The Capitalist Vanguard

[which doctor]

I was once defending independent music labels to a person. This person knew I was an anti-capitalist and pointed out to me that independent music labels and other independent companies act as the capitalist vanguard, inserting new life into capitalism. I couldn't help but agree with this idea. Many of these companies are created by inexperienced young entrepreneurs who have little capital. Many, but not all, fo unnoticed by venture capitalists and must work on their own to grow their business and disrupt the corporate monopolies that stand in their way.

So what are your opinions on this "capitalist vanguard"?

[Johnny Anarcho]

Hmm, according to the Communist Party USA, Capitalism hasnt reached its highest level yet. We must continue to promote Socialism while Capitalism continues to grow and eventually destroy itself. Only when its reached its highest point can it be overthrown.

[Zeruzo]

Originally posted by Johnny [email protected] 05, 2006 07:40 pm
Hmm, according to the Communist Party USA, Capitalism hasnt reached its highest level yet. We must continue to promote Socialism while Capitalism continues to grow and eventually destroy itself. Only when its reached its highest point can it be overthrown.
Capitalism wont just detsroy itself, it'll destroy everything with it. Feudalism could have advanced much further, good thing it didn't...

[Johnny Anarcho]

[This discussion document is the product of a four day “Think Tank” organized by the Economics and Labor Commissions of the Communist Party USA, in Chicago, in early February 2006. Several papers were presented and debated each day on a range of issues connected with capitalist globalization and the response of the working class and organized labor. There is no way that a single pamphlet could completely summarize those four days of intense discussion. But we hope that this document will provoke discussion and debates on what we think are some of the most burning challenges of our times for labor and for the working class.]

A qualitatively new form of transnational capital has clearly emerged. Its features include enormous new concentrations of finance capital, new forms of transnational monopoly, huge changes in the technology of mass production and manufacturing, a new global division of labor, and increasing poverty and decline for workers of the world in a global race to the bottom. Some individuals now own wealth greater than that of smaller countries.

World capitalism continues to develop, reaching new levels of concentration and more advanced forms of global economic integration. Some see it as a new phase of what Lenin described as “Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism.” Others think of it as an even more qualitative change and see it as a whole new stage of monopoly capitalism. Regardless of your view, it is clear that capitalism has not reached its final stage and stopped developing.

Changing Strategy for Changing Times

Near the turn of the last century Lenin spoke of “fortresses of the working class” referring to the large industrial factories that were the flagships of the unfolding industrial revolution. He saw the strategic and social importance of these fortresses to the working class struggle. These large concentrations of workers resulted in new levels of cohesion and socialization and gave workers a new kind of economic leverage.

In the same time frame and later, Eugene Debs, William Z. Foster and many others were developing concepts of industrial unionism. They were also responding to the impact of the industrial revolution, but in the context of the labor movement in the US.

Soon after the Communist Party USA, and other communist and workers parties in other industrialized countries began to focus their efforts on establishing their influence and their memberships in these “fortresses.” Here in the US the Communist party called its policy “industrial concentration.”

This was not a simple linear development but a complex many sided process of the working class responding and adapting to the new realities of the class struggle of those times. But, taken as a whole, it was a dynamic response to the vast qualitative and quantitative changes in the capitalism of those times.

It is beyond the scope of this discussion to try and present an all round picture of the qualitative changes in the global economy. However, as mentioned above, many factors are self-evident, including: qualitative advances in science and technology, in telecommunications, in systems and methods of mass production, in high speed transportation, in global concentrations of finance capital and in the incredible growth of transnational monopolies.

It is not necessary to fully document and quantify the changes in capitalism for this discussion. It is enough for now to see the many new and thorny problems the labor movement and the broader working class movements face with capitalist globalization. However, it is necessary that we continue to study the underlying economic and structural changes taking place all around us. It is also necessary to note that the pace of change and development of capitalism is steadily accelerating.

The problems for the working class created by the new developments in capitalist globalization are not narrow trade union questions. They are not questions of concern only to the left and communists. They are very basic strategic questions of how to defend and advance the interests of the whole working class under new conditions. They are very much the concern of the broader progressive movements and of all world wide who struggle for economic and social justice. As we try and figure out strategy we must also consider changes in the world working class and the world economy. Changes in the US working class and economy are inextricably tied to global changes in capitalism.

Not Enough to Unite in Slogans

We have to consider that the power of the working class, more than ever, must be realized in new forms of working class internationalism. It is not enough for workers and oppressed peoples of the world to unite in theory and in slogans. Today’s transnational capitalism demands that the world’s workers and oppressed peoples organize and unite in new practical ways. “Workers of the World Unite” has to be transformed from a slogan into a concrete strategy.

The Main Power Workers Have

Historically every new stage and phase of development of the productive forces of capitalism has required a new strategy from labor. The bottom line for trade unions is the economic struggle. While it is true that unions are most powerful when they can combine political and social strategy in their arsenal of struggle. The bottom line is unions come into being in the first place, in order that workers can collectively exercise the main economic power they have; that is their power to withhold their labor.

In the early days of capitalism, guilds and then craft unions were the forms that worked. At that stage, the economic struggle was mostly fought by workers on a local level. And early capitalism was characterized by local ownership. With the dawn of the industrial revolution, capitalism became mostly national in scope, then concentrating even more into monopoly. Thus a broader organization was needed by workers in order to use the threat of withholding their labor effectively. Out of this development came the prolonged period of developing and perfecting wall-to-wall industrial unionism.

Today labor is confronted with transnational capital where ownership is more concentrated in global corporations and global financial institutions. Learning from history it should be clear that, like every other new stage of capitalist development, what is needed is bigger and broader concepts of trade unionism. We are now experiencing the difficult beginnings of figuring out and building new forms and strategies to exercise labor’s economic muscle and leverage globally.

Labor unity and organization must take new international forms. Again this is not a question only for the unions. It is a question that requires the best thinking of communists and the left, of labor and of all progressives. Unions, of necessity focused on their immediate and pressing struggles, do not automatically bring a well rounded class analysis to these problems.

For example, let’s take a look at the current situation facing the autoworkers at GM and Delphi. GM and Wall Street paint a picture of a struggling corporation caught in a fierce global competition to build and sell cars. They want the union to believe that the healthcare and the pensions GM owes its US workers make it impossible for the company to compete. They argue that GM/Delphi must renege on their union obligations to workers and slash wages or go bankrupt. GM and Wall Street say the company must close plants and destroy communities to stay competitive in the global auto market.

Unfortunately GM and Wall Street have been able to convince large sections of both the union leadership and membership that these are the limits of the debate, that only concessions and cuts will save their jobs; that therefore workers have a stake in capitalist competition for profits. They threaten bankruptcy in the US as if GM wasn’t a giant transnational corporation with investments and profits all around the world.

In fact GM has manufacturing operations in 32 countries. It is one of the largest US investors in China and Asia. Here are huge markets opening up and huge profits being made.

But if autoworkers reject the automaker’s partnership ideology, where is the economic leverage for workers in the US in this situation? Where is the leverage for the working class in a fight like this? Even as we do our best on the ground to fight every battle for every job and every pension, don’t we have to recognize the need to help build a movement that unites GM workers around the world? Isn’t the only real solution to this fight for autoworkers to organize and unite GM and all autoworkers around the world? To have any chance of success, any plan to fight for the future of US autoworkers must also include autoworkers in China.

The big three auto monopolies, GM, Ford and Chrysler have dominated and called the shots in the US for almost as long as the UAW has been around. In order to have leverage, the UAW had to organize all of them. The union had to put a “floor” under wages and working conditions for the big three nationwide in order to secure a decent standard of living for autoworkers. And remember, after the battle for industrial unionism raised standards of auto and other industrial workers, the result was higher standards for millions of other workers, including non-union workers in the US. The industrial unions dramatically raised the standards for the whole class.

Isn’t that ultimately what has to happen now on a global basis? There is no way to know now what organizational form that will take, but the idea of global union standards – like industrial unionism in earlier times – has to be part of the solution. Don’t we have to help figure out how that will happen even as we fight the day to day battles? The auto industry is central to the world economy. There are about ten major auto conglomerates in the world today that operate on all continents and in almost every region. Raising the standards worldwide for workers in this critical section of the global economy is vital to raising the standard of living for hundreds of millions of workers globally. The same can be said for other key global sectors such as steel, energy, petrochemical, food processing, and transportation.

It’s important to note that important sections of the US labor movement do see the need to move in this direction. The experience of the United Steelworkers with Bridgestone/Firestone, Ravenswood Aluminum and most recently ASARCO, taught the union invaluable lessons in internationalism. USW agreements with metal and rubber unions around the world are not just to exchange information, but are beginning to get at how to hold the biggest transnationals to global standards. The experience of the locked out West Coast longshore workers a few years ago with longshore workers the world over refusing to handle cargo bound for the US led to important new global agreements among longshore unions the world over.

Are there practical steps to move things along in labor that we can raise? Here’s one idea. In the CIO days, the communists and the left in labor recognized that fighting against racism and for equality and unity were essential to the development of industrial unionism. We campaigned to initiate civil rights and fair employment practices committees in the unions. Shouldn’t we now be thinking about how to set up international solidarity committees in locals as well as international unions?

Today’s workers in the US have a higher cultural and educational level than ever before. Modern communications have helped workers develop a global view and to recognize the global challenges they face. Let’s help turn that recognition into practical forms, which can further the process of “workers of the world unite.” Union international committees could promote international solidarity campaigns around strikes and global union campaigns. They can be concrete forms for the kind of work the unions have done around opposing Apartheid in South Africa and Coke in Colombia. They can serve to inform and educate and bring the grassroots membership more fully into these fights.

Another couple of ideas we should think about. Worker-to-worker exchanges with their counterparts in China, India, Africa, the Middle East and South America would be of tremendous benefit to US workers. And we need to take a look at what communist parties can do to help overcome the split in the world labor movement as well as what we can continue to do to heal the split in labor here at home.

You Gotta Make the Political Fight Too

Now, of course, Delphi workers are fighting for their lives against wage cuts and theft of benefits. And we can’t for a minute neglect our responsibility to help in this immediate fight. Not only is there a fight to be waged against the cuts and take-away-demands of GM/Delphi, there is also an important political fight. Bankruptcy laws have become weapons in the hands of corporate lawyers to abrogate union contracts and steal pensions and healthcare benefits. All progressives need to embrace the struggle to reform these laws. And the fight for national health care, protection of pensions and strengthening Social Security are critical political struggles for workers facing plant closings and bankruptcies.

The political policies of the global capitalist powers, particularly in the US, are critical. So-called free trade agreements, monetary, tax and investment policy greatly affect workers around the world. The rise of anti-globalization movements against the policies of the World Bank and the WTO show the powerful potential of political struggle. Demonstrations around the world, including in Seattle and Miami have slowed down and derailed transnational capital’s plans. The scuttling of the infamous Multinational Agreement on Investments was very much the result of political struggle in many countries.

While both the Democrats and Republicans have favored policies that enhance the reach of transnational capital, the ascendancy of the ultra right Republicans in Congress and Bush in the White House has accelerated the process. Defeating the ultra right in Congress this year and defeating any Bush-like Republican clone in 2008 are vital to any movements to put the brakes on transnational capital.

Linking Today’s Struggles to “Another World is Possible”

New forms of international working class unity and organization must be pursued on many levels. The world communist movement must find new forms of solidarity that go beyond fraternal exchanges and theoretical discussions. Effective struggle against this stage of transnational capital requires communist and left parties to explore joint practical initiatives. The left and communist parties have a contribution to make to this global challenge in coalition with many other world working class and allied forces.

Our aim is not simply communist and left unity, though that is important. Our aim is strengthening the global working class and its allies in struggle. The world communist perspective is that socialism as the other world that humanity needs. This uniquely links immediate struggles with a long range view. A long range view is not just a dream about the future, but a direction in which we seek to move the struggle today.

A new stage of struggle requires the world communist movement to shake off old problems and hangovers from the past. We don’t have the luxury of sitting back and waiting for things to develop. We have to leave behind old attitudes and sectarian habits and jump in to try new forms of organization and unity. We must be much more pro-active.

Other Forms of the Global Class Struggle

Globally the communist movement must struggle to involve unions and workers in the larger and broader class struggle. The World Social Forums movement, the fight for international environment treaties, the fight for peace, the fight against poverty, and the fight against AIDs have all taken on greater international form and shape drawing workers and oppressed people around the world together in ever bigger numbers.

100 Million Forced to Migrate

Transnational capital development today has radically increased the number of workers moving around the globe in search of work. The UN says that more than a hundred million workers have left their homelands. This incredible migration, for the most part forced, is directly the result of accelerating capitalist globalization.

This incredible disruption of human lives is closely tied to the almost complete freedom of capital to move freely around the world. Transnational capital’s growing ability to control and manipulate the economies of whole countries and run roughshod over their national sovereignties has destroyed rural life in many countries. Transnational conglomerates in food processing, farming and animal husbandry are driving millions off the land.

Anti-immigrant racism has become a critical tool in the growth of far right movements around the world as well. On the other hand immigrant workers in every corner of the world are playing an important part in challenging capitalist globalization and transnational capital. We have had the thrill of experiencing this first hand in the massive demonstrations and new organization here in the US.

Marxist ideas arrived on our shores in large part from immigrant workers. So too, today, immigrant workers bring a critical cross fertilization of experience and ideas to the new countries where they live and work. The demonstrations here captured the imagination of labor. They have already had a profound affect in rousing unions on many fronts even beyond immigration issues.

China Looms Large

In the global context, China looms large. For the US working class and for our party, relations with China are of great strategic importance. A significant and growing percentage of US owned or controlled mass production capacity is located in China. An ever growing percentage of this production is for export. US based transnational capital has major investment in critical sectors of mass production manufacturing in China including auto, chemical, electronics and aerospace. More than 100 U.S.-based transnationals have projects in China. Cumulative U.S. investment in China reached an estimated $54 billion by the end of 2005, making our country the second-largest foreign investor in China. China now ranks third in the world in industrial manufacturing output.

Solidarity between the working classes of China and the US is critical to progress. China bashing, with its blatant anti-communism and anti-Chinese racism, has become an important tool for capital in blunting working class internationalism in the US, not only in labor but in other important movements like the environmental and anti-globalization movements. It is critically important that we continue to improve and build on our relations with the Chinese Communist party. And we must promote all manner of union to union, worker to worker and people to people exchanges.

For many of the same reasons India too must command more of our international attention. US transnational investment is high. And while anti-communism does not play the same role, anti-Indian and anti-Asian racism and chauvinism also retard the development of working class internationalism.

There are different but no less powerful arguments to be made also for our greater attention to Africa. The extremes of poverty and the imperialist plunder of natural resources and destruction and destabilization of entire nations and regions in Africa are burning questions for the world’s working class. As we all know, anti-African and anti-African American racism has played a special role in blunting class consciousness and internationalism in the US. Just as the working class at home cannot truly rise without raising the poorest sections of the working class out of poverty, so too the world working class has a vital interest in putting a floor under poverty and underdevelopment globally.

New World Division of Labor

Global conglomerates and transnational investors are creating a new world division of labor that increasingly relocates much mass production capacity in extremely poor regions and countries. It is not only a question of lower wages but they also move production to flee health and safety and environmental regulation costs. It is obvious that much of this relocation is in countries with overwhelming majorities of Black, Brown and Asian peoples. The racism and national chauvinism is obvious. The role of the transnationals in Haiti and American Samoa, illustrate this point close to home.

Women workers are naturally found in the forefront of struggle against capitalist globalization. Women are special victims of this new stage of transnational capital. Many of the world’s worst sweatshops employ large percentages of women; many in slave-like conditions as was the case during the rise of industrial capitalism. Today women are increasingly concentrated in large numbers in manufacturing and production globally.

The global race to the bottom for workers in manufacturing has undermined health and safety and other working conditions around the world including in the industrial countries and the US.

War Dangers and Inter-Imperialist Rivalry

Today the US stands as the lone superpower recklessly willing to use military power to secure its economic and political objectives around the world. This power is clearly exercised in the narrow interests of US based transnational capital. The Iraq war and the growing US military presence in Colombia are but two current examples.

However, it would be a mistake to conclude that rivalry between imperial powers is a thing of the past, or that the danger of war between these rivals has decreased. In fact, while the Iraq war serves the interests of many US transnationals, including oil and construction interests, it also sends a warning to rivals that the US intends to dominate the region. And while direct wars between imperialist blocks of nations may not be likely anytime soon, all kinds of little “proxy wars” and destabilizing military actions threaten peace and kill and maim thousands every year.

Trade issues

Trade issues loom large for the world’s working class. While it is true that global economic integration is inevitable, the terms of globalization for the working class are subject to struggle. We must carefully separate what benefits workers and their communities from what benefits transnational capital in so called free trade.

Karl Marx nailed the question succinctly in a quote from his speech “On the question of free trade.” He said, “To sum up, what is free trade, what is free trade under the present condition of society? It is freedom of capital. When you have overthrown the few national barriers which still restrict the progress of capital, you will merely have given it complete freedom of action. So long as you let the relation of wage labor to capital exist, it does not matter how favorable the conditions under which the exchange of commodities takes place, there will always be a class which will exploit and a class which will be exploited.”

Workers have no choice but to fight for their jobs and against their ruination at all times. We cannot and should not be asked to watch as jobs are lost and our communities destroyed in the name of some abstract greater global good or on the promise that other jobs will appear in the long run.

The US working class and concentration for today

This new stage of transnational capital has had a profound affect on the US working class, on its composition, and on its ability to fight back. Today there are very few factory fortresses left. Automation, science and technology have all profoundly changed the productive process. Today telecommunications, computers, and many so called service occupations are much more integral to the productive process than they ever were before. Privatization, and the increasing integration finance capital into the state apparatus, has profoundly changed the role of government and other public workers in the economy.

The working class has grown significantly world wide and domestically with these changes. Globally the number of workers directly involved in the mass production industries has increased. Global manufacturing output has expanded 34 per cent in the last ten years. But domestically, industrial workers, in what we used to call the basic industries, have been put in a much weaker position. Most of these industries are still basic to the global economy, but global production means a tremendous loss of leverage for these workers and their unions domestically. Again the US auto industry illustrates the point.

Today industrial unions are changing. Although mass production industries are still central to the domestic economy, the lack of leverage, the harsh anti-labor environment, and corporate and government attacks on organized labor have pushed the industrial unions in the direction of becoming general industrial unions though still centered on their old specific industries. For many of these unions it’s a question of survival. In many ways the recent split in labor is more about not being able to find a way to deal with capitalist globalization than anything else. The crying need for the left and communists to help find a way to deal with these problems is part of our historic responsibility.

This key question of how the working class can organize for power and leverage cannot be reduced to schemes to organize only workers whose jobs can’t be outsourced. Rather to effectively organize for power and leverage here at home we have to take on the challenging task of finding ways to build union and working class organization and action on a global scale.

We cannot just stand on the sidelines and throw stones, even at wrong ideas. Simply complaining about the loss of focus on a single industry or sector of the economy will not change much. We have to dig into the situation as it is and figure out how to move things from there. And we have to embrace the idea of bigger and different kinds of industrial unionism for today. Just as the CIO promoted an idea of unionism that was much bigger than craft unionism, today’s labor movement needs to provide new union forms that can engage both domestically and internationally. These new forms must lead to bigger and bolder ideas about organization.

Our communist piece also has to reflect the new and changing global picture. Industrial concentration policy has to morph into a much bigger and broader idea. Yes we need to focus on building the party and its influence in strategic sectors of the working class, but those strategic sectors cannot be a simple recounting of what we used to call the basic industries.

We, like the rest of the working class, have to adjust to today’s global realities. We must, of course, continue to focus on critical industries that still drive the global economy like, auto, steel and mass production workers. The transportation industry has to be moved to the top of the list. Transportation has become one of the most significant leverage points against transnational capitalism.

And it bears repeating, this kind of strategic concentration has to be fully linked to the fight against transnational capital. In today’s world, steel, auto and transportation workers may have their greatest strategic leverage and power in the international arena. As manufacturing has declined in the US, finance capital is greatly expanding. One giant steel company, from the merger of Mittal and Arcelor the two largest steel companies in the world, will soon account for more than 10% of global steel productions. It will own steel mills on every continent and employ over 300,000 steelworkers. Steelworkers that work for Mittal in Indiana or even all the Mittal workers in the US will not be able to go it alone.

We also have to take a look at important concentrations of workers in areas like health care, food processing, telecommunications, and energy and utilities, and public workers; sectors of our economy that are increasingly strategic areas of struggle for the working class. As the struggle of the Sky Chef airline catering workers at London’s Heathrow airport showed, even in what seemed to be a domestic service, international solidarity was the main leverage for workers in stopping company attacks on jobs, wages and benefits.

The Communist party labor commission has begun building ongoing working subcommittees to develop our strategic concentration work in steel, auto, telecommunications, Longshore/transportation, food processing and health care. This is not a complete list of sectors that are critical to our economy. Instead, we believe we just might have the initial resources and ties that can allow these committees to develop. Our goal is to have these sub-committees track development in these sectors. We hope they will help develop articles for our publications, and reports on labor and global developments in these sectors. In this way we will help draw the party’s attention to work in these industries.

We must also renew our concepts of strategic neighborhood concentrations. Workers who work in a particular sector of the economy or industry no longer live together in the same neighborhoods. The fragmentation and decentralization of mass production has resulted in fragmentation and loss of cohesion in neighborhoods.

Never the less, many in working class neighborhoods are acutely aware of the fragmentation and loss of community and cohesion. Many are searching for new forms of community. Neighborhood concentration is a critical tool for building the party and our influence. Focusing our community clubs on working class neighborhoods with special attention to African American, Latino, Asian American and American Indian neighborhoods needs to be renewed. How to focus on mass campaigns, build coalitions, and fight for multiracial, multinational working class unity are critical questions in this work.

In conclusion: our task is not a narrow one. The working class response to the industrial revolution and the imperialist stage of capitalism at the turn of the last century was a many sided, long range struggle of the working class. It was also a time of the most impressive growth of communist and workers parties and movements, of the growth of industrial unionism, of the broadening of the working class struggle. So too our response to a new stage of transnational capital today must take on the difficult task of helping to figure out bold new approaches to building international working class solidarity, to new forms of unionism and workers organization, and to building the party and to building our ties to the international communist and workers movements.

Working Class Strategy in the Era of Capitalist Globalization (http://http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleprint/784/)

[which doctor]

Thanks for going completely off topic...

[Johnny Anarcho]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2006 09:06 pm
Thanks for going completely off topic...
I was backing up my point that Capitalism needs to reach its highest level first before it can be overthrown.

[which doctor]

Originally posted by Johnny Anarcho+November 05, 2006 04:14 pm--> (Johnny Anarcho @ November 05, 2006 04:14 pm)
[email protected] 05, 2006 09:06 pm
Thanks for going completely off topic...
I was backing up my point that Capitalism needs to reach its highest level first before it can be overthrown. [/b]
Which is something I agree with. However, this topic is about independent and start-up companies being the capitalist vanguard.

[Johnny Anarcho]

My appologies for going off topic. I think we should support the ones we like, especially if their punk rock or anti-fascist skinhead record labels. Supporting them helps Capitalism reach its highest point in which we can destroy it.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2006 07:34 pm
I was once defending independent music labels to a person. This person knew I was an anti-capitalist and pointed out to me that independent music labels and other independent companies act as the capitalist vanguard, inserting new life into capitalism. I couldn't help but agree with this idea. Many of these companies are created by inexperienced young entrepreneurs who have little capital. Many, but not all, fo unnoticed by venture capitalists and must work on their own to grow their business and disrupt the corporate monopolies that stand in their way.

So what are your opinions on this "capitalist vanguard"?
It's not a capitalist vanguard, it's simply capitalism in action.

Your belief that a capitalist has to be a rich person shows how much you don't know about capitalism.

[greymatter]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2006 02:52 pm
It's not a capitalist vanguard, it's simply capitalism in action.

Your belief that a capitalist has to be a rich person shows how much you don't know about capitalism.
T-Wolves fan ir right. You don't have to be rich to be a capitalist. Anyone who can get a loan from the bank to start their own business can be a capitalist.

Moreover, anything that "inserts new life into capitalism" (the invention of something people want to buy, or a better way to produce or deliver something people want to buy) could also be called "innovation of the means of production" or just "innovation" which happens to be a good thing.


Hmm, according to the Communist Party USA, Capitalism hasnt reached its highest level yet. We must continue to promote Socialism while Capitalism continues to grow and eventually destroy itself. Only when its reached its highest point can it be overthrown.
The only way capitalism will ever be overthrown in this country is if there's a serious economic depression and a civil war in wich anti-capitalists win... AND the anti-capitalists are competent enough to implement a stable, comfortable socialism or anarchy or whatever system they so choose.

[Tigerman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2006 07:34 pm
I was once defending independent music labels to a person. This person knew I was an anti-capitalist and pointed out to me that independent music labels and other independent companies act as the capitalist vanguard, inserting new life into capitalism. I couldn't help but agree with this idea. Many of these companies are created by inexperienced young entrepreneurs who have little capital. Many, but not all, fo unnoticed by venture capitalists and must work on their own to grow their business and disrupt the corporate monopolies that stand in their way.

So what are your opinions on this "capitalist vanguard"?
In short, the economy is never static. It is always in a state of flux.

Central planning can never hope to accomplish what the entrepeneur can for a number of reasons. First and foremost is that the labor theory of value is wrong. Secondly, the bureaucrat is unlikely to have insight into new innovations to market. We would still have records instead of MP3's and we would be typing each other letters instead of being on the internet. Very little innovation came out of the East-bloc countries under their form of Communism no matter how untrue it was.

Venture capital serves a very useful purpose in the economy. The notion permits the private sector to raise money for innovative ideas. The presence of a stock market elevates humanity from survival to prosperity by marrying up idle capital with innovative entrepeneurs.

I'm told the banks laughed at Henry Ford when he first went to get some money for a great idea he had. Ford perservered.

Henry Ford embodies everything that anti-capitalists fail to grasp.

By all accounts he was a mild mannered little guy of short stature.

Show up at a Union meeting one day and see how the mild mannered and meek fare against the established Union leadership. Well that's about as much influence as Henry Ford would have had in whatever factory, cooperative or anything else the Communist pass off as enterprize.

Capitalism allows for people to reach whatever station in life their virtues and talents will take them to.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Johnny [email protected] 05, 2006 07:40 pm
Hmm, according to the Communist Party USA, Capitalism hasnt reached its highest level yet. We must continue to promote Socialism while Capitalism continues to grow and eventually destroy itself. Only when its reached its highest point can it be overthrown.
fuck the CPUSA. "Just vote Democrat" lost them any sense of credibility <_<

[England Expects]

Originally posted by Johnny [email protected] 05, 2006 09:00 pm
[This discussion document is the product of a four day “Think Tank” organized by the Economics . . . . BOOOOOORIIIIIIIING[/URL]
Did anybody actually read further than that?

[Johnny Anarcho]

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+November 06, 2006 10:49 pm--> (LeftyHenry @ November 06, 2006 10:49 pm)
Johnny [email protected] 05, 2006 07:40 pm
Hmm, according to the Communist Party USA, Capitalism hasnt reached its highest level yet. We must continue to promote Socialism while Capitalism continues to grow and eventually destroy itself. Only when its reached its highest point can it be overthrown.
fuck the CPUSA. "Just vote Democrat" lost them any sense of credibility <_< [/b]
Marching Around in Vain? Why the Elections Matter (http://http://www.yclusa.org/article/articleview/1751/1/314/)

[KC]

Your link doesn&#39;t work. But I&#39;m guessing it has to do with anti-war, pro-peace, anti-death penalty, and more liberal bullshit. I know a few YCL members and they&#39;re much closer to being bourgeois liberals than revolutionary marxists. All they talk about is peace action, how gun control is great, and how democrats will fix everything. They&#39;re democrats; they don&#39;t even use revolutionary rhetoric anymore.

[Johnny Anarcho]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 08, 2006 03:52 pm
Your link doesn&#39;t work. But I&#39;m guessing it has to do with anti-war, pro-peace, anti-death penalty, and more liberal bullshit. I know a few YCL members and they&#39;re much closer to being bourgeois liberals than revolutionary marxists. All they talk about is peace action, how gun control is great, and how democrats will fix everything. They&#39;re democrats; they don&#39;t even use revolutionary rhetoric anymore.
http://www.yclusa.org/article/articleview/1751/1/314/

[KC]

All quotes are from the aforementioned article:



The problems of war, poverty, cuts to social services and inequalities in education are systemic—they are all part of capitalism, the profits-before-people system that runs most of the world today. But who’s in power determines how easy or difficult it is to fight back and win immediate relief for working people.

Bush and the extreme right-wing dominate the Presidency, the Legislature and the Judiciary. This makes it harder for our demonstrations to have an impact – they don’t have to listen. For example, in 2004 saw the biggest demonstration for women’s rights—ever. And now we have an anti-choice Supreme Court.

Another example: There have been growing calls to censure or impeach Bush because he violated the Constitution and international law by bringing the American people into a war based on lies. But who is going to impeach him? Congress has to do it, and Congress is dominated by Bush allies.

This leads to one conclusion: We have to change the political scene. Our chance to do this is now, in the lead up to the 2006 elections.

Can we actually do it? Yes. The Republicans need to lose 15 seats in the House and/or six seats in the Senate for their stranglehold to be broken. In New York alone, there is a strong possibility of taking four seats from the House Republicans.

Victory is in sight. The Republicans’ house is in disarray. They have been tarnished by scandals and corruption—Abramoff, DeLay, these names represent losses for the Republicans. Increasingly, polls show, the American people are turning against the Republicans—even on issues of security, which they successfully exploited in the past for political gains.

Ah, so what they are saying here is that all of these problems are "part of capitalism, the profits-before-people system that runs most of the world today" and they talk about "changing the political climate" yet their solution is to "vote democrat". They&#39;re completely lacking a materialist analysis of the political system in both the United States and abroad. What they fail to recognize is that bourgeois is bourgeois is bourgeois, regardless of whether or not they have (D) or &reg; after their name.


There are some who say that electoral politics are useless, that this is merely a diversion. It is more important to do “revolutionary” work, whatever their version of that may be. They claim we should avoid fighting for immediate relief and instead “work for socialism.”

Sure, we should work for socialism, but what does that mean? Writing about it and talking about it? And? There are lots of little groups and “parties” that have this perspective, but they are doomed to failure. Right now, the American people are in motion against the Bush administration and its crew in the other branches of government. This is movement towards deepening democracy, and, objectively, as it progresses, against capitalism. But, if you misjudge where people are at, you end up standing on the sidelines shouting slogans that no one pays attention to—as you might see many groups doing at major demonstrations.

And here they are rejecting the idea of working towards any revolutionary proletarian movement and instead suggesting that we "vote democrat" and "support the democrats" like it will make huge differences.

Also, they are saying that this movement against the Bush regime is a movement "against capitalism" as if the Bush regime and those in power that support them are the only bourgeois and by defeating these elements we will "destroy" capitalism or some such ridiculous shit. The fact of the matter is that these aren&#39;t movements "against capitalism" at all, and it&#39;s quite obvious, too. They&#39;re movements against the war, for womens&#39; rights, for more "democracy" within capitalism. These movements consist of people that believe that capitalism can be improved upon and made "fair" for all people. These people aren&#39;t revolutionary anti-capitalists at all; they&#39;re reformist liberals. The writer here openly supports this view, and is himself a liberal. Since this was published by the YCLUSA that goes a long way in showing where their true beliefs lie (hint: it&#39;s not in revolutionary politics).


And then there are those who reject electoral politics on the grounds that all politicians are corrupt, or that elections are a dead end. Instead they demand more demonstrations, more “action,” more militancy, and so on. But this hasn’t worked.

Wow. I&#39;m stunned that they would openly publish something like this that goes so far in showing their true nature. Basically what they&#39;re saying is that "revolution was tried in the past and it failed, so let&#39;s vote&#33;" Here is proof of their open rejection to any ties of revolutionary socialism and Marxism.


The answer to the question of which political party to work with is, for now, the Democratic Party. Right now they are the vehicle to beat the extremist right wing given the current political realities in this country. The Democrats are the political party that has ties to all of the necessary forces for change – labor, women, people of color and youth. They also have contingents of environmentalists, LGBTQ, seniors and other communities that are working to challenge the extreme right’s agenda. They are the political party behind which all of the groups that oppose the extreme right’s policies can come together—from corporations with business interests that run counter to the right wing agenda to the peace movement to the working class.

Here they are trumping up the Democrats to be the answer to everything, the be-all and end-all of "changing the world". Everyone can come together behind the democrats and we&#39;ll get all of these glorious changes implemented&#33; Bullshit.

Moreover, there is a glaring contradiction in this very paragraph. They say that "the Democrats are the political party that has ties to all of the necessary forces for change" which includes "labor" in the list. Yet later on, they say that we should "side with corporations" so we can get these reforms passed. They are suggesting that we ally with the bourgeoisie in order to pass reforms that the bourgeoisie are in complete opposition to. That&#39;s a huge contradiction. It seems as if the YCLUSA is just trying to weasel people into supporting the democrats; they don&#39;t even give a thoroughly critical analysis of the proposition. They say "let&#39;s do it&#33;" and support their position with a bunch of halfass reasons and rhetoric that will "gain support". In other words, they&#39;re just as bad as the republicans.


For example, some organizations have called for people to sign a vow that they will not support any candidate that does not take a position of withdrawing from Iraq rapidly. This is a mistake. What option does that leave for the well-meaning person who has taken the vow, but lives in an area where both the Republican and the Democrat are bad on the war? Either working for some third-party candidate who will not win, or staying out of the elections altogether. Either way, the Republican extremists gain.

Apparently not voting is a sin to your church. "Vote or die&#33;" Right?

:rolleyes:



While it’s unpleasant to work on a campaign of a candidate who has bad policies, it may be necessary. It is important to not just work with progressive Democrats, or moderates, but even centrists. The reason for this is a look at the big picture.

Ah, so we should be supporting one section of the bourgeoisie and helping them defeat another section. It seems that the YCL is only interested in changing those at the top; i.e. they want us to choose different exploiters and "like it or not" we should support them because it&#39;s better than "those other exploiters" (even though historically the democrats haven&#39;t been much better than the republicans; Clinton, for example).


If the Democrats take a majority in the House, for example, the heads of all of the committees will automatically change. Any good bill that’s in the Senate or Congress now is bottled up in committees, because the chairs—all of whom are Republican—are able to decide which bills are released to the floor for debate.

John Conyers, who so bitterly fought against the theft of the elections in 2000 and 2004, would be in charge of the judiciary committee—a huge turnaround in itself.

The chair of the Education and Labor Committee would be George Miller who complained recently, “Instead of addressing the challenges facing students and parents, Congress and the administration have decided to cut funding for federal student aid programs to finance tax breaks for the richest Americans.”

So if we get the democrats voted in everything will be perfect&#33; :rolleyes:


We have to get out and defeat the Republican ultra-right, fighting for victories of Democrats, even the “bad” ones. Doing that will achieve a Democratic sweep; allow us to take at least one of the branches away from the extremist right wing. This would open up the possibilities of actually impeaching the president. While it would be a minor victory for a “bad” candidate here or there, it would be a major victory for all of the communities and movements that are currently using the Democratic Party to advance the people’s struggles.

Using the democratic party to advance the people&#39;s struggles? Are you fucking kidding me? :wacko:

The whole article reaks of bourgeois liberal Bush-is-evil bullshit rhetoric that is completely inaccurate and serves only to further the interests of the Democratic bourgeoisie. I&#39;m not going to support the bourgeoisie and I really would like to know why you would.

[KC]

No reply?

[BurnTheOliveTree]

KC. In the USA today, there&#39;s about as much chance of a revolution as there is of the BNP having a section on their website for multi-racial porn. With that in mind, what is wrong with trying to get a slightly better deal within the bourgeoisie capitalist system? Yes, work for the revolution, but it isn&#39;t happening soon. short of a miracle or two, so let&#39;s at least try and slow down the rise of the republican wingnuts, eh?

Just my 2 cents.

-Alex

[Johnny Anarcho]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 09, 2006 06:22 pm
No reply?
Youth Unite and Fight&#33; - Young Communist League, USA - Who We Are&#33;

“Capitalism cannot reform itself; it is doomed to self-destruction.
No universal selfishness can bring social good to all.”
—Dr. W.E.B. Du Bois African American scholar, activist and Communist

CAPITALISM
What do you call a system that promotes selfishness, exploitation, racism and police brutality, sexism, and homophobia? A system that wages unjust wars for profit, that robs young people of jobs and education, devastates our communities with drugs and poverty and destroys our environment?

What do you call a system that puts people out on the streets, lets children go hungry and leaves the sick and elderly without care? A system that allows a small minority to become obscenely wealthy and powerful, while the majority of people live in poverty and powerlessness?

Do you call it inhumane? Unjust? Crazy? You can call it that, or you can just call it capitalism.

Most young people think there’s something wrong with “the system.” There is. What’s wrong is the system of capitalism itself. Under capitalism, the wealth produced by working people goes into the pockets of a small minority—the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

SOCIALISM
What do you call a system that promotes community, economic justice and equality, peace among nations, and outlaws racism, sexism, and homophobia?

What do you call a system that houses the homeless, feeds the hungry, takes care of the sick and elderly, rebuilds our cities and schools, provides jobs and education to all and puts the power of the government into the hands of the multi-racial working class?

Do you call it humane? Just? Rational? You can call it that, or you can just call it socialism.

We can build a system where the wealth produced by the people is owned by the people and services the people. That system is called socialism.

WHO WE ARE
The Young Communist League, USA is a multi-racial, working-class organization made up of youth who believe we can build a better world. We come from a variety of backgrounds, just like the young people of our country: we are employed and unemployed workers, we are high school and college students, we are Black, white, Latino, Asian, and Native American, we are gay and straight, we are women and men.

We struggle together for a socialist USA, for jobs for youth, against racism and oppression, for peace, for women’s rights, for the right to an education for all, and more. We struggle for immediate reforms and at the same time we fight for a more fundamental revolution.

The ruling class has always tried to “divide and conquer.” As communists, we understand that the real enemy is not each other—it’s capitalism.

The capitalist class exploits working people and promotes division and confusion. The enemy is not unions, it is not immigrants, nor any other scapegoat. It’s the corporations and banks that close factories, cut wages and benefits, and force people, especially youth, to work for minimum and sub-minimum wages or join the military in order to get an education or an income.

The enemy is not overseas. It is not the people of Iraq, Cuba, Venezuela, or China. The enemy is the ruling class right here at home. The ruling class profits from imperialist military interventions, while the sons and daughters of the workers of each country do all of the killing and the dying.



TIME FOR SOME ACTION&#33;
The YCL knows how to fight. We are out in the streets marching, protesting and knocking on doors. We are working in our communities and building winning coalitions. We know that young people need to be united with the working class and the labor movement, and with the movements for racial and gender equality.

The YCL is a school of struggle, where we organize and educate each other to fight for our rights, to understand our world and how to change it. The YCL has solutions. The capitalists say that our solutions won’t work, but that’s because they benefit from the existing arrangement of our world.

It is possible to solve the crisis facing young people. Together, we can:


Provide free, quality education and good jobs to all.
Outlaw racism, sexism and homophobia and promote understanding and peace.
Rebuild our communities. Provide recreation, sports and cultural opportunities for all.
End the drug and violence epidemic that is destroying our generation.
Tax the super-rich and corporations and shift the military’s massive budget to social programs that benefit the people.
End all wars and acts of aggression. Build peace and international solidarity&#33;


We struggle for socialism because it offers young people a future. Under capitalism it is possible to win small victories, but only under socialism will they be lasting. Socialism has real solutions to the problems of capitalism. But it won’t come by itself. It will come through the struggles of the people and those who consciously work for it.

The united strength of working people of all races, of women and men, of gays and lesbians, of seniors, of youth and students, can solve the crisis of capitalism. It’s time for some action&#33;

[Black Dagger]

Johnny Anarcho, it&#39;s hard to take your responses seriously when all they consist of is links or large quotes from said links.

You have to respond in your own words, copying and pasting what someone else says is not going to help you develop your own ideas - you dont even have to be able to think to post someone elses writing, you&#39;re not expending any effort to engage with others, how do you expect people are to react?

KC made an excellent critique of your organisation, it would help you a little more to think about what he said and have a go at crafting a response to it, posting it in here and then going from there.

[Johnny Anarcho]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 09, 2006 06:22 pm
No reply?
Comrade, I dont know where your from but things work differently in the US. Our Communist Party isnt a major-player in politics at this time and so Party Leadership decided to support the enemy of its enemy. The enemy of the Republicans, the Democratic Party. In solidarity and in compliance with Democratic-Centralism the Young Communist League also supported the Democratic Party against the Republicans. As you can read in the Summer issue of Dynamic we dont deny the fact of the Democrats being a borgeois party. If it ever became neccessary we would fight them too. However, we prefer a bourgeois-left winged party to a bourgeois-right winged party if one of them is going to control Congress. We detest violent revolution and according to the Program of the Young Communist League, we will be peacful unless met with violence or attacked and/or assaulted in some way or manner. Carry out the struggle in your country as you will but dont judge us until youve been in our shoes.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by JA
Comrade, I dont know where your from but things work differently in the US.

FYI, KC lives in the USA, i look forward to his reply (i dont think you&#39;re gonna like it).

[Johnny Anarcho]

Originally posted by Black Dagger+November 10, 2006 09:20 am--> (Black Dagger @ November 10, 2006 09:20 am)
JA
Comrade, I dont know where your from but things work differently in the US.

FYI, KC lives in the USA, i look forward to his reply (i dont think you&#39;re gonna like it). [/b]
How was I to know, his name is Russian. If anything I&#39;ll bet hes with the PLP or the RCP-USA judging by his "anti-reviosonist" views.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Johnny Anarcho+November 10, 2006 07:30 pm--> (Johnny Anarcho &#064; November 10, 2006 07:30 pm)
Originally posted by Black [email protected] 10, 2006 09:20 am

JA
Comrade, I dont know where your from but things work differently in the US.

FYI, KC lives in the USA, i look forward to his reply (i dont think you&#39;re gonna like it).
How was I to know, his name is Russian. If anything I&#39;ll bet hes with the PLP or the RCP-USA judging by his "anti-reviosonist" views. [/b]
What &#39;anti-revisionist views&#39;?

What is &#39;anti-revisionism&#39;?

As for what organisation he is a part of, you only need look at his signature, the Communist League (a USA organisation).

[KC]

Our Communist Party isnt a major-player in politics at this time and so Party Leadership decided to support the enemy of its enemy. The enemy of the Republicans, the Democratic Party.

Yeah, they&#39;ve decided to support bourgeois democracy and the rule of the bourgeoisie. Sounds a little anti working-class doesn&#39;t it?


In solidarity and in compliance with Democratic-Centralism the Young Communist League also supported the Democratic Party against the Republicans.

Ah, yes. The YCL is a fucking joke. It&#39;s nothing more than an organization started so that the youth can "play revolutionary" while the grownups "get things done" in the CPUSA.


As you can read in the Summer issue of Dynamic we dont deny the fact of the Democrats being a borgeois party. If it ever became neccessary we would fight them too.

Yeah, but according to you it&#39;s "never necessary". In fact, you openly support them.


However, we prefer a bourgeois-left winged party to a bourgeois-right winged party if one of them is going to control Congress.

So in other words you support bourgeois rule and work to perpetuate it.


We detest violent revolution and according to the Program of the Young Communist League,

That&#39;s because you&#39;re "for peace" and "for gun control" and all that liberal bullshit.


we will be peacful unless met with violence or attacked and/or assaulted in some way or manner.

Which will never happen because:

1. You don&#39;t conduct revolutionary activity and are as much of a threat to the bourgeoisie as the democrats.
2. All you do is engage in liberal protesting.


Carry out the struggle in your country as you will but dont judge us until youve been in our shoes.

I&#39;ve "been in your shoes". In fact, I used to work with one of the most active YCL groups in the country. Guess what they did? (hint: not much at all). In fact, since a few of the more sensible members left (because the higher-ups were harassing them because they were considering leaving; sounds like a great organization, doesn&#39;t it?) all their work consists of is fundraising so they can go to party conventions. They do absolutely no work with the working class, and are mostly petty-bourgeois college kids.


How was I to know, his name is Russian.

:lol: No it&#39;s not. It doesn&#39;t even sound Russian.


If anything I&#39;ll bet hes with the PLP or the RCP-USA judging by his "anti-reviosonist" views.

My view is Marxist. Yours is not. My organization is Marxist. Yours is liberal. My organization is working class and supports the working class. Yours is petty bourgeois and supports the bourgeoisie.

Moreover, it&#39;s pretty funny that you&#39;re accusing me of belonging to stalinist/maoist organizations when you&#39;re a member of the YCL/CPUSA, which, during the Stalin era, served as a puppet organization for the Soviets (which, by the way, is something they&#39;ll never live down).

Also, if you would like to learn about the organization that I&#39;m in, which gets real work done, check out the link in my sig.


Originally posted by BD
What &#39;anti-revisionist views&#39;?

See what happened is that his views are so bleeding-heart liberal that he now considers marxists of every kind "stalinist" or "maoist," which is hilarious considering he&#39;s in the CPUSA/YCL.



As for what organisation he is a part of, you only need look at his signature, the Communist League (a USA organisation).

The League is an international organization.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by patton+November 09, 2006 09:46 pm--> (patton @ November 09, 2006 09:46 pm)
[email protected] 09, 2006 08:59 pm
KC. In the USA today, there&#39;s about as much chance of a revolution as there is of the BNP having a section on their website for multi-racial porn. With that in mind, what is wrong with trying to get a slightly better deal within the bourgeoisie capitalist system? Yes, work for the revolution, but it isn&#39;t happening soon. short of a miracle or two, so let&#39;s at least try and slow down the rise of the republican wingnuts, eh?

Just my 2 cents.

-Alex
I agree with you 100%. What does not voting accomplish?.... NOTHING. You guys represent 1 % of this country population you guys have no chance of taking power for decades and decades. Why not work with in system for change until you have a chance at taking power? For christ sake the last thing this country needs are those loser republicans taking power again in two years&#33;&#33; [/b]

So in other words, the objective of revolutionary lefters should be to promote their ideals by stealth, by deception, by being dishonest as to who they are ect ect.

1. How would one then build up the credibility neccessary to lead?

2. How does a movement, which has such a culture, then be in a position to defend democracy, freedom, liberty, when their time comes, so to speak? At that point, their dishonesty is rampant, and nobody can no whern they are being honest or when delivering falsehoods.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

No, ZX3, you bloody idiot. Think about it. Anyone with half a brain cell knows that a revolutionarly leftist does not actually want the democrats in power in an ideal world. However, just in case we get the one guy without half a brain cell, we will make it abundantly clear that we only support voting democrat if you would otherwise vote republican. I would rather that America accepts civil unions than America says that God hates fags. I would rather America does not have a bunch of warmongering, redneck, gun-toting, gay-hating, evangelical fucknuts in power, thank you very much. Yes, I advocate voting for a capitalist party, so what? Where&#39;s your sense of context? Think before you post. :)

-Alex

[ZX3]

Originally posted by patton+November 10, 2006 02:55 pm--> (patton &#064; November 10, 2006 02:55 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 01:12 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 09:46 pm

[email protected] 09, 2006 08:59 pm
KC. In the USA today, there&#39;s about as much chance of a revolution as there is of the BNP having a section on their website for multi-racial porn. With that in mind, what is wrong with trying to get a slightly better deal within the bourgeoisie capitalist system? Yes, work for the revolution, but it isn&#39;t happening soon. short of a miracle or two, so let&#39;s at least try and slow down the rise of the republican wingnuts, eh?

Just my 2 cents.

-Alex
I agree with you 100%. What does not voting accomplish?.... NOTHING. You guys represent 1 % of this country population you guys have no chance of taking power for decades and decades. Why not work with in system for change until you have a chance at taking power? For christ sake the last thing this country needs are those loser republicans taking power again in two years&#33;&#33;

So in other words, the objective of revolutionary lefters should be to promote their ideals by stealth, by deception, by being dishonest as to who they are ect ect.

1. How would one then build up the credibility neccessary to lead?

2. How does a movement, which has such a culture, then be in a position to defend democracy, freedom, liberty, when their time comes, so to speak? At that point, their dishonesty is rampant, and nobody can no whern they are being honest or when delivering falsehoods.
Where the hell did you get that? I said work with in the system for change not hide the fact your communist. Are you on drugs again? [/b]
The objective of the Revolutionary Lefter is to change the system, not simply to reform it. Many members have made this point.

So yes, my observation still holds- working within the system to reform it, when the objective is really to overthrow it, is engaging in dishonesty and deception.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 02:28 pm
No, ZX3, you bloody idiot. Think about it. Anyone with half a brain cell knows that a revolutionarly leftist does not actually want the democrats in power in an ideal world. However, just in case we get the one guy without half a brain cell, we will make it abundantly clear that we only support voting democrat if you would otherwise vote republican. I would rather that America accepts civil unions than America says that God hates fags. I would rather America does not have a bunch of warmongering, redneck, gun-toting, gay-hating, evangelical fucknuts in power, thank you very much. Yes, I advocate voting for a capitalist party, so what? Where&#39;s your sense of context? Think before you post. :)

-Alex
Sure, voting for a Democrat moves things closer to what you want rather than voting for a Republican (Republicans have been saying this for years. Thank you for the confirmation). But voting for CPUSA or DSA will move it even closer. The reason you won&#39;t is because you know such a candidate is not popular. So instead deception and deceit is being relied upon.

[KC]

Sure, voting for a Democrat moves things closer to what you want rather than voting for a Republican (Republicans have been saying this for years. Thank you for the confirmation). But voting for CPUSA or DSA will move it even closer.

Actually, that&#39;s not true. I consider the CPUSA worse than the democratic party because they&#39;re democrats hiding behind marxist rhetoric.

[Johnny Anarcho]

Originally posted by Khayembii Communique+November 10, 2006 12:32 pm--> (Khayembii Communique @ November 10, 2006 12:32 pm)
Our Communist Party isnt a major-player in politics at this time and so Party Leadership decided to support the enemy of its enemy. The enemy of the Republicans, the Democratic Party.

Yeah, they&#39;ve decided to support bourgeois democracy and the rule of the bourgeoisie. Sounds a little anti working-class doesn&#39;t it?


In solidarity and in compliance with Democratic-Centralism the Young Communist League also supported the Democratic Party against the Republicans.

Ah, yes. The YCL is a fucking joke. It&#39;s nothing more than an organization started so that the youth can "play revolutionary" while the grownups "get things done" in the CPUSA.


As you can read in the Summer issue of Dynamic we dont deny the fact of the Democrats being a borgeois party. If it ever became neccessary we would fight them too.

Yeah, but according to you it&#39;s "never necessary". In fact, you openly support them.


However, we prefer a bourgeois-left winged party to a bourgeois-right winged party if one of them is going to control Congress.

So in other words you support bourgeois rule and work to perpetuate it.


We detest violent revolution and according to the Program of the Young Communist League,

That&#39;s because you&#39;re "for peace" and "for gun control" and all that liberal bullshit.


we will be peacful unless met with violence or attacked and/or assaulted in some way or manner.

Which will never happen because:

1. You don&#39;t conduct revolutionary activity and are as much of a threat to the bourgeoisie as the democrats.
2. All you do is engage in liberal protesting.


Carry out the struggle in your country as you will but dont judge us until youve been in our shoes.

I&#39;ve "been in your shoes". In fact, I used to work with one of the most active YCL groups in the country. Guess what they did? (hint: not much at all). In fact, since a few of the more sensible members left (because the higher-ups were harassing them because they were considering leaving; sounds like a great organization, doesn&#39;t it?) all their work consists of is fundraising so they can go to party conventions. They do absolutely no work with the working class, and are mostly petty-bourgeois college kids.


How was I to know, his name is Russian.

:lol: No it&#39;s not. It doesn&#39;t even sound Russian.


If anything I&#39;ll bet hes with the PLP or the RCP-USA judging by his "anti-reviosonist" views.

My view is Marxist. Yours is not. My organization is Marxist. Yours is liberal. My organization is working class and supports the working class. Yours is petty bourgeois and supports the bourgeoisie.

Moreover, it&#39;s pretty funny that you&#39;re accusing me of belonging to stalinist/maoist organizations when you&#39;re a member of the YCL/CPUSA, which, during the Stalin era, served as a puppet organization for the Soviets (which, by the way, is something they&#39;ll never live down).

Also, if you would like to learn about the organization that I&#39;m in, which gets real work done, check out the link in my sig.


BD
What &#39;anti-revisionist views&#39;?

See what happened is that his views are so bleeding-heart liberal that he now considers marxists of every kind "stalinist" or "maoist," which is hilarious considering he&#39;s in the CPUSA/YCL.



As for what organisation he is a part of, you only need look at his signature, the Communist League (a USA organisation).

The League is an international organization. [/b]
I support them as the lesser of two evils. Call me Liberal if you want but I&#39;m sure that all Marxist-Leninists want peace instead of being stuck in Iraq. We may engage in protesting but its more then I&#39;ve seen your League do. The Communist League is a tiny bunch of Marxist purists who cant get it through their head that compromise can lead to small victorys instead of being hard-headed and winning no victorys at all. I&#39;m sorry your experience with the YCL wasnt the best but we have changed and I myself am trying to organize in my highschool, a very working class community. Your organization is Orthodox Marxist purism. My organization is Marxist-Leninist. The Party only worked with the Soviets then so that we could maintain international solidarity. No one had any idea back then about the true Stalin and his crimes. The Party is under new leadership and is working to make up the mistakes of the past. I know about the Communist League; I admire them but they need to be working with other partys instead of facing down the storm alone. The League isnt international, you have no connections with Cuba or anything.

[KC]

I support them as the lesser of two evils. Call me Liberal if you want but I&#39;m sure that all Marxist-Leninists want peace instead of being stuck in Iraq.

And you really think that the democrats are going to pull out of Iraq?


We may engage in protesting but its more then I&#39;ve seen your League do.

We have done many things. We have helped set up protests and rallies, many League members were involved in the organizing of the immigrant rights protests, we were among the first people to bring disaster relief to Katrina victims, we have helped organize community programs (such as soup kitchens), we have coordinated with the IFC to help further their cause, we have helped striking workers in their fight, etc... etc... All of this is documented on our site.


The Communist League is a tiny bunch of Marxist purists who cant get it through their head that compromise can lead to small victorys instead of being hard-headed and winning no victorys at all.

We&#39;re not "Marxist purists" at all. We have probably done much more work to organize and further the cause of the proletariat than the YCL has ever done (and we&#39;re two years old).


I&#39;m sorry your experience with the YCL wasnt the best but we have changed

My friends were members of the YCL and they were repeatedly harassed and slandered by higher-up YCL bureaucrats for leaving. This was six months ago. I doubt you&#39;ve had that drastic of a change in party leadership or attitude in that short of a time.


and I myself am trying to organize in my highschool, a very working class community.

Good for you, and I applaud you for that. But you have to realize that organizing through the YCL isn&#39;t going to get you anywhere. If you don&#39;t realize it now, then you will eventually. I&#39;m just trying to save you some time.


Your organization is Orthodox Marxist purism.

Actually, it isn&#39;t at all. The League is founded on basic Marxist principles, and the requirements for membership are agreement with our basic principles and League Bulletins. If you would like to check it out you will realize that what I say is true. Since we are founded on basic principles, we have members of all different ideological backgrounds in our organization. We don&#39;t describe ourselves as anything other than communist, because any other description wouldn&#39;t do us justice. We aren&#39;t Marxist-Leninist because we have some anti-Leninist Marxists (although incorporated in our basic principles are ideas from State & Revolution and Imperialism), nor are we anti-Leninist Marxists, beacuse we have some Marxist-Leninists in our group as well.


My organization is Marxist-Leninist.

No it&#39;s not. It&#39;s based on vague principles based on Lenin&#39;s tactics and vulgarized from his theory that were hijacked by the petty-bourgeois elements of the left and used to further their own interests.


The Party only worked with the Soviets then so that we could maintain international solidarity. No one had any idea back then about the true Stalin and his crimes. The Party is under new leadership and is working to make up the mistakes of the past.

Yes, but they will never be able to do so. They will always be known for that.


I know about the Communist League; I admire them but they need to be working with other partys instead of facing down the storm alone.

We do work with other parties, and are completely open to working with the YCL. I think I&#39;ve made a mistake in coming off so aggressively, and for that I apologize. I have personal experiences with the YCL that have completely turned me off to them and really have made me dislike them. You should take these hostile statements as my personal opinions and not of the League. However, I&#39;m sure many League members would agree with my analysis of the YCL and CPUSA, but that doesn&#39;t mean we aren&#39;t willing to work with them if they are willing to do so as well.


The League isnt international, you have no connections with Cuba or anything.

We are international. We have members all over the world, from Britain to Holland to Lebanon. If you look at our site you can see that we have a publication in Britain (Liberation) and one in Holland (De Werkelijkheid). We also have many contacts and supporters worldwide. You also have to keep in mind that our organization is only two years old, yet has grown faster than we ever could have imagined.

If you would like some help organizing in your area or if you want some more info on the League you can always either contact us (http://www.communistleague.org/page.php?23) or register on our discussion board to discuss anything, from the League to revolutionary theory in general. I hope you haven&#39;t taken my comments about the YCL personally, as it wasn&#39;t intended in that way.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

ZX3 - It&#39;s not so much because their unpopular as it is they haven&#39;t got a hope in hell. In many places they don&#39;t even stand, is my understanding. The democrats, whilst ideologically repulsive, stand a very good chance of improving things, however little. It&#39;s not deception, very clearly, because we deceive no one in doing this. We do not hide our true values for one millionth of a second. It is a tactical vote. Voting for CPUSA might be what you would do in an ideal world, but in the present political climate of America, it is pissing into the gale force wind. You will do jack shit by voting for a communist party in the US, apart from aid the republicans in their persecution of homosexuals and basically anyone who isn&#39;t a white christian male who votes republican.

-Alex

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Admittedly the democrats aren&#39;t even considering a pull out. In fact, I was watching Newsnight last night, and the consensus among them is to send more troops in. No war, no votes in the US.

-Alex

[Johnny Anarcho]

Thankyou KC and I also want to appologize. I guess these days in the American Communist community we all see our organizations as a part of ourselves and thus are quick to aggression when met with criticism from a Communist of another organization. I&#39;m only a cadre so I wouldnt be able to give any details about possible co-operation between the Communist League and the Communist Party USA/ Young Communist League USA. I think something should be started to create some sort of partnership between all the Communist movements in America. Like instead of an International, a National. :redstar: The Communist National of the United States of America :redstar: Has a nice ring to it :marx: Anyway, something must be done to get every party to work together so maybe someday we wont have to resort to voting for the Democrats. Personally I&#39;ve met some members of the Young Democrats of America at a teach-in that was organized on November 7 and they arent all that bad. I think its the politicians that mess things up but individual members of the Democrats and Republicans are usually ok. Of course Im talking about the people at the cadres. I by no means endorse either one of them nor do I agree with them all the time on every issue but generally they have the interests of the nation in mind. Thats just me of course =D

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 10, 2006 03:21 pm

Sure, voting for a Democrat moves things closer to what you want rather than voting for a Republican (Republicans have been saying this for years. Thank you for the confirmation). But voting for CPUSA or DSA will move it even closer.

Actually, that&#39;s not true. I consider the CPUSA worse than the democratic party because they&#39;re democrats hiding behind marxist rhetoric.

Who are "they?"

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 04:57 pm
ZX3 - It&#39;s not so much because their unpopular as it is they haven&#39;t got a hope in hell. In many places they don&#39;t even stand, is my understanding. The democrats, whilst ideologically repulsive, stand a very good chance of improving things, however little. It&#39;s not deception, very clearly, because we deceive no one in doing this. We do not hide our true values for one millionth of a second. It is a tactical vote. Voting for CPUSA might be what you would do in an ideal world, but in the present political climate of America, it is pissing into the gale force wind. You will do jack shit by voting for a communist party in the US, apart from aid the republicans in their persecution of homosexuals and basically anyone who isn&#39;t a white christian male who votes republican.

-Alex

How does strengthening one wing of the bourgeoise dictatorship strenghthen the objectives of socialism?

[BurnTheOliveTree]

You still don&#39;t get it. Unbelievable.

A. The U.S.A, whatever it is, is not a dictatorship, it is bourgeoisie democracy.

B. It&#39;s not about strengthening socialism, it&#39;s about weakening the republicans to get Joe Proletarian a marginally better deal, particularly if he or she is gay, black, or a lefty, in conjunction with actual revolutionary activities, the objective of which would be to push toward socialism and eventually communism.

-Alex

[KC]

Who are "they?"

The CPUSA.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2006 12:53 am
You still don&#39;t get it. Unbelievable.

A. The U.S.A, whatever it is, is not a dictatorship, it is bourgeoisie democracy.

B. It&#39;s not about strengthening socialism, it&#39;s about weakening the republicans to get Joe Proletarian a marginally better deal, particularly if he or she is gay, black, or a lefty, in conjunction with actual revolutionary activities, the objective of which would be to push toward socialism and eventually communism.

-Alex

Yes. Deception. The objective is not to strengthen the Democrats, but play them for fools.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 12, 2006 12:59 am

Who are "they?"

The CPUSA.
I don&#39;t think that voting for the Democratic Party will advance the cause of socialism faster than voting for the Communists. It may be true though that voting for Communism will retard the development of your particular socialist party.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

No, ZX3, it is not deception, it is a tactical vote, an openly tactical vote. You can&#39;t deceive anyone without being dishonest, and we would be unashamedly voting for a lesser of two evils. Please don&#39;t make me be a parrot.

-Alex

[Johnny Anarcho]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2006 01:24 am
Please don&#39;t make me be a parrot.

-Alex
Alex wanta cracker :lol:

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Shush, you. :)

-Alex

[Guns of Brixton]

The U.S.A, whatever it is, is not a dictatorship, it is bourgeoisie democracy.


The US is to to a dictatorshp. It is the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Bourgeoise democracy is the form of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

You are not even a marxist. This is marxism 1A stuff, dude.

Bourgeois democracy, as clearly demonstrated by our experience in the US, is not democracy for the broad masses. Even somebody like Chomsky understands this ("Manufacturing Consent"). The bourgeoisie controls the entire ideological and political superstructure so that we cannot even frame the real questions aor discuss the real issues. Money controls all parts of the political process. Only the rich get to power, they only represent the ideas that are supported by the rich, if a leftist leader somehow arises withing the framework of the capitalist superstructure, he/she is demonized, slandered to seem rediculious or assassinated. This is a dictatorship of the capitalist class.

It is an illusion that the democrats are somehow to the left of the republicans. They represent different approaches to advancing the interests of the empire. What will you do when your illusions will be broken when the democrats follow through on their promise to escalate the war in Iraq?

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Guns Of Brixton - I do not claim to be a marxist. Even if I agreed with marxism I don&#39;t think it&#39;s right to centre your politics on one individual.

To address your point:

Dictatorship, to me, means that a state is ruled by one party, who have seized power withouty being elected, and proceed to freeze out all opposition and cease further elections.

Now, you might make the case that the republicans weren&#39;t elected and cheated the elections, and were immediately very tough on the liberal left in the U.S. However, you cannot say they have ceased elections, nor can you say that the U.S. is ruled by one party, particularly since the democrats have just taken both houses of congress.

Nearly every leader is eventually demonized, leftist or not, and many non leftist leaders have had attempts on their life.

If you don&#39;t have a vote, you are in a dictatorship because you have no choice whatsoever in anything. If you have a vote, you are in bourgeoisie democracy, where you have a small amount of choice about a small amount of things.

I don&#39;t differ from you an awful lot really, I just think lablelling the U.S. a dictatorship isn&#39;t appropriate.

-Alex

[Johnny Anarcho]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2006 06:07 pm
I don&#39;t think it&#39;s right to centre your politics on one individual.
Well done, a brilliant observation. It&#39;s funny because I&#39;m criticized on RevLeft for putting faith in God yet most of my critics put theirs in Marx or Bakunin or Lenin etc. If the super-natural is unreliable then how can one persons ideas be any truer.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Merci beaucoup. :blush:

-Alex

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Guns of [email protected] 12, 2006 05:39 pm
The US is to to a dictatorshp. It is the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Bourgeoise democracy is the form of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

You are not even a marxist. This is completely stupid dude.


Fixed for accuracy. Good grief.

[AlwaysAnarchy]

I agree 100% with the pragmatic policies of Burn the Olive Tree and patton&#33;&#33;&#33; :)

I when I was a member told peeps to vote AGAINST the Republican Party -- and it looks like the American people did&#33;

Hooray for democracy&#33; Hooray for eliiminating the worst of the right wing Republican rule&#33;&#33; Happy time&#33;&#33;&#33; :wub: :wub: :rolleyes: :P :lol:

[Rollo]

Most SERIOUS Leninists don&#39;t really care about the man with the bald head and cool threads, it&#39;s his ideas that people such as myself follow. I don&#39;t agree with much of what happened in the USSR and such but Lenin&#39;s writings and teachings are what I follow.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I&#39;ve got to laugh at this guy coming in here with CPUSA shit, and talking about overthrowing capitalism. The CPUSA gave that up in the 30s. Since then they&#39;ve played the left wing of the Democratic party..

Real communists condemn DPRK for developing missles for self defense right? :lol:

It&#39;s also funny that a party that supported the USSR as socialist decades ago, tells us that capitalism isn&#39;t fully developed in the US in 2006, and so can&#39;t be overthrown. What a fucking joke.

If anything, the capitalist system is in decay. It&#39;s no longer progressive. It has over lived its usefullness. That&#39;s why it falls on us workers to bury it.

[Rollo]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 14, 2006 04:11 am
I&#39;ve got to laugh at this guy coming in here with CPUSA shit, and talking about overthrowing capitalism. The CPUSA gave that up in the 30s. Since then they&#39;ve played the left wing of the Democratic party..

Real communists condemn DPRK for developing missles for self defense right? :lol:

It&#39;s also funny that a party that supported the USSR as socialist decades ago, tells us that capitalism isn&#39;t fully developed in the US in 2006, and so can&#39;t be overthrown. What a fucking joke.

If anything, the capitalist system is in decay. It&#39;s no longer progressive. It has over lived its usefullness. That&#39;s why it falls on us workers to bury it.
That&#39;s about as stupid as the slavik nazis&#33;

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 02:28 pm
No, ZX3, you bloody idiot. Think about it. Anyone with half a brain cell knows that a revolutionarly leftist does not actually want the democrats in power in an ideal world. However, just in case we get the one guy without half a brain cell, we will make it abundantly clear that we only support voting democrat if you would otherwise vote republican. I would rather that America accepts civil unions than America says that God hates fags. I would rather America does not have a bunch of warmongering, redneck, gun-toting, gay-hating, evangelical fucknuts in power, thank you very much. Yes, I advocate voting for a capitalist party, so what? Where&#39;s your sense of context? Think before you post. :)

-Alex
Comapnero del Ibertad I think you should read this:

Quoted again for TRUTH:

The real revolutionary position.

[AlwaysAnarchy]

:unsure: :huh: :P :o :mellow: :rolleyes: YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

HIPPY TIME&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; :wub: :lol: :wub: :lol:

[ZX3]

Originally posted by patton+November 13, 2006 03:51 pm--> (patton @ November 13, 2006 03:51 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2006 01:08 am

[email protected] 12, 2006 12:53 am
You still don&#39;t get it. Unbelievable.

A. The U.S.A, whatever it is, is not a dictatorship, it is bourgeoisie democracy.

B. It&#39;s not about strengthening socialism, it&#39;s about weakening the republicans to get Joe Proletarian a marginally better deal, particularly if he or she is gay, black, or a lefty, in conjunction with actual revolutionary activities, the objective of which would be to push toward socialism and eventually communism.

-Alex

Yes. Deception. The objective is not to strengthen the Democrats, but play them for fools.
What are you not getting about voting for the lesser of two evils? It has nothing to do with playing anyone for the fool. [/b]
Of course it does. The Democratic Party, whatwever its faults, still favors the capitalist system (or at least, i suppose, from the perspective of a genuine RLer). It still favors the present structures of society. At best, the Dems are reformers, and from the RL perspective, rather mild ones at that.

The RLers here wish to overthrow the system. the theory, or tactic, is that by backing moderate reformers of the capitalist system, the system can be weakened so as to make the overthrow of the system that much more easier. So yes, you are playing Democrats for fools, and that yes indeed, you are being deceptive

[AlwaysAnarchy]

YEAAAAAAAAA&#33; lol

[Alexander Hamilton]

There is no question that start up companies are the vangaurd of capitalism, but rarely for the sake of capitalsim. The most successful business people usually don’t start out to become “capitalists”; that is, the owners of the tools of production or the bosses of the service industry. It simply evolves that way.

Most people in this situation, like the moderator’s example, want to accomplish a goal that is personal to themselves. In the case of the example, allow others to hear their music.

If you give it some thought, musicians can allow the world to hear their music using non-proprietary means. You can post all your music to the internet, and invite people to download it or listen to it on a web stream or webcast. I am not fully expert in these technologies, but understand how to use them, both on the recording, and uploading and downloading of music through them.

So, given this technology, and knowing that nearly everyone who can listen to this “cool” music owns a computer and speakers, why would young singers and their “crews” choose to market their records instead?

Yes, mones is an incentive, but it is not the central reasons for success in the game.

The center of the music industry business in America (as a business) is Los Angeles, California. Being a part of the Los Angeles music scene, (let us take the young, 10 to 18 or 14 to 24 market where music is marketed to this age group: i.e., young music to hang out, dance or date with, including hip hop and the like) means seeing others and being seen by others and being at certain clubs and hang outs, and showing up wearing certain clothing and driving certain kinds of cars and producing certain videos. i could go on, but most of you know all of this.

You’ll remember from the beginning that there is technically no real large amounts of money to send your music o ut. However, to PROJECT a certain image, money in large amounts is necessary for being able to by all of the perifferal shit mentioned above, AND continuously project onself as a winner.

Now let’s take on the big issues of what the moderator brought up in his thread:

If you intent the better service for the business community, you have to see and be seen for interviews, in certain clothing, driving certain cars, affording a lot of front money, and dining at certain places. You want to control your product or service output, and that means creating policy, obtaining resources and making a better product or service. So you do, naturally , by moving a bunch of cash around, become this vanguard of capitalism. While you probably don’t look and act like the McCarthy-Nixon-Agnew-Bobby Kennedy version of suporting the House on UnAmerican Activities (the Commie Witch Hunts of the 40s and 50s), you DO end up on the other side of communism as such a system would never allow you to produce the product you want to UNDER YOUR STANDARDS, or produce the same servie you want to UNDER YOUR STANDARDS.

Most people who make a lot of money in America (as opposed to inheritance) WANT to DO SOMETHING, and money merely becomes the tool to make it possible, and a windfall to success, allowing such people a finer things in life lifestyle. It also allows people (for better or worse) to ONLY be surrounded by like minded people, famous in their field.

This is one of the vanguard issues that often go undiscussed in the commie realm: People want to be celebrated for their achievements. In the capitalist world, if you have an idea, and you work hard, and you&#39;re lucky, it is possible for your idea to be known, and for you to be celebrated. It&#39;s the same in the communist world, BUT it requires recognition and support from a high ranking party member. Without it, you&#39;re nowhere. (One of the more amusing aspects of China today is watching the communist party members attempting to make themselves appear to be relevant. They are, of course, a waste of space. But it&#39;s a big country.)


A. Hamilton