what you&#39;re saying now, and I think our statement of principles makes clear where we stand on this issue. When we speak of a workers&#39; republic (or working people&#39;s republic), we are speaking about the dictatorship of the proletariat. We believe historical experience has shown the need for a transition period that is predicated on the direct rule of the proletariat. But I also think that our view of what a workers&#39; republic would look like is different from the kind of "proletarian dictatorship" conceptualized by both the more orthodox "official Communists" and the Maoists.

Likewise, our view of what is the "proletarian vanguard" and what a "vanguard party" means also differ fundamentally from these two political trends. Our view is that the "proletarian vanguard" is that section of the proletariat that is the most politically advanced and active. This "vanguard" exists and functions both as part of various political organizations and as independent activists. Certainly, a central task of the communist movement is to win over the majority of these forces to its banner, but we also understand that not all those who are in this "vanguard" will be formal members of a proletarian communist party. And, in our view, this should not be seen as a problem, but as a safeguard. Having sections of the "vanguard" standing independent of the party, but working closely with it, provides another corrective force on the party. It means that, if (as we saw in the USSR) the party begins to degenerate under the influence and/or control of non-proletarian elements, there is a core of politically-advanced proletarians that will be able to pick up the banner and continue forward -- that will be able to organize themselves and present a proletarian communist alternative at a critical moment.

Our view of the role of the proletarian communist party flows from this understanding. Because we see the "vanguard" as an already existing -- even if small and under the influence of non-communist politics -- part of the proletariat, we see the role of the party as that of primarily political leadership. That is, we do not accept the position held by some "vanguardist" elements that believe the party must substitute itself for the proletariat or, similarly, that the party must micromanage or micro-organize the proletarian struggle. We believe that proletarians that are a part of the vanguard sections of their class have the ability to organize and maintain many of the basic elements that are essential to the establishment of the workers&#39; republic. For example, we do not think it will be necessary for the party to go from factory to factory organizing all of the workplace committees or armed workers&#39; militia. Many of these organs will develop based on the organizing ability of politically-advanced proletarians not affiliated with the party. The agitational (political) call for such bodies to be created would likely be the impetus for their organization, but it would not necessarily be the party itself that undertakes the practical formation of them.

Miles

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 28 2005, 01:44 PM
But do small buissness owners count as petty beuroirse? i mean for instance a guy who is self employed and runs his own shop? Because they often earn less than say social workers or teachers? And another point, why shouldnt they be any use, i mean why can&#39;t a middle class person organise strikes, go on strike or go to protests or make speaches?
Yes, small business owners are definitely petty bourgeois -- they are in fact one of the few remaining elements of the "old" petty bourgeoisie. Remember, class is determined by relations to production and with other classes, not by income. Some CEOs only receive a technical "income" of a dollar a year (they incorporate themselves and live off that arrangement, which means paying greatly reduced taxes -- if any at all), and we certainly do not consider them proletarians. As for your second question, it almost answers itself. As a small shopkeeper, they are in no position to organize a strike, and their presence on any picket line would be automatically suspect, especially if that picket line is for a corporation that supplies this person&#39;s small business. And again, as someone who is an exploiter, not exploited, it is neither in his or her interests to fight for, nor within their ability to understand the necessity of, a workers&#39; republic. It would be rightly seen as phony "solidarity" by proletarians.

Miles

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 02:32 AM
With that said, I don&#39;t believe that it is right or practical to exclude from the revolutionary party people who don’t lack dedication from the middle class, people like Marx Engles Lenin Trotsky Che Fidel, fill in the blank would never have lead anything. I believe that it will harm any future solidarity. The youth of these backgrounds aren&#39;t allowed to join in building a new world because of where they were born? I do not doubt that the middle class, the petty bourgeois, cannot be trusted, but it does not good to discriminate because of economic birth.
Comrade, please take the time to review some of the other posts in this discussion, including the exchanges between myself and red_che, to see exactly what our view on admission of people from non-proletarian backgrounds is.

Miles

[shadows]

And what of the role of the underdeveloped nations? Their proletariats often are numerically small, and socially weak. Yet, the relationship of the underdeveloped nation facilitates capitalism in the U.S. and in Europe. More, the surplus extracted from the superexploitation of these nations might, as some have averred, boosts the living standards of the U.S. and other developed nation proletariats. On a different note, as Fanon and others have contended, is the most oppressed the most revolutionary? If so, what of the lumpen elements? And the role of structural oppression? I&#39;m assuming the CL takes the position that the structural oppression of the working class establishes this class, tiered as it is, as the objectively revolutionary agent.

[shadows]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 05:27 AM
This "vanguard" exists and functions both as part of various political organizations and as independent activists. .... we do not accept the position held by some "vanguardist" elements that believe the party must substitute itself for the proletariat
The vanguard is an organic entity, regardless of its organization into a party. As an objective socio-political entity, as the advanced layer of the proletariat, it likely overlaps with communist organizations (note the plural form). So what of &#39;democratic centralism&#39; - a much maligned, in practice and in theory, operational principle? Does CL hold to democratic centralism? Deutscher noted that in the aftermath of the civil war in the newly established Soviet republic that the party substituted itself for a much attenuated proletariat, then the central committee substituted itself for the party, and finally Stalin replaced the central committee, effectively eliminating proletarian democracy, but under extraordinary conditions. (Sort of an inversion of Lenin&#39;s State and Revolution.)

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 02:41 AM
And what of the role of the underdeveloped nations? Their proletariats often are numerically small, and socially weak. Yet, the relationship of the underdeveloped nation facilitates capitalism in the U.S. and in Europe. More, the surplus extracted from the superexploitation of these nations might, as some have averred, boosts the living standards of the U.S. and other developed nation proletariats. On a different note, as Fanon and others have contended, is the most oppressed the most revolutionary? If so, what of the lumpen elements? And the role of structural oppression? I&#39;m assuming the CL takes the position that the structural oppression of the working class establishes this class, tiered as it is, as the objectively revolutionary agent.
The development of globalization, and with it the worldwide production chain, has resulted in two important changes to the character of the proletarians of developing (semicolonial/neocolonial) countries: first, it has greatly expanded the class itself, resulting in the proletariat, urban and rural combined, becoming the majority in those places; second, it has given the proletarians of these countries disproportionately greater power, relatively speaking, than the proletarians of the imperialist centers. While it may be true that, in these countries, working relationships and alliances with sections of the petty bourgeoisie -- especially the small peasantry and some independent producers -- are not only possible but also useful and necessary, that does not mean they should be accepted into the proletarian party.

Your assumption about our view vis-à-vis Fanon&#39;s dictum is essentially correct. But what should be clarified here is that Fanon&#39;s definition of "lumpenproletarian" and our definition are different. Fanon considered any person unemployed for a long period of time to be a part of the lumpenproletariat (which is a reflection of his impressionistic and empirical -- i.e., non-dialectical -- method). We take the view that even long-term unemployed may be a part of the proletariat, under certain conditions. For example, certain people who work in the "underground economy" we would in fact consider to be proletarian (e.g., couriers for drug sales, prostitutes/sex workers, etc.). Class divisions exist within that mass of people often thrown together in the "lumpenproletariat" category, and we have no qualms about recruiting the proletarian element.

Miles

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 03:18 AM
The vanguard is an organic entity, regardless of its organization into a party. As an objective socio-political entity, as the advanced layer of the proletariat, it likely overlaps with communist organizations (note the plural form). So what of &#39;democratic centralism&#39; - a much maligned, in practice and in theory, operational principle? Does CL hold to democratic centralism? Deutscher noted that in the aftermath of the civil war in the newly established Soviet republic that the party substituted itself for a much attenuated proletariat, then the central committee substituted itself for the party, and finally Stalin replaced the central committee, effectively eliminating proletarian democracy, but under extraordinary conditions. (Sort of an inversion of Lenin&#39;s State and Revolution.)
So we do have more or less the same view on the vanguard and "vanguardism" (in reality, petty-bourgeois substitutionism).

It could be argued that the League has a form of "democratic centralism". But, if that is someone&#39;s contention, then it is a democratic centralism that is fundamentally different from all other existing forms. We do expect that members of the League will help to implement decisions made by the organization. However, we also understand that there will be times when comrades feel so strongly about an issue that they simply cannot bring themselves to carry out our unity in action in good conscience. In those cases, we are willing to exempt comrades from the activity with the understanding that they cannot interfere in the League&#39;s specific implementation of its decision. It is a voluntary unity in action.

And let me stress as well that our understanding of "unity in action" applies to action, not viewpoints. Many organizations that call themselves "democratic centralist" demand doctrinaire purity -- agreement with every dot and comma of their programmatic documents -- and place it in the realm of disciplinary "centralism". We reject that method of organization completely. Members of the League are free to express their point of view on organizational decisions both procedural and substantive, as long as it is done outside of the context of a specific action. For example, if the League were to decide to march in an antiwar rally called by United For Peace and Justice, but another group of comrades disagreed with this decision because of the UFPJ&#39;s political character, those comrades would have the right to state their opposition to this decision openly any time before or after the march, but we would expect that they would not do so during the march (if they agree to attend and march with the organization). At the same time, those comrades have the right to state their views on UFPJ itself during the march, even if their view is at odds with the majority of the League&#39;s members.

I hope this clarifies some of our organizational policies.

Miles

[shadows]

I concur that the lumpenproletariat includes strata that enhance the exploitation of labor and that it includes a working stratum that is underground due to the nature of its work. Also, that the organizing principle of democratic centralism applies not to the throttling of the necessary and enriching diversity of perspectives to be found in any organization but to deploying the party as a class struggle instrument in action, ultimately facilitating the party&#39;s effectiveness. (Further, it is to be assumed that factions as well as other parties and groups not always sharing the views or advancing the same lines as the CL are admissible, perhaps desirable).Another question: what of the centrality of Blacks in the proletariat? It seems to me that given the oppression of Blacks, the racial divide in the U.S. that has served and continues to serve to erode class unity, and the large proletarian component of the Black population in the U.S., that a revolutionary organization must be based on recognizing the centrality of Black proletarian masses to any significant change in economy/society.

[Anarchist Freedom]

Um I dont see how if your middle class you cant believe in leftist ideologies. But Your baring people that may want to make a change. Like it or not there still going to come.

[bolshevik butcher]

yeh im with you on that, comerade.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Anarchist [email protected] 30 2005, 05:01 AM
Um I dont see how if your middle class you cant believe in leftist ideologies. But Your baring people that may want to make a change. Like it or not there still going to come.
Middle class communists can still join other communist organisations, and the CL has said that this does not mean that the CL will NOT work with these elements, they just dont want any for (class reasons) in their particular organisation.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by shadows+Apr 29 2005, 04:54 PM--> (shadows &#064; Apr 29 2005, 04:54 PM)(Further, it is to be assumed that factions as well as other parties and groups not always sharing the views or advancing the same lines as the CL are admissible, perhaps desirable).[/b]
Certainly. It is ridiculous to think that an organization can accurately and consistently make correct decisions without debate and discussion over strategy and tactics. The League takes a generally "multitendency" approach to its organizational structure. That is, we neither expect nor desire that our members all have the exact same view on the history of the proletarian movement and the choices it has made over the years. If a comrade is able to reconcile their specific doctrine with the principles of the League, that is their right and their choice.


[email protected] 29 2005, 04:54 PM
Another question: what of the centrality of Blacks in the proletariat? It seems to me that given the oppression of Blacks, the racial divide in the U.S. that has served and continues to serve to erode class unity, and the large proletarian component of the Black population in the U.S., that a revolutionary organization must be based on recognizing the centrality of Black proletarian masses to any significant change in economy/society.
Exactly. Proletarians from oppressed backgrounds are especially important in the struggle for a workers&#39; republic in the U.S. The Bolsheviks used to call Russia the "prisonhouse of nations". We consider the United States to be a "workhouse of nations". That is, the history of the economic and social development of this country was based on the labor -- some voluntary, some involuntary -- of oppressed people. The central component of this development was, first, the use of people of African descent as slaves (not just in the South, but also in the North during the early years of the country) and, second, the integration of Black workers (the descendants of freed slaves) into key sectors of heavy industry as proletarians. If the proletariat is capitalism&#39;s gravedigger, then it is the Black proletariat in the U.S. that is operating the steam shovel.

Miles

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Anarchist [email protected] 30 2005, 01:01 AM
Um I dont see how if your middle class you cant believe in leftist ideologies. But Your baring people that may want to make a change. Like it or not there still going to come.
Of course they are. That&#39;s not the issue here. If people from non-proletarian backgrounds want to get involved in the fight to overthrow capitalism, they will do so. What we are saying, however, is that such a subjective decision does not warrant allowing them to be members of the League.

Why is this so difficult for people to understand? For a bunch of people who consider themselves "libertarian socialists", "anarchists" and the like, they have a very narrow -- almost Stalinist -- understanding of the relationship between anti-capitalist movements and the proletarian communist organization.

Miles

[shadows]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 05:37 PM
If a comrade is able to reconcile their specific doctrine with the principles of the League, that is their right and their choice.


Further, the CL must accord itself with the proletariat, not assuming that it is the proletariat. Hence, tendencies (or factions, or subgroups, whatever sociological terminology one deploys here) function not just to thrash about the theories and practices of the organization, but to keep the organization proletarian (with the ubiquitous risk of slipping in bourgeois ideology). For Marxism to become, not just to be, the body of ideas it is must be applied, developed in practice, never worshiped nor reified as occurred in Maoist sects as well as in Trotskyist propaganda groups (though both served to maintain some continuity in specific trends, more of an historical function than a vibrant revolutionary intervention - but the objective conditions minimized this latter work).

[viva le revolution]

I have yet to learn oof any action taken by this party. Anybody with any info on action taken by the communist league please tell me, i am genuinely curious about it.

[American_Trotskyist]

QUOTE (American_Trotskyist)
Red I have to say your generation was a complete and utter waste of revolutionary potential, too much acid and not enough organization.


Why thank you, AT, I wub.gif you too.

Before you make sweeping generalizations about periods that you are obviously ignorant of, you should really try to learn a little bit about them.

You can start here...

The Legacy of SDS

The proposition that all we did in the 60s was smoke weed and drop acid is just another bourgeois myth.

user posted image

Red SDS was a joke, Mario Savio just stood up on a cop car and yelled about student&#39;s rights, he did nothing revolutionary with that. SDS was a &#39;socialist&#39; organization for wealthy children playing Che at college, you preached nonviolence and criticized revolutionary people thoughout the world because they were &#39;Leninists&#39;. Sure Country Joe is fun to listen to, but your generation did nothing. You endorced MLK and pacified the revolutionary potential. The Vietnam War was ended not because of the middle and upper class students (Who weren&#39;t drafted) decided to end it, it was the working-class soldiers who refused orders and killed their officers. Take a look at this article,

How US imperialism was defeated in Vietnam (http://www.marxist.com/usa/defeat_US_in_vietnam1102.html)

A WORKING CLASS movement was needed and still is, not pacifistic students wearing Che shirts.

[shadows]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 08:52 PM
SDS was a &#39;socialist&#39; organization for wealthy children playing Che at college
While SDS was not a pure organization (even referring to SDS as an &#39;organization&#39; might be a bit of a stretch, for it was more of an umbrella than anything, with nominal organization not necessarily followed by diparate chapters across the U.S.) of the working class by any means, and while the middle and elite students certainly predominated in the upper levels of SDS, SDS militants were a varied lot, both ideologically and in class background. The New Communist Movement descended directly from an SDS split-off, the RYMII, in opposition to the elitist RYM, which did give rise to the elitist Weatherman. The Black Panthers cooperated with SDS, and were critical of the Weatherman (later Weather Underground).

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 02:55 PM
Further, the CL must accord itself with the proletariat, not assuming that it is the proletariat. Hence, tendencies (or factions, or subgroups, whatever sociological terminology one deploys here) function not just to thrash about the theories and practices of the organization, but to keep the organization proletarian (with the ubiquitous risk of slipping in bourgeois ideology). For Marxism to become, not just to be, the body of ideas it is must be applied, developed in practice, never worshiped nor reified as occurred in Maoist sects as well as in Trotskyist propaganda groups (though both served to maintain some continuity in specific trends, more of an historical function than a vibrant revolutionary intervention - but the objective conditions minimized this latter work).
That is quite true. I suppose that I felt it goes without saying that such debate and discussion -- especially with proletarians who are not members of the League -- keeps us on an even keel and enriches the proletarian character of our organization (i.e., "better accords itself with the proletariat").

Miles

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by viva le [email protected] 30 2005, 03:42 PM
I have yet to learn oof any action taken by this party. Anybody with any info on action taken by the communist league please tell me, i am genuinely curious about it.
I would recommend reviewing recent issues of Working People&#39;s Advocate, our monthly newspaper, for reports on our activities. We are active in many areas, but you may not necessarily see the League proper at those events. The clandestine character of the League makes the formation of open contingents difficult. However, we do distribute (albeit discreetly) our literature and publications at all events we attend.

Miles

[shadows]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 05:53 AM
The clandestine character of the League makes the formation of open contingents difficult.
I&#39;m curious as to the reason for clandestinity - due to fear of reprisals from a distrusted bourgeois democracy? If so, what differentiates CL activities from, say, the RCP or the SL? Or, is the clandestine character simple protection of identities of persons who for whatever reasons might feel compromised in their occupations or family life? And, how does this clandestinity fit with working class organizing in a public arena like that of a strike?

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 07:24 PM
I&#39;m curious as to the reason for clandestinity - due to fear of reprisals from a distrusted bourgeois democracy? If so, what differentiates CL activities from, say, the RCP or the SL? Or, is the clandestine character simple protection of identities of persons who for whatever reasons might feel compromised in their occupations or family life? And, how does this clandestinity fit with working class organizing in a public arena like that of a strike?
First of all, we do not regard the U.S. as a "bourgeois democracy" in anything but name. The USA-PATRIOT Act, Homeland Security Act and other related "anti-terrorist" legislation makes virtually any discussion about revolutionary change illegal. Such talk may be tolerated by the bourgeoisie when uttered by organizations they do not see as threats; but we are not that kind of organization. But, even as a clandestine group, we are able to be relatively open about our politics where we do work. Even when working through existing public organizations, our members present the League&#39;s views and, when we encounter someone who wants "the whole thing", we make sure to get League literature into their hands. The advantage of working among the lower (and larger) sections of the proletariat is that it is more difficult for the bourgeoisie to keep tabs on what we do than if we were working among the more privileged sections or among students.

Miles

[shadows]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 05:36 AM
Such talk may be tolerated by the bourgeoisie when uttered by organizations they do not see as threats; but we are not that kind of organization.
Well, what differentiates the CL from these other organizations, which also state proletarian revolution as their goal?

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 03:14 AM
Well, what differentiates the CL from these other organizations, which also state proletarian revolution as their goal?
I think that the most important difference between us and other organizations that say they are in favor of a proletarian revolution centers on the tasks that lead to such a goal. Most organizations have a very narrow conception of what has to be done to achieve the goal of a proletarian dictatorship. From my own experiences, it goes something like this:

1. Establish a propaganda group (composed mainly of petty-bourgeois intellectuals and maybe a few workers);
2. Grow the propaganda group (recruit students and youth, and maybe a worker here and there, to fill the ranks);
3. "Sink roots" in the proletariat (send some of those students and youth into selected proletarian occupations to build a base of support);
4. Transform from a propaganda group to a mini-mass party (recruit more students and youth, as well as some workers cultivated from the "sinking roots" phase);
5. Grow the mini-mass party (more recruitment along previous lines);
6. "Win over the vanguard" (begin to actively recruit proletarian activists willing to accept the organization&#39;s line);
7. Become the "vanguard party" (declare that all those who are members of the organization are "the vanguard", regardless of actual size or class composition);
8. Transform from the "vanguard party" to a mass party (recruit workers on a minimal, bullet-point platform);
9. Build organs of class struggle and proletarian power: factory committees, protest movements, united front coalitions, etc. (establish front groups with their leading cadre making all the decisions and the organization doing the work of the class);
10. Lead the revolution.

Normally, most of these groups cannot get beyond Point 2. A few embark on fulfilling Point 3 (or even Point 4), but most never see that stage.

Our approach is much more fluid and interactive with the proletariat. For example, we reject the mechanical separation between phases of the development of a proletarian organization (propaganda group, mini-mass party, etc.). Also, we reject the view that the proletarian party has to organize those bodies of struggle that proletarians use to establish their power (of course, we participate in the formation of such entities, but it is the responsibility of workers themselves to establish these organs).

Perhaps, though, one of the most important points of distinction between us and other organizations is our view on what are the necessary prerequisites for successfully establishing a working people&#39;s republic today. You can get an idea of what I am talking about by reading the article, "Building the Third Republic Today," from the current issue of Workers&#39; Republic.

If you have other questions, please feel free to ask.

Miles

[shadows]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 06:25 AM


Our approach is much more fluid and interactive with the proletariat. For example, we reject the mechanical separation between phases of the development of a proletarian organization (propaganda group, mini-mass party, etc.).


To repudiate stages in the development of a proletarian vanguard does not in itself denote syndicalism, as the proletariat is always already a revolutionary class though lacking awareness of itself as such and as in the case of the U.S. proletariat partaking of the spoils of imperial adventures (the crumbs off the masters&#39; table); yet, it does seem syndicalist to refer to the &#39;fluidity&#39; of the party with the class, as if the class leaps into its transformation from &#39;in-itself&#39; to &#39;for-itself&#39; without theory from which it could do more than assimilate localized lessons -namely, to coordinate its specific goals through the compass of totality (situating itself as a class, not a mass of individuals, within a social formation that has been historically determined and is ripe for revolution).

Shades of Loren Goldner (the Break their Haughty Power site) and left communism? These are just impressionistic observations I&#39;m making here, so I might be way off base.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 03:51 AM
To repudiate stages in the development of a proletarian vanguard does not in itself denote syndicalism, as the proletariat is always already a revolutionary class though lacking awareness of itself as such and as in the case of the U.S. proletariat partaking of the spoils of imperial adventures (the crumbs off the masters&#39; table); yet, it does seem syndicalist to refer to the &#39;fluidity&#39; of the party with the class, as if the class leaps into its transformation from &#39;in-itself&#39; to &#39;for-itself&#39; without theory from which it could do more than assimilate localized lessons -namely, to coordinate its specific goals through the compass of totality (situating itself as a class, not a mass of individuals, within a social formation that has been historically determined and is ripe for revolution).

Shades of Loren Goldner (the Break their Haughty Power site) and left communism? These are just impressionistic observations I&#39;m making here, so I might be way off base.
I think you misunderstand me here. The fluidity is in the relationship between party and class, not in the formation of the party itself. There is an ebb and flow -- an interchange between both entities -- that makes it possible for real political development to take place. Far from marginalizing the role of theory (which seems to be what you&#39;re thinking we do), such a fluid relationship enriches theory by continually testing existing postulates in the class struggle and allowing for new ones to be born.

Miles

[shadows]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 01:33 PM

I think you misunderstand me here. .... Far from marginalizing the role of theory (which seems to be what you&#39;re thinking we do), such a fluid relationship enriches theory by continually testing existing postulates in the class struggle and allowing for new ones to be born
Yes, I suppose I am guilty of misunderstanding. The ebb and flow of which you speak seems a necessary corrective to imposing one&#39;s chosen organization, a titular vanguard, on the working class; yet, the organicity, of which I think you once wrote, of the party and the class, undergoes some risk, perhaps of the immediacies of concrete struggles, a diminution of perspective, and of course a redefining of theory to fit empiricism (an overemphasis on experience, sort of evaluating the truth of a postulate by results). It is here that both gain and risk are present: for the vanguard does emerge organically from the class.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 01:35 PM
Yes, I suppose I am guilty of misunderstanding. The ebb and flow of which you speak seems a necessary corrective to imposing one&#39;s chosen organization, a titular vanguard, on the working class; yet, the organicity, of which I think you once wrote, of the party and the class, undergoes some risk, perhaps of the immediacies of concrete struggles, a diminution of perspective, and of course a redefining of theory to fit empiricism (an overemphasis on experience, sort of evaluating the truth of a postulate by results). It is here that both gain and risk are present: for the vanguard does emerge organically from the class.
That&#39;s true. There are risks involved. But, when placed against other risks you face as a revolutionary (police harassment, government surveillance, jail, physical violence, even attempted assassination -- if you do everything right, that is), it seems rather small, don&#39;t you think? ;)

Miles

[shadows]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 06:53 PM
it seems rather small, don&#39;t you think?
No, not actually. The risk of diminishing one&#39;s perspective and reducing theory (Marxist science) to the demands of immediate struggles has enormous potential for disorienting revolutionary activity. Study, while not an end in itself, orients experience and directs practice. Identity of class and party suggests substitionism, whether of party for class (the USSR) or of class for party (spontaneism).

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 07:12 PM
No, not actually. The risk of diminishing one&#39;s perspective and reducing theory (Marxist science) to the demands of immediate struggles has enormous potential for disorienting revolutionary activity. Study, while not an end in itself, orients experience and directs practice. Identity of class and party suggests substitionism, whether of party for class (the USSR) or of class for party (spontaneism).
I think you misunderstand my point. There are all manner of risks associated with revolutionary activity, including the threat of getting lost in the immediate details. The only safeguard against that risk -- which is, in my personal view, relatively small when placed against other risks, like those I mentioned in my last post -- is an educated and organized proletariat, both inside and outside of the party. Again, far from marginalizing the role of theory and political development, we place it at the center of our organizational work. The difference between us and other organizations on this issue is that we neither abstract out theory from practical activity (like a propaganda group) nor leave it to the petty-bourgeois intellectuals to develop (like most existing self-described socialist and communist groups).

Miles

[shadows]

As the vanguard comes from the class to lead the class, with the everpresent danger of substituting itself for the class if sufficient links are not retained, so theory derives from practice and guides it. (Pardon my aphoristic meanderings&#33;)

[shadows]

Oops. I neglected to note that theory, issuing from practice, is not reducible to practice. (Note: this is not to be taken as a division between mental/manual labor, or ideas and practice, but a relative autonomy for theory that, like the vanguard that comes from the class to lead the class yet is not identical to the class, always adjusting itself to the conditions of the class and the goal of proletarian power, resists reduction to immediate conditions - as in economism, and resists elevation above those conditions - as in voluntarism, or dogmatism.)

[workersunity]

seems like a good party, im pretty interested

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 05:52 PM
Oops. I neglected to note that theory, issuing from practice, is not reducible to practice. (Note: this is not to be taken as a division between mental/manual labor, or ideas and practice, but a relative autonomy for theory that, like the vanguard that comes from the class to lead the class yet is not identical to the class, always adjusting itself to the conditions of the class and the goal of proletarian power, resists reduction to immediate conditions - as in economism, and resists elevation above those conditions - as in voluntarism, or dogmatism.)
So, in other words, you recognize the dialectical relationship between the two. Good&#33; That places you head and shoulders above a lot of self-described "Marxists".

Miles

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 11:02 PM
seems like a good party, im pretty interested
Well, comrade, feel free to contact me if you&#39;re interested.

Miles

[workersunity]

done and done, id also like to keep in contact miles, about various things

[BattleOfTheCowshed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 09:14 PM
Than there is the new middleclass. The new middleclass conists of the public servants (military, police, magistrates, judges etc.), and private servants (chauffeurs, gardeners etc., everyone who makes live easier for the bourgesie for it&#39;s paid labour). Both are dependent from the bourgesie, and share common interests with them, since they directly benefit fom the gowth of wealth of their lords. Private servants are paid from the profits of the bourgeoisie, unlike wage workers who get paid from the capital of the bourgeoisie in advance, in hope to increase their capital.
Sorry to revive this thread, but I&#39;m just very fascinated by this class analysis. First of all, what do you mean by public servants? Of course military, police, judges etc. will be allied to the bourgeoisie, I however don&#39;t see this being the result of them being a kind of petit-bourgeoisie (they do not own the methods of production in their industry, do they?) but rather as a result of their specific job of holding up the status quo. Now, would you tie ALL government workers to the title of &#39;public servant&#39;? I understand that it might appear as if government workers would be allied with status-quo-forces because they rely on them for their job. I think this however ignores the intelligence of most people, who would realize that they could get a new job in a new society and would gladly give up their allegiance to a government to fight for the working class.

Also, I completely disagree with your view of private servants. First of all their jobs are not necessarily tied to the existence of an upper class (I would suppose that gardening would still be a viable profession post-revolution...). Also, the fact that their income is derived from somewhere does not affect most private servants, they still work under a wage system. I just feel that this analysis completely makes these workers out to look like fools who are incapable of realizing their economic situation, and rebelling against it, even if it endangers their current line of employment. I also feel it ignores the reality that these workers who are often (or usually) some of the most oppressed/downtrodden (at least in the West) have the capability of also being revolutionary.