A new communist organization [Archive]

GoaRedStar

12th March 2006, 01:36

This organization seems to be the type of organization that you are talking about.

Red & Anarchist Action Network

Defining the Red & Anarchist Action Network

Compiled 12.09.05

The following words are an exercise in futility. Since its inception the Red & Anarchist Action Network (RAAN) has suffered from the larger anarcho-cultural need to define and categorize its own existence into various fractions of an unappreciated whole: to condense the experiences of countless participants into a hastily-written summary. In short, to define and self-define according to the pre-existing formula of ostensibly revolutionary activity (in both "organizational" and "anti-organizational" forms). This page seeks to counter these distortions by presenting different viewpoints as to the essential nature of RAAN, perhaps at the risk of being confusing in the sense of not offering a single pre-defined box in which to fit the network.

At the same time, we have to recognize RAAN as an alliance between libertarian or autonomist, anti-Leninist communists and anarchists of various self definitions - which also includes the various participants who reject personal labels but nevertheless feel a degree of affinity to these currents. So while there is no overall structure to the organization or disorganization of the network, its theoretical body and purpose does fall into the historically-recognizable traditions of anti-capitalist anti-authoritarianism. It is in order to describe this context that RAAN has used its founding document, the Principles & Direction, (or P&D) as a point of reference.

Before delving deeper into an attempted definiton of RAAN's totality, it is worth noting that in order to fully appreciate the network it is necessary to also explore the various texts that have been authored in its name. The page regarding RAAN's understanding of affiliation (as opposed to "membership") may also be helpful, and the compiled history on RA.org is particularly useful since the network has tended to describe itself only as an interconnected string of moments - affiliated actions - in time.

To be fair, RAAN has gone through several different phases and iterations, each adding uniquely to its overall experience and current state, but all taking place under the greater "organization of autonomies".1 The network began in 2002 as a loosely-moderated discussion community for anarchists and communists, and began to assume a more defined nature as these discussions turned towards the implementation of effective revolutionary strategy. The ideologically and geographically dispersed affiliations to this project allowed for a variety of different tactics to be proposed and tested, leading to both the acceptance of more formalized collective organization at the local level2 as well as the network's overall "total decentralization" as described by the Principles of Action.

In the final analysis, RAAN considers autonomy to be its most important principle, explaining its potentialities in any given situation as directly related to the unique desires of its individual participants. In some cases this position has led to confusion or inactivity since it could be seen as a failure to define longterm prospects or identify with any single tradition in struggle (see above). However, as a tendency there are specific tactics that the network has seemed to prefer (homeless organizing, prison solidarity, dual power issues, and confrontation with Left/Leninist groups). This appears to have been due to the prevailing interests of its most active members rather than a concerted policy, and is therefore likely to develop in different directions in the future. The focus on dual power in particular seems to have risen from communist influences and an interest in autonomist currents, particularly those in Marxism.3 It is important to note that since its first "declaration" of existence, RAAN has been anti-Leninist on a level unmatched even by most (North American) anarchist tendencies. This also is likely as a result both of communist participation and the need to make an anarcho-communist alliance practically workable in the long term. RAAN has further distinguished itself by criticizing the traditionally subcultural status of the anarchist movement, pointing out that such a composition tends to reproduce systems of domination within itself.4

Although (as predicted by the P&D) there seem to have been no examples of fundamental disagreement between the anarchists and communists who work together within RAAN's principles, the network has been frequently criticized by portions of the anarchist movement for its inclusion of (non-Leninist) Marxists. The majority of these debates have taken place over RAAN's useage of the term "dictatorship of the proletariat", and in 2003 led directly to a clarification of purpose on the part of the network.5 Individual members of certain "Platformist" organizations such as the North Eastern Federation of Anarcho-Communists supported the tendency in its early days, though cooperation between the groups seems to have died out as RAAN developed towards more nebulous positions on the question of formal organization vs. autonomy.

Ironically, the network has often worked on solidarity campaigns and supportive actions for political prisoners and projects that are more in the tradition of the "anti-organizationalist" line represented by publications such as Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed and Green Anarchy, despite the latter having printed a condemnation of RAAN's purpose in at least one issue. For its part, the network has shown no hostility to any of the recognized anarchist tendencies, though a lighthearted critique of what is sometimes called "lifestylism" has definitely been made by certain affiliates. At the same time however, it is known that multiple RAANistas have participated in and contributed to various projects of the CrimethInc. Ex-Worker's Collective, often considered among the chief exponents of "lifestylism" or "dropout culture".

RAAN AS A TENDENCY

"...if actions taken are not done in the name of the network, then the network does not exist. Similarly, if no one is out acting in the name of RAAN, then RAAN at that moment has no membership. Alongside adherence to our principles, action (keeping in mind our broad definition) precludes all membership in RAAN because the network is an amorphous tendency that exists only when one or more individuals act or create something in its name. Our essays, publications, and collectives are the footprints of this process, and serve only as indicators - not proof - to the existence of our organization." - Nachie; The "No Bullshit" Policy

It is extremely difficult to categorize RAAN or even to introduce newcomers to it in a single, clean motion. There are no national conferences to attend, and even if one were to assemble every journal, essay, and all the zines that have been independently produced under the network's name, you'd still only be holding a few pieces of the puzzle. Again, we would recommend looking at the history page on this website, as it is an invaluable exploration of the movement. RAAN is a reality created daily by all those who wish to contribute their energy to it, and the lack of effective language in describing this complex process has been called its biggest weakness. For our purposes here, we may assist an analysis of the network's totality by referencing Hakim Bey's work Temporary Autonomous Zone, (TAZ) which is a dialogue on diffuse moments or "zones" of and in resistance, which coalesce as autonomous cities, islands, campsites, rituals, information, and even states of mind. Shrugging some of his original framework, it may be useful to conceive of RAAN as a TAZ. Writes Bey,

"The TAZ is an encampment of guerilla ontologists: strike and run away. Keep moving the entire tribe, even if it's only data in the Web. The TAZ must be capable of defense; but both the "strike" and the "defense" should, if possible, evade the violence of the State, which is no longer a meaningful violence. The strike is made at structures of control, essentially at ideas; the defense is "invisibility," a martial art, and "invulnerability" - an "occult" art within the martial arts. The "nomadic war machine" conquers without being noticed and moves on before the map can be adjusted. As to the future - Only the autonomous can plan autonomy, organize for it, create it. It's a bootstrap operation. The first step is somewhat akin to satori - the realization that the TAZ begins with a simple act of realization."

There are various other possible ways of definining TAZ, and many of the "class-struggle" affiliates of RAAN might disagree with using it as a comparison to the network due to what could be called the "defeatist" elements in the TAZ's temporary nature and emphasis on personal liberation (although the network has also stressed this point). The communists might prefer to identify RAAN with the Marxist concept of the (organic, non-"vanguard") party, which Antonio Negri describes in Domination and Sabotage as "A contradiction which we must live and control within the overall development of the process of proletarian self-valorization [which aims to] destroy the reality of power as the obverse of the capitalist state-form ... power is to be dissolved into a network of powers, and the independence of the class is to be constructed via the autonomy of individual revolutionary movements [that reduce] the party to a revolutionary army, to an unwavering executor of the proletarian will."

Both of these explanations can be considered valid because they examine how RAAN presents itself from two different angles, from two different narratives with different vocabularies. When necessary, the network has defined itself as an "organized contradiction", a term that functions as a justification for RAAN's existence by framing it as an organic process developing according to the needs and challenges presented within the given historical moment. This means that the various actions and initiatives undertaken by affiliates under the network's banner interlock to form a gestalt: practically, this means the sharing of resources and aid, experience, and credibility as well as the presentation of a unified force capable of acting within or outside of any given sphere.

link http://www.redanarchist.org/definition/index.html

http://www.redanarchist.org/

GoaRedStar

12th March 2006, 01:44

Here is the page regarding affiliation.

Affiliation and the Red & Anarchist Action Network

RAAN has tended to describe its active participants in terms of affiliation rather than "membership". This is derived from the network's conception of itself as a permanent contradiction, (relationship; dialectic) unorganized in the sense of refusing the exigency to authorize participation in the process it embodies. Communism - loosely defined as the ongoing and global evolution of liberatory humanization against all forms of exploitation - progresses as a result of the pre-existing and undeniable (material) facts of existence. As a result, the process(es) of resistance recognized by an anarchist-communist body such as RAAN cannot assign to itself an overarching, static formation (regardless of how specialized or self-defining its character) in opposition to the fluid conditions and necessities perpetually dictated by reality. Instead, autonomous individuals can choose to associate one or more of their revolutionary activities with the concept of RAAN, in the process creating both a powerful symbol and diverse collection of dialogues. In situations where multiple affiliates come together to accomplish certain tasks, various forms of "fixed" or temporary/transitional organization in the network's name may become appropriate or even preferential.

Therefore, one does not "join" RAAN in the same way that you might be able to buy a membership in a political organization through dues or the selling of a newspaper. The Red & Anarchist Action Network is an international tendency of independent, sometimes-anonymous individuals and groups that act under the network's revolutionary principles. In this sense, "membership" in RAAN exists only through action, (including principled criticism) and all that is necessary in order to get involved with the network is to agree with and familiarize yourself with its fundamental ideology, and to then act off of that affiliation. The network views itself not as a Party (or Federation, etc.) but as a tendency in the strict definition of the term: a prevailing movement in a given direction.

http://www.redanarchist.org/affiliation/index.html

redstar2000

12th March 2006, 02:39

A brief post about RAAN...

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1291851855 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=34432&view=findpost&p=1291851855)

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

Janus

12th March 2006, 04:06

Next year in college, I plan on joining a student group called the "Marxist-Humanist Network." Now, as to the specific details of this group, I am completely ignorant. All I know is that it exists, and hopefully it will actually be a Marxist group. But in any case, I assume many such little groups of Marxists exist all over the world. My idea would be for these little groups to be a part of a larger whole, an organized commununist group or movement or league or what have you.
Good luck on that. Though I must warn you that if they are a school affiliated group then that means that they can't get involved in any political action.

Now as for redstar's vision for a new communist organization, I think that he's got it right. After all, most of us have seen the failures of the vanguardist movements in history and recognize that we need to move away from that.

GoaRedStar

12th March 2006, 04:52

WTF I actually have not seen that ANIMAL LIBERATION & VEGANISM
crap,but I still like the way they are organize.

red_che

12th March 2006, 05:54

Like I said, Leninists like red che will absolutely hate this idea. But I don't really care about them. My questions are to the anarchists and Marxists of this board. Leninists can join one of their many parties.

Like you, I don' t care whether you agree or not. This is a message board and everyone is free to post any message.

But, you know you make some sort of confusion here: "My questions are to the anarchists and Marxists of this board."

I think anarchists are not Marxists, and therefore not communists. Of course you and other anarchists disagree with this view, but that is a fact. ;)

I think any organization should be extremely decentralized. Perhaps there can be public assemblies, but we need to remember that not everyone can go. That's why I suggested localizing the group. That is, create 'divisions' of it everywhere. Then we can use the internet as a 'meet-up' place for everyone involved.

Actually, there's nothing new in your suggestion here. In fact, many of the existing organizations now that are large, even non-communists, do this decentralization of their organization. And Marxist-Leninist parties are very good at this kind of organization. Like in the Party where I belong, our organization is decentralized into different committees and sub-committees. Every committee has autonomy within their own spheres, while the central committee exercises national/general leadership over all the committees. In fact, the central committee itself is a big group composed of members of the regional party committees and other national staff organs.

As I said, there's nothing new in your suggestion. The only thing that makes your suggestion different was that it reduces the communist organization into a loosely organized and less effective organization, more like being a liberal organization of bourgeois liberals. :)

We don't want any official party leadership. We want any 'leaders' to be morel ike advisers. If they have good ideas, we'll listen. But they should never have the power of command. But the power of comman is exactly what Leninist parties give the 'leaders'.

Well, genuine Leninist parties (or communist organizations) are parties that are based on collective leadership, not dictatorship by one person. Like in our party, every decision, at any level or committee, is to be made by the party collectives. This "leadership being like adviser" thing you're saying is not a new one. It has been practiced by our party since its establishment.

Non-communists will not be allowed in.

Of course!

And why should every member be forced to submit to a policy with which he/she disagrees?

If an organization is a communist organization, then it is expected that every member agrees on the general/basic principles of communism. And if a majority of that organization agreed to a policy that is to be effected after discussions and debate where everyone had been given opportunities to give their views, then why does one be allowed not to submit ot it? Specially if that policy being agreed upon is for the cause of advancing the communist movement and that policy does not "violate" the basic/general principles of communism?

That person who disagrees would simply mean he is not a communist.

In any case, red che, if you are a Leninist, join a Leninist party. What I'm talking about is a communist non-Leninist league of sorts. So, to any non-Leninists, do you like the idea?

Well, I am a member of one Leninist party for a considerable period of time now.

And what you're suggesting here actually is not a communist organization but some sort of a bourgeois liberal organization.

anomaly

12th March 2006, 06:27

I think anarchists are not Marxists, and therefore not communists.
They are not Marxists, but they are communists. I have spoken at length with an anarchist who is about as 'non-Marxist' as an anarchist can get, but he still is an advocate of communism. Now, I consider myself a Marxist, but I do not agree with everything Marx says. I do not much care for his suggestion of a 'proletarian state', for reasons you've probably heard before. You Leninists absolutely hate people like me. But, you Leninists already have your group(s).

while the central committee exercises national/general leadership over all the committees
I don't want a central committee. Any new organization will not be Leninist, so you have to stop thinking like a Leninist (oops, that's impossible!) when you say the proposed league is 'like the Leninists' parties'. Because no, no it's not.

it reduces the communist organization into a loosely organized and less effective organization, more like being a liberal organization of bourgeois liberals
Unfortunately, the Leninist believes that any non-Leninist is 'bourgeois'. Apparently, he thinks anarchists are 'bourgeois' as well :lol: .

genuine Leninist parties (or communist organizations)
Leninism is just another tool for bringing the third world from feudalism to capitalism. Leninist parties are not 'communist organizations'.

This "leadership being like adviser" thing you're saying is not a new one. It has been practiced by our party since its establishment
But Leninist leadership has the power of command. In the organization of which I am speaking, people's ideas would be adapted by the whole because they are good ideas, not because the person saying them is 'chairman'.

And if a majority of that organization agreed to a policy that is to be effected after discussions and debate where everyone had been given opportunities to give their views, then why does one be allowed not to submit ot it?
Most issues discussed would not be defining ones in determining whether one is a communist. Now, if there is a vote asking 'should our organization be communist' and people say 'no', those people would be banned from the organization. But smaller squabbles over much smaller issues can certainly be disagreed upon by members, and those members who still disagree after discussion should not be expected to 'toe the line'.

And what you're suggesting here actually is not a communist organization but some sort of a bourgeois liberal organization
Whatever you want to believe. But I am not here (or atleast I wasn't) to argue with Leninists. I am here to see how well anarchists and non-Leninist Marxists like the idea, and if many do like the idea, how can we go about creating such a league.

You know, I was just about to say we should all join the RAAN, and then redstar pointed out that the group supports 'animal liberation'. I say we start our own...without any 'animal liberation' crap.

anomaly

12th March 2006, 07:24

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 08:14 PM
This is to be an organisation for anarchists and Marxists?
Yes. Frightened?

Zingu

12th March 2006, 08:23

The Communist League (http://www.communistleague.org/), anyone?

anomaly

12th March 2006, 08:41

My only problem with The Communist League is that an anarchist view is not represented. A prime goal of any proposed organization would be to make it a red/black organization. Now, if The Communist League could somehow join with the stated RAAN, then maybe we'd have something...and if we could get the RAAN to drop the silly animal liberation stuff.

ComradeOm

12th March 2006, 12:56

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 07:27 AM
Yes. Frightened?
Hardly. Just curious as to how an organisation can hope to straddle such a divide. Is it to be Marxist or anarchist or just vaguely anti-capitalist?

Don't get me wrong, I've never been a great advocate of the vanguard in the West but some degree of focus is needed in these organisations.

anomaly

12th March 2006, 22:04

Hardly. Just curious as to how an organisation can hope to straddle such a divide
Well, as I've mentioned, I've had several in-depth discussions with an anarchist who is about as un-Marxist as one can get. But you know what? Once I drop the Marxist lingo, I find that the anarchist and myself agree on almost everything.

That is, I find that the major source of disagreement between anarchists and non-Leninist Marxists is simply semantics. And that is why I am somewhat hopeful that such an organization could be created.

anomaly

12th March 2006, 22:29

The possibility of RAAN and the CommunistLeague uniting proved irresistable to me. And so, I wrote letters to each organization. I have not heard from RAAN, but here is what the CommunistLeague had to say.

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

Thank you for your letter. We appreciate the impression you have of us.

I have briefly looked through some of the materials on the RAAN website,
and was intrigued and somewhat impressed by some of them. But to be
impressed by an organization's documents is, of course, different than
seeing enough parallels to warrant discussions of merger. It's not that we
would swear it off necessarily; rather, it seems that there are aspects of
the League that would not mesh with those of RAAN. For example:

1. Organization -- I would say that our organization is more developed as
a single organization than is RAAN. As they point out, they are more of a
network of individuals and affiliates; on the other hand, the League is an
organization of members and member-initiated local units. We have an
elected Central Committee that is responsible between Conventions for
administering the work of the organization on a national level. The RAAN
has a "hub" that, while responsible for a certain level of
nationally-focused activity, does not seem to have any broader mission or
mandate beyond facilitating the affiliates.

2. Principles/Platform -- As I am sure you're aware, the League is
organized around a set of Basic Principles that are much more defined than
those of RAAN. Our principles, while avoiding the doctrinaire "line"
fetishism of Maoist, Trotskyist, etc., organizations, does require a level
of understanding and agreement that is seemingly higher than those asked
by RAAN. Similarly, the League does have a platform of immediate demands
around which it organizes, which is something that RAAN rejects. However,
our platform does not prescribe what kind of tactics or strategies League
members use to either promote, fight for or attain these demands, only
that such work is done in the spirit and sense of our principles.

3. Lenin -- It may seem funny to see this as a point of difference, but I
imagine it would be necessary for RAAN comrades to know this all up front.
Even though the League is not, and does not define itself as, Leninist, we
are what you can call "Lenin-friendly". That is, there are some books by
Lenin (e.g., The State and Revolution; Imperialism; Two Tactics) that most
League members see as important contributions to communist theory. And
there are individual members of the League who might go so far as to see
themselves as "Leninists" -- even though it is clear that their
understanding of concepts like "vanguard" and organization do not match
those of the overwhelming bulk of the self-described "Leninist"
organizations out there. Regardless, though, the League's structure can
not be described as "democratic centralist" or "of the Bolshevik model".

4. Class -- As I am sure you can tell, class issues are very important for
us. They are featured very prominently in every facet of our work. When I
looked through the RAAN website, I saw very little on this issue.
Honestly, that is something that would concern virtually every member of
the League. In a sense, the League itself is a "Safe Space", as it is put
in the RAAN documents. We are a Safe Space for working people who want to
fight for their liberation, but have either been abused and exploited by
the existing left organization or don't even want to put themselves in
that position. In the League, we have worked to create a "Culture of
Liberation" that allows our members to develop their theoretical and
practical skills, and become better organizers for the struggle. (In fact,
the next issue of our journal, Workers' Republic, is partially dedicated
to this issue.) The fact that there is little on the RAAN website about
class questions and the effects that exploitation and oppression have on
working people is something that would have to be discussed fully and
thoroughly before anything could be accomplished.

So, what does this mean? Well, I can say that it might be worthwhile to
sit down with comrades of RAAN and talk more with them, mainly to see if
these would indeed be barriers to working more closely together. I can
also see there being other, smaller issues that would require some
discussion (e.g., the position on animal liberation/veganism). Overall,
however, there may be an opportunity there, and we would not close the
door to it. But merger, I think, may be a bit premature to speak of right
now (especially because we do not know what the comrades of RAAN would
think of such a prospect).

However, in politics, as in life, there are always possibilities. I can
think of two concrete things we can do right now that could contribute to
precisely what you are seeking:

1. Dual memberships -- Due to the fact that the League itself is
clandestine, we have allowed our members to retain or seek memberships in
other, public organizations as an avenue and outlet for activity. We would
not be against comrades having dual membership in the League and RAAN. I
am, however, a little hesitant about suggesting to League members that
they join the RAAN "cold". The reason is that it may be misinterpreted by
RAAN comrades as a prelude to a raiding operation or some other kind of
attempt to pull members from their network (some self-described
"communist" organizations are known for such tactics). However, if a
League member wanted to join RAAN, I doubt there would be any kind of
opposition from any of us about it. Similarly, if comrades in RAAN wanted
to join the League, we would welcome them as long as they met the
requirements of membership.

2. IWPA -- The League is an affiliate of the International Working
People's Association, which is a broad working people's association
composed of organizational, local and individual affiliates -- in this
sense, similar to RAAN. Membership in the IWPA is open to any working
person (or young person whose parents are working people) who agrees with
the seven Points of Unity, which are on the IWPA's website:
www.iwpa-aigt.org. The IWPA may also provide a framework in which comrades
of the League and RAAN may work together and also discuss among us what a
new kind of working people's organization may look like. The IWPA would
welcome self-described libertarian communists, anarcho-syndicalists,
anarchists, etc., as long as they agreed with the Points of Unity and were
willing to promote the International. The IWPA is very much motivated by
local autonomy and freedom of criticism.

Finally, I do not know if you have any ties with RAAN yourself, but you
are welcome to share this letter with them or any other comrade who you
may think would be interested in its contents. Also, if you have any
questions or comments, please do not hesitate to write. I look forward to
hearing from you soon.

With communist greetings,
Miles, for the League (IWPA)
http://www.communistleague.org/

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

There seems to be little in the way of major disagreement. Just a few little issues that could probably be cleared up if RAAN comrades talked with CommunistLeague comrades.

But, in any case, the possibility is certainly there. And it seems that the CommunistLeague is quite open to the idea of including anarchists, another good sign (and we already know that the RAAN is open to including Marxists).

rouchambeau

12th March 2006, 22:38

#1 is essential.

I have a problem with #2. Democracy should not be so emphasized. Rather, decision making should be made by communists, not necessarily a majority (although a communist majority would be nice).

#3 Is good so long as #1 is followed.

#4 kicks ass.

#5 I have a problem with because, like #2, it implies that democracy should be of more value than a program for the working class.

#6 Is good, but it contradicts #5 and #2.

#7: again, more democracy.

#8 Good, so long as those views are communistic.

Aside from all of the democracy, I love it.

GoaRedStar

13th March 2006, 03:44

You should try to contact Nachie.
I think he is a co founder of RAAN he is also a member of Revleft.

redstar2000

13th March 2006, 04:07

Originally posted by rouchambeau
Aside from all of the democracy, I love it.

I used to hear this from the Maoists back in the late 60s all the time.

What matters, they would say, is that we have the correct line, not how we arrived at it.

The reason that's wrong is that a political line, no matter how "good" it is, is useless if the people who are supposed to carry it out don't understand it!

And there's no reason for people to understand a political line that is handed down to them from "on high".

In a genuinely democratic communist organization, "line struggle" is something that takes place constantly and, as a consequence, the membership understands what the options are and what the consequences might be.

In fact, I would expect circumstances to be such that there might be several lines being carried out at the same time...allowing experience to support the best and eliminate the worst.

Very different from 20th century Leninist practice...where a single line was decided at the top, the membership asked, at best, for a rubber-stamp "ratification", and then everybody had to "do it" like it or not.

Moreover, as was frequently the case, if the line proved catastrophically wrong, it was damn near impossible to get it changed. Usually, one or several of the "big dogs" had to challenge the bad line...and even end up expelling the big dogs who were initially responsible for it.

It was a mess!

An insistence on "ultra-democracy" in a new communist organization is intended precisely to avoid these 20th century massive fuckups...or at least stop them before they get completely out of hand.

People inevitably make mistakes...but we have to avoid carving those mistakes into stones!

Ultra-democracy is the best way to do that.

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

piet11111

13th March 2006, 04:16

the thing i always find amusing is the way that democracy is always considered as slow.
technology allows us so much options yet we completely ignore the capability's of a technology based non bureaucratic communist organisation.

komrades dont get stuck in the primitive mindset that democracy is the towering bureaucratic behemoth the capitalists turned the state into.
its sad to see such revolutionary poeple that look so far ahead of these times to be stuck in such an assumption that democracy is too slow for us.

anomaly

13th March 2006, 04:51

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 05:41 PM
#1 is essential.

I have a problem with #2. Democracy should not be so emphasized. Rather, decision making should be made by communists, not necessarily a majority (although a communist majority would be nice).

#3 Is good so long as #1 is followed.

#4 kicks ass.

#5 I have a problem with because, like #2, it implies that democracy should be of more value than a program for the working class.

#6 Is good, but it contradicts #5 and #2.

#7: again, more democracy.

#8 Good, so long as those views are communistic.

Aside from all of the democracy, I love it.
I'd love to comment, but I have no idea where you're getting these numbers...care to enlighten me?

redstar2000

13th March 2006, 12:31

The numbers are from the points in my essay. :)

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

ComradeOm

13th March 2006, 12:39

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 10:07 PM
That is, I find that the major source of disagreement between anarchists and non-Leninist Marxists is simply semantics.
Really? I'd have thought that the nature of the state and, for those anarchists who've yet to get with the program, clas struggle and the merits of historical materialism would be pretty big sticking points.

chimx

13th March 2006, 19:58

Re: RAAN

Nachie is down in Venezuela (i think) right now working with some anarchist groups. He'll be back later this month and we can talk more about it.

There has been criticism of the animal lib stuff in the RAAN P&D. Ironically, there are few vegans actually affiliated with raan that i know of, and that section was written by Nachie, who as far as I know isn't even a vegetarian. Personally I didn't want to see that section included since it has the potential to be somewhat alienating, but I didn't protest much since I like helping fuzzy little animals too (yeah, i'm an annoying vegan, deal with it)

That being said, the main reason people wanted to include that section was to be as inclusive to different groups as possible.

As far as the Communist League goes, RAAN has received a lot of slack for supporting the idea of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat while maintaining a strict anti-leninist stance. Because of the support of the former, many anarchists try to narrowly define us as leninists in sheeps clothing. I would be hesitant to see RAAN merge with any organization that is "leninist-friendly" simply because that would be extremely alienating to our anarchist base. Again, once Nachie returns we can all begin with a more serious dialogue over the issue.

anomaly

14th March 2006, 04:07

Miles, perhaps you could be of service here, eh?

Anyway, I don't think the Leninist current is very prevalent in the CommunistLeague. If you look at their 'seven points of unity', you will see that it is about as non-Leninist as it gets.

But, Miles, I must ask, how prevalent do you think any 'Leninist current' within CommunistLeague is? You said you were 'Leninist friendly', but to what degree? The so-called Leninists who join CommunistLeague accept the seven points of unity, do they not? And so how can they be properly called Leninists at all?

EDIT: IWPA has the 'seven points of unity'.

Nothing Human Is Alien

14th March 2006, 04:25

When you talk about "the League's 7 points of unity", are you sure you're not talking about the IWPA's 7 points of unity? Cause you're confusing me.

anomaly

14th March 2006, 04:28

Oh yea. Sorry. That's what I meant.

Martin Blank

14th March 2006, 05:45

Originally posted by anomaly+Mar 13 2006, 11:10 PM--> (anomaly @ Mar 13 2006, 11:10 PM) Miles, perhaps you could be of service here, eh? [/b]
For the record, let me start by printing the IWPA's seven Points of Unity:

1. The liberation of working people[1] must be carried out by working people themselves; this struggle for liberation does not mean merely a fight for better wages and privileges, or merely for more rights, but the abolition of classes and class antagonisms, beginning with the establishment of real majority rule on its own basis.

2. The exploitation of the producers, of working people, is based on the private ownership of the means of production, and this private ownership lies at the heart of all the misery, degradation, oppression and bloodshed in society, as well as serves as the basis for the development and irreconcilability of classes and class antagonisms.

3. The liberation of working people from this societal system of exploitation and oppression (capitalism) is the central task of all genuine working people’s organizations and movements, with all other tasks subordinated to and guided by this goal. This struggle of classes takes place in all areas of society, but is concentrated on the political battlefield, in the form of a decisive struggle against the state and its organs of enforcement.

4. All previous movements for the liberation of working people failed either because of isolation and a lack of solidarity, or because of an inability to venture beyond immediate issues, or because of subordination to the interests and/or leadership of false friends from the exploiting and oppressing classes.

5. The liberation of working people is not a local or national, but a societal task, embracing all the countries of the world where capitalism exists, and demanding the closest possible unity of working people on a worldwide basis. The organization of working people toward this end, without regard to “homeland,” is a natural outgrowth of the class itself and the conditions that created it.

6. The struggles of working people against economic exploitation are only one part of the broader struggle for liberation. The struggles against oppression of working people based on race or nationality, gender, age, sexuality, or ability, are an inseparable part of the struggle for liberation, and must be fought by all working people in order to achieve our common goals.

7. The reawakening of working people in this period to their central role in society, their common interests and the lessons given to them by the last century of struggle, while it raises a new hope, gives solemn warning against a relapse into the old errors, and demands the immediate unification of these emerging, disconnected forces into a single worldwide body.

----------
[1] Because there is so much confusion created around what defines a class, because the exploiting classes have deliberately confused the definition of class, we need to be particularly clear here. We define working people, the modern proletariat, as those who have to sell their ability to work (labor-power) to survive. Whether you work in industry, in the “service sector” or in agriculture, whether or not you are employed or unemployed, if your survival is based solely on the need to sell your labor to other people, and you do not have control over other people’s labor, you are one of us — a working person, a proletarian.

-- http://www.iwpa-aigt.org/principles.html

Any working person who agrees with these seven points can join the IWPA, whether they consider themselves communists, anarcho-syndicalists, democratic socialists, anarchists, etc. The key issue here is getting working people together to collectively discuss and discover the lessons that can be learned from the experiences of the 20th century, and then begin to develop any principles, strategies or tactics that come from these lessons.

Right now, the IWPA consists of the Communist League, the Free People's Movement, Revolutionary Youth, the Detroit Working People's Association and a number of individuals around the world. (There is also the International Weekly Group that is affiliated to the IWPA, but I am unsure if they still exist.) All of the organizational affiliates see themselves as communist, but I tend to think that is more coincidental than anything else.

If an group of working-class anarchists or anarcho-syndicalists approached the IWPA, stating their agreement with the Points of Unity and agreeing to promote the International, I can say that the League would have no problem accepting them as equal members. I would tend to think that CDL, who is a member of the FPM, can say the same thing (but I'll let him speak for himself). Our goal is class unity, not doctrinaire (sham) "unity".

[email protected] 13 2006, 03:01 PM
As far as the Communist League goes, RAAN has received a lot of slack for supporting the idea of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat while maintaining a strict anti-leninist stance. Because of the support of the former, many anarchists try to narrowly define us as leninists in sheeps clothing. I would be hesitant to see RAAN merge with any organization that is "leninist-friendly" simply because that would be extremely alienating to our anarchist base.

Chimx, I understand this point. This is why I felt it important to put these things forward well in advance. I should correct you on one point, though: we don't call ourselves "Leninist-friendly", but rather "Lenin-friendly". It may seem a quibble, but it does mean something different. As I pointed out in the letter printed by Anomaly, we are "Lenin-friendly" because we feel there were certain works of his that we see as contributions to communist theory: The State and Revolution and Imperialism: The Last Stage of Capitalism (in the letter, I also mistakenly mentioned Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution; that is a personal favorite, not one commonly accepted by all League members). This may get us painted by some as "Leninist", but I think that most self-described "Leninists" would disagree with that.

In fact, it has been the experience of comrades in the League, and in the IWPA, that the bulk of the self-described "Leninist" left goes positively apoplectic when trying to deal with us. Comrades on RL who went as part of the IWPA contingent to the Sept. 24, 2005, antiwar demonstrations in Washington can tell stories about how these "Leninists" just about went out of their mind when we responded to their question, "What are you -- anti-revisionist (Stalinist), Trotskyist, Maoist, Bordigist, Ultraleft, anarcho-communist, etc.?", by simply saying, "communist".

I bring this up, chimx, to point out that I know what you mean when you talk about how others in your traditional milieu see you as this or that, and would rather see you fail than draw another breath (which is often the unwritten or unspoken view).

All I can say in response is that you really shouldn't care too much about how others perceive you. The left is a barrel of crabs, with each party, organization, coalition, network and affinity group looking to drag every other one down instead of seeing them succeed. The only thing that really matters is your work and how that relates to advancing the struggle to overthrow capitalism. If comrades in the RAAN are concerned about the "Lenin-friendliness" of the League because of how they may be seen by other anarchists, that may be understandable, but it is nevertheless counterproductive. On the other hand, if RAAN comrades are more worried that such "friendliness" may detract from their political message and work, then it is a legitimate concern -- it is, I might add, also a concern that could be rationally discussed.

If comrades of the RAAN are interested in networking with comrades in the League, then the framework of the IWPA may be the best way to do that. It allows for the autonomy and independence you are concerned about, while also allowing us all to talk and work together, and test each other out. What do you think, chimx?

Miles

Axel1917

14th March 2006, 06:45

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 08:26 AM
The Communist League (http://www.communistleague.org/), anyone?
That organizaiton is sectarian, and like all sectarian organizations, it is an obstacle in the way of the socialist movement. Sectarians cannot advance the revolution one millimeter.

The RAAN is full of anti-Marxists. They claim nonsensical things about how we must liberate animals to stop capitalism and such. Even redstar2000 was able to point out that nonsensical assertion.

More later. I doubt that this "new organization" is a way forward. Given how Leninism is not understood and viciously attacked by redstar2000 and co., it is probably some ultra-left idea.

EDIT: The link is from redstar2000's rant site. Now I know that it is devoid of credibility.

A serious error that redstar2000 and co. make is that they don't even understand what Leninism is. When attacking it, they are believing Stalin's lies, thinking that it is totalitarian. If anyone bothers to serioulsy analyze the writings of Lenin and Trotsky, it becomes clear that Leninism and Trotskyism are the same thing. Attacking something without understanding it is the same crap that defenders of capitalism do when attacking communism!

chimx

14th March 2006, 07:24

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 05:48 AM
All I can say in response is that you really shouldn't care too much about howing to drag every other one down instead of seeing them succeed. The only thing that really matters is your work and how that relates to advancing the struggle to overthrow capitalism. If comrades in the RAAN are concerned about the "Lenin-friendliness" of the League because of how they may be seen by other anarchists, that may be understandable, but it is nevertheless counterproductive. On the other hand, if RAAN comrades are more worried that such "friendliness" may detract from their political message and work, then it is a legitimate concern -- it is, I might add, also a concern that could be rationally discussed.

If comrades of the RAAN are interested in networking with comrades in the League, then the framework of the IWPA may be the best way to do that. It allows for the autonomy and independence you are concerned about, while also allowing us all to talk and work together, and test each other out. What do you think, chimx?

Miles
the difference being however, whereas the cl seems quite content to disregard sectarianism and simply adhere to the broad 'communism', the experience of raan is to try and embrace ideological diversity and overcome often irrational sectarian differences. It is no doubt counterproductive to the struggle for anarchists to exaggerate the influence of a "lenin-friendliness" (my mistake btw) of the cl or raan, but we still have to acknowledge its existence and admit that it is counterproductive to the networking of anarchists and marxists. It's enough of a pain trying to explain to the anarchist milieu the differences between marx and lenin, let alone why one should tolerate those who see some benefits of leninist theory. Personally I wish people wouldn't become so emotionally invested with the denouncement of leninism, as it does so on its own well enough.

Ultimately both marxists and anarchists within raan have already decided to take an unfriendly outlook in regards to lenin. We feel that this best suits our needs as far as actual network building goes, as well as eliminates the largest contradiction facing theoretical unity of a network of our kind.

As far as the IWPA stuff goes, again that dialogue will have to be taken up at a later time when more raanites than myself are available.

The RAAN is full of anti-Marxists. They claim nonsensical things about how we must liberate animals to stop capitalism and such. Even redstar2000 was able to point out that nonsensical assertion.

raan was founded by marxists and anarchist together. we wanted to be open to people that felt earth and animal liberation was intrinsic to their struggle (as well as other groups, ie. queer and womens lib). If this is too hard of a concept for you to grasp than I'm sorry.

14th March 2006, 07:35

That organizaiton is sectarian, and like all sectarian organizations, it is an obstacle in the way of the socialist movement. Sectarians cannot advance the revolution one millimeter.

How is it sectarian?

redstar2000

14th March 2006, 07:46

Originally posted by Axel1917
A serious error that redstar2000 and co. make is that they don't even understand what Leninism is. When attacking it, they are believing Stalin's lies, thinking that it is totalitarian. If anyone bothers to seriously analyze the writings of Lenin and Trotsky, it becomes clear that Leninism and Trotskyism are the same thing.

I do not dispute that Leninism and Trotskyism are (pretty close to) "the same thing".

But your child-like faith in St. Leon does not permit you to see the commonalities of Trotskyism, Stalinism, Maoism, Titoism, Hoxhaism, etc., etc., etc.

Do they not all consider "iron discipline" as the highest "virtue"? Do they not all devoutly believe in the "leading role of the party and its leadership"? Do they not all genuinely desire a despotism with their party in command? Do they not all agree that the masses are "unfit to rule"?

And when "caught out" in some cynical maneuver, do not they all seek refuge in great heaping piles of mystical "dialectical" babble?

Why should people continue to take seriously your theological differences with other Leninist parties?

Given how Leninism is not understood and viciously attacked by redstar2000 and co., it is probably some ultra-left idea.

Yeah, it probably is. :lol:

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

Amusing Scrotum

14th March 2006, 08:39

Originally posted by Axel1917+--> (Axel1917)When attacking it, they are believing Stalin's lies, thinking that it is totalitarian.[/b]

Really?

Emphasis added....

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 08:04 AM
It will be a dialectical, consistent, non-sectarian party based on an iron Bolshevik discipline that will be able to lead the msses forward, not your rant site.

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1292030572 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46633&view=findpost&p=1292030572)

Cause we all know "iron discipline" is soooo much fun and not "totalitarian" at all! :lol:

Lazar
How is it sectarian?

Maybe because they wouldn't grant him membership? :lol:

Martin Blank

14th March 2006, 10:34

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+Mar 14 2006, 03:42 AM--> (Armchair Socialism @ Mar 14 2006, 03:42 AM)
Lazar
How is it sectarian?

Maybe because they wouldn't grant him membership? :lol: [/b]
DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! DING!

Give that comrade a Cohiba Presidente!

Miles

Martin Blank

14th March 2006, 10:39

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 01:48 AM
That organizaiton is sectarian, and like all sectarian organizations, it is an obstacle in the way of the socialist movement. Sectarians cannot advance the revolution one millimeter.
Yawn! Really, Axel1917, is this the best you can come up with -- a regurgitation of the typical CMI/IMT line that every group other than yours is "sectarian"?

I'd ask you to prove it -- to show where in the League's principles we "prove" our "sectarianism" -- but I know you can't.

I will thank you, though, for proving my point about the "barrel of crabs".

Miles

Martin Blank

14th March 2006, 10:54

Originally posted by chimx+Mar 14 2006, 02:27 AM--> (chimx @ Mar 14 2006, 02:27 AM)It is no doubt counterproductive to the struggle for anarchists to exaggerate the influence of a "lenin-friendliness" (my mistake btw) of the cl or raan, but we still have to acknowledge its existence and admit that it is counterproductive to the networking of anarchists and marxists.[/b]

Again, chimx, I can understand this. I have to question, though, whether you're making the same mistake that many other leftists make: concentrating more on what other leftists think, and less on what the exploited and oppressed think. Case in point:

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 02:27 AM
It's enough of a pain trying to explain to the anarchist milieu the differences between marx and lenin, let alone why one should tolerate those who see some benefits of leninist theory.

This is a weakness I see in RAAN's activity. I know well the pressure that organizations (in the broader sense of the term) feel from others who are in the same "milieu". I have spent enough time in the left to have felt them myself. But if the "anarchist milieu" is giving you so much static, why waste your time on them? They're going to believe what they want to believe, regardless of how many times you explain it to them. I tend to think that the time and energy the RAAN comrades are spending explaining for the umpteenth time what you mean by "dictatorship of the proletariat" would be better directed toward winning young and working people to your perspective. Let history be your judge, not the left.

This applies to us as much as it does to the "anarchist milieu". You have every right to say that you'd rather let history be the judge of whether our view on the value of some of Lenin's writings is productive or counterproductive. We can respect that.

(As an aside, though, I would be interested to know if you have read either The State and Revolution or Imperialism.)

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 02:27 AM
Ultimately both marxists and anarchists within raan have already decided to take an unfriendly outlook in regards to lenin. We feel that this best suits our needs as far as actual network building goes, as well as eliminates the largest contradiction facing theoretical unity of a network of our kind.

I kinda got that impression from the "Fuck Lenin" flyer. ;)

[email protected] 14 2006, 02:27 AM
As far as the IWPA stuff goes, again that dialogue will have to be taken up at a later time when more raanites than myself are available.

Fair enough.

Miles

chimx

14th March 2006, 19:38

But if the "anarchist milieu" is giving you so much static, why waste your time on them?

short answer: because The Red Action Network doesn't have nearly as much pizzaz to it.

long answer: raan's purpose is centered around breaking artificial barriers existing between anarchists and communists through unified activity and interactions. to rid ourselves of the anarchist current would be to rid ourselves of the very purpose of the network. furthermore, whereas the barriers between marxists and anarchists are most often artificial, the barriers between leninists and anarchists certainly are not, and so we would prefer the inclusion of the latter to the former.

(As an aside, though, I would be interested to know if you have read either The State and Revolution or Imperialism.)

I've read state + rev once or twice, and scanned through parts of imperialism. The problem with s+r is that it is easy to divorce lenin's theory from his political praxis. it was written after the february revolution when petrograd's workers, though largely dominated by the SRs, were still relatively apolitical and more concerned with diminishing state control of labor. It should also be noted that anarchism was still quite popular during this time in petrograd (as well as the ukraine, moscow, and elsewhere). s+r has to be read with this historical setting, and is thus lenin's appeal to both anarchists and petrograd workers involved in factory committee's.

just look at what he actually says in it. He starts by discussing the necessity of the transient state, “To prevent the true meaning of his struggle against anarchism from being distorted, Marx purposely emphasized the ‘revolutionary and transient form’ of the state which the proletariat needs. The proletariat needs the state only temporarily. We do not at all disagree with the anarchists on the question of the abolition of the state as the aim. We maintain that, to achieve this aim, we must temporarily make use of the instruments, resources and methods of the state power against the exploiters, just as the temporary dictatorship of the oppressed class is necessary for the abolition of classes.”

but in his appeal, what did he mean by "transient state": “Marx chooses the sharpest and clearest way of stating his case against the anarchists: after overthrowing the yoke of the capitalists, should the workers ‘lay down their arms,’ or use them against the capitalists in order to crush their resistance? But what is the systematic use of arms by one class against another class, if not a ‘transient form’ of a state?”

this argumentation was significant enough to win plenty of anarchists to the side of Lenin, calling themselves anarcho-bolsheviks, soviet anarchists, etc. During the october revolution, Lenin continued with this policy of anarchist appeasement by placing four anarchists onto the Petrograd Military Revolutionary Committee--an organization extremely important to the bolshevik victory in 1917.

but Lenin in 1917 was different than the Lenin in 1918, and this is what I mean by it is impossible to divorce theory from praxis. Look at what he said in less than one year after s+r was published:

“The closer we approach the complete suppression of the middle class, the more dangerous the factor of small middle class anarchism will be for us. The struggle against it can only be carried on by force. If we are no anarchists, we must recognize the necessity of a State, that is a forcible transition from Capitalism to Socialism. The kind of force will be determined by the degree of the development of the revolutionary class concerned, as well as by special circumstances, such as reactionary war and the form taken by the opposition of the middle and lower middle classes. Therefore no essential contradiction can exist between the Soviet, that is, the Socialist democracy, and the exercise of dictatorial power by a single person.”

I can't help but think of Lenin as a political opportunist in this light. s+r, though an interesting theoretical work, was a tool for political conquest. so fuck it.

Punk Rocker

14th March 2006, 19:50

Aside from all of the democracy, I love it.

Dude don't you think if we're fighting for democracy, we should be democratic?

It sounds like a cool idea to me except for in number 4

4. Communist leadership shall consist of guidance, advice, consultation, teaching, etc., but shall never under any circumstances be construed or articulated as the power of command.

Mostly a kickass idea but shouldn't there be some commands in battle? Do you really think you could win a revolution if it was everyone for themselves.

anomaly

14th March 2006, 22:08

chimx, do the anarchists of the RAAN oppose the IWPA? That, rather than Lenin, would appear to be the central issue here.

Martin Blank

15th March 2006, 00:15

Chimx, thank you again for writing. I do understand your arguments about RAAN. I just wanted to respond briefly to the question of Lenin.

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 02:41 PM
but Lenin in 1917 was different than the Lenin in 1918, and this is what I mean by it is impossible to divorce theory from praxis.... I can't help but think of Lenin as a political opportunist in this light. s+r, though an interesting theoretical work, was a tool for political conquest.
I actually agree with you that the Lenin who wrote The State and Revolution was different from the Lenin who made those comments in late 1918. But I think it's more than mere "opportunism" that led to this.

The restoration of sections of the tsarist bureaucracy, the employment of petty-bourgeois "specialists" in the state, the Red Army and the economy (eventually leading to the restoration of one-man management and the liquidation of the factory-shop committees in 1920), and the rejection of creating a massive education program to help the workers attain the skills needed to run production in their own name (opting instead to send the best workers to their death in the Civil War) changed Lenin's political consciousness. The "Sovbour", the reconstituted petty bourgeoisie now in control of the Soviet state apparatus, influenced and affected virtually every leading member of the Bolshevik Party, including Lenin. And it wasn't until Lenin was dying that he figured this out.

I guess this is why I can separate the Lenin of 1917 from the Lenin of 1918. I can see the material conditions that led to these changes and learn from them. I say this not to spark an argument, but to explain.

Miles

Axel1917

15th March 2006, 06:57

Originally posted by CommunistLeague+Mar 14 2006, 10:42 AM--> (CommunistLeague @ Mar 14 2006, 10:42 AM)
[email protected] 14 2006, 01:48 AM
That organizaiton is sectarian, and like all sectarian organizations, it is an obstacle in the way of the socialist movement. Sectarians cannot advance the revolution one millimeter.
Yawn! Really, Axel1917, is this the best you can come up with -- a regurgitation of the typical CMI/IMT line that every group other than yours is "sectarian"?

I'd ask you to prove it -- to show where in the League's principles we "prove" our "sectarianism" -- but I know you can't.

I will thank you, though, for proving my point about the "barrel of crabs".

Miles [/b]
If I recall correctly, your group refuses to work in the traditional workers' organizaitons, and that is sectarianism right there. You never successfully countered my points in that thread (I can't rember its name. Something like "Are the Communist League's principlesl unrealistic."

And here is Lenin's work, Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder. It is probably on some banned literature list of yours! :lol:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/work...0/lwc/index.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/index.htm)

Oh, and by the way, we are the only tendency that had a correct understanding of the Venezuelan revolution from the very beginning! We were correct the whole time, and now the sects are scambling to catch up! :lol Chavez even likes some of our literature. Reason in Revolt has become known in Venezuela as one of "Chavez's Books." What have you done for the revolution? Sat around in a circle discussing things in isolation from the workers.

Oh, and look: Lenin advocating entry into the British Labour Party by Marxists in 1920:

"I have received a letter from the Joint Provisional Committee for the Communist Party of Britain, dated June 20, and, in accordance with their request, I hasten to reply that I am in complete sympathy with their plans for the immediate organisation of a single Communist Party of Britain. I consider erroneous the tactics pursued by Comrade Sylvia Pankhurst and the Workers’ Socialist Federation, who refuse to collaborate in the amalgamation of the British Socialist Party, the Socialist Labour Party and others to form a single Communist party. Personally I am in favour of participation in Parliament and of affiliation to the Labour Party, given wholly free and independent communist activities. I shall defend these tactics at the Second Congress of the Third International on July 15, 1920 in Moscow. I consider it most desirable that a single Communist party be speedily organised on the basis of the decisions of the Third International, and that such a party should establish the closest contact with the Industrial Workers of the World and the Shop Stewards’ Committees, in order to bring about a complete merger with them in the near future.

N. Lenin

8.7.1920"

Bold is my emphasis.

Source: http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/jul/08.htm

Excuse Lenin for being "anti-Marxist" :lol:

Also:

"We are waging a struggle against the "labour aristocracy" in the name of the masses and the workers and in order to win them over to our side; we are waging the struggle against the opportunist and social-chauvinist leaders in order to win the working class over to our side. It would be absurd to forget this most elementary and most self-evident truth. Yet it is this very absurdity that the German "Left" Communists perpetrate when, because of the reactionary and counter-revolutionary character of the trade union top leadership, they jump to the conclusion that ...we must withdraw from the trade unions, refuse to work in them, and create new and artificial forms of labour organization! This is so unpardonable a blunder that it is tantamount to the greatest service Communists could render to the Bourgeoisie."

-Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 31, p.52. Progress Publishers, Moscow 1966

History will prove that your organization's methods, tactics, etc. are completely wrong. It already happens to be doing as such now.

From redstar2000:

But your child-like faith in St. Leon does not permit you to see the commonalities of Trotskyism, Stalinism, Maoism, Titoism, Hoxhaism, etc., etc., etc.

Your dogmatic faith in yourself does not permit you to see the difference between
Trotskyism and Stalinism.

Do they not all consider "iron discipline" as the highest "virtue"? Do they not all devoutly believe in the "leading role of the party and its leadership"? Do they not all genuinely desire a despotism with their party in command? Do they not all agree that the masses are "unfit to rule"?

The iron discipline of Leninism is different from that of Stalinism. We do not desire despotism. Trotsky's anti-Stalinism cost him his life. We do not think that the masses are unfit to rule. We know that a party is needed to lead them, and that they will come to us of their own will when they see that only our tactics are correct. Why don't you actually bother reading some of Lenin's writings on this subject at hand, in addition to understanding them?

And when "caught out" in some cynical maneuver, do not they all seek refuge in great heaping piles of mystical "dialectical" babble?

I don't care for the holy scriptures of Mother Rosa.

Why should people continue to take seriously your theological differences with other Leninist parties?

These differences are real and concrete, not theological.

Yeah, it probably is. laugh.gif

By the pronoun, "it," I was referring to your idea for a new party! Did I make a typo?

Armchair Socialism does not even know what is meant by iron Bolshevik discipline. I said Bolshevik, not Avakain.

Martin Blank

15th March 2006, 12:47

Originally posted by Axel1917+Mar 15 2006, 02:00 AM--> (Axel1917 @ Mar 15 2006, 02:00 AM)If I recall correctly, your group refuses to work in the traditional workers' organizaitons, and that is sectarianism right there. You never successfully countered my points in that thread (I can't rember its name. Something like "Are the Communist League's principlesl unrealistic."[/b]

First of all, the thread in question is, "Communist League's Action Platform... How? Unrealistic? (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=40439)" Second, I did respond directly to your comments, here (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=40439&view=findpost&p=1291939813) and here (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=40439&view=findpost&p=1291939823).

Apparently, your memory is just a wee bit spotty.

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 02:00 AM
And here is Lenin's work, Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder. It is probably on some banned literature list of yours! :lol:

Comrade, I probably have more copies of "Left Wing" Communism in my library than the number of times you've actually read the book.

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 02:00 AM
Oh, and by the way, we are the only tendency that had a correct understanding of the Venezuelan revolution from the very beginning! We were correct the whole time, and now the sects are scambling to catch up! :lol Chavez even likes some of our literature. Reason in Revolt has become known in Venezuela as one of "Chavez's Books." What have you done for the revolution? Sat around in a circle discussing things in isolation from the workers.

Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back for work to which you have made no contribution. I can appreciate what Alan Woods has done in Venezuela, but I have no time for his slobbering sychophants.

As for what I've done, let me give you a preliminary list: Organized a union; organized a strike committee; participated in the leadership of a strike; organized numerous labor/community solidarity coalitions; organized antiwar demonstrations; helped organize a number of independent working people's electoral campaigns; helped organize armed workers' self-defense; organized and helped organize antifascist demonstrations; helped organize a national antifascist/antiracist coalition; fought the fascists in the streets; fought anti-choice terrorists in the streets; fought riot cops defending fascists and anti-choice terrorists; have been arrested for inciting a riot twice, criminal misconduct and obstructing police; etc.

This is just what I've done. I'm not including the work my comrades have done.

Now it's your turn. You can tell me what you've done -- you and you alone, since that's what we're dealing with here.

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 02:00 AM
Oh, and look: Lenin advocating entry into the British Labour Party by Marxists in 1920:

"I have received a letter from the Joint Provisional Committee for the Communist Party of Britain, dated June 20, and, in accordance with their request, I hasten to reply that I am in complete sympathy with their plans for the immediate organisation of a single Communist Party of Britain. I consider erroneous the tactics pursued by Comrade Sylvia Pankhurst and the Workers’ Socialist Federation, who refuse to collaborate in the amalgamation of the British Socialist Party, the Socialist Labour Party and others to form a single Communist party. Personally I am in favour of participation in Parliament and of affiliation to the Labour Party, given wholly free and independent communist activities. I shall defend these tactics at the Second Congress of the Third International on July 15, 1920 in Moscow. I consider it most desirable that a single Communist party be speedily organised on the basis of the decisions of the Third International, and that such a party should establish the closest contact with the Industrial Workers of the World and the Shop Stewards’ Committees, in order to bring about a complete merger with them in the near future.

N. Lenin

8.7.1920"

Bold is my emphasis.

Source: http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/jul/08.htm

Excuse Lenin for being "anti-Marxist" :lol:

Oh, and look, Lenin refers to these as "tactics" -- not principles, tactics. What's that comment about people who raise tactics to the level of principle? Oh! I remember!

The centrist swears by the policy of the united front as he empties it of its revolutionary content and transforms it from a tactical method into a highest principle. -- http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/wo...4-centrism.htm; (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1934/1934-centrism.htm;) boldface mine

You (and your entire international organization) swear by the policy of entrism as you empty it of revolutionary content and transform it from a tactical method into a highest principle.

The Old Man has to be spinning like a lathe in his grave at the actions of epigones like you.

[email protected] 15 2006, 02:00 AM
Also:

"We are waging a struggle against the "labour aristocracy" in the name of the masses and the workers and in order to win them over to our side; we are waging the struggle against the opportunist and social-chauvinist leaders in order to win the working class over to our side. It would be absurd to forget this most elementary and most self-evident truth. Yet it is this very absurdity that the German "Left" Communists perpetrate when, because of the reactionary and counter-revolutionary character of the trade union top leadership, they jump to the conclusion that ...we must withdraw from the trade unions, refuse to work in them, and create new and artificial forms of labour organization! This is so unpardonable a blunder that it is tantamount to the greatest service Communists could render to the Bourgeoisie."

-Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 31, p.52. Progress Publishers, Moscow 1966

History will prove that your organization's methods, tactics, etc. are completely wrong. It already happens to be doing as such now.

And you might have a point here ... if we rejected working in reactionary labor unions, that is.

Miles

rouchambeau

15th March 2006, 15:07

I'm not trying to imply that an authoritarian structure is necessary or even desireable (far from it!). Nor do I feel that real change can come from anywhere but the working class itself. I want to make the point that democracy is not in itself desireable. Rather, democracy should only me a means to libertarian communistic ends if and only when it works.

If democracy is used to undermine working-class power, what, then, is the point of democracy?

Mostly I wanted to make the point that we can democratically decide to carry out our goals for a classless, stateless society. HOWEVER, we should not, as a commrade of mine has pointed out, "allow liberal ideas such as 'democracy' hold more weight while the bosses laugh as we bicker with one another over the details of how to carry out action"

Axel1917

15th March 2006, 18:32

From Miles:

First of all, the thread in question is, "Communist League's Action Platform... How? Unrealistic? (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=40439)" Second, I did respond directly to your comments, here (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=40439&view=findpost&p=1291939813) and here (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=40439&view=findpost&p=1291939823).

Apparently, your memory is just a wee bit spotty.

Actually, I did not find your response very adequate. You basically undermine the importance of entrism and take Lenin's quotation out of context. Lenin said it would be treachery if you did not carry out such freedom of agitation, political activity, etc. You should also be aware of what Lenin had noted about combining both illegal and legal activity.

Comrade, I probably have more copies of "Left Wing" Communism in my library than the number of times you've actually read the book.

Time will tell if your organization has understood and correctly applied the work's ideas.

Oh, and by the way, we are the only tendency that had a correct understanding of the Venezuelan revolution from the very beginning! We were correct the whole time, and now the sects are scambling to catch up! :lol Chavez even likes some of our literature. Reason in Revolt has become known in Venezuela as one of "Chavez's Books." What have you done for the revolution? Sat around in a circle discussing things in isolation from the workers.

Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back for work to which you have made no contribution. I can appreciate what Alan Woods has done in Venezuela, but I have no time for his slobbering sychophants.

Again, what has your organization, as an overall whole, done?

As for what I've done, let me give you a preliminary list: Organized a union; organized a strike committee; participated in the leadership of a strike; organized numerous labor/community solidarity coalitions; organized antiwar demonstrations; helped organize a number of independent working people's electoral campaigns; helped organize armed workers' self-defense; organized and helped organize antifascist demonstrations; helped organize a national antifascist/antiracist coalition; fought the fascists in the streets; fought anti-choice terrorists in the streets; fought riot cops defending fascists and anti-choice terrorists; have been arrested for inciting a riot twice, criminal misconduct and obstructing police; etc.

This is just what I've done. I'm not including the work my comrades have done.

Now it's your turn. You can tell me what you've done -- you and you alone, since that's what we're dealing with here.

I have not done that many things due to given limitations I have right now (stuck in my parents' house and running errands, full-time job, etc. I can guarantee you that I will become more active myself once I have a place of my own (I plan on doing as such by the end of the year, hopefully). It also hinges on correct organizational methods, nonsectarianism, etc., not just your list of personal involvement. It is not just boiling down to one individual, now is it? Not to mention that my learning of correct methods is rather recent (I joined the WIL less than a year ago).

You seem to try to be dodging the importance of the correct methods and such by attempting to reduce things to individual accomplishments! The point is to understand the correct methods, tactics, principles, etc. and then work to apply them in practice, to study them, etc.

Oh, and look, Lenin refers to these as "tactics" -- not principles, tactics. What's that comment about people who raise tactics to the level of principle? Oh! I remember!

Tactics and principles are both very important. Lenin had repeatedly stressed the importance of tactics as well in "Left Wing" Communism: An Infantile Disorder. I never said anything about tactics alone being an ultimate principle, now did I?

QUOTE]The centrist swears by the policy of the united front as he empties it of its revolutionary content and transforms it from a tactical method into a highest principle. -- http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/wo...4-centrism.htm; (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1934/1934-centrism.htm;) boldface mine[/QUOTE]

You (and your entire international organization) swear by the policy of entrism as you empty it of revolutionary content and transform it from a tactical method into a highest principle.

You clearly don't understand what we are saying, now do you? We are not turning anything into an empty shell, nor are we screwing up what Trotsky had stood for. We are fighting ultra-leftism, and we are pointing out that they are making mistakes by walling themselves off from where the workers are to be found. Anyone that bothers to read and understand our literature will know this.

The Old Man has to be spinning like a lathe in his grave at the actions of epigones like you.

The problem is that our organziation does not contain such peoplethat are depicted in your "objective description.". Again, how influential is your organiztion? Do you even have a branch in Venezuela?

And you might have a point here ... if we rejected working in reactionary labor unions, that is.

Miles

And what exactly are you doing to win them over? What is your take on participation in reactionary parliaments and the like? I don't see your organization being all that influential. I don't see Chavez being impressed by your organization either. I also don't see any proof that your stance on Venezuela has been correct from day one. I am working to understand the correct methods, ideas, etc., and I am currently limited by conditions I live in. I doubt that you would be as active as you are if you were bogged down by a full time job, running errands becasue you are stuck with your parents (I am still pretty young at the age of 20), not having your own internet connection, etc. Again, you are evading what is important by trying to reduce things to personal achievements, and not the organizational whole. History is going to prove whose organization is the one with the correct ideas, methods, etc.

You are more knowledgable than most of this board, I will give you that, but you seem to be sectarian in certain areas.

redstar2000

15th March 2006, 18:57

Originally posted by Axel1917
Oh, and by the way, we are the only tendency that had a correct understanding of the Venezuelan revolution from the very beginning! We were correct the whole time, and now the sects are scambling to catch up! Chavez even likes some of our literature. Reason in Revolt has become known in Venezuela as one of "Chavez's Books."

Woo hoo!!!

They're putting up a statue of St. Leon even at this very moment. :lol:

Some poor souls think this sort of pompous boasting has something to do with Marxism.

Nope...it's Leninism!

The modern variety, more precisely, also known as social democracy.

You see, if we kiss Chavez's ass with real enthusiasm then we'll win him over to Trotskyism. :lol:

And then Chavez will put Our Party in charge and we can take over! :D

A bunch of guys who couldn't run a self-service shoe-shine stand? :huh:

Question of the Day: will Axel1917's head still fit through a standard door? :lol:

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

emokid08

15th March 2006, 22:06

Trotskyism is Social Democracy. Leninism is a branch, and second stage of Marxism.........I can hear it now from u guys " silly emokid! he's been brainwashed by the stalinists! he just wants to rule the world through a party of beauracratic yes men! the vanguard party enslaves!"

whatever

I think the new proposal is too democratic, and yes such a thing exists! From what I read, which I only kinda agree with, everything and anything or anyone becomes a giant popularity contest. WOW. That's exactly how I want the new society run.

A giant episode of survivor where we vote each other off the island..............and into the work camps.

If I rub 2/3s of the people the wrong way I'm voted out? I'm a very confrontational person, I'll admit it, but I do have something to contribute and good ideas to put forth, even if u may disagree with it. If I annoy enough people, I'm done for? COME ON! HIGH SCHOOL"S OVER ! (well not 4 me but..... u get my point)

I know that it's a crazy idea.......but too much of a great thing (i.e. democracy) can be harmful & bad.

piet11111

15th March 2006, 22:45

i share the same dread of emokid08 when it comes to our komrades.
first of all i am pro smoking pro eating animals and pro nukes for detterance im not very environment friendly and im also a big supporter of nuclear energy im also determined when it comes to the elimination of our enemy's.

it seems very very likely that 2/3rds wont agree with me on atleast one of the above and either A: kick me out of the communist party B: kick me out of the country or C: have me shot.

their choice does not matter to me but the fear that i cant voice my opinions without potentially serious consequences downright scares me.
ofcourse this is all speculation at best and we wont know what is going to happen untill after the revolution.
but it is true the left is fractured and i dont really know the balance of power between the communist groups (anarchists leninists marxists etc.) nor do i have a very clear idea of what group i fit in.

i dont think the groups will be fighting one another openly after the revolution but i do think we will have many poeple "dissapearing" only to be found dead on the side of some road.

anomaly

16th March 2006, 01:27

piet11111 said:

it seems very very likely that 2/3rds wont agree with me on atleast one of the above and either A: kick me out of the communist party B: kick me out of the country or C: have me shot.
There is no 'communist party'. What country are you talking about? And why would we have you shot? Your 'objections' don't make any sense.

emokid08 said:

Trotskyism is Social Democracy. Leninism is a branch, and second stage of Marxism
Silly emokid! Leninism has nothing to do with Marxism, so how can you claim it is Marxism's "second stage"?

I think the new proposal is too democratic, and yes such a thing exists!
What should we have, if not democracy? A 'party'? A 'vanguard'? A 'strong ruler'? Democracy is the only way. Perhaps you'll go back to your 'one party' dogma again! :lol:

By the way, to Axel1917, no one is asking you to join IWPA. If you want to be a Trotskyist, go join up with your social-democratic comrades.

redstar2000

16th March 2006, 01:27

May I suggest that your fear of the "2/3rds" clause is...well, exaggerated. Gaining a majority of that size is, in practical terms, rather difficult.

You are unlikely to get the boot because of your dissent on a single issue.

What you really have to do is piss off a whole bunch of people on a whole series of issues.

In fact, your whole "political style" must be thought repugnant in order to successfully invoke the 2/3rds role.

Then you must also ask yourself: if all these people "can't stand me", is it possible that I'm in the wrong group?

That happens, you know.

For example, if I found myself in a group where people were always pissing and moaning about smoking (marijuana or tobacco) or eating meat, I'd quit before they'd have the chance to kick me out.

I'm opposed to neo-puritanism!

A "confrontational political style" is risky...because you have to have the political ideas to "back up what you say".

If you don't, then you just end up looking like an obnoxious bastard...and people will give you the boot.

Can you blame them?

There are "comradely" ways to disagree with people...and there are "confrontational" ways.

You have to "pick your fights". :)

The thesis that there can be "too much democracy" in the revolutionary movement has ominous implications. It means that at some point you are going to allow a minority to decide what may really be "life and death" questions.

Is that a risk worth running?

Not in my book! I don't believe in "Great Leaders" who will "always do the right thing."

In fact, I think that's a superstition born of class society.

When you remember that the purpose of our revolution is to abolish class society, then it makes no sense to allow ourselves to fall victim to one of its oldest superstitions.

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

emokid08

16th March 2006, 02:54

I would like to first thank comrade Piet1111 for standing up with me.\
We have legit concerns.

Don't get me wrong, I like democracy. It's a good thing. But sometimes-often times-most people are wrong. The 2/3s of people can be wrong and make stupid descisions. As with most things in life, too much of a good thing can wind up being an awful thing. I liked most of what I read, but there were parts that should mabye be subject to further thought & reconsideration.

What if the 2/3s majority decides to opress/surpress the minority 1/3? What if they decide something that inadvertently harms the workers? It's mistakes like this that need to be avoided during the revolution where the whole world will be watching and scrutinizing our every last move.

These 2/3s could come out and do more harm then good, and then use the cover of democracy to justify it.

" Oh come on emokid! that would be a great learning process! The people and workers need to gain the ability to learn from their mistakes!"

WRONG!!!

We can't let there be mistakes, we won't be able to afford them! When the time is right, American Communists will get one chance and one chance only! Unless of course we start or are a part of a world wide revolution-which would be preferable-plp.org Unfortunately we will need a near perfect revolution in order to survive. Mistakes will be costly and amplified. They should be few, limited, few and far between.
Another hypothetical for everybody to chew on:

the working class, under a dictatorship of the proletariat, decides to support the oppression of workers in another country, or to disagree with common sense and put off raising the standard of living at home in order to help the working class in another country, based on selfish or nationalist ideas. Would it be "democratic" for everyone to go along with that nationalis or selfish wish?
Both are dangerous and need to be thought through.

AGAIN! I like democracy, in fact I love it! I am an advocate of it. But the tyranny of the majority can be just as dangerous and deadly as the tyranny of the minority.

We all know if you give a man enough rope, he will hang himself.
oh and by the way- If I piss enough people off, I shouldn't be kicked out. I still have legit contributions to make. Just because I'm confrontational doesn't make me any less right.And just because the majority refuses to think indenpendently doesn't make them right by any stretch of the mind. Just a giant obnoxious prick. Which I enjoy being- It's fun! Sometimes being an asshole has a sobering effect on those whose lights have gone out upstairs- the majority almost never thinks 4 itsself.

And yes I am a Leninist, more specifically a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist

anomaly

16th March 2006, 03:06

But sometimes-often times-most people are wrong
If most people are "often" wrong, who is right? And should this person who is 'right' have power over those people who are 'wrong'? And who is to determine that the majority is 'wrong'? The minority? If so, you have tyranny. It is better to have democracy, because the people will be right much more often than any 'great ruler'.

the working class, under a dictatorship of the proletariat
I'll stop you right there, Marxist-Leninist-Maoist boy. The working class will not be 'under a dictatorship of the proletariat'. They will be the DoP.

But the tyranny of the majority can be just as dangerous and deadly as the tyranny of the minority.
A tyrannical minority is always more oppressive than a tyrannical majority. And if the choice is between either the majority or the minority, do you choose the minority to rule? Then what of the proletariat as a whole? Can they just 'not do it' themselves?

By the way, if you read redstar2000's response, I think he sums up why your objection to the '2/3 majority' is quite exaggerated.

emokid08

16th March 2006, 03:33

Excuse me, you are correct. The workers will be the dictatorship of the proletariat. I apologize for my slip of the tongue.
Just because the majority of the people disagree with me, doesn't make me any less of a Communist, or any less right. I'm just saying that people make stupid descisions and have a tendency to be stupid sometimes. Now, I'm not saying that they need to be perfect gods, but they should be not acting in a way that will be detremental to our revoultion, or set us back.

I never mentioned a great ruler anywhere. I trust the people,generally. But I'm more inclined to trust my fellow workers who will comprise the DoP. The workers will be running society during the transition, through a wide variety of tools, all of them being democratic or republican, at thier disposal.
I trust the People, the Workers, & The Party.
why?
because they are all the same thing.
the people will be workers, and the workers will comprise the party; therefore, the people will be the party
" oh emokid! U have such a distorted view of marxism! "
no- I just want to ensure the protection & advancement of the workers and ensure success of our revolution- hopefully it will be worldwide!
One Working Class-One Party-One World

redstar2000

16th March 2006, 04:21

Originally posted by emokid08
We can't let there be mistakes, we won't be able to afford them! When the time is right, American Communists will get one chance and one chance only!

Are you perhaps aware of any human activity that's ever been carried out "perfectly" and "without mistakes"?

Mistakes are inevitable! :(

Now, who is more likely to make a mistake...the 2/3rds majority or the 1/3rd minority?

We're talking probabilities here, not certainties.

Sure, at any given time there could be only one person who was right about one thing and everyone else in the whole world was wrong.

Consider this fellow...Jean Meslier (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=47203).

Back around 1850 or so, there were, at best, only a few hundred people who had even a glimpse of the analytical power of what came later to be known as historical materialism.

At the same time, the first credible theory of evolution existed only in stacks of notes in the desk of one guy.

And so on...it's possible to cite hordes of such examples.

And yet...

How are we to know in advance that a particular minority is "really right" and everyone else is "really wrong"?

And you have to know "in advance"...because otherwise you risk granting the "power to decide" to fuckups! :o

And then we're in the toilet!

With "ultra-democracy" (or "hyper-democracy"), we can correct mistakes quickly!

But if we have granted decision-making power to a minority, then how do we "make them" see their errors and correct them?

They already believe, after all, that they're right and the majority is wrong. Or that they are "more likely to be right" while the majority "is usually wrong".

If anyone criticizes one of their fuckups, that's always labeled "anti-party activity", "counter-revolutionary sabotage", etc., etc. You know all the "buzzwords", right?

Leninism has a whole special vocabulary of abuse...all of which translates into a simple phrase: openly disagrees with the Party Leader!

But the tyranny of the majority can be just as dangerous and deadly as the tyranny of the minority.

Do you realize that those words can be and have been uttered by every reactionary in recorded history...going all the way back to Plato?

The fear of the masses has been universal amongst every ruling class.

And so they must be "despised" and portrayed as "vulgar rabble" who are "unfit to rule".

Universal suffrage is the government of a house by its nursery. -- Otto von Bismarck

We all know if you give a man enough rope, he will hang himself.

Whose "we"? I don't "know" any such thing. In fact, I can't even imagine what you could possibly mean by such a cryptic statement.

Sometimes being an asshole has a sobering effect on those whose lights have gone out upstairs- the majority almost never thinks 4 itself.

Do you imagine that "being an asshole" will "turn the lights back on"?

The purpose of communist political activity is to encourage the majority to "think for itself"...to begin to act in its own class interests.

Being an "asshole" is unlikely to help much. ;)

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

Axel1917

16th March 2006, 06:19

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 01:30 AM
piet11111 said:

it seems very very likely that 2/3rds wont agree with me on atleast one of the above and either A: kick me out of the communist party B: kick me out of the country or C: have me shot.
There is no 'communist party'. What country are you talking about? And why would we have you shot? Your 'objections' don't make any sense.

emokid08 said:

Trotskyism is Social Democracy. Leninism is a branch, and second stage of Marxism
Silly emokid! Leninism has nothing to do with Marxism, so how can you claim it is Marxism's "second stage"?

I think the new proposal is too democratic, and yes such a thing exists!
What should we have, if not democracy? A 'party'? A 'vanguard'? A 'strong ruler'? Democracy is the only way. Perhaps you'll go back to your 'one party' dogma again! :lol:

By the way, to Axel1917, no one is asking you to join IWPA. If you want to be a Trotskyist, go join up with your social-democratic comrades.
Ugh. Trotskyism is not reformism. You don't seem to understand what Leninism/Trotskyism is all about. Have you even read any of their works? Those Stalinists are liars, and they are about as Leninist as Ronald Raegan. Lenin himself called for Stalin's removal. The Stalinists, in their bid to keep power after they had seized it due to objective conditions (the isolation of the revolution in a backward nation, war weariness exhausting the masses, etc.), turned Lenin into a harmless icon while killing off those that stood for what Lenin really stood for (Stalin killed the entire Bolshevik Committee!).

I was mainly criticizing this idea and stating why it will fail. Ultraleftism has proven itself to be ineffective throughout history. This IWPA is going to go nowhere. History will prove that.

redstar2000 still has no idea what we are doing in Venezuela, or what our aims are. He sounds like me three years ago, when I was cynical, ultraleftist, and when I did not really know anything about Marxism.

As for that Stalinist's absurd comment about "we can't make mistakes," even redstar2000 knows that they are inevitable. Lenin had even pointed this out, and he noted that the wise person is one who makes a mistake to a degree that is not utterly severe. The person then analyzes it, the condition that led to it, and then fixes it. So much for that Stalinist knowing about Leninism!

Amusing Scrotum

16th March 2006, 06:46

Originally posted by Axel1917+--> (Axel1917)Trotskyism is not reformism.[/b]

Really? ....what were your organisations demands during the last election....

Revolution....?

Uprising....?

Strikes....?

Or....more welfare spending?! :lol:

Originally posted by Axel1917+--> (Axel1917)Lenin himself called for Stalin's removal.[/b]

Pity he didn't call for his own removal! :lol:

[email protected]
Ultraleftism has proven itself to be ineffective throughout history. This IWPA is going to go nowhere.

The IWPA is "Ultra-Leftist" now? ....that's news to me, and no doubt the people involved with that organisation.

If I'm not mistaken, the IWPA ran a candidate in a Detroit school board election (?) recently. When was the last time you heard an "Ultra-Leftist" propose that???

Axel1917
....and he [Lenin] noted that the wise person is one who makes a mistake to a degree that is not utterly severe.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Do you have a reference for this?

Axel1917

16th March 2006, 07:07

From Armchair Socialism:

Really? ....what were your organisations demands during the last election....

Revolution....?

We need to have well built cadres and be in a time when the masses are moving toward us before a revolution happens.

Uprising....?

It won't just happen overnight. See above post.

Strikes....?

Our organizaiton supports and gets involved in trade unions. I myself have written solidarity letters and donated money to workers in various places.

Or....more welfare spending?! :lol:

Looks like you are wrong!

Pity he didn't call for his own removal! :lol:

Pity you believe capitalist and Stalinist lies about Lenin.

The IWPA is "Ultra-Leftist" now? ....that's news to me, and no doubt the people involved with that organisation.

Just look at the posts of those that support such a stance. They are quite anti-Party, as are you. The statements against Lenin are proof of this.

If I'm not mistaken, the IWPA ran a candidate in a Detroit school board election (?) recently. When was the last time you heard an "Ultra-Leftist" propose that???

See above post.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[quote]Do you have a reference for this?

See Lenin's footnote in his work, "Left Wing" Communism: An Infantile Disorder. In Lenin Collected Works, volume 31, pp. 35-36, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1966

Martin Blank

16th March 2006, 08:28

Originally posted by Axel1917+Mar 15 2006, 01:35 PM--> (Axel1917 @ Mar 15 2006, 01:35 PM)Actually, I did not find your response very adequate. You basically undermine the importance of entrism and take Lenin's quotation out of context. Lenin said it would be treachery if you did not carry out such freedom of agitation, political activity, etc. You should also be aware of what Lenin had noted about combining both illegal and legal activity.[/b]

I am more than aware of what Lenin wrote about the combination of legal and illegal work. I also am more than aware that you're attempting to rewrite history in order to make it fit your organization's particular shibboleth: entrism as a principle.

When Lenin wrote about the Labour Party "let[ting] us [the British Communists -- HJM] retain complete freedom of agitation, propaganda and political activity", he was not talking about illegal activity. If Lenin had been talking about illegal work, or its combination with legal activity, he would not have put stress on the need for that "complete freedom".

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 01:35 PM
Again, what has your organization, as an overall whole, done?

Given that the League has only existed since November 2004, certainly not as much as the CMI/IMT, which has been in existence for 42 years. However, we have done modest but notable work with the Delphi workers, for example, in the fight against both the corporate owners and their labor lieutenants in the UAW. We organized independent working people's aid and relief for survivors of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and are active in the efforts that have been organized by labor and community organizations to rebuild New Orleans' Lower Ninth Ward. Members of the League have been active in the Venezuela solidarity movement since before our organization was even formed, and we were involved in the recent conferences in New York and Washington that led to the formation of the new national solidarity network. (As an aside, many of us were active in the Venezuelan solidarity movement for years; personally, I got involved in it during the summer of 2002, shortly after the failed coup.)

On top of this, League members are active in the unions they belong to, the working people's community organizations they have been involved in, local activist coalitions, organizing or helping to organize demonstrations, etc. League members also helped on the communist electoral campaign of Lisa Weltman, a member of the IWPA, who won at least 41 percent of the vote (roughly 13,000 votes -- which means more people voted for her in northwestern Detroit than there are members of the CMI/IMT) in an election where documented instances of voter fraud against her and other candidates are still being compiled.

I would say that, for an organization that has been around for only about 16 months, we've had a good record.

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 01:35 PM
It also hinges on correct organizational methods, nonsectarianism, etc., not just your list of personal involvement. It is not just boiling down to one individual, now is it?

Well, yes and no. Learning from the mistakes of the 20th century left and applying them as an organization is essential for building a solid record of activity and trust among working people. But, since the League is pretty new, I do think that the expereinces our comrades have built up over years of activity also matter. We have comrades who have been active for 10, 20, 30-plus years. Those experiences did not expire when they joined the League; on the contrary, they contributed positively to the League's development. When we say that we took the best from our political histories and brought them into the League, we were not just talking about theoretical issues.

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 01:35 PM
You seem to try to be dodging the importance of the correct methods and such by attempting to reduce things to individual accomplishments! The point is to understand the correct methods, tactics, principles, etc. and then work to apply them in practice, to study them, etc.

See above for a response to the comments on "individual accomplishments". As for the question of tactics and principles, that raises a question: Have you ever read the League's Basic Principles?

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 01:35 PM
Tactics and principles are both very important. Lenin had repeatedly stressed the importance of tactics as well in "Left Wing" Communism: An Infantile Disorder. I never said anything about tactics alone being an ultimate principle, now did I?

You don't need to. I've had plenty of experience with the CMI/IMT to know how they operate. Like most post-WWII Trotskyist organizations, they elevated certain tactics and doctrine to the level of principle (or at least strategy), and then used that as an excuse to split from their fellow "comrades". The history of "Yalta Trotskyism" (as one comrade in the IWPA puts it) is replete with examples of this.

Now, admittedly, Ted Grant did get the short end of the stick in the 1963 "reunification" of the Fourth International, having been thrown out of the FI in 1964 as part of the secret agreement between Cannon/Hansen and Pablo/Mandel. But then, given what he and Healy did to Cliff in the 1948-49 fight over the USSR and the "people's democracies", I guess I can say that turnabout is fair play.

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 01:35 PM
You clearly don't understand what we are saying, now do you? We are not turning anything into an empty shell, nor are we screwing up what Trotsky had stood for. We are fighting ultra-leftism, and we are pointing out that they are making mistakes by walling themselves off from where the workers are to be found. Anyone that bothers to read and understand our literature will know this.

You spend all your time fighting a perceived "ultra-leftism", but almost no time fighting opportunism. That too is something the Old Man considered a hallmark of centrism.

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 01:35 PM
Again, how influential is your organiztion? Do you even have a branch in Venezuela?

We have contacts and friends in Venezuela, and have had articles we've printed in our publications sent directly to Chavez. We also have some significant influence in Iraq (in more ways than I can talk about), which I'm sure you can agree is an important place for communists to be active. We also have some developing ties with working people in places I am not at liberty to discuss here, except to say that being there is rather important.

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 01:35 PM
And what exactly are you doing to win them over? What is your take on participation in reactionary parliaments and the like?

Check this thread (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46653) for more on electoral work. As for union activity that we do, we have had decent success in that work, including transforming a once-company union into something that fights.

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 01:35 PM
I don't see your organization being all that influential.

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 01:35 PM
I don't see Chavez being impressed by your organization either.

Neither of us know for certain what Chavez thinks about the League. But, I'll tell you, I'm more concerned about what the workers of Venezuela think of us.

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 01:35 PM
I also don't see any proof that your stance on Venezuela has been correct from day one.

Do you even know our position? Or is this just you regurgitating again?

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 01:35 PM
I doubt that you would be as active as you are if you were bogged down by a full time job, running errands becasue you are stuck with your parents (I am still pretty young at the age of 20), not having your own internet connection, etc.

I do have a full-time job -- a full-time industrial job, I would add -- and a family, a house and more bills than I can sometimes handle. However, as you gain experience in life, you may be able to pick up the "multitasking" and organizing -- and theoretical! -- skills that could enable you to do the level of work I do.

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 01:35 PM
Again, you are evading what is important by trying to reduce things to personal achievements, and not the organizational whole. History is going to prove whose organization is the one with the correct ideas, methods, etc.

Yes, history will be the judge of our organization -- just as it judges yours.

[email protected] 15 2006, 01:35 PM
You are more knowledgable than most of this board, I will give you that, but you seem to be sectarian in certain areas.

Sectarianism means putting narrow organizational "shibboleths" ahead of the interests of the working class. You have yet to even begin to prove this point. Others have tried, and they have failed in this endeavor, too.

Miles

Martin Blank

16th March 2006, 08:32

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 02:08 AM

The IWPA is "Ultra-Leftist" now? ....that's news to me, and no doubt the people involved with that organisation.

Just look at the posts of those that support such a stance. They are quite anti-Party, as are you. The statements against Lenin are proof of this.

If I'm not mistaken, the IWPA ran a candidate in a Detroit school board election (?) recently. When was the last time you heard an "Ultra-Leftist" propose that???

See above post.
The Points of Unity of the IWPA (http://www.iwpa-aigt.org/principles.html) speak for themselves. I would suggest you read them.

Miles

emokid08

16th March 2006, 11:40

I like democracy.

I am not proposing a dictatorship.

I was just voicing my concerns over this hyper democratic popularity contest. Just because a bunch of people like it, doesn't make it a good thing, and vice versa.

I liked most of the proposals I heard. I congradulate the author on a job well done.

In the end, during the DoP, I want the workers running society-justy like it's supposed to be.

and please don't insult me, i'm no reactionary, I'm a Communst.
i don't insult you

piet11111

16th March 2006, 12:58

im certainly a lot more comfortable now but its quite clear we would be facing a lot of internal disagreements in the beginning.

and indeed mistakes are inevitable but thats hopefully not very damaging and will only allow us to learn things we would otherwise not be able to learn.
emokid08 & i are just concerned that the inevitable mistakes will leave too much room for the anti revolutionary forces both internal and external to cause damage.

Axel1917

16th March 2006, 17:26

Those principles are extremely vague, and some of those that are interested in it, of whom post here, clearly have not the slightest clue about what to do. They are Bourgeois ideologues that keep parroting lies about Lenin.

Amusing Scrotum

16th March 2006, 17:42

Originally posted by Axel1917+--> (Axel1917)We need to have well built cadres and be in a time when the masses are moving toward us before a revolution happens.[/b]

That's a rather cryptic answer.

Basically, during your last electoral campaign, did your organisation mention workers revolution in any of its literature? ....and if so, is any of this literature available online?

Originally posted by Axel1917+--> (Axel1917)Looks like you are wrong![/b]

I am? ....so your organisation called for no "transitional demands" during your last electoral campaign. Indeed, these demands weren't the focus of you participation in bourgeois "democracy"???

Originally posted by Axel1917
Pity you believe capitalist and Stalinist lies about Lenin.

Tell me dear sir, who was it that argued against the Workers' Opposition at the 10th Congress in 1921???

I don't think even you would be silly enough to say Lenin's opposition to them was a "Stalinist lie" - or would you?

[email protected]
They are quite anti-Party, as are you.

Well I'll let this little bit of ignorance slip, because you are not able to view the recent Commie Club discussion between Miles and redstar2000 on Parties and what they represent and more importantly, can do.

Needless to say, as one would expect the discussion was very interesting and without going into it to deeply, Miles is very much of the view that a Party structure of some form, can be used.

Without being able to read minds, I suspect the difference between you and Miles is about the type of Party employed.

Though I am not a member of the Communist League, nor have I ever encountered the League as it were, I certainly have seen no reason to dispute the validity of Miles statements about how the Communist League works, and this....

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1291853872 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=34578&view=findpost&p=1291853872)

....seems really great!

I suspect that your Party doesn't operate in a similar manner. :lol:

Additionally, the Communist League doesn't seem sectarian at all, they will accept people from various left tendencies and from what I can gauge from Miles comments on this board, they will be under no obligation to "bow down" to the "leadership".

Can you say the same about your organisation?

Axel1917
The statements against Lenin are proof of this.

Ah yes, analysing Lenin from a Marxist perspective, is just, well....blasphemy! :lol:

Axel1917

16th March 2006, 17:58

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 08:31 AM

From Communist Leauge:

I am more than aware of what Lenin wrote about the combination of legal and illegal work. I also am more than aware that you're attempting to rewrite history in order to make it fit your organization's particular shibboleth: entrism as a principle.

Lenin had also supported entering parliaments and the like, and there is that other source I put besides that one regarding the freedom, etc. I am not rewriting history, and you have to resort to libel to "prove your point." What is your stance on entrism anyway?

When Lenin wrote about the Labour Party "let[ting] us [the British Communists -- HJM] retain complete freedom of agitation, propaganda and political activity", he was not talking about illegal activity. If Lenin had been talking about illegal work, or its combination with legal activity, he would not have put stress on the need for that "complete freedom".

He was talking about legal activity in that aspect. And if the circumstances had changed to warrant as such, he would have stressed combination of legal and illegal work there.

Given that the League has only existed since November 2004, certainly not as much as the CMI/IMT, which has been in existence for 42 years. However, we have done modest but notable work with the Delphi workers, for example, in the fight against both the corporate owners and their labor lieutenants in the UAW. We organized independent working people's aid and relief for survivors of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and are active in the efforts that have been organized by labor and community organizations to rebuild New Orleans' Lower Ninth Ward. Members of the League have been active in the Venezuela solidarity movement since before our organization was even formed, and we were involved in the recent conferences in New York and Washington that led to the formation of the new national solidarity network. (As an aside, many of us were active in the Venezuelan solidarity movement for years; personally, I got involved in it during the summer of 2002, shortly after the failed coup.)

The CMI/IMT has not existed for 42 years. A large section of the Militant became sectarian, as they were unable to adapt to the circumstances, and I believe that this split happened in 1992.

We have also been involved with the Delphi workers, Katrina, Pakistan earthquake (we had set up relief efforts and such. The Pakistani military even tried to interefere with it!), etc. I have personally not been able to attend such conferences, given my lack of time and money, and I feel that my monolingualism would be a problem for me in Venezuela if I happened to go there.

On top of this, League members are active in the unions they belong to, the working people's community organizations they have been involved in, local activist coalitions, organizing or helping to organize demonstrations, etc. League members also helped on the communist electoral campaign of Lisa Weltman, a member of the IWPA, who won at least 41 percent of the vote (roughly 13,000 votes -- which means more people voted for her in northwestern Detroit than there are members of the CMI/IMT) in an election where documented instances of voter fraud against her and other candidates are still being compiled.

People here are actvie in their unions and such. I am not sure about the communist electoral campaign, given that a lot of CP's are either degenerate Stalinist ones or reformist ones over here in the USA. I know that entrism is practiced in certain ones by us.

Alan Woods spoke to wokers in Venezuela shortly before nationalizations happened, has met Chavez on numerous occasions, worked on a Cuban edition of Reason in Revolt with Adan Chavez, etc. We are behind the massive Hands off Venezuela campaign, We have also gotten MP's in parliament in other nations.

I would say that, for an organization that has been around for only about 16 months, we've had a good record.

We will see where things really go.

Well, yes and no. Learning from the mistakes of the 20th century left and applying them as an organization is essential for building a solid record of activity and trust among working people. But, since the League is pretty new, I do think that the expereinces our comrades have built up over years of activity also matter. We have comrades who have been active for 10, 20, 30-plus years. Those experiences did not expire when they joined the League; on the contrary, they contributed positively to the League's development. When we say that we took the best from our political histories and brought them into the League, we were not just talking about theoretical issues.

I was stating that the individuals alone don't make everything, and your main defense seemed to be how you have been able to be active longer than I have. That would be like me saying that we are correct just because Ted Grant has over 70 years of experience in activity and such.

See above for a response to the comments on "individual accomplishments". As for the question of tactics and principles, that raises a question: Have you ever read the League's Basic Principles?

I have been working on it a bit, but so far, these principles seem extremely vague. Some of it just seems like rereading certain parts of the Communist Manifesto. I feel that such vagueness is a problem, given that the stance and conditions for membership seem a bit hazy, and that you could possibly end up attracting all kinds of opponents of Marxism into your organization that would do nothing but to damage and destroy it. It is best to have more clear and specific principles, and to win over non-Marxist elements from unions, parliaments, etc.

You don't need to. I've had plenty of experience with the CMI/IMT to know how they operate. Like most post-WWII Trotskyist organizations, they elevated certain tactics and doctrine to the level of principle (or at least strategy), and then used that as an excuse to split from their fellow "comrades". The history of "Yalta Trotskyism" (as one comrade in the IWPA puts it) is replete with examples of this.

This is not true. It just happens that entrism is a very important tactic that an organization must have to be successful. Lenin and Trotsky both knew this. When it came to the CWI, those that formed the CMI were kicked out after some alleged doceument surfaced that Grant was planning to split Miltant and the CWI. I have yet to see any proof of this document existing.

Splits are sometimes inevitable, given that some use faulty tactics to destory organizations, and that entrism and nonentrism cannot exist side-by-side in a correct organization. An organization must expose and fight anti-Marxists. That is what the Bolsheviks did, and that is what got them the support of the masses.

Now, admittedly, Ted Grant did get the short end of the stick in the 1963 "reunification" of the Fourth International, having been thrown out of the FI in 1964 as part of the secret agreement between Cannon/Hansen and Pablo/Mandel. But then, given what he and Healy did to Cliff in the 1948-49 fight over the USSR and the "people's democracies", I guess I can say that turnabout is fair play.

I would not worry about getting the short end of the stick. He went on to build the biggest and most influential Trotskyist organization since the Russian Left Opposition. Unfortunately, a good deal of the Militant went sectarian, but we are doing fine, and we are growing.

You spend all your time fighting a perceived "ultra-leftism", but almost no time fighting opportunism. That too is something the Old Man considered a hallmark of centrism.

What on Earth are you talking about? You accuse me of not understanding the Communist League, but then you hypocritically do the same thing you accuse me of when it comes to the CMI. We are aware that Lenin had stressed fighting opportunism in every field of proletarian politics, and we do that.

We have contacts and friends in Venezuela, and have had articles we've printed in our publications sent directly to Chavez. We also have some significant influence in Iraq (in more ways than I can talk about), which I'm sure you can agree is an important place for communists to be active. We also have some developing ties with working people in places I am not at liberty to discuss here, except to say that being there is rather important.

We will see what becomes of this.

Check this thread (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46653) for more on electoral work. As for union activity that we do, we have had decent success in that work, including transforming a once-company union into something that fights.

I will get on that later.

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

Someone isn't taking his own advice.

Neither of us know for certain what Chavez thinks about the League. But, I'll tell you, I'm more concerned about what the workers of Venezuela think of us.

The workers are more important, but I think that it is good that Chavez himself is impressed by our work. That will help spread our ideas.

Do you even know our position? Or is this just you regurgitating again?

Again, I see no evidence that any organziation other than ours had a correct stance from the beginning.

I do have a full-time job -- a full-time industrial job, I would add -- and a family, a house and more bills than I can sometimes handle. However, as you gain experience in life, you may be able to pick up the "multitasking" and organizing -- and theoretical! -- skills that could enable you to do the level of work I do.

This multitasking skill takes time to learn. It does not happen overnight. I am getting better at it, but I have not mastered it yet.

Hopefully I will have a place of my own soon. That is a major condition for me getting more done (I admit I am a bit worried about the possibility of the housing bubble bursting. At the same time, though, a house seems better, as rent and mortgage pretty much cost the same thing these days!).

I have made good progress in the past three years (my stance was probably pretty close to redstar2000's back then! :o

So far the CMI seems to be doing well.

redstar2000

16th March 2006, 18:15

Originally posted by Axel1917
I have made good progress in the past three years (my stance was probably pretty close to redstar2000's back then!)

Can't win them all. :(

Remember kids...

"Entryism" = servile ass kissing!

Just say NO! :angry:

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

emokid08

16th March 2006, 18:43

Wow guys, all this flowery talk about reformism is enchanting. But-unions and helping the capitalist regimes out will not bring revolution. Of course it's commendable to help the victims of Katrina or the earthquake, read more about that here-Katrina & the PLP (http://www.plp.org/katrina.html) Capitalism will never be made better, there's no use in trying to improve it. These so called "improvements" are just phony attempts to appease and pacify the workers. The result is often deadly. No one gets ahead in Capitalism, except of cousre for the greedy Fascist, Imperialists/Colonialists, and bosses. We can't play by thier rules and we can't even play thier game! if we do, then we lose even before our first move.

It's true- none of us know what to do. We're just arguing about hypotheticals. That's the very reason I look forward to the Revolution- it will be a great laerning expirence.

I hope that eventually we can all come together and smash capitalism. That's the only way we'll win- as a united armed revolutionary front- FIGHTING FOR COMMUNISM!!!

That's what I'm Fighting for - - -COMMUNISM
who am I fighting for?
MY FELLOW WORKERS

hold high the RED BANNER OF MARXISM-LENINISM

Orthodox Marxist

16th March 2006, 19:33

Capitalism will never be made better, there's no use in trying to improve it. These so called "improvements" are just phony attempts to appease and pacify the workers.

Thats why they call it revolutionary left instead of reformist left.

Axel1917

16th March 2006, 19:39

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 06:46 PM
Wow guys, all this flowery talk about reformism is enchanting. But-unions and helping the capitalist regimes out will not bring revolution. Of course it's commendable to help the victims of Katrina or the earthquake, read more about that here-Katrina & the PLP (http://www.plp.org/katrina.html) Capitalism will never be made better, there's no use in trying to improve it. These so called "improvements" are just phony attempts to appease and pacify the workers. The result is often deadly. No one gets ahead in Capitalism, except of cousre for the greedy Fascist, Imperialists/Colonialists, and bosses. We can't play by thier rules and we can't even play thier game! if we do, then we lose even before our first move.

It's true- none of us know what to do. We're just arguing about hypotheticals. That's the very reason I look forward to the Revolution- it will be a great laerning expirence.

I hope that eventually we can all come together and smash capitalism. That's the only way we'll win- as a united armed revolutionary front- FIGHTING FOR COMMUNISM!!!

That's what I'm Fighting for - - -COMMUNISM
who am I fighting for?
MY FELLOW WORKERS

hold high the RED BANNER OF MARXISM-LENINISM
Heh. This "Leninist" does not even know what Lenin had to say on the subject at hand! I made previous citations in this thread, of which prove that Lenin supported working in trade unions and parliaments. We need to reach out to the workers to win them over, and since the subjective factor is absent, the workers have no place to go but their own traditional organizations, where they will attempt to solve things. So many organizations keep opposing entrism, but look where they are ending up: nowhere!

I think that an interview with Ted Grant makes these points pretty well:

http://www.marxist.com/interview-ted-grant...itant101004.htm (http://www.marxist.com/interview-ted-grant-militant101004.htm)

rouchambeau

16th March 2006, 20:27

That's what I'm Fighting for - - -COMMUNISM
who am I fighting for?
MY FELLOW WORKERS

hold high the RED BANNER OF MARXISM-LENINISM

That's funny. I thought Lenin ruled as an authoritarian who disolved labor unions and claimed that working class people were capable of only trade-union consciousness and used that as an excuse to establish a party with total control over the Russian people.

Correct me if I am wrong. I dare you.

emokid08

16th March 2006, 22:20

Lenin sure as hell tried given what circumstances were thrown at him. Of course we have to support the workers, but if we stop and finish with raising wages or extending pensions or whatever, then we will have failed the workers.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/by-date.htm
Go, and read what HE wrote. Lenin has no greater defender but himself!

and, might I add, this board has gone over this topic before, and the end result of the discussion is the two sides agreeing to disagree. Much of what you think of Lenin is based on your view of history of course.

Lenin's Last Struggle
By Alan Woods
1970

The year 1999 marks the 75th anniversary of the death of the man who, together with Leon Trotsky, made a decisive contribution to the cause of socialism and the working class in this century, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin. To mark the occasion, we are republishing this article which was originally written to commemorate the Lenin centenary in 1970.

The early symptoms of bureaucratic degeneration in Russia were already noted by Lenin in the last two years of his politically active life. He spent his last months fighting against these reactionary tendencies, leaving behind a vital heritage of struggle in his last letters and articles. The struggle of the anti-Stalinist Left Opposition, led by Trotsky after Lenin's death, really begins here.

In the last active period of his life, Lenin was chiefly absorbed by the problems of the Soviet economy under the New Economic Policy. In 1921, under the pressure of the millions of peasant small proprietors, the workers' state had been forced to retreat from the path of Socialist planning and industrialisation, in order to procure grain for the starving workers in the cities. The old Civil War practice of requisitioning grain had to be abandoned to placate the peasants, whose support was necessary if the workers' state was not to succumb to the reaction. A free market in grain was re-established, and concessions were made to the peasants and small traders, while the main levers of economic power (nationalised banks and heavy industries, state monopoly of foreign trade) remained in the hands of the workers' state.

This retreat which had been forced upon the Bolsheviks was not to create a Socialist, classless society but to save millions from starving to death, to re-build a shattered economy and to provide houses and elementary schools - i.e. to drag Russia into the twentieth century.

The triumph of socialism demands a development of the productive forces to a level unheard of in any previously existing society. Only when the conditions of general want and poverty are obliterated can the thoughts of man be raised to loftier horizons than the grinding, day-to-day struggle to live. The conditions for such a transformation already exist in the world today. For the first time in human history we can say truthfully that there is no longer any need for anyone to starve, to be homeless, to be illiterate.

The potential is there - in the science, technique and industry created by the development of capitalism itself which draws upon all the resources of the planet albeit in an incomplete, anarchic and undeveloped way. Only on the basis of an integrated, harmonious plan of production can this potential be realised. But this can only be carried out on the basis of common ownership of the means of production and a democratic socialist plan.

These elementary truths of Marxism were taken for granted by Lenin and the Bolsheviks. They did not lead the workers to victory in October 1917 with a view to "building Socialism" within the frontiers of the former Tsarist Empire, but to strike the first blow for the international Socialist Revolution:

"We have made the start," wrote Lenin on the fourth anniversary of the October Revolution. "When, at what date and time, and the proletarians of which nations will complete this process is not important. The important thing is that the ice has been broken; the road is open, the way has been shown."

For Lenin, the first significance of the Russian Revolution was the example it provided in the eyes of the workers of the world. The failure of the revolutionary wave which swept across Europe in the period 1918-21 was the decisive factor in the subsequent development. On the basis of a victorious European revolution, the enormous potential mineral wealth of Russia, its vast labour force, could have been linked to the science, technique and industry of Germany, Britain and France. A Socialist United States of Europe could have transformed the lives of the peoples of Europe and Asia and opened the way for a Socialist World Federation. Instead, as a result of the cowardice and ineptitude of the labour leaders, the European working classes faced decades of hardship, unemployment, Fascism and a new World War. On the other hand, the isolation of the only workers' state in the world in a backward, peasant country, opened the door to bureaucratic degeneration and Stalinist reaction.

The defeat of the German working class in March 1921 forced the Soviet Republic to look to its own resources in order to survive. In a speech on October 17, 1921, Lenin spelt out the consequences:

"You must remember that our Soviet land is impoverished after many years of trial and suffering and has no Socialist France or Socialist England as neighbours to keep us with their highly developed technology and highly developed industry. Bear that in mind! We must remember that at present all their highly developed technology and industry belong to the capitalists who are fighting us."

In order to survive, it was necessary to conciliate the desire of the peasant to make profit, even at the expense of the working class and the building up of industry - the only real basis for a transition to socialism.

The concessions given to the peasants, small businessmen and speculators ("Nepmen") staved off economic collapse in 1921-22. The trade between town and countryside was restored, but on terms greatly disadvantageous to the former. The reduction of taxes on the peasant cut into the funds necessary for investment in industry. Heavy industry stagnated, while much of light industry was in private hands. Even the revival in agriculture strengthened the capitalist, not the socialist element in Soviet society. Huge profits were made by the "Kulaks" (wealthy peasants), with the largest and most fertile farms and the capital necessary for equipment, horses and fertiliser. In fact, it soon became clear that under NEP, the difference between the rich and poor in the villages was growing at an alarming rate. The Kulaks took to hoarding grain to push up prices, even buying up the grain of the poor peasants to sell it back to them at a later date when prices rose.

These tendencies were watched with anxiety by Lenin, who repeatedly warned of the need for the working class to keep a tight rein on the levers of the economy. At the 4th Congress of the Communist International, in November 1922, Lenin put the matter in a nutshell:

"The salvation of Russia lies not only in a good harvest on the peasant farms - that is not enough; and not only in the good condition of light industry, which provides the peasantry with consumer goods - this, too, is not enough; we also need heavy industry. And to put it in good condition will require several years of work. Heavy industry needs state subsidies. If we are not able to provide them, we shall be doomed as a civilised state, let alone a Socialist state."

At this period Lenin grappled with the problem of electrification as a possible area where a breach could be made in the solid wall of Russian backwardness. Trotsky, on the other hand, was preoccupied with the overall state planning of industry, which had been practically lost sight of under NEP. All along he stressed the need to strengthen "Gosplan", the state Planning Agency, as a means of encouraging a general planned revival of industry. Lenin, at first, was distrustful of the idea - not because he rejected planning but because of the prevailing scourge of bureaucracy in Soviet institutions, which, he feared, would turn an enlarged and strengthened Gosplan into a paper game.

However different their approaches to this question, Lenin and Trotsky were in complete agreement about the urgent need to strengthen the Socialist elements in the economy and to end backsliding in the direction of "peasant capitalism". However, such was the pressure of the Kulak interest that even a section of the Bolshevik leadership began to bend. The question of which road the Soviet power would take was posed point-blank by the controversy over the monopoly of foreign trade which broke out in March 1922.

The monopoly of foreign trade, established in April 1918, was a vital measure for ensuring the socialist economy against the threat of penetration and domination by foreign capital. Under NEP the monopoly became even more important as a bulwark against the growing capitalist tendencies. Early in 1922, at Lenin's request, A.M. Lezhava drafted Theses on Foreign Trade which emphasised the need to strengthen the monopoly and strictly supervise exports and imports. Despite this, the Party Central Committee was split. Stalin, Zinoviev and Kamenev opposed Lenin's proposals and advocated the relaxation of the monopoly, while Sokolnikov, Bukharin and Pyatakov actually went so far as to call for its abolition.

On May 15, Lenin wrote the following letter to Stalin:

"Comrade Stalin,

"In view of this, please get a directive passed through the Politburo by collecting the votes of the members that "The CC reaffirms the monopoly of foreign trade and resolves that a stop be put everywhere to the working up of the question of merging the Supreme Economic Council with the Commissariat for Foreign Trade. All People's Commissars to sign confidentially and return the original to Stalin. No copies to be made."

At the same time he wrote to Stalin and to Frumkin (Deputy People's Commissar for Foreign Trade) stressing that a "formal ban should be put on all talk and negotiations, commissions etc. concerning the relaxation of the foreign trade monopoly."

Stalin's reply was evasive: "I have no objections to a 'formal ban' on measures to mitigate the foreign trade monopoly at the present stage. All the same, I think that mitigation is becoming indispensable."

On 26 May, Lenin suffered the first onslaught of his illness, which put him out of activity until September. In the meantime, in spite of Lenin's request, the question of "mitigating" the monopoly was raised again. On 12 October, Sokolnikov moved a resolution at the plenary session of the Central Committee, for the relaxation of the foreign trade monopoly. Lenin and Trotsky were absent, and the resolution was carried overwhelmingly.

On 13 October, Lenin wrote to the Central Committee through Stalin, with whom he had already discussed the matter. Lenin protested against the decision and demanded that the question should be raised again at the next plenum in December. Subsequently, Stalin wrote to members of the CC:

"Comrade Lenin's letter has not persuaded me that the decision of the CC was wrong…Nevertheless, in view of Comrade Lenin's insistence that fulfilment of the CC Plenary Meeting decision be delayed, I shall vote for a postponement so that the question may be again raised for discussion at the next Plenary Meeting which Comrade Lenin will attend."

On 16 October, it was agreed to postpone the matter till the next plenum. However, as the date of the plenum approached, Lenin became increasingly worried that the state of his health would not permit him to speak. On 12 December, he wrote his first letter to Trotsky asking him to take upon himself "the defence of our common opinion of the unconditional necessity of preserving and reinforcing the monopoly of foreign trade." The letters written by Lenin clearly indicate the political bloc that existed between Lenin and Trotsky at this time. They demonstrate Lenin's implicit faith in Trotsky's political judgements, a faith born of years of common work at the head of the Soviet state. And it is not accidental that at this time Lenin would turn to no-one else to defend his views on the Central Committee. Even his other confidants, Frumkin and Stomoniakov, were non-members of the Central Committee.

Learning of Lenin's preparations for a struggle and his bloc with Trotsky, the Central Committee backed down without a fight. On 18 December, the October resolution was unconditionally rescinded. The first round in the battle against the pro-Kulak element in the party leadership was won by the Leninist faction. The battle was continued after Lenin's death by Trotsky and the Left Opposition, who alone held high the banner and programme of Lenin in the teeth of the Stalinist political counter-revolution.

Friedrich Engels long ago explained that in any society in which art, science and government are the preserve of a minority, that minority will use and abuse its position in its own interests. Because of the isolation of the revolution in a backward country the Bolsheviks were obliged to call on the services of a host of former Tsarist officials to keep the state and society running. These elements, who had held the workers' government to ransom in the first days of the revolution gradually realised that the Soviet power was not going to be crushed by armed force. After the dangers of the Civil War had passed, many former enemies of Bolshevism began to infiltrate the state, the trade unions, and even the party.

The first "purge", in 1921, had nothing in common with the later grotesque frame-up trials of Stalin, in which the entire Old Bolshevik leadership were murdered. No-one was tried, killed or imprisoned. But special party commissions were set up to expel from the party the thousands of careerists and bourgeois who had joined in order to further their own interests. The offences for which people were expelled were "bureaucratism, careerism, abuse by party members of their party or Soviet status, violation of comradely relations within the party, dissemination of unfounded and unverified rumours, insinuations or other reports reflecting on the party or individual members of it, and destructive of the unity and authority of the party."

In order to carry out a struggle against bureaucracy, Lenin advocated the setting up of a "Commission on Workers and Peasants Inspection" (RABKRIN), as the highest arbiter and guardian of party morality, and as a weapon against alien elements in the Soviet state apparatus. At the centre of RABKRIN Lenin placed a man whom he respected for his organisational abilities and strong character - Stalin.

Amongst other important functions, RABKRIN scrutinised the selection and appointment of responsible workers in the state and party. Whoever had the power to hold up the promotion of some and advance others obviously held a weapon which could serve their own interests. Stalin did not scruple to use it for his. RABKRIN turned from a weapon against bureaucracy into a hotbed of careerist intrigue. Stalin cynically used his position in RABKRIN, and later his control of the party Secretariat, to gather around himself a bloc of yes-men - nonentities whose only allegiance was to the man who helped them climb into comfortable positions. From the highest arbiter of party morality, RABKRIN sank to the lowest depths of bureaucratic cynicism.

Trotsky noticed what was going on before Lenin, whose illness prevented his close supervision of party work. Trotsky pointed out that "those working in RABKRIN are chiefly workers who have come to grief in other fields," and drew attention to the "extreme prevalence of intrigue in the organs of RABKRIN which has become a by-word throughout the country."

Lenin continued to defend RABKRIN against Trotsky's criticisms. Yet in his last works we see that his eyes were opened to the threat of bureaucracy from this quarter and the role of Stalin who guided it. In his article How we should reorganise the Workers and Peasants Inspectorate, Lenin connected the question to the bureaucratic deformation of the workers' state apparatus:

"With the exception the Peoples Commissariat of Foreign Affairs, our state apparatus is to a considerable extent a survival of the past and has undergone hardly any serious change. It has only been slightly touched up on the surface, but in all other respects it is a most typical relic of our old state machine."

However, in Better Fewer, But Better, Lenin's last article, written on 2 March 1923, he delivered the most scathing attack on RABKRIN:

"Let us say frankly that the Peoples Commissariat of the Workers and Peasants Inspectorate does not at present enjoy the slightest authority. Everybody knows that no other institutions are worse organised than those of our Workers and Peasants Inspection, and that under present conditions nothing can be expected from this People's Commissariat."

In the same article, Lenin included a remark directed straight at Stalin: "Let it be said in parentheses that we have bureaucrats in our party offices as well as in other Soviet offices."

That Lenin singled out Stalin as the potential ringleader of a bureaucrats faction in the party is an example of his far-sightedness. At this particular time, Stalin's power in the "apparatus" was invisible to the majority even of party members, while most of the leaders did not believe him capable of using it, in view of his notoriously mediocre grasp of politics and theory. Even after Lenin's death, it was not Stalin, but Zinoviev who headed the "Troika" (Zinoviev, Kamenev, Stalin) which pushed the party on the first, fateful steps away from the traditions of October under the guise of an attack on "Trotskyism".

It was no accident that Lenin's last advice to the party was to warn it against Stalin's "disloyal" and "intolerant" abuse of power and to advocate his removal from the post of General Secretary.

The defeat of the European workers' revolution gave even more importance to the work of the Communist International for a revolution of the enslaved peoples of the East. The October Revolution gave a mighty impetus to the struggle of the colonies against their imperialist oppressors. In particular, the proud slogan of "The rights of nations to self-determination" emblazoned on the banner of Bolshevism gave heart to the downtrodden millions of Asia and Africa.

Almost the first act of the workers' government was to recognise the independence of Finland, although that inevitably meant granting independence to a hostile capitalist government. Naturally, Marxists stand firmly for the uniting of all peoples in a World Socialist Federation. But such unity cannot be brought about by force, but only by the free consent of the workers and peasants of the various countries. Above all, when the workers of a former imperialist nation take power, it is their bounden duty to respect the wishes of the peoples in the former colonies - even if they wish to secede. Unification can be brought about later, on the basis of example and persuasion.

In 1921, the Red Army was forced to intervene in Georgia, where the government had been consistently intriguing with Britain and other capitalist powers against the Soviet State. Lenin was extremely anxious that this military action should not be seen as the annexation of Georgia by Russia, thus identifying the Soviet state with the Tsarist oppressors. He wrote letter after letter instructing the Orzhonikidze, the representative of the Central Committee in Georgia, to pursue a "policy of concessions in relation to the Georgian intelligentsia and small traders," and advocating the setting up of a "coalition with Jordania or similar Georgian Mensheviks." On the tenth of March, he sent a telegram urging the need to "observe particular respect for the sovereign bodies of Georgia; to display particular attention and caution in regard to the Georgian population."

However, the activities of Orzhonikidze in Georgia were connected with the Stalin clique in the party. Stalin was working on proposals for the unification of the Russian Soviet Socialist Federation with the other, non-Russian Soviet Republics. In August 1922, while Lenin was out of action, a commission in which Stalin was the leading figure, was set up to work out the terms of unification.

When Stalin's theses appeared, they were firmly rejected by the Central Committee of the Georgian party. On 22 September, the Georgian Bolshevik leaders passed the following motion:

"The union in the form of the autonomisation of the independent republics, proposed on the basis of Stalin's theses is premature. A union of economic efforts and a common policy are necessary, but all attributes of independence should be preserved."

The protests of the Georgians went unheeded. Stalin was bent upon bulldozing through his proposals. The commission met on 23 and 24 September, under the chairmanship of Stalin's stooge Molotov. It rejected the Georgian resolution with one vote against (Mdivani the Georgian representative). On 25 September, the materials of the Commission were sent to Lenin, who was convalescing at Gorki. Without waiting for Lenin's views, and without even a discussion in the Politburo, the Secretariat (Stalin's centre in the party) sent the Commission's decision to all CC members in preparation for the October Plenum.

On 26 September, Lenin wrote to the Central Committee via Kamenev urging caution on this question and warning against Stalin's attempt to rush the business through. ("Stalin tends to be somewhat hasty.") Lenin had arranged to meet him the following day. He did not yet suspect the lengths to which Stalin had gone to force unification through. However, even this letter indicates his opposition to any affront to the national aspirations of a small people and thus strengthen the hold of nationalism.

"The important thing is not to provide material for the 'pro-independence' people, not to destroy their independence, but to create another new storey, a federation of equal republics."

Lenin's amendments were aimed to soften the tone of Stalin's original draft to make allowance for the "pro-independence" people, whom he considered, at this point, to be in the wrong. In answer to Lenin's mild comments, Stalin wrote to members of the Politburo on 27 September a number of abrupt and surly rejoinders, including the following:

"On the subject of paragraph four, in my opinion Comrade Lenin himself 'hurried' a little…There is hardly a doubt that his 'hurriedness' will supply fuel to the advocates of 'independence', to the detriment of the national liberalism of Lenin."

Stalin's rude reply was the expression of his unconcealed annoyance at Lenin's "interference" in what he considered his private domain, accentuated by fear at the outcome of Lenin's intervention.

Stalin's fears were well-grounded. Following his discussion with Mdivani, Lenin became convinced that the Georgian business was being mishandled by Stalin, and set to work accumulating evidence. On 6 October, Lenin wrote a memo to the Politburo, On Combatting Dominant National Chauvinism:

"I declare war to the death on dominant nation chauvinism. I shall eat it with all my healthy teeth as soon as I get rid of this accursed bad tooth."

The full significance of what had happened in Georgia had not yet come home to Lenin. He did not know that Stalin, in order to strengthen his hand had actually carried out a purge of the finest cadres of Georgian Bolshevism, replacing the old central committee with new and more "pliant" elements.

What he did know was sufficient to arouse Lenin's suspicions. In the following week he began quietly to collect information on the Georgian "affair", and got the Central Committee to send Rykov and Dzerzhinsky to Tiflis to investigate the complaints of the Georgian Bolsheviks.

On 23 and 24 December, Lenin began to dictate his famous letters to the Congress to his secretary. He stressed that this was to be secret. Lenin's work proceeded slowly, painfully, interrupted by bouts of illness. But through it all, the idea becomes increasingly clear that the central enemy lay within the bureaucratic "apparat" of the state and party, and the man who stood at its head, Stalin.

In The Real Situation in Russia, Trotsky records his last conversation he had with Lenin shortly before his second stroke. In reply to Lenin's suggestion that Trotsky should participate in a new commission to fight against bureaucracy (see "How to Reorganise the Workers and Peasants Inepectorate"). Trotsky replied as follows:

"'Vladimir Ilyich, according to my conviction, in the present struggle with bureaucratism in the Soviet apparatus, we must not forget that there is going on, both in the provinces and in the centre, a special selection of officials and specialists, party, non-party, and half-party, around certain ruling party personalities and groups - in the provinces, in the districts, in the party locals and in the centre - that is, the Central Committee, etc. Attacking the Soviet officials you run into the party leader. The specialist is a member of his suite. In such circumstances I could not undertake this work.'

"Then Vladimir Ilyich reflected for a moment and - here I quote him practically verbatim - said: 'That is, I propose a struggle with Soviet bureaucratism, and you want to add to that the bureaucratism of the Organisation Bureau of the party.' I laughed at the unexpectedness of this, because no such finished formulation of the idea was in my head. I answered, 'I suppose that's it.'

"Then Vladimir Ilyich said: 'Well, all right, I propose a bloc.' and I said: 'I'm always ready to form a bloc with a good man.'"

This conversation is important for the light it sheds on the content of Lenin's last works, especially the famous "Testament", the letters on the national question and Better Fewer, But Better. The tone of his letters gets increasingly sharp, his targets more clearly defined, with every day. No matter what question he deals with, the central thought is the same, the need to combat the pressure of alien class forces in state and party, the rooting out of bureaucracy, the fight against Great-Russian chauvinism, the fight against the Stalin clique in the party.

Despite Lenin's insistent requests that his notes be kept strictly secret, the first part of the "Testament" found its way into the hands of the Secretariat and Stalin, who immediately realised the danger of Lenin's intervention and took measures to prevent it from taking place. Severe pressure was put upon Lenin's secretaries to prevent Lenin from discovering any news which might "upset" him.

Nevertheless, Lenin found out from Dzerzhinsky that, among other outrages perpetrated by the Stalin faction, Orzhonikidze had gone so far as to hit one of the Georgian oppositionists. This may seem a small thing when compared to the later Stalinist terror, but it shocked Lenin profoundly. His secretary noted in her diary for 30 January, 1923 the words of Lenin: "Just before I got ill Dzerzhinsky told me about the work of the Commission and about the 'incident' and this had a very painful effect on me."

To understand the enormity of this crime, it is necessary to know about the relations between the Russian (more correctly Great-Russian) national and the national minorities who, under the Tsars, were treated with the same contempt and the same barbarous arbitrariness as the negroes and Indians were under the British Empire. The historic task of the Russian Revolution was to raise these despised minorities to the stature of full men, with their own rights and dignity. The idea of a representative of the Great-Russian nation abusing or striking a Georgian was a crime against proletarian internationalism, a Tsarist monstrosity which would have been punished in the most drastic matter - by expulsion from the party at the very least. That is why Lenin poured out his wrath against Stalin and Orzhonikidze, demanding "exemplary punishment for those responsible."

Stalin placed every obstacle in the way of Lenin's receiving information from Georgia. Numerous passages from the diaries of Lenin's secretaries give a clear picture of this bureaucratic harassment:

"On Thursday 25 January, he [Lenin] asked whether the materials [of the Georgian committee] had been received. I answered that Dzerzhinsky would not be arriving until Saturday. Therefore I had not been able to ask him.

"On Saturday I asked Dzerzhinsky, he said Stalin had the materials. I sent Stalin a letter, but he was out of town. Yesterday, 29 January, Stalin phoned, saying he could not give the materials without the Politburo. Asked whether I had not been telling Vladimir Ilyich things he was not to be told - how was it he was posted about current affairs? For instance, his article about the WPI (RABKRIN) showed that certain circumstances were known to him, I answered that I had not been telling anything and had no reason to believe he was posted about affairs. Today Vladimir Ilyich sent for me to learn the answer and said that he would fight to get the materials." (my emphasis - AW)

These few lines starkly reveal the bullying, bureaucratic manner with which Stalin attempted to defend his position against Lenin, whom he mortally feared, even on his death-bed. There can be no clearer illustration of Stalin's "rudeness" and "disloyalty" to which Lenin refers in his "Testament".

Lenin's distrustful attitude to the commission of Dzerzhinsky and the behaviour of the Central Committee is reflected in his instructions to his secretaries:

"1) Why was the old CC of the CP of Georgia accused of deviationism?

"2) What breach of discipline were they blamed for?

"3) Why is the Transcaucasian Committee accused of suppressing the CC of the CP of Georgia?

"4) The physical means of suppression 'bio-mechanics'.

"5) The line of the CC of the CP (of the RCP() in Vladimir Ilyich's absence and in his presence.

"6) Attitude of the Commission. Did it examine only the accusations against the CC of the CP of Georgia or also against the Transcaucasian Committee? Did examine the 'bio-mechanics' incident?

"7) The present situation (the election campaign, the Mensheviks, suppression, national discord)."

But Lenin's growing realisation of the disloyal and dishonest methods of elements in the party leadership made him also distrustful of his own secretariat. Were they not also being gagged by Stalin?

"On January 24 Vladimir Ilyich said: 'First of all about this "secret" job of ours. I know that you are deceiving me.' To my assurances on the contrary, he answered 'I have my own opinion about that.'"

With difficulty, the sick Lenin managed to learn that the Politburo had accepted the conclusions of Dzerzhinsky's Commission. It was at this time (2-6 February) that Lenin dictated Better Fewer, But Better, the most outspoken attack on Stalin and the party bureaucracy yet. The Georgian events had convinced Lenin that the rotten chauvinism of the state was the most dangerous indication of pressure from alien classes:

"Our state apparatus is so deplorable, not to say wretched, that we must first think very carefully how to combat its defects, bearing in mind that these defects are rooted in the past, which, although it has been overthrown, has not yet been overcome…"

In his last public appearance at a political gathering, the Eleventh Congress of the RCP(, Lenin had warned that the state machine was escaping from the control of the Communists: "The machine refused to obey the hand that guided it. It was like a car that is not responding to the steering, but going in the direction someone else desired as if it were being driven by some mysterious, lawless hand - God knows whose, perhaps of a profiteer, or of a private capitalist, or of both. Be that as it may, the car is not going quite in the direction the man at the wheel imagines, and often it goes in an altogether different direction."

The poison of nationalism, the most characteristic feature of all forms of Stalinism, had its roots in the reaction of the petit-bourgeois, the Kulak, the Nepman and the Soviet official against the revolutionary internationalism of October.

Lenin proposed to fight against this reaction at the forthcoming Congress, in alliance with Trotsky - the only member of the Central Committee he could trust to uphold his point of view.

He proposed to deal personally with the question of RABKRIN and was "preparing a bombshell" for Stalin. His conviction that the Party "apparat" was plotting to keep him out at all costs is illustrated by the remark of his secretary that "apparently, furthermore, Vladimir Ilyich has the impression that it was not the doctors who gave instructions to the Central Committee, but the Central Committee that gave instructions to the doctors."

Lenin's suspicions were only too well grounded. One of the ideas seriously canvassed on the Central Committee at this time was the printing of a special, single number of Pravda, especially for Lenin's consumption, in order to deceive him about the Georgian affair!

The argument that this was all for the good of Lenin's health does not hold water. As he himself explained, nothing agitated and upset him so much as the disloyal actions of CC members and the tissue of lies with which they were camouflaged. The real attitude of Stalin towards the dying Lenin was revealed in a truly monstrous incident involving Krupskaya, Lenin's wife - attempting to defend her sick husband from the rude importunings of Stalin, she was rewarded by crude abuse from the "loyal disciple". Krupskaya describes the incident in a letter to Kamenev dated 23 December 1922:

"Lev Borisovich,

"Concerning the brief letter written by me at Vladimir Ilyich's dictation with the doctors' permission, Stalin phoned me yesterday and addressed himself to me in the crudest fashion. I have not been in the party for just a day. In the whole 30 years I have never heard a single rude word from one comrade. The interests of the Party and Ilyich are not less dear to me than to Stalin. Now I need the maximum self-control. I know better than any doctor what can or cannot be said to Ilyich, because I know what upsets him and what doesn't, in any case better than Stalin."

Krupskaya begged Kamenev, a personal friend, to protect her "from rude interference in my personal life, unworthy brawling and threats," adding that as far as Stalin's threat of bringing here before a control commission was concerned: "I have no strength and no time to waste on such stupid squabbles. I am also a human being and my nerves are stretched to breaking point."

Lenin's threat to break off all comradely relations with Stalin and his accusations of "rudeness" in the "Testament" are often explained away by vague references to this incident. But in the first place, what Stalin did was not a "personal" matter but a grave political offence, punishable by expulsion from the Party. The offence is magnified by the fact that Stalin's position in the Party made it incumbent on him to root out such behaviour, not to champion it.

However, this "little incident" must be seen in its proper context. It is only the most distasteful and obvious of the manifestations of Stalin's disloyalty.

Lenin's last active days were spent organising his fight against the Stalin faction at the Congress. He wrote a letter to Trotsky asking him to take up the defence of the Georgian comrades, and to the Georgian leaders warmly committing himself to their cause. It should be noted that such emphatic expressions as "with all my heart" and "with very best comradely greetings" are very rarely met in the letters of Lenin, who preferred a more restrained style of writing. It was a measure of his commitment to the struggle. It should also be pointed out that Lenin's bloc constituted a political faction - what was later known by the Stalinists as an "anti-party bloc". The Stalinists had already organised their faction which controlled the party machine.

Fotieva, Lenin's secretary, took down Lenin's last notes on the Georgian question, evidently preparation for a speech at the Congress:

"Vladimir Ilyich's instructions that a hint be given to Stoltz that he [Lenin] was on the side of the injured party. Someone or other of the injured party to be given to understand that he was on their side. Three moments: 1) One should not fight. 2) Concessions should be made. 3) One cannot compare a large state with a small one. Did Stalin know? Why didn't he react? The name 'deviationist' for a deviation towards chauvinism and Menshevism proves the same deviation with the dominant nation chauvinists. Collected printed matter for Vladimir Ilyich."

On 9 March, Lenin suffered his third stroke which left him paralysed and helpless. The struggle against bureaucratic degeneration passed to Trotsky and the Left Opposition. But Lenin laid the foundation of the programme of the Opposition, against bureaucracy, against the Kulak menace, for industrialisation and Socialist planning, for Socialist Internationalism and workers' democracy.

Amusing Scrotum

17th March 2006, 07:46

A PLPer quoting Alan Woods. :blink:

Originally posted by Woods
The struggle against bureaucratic degeneration passed to Trotsky and the Left Opposition.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Martin Blank

17th March 2006, 09:34

Originally posted by Axel1917+Mar 16 2006, 01:01 PM--> (Axel1917 @ Mar 16 2006, 01:01 PM)Lenin had also supported entering parliaments and the like, and there is that other source I put besides that one regarding the freedom, etc. I am not rewriting history, and you have to resort to libel to "prove your point." What is your stance on entrism anyway? [/b]

Participating in a bourgeois parliament is not the same as entering another political organization. This is one of the main problem I have with your political method: you try to mechanically apply one method to all things, regardless of whether it is applicable or not. It is not libel to say this, either. It is a political criticism. The fact that you have to resort to calling it "libel" reflects very poorly on your own ability to handle criticism.

As for entrism, there are certain kinds I can see as valuable, and thus supportable. Then again, there are other kinds of entrism that are a waste of time and energy, or do little to advance the class struggle. Each situation has to be taken case-by-case. That is why entrism is a tactic, not a strategy or a principle.

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 01:01 PM
He was talking about legal activity in that aspect. And if the circumstances had changed to warrant as such, he would have stressed combination of legal and illegal work there.

Don't put words into Lenin's mouth. He never advocated such a thing, and you provided the evidence of that. At the end of that much ballyhooed section of "Left Wing" Communism you like to quote, Lenin makes his position on "if the circumstances had changed":

Of course, without this latter condition, we cannot agree to a bloc, for that would be treachery; the British Communists must demand and get complete freedom to expose the Hendersons and the Snowdens in the same way as (for fifteen years—1903-17) the Russian Bolsheviks demanded and got it in respect of the Russian Hendersons and Snowdens, i.e., the Mensheviks.

-- http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/work...20/lwc/ch09.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch09.htm)

And, for that matter, you prove this again in your other quote on this topic:

Personally I am in favour of participation in Parliament and of affiliation to the Labour Party, given wholly free and independent communist activities.

-- http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/jul/08.htm

And then there are other articles and pieces by Lenin that you don't quote that back up this point, such as:

Let each man stick to his job: let the Communists work directly through their Party, awakening the revolutionary consciousness of the workers. Let those who supported the “defence of country” during the imperialist war for the partitioning of the world, “defence” of the secret treaty between the British capitalists and the tsar to plunder Turkey, let those who “do not see” that Britain is helping Poland and the whiteguards in Russia—let such people hasten to increase the number of their “peace resolutions” to the point of becoming ridiculous; the more they do that, the sooner will they meet with the fate of Kerensky, the Mensheviks and the Socialist-Revolutionaries in Russia.

-- http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/may/30.htm

(In all three passages: italics in original; boldface mine.)

Whether one takes Lenin as the exponent of 20th century communism or not, that is not relevant to this matter. Facts are facts, and it is the height of dishonesty to put words in his mouth. Let him speak for himself; your responsibility is to decide whether or not he was correct.

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 01:01 PM
The CMI/IMT has not existed for 42 years. A large section of the Militant became sectarian, as they were unable to adapt to the circumstances, and I believe that this split happened in 1992.

The CMI/IMT has existed under various names since 1964. At different points in its life, it has been the International Militant, International Militant Tendency, Committee for a Workers' International, Committee for a Marxist International, International Marxist Tendency, etc. The split with Taaffe took place at the time it was calling itself CWI; and since the Taaffeites took the majority of the organization at that time, they also took the name.

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 01:01 PM
People here are actvie in their unions and such. I am not sure about the communist electoral campaign, given that a lot of CP's are either degenerate Stalinist ones or reformist ones over here in the USA. I know that entrism is practiced in certain ones by us.

When I talk of a communist electoral campaign, I do not mean a campaign carried out by the "official" Communist Party. Usually, if CP members run for office, it is either as a Democrat or as an "independent" who does not mention their affiliations.

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 01:01 PM
I was stating that the individuals alone don't make everything, and your main defense seemed to be how you have been able to be active longer than I have. That would be like me saying that we are correct just because Ted Grant has over 70 years of experience in activity and such.

But you do say that. Hence all the talk about the "Unbroken Thread".

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 01:01 PM
I have been working on it a bit, but so far, these principles seem extremely vague. Some of it just seems like rereading certain parts of the Communist Manifesto. I feel that such vagueness is a problem, given that the stance and conditions for membership seem a bit hazy, and that you could possibly end up attracting all kinds of opponents of Marxism into your organization that would do nothing but to damage and destroy it. It is best to have more clear and specific principles, and to win over non-Marxist elements from unions, parliaments, etc.

"More clear and specific principles". What does this mean, exactly? Adopting a "line" on the Stalin-Trotsky fight? On the split in the Fourth International? Elevating tactical decisions like the "French Turn" to points of principle? As for winning over "non-Marxist elements", that's what we do best; we win over working people and young people from working-class backgrounds who have either not been through the sectarian meat-grinder, or who have seen the sausage factory and reject it out of hand.

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 01:01 PM
This is not true. It just happens that entrism is a very important tactic that an organization must have to be successful. Lenin and Trotsky both knew this.

They also understood that its importance was tempered by material conditions, and did not see it as either an eternally-valid tactic or a principle.

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 01:01 PM
When it came to the CWI, those that formed the CMI were kicked out after some alleged doceument surfaced that Grant was planning to split Miltant and the CWI. I have yet to see any proof of this document existing.

It was not "some alleged doceument [sic]" that you're looking for. IIRC, he gave an interview to the Manchester Guardian where he talked about how it looked like Militant was going to split. Taaffe seized on that as the basis for the expulsions.

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 01:01 PM
Splits are sometimes inevitable, given that some use faulty tactics to destory organizations, and that entrism and nonentrism cannot exist side-by-side in a correct organization. An organization must expose and fight anti-Marxists. That is what the Bolsheviks did, and that is what got them the support of the masses.

Some splits are inevitable. Others, however, are nonsense from a communist point of view. Most of the splits in the post-WWII Trotskyist movement were nonsense, including the expulsion of the Militant tendency from the FI in 1964.

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 01:01 PM
I would not worry about getting the short end of the stick. He went on to build the biggest and most influential Trotskyist organization since the Russian Left Opposition. Unfortunately, a good deal of the Militant went sectarian, but we are doing fine, and we are growing.

Even though the CMI/IMT has grown considerably in the last decade, I still don't think it's the largest Trotskyist organization in size or scope. The Lambertist "Fourth International", for example, has several sections of thousands of members, including in Africa, Asia and Latin America. They also have sections in close to 130 countries, at last count. That's significantly larger than the CMI/IMT.

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 01:01 PM
What on Earth are you talking about? You accuse me of not understanding the Communist League, but then you hypocritically do the same thing you accuse me of when it comes to the CMI. We are aware that Lenin had stressed fighting opportunism in every field of proletarian politics, and we do that.

Well, to borrow a phrase from your comments: I see no evidence of it.

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 01:01 PM
The workers are more important, but I think that it is good that Chavez himself is impressed by our work. That will help spread our ideas.

RedStar and I don't agree on a lot of things. But on this, I think he's right when he points out that kissing ass will not bring about a revolution.

[email protected] 16 2006, 01:01 PM
Again, I see no evidence that any organziation other than ours had a correct stance from the beginning.

And you have the temerity to accuse everyone else of sectarianism?! Oy vey!

In a previous issue of Workers' Republic, we reprinted a letter from a member of the IWPA that he wrote to Chavez. It has since been confirmed, courtesy of the Venezuelan ambassador to the U.S., that this letter was delivered directly to Chavez and that he read it. You can read that letter at:

http://www.communistleague.org/wr/stories/...5q2-chavez.html (http://www.communistleague.org/wr/stories/wr2005q2-chavez.html)

We have also written several articles on the situation in Venezuela in Working People's Advocate, which you can find on our website in our WPA section:

http://www.communistleague.org/wpa/index.html

You can read for yourself what our view on Venezuela is.

Miles

Martin Blank

17th March 2006, 09:43

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 16 2006, 12:45 PM
Though I am not a member of the Communist League, nor have I ever encountered the League as it were, I certainly have seen no reason to dispute the validity of Miles statements about how the Communist League works, and this....

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1291853872 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=34578&view=findpost&p=1291853872)

....seems really great!
What a coincidence that this comes up now. The next issue of Workers' Republic is centered on the questions of culture and building a "culture of liberation". Those initial theses have been expanded into a longer document that goes into detail on the theoretical underpinnings of this effort.

For the sake of those comrades who may not have followed the link AS posted, here are the initial theses that define the "culture of liberation", as I posted them on another discussion board:

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'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' 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'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.

Miles

Axel1917

17th March 2006, 18:32

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 09:37 AM

From Communist League:

participating in a bourgeois parliament is not the same as entering another political organization. This is one of the main problem I have with your political method: you try to mechanically apply one method to all things, regardless of whether it is applicable or not. It is not libel to say this, either. It is a political criticism. The fact that you have to resort to calling it "libel" reflects very poorly on your own ability to handle criticism.

I don't recall saying it was, but entrism happens to be particularly important if such an organization happens to be where the unions are, thereby not making it a bourgeois organization. In the US there is nothing really to enter into at the moment, but when the Democrats are finally exposed for who they are, and the masses get sick of them, I would not be surprised if the unions formed some kind of American Party of Labor.

As for entrism, there are certain kinds I can see as valuable, and thus supportable. Then again, there are other kinds of entrism that are a waste of time and energy, or do little to advance the class struggle. Each situation has to be taken case-by-case. That is why entrism is a tactic, not a strategy or a principle.

Our case is not of the latter, I assure you. Not to mention that entrism is not taken blindly.

Don't put words into Lenin's mouth. He never advocated such a thing, and you provided the evidence of that. At the end of that much ballyhooed section of "Left Wing" Communism you like to quote, Lenin makes his position on "if the circumstances had changed":

I was making reference to the remark about retaining freedom to criticize and such when in such an organization, and then at the point when it would be treachery, there would be a change in tactics.

[QUOTE]Of course, without this latter condition, we cannot agree to a bloc, for that would be treachery; the British Communists must demand and get complete freedom to expose the Hendersons and the Snowdens in the same way as (for fifteen years—1903-17) the Russian Bolsheviks demanded and got it in respect of the Russian Hendersons and Snowdens, i.e., the Mensheviks.

Yes, see, going in and demanding that complete freedom to expose. If that is lost, a change in tactics is necessary.

-- http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/work...20/lwc/ch09.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch09.htm)

And, for that matter, you prove this again in your other quote on this topic:

Personally I am in favour of participation in Parliament and of affiliation to the Labour Party, given wholly free and independent communist activities.

Have you even understood what I was saying?

[quote]http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/jul/08.htm[/URL]

And then there are other articles and pieces by Lenin that you don't quote that back up this point, such as:

Let each man stick to his job: let the Communists work directly through their Party, awakening the revolutionary consciousness of the workers. Let those who supported the “defence of country” during the imperialist war for the partitioning of the world, “defence” of the secret treaty between the British capitalists and the tsar to plunder Turkey, let those who “do not see” that Britain is helping Poland and the whiteguards in Russia—let such people hasten to increase the number of their “peace resolutions” to the point of becoming ridiculous; the more they do that, the sooner will they meet with the fate of Kerensky, the Mensheviks and the Socialist-Revolutionaries in Russia.

They can work directly through their party. Lenin had also advocated entrism (and not a blind entrism that I don't follow in the first place). It is known about Bolhsevik participation in the Duma and such. Again, there is no blind entirsm here in our organization. I believe that the Bolshevisks correctly, given the circumstances, boycotted the Duman in 1905, but made a mistake in 1906 with a boycott.

Whether one takes Lenin as the exponent of 20th century communism or not, that is not relevant to this matter. Facts are facts, and it is the height of dishonesty to put words in his mouth. Let him speak for himself; your responsibility is to decide whether or not he was correct.

Unfortunately for you, I never did such a thing. You don't know anything about us.

The CMI/IMT has existed under various names since 1964. At different points in its life, it has been the International Militant, International Militant Tendency, Committee for a Workers' International, Committee for a Marxist International, International Marxist Tendency, etc. The split with Taaffe took place at the time it was calling itself CWI; and since the Taaffeites took the majority of the organization at that time, they also took the name.

Taaffe's section is completely bankrupt. He thought that the CWI would grow by leaps and bounds after the split. Look what has really happened. If you want to get picky and go by past names, go ahead, but regardless, the CMI/IMT now is the organization that has the right methods, ideas, etc.

When I talk of a communist electoral campaign, I do not mean a campaign carried out by the "official" Communist Party. Usually, if CP members run for office, it is either as a Democrat or as an "independent" who does not mention their affiliations.

Oh, I see. I thought that it was some kind of reformist or degenerate Stalinist party thing at first. I don't know much about these now, though.

But you do say that. Hence all the talk about the "Unbroken Thread".

By this logic, we say that if we make reference to Lenin.

"More clear and specific principles". What does this mean, exactly? Adopting a "line" on the Stalin-Trotsky fight? On the split in the Fourth International? Elevating tactical decisions like the "French Turn" to points of principle? As for winning over "non-Marxist elements", that's what we do best; we win over working people and young people from working-class backgrounds who have either not been through the sectarian meat-grinder, or who have seen the sausage factory and reject it out of hand.

Your organization seems open to just about anyone that agrees with such vague principles. I have seen some with Stalinist leanings putting Communist League links in their signatures. I think one of them is even restricted to OI! I hope that this does not turn into some kind of opportunism. Regardless, I wonder if this will cause a major split.

They also understood that its importance was tempered by material conditions, and did not see it as either an eternally-valid tactic or a principle.

Current mateiral conditions make it valid. When it is valid, not using it is tantamount ot sectarianism.

It was not "some alleged doceument [sic]" that you're looking for. IIRC, he gave an interview to the Manchester Guardian where he talked about how it looked like Militant was going to split. Taaffe seized on that as the basis for the expulsions.

According to a wikipedia article I once read, there was some alleged document.

Some splits are inevitable. Others, however, are nonsense from a communist point of view. Most of the splits in the post-WWII Trotskyist movement were nonsense, including the expulsion of the Militant tendency from the FI in 1964.

Some splits have been caused by certain sections not being able to adapt to the changing conditions. The one with the right ideas, methods, etc. will be the one to prevail.

Even though the CMI/IMT has grown considerably in the last decade, I still don't think it's the largest Trotskyist organization in size or scope. The Lambertist "Fourth International", for example, has several sections of thousands of members, including in Africa, Asia and Latin America. They also have sections in close to 130 countries, at last count. That's significantly larger than the CMI/IMT.

I won't deny that we are not the biggest organization out there, but it is the ideas, methods, etc. that truly count. The CPSU had millions of members and billions in funding. They did not get anywhere.

Well, to borrow a phrase from your comments: I see no evidence of it.

Look harder.

RedStar and I don't agree on a lot of things. But on this, I think he's right when he points out that kissing ass will not bring about a revolution.

We aren't kissing anyone's ass. Maybe you are a bit mad or jealous because he isn't reading any of your books or having meetings with one of your leading theoreticians.

And you have the temerity to accuse everyone else of sectarianism?! Oy vey!

Sectarinism is indeed a common problem today. Someone made a huge list of sectarians and such in another thread. I can't remember which one it is, though.

In a previous issue of Workers' Republic, we reprinted a letter from a member of the IWPA that he wrote to Chavez. It has since been confirmed, courtesy of the Venezuelan ambassador to the U.S., that this letter was delivered directly to Chavez and that he read it. You can read that letter at:

http://www.communistleague.org/wr/stories/...5q2-chavez.html (http://www.communistleague.org/wr/stories/wr2005q2-chavez.html)

I will look into this. I am sure that he has read lots of peoples' letters.

We have also written several articles on the situation in Venezuela in Working People's Advocate, which you can find on our website in our WPA section:

http://www.communistleague.org/wpa/index.html

I will look into this as well, but regardless, from the beginning, only the CMI has had the correct stance. They accused us of opportunism and all that other nonsense. Now they are running to catch up!

You can read for yourself what our view on Venezuela is.

Miles

I will get on that when I can. I am getting short on time at the moment.

anomaly

17th March 2006, 23:43

emokido8 said:

That's the only way we'll win- as a united armed revolutionary front- FIGHTING FOR COMMUNISM!!!
You forgot, we also need 'one party' to 'lead' us!! :lol:

Axel1917, I think you need to learn to use the quote button. Your posts are rather difficult to read as they are.

emokid08

18th March 2006, 05:18

http://www.socialistworker.org/2001/370/37...uardParty.shtml (http://www.socialistworker.org/2001/370/370_13_VanguardParty.shtml)
http://www.themilitant.com/2002/6614/661469.html
http://www.socialistworker.org/2002-1/401/...boutLenin.shtml (http://www.socialistworker.org/2002-1/401/401_09_LiesAboutLenin.shtml)
http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/criti...ardian/pt12.htm (http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/critiques/guardian/pt12.htm)

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archi...er/rw06961.html (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/meltzer/meltzernotes.htmlhttp://dward/dward/anarchy/rebelworker/rw06961.html)

http://www.iso.org.nz/resources/talks/lenin_myths.htm
http://www.socialistviewpoint.org/may_01/may_01_15.html

The discussion of Lenin and the Party has been exhausted(it was long ago). It just goes around in circles.I don't feel like wasting my time in a fruitless argument.The links above will provide you with the insight into my opinion.

Have fun. :hammer:

Axel1917

18th March 2006, 06:34

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 11:46 PM
emokido8 said:

That's the only way we'll win- as a united armed revolutionary front- FIGHTING FOR COMMUNISM!!!
You forgot, we also need 'one party' to 'lead' us!! :lol:

Axel1917, I think you need to learn to use the quote button. Your posts are rather difficult to read as they are.
Oh, sorry about that. In most other forums, one can just type in the quote coding and it will automatically happen. I am not a big fan of this site's quote system.

redstar2000

18th March 2006, 16:59

Originally posted by emokid08
The discussion of Lenin and the Party has been exhausted(it was long ago).

I must disagree.

What we have to grasp is the historical failure of the entire Leninist paradigm. Until we accomplish that, forward progress for us is impossible.

The working class is completely indifferent to Leninism, of course. So in the "big picture", no Leninist party of any kind will ever "get anywhere" in the "old" capitalist countries. In that sense, the matter has been settled.

The problem arises among people who are or who want to become conscious communist revolutionaries. In this tiny "sub-section" of history, Leninism remains a distraction from what we might otherwise accomplish.

This is especially significant in that contemporary Leninism has been reduced to social democracy...or is moving in that direction. There are lots of examples of this.

Lately, we've been bombarded on this board with Trotskyist variants...all of which babble endlessly about "reforms" and "voting" and "running for office" and "constitutional rights" and "freedom of religion", blah, blah, blah.

But there are still some "Mao fans" left as well...who will dutifully assure us that the new Maoist government in Nepal "is building socialism". :lol: You can bet your rent money on that one!

And don't be shocked if even Bob Avakian starts telling people to "Vote Democrat in 2006"...he's going in that direction.

But even if you were to scrape away all the social-democratic crap, you'd still be left with a core value...sincere Leninists really believe that they are the only qualified people to both "lead" a working class revolution and "run" a post-revolutionary society.

That is a conceit that must be smashed!

Marx said it.

The emancipation of the working class must be the work of the workers themselves!

When you get right down to it, that's why Leninists are not Marxists no matter what else they might say.

There is a truly enormous amount of Leninist trash from the last century that must be disposed of.

Progress is being made...but the job is far from being completed.

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

YKTMX

18th March 2006, 17:12

Until we accomplish that, forward progress for us is impossible.

Who is "us"? You're completely seperated from the working class movement in your home country, or anywhere else.

You are in no position to offer informed comment.

It's like me offering an opinion on the current surface temperature on Venus - I have no idea. Similarly, your current pronouncements on the nature and strength of the contemporary class movement are, in the first instance, useless.

no Leninist party of any kind will ever "get anywhere" in the "old" capitalist countries.

Well, they are, so...

The working class is completely indifferent to Leninism, of course.

What's your evidence?

That view simply doesn't correlate to any of the facts.

There are lots of examples of this.

Fine. How about you offer, let's be charitable, three examples of contemporary Leninist movements which are heading towards 'social democracy'.

When you get right down to it, that's why Leninists are not Marxists no matter what else they might say.

Leninism is based entirely on self-emancipation.

redstar2000

18th March 2006, 17:29

Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX+--> (YouKnowTheyMurderedX)You're completely separated from the working class movement in your home country, or anywhere else.[/b]

I'm "completely separated" from the social-democratic hog pen in which you and the other Trotskyists here wallow.

And proud of it! :D

How about you offer, let's be charitable, three examples of contemporary Leninist movements which are heading towards 'social democracy'.

You need only look in your mirror. Your party is in a "united front" with Islamicism...a "nice, moderate" Islamicism, to be sure.

"Kinder, gentler, more compassionate" reactionaries! :angry:

Leninism is based entirely on self-emancipation.

You are a liar!

Lenin
But the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be exercised through an organisation embracing the whole of that class, because in all capitalist countries (and not only over here, in one of the most backward) the proletariat is still so divided, so degraded, and so corrupted in parts (by imperialism in some countries) that an organisation taking in the whole proletariat cannot directly exercise proletarian dictatorship. It can be exercised only by a vanguard... -- emphasis added.

The Trade Unions, The Present Situation And Trotsky’s Mistakes (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/dec/30.htm), December 30, 1920.

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

YKTMX

18th March 2006, 17:57

I'm "completely separated" from the social-democratic hog pen in which you and the other Trotskyists here wallow.

I wasn't referring to any particular movement. I was referring to the class.

You need only look in your mirror. Your party is in a "united front" with Islamicism...a "nice, moderate" Islamicism, to be sure.

You're a racist :)

But the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be exercised through an organisation embracing the whole of that class, because in all capitalist countries (and not only over here, in one of the most backward) the proletariat is still so divided, so degraded, and so corrupted in parts (by imperialism in some countries) that an organisation taking in the whole proletariat cannot directly exercise proletarian dictatorship. It can be exercised only by a vanguard

Communist workers will lead the revolution, which will preclude the recrudescene of petty bourgeois vacillation or counterrevolution in the revolution.

What's controversial about that?

Or we could all sing follow the Redstar doctrine, and sing Kumbiyah and hope the nasty ruling class just leaves us alone!

Leave us alone, fascist generals, LEAVE US ALONE!

:lol:

pandora

18th March 2006, 19:10

I agree with the RevLeft guidelines, however, having had to self educate in Marxism, as many have had to do and using this website to help guide my readings I would say that such haphazard training is not really appropriate for true Marxist understanding.

With the loss of such programming and encouragement in schools, which we have never relied upon for empowerment, I ask how can I encourage and inspire myself, and those who many from come from oppressive and faulty educational backgrounds to deeply understand and comprehend Marxist doctrine to the extent necessary for true membership, without true guidance.

Red Star makes allusion to such guidance, but I think it is a falacy. Having grown up on the streets of New York, Jersey, and Cali I knew many many beings from many walks of life who showed political promise, I see such individuals in my visits to Central America, and the European continent, yet I see lack of real understanding of Marxist doctrine among those with less access to education.

I can not understress the value of the French cafe in the spread of Marxist understandings in France, nor can I understress the value of such cafes near military forts during the U.S. war in Vietnam, in educating troops and increasing understanding of the true sense of global oppression. Vietnam, like the wars of the conquistordors and Iraq was a war fought only for money, with no benefit to the people of either nation involved. As young servicemen, particularly young service men and women of color came to understand this was yet another class conspiracy to put their ass on the line they began to resist.

In fact during the demonstations at the Democratic Convention, Black troops who were hesitant against using force against their own people, bringing the oppression home were brutally attacked by MP's when they attempted to negotiate til the streets ran red with their blood. But the point was made the U.S. government could not trust that the troops would not turn against them, so they used the Chicago police force instead. This is one of the reasons they have moved away from a draft to conscription it was a stop gap to stop a Revolution from occurring in the U.S. armed forces, and is also why the U.S. has moved to bombing tactics away from hand-to-hand combat to lower troops identifying with those they are sent to oppress.

Also, there is little effort to comprehend how feminists and other cultural groups not as interested in White male linear thought programs might interpret doctrine on a holistic level since the 60's. Since most of us were not alive then, we can only look to the brave rembrants of a forgotten past, to try to salvage our space in appreciating Marx's logic.

The meaning of my words is thus, I agree with the capitulations of Red Star on the need for a greater sense of community among Marxists in this global epidemic of dis-ease, as more and more members of the global society "drop out" of the capitilist scheme, but I seek a Marxist dialogue that recognizes different ways of thinking, and different views of human beings as a social animal, and also does not dismiss ecological devestation visited on our planet by unstopped and unchecked capitalism and neo-liberalist profiteering.

More and more the world is turning to Marxism and a new left for direction on where to go, all day I hear others seeking direction on what to do to stop the madness and change the society to community and get rid of profit, but few seem to know how to do this.

I also think we need to be more vocal without fear, although private when necessity dictates, I am tired of supposed 1st World Communists who are so private about it no one can tell among their fellow workers they hold such views, making them less a force of change as armchair Marxists, as they say in Germany.

I put my love, faith, and respect with a small child with a Che Guevara t-shirt I saw throwing a rock at a tank back in 98 after the massacre at Chenalho at a tank, knowing he would most likely be hunted like a rabbit in the hills outside the city afterwards. Such bravery may seem foolish, but in the face of oppression of bougeoius capitalism which is selling our communities out from under us as well as the water we drink we must stand tall as a symbol of that which is indomitable, the human spirit.

emokid08

18th March 2006, 19:53

This boils down to whether you believe in an anarchist/spontaneous revolution or u believe in an organized Party revolution.

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~wldciv/world_civ_...er_2/lenin.html (http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~wldciv/world_civ_reader/world_civ_reader_2/lenin.html)
http://www.mltranslations.org/US/MLO/mlo2_3.htm

http://www.leninism.org/pof/pof6.htm

anomaly

18th March 2006, 23:04

emokid08 said:

organized Party revolution.
That's pretty close to an oxymoron. The Party does not 'do' revolution, the people do!

YKTMX said:

Communist workers will lead the revolution, which will preclude the recrudescene of petty bourgeois vacillation or counterrevolution in the revolution.
Don't kid yourself, Trot. You want a party to 'lead' workers into revolution. If workers ever did it themselves, you might be up in arms! If you don't want a party to lead them, and you're not a Trot, please say so.

Fine. How about you offer, let's be charitable, three examples of contemporary Leninist movements which are heading towards 'social democracy'
I think AS does a good job of showing that the entire modern Trotskyist movement is heading toward reformism. I think you know of which thread I am speaking.

racist
He merely criticized superstitious culture. Do you approve of Islamicism? Are you openly approving of the superstitious?

YKTMX

19th March 2006, 01:12

Don't kid yourself, Trot.

Watch it ;)

You want a party to 'lead' workers into revolution.

Yes...and how is this incompatible with self-emancipation? Who do you think the party is? Aliens? Circus performers, perhaps. You simply don't have enough knowledge of workers or Marxism to offer a sensible opinion. So you just repeat things you've read on the internet. It's very unbecoming.

If workers ever did it themselves, you might be up in arms!

Why?

I'm a Marxist and like Marx, Engels, Lenin and Rosa Luxemburg, I believe in a Communist Party, the working class movement and the dictatorship of the Proletariat.

What do you believe? Apart from the obvious - capitulation as moral principle, torturing reds, military dictatorship, hypocrisy, elitism, and all those other great tenets of the "anarcho" movement.

I think AS does a good job of showing that the entire modern Trotskyist movement is heading toward reformism.

AS's article is a pile of stinking bullcrap from the first word to the last.

He merely criticized superstitious culture. Do you approve of Islamicism? Are you openly approving of the superstitious?

I have no opinion on 'superstition' apart I know I don't practice it. There's no need for any opinion beyond that.

The movement Redstar referred to, Respect, is not "Islamist" - unless I've missed some major upheavals and Osama Bin Laden is calling for equality for homosexuals and Transgenders.

He's just another racist Islamaphobe who as soon as he sees a brown face engaged in politics, he thinks:

a) Terrorist
b) Islamisist

You're probably just as bad.

Tell me, get many brown faces in your anarcho-syndicalist middle class tosser fests, do you?

Amusing Scrotum

19th March 2006, 01:36

Originally posted by YKTMX+--> (YKTMX)AS's article is a pile of stinking bullcrap from the first word to the last.[/b]

Coming from you, I'll take that as a compliment! :lol:

Originally posted by [email protected]
There's no need for any opinion beyond that.

Of course.

The routine oppression of women, physical and psychological abuse of children, sectarian divisions within the working class, "honour killings", the blowing up of abortion clinics, the oppression of homosexuals, and so on, requires "no need for any opinion".

Prick! :angry:

What this actually means, in translation, is that you have no problem with any of this. Indeed, I wouldn't be at all surprised if in a few years you actually started supporting this shit -- that, I'd put money on!

YKTMX
He's just another racist Islamaphobe who as soon as he sees a brown face engaged in politics....

Well, as one of your "brown faces" I find it remarkably offencive that you have not only taken it upon yourself to define what racism is -- as if you'd fucking know! -- and additionally, that by running to the defence of Islam by crying "Islamaphobia" every time someone comments on it, that you are effectively ignoring real racism.

You see, by directing your energy into trying to create a legitimate "niche" for Islam in public life, you are ignoring real racism, and not only that, your efforts are counter-productive as you are further dividing the working class.

It's almost as if someone said they were "opposed to Nationalism" and then spent their time defending Britain and "Britishness".

YKTMX

19th March 2006, 01:58

The routine oppression of women, physical and psychological abuse of children, sectarian divisions within the working class, "honour killings", the blowing up of abortion clinics, the oppression of homosexuals, and so on, requires "no need for any opinion".

So? These are products of class society, just like religion is a product of class society. Religion doesn't "cause" any of this stuff. If we didn't have religion and we had capitalism, we'd still have all these things.

I don't see "believers" and "non-believers", that's not how I see the world. I couldn't care a less whether someone believes or not.

I see partisans of the class, and enemies of the class.

Paulo Friere believed. Stalin didn't.
Jim Larkin believed (in fact, he wouldn't share a stage with a divorcee, quite funnily). Mao didn't.

I see only class antagonisms, not "spiritual" - which is consistent with a thing called the materialist conception of history. Class struggles, frictions in the base, manifest themselves in the superstructure in a distorted, non-linear way. I'm in favour of abolishing class society. Not waging petty, useless, counterproductive, reactionary "wars" against religious belief.

Your "atheism", a rather poor copy of Redstar's, is just usless posturing - not a surprise.

Prick!

Oh, how grown up.

What this actually means, in translation, is that you have no problem with any of this.

Maybe.

If you're using the "The Dumb Fuck's Guide to Translation: Volume 3, foreword by Armchair Socialism".

Indeed, I wouldn't be at all surprised if in a few years you actually started supporting this shit -- that, I'd put money on!

We'll see. I wouldn't be surprised if your "armchair socialism" developed into a midlife crisis and cynicism. So, we'll see.

Well, as one of your "brown faces" I find it remarkably offencive that you have not only taken it upon yourself to define what racism is -- as if you'd fucking know!

I'll define it as I understand it, bubba. If you want to pander to the racists, that's your business, you deal with your own conscience how you see fit.

I'll still fight for you when they're sending all the brown faces to the "secularisation" re-education camps.

and additionally, that by running to the defence of Islam by crying "Islamaphobia" every time someone comments on it, that you are effectively ignoring real racism.

How so?

It's almost as if someone said they were "opposed to Nationalism" and then spent their time defending Britain and "Britishness".

No, it's not. I don't "defend" Islam, and I don't "attack" it. I am in favour of working class and oppressed Muslims not being abused and threatened by fascist demagogues trying to hide behind the covers of "free speech" or "secular values".

Redstar's attempts to be an atheist Jerry Falwell come off like a satirical Stalinist sketch show character from the 70's.

Only people totally apart from the movement would think that the issue of 'atheism' was the predominant one today.

emokid08

19th March 2006, 02:52

wow

I didn't see this coming............

Can't we play nice?

Amusing Scrotum

19th March 2006, 03:44

Originally posted by YKTMX+--> (YKTMX)Religion doesn't "cause" any of this stuff.[/b]

No, it rationalises them, just like it rationalises class society itself.

Therefore, just like all other ruling class ideologies that rationalise class society, Religion should be attacked and discredited.

Surely you wouldn't propose that we refrain from attacking notions of the "Aryan Race" and the "German Volk"? ....after all, these too are "products of class society" and Nationalism is an ideological concept directly linked with the bourgeois epoch.

Yet, hopefully, you wouldn't propose these ideas were just left to gain "momentum" as it were, or would you?

Originally posted by YKTMX+--> (YKTMX)I couldn't care a less whether someone believes or not.[/b]

It is quite obvious that you are perfectly happy with childhood indoctrination and all the other shit that Religion produces.

Psychological abuse of children is nothing to "care" about right? ....perhaps you'd even go as far as Vanguard1917 did in another thread and propose that you would be against "banning corporal punishment against children in the home." (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=47212&st=50)

After all, why should we "care"???

Originally posted by YKTMX
How so?

Well, by pissing and moaning about "Islamaphobia" you are doing the "ideological legwork" of the small, but growing, Muslim bourgeois -- i.e. the Muslim Council of Britain.

And by doing this, all you will ever achieve is to create a "niche" for Islam in public life and this, will in turn, further divide the working class.

This will in turn, increase the amount of racism in current society as you will "alienate" sections of the working class from each other -- creating a de facto form of segregation.

Additionally, by focusing your attention on the largely fictitious concept of "Islamaphobia", you effectively ignore the ethnic groups who suffer the most from racism -- via the Police especially -- young Black and Asian men.

These groups are not by and large, "Muslim groups", yet it is precisely these groups that suffer the most from racism.

Indeed, the Police did not shoot Jean Charles de Menezes because he was a Muslim or because they were "Islamaphobic" -- they shot him because he was dark.

And indeed your continuous attempts to link racism with "Islamaphobia" only leads to the strengthening of racism. By constructing a myth that being Arab ("brown") = being a Muslim -- which is what you are doing -- you help, in a small way, to create an environment in which reactionaries can "rationalise" the oppression of "brown" people "because they are all Muslims".

Indeed, you are creating a social environment in which all kinds of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois factions can pursue their interests -- George Galloway getting his arse into Parliament being just one example.

Originally posted by YKTMX
I don't "defend" Islam....

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[email protected]
Only people totally apart from the movement would think that the issue of 'atheism' was the predominant one today.

I propose that atheism be put back on the table -- if it was ever "on the table" at all!

That you simply don't care about things like the introduction of Education reforms that will turn schools into clerical fascist shitholes -- this by the way, is the logical conclusion of your don't give a shit towards Religion attitude.

Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if you considered Secular State Schools "secularisation re-education camps" -- that would seem again, to be the logical conclusion of your position.

Not only that, but you probably have "no need for any opinion" on the growing Evangelical Christian movement in Britain.

This stuff, just doesn't matter to you, however, these things are of vital importance if we wish to "speed up" the process of proletarian revolution in any significant way. Just like overcoming sexism, homophobia, racism and so on, is also of vital importance in the process of "preparing" our class for revolution.

The obstacles to proletarian revolution need to be removed, and that is the job communists are supposed to do!

emokid08
Can't we play nice?

Lets all "play nice" day is on Tuesday, and lets all "play nice" week is from June 10th to June 17th -- you didn't notice that sub-clause when you signed up now did you? :lol:

emokid08

19th March 2006, 04:32

LOL

I enjoy the back and forth actually, it's amusing. Not to mention hilarious.

Some would say that you guys are too viscious.

I would call it passion and commitment.

I admire it.

anomaly

19th March 2006, 05:13

YKTMX said:

Who do you think the party is?
Sure enough, I have gotten many of my opinions from this site. If you recall, when I first came here I was a stinking pile of primitivist filth. I've passed that. But, as to 'who comprises the party', I haven't found that answer on the internet. Rather, I've observed history. And no communist party has ever been composed of 'workers'. Every communist party that has ever existed has been comprised of bureacrats who, once in power, act as the new ruling class. Why should I believe your 'communist party' will be any different?

What do you believe?
Anarcho-communism. Not your party bullshit.

capitulation as moral principle, torturing reds, military dictatorship, hypocrisy, elitism
All of these are tenets of Leninist regimes. The guilty ones were the very 'communist parties' you are defending. But, no, these do not exist within the 'anarcho' movement. Perhaps you simply own no mirrors! :lol:

Tell me, get many brown faces in your anarcho-syndicalist middle class tosser fests, do you?
I do not judge based upon one's skin. Indeed, one of my best friends is a 'brown-faced' Muslim. However, your comments about the anarcho-syndicalist movement are not only completely untrue, they are completely uncalled for. I happen to be proletarian, and in rather difficult economic times at the moment (I'm in the process of creditors taking my fucking house from me...), so your petty class insults will not work on me. However, it is rather unsurprising that you have chosen to converse in such a way. :angry:

Martin Blank

19th March 2006, 08:36

Originally posted by Axel1917+Mar 17 2006, 01:35 PM--> (Axel1917 @ Mar 17 2006, 01:35 PM)I don't recall saying it was, but entrism happens to be particularly important if such an organization happens to be where the unions are, thereby not making it a bourgeois organization. In the US there is nothing really to enter into at the moment, but when the Democrats are finally exposed for who they are, and the masses get sick of them, I would not be surprised if the unions formed some kind of American Party of Labor.[/b]

If the AFL-CIO union tops formed a labor party in the U.S., it would be as a means of stopping a real working people's upsurge from getting out of control. Let's be real. The unions in this country are in worse shape than they were before the beginning of the 20th century. Non-government unionization is now under 9 percent. The leaders of most of these "workers' organizations" have crossed the line between reactionary and scab, and act like the bosses' police on the job.

Even if we were to put aside their parasitism, their allegiance to the Democratic Party, their bureaucratic and authoritarian character, the fact is that these so-called "labor leaders" consistently side with the demands of the bosses against the rank and file of the unions they allegedly represent. The leaders of the AFL-CIO and Change to Win unions told their members to cross the picket lines of the Northwest Airlines mechanics. The UAW leaders forced through pension cuts and changes to the healthcare plans that shift the burden off the capitalists.

The role of a labor union is to defend and expand the share of the income a company generates that working people receive. To do the opposite is to scab on the union and undermine its very existence. To openly side with management's attempts to break a strike is to scab on the striking union and undermine the position of all unions. The leaders of both the AFL-CIO and the Change to Win have either directly done these things, or they have sat silent while it happens.

This tells me a lot about what the motivations would be if they called for a labor party: it would be to stop a more radical and independent development from taking place. I think that a good test case will be in South Carolina. The Labor Party that exists today is planning to run some candidates in that state. I have no doubt that, if that attempt at independent working people's electoral activity interferes with the AFL-CIO and Change to Win leaders' campaigning for the Democrats, then these unions will do everything in their power to destroy it.

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 01:35 PM
I was making reference to the remark about retaining freedom to criticize and such when in such an organization, and then at the point when it would be treachery, there would be a change in tactics.

And that "change in tactics" would be what? Would operating independently and openly be considered?

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 01:35 PM
Have you even understood what I was saying?

I would ask you the same question.

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 01:35 PM
They can work directly through their party. Lenin had also advocated entrism (and not a blind entrism that I don't follow in the first place). It is known about Bolhsevik participation in the Duma and such. Again, there is no blind entirsm here in our organization. I believe that the Bolshevisks correctly, given the circumstances, boycotted the Duman in 1905, but made a mistake in 1906 with a boycott.

Again, participating in a bourgeois legislative body and entering into another political organization are not the same thing. Why is this such a difficult concept for you to understand?

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 01:35 PM
Unfortunately for you, I never did such a thing. You don't know anything about us.

Actually, yes you did, and you're doing it again above. Your attempt to pass off Lenin's outlining of preconditions for affiliation as merely a description of "legal work" is putting words in his mouth and ascribing a position to him that he did not hold. It has nothing to do with whether I "know anything about us" or not. This is about basic skill of being able to read.

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 01:35 PM
Taaffe's section is completely bankrupt. He thought that the CWI would grow by leaps and bounds after the split. Look what has really happened. If you want to get picky and go by past names, go ahead, but regardless, the CMI/IMT now is the organization that has the right methods, ideas, etc.

I agree with you about Taaffe -- but then, I thought that when the CMI and CWI were all one big happy organization.

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 01:35 PM
Oh, I see. I thought that it was some kind of reformist or degenerate Stalinist party thing at first. I don't know much about these now, though.

And yet, you feel the need to speak condescendingly about everything and everyone who is not CMI/IMT approved. Go figure.

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 01:35 PM
By this logic, we say that if we make reference to Lenin.

Umm, yeah.

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 01:35 PM
Your organization seems open to just about anyone that agrees with such vague principles. I have seen some with Stalinist leanings putting Communist League links in their signatures. I think one of them is even restricted to OI! I hope that this does not turn into some kind of opportunism. Regardless, I wonder if this will cause a major split.

There was only one League comrade who ended up in OI, and that is because comments he made about Israel were phrased poorly, and the owner of this board overreacted and unilaterally restricted him. For the record, he could be unrestricted if he chose to, but he has since decided he has better things to do. And, based on a recent phone conversation I had with him, he's right.

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 01:35 PM
Current mateiral conditions make it valid. When it is valid, not using it is tantamount ot sectarianism.

This assertion has yet to be proven.

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 01:35 PM
According to a wikipedia article I once read, there was some alleged document.

Why don't we just clear this up and go to the source. I imagine you could contact Ted Grant, Rob Sewell or Alan Woods directly by e-mail and ask them about this.

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 01:35 PM
Some splits have been caused by certain sections not being able to adapt to the changing conditions. The one with the right ideas, methods, etc. will be the one to prevail.

History has yet to decide who will prevail.

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 01:35 PM
I won't deny that we are not the biggest organization out there, but it is the ideas, methods, etc. that truly count. The CPSU had millions of members and billions in funding. They did not get anywhere.

Idealist nonsense. The "ideas, methods, etc." only count if they are applied in the class struggle and yield results that advance the class struggle.

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 01:35 PM
Look harder.

Likewise.

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 01:35 PM
We aren't kissing anyone's ass. Maybe you are a bit mad or jealous because he isn't reading any of your books or having meetings with one of your leading theoreticians.

Y'know, I've let this slide long enough. Comrade, you can't make a revolution from the cheerleading section. Fine, Chavez is having conversations with Alan Woods and reading Reason in Revolt, but what is the CMI doing to advance the class struggle in Venezuela?

Are they organizing demonstrations and rallies to demand cogestion in all industries, especially PDVSA?

Are they demanding that a timetable be put in place to begin transition from cogestion to direct workers' control?

Are they raising the call for all political power to be placed in the hands of the Bolivarian Circles and Houses?

Are they raising the call for the expansion of the Comandos Maisanta (the workers' and people's militia) to all corners of the country?

Are they raising the call for the abolition of the remaining police forces, replaced by the Comandos Maisanta, which would be accountable to the Bolivarian Houses?

Are they raising the call for the abolition of the government bureaucracy and the placement of all public/state services under workers' control?

From what I've seen, the answer is no to all of these. In other words, for all of the talk about the CMI/IMT's "leadership", it is an illusion -- a lie. There is no leadership; there is only sychophantic following. I can appreciate that the CMI/IMT has influenced Chavez, but influencing a political leader is not the same as advancing the class struggle -- even if that political leader is someone who moves and can be won to this or that political position.

[email protected] 17 2006, 01:35 PM
I will look into this as well, but regardless, from the beginning, only the CMI has had the correct stance. They accused us of opportunism and all that other nonsense. Now they are running to catch up!

See above.

Miles

YKTMX

19th March 2006, 14:51

No, it rationalises them, just like it rationalises class society itself.

Sure? But religion is a product, not a point of production. Therefore, to destroy it, you have no destroy class society.

Notice, in the West, secularism is very much the order of the day, is Western class society on the verge of collapse?

How do you explain this if religion is such an important rationale?

Surely you wouldn't propose that we refrain from attacking notions of the "Aryan Race" and the "German Volk"?

I propose that we remorsely attack all reactionary anti-working class ideas, no matter who expounds them.

However, the notion that we should be waging an athiest war against "religion" in the abstract is nonsense.

Attack George Bush's pious right wing Christianity? Absolutely!
Refuse to support the downtrodden in the Mahdi Army because their leader is a cleric? Fuck off.

That isn't Marxism.

It is quite obvious that you are perfectly happy with childhood indoctrination and all the other shit that Religion produces.

Everyone is "indoctrinated" as a child.

After all, why should we "care"???

Funny. I remember all the grief I got from you for supporting a public ban on smoking, now you're supporting a ban on a solely private activity.

Bit of a hypocrite, aren't you?

On the issue, I'd rather have a smacked arse than a tumour the size of a golf ball in my lungs. But, you know, whatever...

And by doing this, all you will ever achieve is to create a "niche" for Islam in public life and this, will in turn, further divide the working class.

How so? Most Muslims are the poorest in society, and they're excluded, exploited, abused, discriminated against. And it is a Muslim concern. I know Sikhs and Hindus are also victims also but Islam is, as we know, under particular scrutiny.

Indeed, you are creating a social environment in which all kinds of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois factions can pursue their interests -- George Galloway getting his arse into Parliament being just one example.

How is Galloway "petty-bourgeois"?

Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if you considered Secular State Schools "secularisation re-education camps" -- that would seem again, to be the logical conclusion of your position.

I went to a non-demoninational school, and it was far from "secular". No school is.

YKTMX

19th March 2006, 15:01

Sure enough, I have gotten many of my opinions from this site. If you recall, when I first came here I was a stinking pile of primitivist filth.

I didn't know that, no.

Rather, I've observed history.

:lol: What, like, in a Bill and Ted sort of way?

And no communist party has ever been composed of 'workers'.

Who were these 300,000 Bolsheviks in 1917 then?

Who were these people working in the Putilov steel works?

I'm confused.

The guilty ones were the very 'communist parties' you are defending. But, no, these do not exist within the 'anarcho' movement.

Anarchist history has been full of all of them.

The "Leninist" regimes you speak of were not Leninist.

I do not judge based upon one's skin.

That's beautiful.

Indeed, one of my best friends is a 'brown-faced' Muslim.

"I'm not racist, one of my best friends is a...."

I happen to be proletarian

In that case, I apologise.

You're obviously at a point of development. You'll either give up, which is what most Anarcho types do, annoyed that they can't find any sort of "audience" within the class, or you'll become a Marxist.

Amusing Scrotum

19th March 2006, 18:09

Originally posted by emokid08+--> (emokid08)I admire it.[/b]

I appreciate your admiration. <_<

Originally posted by CommunistLeague+--> (CommunistLeague)Let's be real. The unions in this country are in worse shape than they were before the beginning of the 20th century.[/b]

The British Unions are just as bad. :(

One of the most striking examples of just how bad the whole Union environment has become, was a few months back when I was reading a short article on BBC News about record profits for Shell I think. The Union "bigwig" from whatever Union represents Shell workers said something like "hopefully they'll pay us a bit more".

Not, "we're gonna' fight tooth and nail to increase wages", no, just that they going to go with a begging bucket to the despots of capital and ask (politely!) for an increase in wages.

Additionally, they have made no attempt to get Thatcher's anti-Union laws repealed -- at least not an attempt that I am aware of. And, they have exerted very little pressure on the current Labour Government, they seem happy to wait for "Socialist Gord" -- who's as New Labour as Blair, if not more so.

It is a sorry state of affairs. :(

Originally posted by YKTMX
Therefore, to destroy it, you have no destroy class society.

Indeed, but the process of revolution takes a long time.

The French Revolution (1789), could be said to have started to gain "momentum" in 1651 -- the end of the English Civil War.

It was at this time, that the first anti-Monarchy sentiments could probably be found in France due to the influence of the Parliamentarians spread. Then throughout the end of that century, and the whole of the next century -- especially from 1750 onwards -- the "feudal paradigm" was continuously undermined.

Scientific discoveries, advancements in the means of production leading to changes in the strength of the various classes, growing incompetence from the feudal ruling class and so on, all contributed to the eventual destruction of the feudal paradigm.

And throughout this period, the proto-bourgeois ideologues ruthlessly attacked the feudal paradigm. They did their up most to completely discredit it as a ruling class ideology and, in the grand scheme of things, they didn't do a bad job.

In Russia, the "revolutionary agitation" started at around 1810 or so. Just like in France, in Russia various ideologues began to destroy the "Tsarist paradigm", with again, a decent amount of success.

You see, a revolution doesn't just happen overnight, there is around a century of "preparation" in which the ideologies of the ruling class come under immense attack which is mainly facilitated by advancements in the means of production.

We can see this in a small way right now. Internet technology has made the put the "intellectual property paradigm" under great pressure and in small ways, that paradigm is being discredited every day -- with polemical attacks on the paradigm being one method.

It's actually most amusing that the companies have made little logos reading "piracy is communism" -- without realising it, they have hinted that the advancements in technology in that particular area is helping create the productive forces for a functional communist society.

So, until there is a revolution to destroy class society, are you going to attack the ideologies of class society and in doing so help, in a tiny way, to advance the struggle towards a classless society? ....or are just going to leave them alone, slowing the struggle in a tiny way?

Originally posted by YKTMX
How do you explain this if religion is such an important rationale?

I said it was a rationale, not an "important rationale".

However, as far as I can tell, the areas which have both, theoretically at least, the productive forces to establish a communist society and the most working class militancy, are South Korea and France -- both areas where atheism is pretty high.

Compare that to both Britain and America, were atheism is significantly lower -- especially in America -- and you see that in these countries there is less working class militancy.

Religion is not the only rationale of class society, but it is a rationale all the same. And there is somewhat of a correlation between the strength of Religion and the level of working class militancy.

Indeed, in areas where the level of the productive forces is relatively similar, the strength of Religion and it success (or lack there of) in being incorporated into the normal functioning of Capitalism, does appear to be a relatively significant factor affecting how much bourgeois dominance is under threat.

Indeed, with the growing strength of Evangelical Christianity in America, and the hints that the British bourgeois are going to do the same, revolutionaries in these geographic areas have a real fight on their hands.

Originally posted by YKTMX
propose that we remorsely attack all reactionary anti-working class ideas, no matter who expounds them.

Yet you've said, and I quote, "[t]here's no need for any opinion [on Religion] beyond that [I don't practise it]."

So which is it? ....are you going to "remorsely attack" Religion which is a "reactionary anti-working class" paradigm that cause sectarian divisions within the working class and makes many members of the working class outright reactionaries? ....or, are you going to refrain from any attacks?

Originally posted by YKTMX
Everyone is "indoctrinated" as a child.

To some degree, yes.

However, the oppression of girls, which all Religions do to some degree, is a worse kind of indoctrination.

You think it is "ok" to bring girls up to think they are "second class citizens", I don't.

Originally posted by YKTMX
Bit of a hypocrite, aren't you?

Perhaps, perhaps not.

The "risks" of "passive smoking" are dubious and beside that, adults should be treated as adults.

An adult can very easily leave an area where smoking, or they can just as easily engage in a calm and rational discussion with the individual who is smoking and come to an agreement -- I don't smoke in the houses of people who don't smoke, because we are able to come to such an agreement.

Additionally, an adult does have the means and methods to avoid smoking altogether. They can frequent only non-smoking areas, and if they wish, they can set up an area which is exclusively non-smoking.

A child, on the other hand, has none of these possibilities. They do not have the means, or likely the knowledge, to avoid an abusive parent. They additionally have no way of effectively defending themselves, and the Children's Homes abused children are often taken too, are sometimes just as abusive.

The probability of a child escaping the physical and psychological abuse of his/her parents, is very low. Where as an adult can pretty easily avoid environments they find undesirable.

It is for these reasons that there exist a whole bunch of laws, even if they are poorly enforced, protecting children from adults. And there is nothing "hypocritical" about these laws unless you consider a 3 year old as able as a 30 year old.

Aside from this, you failed to address my question -- do you have an "opinion" on the physical abuse of children? ....or do you have "no need for any opinion" on it as you do the psychological abuse of children?

Originally posted by YKTMX
How so?

Well, by making Islam "above scrutiny" you effectively place it on a "pedestal" from which it is able to function as a legitimate part of public life. Indeed, such a "pedestal" is not even afforded to Christianity in "Christian Britain".

Not only that, but by making Islam a legitimate part of public life. You help create an environment in which Religiously motivated protests and attacks, are "acceptable".

So not only will there be Christians who threaten to kill Opera producers -- the Jerry Springer the Opera fiasco -- you'll get Muslims threatening to do the same to other "blasphemers".

And in such an environment, Religious and sectarian violence could well become the norm, leading to a fractured working class -- i.e. Northern Ireland.

Effectively, you are proposing that Religious differences be made a part of politics in a way that has not been seen -- in mainland Britain -- for centuries. Do you really want to return to the days of Catholic-Protestant tensions?

Originally posted by YKTMX
Most Muslims are the poorest in society....

The poorest areas of society that I know of, are young single mothers and young Black and Asian men.

I'm not area of these groups "being Muslim", indeed I think that there are very few Muslims in these groups.

Addi tonally, the poorest areas of Wales, are almost all in the Valleys where the Coal Mines used to be. These areas are not predominately Muslim, indeed they are predominantly "white".

Originally posted by YKTMX
....and they're excluded, exploited, abused, discriminated against.

What are Muslims "excluded" from? ....Pubs? :lol:

How are they being "exploited" more than any other section of the working class? ....I'm certainly not aware of Muslims receiving lower wages for doing the same jobs in a way that women are.

What "abuse" are you referring too? ....Bellmarsh? ....well yes, Muslim men are abused there, but where else? ....as far as I know, the main victims of racist attacks are Black and Asian people -- young men in particular -- not "Muslims".

Who's "discriminating" against them? ....as I said earlier, when the Police stop someone, they don't do it because that person "is a Muslim", they do it because the person is dark.

And, as I also said, you, by linking everything to do with racism with "Islamaphobia", help to create an environment in which reactionaries can rationalise the oppression of "dark people" by saying "it's because they're all Muslims".

Indeed, the leader of the British National Party Nick Griffin is doing just that. As the environment has now been created in which to some people being Arab ("brown") = being a Muslim, racists can legitimise the oppression of "brown people" by saying "they're all Muslims".

Indeed, your efforts to link all "brown people" to that barbarous superstition only increases the social stigma we may face.

Cheers! :angry:

Originally posted by YKTMX
I know Sikhs and Hindus are also victims also....

For all your rhetoric -- "I don't see "believers" and "non-believers", that's not how I see the world" (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=47222&view=findpost&p=1292037066) -- I can only conclude that this is exactly how you see the world.

I assume your mention of "Sikhs and Hindus" is in response to me mentioning that young Black and Asian men are the social groups that suffer from racism the most.

That unconsciously (or consciously?) you've chosen to refer to these groups as "Sikhs and Hindus" is, in my opinion, massively offencive.

That you've assumed that people in these groups are just to backward to dump that superstitious garbage, and therefore that they need to be classified as "Sikhs and Hindus", says a lot more about the underlying assumptions of your thought process than anything you accused me of, or for that matter that you've accused redstar2000 of.

Originally posted by YKTMX
....but Islam is, as we know, under particular scrutiny.

Really? ....where's the evidence of this?

There is evidence of racism in Britain, but as I said, you're ignoring it. This I found particularly interesting....

Originally posted by Kenan Malik
It is certainly nothing like the racism we faced 20 years ago. When I was growing up in the 70s and 80s, racism was vicious, visceral and often fatal. In May 1978, 10,000 Bengalis marched in protest from Whitechapel to Whitehall in protest at the murder of garment worker Altab Ali near Brick Lane - one of eight racist murders that year. In the decade that followed there were another 49 such killings. It is ironic that in the 70s and 80s when racism was ferocious, the issue rarely hit the headlines. Today, when anti-Muslim prejudice is much weaker, there is constant hand-wringing about Islamophobia.

There is a similar gap between perception and reality when it comes to the question of police harassment. Last summer the Home Office published figures that revealed a 300% increase in the number of Asians being stopped and searched under Britain's anti-terror laws. "The whole Muslim community is being targeted by the police," claimed Khalid Sofi of the Muslim Council.

Certainly, the bald figures suggest heavy- handed policing. But dig a little deeper and they reveal something very different. They show that just 3,000 Asians had been stopped and searched in the previous year under the Terrorism Act. Of these, probably half were Muslim. In other words, around 1,500 Muslims out of a population of two million had been stopped and searched under the terror laws - hardly a case of the police targeting every Muslim. There is evidence that stop and search is used in a racist way. But the victims are not Asian - they're black. Black people form 3% of the population, but 14% of those stopped and searched. You are five times more likely to be stopped and searched if you're black than if you are Asian. One of the consequences of the exaggeration of anti-Muslim prejudice is to hide the real discrimination.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1385028,00.html

This is another interesting article by Mr. Malik....

the islamophobia myth (http://www.kenanmalik.com/essays/islamophobia_prospect.html)

And Vanguard1917 did post two other interesting articles in the Persecution of religious groups, & attitude of democrats and communists (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46523&view=findpost&p=1292023760) thread....

London after 7/7: capital of hate? (http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CACE6.htm)

And....

Who's whipping up Islamophobia? (http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CAC6A.htm)

Originally posted by YKTMX
How is Galloway "petty-bourgeois"?

Well, I'd say he was a bourgeois politician and not "petty-bourgeois".

Why? ....well, he is part of the bourgeois political arena and therefore by taking part in this arena -- Parliament -- he is just like Tony Blair and David Cameron -- a bourgeois politician.

Additionally, he also owns businesses....

[email protected]
Galloway has been involved in several publishing companies. He owned Asian Voice, which published a newspaper called East from 1996. An investigation by BBC Newsnight found that Galloway had secured payments of £60,000 and £135,000 from the Pakistani governments of Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif. Galloway insisted this was for advertising space and bulk copies, but Newsnight alleged that it was for favourable coverage of Pakistan.

He is currently one of two Directors of Finjan Ltd.; the other Director is his former wife. In May 2005, he launched a new publishing house, Friction, an imprint that will publish "books that burn, books that cause controversy and get people talking."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Galloway#Asian_Voice

YKTMX
I went to a non-demoninational school, and it was far from "secular". No school is.

One assembly a week where occasionally there is a "Biblical fable" makes the school "far from secular"? ....give me a break.

YKTMX

19th March 2006, 19:05

So, until there is a revolution to destroy class society, are you going to attack the ideologies of class society and in doing so help, in a tiny way, to advance the struggle towards a classless society?

As I said, I have little interest in waging idealistic "battle of ideas" with religious believers.

It's an completely pointless excercise.

I'll leave it to you and Redstar.

However, as far as I can tell, the areas which have both, theoretically at least, the productive forces to establish a communist society and the most working class militancy, are South Korea and France -- both areas where atheism is pretty high.

Maybe.

However, as we've seen in Latin America, a region dominated for a long time by catholicism, religious ideas are not a barrier to class conciousness.

Also, as I alluded to, many members of the ICA were catholics. Similarly, Italy has, for a long time, been the most radicalised advanced country in the world, in spite of the absolute hegemony of a reactionary brand of Roman catholocism.

And there is somewhat of a correlation between the strength of Religion and the level of working class militancy.

I don't think you've shown that at all.

and the hints that the British bourgeois are going to do the same, revolutionaries in these geographic areas have a real fight on their hands.

Yes, to change the world, not convince people they're not going to hell.

It's not as simple as "religion" is bad, we must destroy it.

So which is it? ....are you going to "remorsely attack" Religion which is a "reactionary anti-working class" paradigm that cause sectarian divisions within the working class and makes many members of the working class outright reactionaries? ....or, are you going to refrain from any attacks?

But I don't accept that Jim Larkin or James Conolly, or Paulo Friere were "reactionary" and anti-working class. S

So I simply can't accept that statement.

Being determines consciousness. People are made religious by forces which can also make them socialist. It's not an either or.

You think it is "ok" to bring girls up to think they are "second class citizens", I don't.

If you're going to be ridiculous, there's not much point.

The "risks" of "passive smoking" are dubious and beside that, adults should be treated as adults.

What a load of rubbish.

"Research has consistently shown that nonsmokers are put at risk by exposure to other people’s smoke18. In 1994 the Department of Health set up the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health which concluded that passive smoking can cause lung cancer and ischaemic heart disease in adult non-smokers and respiratory disease in children. "

click (http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/lung/smoking/?a=5441)

Cancer Research UK versus Armchair Socialism on the effects of passive smoking.

Well, by making Islam "above scrutiny" you effectively place it on a "pedestal" from which it is able to function as a legitimate part of public life.

Where did I suggest Islam should be "above srutiny"?

You help create an environment in which Religiously motivated protests and attacks, are "acceptable".

Religiously motivated protests are legitimate. They might be misguided and pointless, but legitimate.

I don't see being against racist attacks on Muslims legitimises terrorism, but maybe you can explain it.

I'm not area of these groups "being Muslim", indeed I think that there are very few Muslims in these groups.

Does Wales have a high Asian population? Anyway, in the context of this debate, "your" experiences are totally meaningless.

The objective facts say that Bangladeshis and Pakistanis and their families are concentrated in the worst housing, the worst jobs, higher unemployment. Even more so than Indians.

Pakistanis and Bangladeshis tend to be Muslim, Indians tend not to be.

These are facts, whether they conform to your worldview is irrelevant.

That unconsciously (or consciously?) you've chosen to refer to these groups as "Sikhs and Hindus" is, in my opinion, massively offencive.

Offensive is spelt with an 's', not a 'c, by the way.

Sikhs and Hindus are both ethnic, or national, groups, which is the only reasonable way of categorising people, rather than the superficial/biological category "race".

Indeed, the leader of the British National Party Nick Griffin is doing just that.

No, they're not actually. This is a bit of an open door, but, oh well, you're asking for it:

Sikh implores Britons to stand strong against Islam (http://www.bnp.org.uk/news_detail.php?newsId=814)

The BNP has consciously forged close links with members of Britain’s Sikh community over the past five or six years. These approaches have been reciprocated to the extent that community spokesman Rajinder Singh was present in Leeds Crown Court earlier this year to act as a defence witness for the Free Speech Two; a courageous and noble act which is testimony to the response of Sikhs when they hear about repression and persecution of the underdog....

His passionate call for the British majority to act in a strong and virile manner in dealing with the threat posed by the presence of militant Islamists will strike a chord with most viewers.

And members of RevLeft as well, it would seem.

Still, Islamaphobia, I must be imagining it.

Amusing Scrotum

20th March 2006, 01:33

Given the brevity of your last post, would I be correct in assuming that the points of mine you chose not to answer are ones in which I have provided sufficient arguments which have convinced you of a change of position?

Anyway, onwards and upwards....

Originally posted by YKTMX+--> (YKTMX)As I said, I have little interest in waging idealistic "battle of ideas" with religious believers.[/b]

You are either deliberately misstating my argument, or you have misunderstood it completely.

I propose we focus our attacks on Organised Religion and the Religious paradigm in general. If a few "religious believers" happen to be offended by the process, then that is an unfortunate by-product.

However, if we wish to make progress with regards the task of human liberation, then these by-products are unavoidable, because if we are ever to achieve full human liberation, then Religion must be eradicated.

By completely discrediting Religion, we will help "speed up" the process of human liberation because we will be destroying one of the most potent tools of "rationalisation" that the ruling class possesses.

If that offends a few people, that is unfortunate, but the ultimate aim -- a classless society -- is important enough to make any offence caused not worthy of sufficient concern.

Originally posted by YKTMX+--> (YKTMX)However, as we've seen in Latin America, a region dominated for a long time by catholicism, religious ideas are not a barrier to class consciousness.[/b]

Yes, they are.

Even in Cuba, the most politically advanced area in the Americas, there is still a large social stigma around the issue of homosexuality.

I have read conflicting sources as to whether there was Institutional discrimination against homosexuals -- it seems there was early on, from the late fifties to late sixties. However, what is clear is that there has been, throughout the period of Communist Party governance, unofficial discrimination against homosexuals.

If I remember correctly, Castro himself has put this prejudice down to the "machismo" culture of "Latin America" -- i.e. the influence of Catholicism in the Americas.

Now, you may deem "class consciousness" as the willingness to participate in strikes and so on, but to me, it means that one thinks like a communist. And there is no room in the communist paradigm for homophobia, just like there is no room in the paradigm for sexism -- both things that Catholicism has plenty of.

If you think an egalitarian classless society can be created in an environment where people willingly discriminate against people because of their sexual preferences or indeed their sex, then you are very much mistaken.

Indeed an apt example of this comes from the Russian Revolution....

Originally posted by Dave Crouch
Sacred Islamic monuments, books and objects looted by the tsars were returned to the mosques. Friday - the day of Muslim celebration - was declared to be the legal day of rest throughout Central Asia. A parallel court system was created in 1921, with Islamic courts administering justice in accordance with sharia laws. The aim was for people to have a choice between religious and revolutionary justice. A special Sharia Commission was established in the Soviet Commissariat of Justice.

Some sharia sentences that contravened Soviet law, such as stoning or the cutting off of hands, were forbidden. Decisions of the sharia courts that concerned these matters had to be confirmed by higher organs of justice.

Some sharia courts flouted the Soviet law, refusing to award divorces on the petition of a wife, or equating the testimony of two women to that of a man. So in December 1922 a decree introduced retrials in Soviet courts if one of the parties requested it. All the same, some 30 to 50 percent of all court cases were resolved by sharia courts, and in Chechnya the figure was 80 percent.

http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article....iclenumber=8689 (http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=8689)

"Socialism" with Sharia Law??? :huh:

As redstar2000 commented in the thread in which this article came up -- With "socialism" like that, who needs fascism? (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46943&view=findpost&p=1292028722)

Indeed, the article goes on to say....

Originally posted by Dave Crouch
Inevitably there was a backlash against the khudzhum. Thousands of Muslim children, especially girls, were withdrawn from Soviet schools and resigned from the Young Communist League. Unveiled women were attacked in the street, including ferocious rapes and thousands of killings.

Could you honestly say that in an environment where superstition "rationalises" the attacking of unveiled women and "ferocious rapes" an egalitarian and communist "class consciousness" can emerge?

The article ends by stating what I would assume is your position on the subject....

Originally posted by Dave Crouch
Socialist Review stands in a tradition that totally rejects the Stalinist approach to Islam. But in the early years of the revolution the Bolsheviks were successful at winning Muslims to fight for socialism. We can learn from and be inspired by their achievements.

Using The Dumb ****'s Guide to Translation: Volume 3, foreword by Armchair Socialism that paragraph translates into something like this....

Socialist Reviews stands in a tradition that totally rejects womens liberation. Indeed, we think it is horrendous that policies were ever introduced that encouraged women to unveil and that it was equally horrendous to those poor men.

Who, after seeing women acting in a "lude" and "disrespectful" manner, were compelled to attack, rape and kill them.

That this situation ever arose, is, in our opinion, a reason to totally abandon any notions of women having the same rights as men and therefore, we aspire to create an environment in which the oppression of women is allowed and encouraged.

Originally posted by YKTMX
Similarly, Italy has, for a long time, been the most radicalised advanced country in the world....

Which parts of Italy are you referring too?

Rome, where the Vatican is most influential, has a long tradition of fascism. Indeed the "Ultras" of Lazio and Roma are, as far as I know, predominantly fascist.

Although Italy is predominately Roman Catholic -- 87% of the population identify as Roman Catholic according to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy#Religion) -- the areas which have seen the most militant actions, are, as far as I know, the areas where the Vatican has the least influence -- Milan, Turin and some of the Southern regions.

Admittedly, I don't know a lot about Italian politics and the history of Italian politics, but what is clear, as I mentioned, is that the area in which the Vatican finds its power base -- Rome -- has a strong fascist current.

Do you seriously wish to argue that Catholicism doesn't influence this in any way?

Originally posted by YKTMX
It's not as simple as "religion" is bad, we must destroy it.

Of course not.

However, Religion is part of the bourgeoisies "ideological arsenal" as it were, therefore, just like their other ideological tools, it needs to be attacked, discredited and destroyed.

Smashing the illusions that prop up a particular ruling class is an important task that needs to be done before any other class can even attempt to take power.

Indeed the task of complete human liberation, is, in many ways, a much more difficult task than the ones faced by another other revolutionary class. We can't simple "evolve" certain paradigms to the new reality, we must get rid of all reactionary paradigms.

Originally posted by YKTMX
People are made religious by forces which can also make them socialist.

As I've hopefully alluded to above, if not for your benefit then for the benefit of others who might read this thread, the type of "socialism" which is produced by those who are influenced by any of the various Religious paradigms, is not something any egalitarian should be happy with.

Originally posted by YKTMX
If you're going to be ridiculous, there's not much point.

I'm not being "ridiculous". It is obvious from your statements that you are more than happy to accept environments in which the oppression of women is routine in order to not cause offense to "religious believers".

Originally posted by YKTMX
Cancer Research UK versus Armchair Socialism on the effects of passive smoking.

There are a few Doctors who's focus is mainly on Environmental factors who agree with me that "passive smoking" is a secondary cause when the effects of poor environments -- air quality and so on -- are taken into account.

I posted an exert from one of these Doctors in one of the threads concerning this issue, but curiously, everyone ignored it!

Additionally, been as you refrained from disputing any of my argument with regards it not being "hypocritical" to differentiate between children and adults.

Therefore, am I right in concluding that you agree with this point?

Originally posted by YKTMX
Where did I suggest Islam should be "above srutiny"?

You do oppose people scrutinising Islam do you not? ....a "completely pointless excercise" were your own words.

And given your willingness to throw around the label "Islamaphobe" and deem anyone who criticises Islam an "Islamaphobe", one can only assume that you wouldn't be averse to seeing legislature that puts Islam "above scrutiny".

If this is not the case, then could you point out what type of scrutiny of Islam you feel is not "Islamaphobic"?

Originally posted by YKTMX
Religiously motivated protests are legitimate. They might be misguided and pointless, but legitimate.

Blowing up an Abortion Clinic or threating Womens Rights activists with death is "legitimate"???

Originally posted by YKTMX
I don't see being against racist attacks on Muslims legitimises terrorism, but maybe you can explain it.

Well, I didn't mention terrorism, so I don't know why you brought that up, but anyway.

Firstly, a Muslim is not a race. Therefore, if a Muslim who is also "brown" is attacked because they are "brown", then we can already determine that it is a racist attack because they would have been attacked due to the colour of their skin.

By introducing Religion as a determinant for whether an attack is racist or not, you effectively blur the lines and not only that, you make a mockery of real racism.

In your universe, saying Islam is a barbarous superstition is exactly the same as saying Black people are all ignorant buffoons.

One of those statements is racist, one is fact. Guess which is which? :lol:

You see, by making "Muslims" above scrutiny, you effectively make Islam above scrutiny. Which will create sectarian divisions within the working class and it will effectively hide real racism -- such as the racism directed against young Black men by the Police which has been ignored in the whole "Islamaphobia" fiasco.

Originally posted by YKTMX
Does Wales have a high Asian population?

Not as far as I know.

Britain, from the last figures I saw, is 90% "white" and as far as I can tell, the majority of the minority groups are located within the "big cities". So in Wales, Cardiff probably does have a relatively large Asian population, but, from what I've seen, Swansea doesn't.

And as Swansea is the second largest city in Wales (perhaps the only other city bar Cardiff? ....the rest being large towns), I doubt there is a large Asian population in Wales, particularly in North Wales.

Originally posted by YKTMX
The objective facts say that Bangladeshis and Pakistanis and their families are concentrated in the worst housing, the worst jobs, higher unemployment. Even more so than Indians.

Yes, I did notice that in Mr. Malik's article....

Originally posted by Malik
What is being created here is a culture of victimhood in which 'Islamophobia' has become one-stop cause of the myriad of problems facing Muslims. Take, for instance, the social problems which beset Muslim communities. The figures are truly appalling. Bangladeshis and Pakistanis (who comprise most of Muslims in this country) are two and a half times more likely to be unemployed than are whites. Average earnings among Muslim men are 68 per cent that of non-Muslim men. 65 per cent of Bangladeshis are semi-skilled manual workers compared with 23 per cent among other ethnic minorities and 15 per cent among white Britons. Fifty four per cent of Pakistani and Bangladeshi homes receive income support. In 2000, 30 per cent of Pakistani students gained five or more good GCSEs, compared with 50 per cent in the population as a whole.

It has become common to blame all of this on Islamophobia. According to the Muslim News, 'media reportage and public discourse on Islam and Muslims have a huge impact on Muslim labour market performance'. Islamophobia shapes 'how Muslim children are treated in schools', the 'self-esteem on Muslim children' as well as 'their educational achievements'. Unemployment, poverty and poor educational standards is not, however, a new phenomenon in Muslim communities in this country. And the causes are myriad. Racism certainly plays a part. So does class. The social profile of Pakistanis and Bangladeshis is closer to that of Afro-Caribbeans than it is to Indians or Chinese. That is because while the latter are often from middle class backgrounds, most Banglandeshis, Pakistanis and Afro-Caribebans originally came from poor working class or rural, with few resources, especially to combat the intense racism they faced in this country. Class plays as important a role as race or religion in explaining the poor performance of Muslims. Indeed, Indian Muslims tend to be far better of than those from Bangladesh or Pakistan - and conversely Bangladeshi and Pakistani non-Muslims tend to be worse off.

http://www.kenanmalik.com/essays/islamophobia_prospect.html

You notice the difference between you and Mr. Malik? ....Malik refers to class as a factor which affects the groups and doesn't just blame it on "Islamaphobia".

It's no surprise that an ethnic group that is mostly working class fairs a lot worse than other groups that have members in the middle and ruling class, now is it?

Additionally, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis are relatively recent immigrant groups if I'm not mistaken. So like all groups that have come to Britain it will take time before members from those groups start climbing the "social ladder" as it were.

Indeed with the rising status of certain Muslim groups, the Muslim Council of Britain being one example, it seems that the "Muslim bourgeois" is emerging and given their exploitation of the "Islamaphobia Movement", it certainly seems their perfectly able to exploit stuff for their own interests, like any good ruling class.

If for instance, you wanted to effectively tackle the issues facing Pakistani and Bangladeshi immigrants, then do that. Poor treatment of immigrants is widespread, whether they're Muslim or not.

Propagating the myth of "Islamaphobia" causing these problems, will not solve these problems and, as I have said, will prove counter-productive.

Indeed, as I have said, if you wish to tackle racism in general, then start doing that. As what you are currently doing, is just furthering the interests of certain sections of the petty-bourgeois and bourgeois and completely ignoring the working class.

[email protected]
Sikhs and Hindus are both ethnic, or national, groups, which is the only reasonable way of categorising people, rather than the superficial/biological category "race".

A Hindu is someone who practises Hinduism, and a Sikh is someone who practises Sikhism.

And whilst the social construct of a race is erroneous, it is what the racist will use when they commit a racist attack. They will not determine what Religion you practise, they'll attack you because of the colour of your skin.

Therefore, if you wish to prevent racist attacks, or even to determine whether an attack is racist or not, using the the social construct of "race" is the best method.

The method you propose, is really fucking daft!

YKTMX
No, they're not actually.

You think the British National Parties association with the "Sikh community" community is anything other than a Marriage of convenience?

You actually think the British National Party no longer hates "dark people" and now just hates Muslims? ....you actually believe Nick Griffin's rhetoric?

As I said, the environment is slowly forming in which fascist groups can attack Muslims with everyone knowing that they really mean "brown people" because of the way "Islamaphobia" is being linked with "brown people".

The British National Party forming a tactical allegiance with the "Sikh community" -- a group incidentally, that commits a lot of racist attacks against the Black community -- changes this in any way?

You think that a BNP thug would refrain from attacking a "brown person" because they are a Sikh? ....give me a break.

YKTMX

20th March 2006, 03:26

AS, I respond to the parts of posts which I find interesting or that I can engage with. I'm not going to retread the same matters over and over again.

However, if we wish to make progress with regards the task of human liberation, then these by-products are unavoidable, because if we are ever to achieve full human liberation, then Religion must be eradicated.

You see, because I'm a Marxist and not an idealist I see it differently.

Human liberation will eradicate religion.

Only through the act of self emancipation will the masses rid themselves of the muck of ages. Marx didn't say, "the masses must rid themselves, and then we can have self-emancipation". You're getting it all backwards.

An atheist outlook is just as conducive to reaction as a religious one.

By completely discrediting Religion, we will help "speed up" the process of human liberation because we will be destroying one of the most potent tools of "rationalisation" that the ruling class possesses.

How does the ruling class 'rationalise' its position through religion any longer? Really, I don't see it. America? Yes, OK, that's one example. In most of the advanced countries, religion is a factor that has declined. Their 'morality', surely a crucial source of their control, is almost worthless in most people's eyes. Church attendance is down. Most people who claim "christianity" do so in a cultural/ethnic sense rather than a religious one. Most people who call themselves Christian couldn't quote one verse from the Christian bible.

Paper tigers.

Do you seriously wish to argue that Catholicism doesn't influence this in any way?

No. But when you realise that Catholocism also influenced James Connolly and Paulo Friere, the force of your point is lost.

Catholicism can lead to fascism, but it can also lead to liberation-theology. We're back where we started.

Don't get me wrong, the 'Catholic Church' in the Vatican is a reactionary organisation, no doubt about it.

It is obvious from your statements that you are more than happy to accept environments in which the oppression of women is routine in order to not cause offense to "religious believers".

No, I argued that we should wage unflinching wars against all reactionary ideas expounded by the ruling class - including oppression of women.

This is an interesting example. In the West, formal equality for women is quite a new thing. Women were seen as inferior, stupid, morally inadequate etc. Many of these ideas were backed up by Christianity, particuarly, so I've heard, the Adam and Eve story (which is seen as an example of the moral inferiority of women).

How did this change?

Did the women get together and wage "unflinching war" against "religious ideas"? No! They chained themselves to railings and burned buildings. People change society not by fighting "ideas" in some nonsensical abstract sense. They challenge notions of domination by their deeds, by actions. In the end, the ruling class "gave up" because it was in their interests, and women entered the workforce and gained a semblance of equality.

Additionally, been as you refrained from disputing any of my argument with regards it not being "hypocritical" to differentiate between children and adults.

No, not really.

I find your deploying of the right wing garb "they can just get another job" in the context of poorly paid barstaff not wanting to lung cancer at their work, rather unsettling.

You do oppose people scrutinising Islam do you not? ....a "completely pointless excercise" were your own words.

I think it would be useless waste of energy, but if someone wants to do it on the basis of reason, and not racism, then I would support their right to do so.

And given your willingness to throw around the label "Islamaphobe" and deem anyone who criticises Islam an "Islamaphobe", one can only assume that you wouldn't be averse to seeing legislature that puts Islam "above scrutiny".

What criticisms of Islam have you made? What criticisms of Islam as a faith have I deemed "Islamaphobic"?

As I said, if people really feel a desperate urge to dissect the Koran, then they can it. That's fine.

My problem arises when a reasonable critique of Islam intersects with a racist agenda to demonise all Muslims, purely by dint of their "religion". And don't say this doesn't exist, because it manifestly does.

If this is not the case, then could you point out what type of scrutiny of Islam you feel is not "Islamaphobic"?

Give me an example then, and maybe that'll help you see where I'm coming from.

Blowing up an Abortion Clinic or threating Womens Rights activists with death is "legitimate"???

No. But those activities are not illegitimate because they're motivated by religion. They're illegitimate because they're terrible and reactionary.

Well, I didn't mention terrorism, so I don't know why you brought that up, but anyway.

Sorry, I just see religiously motivated attacks in a discussion about Islam and I think terrorism.

How irrational :rolleyes:

Firstly, a Muslim is not a race.

"Race" is a social construct - you would agree, yes? There is little to no difference between the "races". You're argument about "all Brown people" is wrong - because Muslims are easily indentifiable from other Arab faces.

The veils, the beards, the religious dress. These are specifically Muslim characteristics.

In your universe, saying Islam is a barbarous superstition is exactly the same as saying Black people are all ignorant buffoons.

What do you mean "barbarous"? It's a superstition, yes, but barbarous?

Black people are all ignorant buffoons.

I don't know. I could quote you some evidence that shows black people are generally less intelligent than White Europeans...

Which will create sectarian divisions within the working class and it will effectively hide real racism

So, you think you, with your "your religion is barbarous" guff are going to unite the class?

Maybe. Probably not.

You actually think the British National Party no longer hates "dark people" and now just hates Muslims? ....you actually believe Nick Griffin's rhetoric?

No, that's not my point. My point is that Nick Griffin agrees with you about something. Namely, that it's possible to be against Islam's corruption of British life but not be, as he contends, a racist.

As I said, the environment is slowly forming in which fascist groups can attack Muslims with everyone knowing that they really mean "brown people" because of the way "Islamaphobia" is being linked with "brown people".

I'm really confused.

Muslims are to blame for their own oppression? If they'd only stop bleating about Islamaphobia, the BNP would leave them alone?

You think that a BNP thug would refrain from attacking a "brown person" because they are a Sikh? ....give me a break.

No, but my point is that the reason the BNP is forwarding themselves in this way is because they realise that Islamaphobia exists, and they're trying to tap into it. Which is why I propose a defence of the Muslim community against racism.

To which you offer the rather limp response:

1) They're not a race, so it can't be racism (which is surely, by now, a tired line)
2) They're inventing oppression to exploit it (a racist invention, similar to the "Jewish myth of the Holocaust" gambit)

anomaly

20th March 2006, 03:53

YKTMX said:

Who were these 300,000 Bolsheviks in 1917 then?
Who were these people working in the Putilov steel works?
I'm confused.
And what happened when the Communist Party took power? The people ceased to make up the Communist Party, and instead Bolshevik elites took over. Why, again, should I believe your 'communist party' will be any different?

The "Leninist" regimes you speak of were not Leninist.
Oh really? Then what is 'Leninist' to you? Certainly Lenin, in What Is To Be Done, spoke rather approvingly of despotism. But, again, if the USSR, China, and thel ike were not Leninist, then what is Leninist?

You'll either give up, which is what most Anarcho types do, annoyed that they can't find any sort of "audience" within the class, or you'll become a Marxist.
My fellow anarchists and anarcho-communists, please bow down to the omniscience of this socialist! :lol:

Human liberation will eradicate religion.
True enough, but this does not explain why you believe we should defend superstition rather than openly oppose it.

Nothing Human Is Alien

20th March 2006, 04:13

Even in Cuba, the most politically advanced area in the Americas, there is still a large social stigma around the issue of homosexuality.

In which country isn't there a stigma around it?

Axel1917

20th March 2006, 05:17

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 03:56 AM
YKTMX said:

Who were these 300,000 Bolsheviks in 1917 then?
Who were these people working in the Putilov steel works?
I'm confused.
And what happened when the Communist Party took power? The people ceased to make up the Communist Party, and instead Bolshevik elites took over. Why, again, should I believe your 'communist party' will be any different?

The "Leninist" regimes you speak of were not Leninist.
Oh really? Then what is 'Leninist' to you? Certainly Lenin, in What Is To Be Done, spoke rather approvingly of despotism. But, again, if the USSR, China, and thel ike were not Leninist, then what is Leninist?

You'll either give up, which is what most Anarcho types do, annoyed that they can't find any sort of "audience" within the class, or you'll become a Marxist.
My fellow anarchists and anarcho-communists, please bow down to the omniscience of this socialist! :lol:

Human liberation will eradicate religion.
True enough, but this does not explain why you believe we should defend superstition rather than openly oppose it.
A good refutation of the anti-Leninist points made at this board (it also refutes that nonsense about the Bolsheviks being a hated minority):

http://www.marxist.com/russiabook/index.asp

I am quite busy. More later in regards to other things I need to respond to.

Amusing Scrotum

20th March 2006, 17:42

Just re-read this post, and there are quite a few errors, so a little bit of editing is required.

Originally posted by YKTMX+--> (YKTMX)AS, I respond to the parts of posts which I find interesting or that I can engage with. I'm not going to retread the same matters over and over again.[/b]

Fair enough.

I am interested though, as to what you now class George Galloway as. Is he officially bourgeois? ....or is he something else?

Originally posted by YKTMX+--> (YKTMX)Only through the act of self emancipation will the masses rid themselves of the muck of ages. Marx didn't say, "the masses must rid themselves, and then we can have self-emancipation". You're getting it all backwards.[/b]

Care to cite a reference to this?

In The German Ideology the phrase "muck of ages" appears....

Originally posted by Marx
(4) Both for the production on a mass scale of this communist consciousness, and for the success of the cause itself, the alteration of men on a mass scale is, necessary, an alteration which can only take place in a practical movement, a revolution; this revolution is necessary, therefore, not only because the ruling class cannot be overthrown in any other way, but also because the class overthrowing it can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...ology/ch01d.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01d.htm)

However, that paragraph is open to interpretation as it were. The phrase "ridding itself of all the muck of ages" could mean numerous things, the most obvious "muck" being class society itself -- i.e. only through revolution can the proletariat rid itself of the bourgeois ("muck of ages") and therefore create a classless society ("become fitted to found society anew").

No doubt that phrase also means other "muck" -- ruling class ideologies -- but it is unclear, mainly because Marx doesn't state it in this paragraph, whether he means Religion as well.

As far as I'm aware, Marx predicted that Religion would "wither away" under the bourgeois epoch, so I rather doubt that he made explicit reference that "through the act of self emancipation will the masses rid themselves of the muck of ages".

Indeed, above the paragraph I quoted, he says the opposite. Emphasis added....

Originally posted by Marx
(1) In the development of productive forces there comes a stage when productive forces and means of intercourse are brought into being, which, under the existing relationships, only cause mischief, and are no longer productive but destructive forces (machinery and money); and connected with this a class is called forth, which has to bear all the burdens of society without enjoying its advantages, which, ousted from society, is forced into the most decided antagonism to all other classes; a class which forms the majority of all members of society, and from which emanates the consciousness of the necessity of a fundamental revolution, the communist consciousness, which may, of course, arise among the other classes too through the contemplation of the situation of this class.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...ology/ch01d.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01d.htm)

The class is "called forth" and this class has "the communist consciousness" -- and as I said earlier, a "communist consciousness" does not have room for Religion, Nationalism, Homophobia, Sexism and so on.

Indeed, I even went so far as to bring up an historic example from the Russian Revolution about people who had a supposedly "communist consciousness" and a Religious mindset and what happened when attempts were made to move society forward -- they completely rejected womens liberation.

When push came to shove, their "communist consciousness" meant shit and they showed themselves to be enemies of human liberation.

Indeed, in the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher, Marx made this comment....

Originally posted by Marx
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.

It is, therefore, the task of history, once the other-world of truth has vanished, to establish the truth of this world. It is the immediate task of philosophy, which is in the service of history, to unmask self-estrangement in its unholy forms once the holy form of human self-estrangement has been unmasked. Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...e-hpr/intro.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm)

You notice how Marx here talks about destroying the "illusory" aspect of Religion, in order that people can "give up a condition that requires illusions". That only once the "illusions" of the world are discarded, can someone "think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun."

In other words, once people give up the superstitious shit, then, they will be able to question reality and by criticising the superstitious shit, we help them see the problems of the material world -- "the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics."

Indeed, even if Marx had not said this, the example from Russia is strong enough in my opinion, to show that before an egalitarian society can be established, Religion must be gotten rid of because it directly contradicts those principles.

Originally posted by YKTMX
An atheist outlook is just as conducive to reaction as a religious one.

I don't see how that could be proved or disproved, we simply don't have the time, or funds, to conduct a study large enough to discover that.

However, we can do a micro-study of this board. It is relatively obvious that the majority of this board is both atheist and progressive.

And whilst there are a few atheist Cappies here, I suspect the percentage of OI members who are also Religious is significantly higher than the ratio for the rest of the board.

Indeed in the Commie Club itself, there has been a recent controversy about a members views on homosexuality and the way in which they expressed these views. Unsurprisingly (or perhaps surprisingly), these views were held by someone who identifies as a Roman Catholic.

If we actually took a glance at the bourgeois political arena, it would be hard to deny that there seems to be a definite link between Religion and right-wing politics.

Most European countries have a Conservative Party named something like the Christian Democrats and one would suspect that they find their "power base" within the Christian sections of the population.

Indeed, the general patter seems to be Religious = right-wing and extremely Religious = clerical fascist.

Something that doesn't seem to validate your position that an "atheist outlook is just as conducive to reaction as a religious one".

Originally posted by YKTMX
How does the ruling class 'rationalise' its position through religion any longer?

Well you mentioned America, and that is perhaps the best example of the ruling class still using Religion to "rationalise" in an Modern-Capitalist Country.

Indeed, as I understand it, America is the place where Christianity has been attacked the least with regards the Modern-Capitalist World. Mainly because the bourgeois settled there and didn't have to fight off a feudal ruling class in order to gain power.

However, what is obvious, is that when left to fester, Religion doesn't just "go away" -- it needs to be attacked.

As for other countries, well, as I have mentioned, it is making a comeback of sorts in Britain and if a whole bunch of Religious Schools are built it will be a serious problem in a few decades from now.

Indeed, Evangelical Christianity is growing as we speak -- and it's making a lot of noise too!

As I understand it, there is a quasi-Religion in Japan also that "rationalises" racism in the extreme and in both Northern Ireland and Ireland itself, both Catholicism and Protestantism continue to rear their ugly heads stifling progressive politics.

Indeed if I'm not mistaken, women are still not allowed abortions in Ireland, though if that has changed, it is a recent thing.

Additionally, Catholicism continues to cause problems in both Poland and Italy, indeed in Italy, there have been a recent flurry of issues which touched on the Vatican's influence and every time the Catholic majority were to the right of the progressive minority.

The countries were Religions plays little to no role -- France, Germany, South Korea and so on -- seem to be the places were proletarian revolution looks most possible. With France and South Korea being my "hot tips".

Indeed, there are no doubt, a myriad of other factors affecting these areas, but Religion appears to be one of the "biggies". And in America at least, it's filling the void left by the racism of the last century in terms of right-wing politics.

Additionally, earlier in this thread you commented that "I went to a non-demoninational school, and it was far from "secular". No school is."

So which is it? ....either Religion plays a relatively significant role in Britain, or it is "almost worthless".

Originally posted by YKTMX
No. But when you realise that Catholocism also influenced James Connolly and Paulo Friere, the force of your point is lost.

The "force" of my point is far from lost.

Would you, for instance, conclude that if a few workers scab the hypothesis that it is in a workers interest to strike is invalidated? ....of course not.

In the area of human actions, we are forced to make generalisations.

We make the generalisation that a fascist thug deserves a good beating because of what they are likely to do if they ever gain state power. However, that particular fascist thug may not have gone on to work at the Gas Chambers, he may not have had the "stomach" for it.

Still, working on the generalisation that most fascists will do X, we conclude that that individual fascist is worthy of repression even if he might have been an "exception".

The same type of generalisation can be made with regards Religion, and serious believers in particular. We can look at the history of that particular Religion and conclude that given the opportunity, most followers would repeat some, if not all, of those practises.

True, there may be "exceptions", but the general trend shows that most religious believers will do X if they have state power. And, that X tends to be persecution of atheists and worshippers of "false Gods", oppression of women, children and homosexuals, and occasionally, Religious Wars.

And, in small ways, every time a serious believer enters the political arena, they hint that that is what they'd be willing to do.

Indeed a good example of this happening right now is the Iraqi Resistance.

Around about early 2004 there was a real possibility of a United, Nationalist and Secular Resistance forming. This was stopped, or at least delayed for the time being, by firstly the "Coalition Forces" getting the Shi'ite Militias to temporarily put down their arms and come into the "political process" and secondly, and in some ways just as importantly, the Sunni jihadists gaining more of a foothold withing the Sunni Resistance as a whole.

Indeed it was the jihadists fear of being sidelined by a Nationalist Resistance, which they would have been, which was one of the main motivational factors for them to start trying to stir up "ethnic tensions".

At the moment, they unfortunately seem to be succeeding. :(

However, if Islam was out of the picture, do you honestly think they could do this? ....after all, if people didn't identify themselves as Sunni or Shi'ite then the jihadists would have no base.

But, because the illusions of superstition, both the Sunnis and Shi'ite are unable to see the reality of the situation -- that a Nationalist Resistance would be far better.

Superstition has taken the Resistance down all kinds of fruitless channels and in many ways, the influence of Islam in Iraq has made the Iraqi populace less politically advanced than they were almost a century ago when they drove out the resistance. Edit: They drove out the British.

In other words, superstition has fucked up a fundamentally progressive thing and the probability that the reactionary shit superstition has introduced into the Iraqi Resistance being removed, is, as far as I can tell, very low.

Originally posted by YKTMX
....but it can also lead to liberation-theology.

Unless I'm mistaken, Liberation Theology has made the movements in the Americas that adopted it shift rightwards.

It's not as "bad" as Vatican Catholicism, but it still has a detrimental effect on progressive movements.

Additionally, I haven't been able to locate any information on what Liberation Theologies "position" on Women's Rights is. There seems to be a complete lack of information from the Liberation Theologists themselves, and their supporters, as to whether the support even basic Women's Rights.

Would they allow abortions or contraception???

Originally posted by YKTMX
Don't get me wrong, the 'Catholic Church' in the Vatican is a reactionary organisation, no doubt about it.

And what about its followers? ....surely some of them are equally reactionary?

So by making the above statement, aren't you insulting the Catholic faithful as well? ....something you are against doing.

As I said a couple of posts back, if we wish to discredit Organised Religion as a social force, then we will upset some people -- oppressed people at that. However, it is a necessary task, and whilst the by-product -- upset believers -- is unfortunate, we still have to discredit Organised Religion as a social force.

Originally posted by YKTMX
Did the women get together and wage "unflinching war" against "religious ideas"? No! They chained themselves to railings and burned buildings. People change society not by fighting "ideas" in some nonsensical abstract sense. They challenge notions of domination by their deeds, by actions.

Do you not think that these demonstrations of power by women also undermined the Christian paradigm?

As you said, their actual deeds were a direct attack on Christian morality and there were plenty of offended believers. Through their deeds, the Women's Rights protesters delivered a huge blow to traditional sexism, of which Christianity was a crucial factor.

Indeed, in many ways the feminists did "wage unflinching war against religious ideas" -- i.e. the "religious ideas" that "rationalised" sexism.

In addition to this, throughout these periods many feminist critiques of the traditional -- Christian -- family emerged.

So not only did the feminists attack sexism, and by extension Christianity, with their deeds, they also attacked it theoretically. Indeed, during that period the Christian paradigm in general took a massive battering! :D

Originally posted by YKTMX
I find your deploying of the right wing garb "they can just get another job" in the context of poorly paid barstaff not wanting to lung cancer at their work, rather unsettling.

Well I was talking about adults in general and not barstaff in particular.

If you want to discuss barstaff we can, but as it stands, do you or do you not agree that adults in general are more able to effectively avoid circumstances they find physically and/or psychologically detrimental than children in general?

And if so, do you now realise that the label "hypocritical" is not suitable when one is discussing the prevention of abuse directed towards children when compared with a subject that involves the protection of adults?

In other words that a discussion about children is completely different than a discussion about adults.

Originally posted by YKTMX
I think it would be useless waste of energy....

How is the correct understanding of the Universe a "useless waste of energy"?

Surely you don't consider the work of scientists in the fields of Physics or Biology a "useless waste of energy"?

Originally posted by YKTMX
What criticisms of Islam as a faith have I deemed "Islamaphobic"?

Do you not consider redstar2000's criticisms of Islam "Islamaphobic"???

Originally posted by YKTMX
And don't say this doesn't exist, because it manifestly does.

Where does it exist?

So far you've pointed to the poor conditions of Pakistani and Bangladeshi immigrants and as I have said, it is an issue to do with immigration and not "Islamaphobia".

Indeed, the articles I presented a few posts back show that there has been no increase in attacks on Muslims since 2001 and that if any ethnic group is being unfairly targeted by the Police, it is young Black men, not Muslims.

So where is this "Islamaphobia"? ....is it a few disparaging comments about Islam in the Mainstream Media? ....or the ramblings of the British National Party?

Because the figures show, that whilst people are occasionally attacked for "being a Muslim", it is not widespread and it is nothing when compared to what happened to Black communities throughout the 80's and 90's.

Originally posted by YKTMX
Give me an example then, and maybe that'll help you see where I'm coming from.

Well on the libcom boards recently, I found this topic....

http://www.libcom.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8040

Would you consider it "Islamaphobic" if AnitFa put a small amount of its time into "confronting" fundamentalist clerics and their lackeys? ....or indeed, as someone suggested "[AntiFa] might want to select an Antifa ethnic group for fucking those ****s up." (http://www.libcom.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=102376#102376)

Would you consider that "Islamaphobic"?

Or later on when this is mentioned....

Originally posted by PaulMarsh
It is worth pointing out on this issue that last year when the NF and Al-Muhijiroun called demos at the same time in Trafalgar Square, Antifa called a demonstration against both organisations.

http://www.libcom.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=102449#102449

Would you consider this type of action "Islamaphobic"?

Originally posted by YKTMX
They're illegitimate because they're terrible and reactionary.

They are "terrible and reactionary" and they are also "motivated by religion". It just so happens, that most things "motivated by religion" are "terrible and reactionary".

Something you either dispute, or ignore.

Originally posted by YKTMX
The veils, the beards, the religious dress. These are specifically Muslim characteristics.

Okay, fair point.

However, been as there is little evidence that people with "Muslim characteristics" are being racially attacked and/or discriminated any more than just people with "brown faces". Do you really think there is a need to create another -- potentially harmful -- social category?

If someone is racially attacked, it is most likely that they are being racially attacked because of the colour of their skin and not because they have a long beard.

So as it seems the majority of racist attacks are directed at people because of the colour of their skin, don't you think it is somewhat superfluous to create another category? ....especially one which as I've pointed out could be harmful.

Originally posted by YKTMX
What do you mean "barbarous"?

The dictionary meaning....

Originally posted by dictionary.com
1. Primitive in culture and customs; uncivilized.

3. Characterized by savagery; very cruel.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=barbarous

Islam emerged around 600 AD, did it not? ....therefore, as with all paradigms from that period, is it not "primitive in culture and customs" and "characterized by savagery" when judged by todays, more advanced, standards?

If you wish, I could bring up a few passages from the Qu'ran to emphasise its "primitiveness", but I think you get the picture.

Originally posted by YKTMX
So, you think you, with your "your religion is barbarous" guff are going to unite the class?

I might destroy a few illusions! :D

I have hopefully, in this post and the last, presented you with enough evidence and enough in terms of argumentation, to outline why Religion can't fit into an egalitarian and communist mindset.

Other than that, I don't know what else I can do.

Originally posted by YKTMX
My point is that Nick Griffin agrees with you about something. Namely, that it's possible to be against Islam's corruption of British life but not be, as he contends, a racist.

And the only reason he is able to hide his racism in this way, is because you and other Liberals continue to propagate the myth that racism against "dark people" = "Islamaphobia".

As I said, you effectively blur the lines.

It is incredibly offensive, as I said, that you continuously link "dark people" with Islam, and not only that, that you are creating an environment where every "dark person" is being linked with whatever some Islamic nutball does.

I want nothing to do with Islam, so it annoys the shit out of me when you continue to link it with me.

Clear?

Originally posted by YKTMX
If they'd only stop bleating about Islamaphobia, the BNP would leave them alone?

Not quite.

If you stopped linking colour with Religion, then we could tackle real racism in a more effective manner.

[email protected]
No, but my point is that the reason the BNP is forwarding themselves in this way is because they realise that Islamaphobia exists, and they're trying to tap into it.

No they "realise" that a social myth has been created which effectively blurs the lines between what is and what isn't racism. Therefore, they are able to pursue their racist agenda through a semi legitimate channel which Liberals created.

Additionally, you asked earlier for some examples of whether something was "Islamaphobic" or not and I just thought of another one. Do you consider Polly Toynbee worthy of the nomination for Most Islamophobic Media Personality of the Year based on her comments about Women's Rights and Islam which can be found here....

http://www.inminds.co.uk/islamophobia-awards-2003.html#t7

Was she being "Islamaphobic"???

CompañeroDeLibertad
In which country isn't there a stigma around it?

From what I've read, possibly some of the Scandinavian countries, Sweden especially and perhaps the "big cities" in Western Europe and Canada.

And that's about it. :(

anomaly

21st March 2006, 01:02

YKTMX said:

You're obviously at a point of development. You'll either give up, which is what most Anarcho types do, annoyed that they can't find any sort of "audience" within the class, or you'll become a Marxist.
Is becoming a neo-conservative 'giving up' in your opinion? Even if one was originally a Trotskyist?! :lol: :o

For example, we have the neo-cons Christopher Hitchens and Irving Kristol, both ex-Trots.

Axel1917

21st March 2006, 06:56

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 08:39 AM

From Communist League:

If the AFL-CIO union tops formed a labor party in the U.S., it would be as a means of stopping a real working people's upsurge from getting out of control. Let's be real. The unions in this country are in worse shape than they were before the beginning of the 20th century. Non-government unionization is now under 9 percent. The leaders of most of these "workers' organizations" have crossed the line between reactionary and scab, and act like the bosses' police on the job.

And isolating onesel from reactionary trade unions is not going to get anyone anywhere, now is it? When the workers see the democrats for who they really are, they are going to try to do something in their traditional organizations, probably making such a party from below and not from above!

Even if we were to put aside their parasitism, their allegiance to the Democratic Party, their bureaucratic and authoritarian character, the fact is that these so-called "labor leaders" consistently side with the demands of the bosses against the rank and file of the unions they allegedly represent. The leaders of the AFL-CIO and Change to Win unions told their members to cross the picket lines of the Northwest Airlines mechanics. The UAW leaders forced through pension cuts and changes to the healthcare plans that shift the burden off the capitalists.

When the workers move against the Democrats and split with them, clearly they are going to be more active and aggressive against the cronies of the capitalists at the top.

The role of a labor union is to defend and expand the share of the income a company generates that working people receive. To do the opposite is to scab on the union and undermine its very existence. To openly side with management's attempts to break a strike is to scab on the striking union and undermine the position of all unions. The leaders of both the AFL-CIO and the Change to Win have either directly done these things, or they have sat silent while it happens.

And again, such a party will be formed out of a mass basis, not out of nowhere. Do you honestly think that the masses are just going to sit around and do nothing when they see the democrats for who they really are and decide to split from them?

This tells me a lot about what the motivations would be if they called for a labor party: it would be to stop a more radical and independent development from taking place. I think that a good test case will be in South Carolina. The Labor Party that exists today is planning to run some candidates in that state. I have no doubt that, if that attempt at independent working people's electoral activity interferes with the AFL-CIO and Change to Win leaders' campaigning for the Democrats, then these unions will do everything in their power to destroy it.

Again, do you think that the workers are going to let the tops stop them when they become extremely militant in splitting from the democrats. The masses will try to form such a party, and it will be a good place to enter and win them over.

And that "change in tactics" would be what? Would operating independently and openly be considered?

It would depend on the circumstances, but in any case, any independent and open operation would not degenerate into sectarianism.

I would ask you the same question.

Well, I feel that I know what I am speaking of, given that our organization is the one that is getting places.

Again, participating in a bourgeois legislative body and entering into another political organization are not the same thing. Why is this such a difficult concept for you to understand?

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that entrism should be employed when there is a non-Bourgeois party that the workers are involved in so we can win them over? This nonsense of your speaks volumes of the inadequacies of your organization. And I was hoping to expect a better debate from you than what the majority of this board offers. It looks like I was wrong to expect that. The only response the sects have to this is to baselessly accuse us of opportunism!

Actually, yes you did, and you're doing it again above. Your attempt to pass off Lenin's outlining of preconditions for affiliation as merely a description of "legal work" is putting words in his mouth and ascribing a position to him that he did not hold. It has nothing to do with whether I "know anything about us" or not. This is about basic skill of being able to read.

I am not doing it at all. You clearly don't understand the ABC of Marxism. You are putting words into Lenin's mouth, trying to make him model icon for sectarianism. You are the one who lacks the basic skill to read.

I agree with you about Taaffe -- but then, I thought that when the CMI and CWI were all one big happy organization.

And clearly you have no idea what caused the split, now do you?

And yet, you feel the need to speak condescendingly about everything and everyone who is not CMI/IMT approved. Go figure.

What I said about so many CP's and such is true. Just look at them.

Umm, yeah.

In actuality, yes.

There was only one League comrade who ended up in OI, and that is because comments he made about Israel were phrased poorly, and the owner of this board overreacted and unilaterally restricted him. For the record, he could be unrestricted if he chose to, but he has since decided he has better things to do. And, based on a recent phone conversation I had with him, he's right.

Regardless if this is true or not, you do seem to open the floodgates to just about anyone. There is a certain Stalinist in your organization that came to our site, ranting about how Trotsky was the anti-Marxist and such. With all of these opposing tendancies, I would not be surprised if your organization ends up suffering numerous splits.

This assertion has yet to be proven.

It was proven by the Bolsheviks, and it is being proven today. Hence our organization's continual growth, success, and being feared by the sects.

Why don't we just clear this up and go to the source. I imagine you could contact Ted Grant, Rob Sewell or Alan Woods directly by e-mail and ask them about this.

I believe that I put a source earlier about this by Grant in an interview. He didn't say anything about a document. I think there is a reason why wikipedia uses the word alleged.

History has yet to decide who will prevail.

We are doing very well compared to the bankrupt sects.

Idealist nonsense. The "ideas, methods, etc." only count if they are applied in the class struggle and yield results that advance the class struggle.

I was assuming that the application in the struggle and results in the advanced class struggle would be self-evident to anyone that read that.

Y'know, I've let this slide long enough. Comrade, you can't make a revolution from the cheerleading section. Fine, Chavez is having conversations with Alan Woods and reading Reason in Revolt, but what is the CMI doing to advance the class struggle in Venezuela?

Again, I noted that Woods has spoken with workers over there. We have also been building up an organization as well. We are not cheerleaders, and anyone that bothers to see what we are really doing will know that.

Are they organizing demonstrations and rallies to demand cogestion in all industries, especially PDVSA?

Are they demanding that a timetable be put in place to begin transition from cogestion to direct workers' control?

Are they raising the call for all political power to be placed in the hands of the Bolivarian Circles and Houses?

Are they raising the call for the expansion of the Comandos Maisanta (the workers' and people's militia) to all corners of the country?

Are they raising the call for the abolition of the remaining police forces, replaced by the Comandos Maisanta, which would be accountable to the Bolivarian Houses?

Are they raising the call for the abolition of the government bureaucracy and the placement of all public/state services under workers' control?

From what I've seen, the answer is no to all of these. In other words, for all of the talk about the CMI/IMT's "leadership", it is an illusion -- a lie. There is no leadership; there is only sychophantic following. I can appreciate that the CMI/IMT has influenced Chavez, but influencing a political leader is not the same as advancing the class struggle -- even if that political leader is someone who moves and can be won to this or that political position.

And you clearly are not looking, now are you? I believe that Woods was mentioned in the Cuban media, and the media stressed how he stated that the Venezuelan Revolution could only succeed with a revolutionary expropriation of the capitalists. Again, you don't know what we are doing, and you believe the lying sectarians.

See above.

Same to you.

Martin Blank

21st March 2006, 09:23

[i]Originally posted by Axel1917+Mar 21 2006, 01:59 AM--> (Axel1917 @ Mar 21 2006, 01:59 AM)And isolating onesel from reactionary trade unions is not going to get anyone anywhere, now is it? When the workers see the democrats for who they really are, they are going to try to do something in their traditional organizations, probably making such a party from below and not from above![/b]

What "traditional organizations"? Nine out of ten workers in the U.S. private sector are unorganized.

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 01:59 AM
When the workers move against the Democrats and split with them, clearly they are going to be more active and aggressive against the cronies of the capitalists at the top.

Yes, that's true. But the question is whether or not the fight of that 9 percent of the working class that is organized will take place within the framework of the AFL-CIO and Change to Win. And, again, what of the other 90-91 percent? Their "traditional organization" has been the Democratic Party. What of them?

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 01:59 AM
And again, such a party will be formed out of a mass basis, not out of nowhere. Do you honestly think that the masses are just going to sit around and do nothing when they see the democrats for who they really are and decide to split from them?

Oh, they'll do something all right. But, when it comes to those from that nine-tenths of the working class, it will have nothing to do with the company unionist leaders of the AFL-CIO and Change to Win.

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 01:59 AM
Again, do you think that the workers are going to let the tops stop them when they become extremely militant in splitting from the democrats. The masses will try to form such a party, and it will be a good place to enter and win them over.

If working people on their own initiative formed their own political movement, that is something entirely different from the scabs leading the two "official" federations.

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 01:59 AM
Why is it so difficult for you to understand that entrism should be employed when there is a non-Bourgeois party that the workers are involved in so we can win them over? This nonsense of your speaks volumes of the inadequacies of your organization. And I was hoping to expect a better debate from you than what the majority of this board offers. It looks like I was wrong to expect that. The only response the sects have to this is to baselessly accuse us of opportunism!

You're dodging and muddling again. But, for the moment, I'll let that slide. Let's deal with the issue at hand. You say that entry into a "non-Bourgeois party that the workers are involved in" is essential. But what makes it a "non-Bourgeois party"? Is it simply that "workers are involved" in it? Does it have a working-class leadership? Does the working class have decisive control? These are important questions. And then, these questions, when answered, raise other questions: How do you define "working-class" leadership? Do you consider a clique of petty-bourgeois labor union officials as "working-class leadership"? Would you equate their control with "the working class hav decisive control"?

Answering these questions establishes a political method. Moreover, the answers to these questions also creates a dynamic of logic that, by extension, can be used to explain and clarify.

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 01:59 AM
I am not doing it at all. You clearly don't understand the ABC of Marxism. You are putting words into Lenin's mouth, trying to make him model icon for sectarianism. You are the one who lacks the basic skill to read.

This is one of those "I'm rubber and you're glue" moments you're having, Axel1917. Now, we can continue on having a conversation on this topic, saying "nuh-unh" and "uh-hunh" at each other ad infinitum, or we can conclude that we each have a different interpretation of these passages and leave it at that. If we do the latter, I should point out that, if I was a member of the CMI, this kind of doctrinaire disagreement would be grounds for my expulsion.

And I'm the one being called "sectarian". :rolleyes:

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 01:59 AM
What I said about so many CP's and such is true. Just look at them.

Your comments on the character of the "official" Communists is not exactly what prompted my response. It was the other part.

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 01:59 AM
Regardless if this is true or not, you do seem to open the floodgates to just about anyone. There is a certain Stalinist in your organization that came to our site, ranting about how Trotsky was the anti-Marxist and such. With all of these opposing tendancies, I would not be surprised if your organization ends up suffering numerous splits.

Would you be so kind as to share the name of this "certain Stalinist"?

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 01:59 AM
It was proven by the Bolsheviks, and it is being proven today. Hence our organization's continual growth, success, and being feared by the sects.

Well, speaking for the "sect" (translation: organization not affiliated to the CMI/IMT) I belong to, there is no "fear" here. And do I have to remind you that material conditions can change a great deal in a century?

[email protected] 21 2006, 01:59 AM
And you clearly are not looking, now are you? I believe that Woods was mentioned in the Cuban media, and the media stressed how he stated that the Venezuelan Revolution could only succeed with a revolutionary expropriation of the capitalists. Again, you don't know what we are doing, and you believe the lying sectarians.

I get the In Defence of Marxism daily updates, and read every article Cort Greene posts to the e-mail lists I am on. Nowhere in those articles has your organization raised these issues. Simply stating that "the Venezuelan Revolution could only succeed with a revolutionary expropriation of the capitalists" means nothing if a practical platform for achieving that goal is never put forward. It is like the kind of "Sunday-speech socialism" that was common among pre-WWI social democrats. If your organization is putting forward a concrete platform, then it would be nice to see it published. I don't have to rely on the words of "lying sectarians" for the answer to this question. The silence of the CMI/IMT on this matter is enough.

Miles

Floyce White

22nd March 2006, 04:09

"Chavez" is spelled "P. D. V. S. A."

This is the same guy who in 1999 threatened to dissolve Congress and rule as a dictator to crush the oil workers if the union went out on strike.

Axel1917, why don't you tell us about YOUR experiences with entryism so that those of us trying to keep up with this thread don't have to slog through paraphrasing of leftist history that we already know full well? If you don't have any experience, why are you arguing with Comrade Miles, who probably has 100 times your political experience?

rouchambeau: "I want to make the point that democracy is not in itself desireable. Rather, democracy should only me a means to libertarian communistic ends if and only when it works."

There is no such thing as "libertarian communism." Please see the fifth paragraph of my article Whose Class Struggle? (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=42555&hl=&view=findpost&p=1291968629) and make the appropriate substitutions of terms. There is no such thing as "democratic communism" any more than there are such things as "plutocratic communism," "oligarchic communism," or "dictatorial communism." Similarly, there is no such thing as "liberty communism" any more than there are such things as "equality communism," "fraternity communism," "justice communism," "freedom communism," or "rights-of-man communism." The methods and goals of the capitalists' anti-feudal revolution are not the methods and goals of the workers' anti-capitalist revolution.

More generally, it is sophistry to assert that A is B by making a compound word AB or BA.

rouchambeau: "That's funny. I thought Lenin ruled as an authoritarian who dissolved labor unions and claimed that working class people were capable of only trade-union consciousness and used that as an excuse to establish a party with total control over the Russian people.

"Correct me if I am wrong. I dare you."

In this brief post, you make six errors of logic and one error of theory. I have no idea what point you believe you are daring me to correct.

Axel1917

22nd March 2006, 06:59

Originally posted by CommunistLeague+Mar 21 2006, 09:26 AM--> (CommunistLeague @ Mar 21 2006, 09:26 AM)

[/b]
From Communist League:

[email protected] 21 2006, 01:59 AM
And isolating onesel from reactionary trade unions is not going to get anyone anywhere, now is it? When the workers see the democrats for who they really are, they are going to try to do something in their traditional organizations, probably making such a party from below and not from above!

What "traditional organizations"? Nine out of ten workers in the U.S. private sector are unorganized.

It varies from place to place. In the USA, such organizations would be the unions.

Yes, that's true. But the question is whether or not the fight of that 9 percent of the working class that is organized will take place within the framework of the AFL-CIO and Change to Win. And, again, what of the other 90-91 percent? Their "traditional organization" has been the Democratic Party. What of them?

There will be a point in which the Democrats are seen for who they really are, and the workers will have no choice but to abandon them. They will still turn to their unions, and consequently, break with the democrats. The unions and the other people will more than likely come together and get rid of the Democrats.

Oh, they'll do something all right. But, when it comes to those from that nine-tenths of the working class, it will have nothing to do with the company unionist leaders of the AFL-CIO and Change to Win

The unions and these people will have to form some kind of labor-oriented party. Such a party will become a traditional one in the USA, ripe for entrism. The USA not having such a party may have a slight advantage, given that the USA has never had such a party, and therefore, the workers are not as heavily schooled in reformism as in Europe.

If working people on their own initiative formed their own political movement, that is something entirely different from the scabs leading the two "official" federations.

It is different, and when the workers move, the unions, that is, the workers not at the top, are going to want to get into such a party. The unions will affiliate with such a new party formed by the majority of the workers. I don't see a revolution happening overnight in a country like the USA.

You're dodging and muddling again. But, for the moment, I'll let that slide. Let's deal with the issue at hand. You say that entry into a "non-Bourgeois party that the workers are involved in" is essential. But what makes it a "non-Bourgeois party"? Is it simply that "workers are involved" in it? Does it have a working-class leadership? Does the working class have decisive control? These are important questions. And then, these questions, when answered, raise other questions: How do you define "working-class" leadership? Do you consider a clique of petty-bourgeois labor union officials as "working-class leadership"? Would you equate their control with "the working class hav[ing] decisive control"?

For an example of the Labour Party, see Ted Grant's brief interview at http://www.marxist.com/interview-ted-grant...itant101004.htm (http://www.marxist.com/interview-ted-grant-militant101004.htm)

The workers simply being involved in it is not such a condtion. Look at the Democrats in the USA. Such a party can have a working class leadership, although it may fluctuate, given reactionary attempts to take it over (as in the British Labour Party). If it fluctuates like that, it shows that the Bourgeoisie have not taken it over, and as long as the unions stay with it, we should enter it to win others over and keep the Bourgeoisie from getting an iron grip on it. I don't think that Blair is going to have control over Labour forever. He is becoming quite unpopular, and the unions are still in Labour, for the most part. It is not too late in that instance. The goal in such fluctuations is to get decisive control in the hands of the workers. Of course, a clique of Petty-Bourgeois labour union officials do not constitute a working class leadership; the proletariat cannot leave its liberation up to a foreign class. The working class having decisive control is what is aimed at, and a reactionary sitation now does not necessarily mean that the Bourgeoisie have completely taken the party over. Blairism is not the first reactionary tendency to have attempted to take over Labour, for example.

Answering these questions establishes a political method. Moreover, the answers to these questions also creates a dynamic of logic that, by extension, can be used to explain and clarify.

What do you think then?

This is one of those "I'm rubber and you're glue" moments you're having, Axel1917. Now, we can continue on having a conversation on this topic, saying "nuh-unh" and "uh-hunh" at each other ad infinitum, or we can conclude that we each have a different interpretation of these passages and leave it at that. If we do the latter, I should point out that, if I was a member of the CMI, this kind of doctrinaire disagreement would be grounds for my expulsion.

And I'm the one being called "sectarian". :rolleyes:

Now this is downright hypocrtical right here! First, you and a comrade base my calling you sectarian based on you not letting me in, and then you base your view of me being sectarian on the very same charge!

Your comments on the character of the "official" Communists is not exactly what prompted my response. It was the other part.

Regardless, looking at those CP's will prove my point.

Would you be so kind as to share the name of this "certain Stalinist"?

Marxism-Leninism.

Well, speaking for the "sect" (translation: organization not affiliated to the CMI/IMT) I belong to, there is no "fear" here. And do I have to remind you that material conditions can change a great deal in a century?

Of course they change, but they have not yet changed to a degree that makes entrism nonsense.

I get the In Defence of Marxism daily updates, and read every article Cort Greene posts to the e-mail lists I am on. Nowhere in those articles has your organization raised these issues. Simply stating that "the Venezuelan Revolution could only succeed with a revolutionary expropriation of the capitalists" means nothing if a practical platform for achieving that goal is never put forward. It is like the kind of "Sunday-speech socialism" that was common among pre-WWI social democrats. If your organization is putting forward a concrete platform, then it would be nice to see it published. I don't have to rely on the words of "lying sectarians" for the answer to this question. The silence of the CMI/IMT on this matter is enough.

I think that the very fact of Woods stating that an expropriation of the capitalists is necessary states that he is stating those necessary preconditions and methods are needed to expropirate them in the first place. I find them a bit self-evident in such a calling.

Floyce White, I am rather new to my organization, and objective conditions currently limit what I can do, but I have been swayed with those with far more experience with Miles in the subject at hand.

Martin Blank

22nd March 2006, 10:14

Originally posted by Axel1917+Mar 22 2006, 02:02 AM--> (Axel1917 @ Mar 22 2006, 02:02 AM)It varies from place to place. In the USA, such organizations would be the unions....

There will be a point in which the Democrats are seen for who they really are, and the workers will have no choice but to abandon them. They will still turn to their unions, and consequently, break with the democrats. The unions and the other people will more than likely come together and get rid of the Democrats.[/b]

If the history of the U.S. is to be the guide in judging the correctness of this analysis, then your argument has repeatedly been shown to be false. Throughout the history of this country, when working people have stood up to fight, it has been outside of the "traditional organizations". By your logic, the CMI/IMT would have denounced the CIO as "sectarian" and would not have been involved in its organizing. They would have denounced the League of Revolutionary Black Workers, the Black Panther Party, the Lowndes County Freedom Organization, the Young Lords, and even the Mississippi Freedom Democrats.

But consistency is not on the CMI/IMT's strong suits. Case in point: the Delphi workers. The organization of the Delphi Workers' Committee, the organization behind the website www.futureoftheunion.com (http://www.futureoftheunion.com), effectively operates independently of the UAW and its structures. In fact, it also has alliances with non-UAW workers at Delphi -- IBEW, IUE, CWA, etc. They may be doing something in their "traditional organizations", but they are not doing anything through them.

Moreover, the Delphi Workers' Committee, unlike bureaucratic formations like New Directions, is not some "reform caucus" looking for a little more "democracy" in exchange for some power. They are not interested in "reforming" the unreformable. They are not wanting to waste their time trying to transform these "traditional organizations" into something it can no longer be. They are organizing themselves into something that is incompatible with the "traditional organizations".

So, why is the WIL not denouncing the Delphi Workers' Committee as "sectarian"?

Originally posted by Axel1917+Mar 22 2006, 02:02 AM--> (Axel1917 @ Mar 22 2006, 02:02 AM)The unions and these people will have to form some kind of labor-oriented party. Such a party will become a traditional one in the USA, ripe for entrism. The USA not having such a party may have a slight advantage, given that the USA has never had such a party, and therefore, the workers are not as heavily schooled in reformism as in Europe.[/b]

I would not fight for such a party to be formed -- a reformist/social-democratic party dominated by the same people who encouraged the workers of the IAM to scab on the Northwest mechanics' strike. And I don't mean just crossing a picket line, I mean actually performing the work of striking mechanics. This is not the kind of organization working people either need or want. Hiding behind stale phrases about "traditional organizations" and a "labor-oriented party" [NB: not "labor party" but "labor-oriented party"!!!!] will not change the fact that such an organization would not be an advance for working people.

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 02:02 AM
It is different, and when the workers move, the unions, that is, the workers not at the top, are going to want to get into such a party. The unions will affiliate with such a new party formed by the majority of the workers. I don't see a revolution happening overnight in a country like the USA.

With a strategy like this, you may as well resign yourself to the fact that your grandkids' generation will never see a revolution.

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 02:02 AM
[quote]Ted [email protected]
[b]Such a party [the Democratic Party!] can have a working class leadership, although it may fluctuate, given reactionary attempts to take it over (as in the British Labour Party). If it fluctuates like that, it shows that the Bourgeoisie have not taken it over, and as long as the unions stay with it, we should enter it to win others over and keep the Bourgeoisie from getting an iron grip on it....

CommunistLeague
I think that the very fact of Woods stating that an expropriation of the capitalists is necessary states that he is stating those necessary preconditions and methods are needed to expropirate them in the first place. I find them a bit self-evident in such a calling.

I don't. I've heard enough sugary speeches to give the average comrade diabetes. I want to read concrete statements and see concrete action. Alan Woods' speeches are, to be blunt, dime-a-dozen.

Miles

Led Zeppelin

22nd March 2006, 15:22

Originally posted by Axel1917+--> (Axel1917)Regardless if this is true or not, you do seem to open the floodgates to just about anyone. There is a certain Stalinist in your organization that came to our site, ranting about how Trotsky was the anti-Marxist and such. With all of these opposing tendancies, I would not be surprised if your organization ends up suffering numerous splits.[/b]

Miles
Would you be so kind as to share the name of this "certain Stalinist"?

Marxism-Leninism.

Can you please link me to your site? I don't think I have ever visited any other forum besides RL and E-G (E-G no longer exists), so I really don't know what you're talking about.

Oh, and by the way, Trotsky is anti-Marxist.

Miles is correct, I am more inclined towards 'Hekmatism', I just don't believe 'Hekmatism' is a separate theory in and of itself, but he was sort of an 'Orthodox Leninist'. See my member title for the theory I adhere too, I'm an Orthodox-Leninist, let me briefly explain what this means;

As an Orthodox Leninist I oppose both Stalinism (and all its variants) and Trotskyism, I see them both as petty-bourgeois degenerations of real Leninism, if I recall correctly the League has about the same views on this subject.

The reason I call myself an Orthodox Leninist is because its hard to call oneself a 'back to Leninism-ist', since a few months I've been very interested in the 'back to Leninism' movement, a movement started by former Trotskyists.

Amusing Scrotum

22nd March 2006, 16:10

Originally posted by Axel1917+--> (Axel1917)The unions and these people will have to form some kind of labor-oriented party. Such a party will become a traditional one in the USA, ripe for entrism. The USA not having such a party may have a slight advantage, given that the USA has never had such a party, and therefore, the workers are not as heavily schooled in reformism as in Europe.[/b]

Do you not see the massive logical fallacy in this whole approach?

You say that reformism is big as it were, in Europe -- "heavily schooled in reformism" -- but then you go on to propose that in America there should be the same type of organisation as the ones which dominate Europe -- "labor-oriented party".

In other words, you propose that American communists replicate the methods of Western Europe by setting up Social-Democratic Parties, which have all so far made workers "heavily schooled in reformism" -- something I would imagine you find annoying.

You propose a method which you already know is counter-productive. Quite why you are proposing this, I don't know.

Originally posted by Axel1917+--> (Axel1917)For an example of the Labour Party, see Ted Grant's brief interview at http://www.marxist.com/interview-ted-grant...itant101004.htm (http://www.marxist.com/interview-ted-grant-militant101004.htm)[/b]

Well, lets see it....

Originally posted by Grant
It was a very great achievement.

Well, if you consider gaining Liverpool Council and then threatening workers with redundancy a "great achievement" -- then I suppose the Militant Tendency is worth fawning over.

Personally, I think the Militant Tendency acted like complete pricks and I wouldn't care one bit if an angry Liverpudlian worker decided to get his/her own back on one of those "great" Militant Councillors.

Originally posted by Grant
The Labour Party and the trade unions were fully in the grip of right wing Neanderthal men and women.

I won't dispute Mr. Grant's labelling of the Labour right as "Neanderthal", but when one considers that the Militant was incredibly homophobic as late as the 80's....

http://www.libcom.org/forums/viewtopic.php...35609ebd8#95076 (http://www.libcom.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=95076&sid=28ca127e82aaf7c16a08dfc35609ebd8#95076)

....and given Grant's affection for and involvement with the Militant Tendency, I wouldn't be surprised if he too agreed with those views too and therefore, as the poster in that thread said, the term "Neanderthal" is pretty suitable for Militant as a whole and in my opinion, for Grant as well!

Originally posted by Grant
They had a purely ultra-left policy and used hooligan tactics.

He uses the phrase "ultra-left" a lot in that piece, indeed he uses it to describe the actions of Gerry Healy, a fellow Trot. Grant's ignorance astounds me, and perhaps, he should take his own advice....

Originally posted by Grant
I sometimes ask myself why Lenin and Trotsky wrote so much, because it seems that nobody reads what they wrote, and if they have read it, they have not understood a single line!

Well Mr. Grant, you yourself said that "Lenin and Trotsky answered the ultra-lefts and sectarians a thousand times" and I would have thought that someone making this remark and someone who claims to knowledgeable on the subject, would have understood who and what Lenin and Trotsky were criticising.

Within the British communist movement, the "ultra-leftists" they, Lenin in particular, criticised, wanted nothing to do with the British Labour Party. Indeed, that Grant labelled Healy "ultra-left", only makes Grant look like a "sectarian ignoramus". :lol:

Healy was as much of an "ultra-leftist" as Lenin himself and I can only conclude from the way Grant throws this term around that he is both ignorant about about what Ultra-Leftism actually is and that he is mealy using the term as a general method of abuse.

And all this from a "great theoretician"! :lol:

Originally posted by Grant
The Labour Party is no more a bourgeois party than it was when we launched the Militant forty years ago.

He's right, but not in the manner that he thinks he is right.

The Labour Party was back then, as it is now, a bourgeois party and no amount of "socialist rhetoric" is going to change that.

Originally posted by Grant
Nevertheless, the basis of the Party is still the working class.

The Liberal Democrats have a fair amount of "working class votes", is Grant going to start calling them a Party with a working class base?

I actually wouldn't be surprised if he did! :lol:

Originally posted by Grant
....(they are always very lucky with splits, but not so lucky with fusions!).

Ah come on Ted, you've been involved in your fair share of splits over the years.

Originally posted by Grant
It is always criminal to separate the advanced workers from the mass.

Ted living in a small two bedroom terrace these days? ....or does he reside in a somewhat more luxurious dwelling?

I know which of the two options I'd put my money on! :lol:

Originally posted by Grant
It will benefit the Tories and Liberals, not the left wing.

Grant calls this Marxism? :huh:

As if it really mattered whether there was a Conservative, Liberal or Labour Government in power. There's a reason it's called bourgeois democracy Ted, and that's because the bourgeois make all the decisions!

Indeed, given Grant's tone in this article, I'm more and more interested in the the concept of reincarnation -- i.e. whether Kautsky has been brought back from the dead and is now inhabiting Grant's body! :lol:

Originally posted by Grant
In the end our policies and methods succeeded and all the others failed miserably.

Militants policies....

1) Getting elected.

2) Promoting homophobia.

3) Threating workers with the sack!

It's not hard to see why they succeeded in the realms of bourgeois politics. Indeed, I'm sure there are a few Republicans who'd be willing to incorporate the Grant cabal into their circus -- way to go Ted! :lol:

Originally posted by Grant
The Communist Party even in its best period never achieved anything like this.

Poo!

The "Battle of Cable Street" "trumps" that stuff in my opinion.

Indeed, the "Battle of Cable Street" was really "ultra-left", as Ted should know....

Originally posted by Wikipedia
On the journey, he changed his name to Ted Grant, and stopped over in France to meet Trotsky's son, Leon Sedov. Once in Britain, he joined the Marxist Group, which at the time was working in the Independent Labour Party and took part in the Battle of Cable Street against fascists.

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

I suppose we all have "ultra-left skeletons in our closet". :lol:

[email protected]
The bourgeois were seriously worried about us. They could not allow the Labour Party to slip out of their control without a struggle.

Hang on a minute. Grant said early that the Labour Party was not a bourgeois party, and yet it was controlled by the bourgeois in his opinion.

I suppose in "Ted's World" the Capitalists don't really control the workplace, they just operate as a "rightist clique" or some other nonsense.

See, this is what playing bourgeois politics does to your brain, it makes it go mushy! :(

Grant
The Militant was destroyed by the impatience and ultra-leftism of a section of the leadership.

At least he's not blaming the "Stalinists". :lol:
_______

I've heard quite a bit about Grants supposed theoretical abilities, and I have to say, this article leaves me rather disappointed. Not only is the policy he advocates daft, his willingness to resort to petty abuse and the general tone of his language, is very arrogant.

Indeed, I'd be rather embarrassed if I was involved in an organisation that promoted his views.

rebelworker

23rd March 2006, 03:04

There is much in this that I could respond to,but Im going to try and head back to the original point of the post, Trying to make revolutionary politcs a threat again and getting away from the failures of lenninists and their ilk and forming a possible Marxist-class struggle anarchist alliance.

I will have t say i have been impresed by much of what I have heard from the communist league,thought they do not exist in my area(montreal) so I cant say too much(I prefer to talk face to face, alot of big talk on the internet often means no real substance in reality). I also over the years have poked around abit on the RAAN website, but have been less impressed. They seem to have repeated the worst of anarchism in their org. style and are spread all over(seem to be collage based, Im assuming much of their networking has been striktly online).

I represent a serrious third option, that of Platformist Anarchist Communism. In North America I feel we have suffered from our regional style of organising ( we are represented by the North Eastern Federation of Anarchst Communists, Northwestern Anarchist Federation, and some scattered collectives in California, Atlanta and the great Lakes region) and are lacking the high profile of a National Federation. This is a descision we made conciously, as we wanted to build strong local precense in our geographic areas before we merged into a larger org. We thouhgt this would ensure a real org with roots not a cyber group of activists.

My org., NEFAC, is made up of a mix of anarchist who were fed up with the lack of serrious org. and direction within anarchism, and ex leninists who wanted an Organisation not a party. I think this has made for a good dynamic mix.

I am curious to hear peoples opinions/critisicms of NEFAC or any similar orgs in your region?

anomaly

23rd March 2006, 03:36

The good thing about RAAN is their decentralized 'style'. Indeed, they have no central committee, no real 'organization'. After the failures of Leninists, I think this is a good thing.

What RAAN represents is a loosely linked network of anarchists and Marxists. I'd imagine the RAAN would support NEFAC. And because there is no real 'membership' of RAAN, some NEFAC comrades might very well identify with RAAN.

Axel1917

23rd March 2006, 06:33

Originally posted by CommunistLeague+Mar 22 2006, 10:23 AM--> (CommunistLeague @ Mar 22 2006, 10:23 AM)

[/b]
From Communist League:

If the history of the U.S. is to be the guide in judging the correctness of this analysis, then your argument has repeatedly been shown to be false. Throughout the history of this country, when working people have stood up to fight, it has been outside of the "traditional organizations". By your logic, the CMI/IMT would have denounced the CIO as "sectarian" and would not have been involved in its organizing. They would have denounced the League of Revolutionary Black Workers, the Black Panther Party, the Lowndes County Freedom Organization, the Young Lords, and even the Mississippi Freedom Democrats.

There have been a lot of struggles within workers' organizations (Knights of Labour and other such past organizations, early CIO, etc.). There of course, sometimes are and can be some struggles outside of such organizations. However, given that the people of the USA are not going to become Marxists overnight, I think that they will end up forming such a large, traditional organization of labor once they dump the Democrats. And history shows that they are not going to go to the sects.

But consistency is not on the CMI/IMT's strong suits. Case in point: the Delphi workers. The organization of the Delphi Workers' Committee, the organization behind the website www.futureoftheunion.com (http://www.futureoftheunion.com), effectively operates independently of the UAW and its structures. In fact, it also has alliances with non-UAW workers at Delphi -- IBEW, IUE, CWA, etc. They may be doing something in their "traditional organizations", but they are not doing anything through them.

They may be doing something in them, and we are reaching out to these workers. I do believe that a party based on labor will be formed first in the USA, though. What else will the workers form when the subjective factor is absent?

Moreover, the Delphi Workers' Committee, unlike bureaucratic formations like New Directions, is not some "reform caucus" looking for a little more "democracy" in exchange for some power. They are not interested in "reforming" the unreformable. They are not wanting to waste their time trying to transform these "traditional organizations" into something it can no longer be. They are organizing themselves into something that is incompatible with the "traditional organizations".

Or perhaps they are fighting against the tops and perhaps will play a role in creating part of the USA's first labor-oriented party.

So, why is the WIL not denouncing the Delphi Workers' Committee as "sectarian"?

Have you even read our principles, tactics, etc.?

I would not fight for such a party to be formed -- a reformist/social-democratic party dominated by the same people who encouraged the workers of the IAM to scab on the Northwest mechanics' strike. And I don't mean just crossing a picket line, I mean actually performing the work of striking mechanics. This is not the kind of organization working people either need or want. Hiding behind stale phrases about "traditional organizations" and a "labor-oriented party" [NB: not "labor party" but "labor-oriented party"!!!!] will not change the fact that such an organization would not be an advance for working people.

You clearly know nothing about such organizations. I see the same sectarian prejudices in your post that so many "Marxists" have.

With a strategy like this, you may as well resign yourself to the fact that your grandkids' generation will never see a revolution.

Not at all. You seem to think that out of nowhere that the workers will suddenly become Marxists.

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 02:02 AM

Ted Grant
Such a party [the Democratic Party!] can have a working class leadership, although it may fluctuate, given reactionary attempts to take it over (as in the British Labour Party). If it fluctuates like that, it shows that the Bourgeoisie have not taken it over, and as long as the unions stay with it, we should enter it to win others over and keep the Bourgeoisie from getting an iron grip on it....

Where is this Grant quote from? I made that post before the link. Here are my words in that post:

The workers simply being involved in it is not such a condtion. Look at the Democrats in the USA. Such a party can have a working class leadership, although it may fluctuate, given reactionary attempts to take it over (as in the British Labour Party). If it fluctuates like that, it shows that the Bourgeoisie have not taken it over, and as long as the unions stay with it, we should enter it to win others over and keep the Bourgeoisie from getting an iron grip on it. I don't think that Blair is going to have control over Labour forever. He is becoming quite unpopular, and the unions are still in Labour, for the most part. It is not too late in that instance. The goal in such fluctuations is to get decisive control in the hands of the workers. Of course, a clique of Petty-Bourgeois labour union officials do not constitute a working class leadership; the proletariat cannot leave its liberation up to a foreign class. The working class having decisive control is what is aimed at, and a reactionary sitation now does not necessarily mean that the Bourgeoisie have completely taken the party over. Blairism is not the first reactionary tendency to have attempted to take over Labour, for example.

It was not a Grant quote. Also, when I said "Look at the Democrats," I was answering your question of workers being involved in a party makes it such a party. I was assuming that you knew that the Democrats aren't a workers' party, despite workers being involved in it. I was basically saying, "No, the workers being involved in it does not make it such a party automatically. For example, the Democrats are not a workers' party despite workers being involved in it."

I think this is the same approach as the "official" Communist Party.

How am I a reformist or a degenerate Stalinist.

And now we get to the entire heart of the matter. Poor Axel1917! Poor picked-on, oppressed Axel1917! Because he thinks that he could never be a member of the League (something I cannot answer one way or the other, since I do not know enough about him or his situation to say), we are therefore "sectarian". All of these political arguments are life-or-death. Poor, poor Axel1917!

What on Earth are you talking about? Progress is not measured by the yardstick of our personal fate, to borrow a phrase from Trotsky. I don't think that an organization is sectarian just because it won't let me in. Why would I want to join your motley group of sectarians, ultra-lefts, and opportunists when I can be in an organization that is making genuine progress. Your group is composed of all kinds of people with serious differences in strategies, tactics, etc. I wonder if you practice opportunism by intentionally making your principles so vague that just about anyone can get in, thereby changing your view on things to gain members. Your practices and outlooks on entrism prove your sectarianism. You aren't sectarian just because I say so.

Marxism-Leninism.

Though I am sure the comrade can speak for himself on this matter, I can tell you that he certainly does not strike me as a "Stalinist" of any type. If I recall correctly, the comrade is more inclined toward Hekmatism than anything else. But, again, he can speak for himself.

I looked back, and the name at the board turned out to be "Marxist-Leninist". Sorry about this mistake.

I don't. I've heard enough sugary speeches to give the average comrade diabetes. I want to read concrete statements and see concrete action. Alan Woods' speeches are, to be blunt, dime-a-dozen.

Miles

Have you actually bothered reading some of his works, the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky he bases himself, on, etc.? Probably not.

Given that Armchair Socialism is an anti-dialectician, and therefore, an anti-Marxist that does not understand revolutionary processes, I shall not deal with his/her drivel. I am somewhat curious as to Miles's differences in comparasion to other ultra-lefts and such, hence me answering his posts.

Guest1

23rd March 2006, 06:55

AS seems to have no understanding of the difference between the ideology or leadership and the objective conditions of a party.

A union, just like a workers' party, can have a leadership that changes. Sometimes apathy sets in, workers stop coming to meetings, and with no one to oppose them a corrupt and opportunist bureaucracy takes root. So when workers do become active again, the first thing they will do, is reclaim their unions. They will start going to meetings again, and sweep out the old bastards and bring in people who represent their interests and will listen to their demands for action.

The same happens with labour parties, since they are still controlled to a large extent by the unions, through the union leadership. If they don't go to their union meetings, they certainly aren't going to attend the local meetings of the party. They leave it up to those leaders, just like they leave the union to them. But when they awaken, in moments of pitched battle, they fill the mass organizations again and the rubble is washed away. When the unions are reclaimed, so are the parties, and the leaderships reflect the mood of the workingclass.

It's materialism, ideology does not drop out of the sky, and neither do election results. It's a measure of the class struggle and the class-consciousness of workers. A more radical working class leads to more radical leaderships of the working class, both in the unions and the workers' parties, and successful ones at that.

Severian

23rd March 2006, 09:46

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 23 2006, 01:04 AM
A union, just like a workers' party, can have a leadership that changes. Sometimes apathy sets in, workers stop coming to meetings, and with no one to oppose them a corrupt and opportunist bureaucracy takes root. So when workers do become active again, the first thing they will do, is reclaim their unions. They will start going to meetings again, and sweep out the old bastards and bring in people who represent their interests and will listen to their demands for action.
You have a point, but I think this is off under current conditions.

It's more important how active the ranks are, and how much control they excercise in the union, than who the leaders are.

A "better" leader, under conditions where the ranks are inactive, is just someone else we look to do it something for us. I.e. instead of having to act for ourselves, liberate ourselves.

After the ranks have asserted themselves in the union, expanded union democracy in practice, begun to use it as an implement to fight against the bosses - then a new leadership can have some meaning in helping consolidate the new situation.

rebelworker

23rd March 2006, 12:59

[QUOTE]
A union, just like a workers' party, can have a leadership that changes. Sometimes apathy sets in, workers stop coming to meetings, and with no one to oppose them a corrupt and opportunist bureaucracy takes root. So when workers do become active again, the first thing they will do, is reclaim their unions. They will start going to meetings again, and sweep out the old bastards and bring in people who represent their interests and will listen to their demands for action.[QUOTE]

The problem is that power is not a neutral factor, and these corrupt or reactionary leaderships do not just get washed away without a fight.

Look at the CGT in France 68, huge workers uprising, stiffled by the leadership.
The AFL-CIO in particular has a nasty history of actively scrushing rank and file militancy.

We should be working in the unions, I have done so as a member and a paid orgniser, but never forget that the leadership will go to extreems to wipe out oposition, by purge or by bludgeon.

This is doubly true of "labour" parties.

The membership apathy you speak of dose not just drop from the sky either. The leaership will go to great lengths to de-democratize the unions, even [phisically threatning active minorities. The Unions that currently exist in North America will never become organs of revolution.

The problem of a labour party is the same as a vanguard party in many ways. It encourages a culture of power in the hands of the experts and an envyroment that is extreemly alienatng for rank n filers. Same problem with central leadership manipulation.

Too many leninists argue for insertion to "get at workers", like these workers are not to be found elsewere. Win workers over were they struggle, in the labour mvmnt, in anti poverty and anti racist mvmnts. Playing parlimentary games will only lead to reformism and disslusionment, just a quick look at the major trot parties will show you this.

Nachie

23rd March 2006, 13:41

Originally posted by rebelworker
[RAAN] .. are spread all over(seem to be collage based, Im assuming much of their networking has been striktly online).
We're not college based at all! College dropouts and "neverwents" faaaaaaar outnumber students in the network - at least as far as we can tell from the publicly-declared affiliates. One of our founders had a funny thing going on for a while where he was going to college by just walking onto campus and going to the classes he was interested in without registering, though.

As for being spread all over, I'm not sure why that would be a bad thing? Sure, if we just had single people scattered everywhere that would be one thing, but it's not the case at all. Yes we use the Internet to network and publish... but so does NEFAC and every other group. It's certainly not "strictly" online.

Flint (NEFAC Baltimore) is a buddy of mine, and he and EvilPanda from Philly (ex-NEFAC, now) helped out quite a bit in our formative days and debates over the Principles & Direction. Flint's opinion is that we were (are) all really young and at unstable points in our lives, but he was totally down with helping us out and mutual aid/respect. RAAN showed up 5-deep to a York antifa planning meeting in Penn. and heavily tipped the votes in favor of all the positions NEFAC was proposing.

RAAN really can't win, though. CrimethInc. calls us NEFAC and NEFAC calls us CrimethInc.

They're both right, heh.

We support NEFAC insofar as I don't think anybody is saying they're not genuine anarchists. They are our comrades. To be sure though, members of RAAN would cry foul if anybody ever told us to pay dues or appoint an official "International Secretariat", etc. But in the street we have and will continue to march together, often under the same red and black flags.

rebelworker, please PM or email me if you're interested in talking about this further - the commotion on this thread is hardly the place.

rebelworker

23rd March 2006, 15:01

We're not college based at all! College dropouts and "neverwents" faaaaaaar outnumber students in the network - at least as far as we can tell from the publicly-declared affiliates.

sorry, just weary of groups spread super far apart that arnt part of larger projects, automotically sets off student debate society alarms...

RAAN really can't win, though. CrimethInc. calls us NEFAC and NEFAC calls us CrimethInc.

They're both right, heh.

We support NEFAC insofar as I don't think anybody is saying they're not genuine anarchists. They are our comrades. To be sure though, members of RAAN would cry foul if anybody ever told us to pay dues or appoint an official "International Secretariat", etc. But in the street we have and will continue to march together, often under the same red and black flags.

woulnt worry too much bout what crimethinc has to say about you,

NEFAC dose pay some of our dues to our "central secretariate"(an elected, strictly executive and recallable body, some of it stays with the locals) but we decide collectively what to do with it. Dues and joint projects are essential for having any kind of lifespan and serrious influece.

I have seen so many well meaning anarchist projects come and go for lack of structure and collective vision. They end up being tied intrisically to social groups.
I recomend reading "the tyranny of structurelessness" by joe freeman.

Tyranny of Structurelessnss (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/hist_texts/structurelessness.html)

We need a revolutionary organisation, not a party, bt it still needs to get the job done.
The debate around the failure of anarchists in the russian revolution highlights this well.

Amusing Scrotum

23rd March 2006, 17:56

Originally posted by Axel1917+--> (Axel1917)Given that Armchair Socialism is an anti-dialectician....[/b]

I've actually rarely voiced any opinion on the subject, though I did read the numerous debates with interest -- and when I did post in those threads (around 5 times in total) the post was one where I was curious about something rather than an opinion as such.

As it stands, I know my limits -- I don't have the mental capacity for Hegelian philosophy, or philosophy in general, in the same way I struggle with economics, bourgeois or Marxist.

I just don't have the "brains" for that stuff. :(

Therefore, when the subject comes up, I don't really feel I have the knowledge to comment and on top of that, I'm not that interested in the whole dialectics vs. anti-dialectics debate.

What I am interested in, is what people say, and not the methods they use to come to that conclusion. Miles says a lot of interesting stuff -- via dialectics I would assume -- and redstar2000 also says a lot of interesting stuff -- not via dialectics.

And that, what you say, is what counts as far as I'm concerned and to tell the truth, I couldn't give a rats ass about the method used to come to a conclusion.

So, when looking at what Ted Grant said, I couldn't care whether what he said was "dialectal" or not, it was still nonsense. Being able to spot nonsense, is something I am able to do within the limits of my intelligence.

Indeed, perhaps one of the best indicators of when a "leftie" themselves thinks they are speaking rubbish, is when they drop the "d-bomb" -- Grant did it in that interview, "I would say they have understood nothing. They pose the question in an unmarxist and undialectical way." And St. Avakian does it every now and then after speaking a load of gibberish.

This kind of practise does create a kind of Religious aura around dialectics -- which is a method of thinking, that's all. As if the person making the remark thought their remark could stand on its own as it were, they wouldn't need to make such a claim, the type of claim that makes people feel guilty for disagreeing with it, they would just rely on the remark being analysed rationally and not emotionally.

In my opinion, such practice is a form of evasion.

Originally posted by [email protected]
....I shall not deal with his/her drivel.

Your choice I suppose.

Personally, I would have thought you would have been able to destroy "drivel" rather easily, but as I mentioned above, we all have our intellectual limits! :lol:

Che y Marijuana
A union, just like a workers' party, can have a leadership that changes.

No doubt about that.

What I dispute is the notion that the British Labour Party is a "workers' party" at all.

Anyway, I'll discuss this more in the other thread. :)

anomaly

23rd March 2006, 21:34

Axel1917 said:

Given that Armchair Socialism is an anti-dialectician
The last refuge of a struggling Trot! :lol:

He may be an anti-dialectician (I don't know, nor do I really care). But he is certainly not anti-Marxist, based on what I have read. There are many others on this board who are 'anti-dialecticians,' but most are Marxists.

From what I have seen of dialectics, I think it is a 19th century swamp of idealism.

As AS pointed out, it is what one says that is important. Many people say some pretty smart things even though they avoid the swamp. And some people say some pretty dumb things even after they've jumped in.

Besides, Marx wrote about many thing more interesting, more important, and more sensible than dialectics.

Guest1

23rd March 2006, 23:06

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 05:43 PM
Besides, Marx wrote about many thing more interesting, more important, and more sensible than dialectics.
All of which he analyzed using dialectics.

anomaly

24th March 2006, 03:37

Originally posted by Che y Marijuana+Mar 23 2006, 06:15 PM--> (Che y Marijuana @ Mar 23 2006, 06:15 PM)
[email protected] 23 2006, 05:43 PM
Besides, Marx wrote about many thing more interesting, more important, and more sensible than dialectics.
All of which he analyzed using dialectics. [/b]
Well, historical materialism makes sense, but dialectics are total bullshit.

Usually the whole 'dialectic' argument is, for some reason, employed by Leninists. Apparently they can't get any good arguments from material reality, so they resort to idealism! :lol:

Axel1917

24th March 2006, 05:45

Originally posted by anomaly+Mar 24 2006, 03:46 AM--> (anomaly @ Mar 24 2006, 03:46 AM)
Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 23 2006, 06:15 PM

[email protected] 23 2006, 05:43 PM
Besides, Marx wrote about many thing more interesting, more important, and more sensible than dialectics.
All of which he analyzed using dialectics.
Well, historical materialism makes sense, but dialectics are total bullshit.

Usually the whole 'dialectic' argument is, for some reason, employed by Leninists. Apparently they can't get any good arguments from material reality, so they resort to idealism! :lol: [/b]
Don't criticize things you don't understand. It really damages your credibility. People like Stephen Jay Gould himself used dialectical measures in their works. I hate to burst your bubble, but dialectic is neither fiction nor mysticism, to borrow a phrase from Trotsky.

anomaly

24th March 2006, 05:52

Originally posted by Axel1917+Mar 24 2006, 12:54 AM--> (Axel1917 @ Mar 24 2006, 12:54 AM) Don't criticize things you don't understand. It really damages your credibility. People like Stephen Jay Gould himself used dialectical measures in their works. I hate to burst your bubble, but dialectic is neither fiction nor mysticism, to borrow a phrase from Trotsky. [/b]
Hmmm....

wiki
4) All things contain within themselves internal dialectical contradictions, which are the primary cause of motion, change, and development in the world.

Laws of dialectics
The three laws of dialectics are:

The law of the unity and conflict of opposites;
The law of the passage of quantitative changes into qualitative changes;
The law of the negation of the negation.
Dialectical Materialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism)

Idealist bullshit.

Axel1917

24th March 2006, 06:29

Originally posted by anomaly+Mar 24 2006, 06:01 AM--> (anomaly @ Mar 24 2006, 06:01 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 12:54 AM
Don't criticize things you don't understand. It really damages your credibility. People like Stephen Jay Gould himself used dialectical measures in their works. I hate to burst your bubble, but dialectic is neither fiction nor mysticism, to borrow a phrase from Trotsky.
Hmmm....

wiki
4) All things contain within themselves internal dialectical contradictions, which are the primary cause of motion, change, and development in the world.

Laws of dialectics
The three laws of dialectics are:

The law of the unity and conflict of opposites;
The law of the passage of quantitative changes into qualitative changes;
The law of the negation of the negation.
Dialectical Materialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism)

Idealist bullshit. [/b]
Again, you demonstrate no understanding of it. Have you actually read about and understood those laws? Nope. Ugh. The Rosa Club at work for you, comrades. :rolleyes:

Martin Blank

24th March 2006, 07:37

Originally posted by Axel1917+Mar 23 2006, 01:42 AM--> (Axel1917 @ Mar 23 2006, 01:42 AM)There have been a lot of struggles within workers' organizations (Knights of Labour and other such past organizations, early CIO, etc.). There of course, sometimes are and can be some struggles outside of such organizations. However, given that the people of the USA are not going to become Marxists overnight, I think that they will end up forming such a large, traditional organization of labor once they dump the Democrats. And history shows that they are not going to go to the sects.[/b]

Both the Knights of Labor and CIO were organized outside of and in opposition to the "traditional organizations" of their day, and that was my point. When they organized, they were attacked by both the capitalists and their respective "traditional organizations", leading to them either dissolving or being forced into "merger" with that "traditional organization".

When working people do decide to once and for all leave the Democratic Party behind, I do not think they are going to ask the AFL-CIO or Change to Win to form a political party -- a "labor party" or even a "labor-oriented party". Rather, judging by historical example, I expect they will bypass these "labor lieutenants of capital" and unite in their own interests.

And this gets to the question about workers "becom Marxists overnight". While this might seem to be a nice straw man to throw around, Axel1917, it is irrelevant. "Becom[ing] Marxists" is one thing; developing a semi-instinctive, rudimentary consciousness that "Marxists" put into nice sentences and phrases is another. I can see the latter being very likely (in fact, based on my own experiences, it is already developing), and being the motivation for coming together.

[i]Originally posted by Axel1917+Mar 23 2006, 01:42 AM--> (Axel1917 @ Mar 23 2006, 01:42 AM)They may be doing something in them, and we are reaching out to these workers. I do believe that a party based on labor will be formed first in the USA, though. What else will the workers form when the subjective factor is absent?[/b]

Something that is more than a reformist bourgeois labor party, but not quite a communist political organization -- something that bypasses the scab AFL-CIO/Change to Win officials, but also remains incredibly skeptical and mistrustful of the self-described "socialist" and "communist" left organizations. It would not be the first time in U.S. history that such an organization were to be formed; hopefully, though, it will not suffer the fates of its predecessors -- either integrated back into the bourgeois order, or taken over by petty-bourgeois leftists, who drive out most of the working people and transform the rump organization into just another sect.

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 01:42 AM
Or perhaps they are fighting against the tops and perhaps will play a role in creating part of the USA's first labor-oriented party.

Oh, I think they will be involved in advancing the class struggle and independent working people's organization, but I think they would have the same response to your "labor-oriented [i.e., petty-bourgeois] party" that I do.

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 01:42 AM
Have you even read our principles, tactics, etc.

Yes, I have. So I ask again, why is the WIL not being consistent and thus denouncing the Delphi Workers' Committee as "sectarian"?

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 01:42 AM
You clearly know nothing about such organizations. I see the same sectarian prejudices in your post that so many "Marxists" have.

Well, my "sectarian prejudices" about these scab "leaders" were formed after years of being a member of those unions you think are so fucking great. Maybe after you've had a real job in a factory, mine or mill you will understand that allowing these hacks to be the leaders of any working people's movement is like placing the local "community liaison" for the cops in charge of an anti-police brutality coalition.

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 01:42 AM
Not at all. You seem to think that out of nowhere that the workers will suddenly become Marxists.

See above.

[email protected] 23 2006, 01:42 AM
How am I a reformist or a degenerate Stalinist.

Read your own words (not Grant's, my mistake):

Axel1917
Have you actually bothered reading some of his works, the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky he bases himself, on, etc.? Probably not.

Are you fucking kidding me? Is this all you can muster as a response? Your ignorance is only surpassed by your arrogance. But now I understand why you have such an affinity for, and orientation toward, the labor union officials; like them, you can only be condescending and patronizing toward working people -- especially those who disagree with you. Birds of a feather...

Miles

Axel1917

24th March 2006, 08:02

Originally posted by CommunistLeague+Mar 24 2006, 07:46 AM--> (CommunistLeague @ Mar 24 2006, 07:46 AM)

[/b]
From Communist League:

Both the Knights of Labor and CIO were organized outside of and in opposition to the "traditional organizations" of their day, and that was my point. When they organized, they were attacked by both the capitalists and their respective "traditional organizations", leading to them either dissolving or being forced into "merger" with that "traditional organization".

I apologize for a lack of clarification. There are changing conditions, and there are times when workers will form new organizations that will become new traditional centers of organization. I guess that I was in a rush, and I was partially thinking that the examples of those organizations would be self-evident.

When working people do decide to once and for all leave the Democratic Party behind, I do not think they are going to ask the AFL-CIO or Change to Win to form a political party -- a "labor party" or even a "labor-oriented party". Rather, judging by historical example, I expect they will bypass these "labor lieutenants of capital" and unite in their own interests.

They will not just become Marxists, though. The subjective factor in the USA is absent. They will more than likely form a new type of labor oriented organization, like the CIO, Knights of Labor, etc. did in their time.

And this gets to the question about workers "becom[ing] Marxists overnight". While this might seem to be a nice straw man to throw around, Axel1917, it is irrelevant. "Becom[ing] Marxists" is one thing; developing a semi-instinctive, rudimentary consciousness that "Marxists" put into nice sentences and phrases is another. I can see the latter being very likely (in fact, based on my own experiences, it is already developing), and being the motivation for coming together.

I never denied the development of class consciousness and the more likely people are going to be drawn to Marxism (why do you think I would advocate entering workers' organizations?). The point is that without the subjective factor, the workers are going to form a labor oriented organization, like the Knights of Labor did, like the CIO did, etc.

Something that is more than a reformist bourgeois labor party, but not quite a communist political organization -- something that bypasses the scab AFL-CIO/Change to Win officials, but also remains incredibly skeptical and mistrustful of the self-described "socialist" and "communist" left organizations. It would not be the first time in U.S. history that such an organization were to be formed; hopefully, though, it will not suffer the fates of its predecessors -- either integrated back into the bourgeois order, or taken over by petty-bourgeois leftists, who drive out most of the working people and transform the rump organization into just another sect.

And this will inevitably be some kind of labor oriented party. They will be developing the consciousness, but they won't be Marxists. Without the subjective factor, clearly it won't become what you think it is going to become. History has shown that.

Oh, I think they will be involved in advancing the class struggle and independent working people's organization, but I think they would have the same response to your "labor-oriented [i.e., petty-bourgeois] party" that I do.

History has already shown where the sectarian attitude toward such parites is getting the sects. Nowhere. There will be a labor oriented organization, given the lack of the subjective factor. It may be in fact highly independent of Petty-Bourgeois types, but regardless, it is not going to be something that will become Bolshevik in the blink of an eyelid.

Yes, I have. So I ask again, why is the WIL not being consistent and thus denouncing the Delphi Workers' Committee as "sectarian"?

Oh, I see. Read but not understood.

Well, my "sectarian prejudices" about these scab "leaders" were formed after years of being a member of those unions you think are so fucking great. Maybe after you've had a real job in a factory, mine or mill you will understand that allowing these hacks to be the leaders of any working people's movement is like placing the local "community liaison" for the cops in charge of an anti-police brutality coalition.

We don't support the tops and scabs. We enter to win the workers over and to expose and end up throwing out the tops and scabs. Again, you have not understood a single thing our organization has been saying.

See above.

Same to you.

When the "official" Communist Party talks about forming an "anti-monopoly, labor-centered political party", this is how it is generally expressed. This is why both the CPUSA and DSA are involved in the Democratic Party. They see this "fluctuation" taking place, in the current forms of the Democratic Leadership Caucus on one side and Progressive Democrats of America on the other. They see Howard Dean being the Democratic National Chairman as a victory over the DLC "bourgeoisie"; they see the fact that several state Democratic parties have passed resolutions calling for single-payer health care, "living wage" ordinances and withdrawal from Iraq -- all of which have been submitted by PDA or like-minded Democrats -- as further proof. By your own logic, you should be looking to join the local Democratic Club in your area in order "to win others over and keep the Bourgeoisie from getting an iron grip on it".

Good job. You completely ignored the clarification I gave to that quote that you did not understand the context of. Again, I was stating that the Democratic party is not a workers' organization.

Trotsky also called the petty bourgeoisie the "yeast" of a proletarian [!!] movement, so I really don't place much stock in comments on this topic that the Old Man made.

Oh, dear! Progress is measured by Miles's personal fate! If something happens to him, the revolution is doomed! :rolleyes:

This from a person who, in the same paragraph, says:

[email protected] 23 2006, 01:42 AM
You aren't sectarian just because I say so.

I would figure this statement also applies to his use of the epithets of "ultra-left" and "opportunist" too.

What? I was stating that me saying something does not make it true; you are sectarian because of your methods, tactics, etc. It is not becasue of me saying it.

What I find amusing in this, however, is that the "genuine progress" he sees the CMI/IMT making is increasingly looking like a Potemkin Village. More on this below.

It takes qutie a bit of effort and time for a revolution to happen, you know. We are light years ahead of the sects, and we are growing in membership and influence.

Translation: The League has members who think for themselves and do not follow the doctrine and musings of a Great Leader. I suppose I should thank you for the compliment, but I know you didn't mean it that way.

Sure. Let's open the floodgates and let in all kinds of anti-Marxists. I am sure that Lenin would have gladly invited the post-WWI Kautsky to join the Bolsheviks! :lol:

And comrades are welcome to review all of the written statements I have made on here, that the League has published in its Bulletins, its monthly newspaper and quarterly magazine to determine if we are "changing [our] views on things to gain members". Best of luck to you!

Your posts seem to indicate that you are. Hell, redstar2000 could gain all kinds of supporters if he did these things!

I believe it was Orwell in his 1984 who wrote about how members of The Party were expected to believe two mutually contradictory statements before breakfast. Comrades can draw their own conclusions here.

If this actually applied to me, you may have a point. Unfortunately, it doesn't.

Are you fucking kidding me? Is this all you can muster as a response? Your ignorance is only surpassed by your arrogance. But now I understand why you have such an affinity for, and orientation toward, the labor union officials; like them, you can only be condescending and patronizing toward working people -- especially those who disagree with you. Birds of a feather...

Miles

:lol: Again, your posts prove your lack of understanding of the subject at hand!

Martin Blank

24th March 2006, 10:37

Originally posted by Axel1917+Mar 24 2006, 03:11 AM--> (Axel1917 @ Mar 24 2006, 03:11 AM)I apologize for a lack of clarification. There are changing conditions, and there are times when workers will form new organizations that will become new traditional centers of organization. I guess that I was in a rush, and I was partially thinking that the examples of those organizations would be self-evident.[/b]

Lack of clarity is your ongoing problem. You conflate and confuse everything taking place, then attach "principles" to them like people put up wall hangers.

"[T]here are times when workers will form new organizations that will become new traditional centers of organization"?! Out of what ass did you pull this "analysis"?! Workers bypass the "traditional organizations" and independently organize "new traditional organizations"?! By this convoluted logic, any organization is a "traditional organization". You make the term meaningless -- kinda like your politics in general.

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 03:11 AM
They will not just become Marxists, though. The subjective factor in the USA is absent. They will more than likely form a new type of labor oriented organization, like the CIO, Knights of Labor, etc. did in their time.

Translation: The WIL is not in charge of the workers' movement, therefore the best we poor proles can expect is a "labor-oriented", petty-bourgeois-dominated organization rife with bureaucrats and condescending saviors. But then, if Axel1917 is typical of the kind of WILlie that is our alternative, I have to wonder what the damn difference would be.

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 03:11 AM
I never denied the development of class consciousness and the more likely people are going to be drawn to Marxism (why do you think I would advocate entering workers' organizations?). The point is that without the subjective factor, the workers are going to form a labor oriented organization, like the Knights of Labor did, like the CIO did, etc.

In other words, without "the Way, the Truth and the Light" from the WILlies, the so-called "subjective factor", were doomed to reformist oblivion. What fucking arrogance! What sectarianism! So much for Marx! So much for communism!

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 03:11 AM
And this will inevitably be some kind of labor oriented party. They will be developing the consciousness, but they won't be Marxists. Without the subjective factor, clearly it won't become what you think it is going to become. History has shown that.

You really ought to go and buy a history book. The reason these organizations were destroyed was because previous generations of condescending saviors proclaiming themselves and their organizations to be the "subjective factor" -- the "official" Communists, Trotskyists, etc. -- dashed these organizations on the rocks.

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 03:11 AM
History has already shown where the sectarian attitude toward such parites is getting the sects. Nowhere. There will be a labor oriented organization, given the lack of the subjective factor. It may be in fact highly independent of Petty-Bourgeois types, but regardless, it is not going to be something that will become Bolshevik in the blink of an eyelid.

Given your definition of "Bolshevism", I certainly hope it never becomes that. We don't need yet another petty-bourgeois, bureaucratic socialist uber-sect trying to shackle the proletariat to an exploiting class. Thankfully, though, Trot sects like yours usually spend their time kissing bureaucrat ass, leaving the actual work of education, agitation and organization to proletarian groups like ours.

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 03:11 AM
Oh, I see. Read but not understood.

I would need a frontal labotomy and total sensory depravation to "understand" the warped, surreal "logic" you're spinning here.

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 03:11 AM
We don't support the tops and scabs. We enter to win the workers over and to expose and end up throwing out the tops and scabs. Again, you have not understood a single thing our organization has been saying.

I don't give a flying fuck what kind of saccharine your leaders put out for you. I see what you do in the real world. In the real world, you scold working people in organizations like the Unison union for breaking with Labour while pimping out Tony Blair and his minions in elections. In the real world, you attack African workers while shilling for Thabo Mbeki's ANC. In the real world, you tail movements that have a measure of mass support and attack those, both inside and outside of those movements, who work to offer a political alternative.

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 03:11 AM
Good job. You completely ignored the clarification I gave to that quote that you did not understand the context of. Again, I was stating that the Democratic party is not a workers' organization.

Given how convoluted your politics are in every other area, I simply don't buy your cover-your-ass "clarifications".

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 03:11 AM
Oh, dear! Progress is measured by Miles's personal fate! If something happens to him, the revolution is doomed! :rolleyes:

This is another one of those juvenile, "am-not-you-are" moments. As a sychophant of the "Unbroken Ted", I would think that, if I was into psychobabble. However, since I am not into psychobabble, I can only conclude that this is just another faith-based analysis. He doesn't get it. He can only think in "leader-follower" terms.

I reject Trotsky's nonsense about "personal fate" for the same reason I reject his "yeast" infection of the workers' movement: it is a justification for "proletarian parties" with no proletarians. It is idealist trash that says it is possible to be "proletarian" without ever being proletarian!

For the proletarian, rejecting Trotsky's trash about "personal fate" is a materialist revolt against idealism and the anti-Marxian rejection of social being determining consciousness. For the petty bourgeois, rejecting Trotsky's statement means reducing everything to the personal. This is a difference in class consciousness, and says more about the political method Axel 1917 has inherited from the CMI/IMT than he originally intended.

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 03:11 AM
What? I was stating that me saying something does not make it true; you are sectarian because of your methods, tactics, etc. It is not becasue of me saying it.

We are not the ones elevating tactics to the level of principle. We are not the ones placing the precondition of a doctrinaire "subjective factor" on the advancement of the class struggle. We are not the ones further demanding that membership in our organization is based on a catechism of historical doctrine and narrow organizational shibboleths. In other words, we are not the sectarians here. Just because you're a large organization doesn't mean you cannot be a sect.

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 03:11 AM
It takes qutie a bit of effort and time for a revolution to happen, you know. We are light years ahead of the sects, and we are growing in membership and influence.

So what? The Socialist International is large and influential too.

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 03:11 AM
Sure. Let's open the floodgates and let in all kinds of anti-Marxists. I am sure that Lenin would have gladly invited the post-WWI Kautsky to join the Bolsheviks! :lol:

Kautsky did not agree with the principles of the Bolshevik Party. (BTW, have you ever read the principles/program of the Bolsheviks?) It should be pointed out, though, that, given your political method, you would have had all the "Old Bolsheviks" and would have kept the Mezhrayontsi out because it did not adhere to every point of doctrine and did not agree with Lenin at every turn. (And, in case you're sitting there trying to figure it out, the Mezhrayontsi was the organization Trotsky was a leading member of in 1917.)

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 03:11 AM
Your posts seem to indicate that you are.

Prove it.

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 03:11 AM
If this actually applied to me, you may have a point. Unfortunately, it doesn't.

Again, I'll let comrades make that decision for themselves.

[email protected] 24 2006, 03:11 AM
:lol: Again, your posts prove your lack of understanding of the subject at hand!

I would need a Ouiga board, two decks of Tarot cards and a phrenologist on retainer to understand your mysticism of politics.

Miles

321zero

24th March 2006, 12:04

This...

CommunistLeague
I reject Trotsky's nonsense about "personal fate" for the same reason I reject his "yeast" infection of the workers' movement: it is a justification for "proletarian parties" with no proletarians. It is idealist trash that says it is possible to be "proletarian" without ever being proletarian!

does not square with this...

Trotsky
"You have for example an important number of Jewish non worker elements in your ranks. They can be a very valuable yeast if the party succeeds by and by in extracting them from a closed milieu and ties them to the factory workers by daily activity. I believe such an orientation would also assure a more healthy atmosphere in side the patty. ...

“One general rule we can establish immediately: a party member who doesn’t win during three or six months a new worker for the party is not a good party member.

“If we established seriously such a general orientation and if we verified every week the practical results, we will avoid a great danger; namely, that the intellectuals and white collar workers might suppress the worker minority, condemn it to silence, transform the party into a very intelligent discussion club but absolutely not habitable for workers."

Axel1917

24th March 2006, 20:09

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 10:46 AM

From Communist League:

Lack of clarity is your ongoing problem. You conflate and confuse everything taking place, then attach "principles" to them like people put up wall hangers.

"[T]here are times when workers will form new organizations that will become new traditional centers of organization"?! Out of what ass did you pull this "analysis"?! Workers bypass the "traditional organizations" and independently organize "new traditional organizations"?! By this convoluted logic, any organization is a "traditional organization". You make the term meaningless -- kinda like your politics in general.

Well, lets see. The old organizations end up going to crap, and then a new one is successfully formed. Such an new organiztion takes the place of traditional organization in the sense that it is where the workers will start to go. Someone has trouble reading.

Translation: The WIL is not in charge of the workers' movement, therefore the best we poor proles can expect is a "labor-oriented", petty-bourgeois-dominated organization rife with bureaucrats and condescending saviors. But then, if Axel1917 is typical of the kind of WILlie that is our alternative, I have to wonder what the damn difference would be.

It takes time to build up a party of sufficient strength and such, in addition to how the situation unfolds. By your logic, the Bolsheviks would have seized power long before 1917.

In other words, without "the Way, the Truth and the Light" from the WILlies, the so-called "subjective factor", were doomed to reformist oblivion. What fucking arrogance! What sectarianism! So much for Marx! So much for communism!

Supporting the need for the subjective factor is sectarianism? Now I have heard everything! :lol: The party with the corret methods, principles, tactics etc., proven by the unfolding of objective phenomena, will be the party capable of leading the masses forward, and I feel that the WIL will be that organization.

You really ought to go and buy a history book. The reason these organizations were destroyed was because previous generations of condescending saviors proclaiming themselves and their organizations to be the "subjective factor" -- the "official" Communists, Trotskyists, etc. -- dashed these organizations on the rocks.

There have been quite a few bankrupt tendencies. I won't deny that. However, I don't think that the bulk of proletariains are going to become Bolsheviks the moment they abandon the democrats. What is the alternative without a subjective factor?

Given your definition of "Bolshevism", I certainly hope it never becomes that. We don't need yet another petty-bourgeois, bureaucratic socialist uber-sect trying to shackle the proletariat to an exploiting class. Thankfully, though, Trot sects like yours usually spend their time kissing bureaucrat ass, leaving the actual work of education, agitation and organization to proletarian groups like ours.

Reaching out to the workers is shackling them to the exploting class? As for the last sentence of yours, it is purely baseless.

I would need a frontal labotomy and total sensory depravation to "understand" the warped, surreal "logic" you're spinning here.

Someone would need those same things to join the Communist League.

I don't give a flying fuck what kind of saccharine your leaders put out for you. I see what you do in the real world. In the real world, you scold working people in organizations like the Unison union for breaking with Labour while pimping out Tony Blair and his minions in elections. In the real world, you attack African workers while shilling for Thabo Mbeki's ANC. In the real world, you tail movements that have a measure of mass support and attack those, both inside and outside of those movements, who work to offer a political alternative.

LOL! Somone obviously does not know too much about Marxism! The truth is that, under current circumstances, most unions are going to stay in those organizations, and as long as the Bourgeoisie don't get an iron grip and destroy them, the unions are going to stay there. I don't think that it is very likely at the current moment that unions outside of those parties are going to win the bulk of workers over!

Given how convoluted your politics are in every other area, I simply don't buy your cover-your-ass "clarifications".

And I don't buy your excuses for peddling on distortion resulting from not understanding what I said in the first place.

This is another one of those juvenile, "am-not-you-are" moments. As a sychophant of the "Unbroken Ted", I would think that, if I was into psychobabble. However, since I am not into psychobabble, I can only conclude that this is just another faith-based analysis. He doesn't get it. He can only think in "leader-follower" terms.

Another baseless personality cult claim. A big fan of Taaffee's lies, are you?

I reject Trotsky's nonsense about "personal fate" for the same reason I reject his "yeast" infection of the workers' movement: it is a justification for "proletarian parties" with no proletarians. It is idealist trash that says it is possible to be "proletarian" without ever being proletarian!

Trotsky was an idealist that wanted workers' parties without proletarians? :lol: What is next? Are you going to peddle Stalinist, Bourgeois, and Anarchist lies about Lenin? :lol:

For the proletarian, rejecting Trotsky's trash about "personal fate" is a materialist revolt against idealism and the anti-Marxian rejection of social being determining consciousness. For the petty bourgeois, rejecting Trotsky's statement means reducing everything to the personal. This is a difference in class consciousness, and says more about the political method Axel 1917 has inherited from the CMI/IMT than he originally intended.

I think you have revealed the bankruptcy of the Communist League by showing that one if its leading theoreticians does not understand what Trotsky was saying.

We are not the ones elevating tactics to the level of principle. We are not the ones placing the precondition of a doctrinaire "subjective factor" on the advancement of the class struggle. We are not the ones further demanding that membership in our organization is based on a catechism of historical doctrine and narrow organizational shibboleths. In other words, we are not the sectarians here. Just because you're a large organization doesn't mean you cannot be a sect.

You are indeed sectarian, and your continual attacks on entrism, which is currently vaild at this point in time, proves it. Not to mention your disgust for unions.

So what? The Socialist International is large and influential too.

Larger than us? Possible. More influential. I highly doubt it.

Kautsky did not agree with the principles of the Bolshevik Party. (BTW, have you ever read the principles/program of the Bolsheviks?) It should be pointed out, though, that, given your political method, you would have had all the "Old Bolsheviks" and would have kept the Mezhrayontsi out because it did not adhere to every point of doctrine and did not agree with Lenin at every turn. (And, in case you're sitting there trying to figure it out, the Mezhrayontsi was the organization Trotsky was a leading member of in 1917.)

I am continuing to read from Lenin's Collected Works. And again, I don't think that Lenin would open the floodgates to just about anyone (at least one of your members speaks highly of the redstar2000 papers!), and I don't think that the Bolsheviks had principles so vague that just about anyone could get in.

Prove it.

Well, it seems that you are now scolding the unions quite a bit, as opposed to previous posts of yours, not to mention that you have an unusual interest in talking to anti-Marxist tendenices (RAAN) in helping sort things out.

Again, I'll let comrades make that decision for themselves.

I could honestly care less about what your CL cronies think of me.

I would need a Ouiga board, two decks of Tarot cards and a phrenologist on retainer to understand your mysticism of politics.

Miles

I am sure that you already have them, and that you use them when thinking up your tactics, principles, etc.!

321zero

24th March 2006, 21:47

So what? The Socialist International is large and influential too.

Larger than us? Possible. More influential. I highly doubt it.

Um, I think he's talking about the 'Socialist' Second International - you know, the SPD, New Labour etc, etc.

Considerably more influential...

hoopla

25th March 2006, 00:07

Originally posted by Axel1917+Mar 24 2006, 12:54 AM--> (Axel1917 @ Mar 24 2006, 12:54 AM) Don't criticize things you don't understand. It really damages your credibility. People like Stephen Jay Gould himself used dialectical measures in their works. I hate to burst your bubble, but dialectic is neither fiction nor mysticism, to borrow a phrase from Trotsky.
Hmmm....

wiki
4) All things contain within themselves internal dialectical contradictions, which are the primary cause of motion, change, and development in the world.

Laws of dialectics
The three laws of dialectics are:

The law of the unity and conflict of opposites;
The law of the passage of quantitative changes into qualitative changes;
The law of the negation of the negation.
Dialectical Materialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism)

Idealist bullshit[/b]Well, dialectical materialism captures the way the world works better than metaphysical materialism, which has been "discredited" by electromagnetic field theory - 19th century stuff!

anomaly

25th March 2006, 01:45

Originally posted by Axel1917+--> (Axel1917)It takes time to build up a party of sufficient strength and such, in addition to how the situation unfolds. By your logic, the Bolsheviks would have seized power long before 1917. [/b]
We just need another Trotsky, right? :lol:

Trotsky was an idealist that wanted workers' parties without proletarians? What is next? Are you going to peddle Stalinist, Bourgeois, and Anarchist lies about Lenin?
Anarchist lies about Lenin? This caught my attention quick! What would these 'lies' be? That anarchists we killed by Bolsheviks in the Russian revolution? Well, that is true.

Also, I think CommunistLeague has some basis for his comment, to which this was your response. Trotsky helped to create a 'proletarian party' without any proletarians. Obviously, you must assert that had Trotsky been awarded the despotism rather than Uncle Joe, things would have gone much differently. However, that idea lacks any base in material reality. Indeed, it is rather logical to guess that Trotsky would have done things very similarly.

Reaching out to the workers is shackling them to the exploting class? As for the last sentence of yours, it is purely baseless.
Again, I think CommunistLeague was right. Leninist parties have never 'reached out' to the proletariat in the course of their history. Indeed, in all Leninist countries, proletarians were 'shackled' as an exploited class, while the much loved Party of yours acted as the ruling class.

Not to mention your disgust for unions.
His 'disgust' for unions is certainly a 'good thing', considering how 'unions' have become tools of the bourgeoisie. At one time, unions did contain a certain strength. Not anymore. Indeed, organizations such as Communist League are probably a better way for the proletariat to organize here in the 21st century.

not to mention that you have an unusual interest in talking to anti-Marxist tendenices (RAAN) in helping sort things out.
Any organization which does not want the party to lead the proletariat is, by your warped standards, anti-Marxist. :lol:

Indeed, if we are using your definition, being anti-Marxist is the way things need to be.

Originally posted by [email protected]
I would need a Ouiga board, two decks of Tarot cards and a phrenologist on retainer to understand your mysticism of politics.
No, you just need to understand the 'ways of the Party!' :lol:

hoopla
Well, dialectical materialism captures the way the world works better than metaphysical materialism, which has been "discredited" by electromagnetic field theory - 19th century stuff!
Metaphysical materialism would seem to be an oxymoron.

But, any philosophy that applies such silly laws to the universe as dialectical materialism does is certainly idealist, in my opinion.

Axel1917

25th March 2006, 06:44

From anomaly:

We just need another Trotsky, right? :lol:

What are you talking about? Unlike you, I have understanding of the role of the individual in history.

Anarchist lies about Lenin? This caught my attention quick! What would these 'lies' be? That anarchists we killed by Bolsheviks in the Russian revolution? Well, that is true.

The Anarchists spout the same lies that Stalin and the Bourgeoisie spout about him. The anarchists that were killed often happened to be terrorists that bombed CP headquarters and other such things.

Also, I think CommunistLeague has some basis for his comment, to which this was your response. Trotsky helped to create a 'proletarian party' without any proletarians. Obviously, you must assert that had Trotsky been awarded the despotism rather than Uncle Joe, things would have gone much differently. However, that idea lacks any base in material reality. Indeed, it is rather logical to guess that Trotsky would have done things very similarly.

What despotism? Again, more Anarchist/Bourgeois/Stalinist lies. These lies have been refuted (see http://www.marxist.com/russiabook/index.asp Seriously, look at it and not ignore it like last time!). Trotsky was nothing like Stalin. Again, you only believe the Bourgeoisie and Stalin.

Again, I think CommunistLeague was right. Leninist parties have never 'reached out' to the proletariat in the course of their history. Indeed, in all Leninist countries, proletarians were 'shackled' as an exploited class, while the much loved Party of yours acted as the ruling class.

This is purely nonsense. You have clearly not read any of Lenin's speeches, works, etc. on this subject at hand. You can't even differentiate between Marxism (it is the same thing as Leninism) and Stalinism ("Marxism-Leninism"). As Spinoza once said, "Ignorance is no argument."

His 'disgust' for unions is certainly a 'good thing', considering how 'unions' have become tools of the bourgeoisie. At one time, unions did contain a certain strength. Not anymore. Indeed, organizations such as Communist League are probably a better way for the proletariat to organize here in the 21st century.

He actually was speaking somewhat postively of them. Now he has switched, for he can't win me over, so he will try to win the ultralefts over. That proves his opportunism.

Like the workers are just going to go over to your sect! Over a century of history has proven otherwise! Did you bother reading how the communists are not sectarians in the Communist Manifesto? Obviously not!

Any organization which does not want the party to lead the proletariat is, by your warped standards, anti-Marxist. :lol:

The advocation of not supporting a party is tantamount to advocating the disarmament of the Proletariat in favor of the Bourgeoisie. Some revolutionary you are!

Indeed, if we are using your definition, being anti-Marxist is the way things need to be.

Yes, you love the idea of Bourgeois dictatorship. Your nonsense does nothing more than make attempts to divide the workers' movement and strengthen the reactionary Bourgeoisie. Anarchists have often ended up subordinating the Proletariat to Bourgeois dictatorship in the guise of the abolition of the state!

No, you just need to understand the 'ways of the Party!' :lol:

Who are you to judge, given that you refuse to read Lenin's actual works, instead preferring to read "credible" Bourgeois works on him?

But, any philosophy that applies such silly laws to the universe as dialectical materialism does is certainly idealist, in my opinion.

Your unauthoratative opinion on dialectical materialism does not invalidate it.

Martin Blank

25th March 2006, 07:30

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 07:13 AM
This does not square with this...

Trotsky
"You have for example an important number of Jewish non worker elements in your ranks. They can be a very valuable yeast if the party succeeds by and by in extracting them from a closed milieu and ties them to the factory workers by daily activity. I believe such an orientation would also assure a more healthy atmosphere in side the party....
Note that Trotsky does not mention once that such "yeast" should actually decisively and irreversibly break from those material conditions. He only asks that they be "tie[d] to the factory workers by daily activity". In other words, according to Trotsky, you can have a "proletarian party" composed of non-proletarians, as long as those scions of the exploiting classes are selling newspapers or passing out leaflets in front of factory gates on a daily basis.

Miles

anomaly

25th March 2006, 07:43

Trot gets angry.

Originally posted by Axel1917
I have understanding of the role of the individual in history.
Individuals don't make history. So individuals really have no role in history. Rather, classes, combined with material forces 'make history'. This is basic historical materialism.

The anarchists that were killed often happened to be terrorists that bombed CP headquarters and other such things.
Maybe some. Not all. Your adored Trotsky led an army that often times killed anarchists for no good reason.

Trotsky was nothing like Stalin. Again, you only believe the Bourgeoisie and Stalin.
I never said Trotsky was like Stalin. But, do you really believe Leon would have been so different than Joe? This again just 'doesn't fit' with historical materialism.

Marxism (it is the same thing as Leninism)
Funny...I've never read anything by Marx advocating a minority of 'professional revolutionaries' leading the proletariat. But, I'm sure I just missed something. :lol:

Like the workers are just going to go over to your sect! Over a century of history has proven otherwise! Did you bother reading how the communists are not sectarians in the Communist Manifesto? Obviously not!
Trotskyism and Leninism in general are functionally sectarian. Because you say either accept the Party...or get out.

The advocation of not supporting a party is tantamount to advocating the disarmament of the Proletariat in favor of the Bourgeoisie.
Um. No it isn't. Again, this is just the Trot playing with words. We don't need a party to lead us to communism. And so we reject all of your silly authoritarian nonsense! Down with 'professional revolutionaries' as leaders!

Yes, you love the idea of Bourgeois dictatorship. Your nonsense does nothing more than make attempts to divide the workers' movement and strengthen the reactionary Bourgeoisie. Anarchists have often ended up subordinating the Proletariat to Bourgeois dictatorship in the guise of the abolition of the state!
When did I say I love bourgeois dictatorship? I believe I've said over and over in my posts that anarchists want to overthrow the bourgeoisie. But we don't want a so-called 'dictatorship of the proletariat'. We want to work towards anarchism (or communism, call it what you want) from day one after the revolution. I believe it is the Leninist nonsense that we need to rid ourselves of in order to effectively 'move on'. And when have anarchists 'subordinated' the proletariat to the bourgeoisie? You can't just pull something out of your ass and cite it as fact.

Who are you to judge, given that you refuse to read Lenin's actual works, instead preferring to read "credible" Bourgeois works on him?
I've read some of What Is To Be Done. Sounds authoritarian. If you like authoritarian (you clearly do, silly question on my part!), then stay in your 'party'.

Besides, according to you, anything which criticizes Lenin is, logically, 'bourgeois'. Saint Lenin, we should call him. And stand up straight when you say it! :lol:

Your unauthoratative opinion on dialectical materialism does not invalidate it.
You are 'master of the dialectic'! :lol:

But, in any case, the argument of this particular Trot can be summed up in three words: Love Thy Party!

Martin Blank

25th March 2006, 08:30

Originally posted by Axel1917+Mar 24 2006, 03:18 PM--> (Axel1917 @ Mar 24 2006, 03:18 PM)Well, lets see. The old organizations end up going to crap, and then a new one is successfully formed. Such an new organization takes the place of traditional organization in the sense that it is where the workers will start to go. Someone has trouble reading.[/b]

When an insurgent organization takes the place of a "traditional organization", that does not mean that the former necessarily takes on the role of the latter. To think that it does is to render the very meaning of what a "traditional organization" is worthless. I don't have trouble reading. You have trouble thinking.

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 03:18 PM
It takes time to build up a party of sufficient strength and such, in addition to how the situation unfolds. By your logic, the Bolsheviks would have seized power long before 1917.

If it wasn't for the War, they may very well have seized power before 1917.

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 03:18 PM
Supporting the need for the subjective factor is sectarianism? Now I have heard everything! :lol: The party with the corret methods, principles, tactics etc., proven by the unfolding of objective phenomena, will be the party capable of leading the masses forward, and I feel that the WIL will be that organization.

No, dipshit, thinking that your little Trot sect will be The One and Only Subjective Factor™ is sectarianism. The unfortunate reality you are unwilling to face is that the CMI/IMT has already been judged as counterproductive by the test of history. That test took place years ago, when Militant was unable to do anything with what was handed to them during the Poll Tax protests. Developing that protest required creative thinking, not leaning even harder on Trotsky's corpse and hoping that, through osmosis, Ted Grant would be able to glean one more idea from the Old Man.

I have no doubt that, if the CMI/IMT had a chance to do something historic in Venezuela, we'd see a repeat performance of this failure ... and unthinking flunkies like Axel1917 would be trying to sell that shit as ice cream.

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 03:18 PM
There have been quite a few bankrupt tendencies. I won't deny that. However, I don't think that the bulk of proletariains are going to become Bolsheviks the moment they abandon the democrats. What is the alternative without a subjective factor?

Working people reading and learning the theory, and then going out and working together in their own interests. This is the kind of work we do. We do not substitute ourselves for the working class, like you and your "subjective factor" do.

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 03:18 PM
Reaching out to the workers is shackling them to the exploting class? As for the last sentence of yours, it is purely baseless.

The cold hand of death "reaches out" too. It is what happens once that hand is extended that counts. And as for the last sentence, I've seen it, I've fought it. It happens time and again. It stems from another of Trotsky's bullshit "concepts": the belief in a "progressive bureaucrat".

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 03:18 PM
Someone would need those same things to join the Communist League.

I think I'll let other League members respond to this, if they think you're worth their time. I no longer do.

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 03:18 PM
LOL! Somone obviously does not know too much about Marxism! The truth is that, under current circumstances, most unions are going to stay in those organizations, and as long as the Bourgeoisie don't get an iron grip and destroy them, the unions are going to stay there. I don't think that it is very likely at the current moment that unions outside of those parties are going to win the bulk of workers over!

This is the same argument that Shachtman and Harrington used for dissolving the old Socialist Party and entering into the Democrats as SDUSA (and later DSA).

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 03:18 PM
And I don't buy your excuses for peddling on distortion resulting from not understanding what I said in the first place.

Your method is the same as that of the Shachtman/Harrington social democrats. The only difference is that, through your "clarifications", you recoil from consistency and won't apply it to the Democratic Party. I understand fully what you're advocating here. The question is: Do you?

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 03:18 PM
Another baseless personality cult claim. A big fan of Taaffee's lies, are you?

Yes, and I am a collaborator with Goldstein too. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 03:18 PM
Trotsky was an idealist that wanted workers' parties without proletarians? :lol: What is next? Are you going to peddle Stalinist, Bourgeois, and Anarchist lies about Lenin? :lol:

No need. Lenin's actions speak for themselves. They don't need me or anyone else "spinning" them.

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 03:18 PM
I think you have revealed the bankruptcy of the Communist League by showing that one if its leading theoreticians does not understand what Trotsky was saying.

321zero posted the Trotsky quote I was referring to. Read it, then read it again. Nowhere in there does he talk about how people from non-proletarian backgrounds have to decisively and irreversibly break from those relations. This is a fundamental rupture from the position laid out by Marx and Engels, and even somewhat supported by Lenin.

We went through this with Lenin's comments on entrism, and now we're going through this with Trotsky's comments on class. Do I understand what Trotsky wrote? Yes. But the difference between you and me is that I take what he wrote at face value, and I don't try to distort or revise it to fit my own viewpoint.

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 03:18 PM
You are indeed sectarian, and your continual attacks on entrism, which is currently vaild at this point in time, proves it. Not to mention your disgust for unions.

My disgust is for union officials, not unions in general and not unionized workers. The fact that you cannot distinguish between the union officials and unions in general once again says more about you and your method than you'd like.

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 03:18 PM
Larger than us? Possible. More influential. I highly doubt it.

:blink:

Well, Axel1917, thanks for playing. I guess it's time for you to go back to neverneverland.

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 03:18 PM
I am continuing to read from Lenin's Collected Works. And again, I don't think that Lenin would open the floodgates to just about anyone (at least one of your members speaks highly of the redstar2000 papers!), and I don't think that the Bolsheviks had principles so vague that just about anyone could get in.

Here is the link to the Draft Programme of the RSDLP Lenin wrote in 1902: http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/work...aft/02feb07.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1902/draft/02feb07.htm)

Here is the link to the Draft Revised Programme of the RSDLP(B) Lenin wrote in 1917: http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/work...viprog/ch04.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/reviprog/ch04.htm)

Here is the link to the Draft Programme of the RCP(B) Lenin wrote in 1920: http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/mar/x02.htm

What we find in each of these programs (which were statements of principle) is a statement explaining the development of capitalism, the role of the proletariat and their tasks, and the place of the revolutionary social-democratic/communist organization. What we don't find is a demand that everyone agree with every turn and decision made by the leadership since the organization was founded, a requirement that every comrade adhere to the exact same view of the world or even a statement declaring their party to be "Marxist".

Vague? You could say that. It is vague in some areas, but it is also very clear in others -- incidentally, the same areas where our Basic Principles are.

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 03:18 PM
Well, it seems that you are now scolding the unions quite a bit, as opposed to previous posts of yours, not to mention that you have an unusual interest in talking to anti-Marxist tendenices (RAAN) in helping sort things out.

One can be critical of the union officials while also recognizing the need to work in those organizations. I can understand someone like you would have a hard time wrapping your brain around that, but that's not my problem. As for our conversation with the comrades of RAAN, it is not a matter of us asking them to help "sort things out". Rather, it is an honest and comradely exchange of ideas. Again, I can understand your difficulty with this, but, also again, that is not my problem.

[email protected] 24 2006, 03:18 PM
I am sure that you already have them, and that you use them when thinking up your tactics, principles, etc.!

No need. We use real-world experiences for that. Pining for the thoughts of the dead is what you 20th-century leftists are best at, so why would we interrupt?

Miles

25th March 2006, 08:30

Funny...I've never read anything by Marx advocating the 'secrecy' of the 'revolutionary organization'

Have you heard of the Communist League? The one in existence in Marx's time, and which Marx and Engels both transformed from a utopian organization called the "League of the Just" into a proletarian organization?

"A congress of the League of the Just opened in London on June 2, 1847. Engels was in attendence as delegate for the League's Paris communities. (Marx couldn't attend for financial reasons.)

Engels had a significant impact throughout the congress -- which, as it turned out, was really the "inaugural Congress" of what became known as the Communist League. This organization stands as the first international proletarian organization. With the influence of Marx and Engels anti-utopian socialism, the League's motto changed from "All Men are Brothers" to "Working Men of All Countries, Unite!"

Engels: "In the summer of 1847, the first league congress took place in London, at which W. Wolff represented the Brussels and I the Paris communities. At this congress the reorganisation of the League was carried through first of all. ...the League now consisted of communities, circles, leading circles, a central committee and a congress, and henceforth called itself the 'Communist League'."

The Rules were drawn up with the participation of Marx and Engels, examined at the First Congress of the Communist League, and approved at the League's Second Congress in December 1847. "
-Source (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/index.htm)

"The conditions of membership are:

A) A way of life and activity which corresponds to this aim;

B) Revolutionary energy and zeal in propaganda;

C) Acknowledgment of communism;

D) Abstention from participation in any anti-communist political or national association and notification of participation in any kind of association to the superior authority.

E) Subordination to the decisions of the League;

F) Observance of secrecy concerning the existence of all League affairs;

G) Unanimous admission into a community.

Whosoever no longer complies with these conditions is expelled (see Section VIII)."
-Rules of the Communist League Section I, Article 2 Source (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/rules.htm)

anomaly

25th March 2006, 08:37

Originally posted by Lazar
F) Observance of secrecy concerning the existence of all League affairs;
You got me there. However, I don't think Marx advocated workers being led by some vanguard of 'professional revolutionaries'. So, the latter part of that particular part of my post still stands.

Martin Blank

25th March 2006, 08:49

There are a few comments I think I need to make in response to those of comrade anomaly:

Originally posted by anomaly+Mar 24 2006, 08:54 PM--> (anomaly @ Mar 24 2006, 08:54 PM)His 'disgust' for unions is certainly a 'good thing', considering how 'unions' have become tools of the bourgeoisie. At one time, unions did contain a certain strength. Not anymore. Indeed, organizations such as Communist League are probably a better way for the proletariat to organize here in the 21st century.[/b]

The League has advocated the development of workplace and neighborhood committees as alternate centers of organizing to those of the "traditional organizations", not the League. That smacks too much of substituting ourselves for the working class for our own liking. The role of the League is that of providing a communist perspective and course of action, and attempting to win working people to that perspective -- regardless of whether they actually join the League or not.

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 08:54 PM
[A]ny philosophy that applies such silly laws to the universe as dialectical materialism does is certainly idealist, in my opinion.

I do not see materialist dialectics as idealism at all, but a means of explaining real-world phenomena. This is why we reject the idea that "dialectical materialism" is a science. To call it a science is to ascribe to it more than is actually there. However, as a scientific method, a means of explanation, its real-world character comes from reality itself. John-Paul Sartre's articles on dialectics are a good read on this issue.

[email protected] 25 2006, 02:52 AM
Down with 'professional revolutionaries!'

Comrade, there are "professional revolutionaries" and "professional revolutionaries". Members of the League are "professional revolutionaries" in the sense that we seek to conduct our activity in as professional a manner as possible, to remove the problems that come with amateurish methods of work. This, of course, is a far cry from the petty-bourgeois understanding of the term "professional revolutionary", which is a non-proletarian playing r-r-r-revolutionary until he or she gets their masters degree and six-figure-salary job in the establishment.

Miles

anomaly

25th March 2006, 09:05

The League has advocated the development of workplace and neighborhood committees as alternate centers of organizing to those of the "traditional organizations"
Oops. My bad.

This, of course, is a far cry from the petty-bourgeois understanding of the term "professional revolutionary", which is a non-proletarian playing r-r-r-revolutionary until he or she gets their masters degree and six-figure-salary job in the establishment.
:lol:
Well, I'm sure everyone, including you, knows which one I meant. (that one^)

321zero

25th March 2006, 12:53

In other words, according to Trotsky, you can have a "proletarian party" composed of non-proletarians

This is precisely the opposite of what Trotsky says - the meaning of the extract I posted is that non-proletarian elements must be subordinated to a proletarian orientation. The whole thrust of Trotsky and Cannon's fight here was against the 'non proletarian' elements within the SWP.

In what sense was Marx proletarian? In no way at all.

rebelworker

25th March 2006, 16:13

The unfortunate reality you are unwilling to face is that the CMI/IMT has already been judged as counterproductive by the test of history. That test took place years ago, when Militant was unable to do anything with what was handed to them during the Poll Tax protests. \

They did worse than "dropping the ball" they tried to destroy proletarian elements of the movement they couldnt controll.

The leadership went public in the bourgoise press esentially syaing they would collaborate with the state to name names and eliminate "troublemakers" ie working class people who on mass fought to defend themselves from brutal police charges.

There is a reason the militant became extinct, I dont know alot about the split, but the fact that it happened around the massive failure of the Partys efforts around the poll tax says alot.

This is a perfect example of the destructive and anti proletarian influence of centralised and self serving leadership.

Fuck vanguard Parties,
Up with working class revolutionary organisations!!!

In Solidarity(to those who dont seek to dominate our class),
rebelworker

Axel1917

25th March 2006, 23:04

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 08:39 AM

From Communist League:

When an insurgent organization takes the place of a "traditional organization", that does not mean that the former necessarily takes on the role of the latter. To think that it does is to render the very meaning of what a "traditional organization" is worthless. I don't have trouble reading. You have trouble thinking.

It can, or it can end up in some kind of merge. A tradtional organziation, say, probably would no longer have such a role if all of the workers and unions walked out of it.

If it wasn't for the War, they may very well have seized power before 1917.

I was making reference to the way it historically happened, i.e. with the war.

No, dipshit, thinking that your little Trot sect will be The One and Only Subjective Factor™ is sectarianism. The unfortunate reality you are unwilling to face is that the CMI/IMT has already been judged as counterproductive by the test of history. That test took place years ago, when Militant was unable to do anything with what was handed to them during the Poll Tax protests. Developing that protest required creative thinking, not leaning even harder on Trotsky's corpse and hoping that, through osmosis, Ted Grant would be able to glean one more idea from the Old Man.

Abusive ad hominems, eh? Rosa would be proud. The CMI judeged conterproductive by history. By history, you must confess that you can mean nothing other than the "history" of the annals of the sects, including yours. I don't see your organization getting anywhere. It isn't. You make opportunist measures to literally recruit pretty much anyone that isn't a Fascist or some kind of capitalist supporter. At least one of your members is a redstar parrot! There is democratic centrism, but you really cross the line here. You have been judged counterproductive by history, as you keep recruting your people from this very site, consisting of largely anti-Marxist, ultra-left, etc. types! The masses move through the Internet, people! :rolleyes: History will prove which tendency will end up leading the way. It won't be yours.

I have no doubt that, if the CMI/IMT had a chance to do something historic in Venezuela, we'd see a repeat performance of this failure ... and unthinking flunkies like Axel1917 would be trying to sell that shit as ice cream.

Nonsense. Unlike you, we are having an impact over there. I even have some additional information on that, but it is internal. Sorry.

Working people reading and learning the theory, and then going out and working together in their own interests. This is the kind of work we do. We do not substitute ourselves for the working class, like you and your "subjective factor" do.

The fact that you accuse us of subsituting ourselves for the working class shows that you have no idea what Bolshevism is, let alone what we stand for. Changing your position to appeal to the Anarchists now?

The cold hand of death "reaches out" too. It is what happens once that hand is extended that counts. And as for the last sentence, I've seen it, I've fought it. It happens time and again. It stems from another of Trotsky's bullshit "concepts": the belief in a "progressive bureaucrat".

You haven't seen any such thing from our organization. You don't even know what we stand for. Of course, you sectarians are quite exasperated, given that reality disproves you every step of the way. Perhaps that is why you are getting so angry and resorting to profanity.

I think I'll let other League members respond to this, if they think you're worth their time. I no longer do.

I really don't care what your cronies, your ultra-lefts, opportunists, and redstar parrots think of me.

This is the same argument that Shachtman and Harrington used for dissolving the old Socialist Party and entering into the Democrats as SDUSA (and later DSA).

The fact that you keep accusing us of supporting the Democrats and using idential logic reveals your utter lack of understanding how we function.

Your method is the same as that of the Shachtman/Harrington social democrats. The only difference is that, through your "clarifications", you recoil from consistency and won't apply it to the Democratic Party. I understand fully what you're advocating here. The question is: Do you?

Unfortunately, your prevoious posts show otherwise.

Yes, and I am a collaborator with Goldstein too. :rolleyes:

Not with Goldstein, but you do love the Taaffee Handbook of Lies.

No need. Lenin's actions speak for themselves. They don't need me or anyone else "spinning" them.

And his actions are quite different than the nonsense of your tiny sect.

321zero posted the Trotsky quote I was referring to. Read it, then read it again. Nowhere in there does he talk about how people from non-proletarian backgrounds have to decisively and irreversibly break from those relations. This is a fundamental rupture from the position laid out by Marx and Engels, and even somewhat supported by Lenin.

Perhaps more is elaborted in the whole work there. I have not read it, but it is quite clear, judging from his actions, that Trotsky had never advocated a rupture from Marxism. Changing your position to appeal to the Stalinists now?

We went through this with Lenin's comments on entrism, and now we're going through this with Trotsky's comments on class. Do I understand what Trotsky wrote? Yes. But the difference between you and me is that I take what he wrote at face value, and I don't try to distort or revise it to fit my own viewpoint.

If only you took your own advice.

My disgust is for union officials, not unions in general and not unionized workers. The fact that you cannot distinguish between the union officials and unions in general once again says more about you and your method than you'd like.

Nonsense. Prove that we want Blair to stay. Prove that we don't want to end up exposing and driving out the tops.

:blink:

Well, Axel1917, thanks for playing. I guess it's time for you to go back to neverneverland.

Influence is not necessarily determined by membership.

Here is the link to the Draft Programme of the RSDLP Lenin wrote in 1902: http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/work...aft/02feb07.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1902/draft/02feb07.htm)

Here is the link to the Draft Revised Programme of the RSDLP(B) Lenin wrote in 1917: http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/work...viprog/ch04.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/reviprog/ch04.htm)

Here is the link to the Draft Programme of the RCP(B) Lenin wrote in 1920: http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/mar/x02.htm

What we find in each of these programs (which were statements of principle) is a statement explaining the development of capitalism, the role of the proletariat and their tasks, and the place of the revolutionary social-democratic/communist organization. What we don't find is a demand that everyone agree with every turn and decision made by the leadership since the organization was founded, a requirement that every comrade adhere to the exact same view of the world or even a statement declaring their party to be "Marxist".

Now where exactly was Lenin being opportunist and letting in all kinds of anti-Party types? By your logic, he would have fused with the Mensheviks!

Vague? You could say that. It is vague in some areas, but it is also very clear in others -- incidentally, the same areas where our Basic Principles are.

Now why would any organization make vague principles?

One can be critical of the union officials while also recognizing the need to work in those organizations. I can understand someone like you would have a hard time wrapping your brain around that, but that's not my problem. As for our conversation with the comrades of RAAN, it is not a matter of us asking them to help "sort things out". Rather, it is an honest and comradely exchange of ideas. Again, I can understand your difficulty with this, but, also again, that is not my problem.

Again, we don't support the union tops. We would like to see them kicked out. We would like to see Blair kicked out of Labour. Your "comradely sorting things out" seems very sugary to me. Enough to "give comrades cavities."

No need. We use real-world experiences for that. Pining for the thoughts of the dead is what you 20th-century leftists are best at, so why would we interrupt?

Miles

Real world experience? I doubt that. We don't just strive for thoughts of the dead. Any Marxist knows that given conditions are necessarily finite, and that they change over time.

Martin Blank

26th March 2006, 02:28

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 08:02 AM
This is precisely the opposite of what Trotsky says -- the meaning of the extract I posted is that non-proletarian elements must be subordinated to a proletarian orientation. The whole thrust of Trotsky and Cannon's fight here was against the 'non proletarian' elements within the SWP.

In what sense was Marx proletarian? In no way at all.
Again, it's not what was in the Old Man's head that counts here. It was the actions he and his supporters did. In spite of all the hoopla about Cannon and his "Struggle for a Proletarian Party", the fact remains that the Socialist Workers Party of the 1940s was, by its own admission, thoroughly petty bourgeois in both its primary and secondary leadership.

It is true that many of the SWP's working-class members were drafted for service during WWII. It is also true that the jailing of SWP leaders robbed it of some of its most experienced workers at the top of the party. However, in neither instance was an effort made to replace them with workers. Instead of bringing up some of the autoworkers they had recruited to serve in the national leadership, they instead brought up the likes of Goldman and Morrow.

But another element to this question of class and Trotsky's views on it has to be brought out. In his 1937 introduction to the Communist Manifesto (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1937/1937-90commanifesto.htm), Trotsky wrote:

Basing themselves on the example of “industrial revolution” in England, the authors of the Manifesto pictured far too unilaterally the process of liquidation of the intermediate classes, as a wholesale proletarianization of crafts, petty trades, and peasantry. In point of fact, the elemental forces of competition have far from completed this simultaneously progressive and barbarous work. Capitalism has ruined the petty bourgeoisie at a much faster rate than it has proletarianized it. Furthermore, the bourgeois state has long directed its conscious policy toward the artificial maintenance of petty-bourgeois strata. At the opposite pole, the growth of technology and the rationalization of largescale industry engenders chronic unemployment and obstructs the proletarianization of the petty bourgeoisie. Concurrently, the development of capitalism has accelerated in the extreme the growth of legions of technicians, administrators, commercial employees, in short, the so-called “new middle class.” In consequence, the intermediate classes, to whose disappearance the Manifesto so categorically refers, comprise even in a country as highly industrialized as Germany about half of the population. However, the artificial preservation of antiquated petty-bourgeois strata in no way mitigates the social contradictions, but, on the contrary, invests them with a special malignancy, and together with the permanent army of the unemployed constitutes the most malevolent expression of the decay of capitalism.

There are a lot of implications to draw from this statement and precis analysis. However, Trotsky never pursued this any further than this statement. Why? I can only gather that it would have meant drawing a hard line over the admission and retention of those from the petty bourgeoisie -- including himself. In other words, if the logic was extended and applied consistently, it could have very well meant that Trotsky would not be allowed to be a member of the "Trotskyists", because of his class background and position in the "new middle class".

Some Trotskyists will argue that this was not as important as some of Trotsky's other work at the time. I happen to disagree. Trotsky's main work after this article was written was the formation of the Fourth Intenational -- what was billed as the new "World Party of Socialist Revolution". What is more important to the formation of a new political movement that says it is dedicated to proletarian revolution than an analysis of class relations in the epoch of imperialism? He had an obligation to continue this work for the sake of the new International. I can only think of two reasons why he would have not dealt with this subject again: either he did not see class questions as that important, or he had already figured out the implications of his analysis. Simply saying he didn't have time is unacceptable.

Miles

P.S.: In terms of Marx, he left behind his old class relations back in the 1840s. From that time on, he either made his living writing for newspapers as a freelancer and as a stringer, or he borrowed money -- mostly from Engels, who was a clerk in a textile mill his father partially owned.

Severian

26th March 2006, 02:40

Originally posted by CommunistLeague+Mar 24 2006, 01:46 AM--> (CommunistLeague @ Mar 24 2006, 01:46 AM)
[email protected] 23 2006, 01:42 AM
There have been a lot of struggles within workers' organizations (Knights of Labour and other such past organizations, early CIO, etc.). There of course, sometimes are and can be some struggles outside of such organizations. However, given that the people of the USA are not going to become Marxists overnight, I think that they will end up forming such a large, traditional organization of labor once they dump the Democrats. And history shows that they are not going to go to the sects.

Both the Knights of Labor and CIO were organized outside of and in opposition to the "traditional organizations" of their day, and that was my point. [/b]
The CIO split off from the AFL. It was started by the existing Miners and IIRC textile and garment unions. The leaders of these unions - principally the rather autocratic John L. Lewis - then sponsored the Steelworkers Organizing Committee, Autoworkers Organizing Committee, etc.

My point is, that people outside the "traditional" organizations, in some "red union" or something, would have found themselves outside the CIO as well....people inside the UMWA, etc were in a better situation to participate in its early organizing efforts.

As for the Knights of Labor, they were almost the first labor unions in this country! The first of any size, anyway. They had an almost open field....

****

I don't really think that participation in the existing Labour Parties is the same, though. Their character is relatively settled down by now, their branches are often more middle-class than working-class, it's just not such a great field for activity really.

Blair isn't even much responsible to the union bureaucracy anymore, let alone the ranks; it's debatable whether the British Labour Party should even be considered different from the Democratic Party anymore.

Now when a new labor party emerges in the U.S. it likely will be a lot more alive; it would be a default not to get in there and give the bureaucracy a fight over the character of that party....

Martin Blank

26th March 2006, 03:32

Originally posted by Axel1917+Mar 25 2006, 06:13 PM--> (Axel1917 @ Mar 25 2006, 06:13 PM)It can, or it can end up in some kind of merge. A tradtional organziation, say, probably would no longer have such a role if all of the workers and unions walked out of it.[/b]

But, again, that does not mean that the insurgent organization becomes the new "traditional organization". As I said before, you are robbing the term of all of its meaning with your method.

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 06:13 PM
Abusive ad hominems, eh? Rosa would be proud.

Given your petty-bourgeois arrogance and condescension, which is itself abusive, I say you get what you deserve.

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 06:13 PM
The CMI judeged conterproductive by history. By history, you must confess that you can mean nothing other than the "history" of the annals of the sects, including yours.

I don't need the sects to tell me anything. I can look at history and where your organization is in it. Militant failed to advance the anti-Poll Tax movement into something that could directly challenge the capitalist state of Elizabeth Windsor and Margaret Thatcher. By the end of the demonstrations, they had recruited only a relative handful of people; there was no lasting framework for future actions, only Militant-plus-close-contacts. The movement was allowed to die. Some call it sabotage because Militant couldn't control it. I cannot speak to that. What I can say, however, is that Militant had its chance to advance the class struggle where it was strongest, and failed the working class. That is the bitter reality you are unwilling to face -- a bitter reality that, in my view, foreshadows what the CMI/IMT will do in Venezuela, given half a chance.

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 06:13 PM
I don't see your organization getting anywhere. It isn't.

The reason you don't see us is because you're not in the working class.

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 06:13 PM
You make opportunist measures to literally recruit pretty much anyone that isn't a Fascist or some kind of capitalist supporter. At least one of your members is a redstar parrot! There is democratic centrism, but you really cross the line here.

Lies, lies and more lies. Typical. The petty bourgeois cannot accept that an organization can be non-doctrinaire and principled, so we must be either creating our own doctrine or "unprincipled" in our recruiting.

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 06:13 PM
You have been judged counterproductive by history, as you keep recruting your people from this very site, consisting of largely anti-Marxist, ultra-left, etc. types! The masses move through the Internet, people! :rolleyes: History will prove which tendency will end up leading the way. It won't be yours.

Of course, what Axel1917 won't mention is that the WIL was formed precisely this way -- by intercepting young people on the old "Cyber Communist Party" website and e-mail list.

But this really isn't the point. The point is that Axel1917 is mad because the League has been able to attract and recruit workers and young people from working-class backgrounds that are on RL ... and he and his sect haven't. Sour grapes? You betcha!

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 06:13 PM
The fact that you accuse us of subsituting ourselves for the working class shows that you have no idea what Bolshevism is, let alone what we stand for. Changing your position to appeal to the Anarchists now?

Oh, I understand very well the kind of "Bolshevism" you and your sect put out there. It is the same "Bolshevism" that liquidated the factory-shop committees in favor of one-man management. It is the same "Bolshevism" that sent the cream of the proletariat to their deaths in the Civil War while rehabilitating the tsarist bureaucracy as "specialists". It is the same "Bolshevism" that put communist workers who demanded their rights into prison while admitting "former" Mensheviks into its leadership.

I don't need to appeal to anyone to state the facts. These are all facts. You may not like them, but that is irrelevant.

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 06:13 PM
You haven't seen any such thing from our organization. You don't even know what we stand for. Of course, you sectarians are quite exasperated, given that reality disproves you every step of the way. Perhaps that is why you are getting so angry and resorting to profanity.

Quit whining about my language, Mr. Petty Bourgeois. If you don't like it, go back to the yuppie coffeehouse you came from.

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 06:13 PM
I really don't care what your cronies, your ultra-lefts, opportunists, and redstar parrots think of me.

Oh, yes, we are the "anti-WIL". Trying out for the Spartacist League, are you?

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 06:13 PM
The fact that you keep accusing us of supporting the Democrats and using idential logic reveals your utter lack of understanding how we function.

Oh, I understand how you function very well. You are inconsistent in your methods, which are opportunist to the core, but try to cloak them in "r-r-r-revolutionary" phraseology.

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 06:13 PM
Perhaps more is elaborted in the whole work there. I have not read it, but it is quite clear, judging from his actions, that Trotsky had never advocated a rupture from Marxism. Changing your position to appeal to the Stalinists now?

In Axel1917's little world, a communist can only be a Trotskyist or a "Stalinist" (i.e., any communist who is not a Trotskyist). If they're anything else, they're an anarchist. Paging Jim Robertson....

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 06:13 PM
Nonsense. Prove that we want Blair to stay. Prove that we don't want to end up exposing and driving out the tops.

You have consistently called for a vote to New Labour in every election. You have attacked any attempts to organize independently of New Labour -- including attacking other Labour Left organizations. Socialist Appeal has virtually isolated itself from every other formation inside the Labour Party, and has thus reduced all of its talk about "exposing and driving out the tops" to just that -- talk.

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 06:13 PM
Influence is not necessarily determined by membership.

Keep that in mind the next time you want to lecture anyone about how large the CMI/IMT is or is becoming.

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 06:13 PM
Now where exactly was Lenin being opportunist and letting in all kinds of anti-Party types? By your logic, he would have fused with the Mensheviks!

Until 1912, he tried to do precisely that -- reunify the two wings of the RSDLP, based on the 1902 Programme.

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 06:13 PM
Now why would any organization make vague principles?

That's my point. You were the one who accused us of "vague principles". I showed you how our principles are as "vague" as those written by Lenin for your much-revered "Bolshevik Party". Now you ask the big question. Perhaps the best answer I can give you is that it is not our principles -- or those written by Lenin -- that are "vague"; perhaps it is your "principles" that are too narrow, too doctrinaire, too chock full of shibboleths.

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 06:13 PM
Your "comradely sorting things out" seems very sugary to me. Enough to "give comrades cavities."

I said "comradely exchange of ideas". Once again, you are consciously distorting a position to fit your preconceived views. You really need to try living in the real world.

[email protected] 25 2006, 06:13 PM
Real world experience? I doubt that. We don't just strive for thoughts of the dead. Any Marxist knows that given conditions are necessarily finite, and that they change over time.

You have already admitted that you have very little experience, so I can just let your little piece of flotsam lay where it is.

Miles

Martin Blank

26th March 2006, 03:51

Originally posted by Severian+Mar 25 2006, 09:49 PM--> (Severian @ Mar 25 2006, 09:49 PM)The CIO split off from the AFL. It was started by the existing Miners and IIRC textile and garment unions. The leaders of these unions - principally the rather autocratic John L. Lewis - then sponsored the Steelworkers Organizing Committee, Autoworkers Organizing Committee, etc.[/b]

Yes and no. The CIO (Committee of Industrial Organization) left the AFL, but the CIO (Congress of Industrial Organizations) was formed separately. It is often not remembered that there were, in fact, two different groups -- the former being a part of the latter, along with splits from other existing unions (e.g., Teamsters) and new unions (e.g., UAW).

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 09:49 PM
My point is, that people outside the "traditional" organizations, in some "red union" or something, would have found themselves outside the CIO as well....people inside the UMWA, etc were in a better situation to participate in its early organizing efforts.

We're not talking about "red unions" here.

[email protected] 25 2006, 09:49 PM
As for the Knights of Labor, they were almost the first labor unions in this country! The first of any size, anyway. They had an almost open field....

Wrong. The KoL was formed in 1869. There had already been a number of labor unions and some union federations in existence before then. In some ways, the KoL was a rebellion against the National Labor Union, which was an affiliate of the International Working Men's Association. Ironically, the KoL itself faced a rebellion that led to the formation of a new organization, the American Federation of Labor.

321zero

26th March 2006, 05:35

In other words, if the logic was extended and applied consistently, it could have very well meant that Trotsky would not be allowed to be a member of the "Trotskyists", because of his class background and position in the "new middle class".

The 'logic' you refer to, outlined in the Manifesto introduction says nothing about who is 'allowed' to join a party. Rather it is a description of the development of capitalist class relations. Now since Trotsky’s time the 'new middle class' in the developed capitalist countries has stratified still further with the majority becoming I think more proletarian. Certainly the 'white-collar' does not necessarily carry the same cachet or relative compensation that it did then, and the burgeoning service industry certainly doesn't qualify as a conduit of bourgeois influence. Bourgeois ideologists like to interpret the decline of the industrial proletariat in the west as meaning that 'we are all middle class now', but I think this is transparent propaganda.

The 'Struggle for a Proletarian Party' was just that, a struggle which was lost, or perhaps more accurately, abandoned, in the rush to theorise the post-WW2 Stalinist expansion, and the Chinese and Cuban revolutions. In any case Trotsky advocated a political struggle over the orientation of the SWP. The remark about party intellectuals having to recruit a worker every six months in order to qualify as a 'good' party member was the closest he came to recommending any kind of administrative measure. Which is I think what we're actually discussing here?

Trotsky’s class background was relatively modest, and he left his class background behind considerably earlier in life than Marx, starting his first prison sentence and exile aged 21. Like Marx he worked as a journalist, with a few years in the Soviet government in between.

Take note of the quotation marks around 'new middle class'. They're there because this is not a Marxist category, as can be clearly seen if you try to parse out what it means in terms of relation to the means of production.

Again, it's not what was in the Old Man's head that counts here. It was the actions he and his supporters did.

Just in case this tempts anyone to make a crack about the contents of the Old Man's head I'm gonna pre-empt them. Done. Trotsky was loath to intervene directly into the affairs of the SWP, but his 'actions' regarding the proletarian orientation of the SWP are pretty evident - he waged a political struggle against the petty-bourgeois tendencies in the SWP, which manifested primarily as a struggle against those who were seeking a means to justify abandoning the defence of the USSR, or the gains of October if you prefer. This political struggle was partially successful as can be seen in the SWPs principled stance on the war.

I think your suggestion that "simply saying he didn't have enough time... [to do further work on what you guess should have his priority]... is unacceptable" is unfair. Perhaps the problem is that he didn't know how little time was left him

Axel1917

26th March 2006, 06:10

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 03:41 AM

From Communist League:

But, again, that does not mean that the insurgent organization becomes the new "traditional organization". As I said before, you are robbing the term of all of its meaning with your method.

If the old traditional organization crumbles and the workers and unions leave it, is it really any kind of workers' organization anymore? The problem is that you don't understand our methods very well.

Given your petty-bourgeois arrogance and condescension, which is itself abusive, I say you get what you deserve.

Not using profanity and being in a genuine, nonsectarian movement constitues petty-bourgeois arrogance? Talk about a lack of understanding of the most basic things...

Excessive ad hominems are a sign of immaturity.

I don't need the sects to tell me anything. I can look at history and where your organization is in it. Militant failed to advance the anti-Poll Tax movement into something that could directly challenge the capitalist state of Elizabeth Windsor and Margaret Thatcher. By the end of the demonstrations, they had recruited only a relative handful of people; there was no lasting framework for future actions, only Militant-plus-close-contacts. The movement was allowed to die. Some call it sabotage because Militant couldn't control it. I cannot speak to that. What I can say, however, is that Militant had its chance to advance the class struggle where it was strongest, and failed the working class. That is the bitter reality you are unwilling to face -- a bitter reality that, in my view, foreshadows what the CMI/IMT will do in Venezuela, given half a chance.

And again, nothing but sectarian arrogance here. The condtions were not the same as they were in 1917, of which allowed the Bolsheviks to come to power.

Not to mention that we have done far more than your sect ever will.

The reason you don't see us is because you're not in the working class.

So janitors are now either petty-bourgeois or Bourgeois? This alone shows the sheer intellectual bankruptcy of your organization. You have really damaged your credibity here. No one in their right mind would consider janitors to be in the petty-bourgeois or the Bourgeoisie. I live by selling my labour-power. I own no means of prodution, and I am certainly not a lumpenproletarian. Good job on completely destroying your credibility here!

Lies, lies and more lies. Typical. The petty bourgeois cannot accept that an organization can be non-doctrinaire and principled, so we must be either creating our own doctrine or "unprincipled" in our recruiting.

I am neither petty-bourgeois in my outlook or in my relation to the means of production. Talk about nonsense here. You are turning out to be just as ill-informed as the bulk of this board.

Of course, what Axel1917 won't mention is that the WIL was formed precisely this way -- by intercepting young people on the old "Cyber Communist Party" website and e-mail list.

That is not the sole way things happened. More lies.

But this really isn't the point. The point is that Axel1917 is mad because the League has been able to attract and recruit workers and young people from working-class backgrounds that are on RL ... and he and his sect haven't. Sour grapes? You betcha!

I could care less. redstar parrots, opportunists, ultra-lefts, in the last analysis, aren't so revolutionary. Any Marxist should know that. If people are coming into your organization from the bulk of this site without correcting their numerous mistakes, something is wrong with your principles, ideas, tactics, etc.

Oh, I understand very well the kind of "Bolshevism" you and your sect put out there. It is the same "Bolshevism" that liquidated the factory-shop committees in favor of one-man management. It is the same "Bolshevism" that sent the cream of the proletariat to their deaths in the Civil War while rehabilitating the tsarist bureaucracy as "specialists". It is the same "Bolshevism" that put communist workers who demanded their rights into prison while admitting "former" Mensheviks into its leadership.

We are reaching out to the workers, growing, have been the only ones with the correct understanding of what is going in in Venezuela, etc., and you have the nerve to call us sectarian? Again, more baseless nonsense!

I don't need to appeal to anyone to state the facts. These are all facts. You may not like them, but that is irrelevant.

You would have a point, if these were actually facts.

Quit whining about my language, Mr. Petty Bourgeois. If you don't like it, go back to the yuppie coffeehouse you came from.

More juvenile immaturity here.

Oh, yes, we are the "anti-WIL". Trying out for the Spartacist League, are you?

Oh, dear. I am so scared of what the sects are going to do! They are going to overtrake us by the sheer power of their splits and lack of organization! :rolleyes: I have only bothered responding to you out of curiousity, as you seem to have a different take on sectarianism and opportunism than the other sectarians and opportunists. Clearly, though, you are just as bad as them.

Oh, I understand how you function very well. You are inconsistent in your methods, which are opportunist to the core, but try to cloak them in "r-r-r-revolutionary" phraseology.

More baseless drivel.

In Axel1917's little world, a communist can only be a Trotskyist or a "Stalinist" (i.e., any communist who is not a Trotskyist). If they're anything else, they're an anarchist. Paging Jim Robertson....

Oh, and you wish to spout more lies, do you?

You have consistently called for a vote to New Labour in every election. You have attacked any attempts to organize independently of New Labour -- including attacking other Labour Left organizations. Socialist Appeal has virtually isolated itself from every other formation inside the Labour Party, and has thus reduced all of its talk about "exposing and driving out the tops" to just that -- talk.

There is nothing outside of it, and it is not like the majority of the unions are leaving, now are they? The other political parties cannot provide an alternative either.

Keep that in mind the next time you want to lecture anyone about how large the CMI/IMT is or is becoming.

I never denied that size does not necessarily determine influence, now have I? We are more influential than other larger organizations, like the CWI (just look at our successes in Pakistan and Venezuela compared to theirs).

Until 1912, he tried to do precisely that -- reunify the two wings of the RSDLP, based on the 1902 Programme.

Was not exactly feasible, and later on, he never made such attempts. A good deal of Mensheviks sided with the Bourgeoisie in the Russian Civil War.

That's my point. You were the one who accused us of "vague principles". I showed you how our principles are as "vague" as those written by Lenin for your much-revered "Bolshevik Party". Now you ask the big question. Perhaps the best answer I can give you is that it is not our principles -- or those written by Lenin -- that are "vague"; perhaps it is your "principles" that are too narrow, too doctrinaire, too chock full of shibboleths.

Actually not. Our principles are far more clear-cut, specific, and Bolshevik. We are not the ones committing sectarian errors, now are we?

I said "comradely exchange of ideas". Once again, you are consciously distorting a position to fit your preconceived views. You really need to try living in the real world.

That seemed far more sugary than any ordinary "comradely exchange of ideas." As for the last sentence, take your own advice.

You have already admitted that you have very little experience, so I can just let your little piece of flotsam lay where it is.

Miles

Perhaps, but there are others that have far more experience than me in the WIL, of whom use correct tactics, principles, methods, etc. And even I can see your problems.

You don't really seem any different from the rest of the ultra-lefts, opportunists, etc. at this site, as I have seen. Perhaps you aren't really worth responding to anymore.

Martin Blank

26th March 2006, 11:16

Originally posted by 321zero+Mar 26 2006, 12:44 AM--> (321zero @ Mar 26 2006, 12:44 AM)The 'logic' you refer to, outlined in the Manifesto introduction says nothing about who is 'allowed' to join a party. Rather it is a description of the development of capitalist class relations.[/b]

Your understanding of the development of class relations has a direct bearing on how you organize, what kind of organization you choose to build, etc. At least, it should for any healthy organization. It mattered for Marx and Engels; it mattered for the communist and revolutionary workers' movements of the 19th century. It was near the turn of the 20th century, after the death of Engels, that class composition was all but scrapped by successive movements.

Kautsky can be thanked for starting this process. It was when he took over as chief theoretician of the German Social-Democrats, and the Second International, that the importance of class began to be de-emphasized. Marx and Engels' materialist view of the petty bourgeois as "an adulterating element" in a proletarian organization was thrown out, in favor of an idealist view of class that shifted the emphasis from social being to social position -- i.e., from a historic development to a momentary placement.

Unlike economism, which was the revisionism that was fought, this idealist conception of class, this revisionism, was accepted throughout most of the Second International, including by Lenin, Trotsky and all the other leading "revolutionary Marxists".

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 12:44 AM
Now since Trotsky’s time the 'new middle class' in the developed capitalist countries has stratified still further with the majority becoming I think more proletarian.

You see "technicians, administrators, commercial employees, etc.", being "more proletarian"? :rolleyes:

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 12:44 AM
Certainly the 'white-collar' does not necessarily carry the same cachet or relative compensation that it did then, and the burgeoning service industry certainly doesn't qualify as a conduit of bourgeois influence. Bourgeois ideologists like to interpret the decline of the industrial proletariat in the west as meaning that 'we are all middle class now', but I think this is transparent propaganda.

Marx saw that office employees -- secretaries, clerks, etc. -- would be proletarianized as technology advanced. And, personally, I think he would see workers in industries like fast food as closer to traditional "blue collar" manufacturing workers than "white collar" office/clerical workers. But none of these jobs have anything to do with what Trotsky was referring to as the "new middle class". Trotsky was referring to managers ("administrators"), independent professionals ("technicians"), bureaucrats and middlemen ("commercial employees"), which were the same people Marx and Engels saw replacing the old petty bourgeoisie as capitalism developed -- the "overlookers, bailiffs and shopmen" referred to in the Communist Manifesto.

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 12:44 AM
The 'Struggle for a Proletarian Party' was just that, a struggle which was lost, or perhaps more accurately, abandoned, in the rush to theorise the post-WW2 Stalinist expansion, and the Chinese and Cuban revolutions. In any case Trotsky advocated a political struggle over the orientation of the SWP. The remark about party intellectuals having to recruit a worker every six months in order to qualify as a 'good' party member was the closest he came to recommending any kind of administrative measure. Which is I think what we're actually discussing here?

Yes and no. Trotsky's comments about the petty bourgeois being a "yeast" is endemic of a political problem that extended back to Kautsky and pre-WWI Social Democracy. That problem is also why Cannon's "Struggle for a Proletarian Party" was itself doomed to failure. It was a struggle that was lost before it was even begun, because of the "tradition" of the 20th century's self-described socialist and communist movements to blur and, in some places, erase the class line.

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 12:44 AM
Trotsky’s class background was relatively modest, and he left his class background behind considerably earlier in life than Marx, starting his first prison sentence and exile aged 21. Like Marx he worked as a journalist, with a few years in the Soviet government in between.

Uh, "relatively modest" compared to what? Trotsky's parents were landowning peasants in the Ukraine, with servants and the only grain mill in the area.

And while it is true that Trotsky, like Marx, wrote articles for newspapers, there is a fundamental difference: Unlike Marx, Trotsky wrote most of his articles as a salaried journalist for social-democratic or liberal newspapers, not as a piecework stringer or freelancer trying to eke out a living when and where he could.

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 12:44 AM
Take note of the quotation marks around 'new middle class'. They're there because this is not a Marxist category, as can be clearly seen if you try to parse out what it means in terms of relation to the means of production.

Trotsky's placement of "new middle class" in quotes is more an allusion to the Manifesto than your suggestion of it being "not a Marxist category". In the Manifesto, Marx and Engels speak of how "a new class of petty bourgeois has been formed, fluctuating [schwebt: floating; also moving, shifting, oscillating; but not fluctuating, which is schwankt -- HJM] between proletariat and bourgeoisie, and ever renewing itself as a supplementary part of bourgeois society."

Again, it's not what was in the Old Man's head that counts here. It was the actions he and his supporters did.

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 12:44 AM
Trotsky was loath to intervene directly into the affairs of the SWP, but his 'actions' regarding the proletarian orientation of the SWP are pretty evident - he waged a political struggle against the petty-bourgeois tendencies in the SWP, which manifested primarily as a struggle against those who were seeking a means to justify abandoning the defence of the USSR, or the gains of October if you prefer.

Trotsky was "loathe" to interefere in the affairs of the SWP (and, I would figure, its predecessors)?! Where do you get this from? The Writings of Leon Trotsky are rife with articles, letters and documents that form a robust campaign of intervention in the U.S. Trotskyists. He wasn't always well-informed when he decided to intervene, but that never stopped him. Even many of his articles written about events in Europe -- the rise of Hitler, the Spanish Revolution, the degeneration of the USSR, etc. -- were written for the SWP's publications and/or internal bulletins.

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 12:44 AM
This political struggle was partially successful as can be seen in the SWPs principled stance on the war.

The position adopted by the SWP in 1940 was principled. The position in 1941 was principled. After that, though, there begin to be problems. The SWP's approach to China was not very principled; the de-emphasis of the character of the European War as inter-imperialist was also not very principled. On top of this was the fact that, to be blunt, Cannon and the other SWPers were not the same people -- i.e., revolutionary communists -- when they came out of prison in 1945.

Taken together, it can be argued that the SWP ceased to be the kind of organization Trotsky would recognize as his own during the War. However, the real question is: What kind of organization was the SWP before this time?

[email protected] 26 2006, 12:44 AM
I think your suggestion that "simply saying he didn't have enough time... [to do further work on what you guess should have his priority]... is unacceptable" is unfair. Perhaps the problem is that he didn't know how little time was left him

You may think it is unfair, but I disagree. The class analysis should have been his priority in the runup to the foundation of the Fourth International; the draft of the 1938 program should have been left to someone else.

Miles