Questions About The Communist League

[which doctor]

I have a few questions regarding the Communist League.

Are students who work part time to support themselves allowed to join?

Are self-employed poor artists allowed to join?

Has the CL ever accomplished anything or are they still in their infancy?

Why would one join the CL over the numerous other politcal organizations?

Is the "Workers Republic" similar in function to the DoP?

Are temporarily unemployed people searching for work allowed to join?

Thanks!

[KC]

Are students who work part time to support themselves allowed to join?


Yes. The requirement is that you must be proletarian to join. Since you work for a living to support yourself, you're proletarian.



Are self-employed poor artists allowed to join?

I would say no; however, they can be supporters and work on League issues with League members.



Has the CL ever accomplished anything or are they still in their infancy?


We are still in our infancy, yet we have accomplished many things. From being among the first to get relief to victims of hurricane Katrina (we were there before the government) to getting closely involved in the May Day immigrant rights marches, to supporting the Iraq Freedom Congress, and so on. Of course, we have been involved with other events, but these are probably some of the larger things that we have been involved in; other League members can tell you of their work if they wish.



Why would one join the CL over the numerous other politcal organizations?


Because most of the left is too preoccupied with fighting other leftist organizations to accomplish anything. We are non-sectarian; anyone that agrees with the basic principles can join. Because of this we have a wide range of communists within our organization; from ultra-left to Marxist-Leninist.

Also, we're proletarian only. A lot of the left has been infiltrated by the petty-bourgeoisie, and it has had a profoundly detrimental effect. We believe that, while non-proletarians can help in the movement, that since this movement is the proletariat's, they will maintain control of it. While non-proletarians can help, they should have no part in the decision making process.



Is the "Workers Republic" similar in function to the DoP?


Are you referring to our Action Platform?



Are temporarily unemployed people searching for work allowed to join?


People that are unemployed between jobs are still proletarian. So the answer is yes.

[which doctor]

Originally posted by KC+--> (KC)Since you work for a living to support yourself, you're proletarian.[/b]

KC
I would say no; however, they can be supporters and work on League issues with League members.
So you don't consider being an artist, work?


to supporting the Iraq Freedom Congress
So you support reformist politics, eh?


anyone that agrees with the basic principles can join.
Eh...more like anyone who is a prole and agrees can join, right?


Are you referring to our Action Platform?
I believe so, I read it somewhere on your website.

[KC]

So you don't consider being an artist, work?

It's work insofar as a small business owner works. However, I don't see how they're proletarian.



So you support reformist politics, eh?

It's a lot less reformist than you think.


9-Basic Tactics:
a) Local Control: mobilising people and taking over the control of local area and districts; taking local control out of the realm of the Islamic, the US, and nationalist forces, and transferring power over to the people on the basis laid out in the Manifesto of IFC. “People’s Houses” will serve as the basis of organising people and means of implementing their sovereignty.
b) Armed Militia: Setting up people’s armed militia to counteract aggression of forces hostile to people’s sovereignty.
-IFC Organizational Structure (http://www.ifcongress.com/English/organization%20structure.htm)



Eh...more like anyone who is a prole and agrees can join, right?


Well, yeah.

Did you start this thread because you actually wanted to know the answers to these questions, or did you just do it to be an ass?

[which doctor]

I asked it because I wanted to learn more about the CL, not that I would join or anything.

[Whitten]

It's work insofar as a small business owner works. However, I don't see how they're proletarian.

If they are earning royalties in some form, then they are not proletarian, otherwise they are proletarian, in the sense that they "earn capital through the sale of their labour"

[Janus]

The requirement is that you must be proletarian to join.
Also, if you're a student, you have to have proletarian background to join.


Is the "Workers Republic" similar in function to the DoP?
Yes, that's how some such as James Connolly have referred to the DoP.

[KC]

If they are earning royalties in some form, then they are not proletarian, otherwise they are proletarian, in the sense that they "earn capital through the sale of their labour"

:huh:

An artist that sells their works essentially runs a business. Small business owners are petty-bourgeois.

[which doctor]

Also, if you're a student, you have to have proletarian background to join.
So, if someone who grows up in a bourgeois family, then joins the proletariat and doesn't receive any financial aid from their parents, then they can't join the CL? or can they since they have become proletarianized?

Another question...

Can a homemaker with a proletarian partner join the CL?

[Janus]

So, if someone who grows up in a bourgeois family, then joins the proletariat and doesn't receive any financial aid from their parents, then they can't join the CL?
Well, he/she would be a worker, wouldn't he/she?


Can a homemaker with a proletarian partner join the CL?
Well, if she came from a prole background.

[bazarov]

I find this discussion rather saddening. Has the Communist League really thought this through? You are judging potential comrades on their resumes and job descriptions rather than their political/social conscience and beliefs. Artists are too bourgeois because technically they are self employed? Yeah, those artists and their disgusting bourgeois values....

I know what you are saying about many leftist organizations being petit-bourgeois and I agree to a large extent. But I think it is self-defeating and nonsensical to tackle the problem by screening members in this fashion.

For one thing, there is a huge amount of grey area when trying to pin a label on someone. There are those who are obvious bourgeoisee and those who are obviously workers but many others defy rigid categorization.

Take myself for example. I am from a poor working class background. I've had a keen class conciousness since I was young. In fact I would say I've always been a socialist to one degree or another. I've been a factory laborer, sawmill worker, and garbage pitcher among other working class occupations. Everyday of my life I've been aware that I was working my a$$ off to keep other people rich. My kids have gone without so that theirs could have more than they need. I've been itching for revolution the whole time.

I've also spent the whole time trying to improve myself by going to school. Now I've finally made it to law school where my goal isn't to become a wealthy attorney but to make myself a more formidable opponent to the corporate world order and capitalism in general.

In my view the bourgeois is in full rape and pillage mode since the end of the Cold War. They are making war on the workers of the world. We should be making war back. Personally I plan to do just that in whatever fashion I can whether it is by picking up a Kalashnikov or becoming a pain in the a$$ activist lawyer. As I don't see anyone out there manning the barricades right now, I am proceeding with the latter.

According to your organization I wouldn't have any place in the revolution except "support" because of my occupation. You'll have to excuse me if I call b.s. on that.

If you were to go back and rid the communist/socialist movement of all who didn't strictly fit the definition of proletarian we would have a very meager tradition to draw on indeed.

I certainly hope the comrades in the Communist League reconsider this stance.

[Janus]

Has the Communist League really thought this through?
Yes.


You are judging potential comrades on their resumes and job descriptions rather than their political/social conscience and beliefs. Artists are too bourgeois because technically they are self employed?
This is because bourgeois and petit bourgeois support is generally objectively unreliable.


According to your organization I wouldn't have any place in the revolution except "support" because of my occupation. You'll have to excuse me if I call b.s. on that.
No, we are not saying that you have no place in the revolution. After all you are a radical leftist. We are saying that those who do not fulfill our requriements do not have a place in our organization. There is a major difference there.


If you were to go back and rid the communist/socialist movement of all who didn't strictly fit the definition of proletarian we would have a very meager tradition to draw on indeed.
The CL is not saying that we can't learn from non-prole leftists but that they simply can't join the organization. It is precisely from this "tradition" that we drew up this requirement. By keeping out bourgeois or petit bourgeois, we are keeping out a class of people who have a high percentage of members who speak a lot of rhetoric but are reactionary in deeds. This doesn't mean that workers are perfect either but that through exclusive proletarian membership we are hoping to prevent a greater chance of political degeneration, reformism, opportunism, etc.

[KC]

I find this discussion rather saddening. Has the Communist League really thought this through? You are judging potential comrades on their resumes and job descriptions rather than their political/social conscience and beliefs. Artists are too bourgeois because technically they are self employed? Yeah, those artists and their disgusting bourgeois values....

Actually, we're judging people on their class. It is a proven fact that middle class people have different class interests than working class people, and that capitalists have different class interests than both. In fact, many of these interests regularly come into conflict with one another. Also, historically the petty-bourgeoisie have had a major role in the subversion of working class actions.

Now, we're not saying that we don't accept help from middle class individuals (in fact we have many formal sympathizers that are middle class and that work closely with League members), but the petit-bourgeois should have no say in the administrative decisions of the proletarian movement. This is why they are not allowed to join the League.



I know what you are saying about many leftist organizations being petit-bourgeois and I agree to a large extent. But I think it is self-defeating and nonsensical to tackle the problem by screening members in this fashion.

For one thing, there is a huge amount of grey area when trying to pin a label on someone. There are those who are obvious bourgeoisee and those who are obviously workers but many others defy rigid categorization.

We haven't had a problem with it at all. Neither have other organizations that have been proletarian-only.


Take myself for example. I am from a poor working class background. I've had a keen class conciousness since I was young. In fact I would say I've always been a socialist to one degree or another. I've been a factory laborer, sawmill worker, and garbage pitcher among other working class occupations. Everyday of my life I've been aware that I was working my a$$ off to keep other people rich. My kids have gone without so that theirs could have more than they need. I've been itching for revolution the whole time.

I've also spent the whole time trying to improve myself by going to school. Now I've finally made it to law school where my goal isn't to become a wealthy attorney but to make myself a more formidable opponent to the corporate world order and capitalism in general.

I don't see how having a law degree makes one petty-bourgeois. Do you mean you're just going to law school to learn about the law or to become an attorney (but not a wealthy one like you have said)?


In my view the bourgeois is in full rape and pillage mode since the end of the Cold War. They are making war on the workers of the world. We should be making war back. Personally I plan to do just that in whatever fashion I can whether it is by picking up a Kalashnikov or becoming a pain in the a$$ activist lawyer. As I don't see anyone out there manning the barricades right now, I am proceeding with the latter.

According to your organization I wouldn't have any place in the revolution except "support" because of my occupation. You'll have to excuse me if I call b.s. on that.

Well, I would say that you're going to be petty-bourgeois and wouldn't be allowed to join, but some other League members might disagree. It's not a huge deal, though, as all we have to do is have a discussion on whether or not activist lawyers are allowed to join.

As Janus pointed out, you do have a place in the movement; however, your place is not to decide how the movement is run.


If you were to go back and rid the communist/socialist movement of all who didn't strictly fit the definition of proletarian we would have a very meager tradition to draw on indeed.)

If you were to go back and rid the communist/socialist movement of all who didn't strictly fit the definition of proletarian, capitalism could be a thing of the past.

(I certainly hope the comrades in the Communist League reconsider this stance.

We most certainly won't. This movement is for workers and not the middle class. To say that other classes (with antagonistic class interests)should have a say in how the working class movement should be run is basically a betrayal to the movement.

[bazarov]

Well, I can't say you've swayed me on my initial response. I am still left with the contradiction that someone from a working class background whose motivations and goals mirror your own would not be allowed effective membership in your organization because of their current job description.

Understand I am not at all arguing against the reality of classes here or saying that in general it is useless to try identify a person by class. That is the whole point of course: a classless society, and we can't achieve that if we aren't able to identify them.

Your points are well taken about different classes having inherently different interests. I agree but I still maintain that you are applying a rigid standard to an area where there are some blurry lines. Forget my own example, I can think of a dozen other situations off the top of my head that defy easy categorization.

As I said we share the same goals and I wish you luck and success, but I believe your stance on membership will prove detrimental.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by bazarov+Jul 19 2006, 04:22 PM--> (bazarov @ Jul 19 2006, 04:22 PM)Well, I can't say you've swayed me on my initial response. I am still left with the contradiction that someone from a working class background whose motivations and goals mirror your own would not be allowed effective membership in your organization because of their current job description.[/b]

Bazarov, I think you're oversimplifying the argument. It is not necessarily true that we would turn away someone from a proletarian class background if, for the moment, they had a job that was petty-bourgeois. We understand that, sometimes, working people are forced to take the job they can, and that sometimes means taking a job that is not proletarian (shift supervisor/manager, security guard, etc.). Someone's social being is not transformed overnight by this change in jobs. That takes time.

Now, going back to your example, you say you want to become an activist lawyer and take on corporations. That's good. I will not discourage you from doing that. However, let me ask you: Do you think you'll be able to do this as a part of someone else's law firm, or will you have to start your own? This matters in today's capitalist society.

If you are able to find a position in a large law firm that deals with "social justice" cases, then you may find yourself remaining in the working class. Some law firms hire new law school graduates and keep them from being able to practice independently, thus reducing them from being an independent professional to little more than a highly-skilled wage laborer -- a worker. On the other hand, if you have no recourse but to start your own independent practice, then you have jumped classes and joined the ranks of the petty bourgeoisie.

This is the key point to understand in all this. You accuse us, in your initial message, of "judging potential comrades on their resumes and job descriptions rather than their political/social conscience and beliefs". Well, yes and no. We reject the idealist concept that if you have good "political/social conscience and beliefs" that this qualifies you for membership. Good ideas are not enough. Material reality matters, and someone who is in one of the exploiting and oppressing classes (the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie) cannot make up for all of the privileges and institutionalized social consciousness with nice thoughts.

At the same time, it is not merely about their "resumes and job descriptions". You say you come from a poor working-class background, and have worked hard to become a lawyer. Again, I will not denigrate the work you have put in to this. However, even you have to recognize that this fundamental change in social relations will have an effect, on both you and your children (and theirs, eventually). That change in class relations will begin to fundamentally alter your class perceptions. Like the frog in the pot of water, as you spend more and more time immersed in the petty bourgeoisie, your consciousness and view of the world will change.


Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 04:22 PM
Your points are well taken about different classes having inherently different interests. I agree but I still maintain that you are applying a rigid standard to an area where there are some blurry lines. Forget my own example, I can think of a dozen other situations off the top of my head that defy easy categorization.

I would like to hear those other situations. I have found that, in fact, what many people see as "blurry" class relationships are, in fact, the opposite. The "blurriness" comes in when people use a method of identifying class that is not materialist at its base.


[email protected] 19 2006, 04:22 PM
As I said we share the same goals and I wish you luck and success, but I believe your stance on membership will prove detrimental.

It hasn't so far. And, in fact, our view on class is not too far removed from that used by Marx and Engels. It was the 20th century left that jettisoned these clear class requirements in favor of a classless approach to organization. The result was that bourgeois and petty-bourgeois forces were able to take control, impose a class-based division of labor on the group (bourgeois and petty-bourgeois in the leadership; proletarians kept in the "rank-and-file") and act as a transmission belt for bourgeois doctrine and ideology into the organization.

If anything, the current methods used by the left have proven to be more detrimental than what we are doing today -- especially when you take into consideration the numerous betrayals of the left over the last 100 years.

Miles

[bayano]

anti-sectarianism

so, besides being inclusive of (non-anarchist) communist tendencies, what is your record of working with other marxist/leninist/communist/socialist/leftist groups and with anarchists, liberals, and others? antisectarianism isnt just an internal function, it is at least as much about external relations. are there any groups u work with closely? are there any you oppose? basically, do you work well with others?

and what exactly is the relationship between cl and fpm? are there mutual members? is one a broader element of the other? are they totally and fully separate entities that are simply allied?

and where are your chapters? i cant seem to find that on your site. do you have any on the west coast? in the south? in the midwest? here in chicago?

[KC]

so, besides being inclusive of (non-anarchist) communist tendencies, what is your record of working with other marxist/leninist/communist/socialist/leftist groups and with anarchists, liberals, and others? antisectarianism isnt just an internal function, it is at least as much about external relations. are there any groups u work with closely? are there any you oppose? basically, do you work well with others?

Since I don't work personally with members of other organizations (I used to work with members of the YCL, but the group here broke up), and since I don't really discuss that with other League members, I'll let other members answer that one.



and what exactly is the relationship between cl and fpm? are there mutual members? is one a broader element of the other? are they totally and fully separate entities that are simply allied?

They are completely separate organizations that are both members of the International Working People's Association (http://www.iwpa-aigt.org). Members of both organizations both work together closely. So we have a strong bond, but we are still seperate entities.



and where are your chapters? i cant seem to find that on your site. do you have any on the west coast? in the south? in the midwest? here in chicago?

Since the Communist League is a clandestine organization that information isn't provided on the site. If you would like to find out if there are any League members in your area, you can contact the League at [email protected] or you can PM Miles (Communist League on here) or myself and we can provide you with information.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

It needs to be repeated again and again (and apparently, again)... "being determines conciousness!" Ideas don't come out of thin air..

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by bayano+Jul 20 2006, 01:13 PM--> (bayano @ Jul 20 2006, 01:13 PM)so, besides being inclusive of (non-anarchist) communist tendencies, what is your record of working with other marxist/leninist/communist/socialist/leftist groups and with anarchists, liberals, and others? antisectarianism isnt just an internal function, it is at least as much about external relations. are there any groups u work with closely? are there any you oppose? basically, do you work well with others?[/b]

The League has always been willing to work with anyone around common goals. Our members worked with the IWW and local immigrant rights groups around organizing for the May Day demonstrations. Our members have worked with the RCP around the World Can't Wait campaign since it started. We have worked closely with both communists and anarcho-syndicalists in the struggle of the Delphi workers. During the counter-inaugural in January 2005, we marched with the anarchists.

Politically speaking, the League "opposes" all other left organizations. However, that does not translate into attempts to destroy other left groups. On the contrary. Because of our clandestine character, we have members that work in these leftwing formations, using them as an avenue of public activity. We do not advocate any kind of "raiding" or "entryist" policy with these groups, because such strategies are a waste of time and resources.

It should be said, though, that it is often the case that when one of these left groups finds out they're working with the League, they find an excuse to back away from the work.


Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 01:13 PM
and what exactly is the relationship between cl and fpm? are there mutual members? is one a broader element of the other? are they totally and fully separate entities that are simply allied?

The League and the FPM are currently separate entities that are allied through the IWPA, as KC stated, but it has been proposed that a formal process be started that may lead to fusion down the road.


[email protected] 20 2006, 01:13 PM
and where are your chapters? i cant seem to find that on your site. do you have any on the west coast? in the south? in the midwest? here in chicago?

Again, as KC said, we do not list our "chapters" on our website. However, to answer your questions: yes; yes; yes; unfortunately, no.

Miles

[bazarov]

We understand that, sometimes, working people are forced to take the job they can, and that sometimes means taking a job that is not proletarian (shift supervisor/manager, security guard, etc.). Someone's social being is not transformed overnight by this change in jobs. That takes time.


This is precisely what I was trying to get at in a round about way when I said it is not always a cut and dry situation.

Just out of curiosity how would you categorize professional or full time activist/revolutionaries?

Would Che Guevara be allowed full membership in the Communist League?

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by bazarov+Jul 20 2006, 05:02 PM--> (bazarov @ Jul 20 2006, 05:02 PM)Just out of curiosity how would you categorize professional or full time activist/revolutionaries?[/b]

Mainly on their class background, but also on how they are a "full time activist/revolutionary". For example, someone who is given a wage or weekly salary for their activity is essentially a wage laborer employed by their respective organization. On the other hand, an activist who goes from event to event, living off of the "donations" people make to "the cause", is more like a petty independent producer.


[email protected] 20 2006, 05:02 PM
Would Che Guevara be allowed full membership in the Communist League?

If I recall correctly, Guevara was born into a petty-bourgeois family and trained to become a doctor. He then broke with that background and stepped outside of the social relationships to become a guerrilla. Then, he re-emerged as a state official in Cuba, only to once again step outside of social relations and return to guerrillaism. I would have to say that, based on this, no, we would not admit him as a member of the League.

That said, I also tend to think that Guevara would not only understand what we were attempting to do, but also be generally supportive of it. I would still call him comrade, and I expect he would return the favor.

Miles

[which doctor]

Another question.

What does the CL actualy plan on doing that the myriad of other communist orgnanizations aren't already trying to do? You all have the same struggles and identities, but nothing much ever seems to come around. I still don't see this "communist revolution" that keeps on getting preached about.

[Led Zeppelin]

Miles, would Lenin be allowed full membership in the League?

[Janus]

As I said we share the same goals and I wish you luck and success, but I believe your stance on membership will prove detrimental.
The fact is that we thought it would be more detrimental if we did allow classes who have a high percentage of people who have proven to be unreliable in the past.

[Janus]

What does the CL actualy plan on doing that the myriad of other communist orgnanizations aren't already trying to do?
Well, the exclusive proletarian membership is something new. Other than that, our goals are pretty much the same.

[bayano]

okay, big question- why clandestinity? why not operate publicly? what is gained from clandestinity and what is lost by a public face and open activities?

[KC]

What does the CL actualy plan on doing that the myriad of other communist orgnanizations aren't already trying to do?

Well, we have a wealth of original ideas that either have been implemented, are currently being implemented, or we hope to implement sometime in the future.

One of the most unique ideas I've seen come out of the League is the International Committees of the Red Star (http://www.communistleague.org/page.php?21). Basically it's a workers' disaster aid group. Unfortunately, this is one of the ideas that we hope to implement in the future, as a lot of left groups that we have offered this proposal to don't see any point in helping out working people in times of crisis.

Also, I suggest you check out the latest edition of Workers' Republic (http://www.communistleague.org/page.php?16), as it deals with a lot of issues that we are currently active with (PDF Here (http://www.communistleague.org/pdf/wr/wr2006q1.pdf) and Text Here (http://www.communistleague.org/page.php?58)).


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.

In addition to this, we have a lot of League members that do social work within working class communities. What a lot of organizations don't realize today is that in order for workers to become politically active they first have to have food in their stomach and time to do so.

If this means financial help, help with food, help with childcare, or anything else, this is what the left should be concentrating on first and foremost (and this is unfortunately what the left is neglecting).

So to sum it up, our immediate aim is first to give working people time to become politically active through these social programs, and then to develop their politics and help them become involved in their world.


You all have the same struggles and identities, but nothing much ever seems to come around.

Unfortunately that is the case for most of the left. However, the League really is different, both in its structure and in its composition, as well as its ability to cooperate with other organizations. Our goal is to help working people free themselves of their chains, not gain membership. Of course, since the League is only a year and a half old, I'd say that we're coming along very well.


okay, big question- why clandestinity? why not operate publicly? what is gained from clandestinity and what is lost by a public face and open activities?

Because the work that some of our members are doing requires it. Also, a DHS thug could arrest any one of us (well, basically any communist) for treason or "terrorist acts" (lovely how so much shit fits under that term). Members are able to openly admit their affiliation with the Communist League, but they do so at their own risk.

Surprisingly, not much is lost by being clandestine. Since many League members are in other organizations, they are able to work through those organizations. I personally haven't had any problem with my work due to being clandestine, and I know of no League member that has.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Well, the exclusive proletarian membership is something new. Other than that, our goals are pretty much the same.

I think he was asking what you would do differently in practice, not what you're goals are.. if I understand correctly.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 09:59 PM
Miles, would Lenin be allowed full membership in the League?
I would say that, if he completed the process of breaking from his previous class background and integrated himself into the working class, then, as long as he would agree with the Basic Principles and accept the Rules, I wouldn't have a problem with Lenin being in the League. ;)

Miles

[Marion]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 21 2006, 04:36 AM
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.

Do you really think that the best way to help people with literacy needs is by giving them communist texts? If I had literacy difficulties I'd want to be given texts that a) were suited to my reading standard (perhaps, depending on my level, texts deliberately designed to help with literacy) and b) were something that I had chosen as it was something I found interesting.

[Janus]

Do you really think that the best way to help people with literacy needs is by giving them communist texts?
Of course if someone is that slow then the book would have to be a lot simpler but I don't think KC is talking about that kind of difficulty learning.

[Marion]

Was kinda hoping/presuming not as seemed a bit bizarre to me. However, it does say if there are problems with literacy they'll be sorted using texts of communist authors - perhaps they mean problems understanding communist terminology rather than literacy?

Not a major point anyway, so hopefully won't derail the thread.

PS I'm aware that the text wasn't written by KC, but he's just quoting it...

[Janus]

However, it does say if there are problems with literacy they'll be sorted using texts of communist authors - perhaps they mean problems understanding communist terminology rather than literacy?
I believe so. If there were real literacy problems that would be a different issue but I think we're more or less talking about unfamiliarity with communism and the terminology in general.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

If I recall correctly, Guevara was born into a petty-bourgeois family and trained to become a doctor. He then broke with that background and stepped outside of the social relationships to become a guerrilla. Then, he re-emerged as a state official in Cuba, only to once again step outside of social relations and return to guerrillaism. I would have to say that, based on this, no, we would not admit him as a member of the League.



Jesus... :rolleyes:

[Janus]

Stop spamming.

What's your point? Someone asked a question and Miles responded.