Socialist/Communist Agenda

[R_P_A_S]

There's a vast sea of questions, problems and issues dealing with how socialism should be reached, let alone communism. and also regarding the "right" path to revolution.

If socialist/communist around the world held some sort of meeting.. what are 3 CRUCIAL issues that should be addressed in order to prevent the mistakes from the past to jeopardize revolution and socialism...

[R_P_A_S]

bright future lies ahead, indeed lol :huh:

[Red7]

Good question. I would love to be there! :)
Definitely use the Internationale at every meeting, though I know that doesn't help. :blush: Sorry Long Live The Revolution!

[Ander]

I can already smell the sectarianism that is going to plague this thread.

You are assuming that all communists get along and agree with each other. Right away you're going to get a load of arguments and differences in thinking.

One major issue is organisation; those who tend to identify more with left communism (like myself) are going to oppose complete centralisation while those following a Marxist-Leninist ideology are going to disagree.

[R_P_A_S]

I liked what RedLenin had already started. he started a thread about Party and State.. the role of the party during and after the revolution. definably CRUCIAL!

perhaps if we start from step one...

would that be? 1. how do we rally up the proletariat to become more class conscious? I sometimes get the feeling some people feel they will just one day magically come to this??? I highly doubt it

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 08:21 pm
I can already smell the sectarianism that is going to plague this thread.

You are assuming that all communists get along and agree with each other. Right away you're going to get a load of arguments and differences in thinking.

One major issue is organisation; those who tend to identify more with left communism (like myself) are going to oppose complete centralisation while those following a Marxist-Leninist ideology are going to disagree.
i realized this as soonest i read my thread man.. fuck! well we all do want the ultimate goal right? at the end we all want the same thing. we just cant make up our minds how to get there....

however I don't fucking understand how some people still insist on methods that have failed and proofed inconsistency and the existence of classes... blah!

[Ander]

i realized this as soonest i read my thread man.. fuck! well we all do want the ultimate goal right? at the end we all want the same thing. we just cant make up our minds how to get there....

It's not so simple as that. The way to get there is everything, it decides whether the uprising is successful and it lays the foundations for post-revolutionary society.


however I don't fucking understand how some people still insist on methods that have failed and proofed inconsistency and the existence of classes... blah!

If you're talking about left communism, maybe you should take a look at history. All communist revolution thus far have been led by a Leninist vanguard, and all of them (in my opinion) have failed.

This is where the sectarian flaming will begin.

[The Grey Blur]

Indeed. ;)

Three important things that would need to be discussed, hmm...

1) The legacy of past revolutions, worker's uprisings, etc and what lessons we can learn from them.

2) How to raise the class consciousness of the working-class today. Organisational methods, propaganda, cooperation and other matters crucial to this subject.

3) Questions of nationalism, race, religion, sexuality, class and other topics which could be discussed and our viewpoints elaborated on?

Definitely the first two anyway. I don't think the third would stimulate much debate. Good thread RPAS.

[Question everything]

1) Whose was worse Thacher or Reagan?

2) How to get the people even more pissed at Bush?

3) When do we get our Biscuts?

:P :P :P

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 08:21 pm
I can already smell the sectarianism that is going to plague this thread.

You are assuming that all communists get along and agree with each other. Right away you're going to get a load of arguments and differences in thinking.

One major issue is organisation; those who tend to identify more with left communism (like myself) are going to oppose complete centralisation while those following a Marxist-Leninist ideology are going to disagree.
^^^ Your fellow left-communist Leo wants more complete "centralisation" - at least in regards to one international party (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65355). [And I do, too - as a GENUINE "Leninist" Marxist]

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Jello
One major issue is organisation; those who tend to identify more with left communism (like myself) are going to oppose complete centralisation while those following a Marxist-Leninist ideology are going to disagree.
The entire communist left argues for centralisation. I think that either you misunderstand what 'centralism' means, or you misunderstand the politics of the left communists.
Devrim

[Leo]

If you're talking about left communism, maybe you should take a look at history. All communist revolution thus far have been led by a Leninist vanguard, and all of them (in my opinion) have failed.

Well this analysis is not entirely accurate in my opinion. Real proletarian revolutions, such as the one in 1917, was not lead or directed by the Bolsheviks; who seized power was the councils, which had a very high number of Bolshevik workers within them, but among others of course. The defeat was caused by the fact that the revolution couldn't spread; it was trapped in Russia and the bourgeoisie quickly took power by bureaucratic means, through the mechanisms of the Bolshevik Party, the Red Army and the state, thus making a counter revolution. As for the other examples which I think you are talking about, China, Cuba etc. those "revolutions" were never actual workers revolutions; just conflicts between different bourgeois factions.


One major issue is organisation; those who tend to identify more with left communism (like myself) are going to oppose complete centralisation while those following a Marxist-Leninist ideology are going to disagree.

Centralism should not be understood as bureaucracy, hierarchy or other institutional mechanisms or relations practiced by the bourgeoisie although I know that is what most people understand because "Marxist-Leninists" called what they were doing "centralism". It is rather about the unity and consistency of an organization holding class line on the world level. I think that the role of the communist organization is explained rather well in the Communist Manifesto:

"1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole."

Doing this, by definition, is centralism.

[Q]

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 18, 2007 08:47 pm
Indeed. ;)

Three important things that would need to be discussed, hmm...

1) The legacy of past revolutions, worker's uprisings, etc and what lessons we can learn from them.

2) How to raise the class consciousness of the working-class today. Organisational methods, propaganda, cooperation and other matters crucial to this subject.

3) Questions of nationalism, race, religion, sexuality, class and other topics which could be discussed and our viewpoints elaborated on?

Definitely the first two anyway. I don't think the third would stimulate much debate. Good thread RPAS.
Or, in others words:
1. Analysis of what went wrong in the past.
2. Organisation of the working class (unions, workers parties, soviets, etc).
3. Internationalist program.

Sounds good :)

We could always switch to an alternative:
1. Pot
2. ...
3. Profit!

[UndergroundConnexion]

problem is that some will say "NOTHING WENT WRONG IN THE PAST" , while some others would scream "STALIN IS WHAT WAS WRONG IN THE PAST". In short there there will already be a fuck up. So we would not exactly know what not to do in the future.

[Question everything]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 09:01 pm
problem is that some will say "NOTHING WENT WRONG IN THE PAST" , while some others would scream "STALIN IS WHAT WAS WRONG IN THE PAST". In short there there will already be a fuck up. So we would not exactly know what not to do in the future.
it will probably invovle guns somehow... and hopefully the the Stalinist will lose :D

[Rawthentic]

Cuba etc. those "revolutions" were never actual workers revolutions; just conflicts between different bourgeois factions.
Hmm.. wrong, Cuba was a worker's revolution.

[Niemand]

If we were ever to form a Fifth International with communists of all persuasions could get together and talk about things. We'd need to talk with discipline and give everyone a chance to talk, and it would last a long time, but it would probably produce the last hope for humanity.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Look, there is no way that all communists could come together under one organization - that is a given.

But that doesn't mean we can't work together. I strongly support the idea of a world council or federation of all revolutionary groups, where policies could be discussed and strategies formed, but which would not have the authority to order its individual member groups around.

There is only one policy that we need to have in common:

1. Capitalism is the primary enemy. Revolutionary groups in any given geographical area should under no circumstances be hostile to each other as long as capitalism still stands. They do not need to like each other or work together, but they should all focus on capitalism first as the primary enemy.

[Niemand]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 28, 2007 02:29 am
Look, there is no way that all communists could come together under one organization - that is a given.

But that doesn't mean we can't work together. I strongly support the idea of a world council or federation of all revolutionary groups, where policies could be discussed and strategies formed, but which would not have the authority to order its individual member groups around.

There is only one policy that we need to have in common:

1. Capitalism is the primary enemy. Revolutionary groups in any given geographical area should under no circumstances be hostile to each other as long as capitalism still stands. They do not need to like each other or work together, but they should all focus on capitalism first as the primary enemy.
Well, I don't mean like a political party, but just a place where we could get together to discuss the pressing matters of Marxism today and occasionally discuss our differences. Kind of like the UN but not totally useless.

[Leo]

Hmm.. wrong, Cuba was a worker's revolution.

Well, sorry to disappoint you but it wasn't.

[Rawthentic]

Yes it was. There is far too much evidence to prove this right. But why do you make such ridiculous claims?

The Cuban working class seized political power and the means of production, which it still has in Cuba today.

[Rawthentic]

Class Forces in the Cuban Revolution (http://www.marxists.de/statecap/cuba/robinb.htm)

Explains basically what the title says.

[Leo]

The Cuban working class seized political power and the means of production, which it still has in Cuba today.

No, Castro's army seized political power which it still has in Cuba today...

The only thing in the document you linked suggesting that it was a workers revolution is that large parts of the working class supported Castro and his military forces and there were workers amongst Castro's military forces. This is not enough by itself; from time to time, workers supported very reactionary governments; from Luis Napoleon to Hitler. Still, the democrats and the republicans enjoy huge support in the US. There are numerous other examples.

It is well known that no one called what happened in Cuba a "worker's revolution" when it happened. The leaders weren't even saying that Cuba was socialist (although there were some Stalinists among them). It was a "nationalist democratic" movement. Castro started proclaiming that Cuba was socialist only after he decided to make a political alliance with the Soviet Union. That's when things changed.

Cuba today is a class society, Cuban workers do not have more control over the means of production than other workers in the world, most of them do not live better of, although some of the social benefits are better. The bourgeois-bureaucrats live in much better conditions although probably the gap is not as massive as it is in some other parts of the world. Calling Cuba a "workers' state" is a Stalinist invention, which came after the political alliance.

Sigh, sad to see that you have changed your ideology :(

[Rawthentic]

Castro declared the revolution socialist not because he felt like doing so, but because the working class demanded it.

I didn't change my ideology, Im a Marxist, and I accept what I didn't before.

Cuba today is a class society, because no one suggested that it was communist. All state power rests on the huge mass popular organizations, such as the CDR's Women's Federations, Revolutionary Youth.

Those "bourgeois-bureaucrats" are directly elected by the Cuban working-class, and the Communist party has no part in the elections.

Whether it was proclaimed "socialist" or not, its actions and class forces prove it socialist.

[Rawthentic]

The April proclamation that Cuba was making a socialist revolution came in the midst of the US sponsored invasion of the island at the Bay of Pigs. It is inconceivable that, at a moment when the revolution was in mortal danger, Fidel Castro would have taken this stand unless he was secure in the knowledge that it corresponded to the wishes of those who were mobilising to defend the revolution, The Cuban workers and peasants had by this time seized all important means of production; teachers, doctors, writers and film makers were discovering a new social role; youth, blacks and women found new possibilities and responsibilities open to them. Long before Fidel’s April speech the mass of Cubans were speaking of socialism: in the years 1960 and 1961 the basic works of Marx and Lenin sold in editions of hundreds of thousands. This was not the official “socialism from above” found in the rhetoric of so many Third World governments; rather it was a recognition, coming from the masses themselves well in advance of official declarations, that only socialism made sense of the class struggles they had been through and of the future of a planned, collectively appropriated system of production.
You fail to take that into account.

You also fail to understand that when you are an island 80 miles from the world's superpower, and you are the only socialist nation in the world, problems persist. Worldwide revolution is needed, not slanderings of Cuban worker's power.

[Leo]

Castro declared the revolution socialist not because he felt like doing so, but because the working class demanded it.

No, he declared it because he was becoming an ally of the Soviet Union. Bourgeois leaders don't take the demands of the working class into account.


I didn't change my ideology, Im a Marxist, and I accept what I didn't before.

I was talking about you becoming a Stalinist of some sorts.


Cuba today is a class society, because no one suggested that it was communist.

Well, okay, a capitalist class society.


All state power rests on the bureaucrats of huge mass popular organizations, such as the CDR's Women's Federations, Revolutionary Youth.

Corrected. Also add the official CP and the state mechanisms itself.


Those "bourgeois-bureaucrats" are directly elected by the Cuban working-class

So?


Whether it was proclaimed "socialist" or not, its actions and class forces prove it socialist.

Nice one, although none of those who regarded it "socialist" then would accept this as it was simply a left-nationalist movement, at best. This includes official CPs, Maoists, Trotskyists etc. This also includes the leaders of the movement in Cuba.

It wasn't socialist and it has never been.


It is inconceivable that, at a moment when the revolution was in mortal danger, Fidel Castro would have taken this stand unless he was secure in the knowledge that it corresponded to the wishes of those who were mobilising to defend the revolution... Long before Fidel’s April speech the mass of Cubans were speaking of socialism: in the years 1960 and 1961 the basic works of Marx and Lenin sold in editions of hundreds of thousands.

This merely shows how good Fidel Castro was in taking advantage of the internal situation.


The Cuban workers and peasants had by this time seized all important means of production

And this is simply not true in the Marxist terms, although I think what the author bases this on is how "good" (the bourgeois) democracy functions in Cuba.


You also fail to understand that when you are an island 80 miles from the world's superpower, and you are the only socialist nation in the world

"Socialist nation" is a contradiction in terms. Cuba was not socialist, it was a nation state which simply entered a different imperialist camp from the US camp. Now, there aren't as much problems with the US and Cuba as they give the impression. Cuba does trade with the US, there is a considerable open market developing and soon it is going to follow a path closer to China's path.


not slanderings of Cuban worker's power.

They don't have any power now! By saying that Cuba is socialist, you are supporting the Cuban bourgeoisie, not the Cuban proletariat!

[Rawthentic]

I was talking about you becoming a Stalinist of some sorts.
You're full of shit. I hate Stalin.

As I said before, power comes from the mass organizations, the Cuban Communist Party plays no part.


The Cuban workers and peasants had by this time seized all important means of production; teachers, doctors, writers and film makers were discovering a new social role; youth, blacks and women found new possibilities and responsibilities open to them
You sure as hell didn't refute this.

Its no small reason that the Cuban working class has overwhelming support for the Revolution, and they are conscious of their role in building socialism. To say Cuba and Castro are nationalist is a plain lie, they are the most internationalist nation in the world, understanding that world revolution iss necessary to achieve socialism. The least that has to be given to Cuba, is that there are several elements that will exist in a working peoples republic, such as the mass proletarian democracy, workplace control, internationalism, etc. The only thing that will help Cuba is worldwide revolution and most immediately the embargo against it. They are not going to be enlightened by Trotsky's works or any other sect that thinks they are right, but worldwide socialist revolution. State power resides with the working class, bureaucracy does exist, but for obvious reasons.

ABC Marxism, yay!

[cenv]

hastalavictoria, how did you arrive at the conclusion that Cuba is indeed a proletarian society? Simply from a few articles you read online? Most people who champion Cuba as a workers' state seem to have very little really evidence and instead rely on a few articles they've read from various sources and wishful thinking.

PS. As far as nationalism, have you noticed that their motto is "homeland or death"?

[Rawthentic]

Well, Cenv, I have come to the understanding that state power rests with the mass organizations. It is true that there are real problems in Cuba, but I have stated why.

I seem to have gotten ahead of myself. I would have to agree that there are several elements of Cuba that would exist in a proletarian society, and in the meanwhile, we should support the Cuban working class in their struggle to defend their Revolution. Cuba, being subject to imperialism well before the Revolution by Spain and U.S., suffers from poverty, but no where near to the extent of misery in Mexico, Haiti, D.R., etc. This will pertain until worldwide socialist revolution.

I have shown Cuba's internationalism. Worldwide revolutionary support. Compared to the USSR's "detente" as well as Mao's China support for national bourgeoisies and compromises for imperialism.

Fair enough?

[Leo]

You're full of shit. I hate Stalin.

Do you like Khrushchev then? He was a Stalinist (who didn't like Stalin but oh well). What about Brezhnev?


As I said before, power comes from the mass organizations, the Cuban Communist Party plays no part.

Sigh, of course it does. The bureaucrats of all those organizations play parts.


You sure as hell didn't refute this.

Well, I don't think I actually need to, the author is just saying that without any references or any proofs. If he did make an attempt to prove what he said, he would give references to how "democratic" Cuba is because that's all he's got. If the workers are controlling the means of production, why are the same bureaucrats ruling the country for fifty years? Why do the bureaucrats live in better conditions then the workers? Do you think workers are saying "oh those bureaucrats are so nice people, let them have what we don't have"?

I looked up to this Robin Blackburn person, he is a right-wing Trotskyist academician from England who is living in US now. The group he was in when he wrote the article, IMG (International Marxist Group in England). They supported groups like MPLA (People's Movement for the Liberation of Angola) in Angola, FRELIMO (Liberation Front of Mozambique) in Mozambique and ANC (African National Congress) in South Africa and of course IRA. I would imagine they said similar things about what those groups were doing in those countries. They were nicknamed MIGs after the Soviet aircraft MiG.

Many people have many things to say, I don't think this person has ever been yo Cuba (As no matter how supportive, the Cuban regime did not like Trotskyists and actually killed them). I don't think what he says needs to be refuted.


Its no small reason that the Cuban working class has overwhelming support for the Revolution

You can't judge if a movement is proletarian depending on the support proletariat gives to a movement.

Did the proletariat lead the movement? No. Did the proletariat control the movement? No. Did the proletariat even had independent organs during Castro's movement to look out for its interests? No. It wasn't a revolution more than what Luis Napoleon did about a hundred years ago was a revolution. State property is not workers property, state capital is not revolutionary.


To say Cuba and Castro are nationalist is a plain lie

Sigh, their motto is homeland or death. The regime upholds that Jose Marti is an as significant as Marx. Their movement is called a "national democratic nation" by them. Even the fact that you are calling them a "nation" shows that they are simply bourgeois nationalists. As for their alleged "internationalism", giving support to different Stalinist movements is not internationalism.


ABC Marxism, yay!

Sorry, but that's ABC Stalinism, no matter you like Stalin or not.


I have come to the understanding that state power rests with the mass organizations.

And who rules the mass organizations? The same thing can be said about the USSR of Stalin, there were mass organizations, they said that the state power rested on them, did this make it true? Do you know what a mass organization is or how it works?


Cuba, being subject to imperialism well before the Revolution by Spain and U.S

And after the revolution, by USSR, now by other states which we don't exactly know about, maybe China, maybe still Russia, maybe even US, god knows who... And of course, as small as it is, every nation-state has its own imperialist interests as well, and what you define as their "internationalism", the support they have given to various Stalinist movements, proves this.

You can't separate the Cuba of the Cold War from the Russian imperialist block. Now the situation is more complicated but not that much more.

[Rawthentic]

Did the proletariat lead the movement? No. Did the proletariat control the movement? No. Did the proletariat even had independent organs during Castro's movement to look out for its interests? No. It wasn't a revolution more than what Luis Napoleon did about a hundred years ago was a revolution. State property is not workers property, state capital is not revolutionary.

I suppose you are correct on this.


Do you like Khrushchev then? He was a Stalinist (who didn't like Stalin but oh well). What about Brezhnev?

neither

You have strong points, but as I said before, the least that must be given to Cuba is that there are elements that would exist in a proletarian society, and I stand by that.

[syndicat]

at the time of the revolution in 1959, the working class organizations did not take over management of the means of production. moreover, the radical left in quite a few of the unions was repressed by the Castroite state leadership. the transport union in Habana was mainly influenced by Trotskyists -- who ended up in prison. The food workers union was mainly influenced by the anarcho-syndicalists -- who ended up in prison or forced into exile. David Santiago was the president of the Revolutionary Sugar Workers Union which supported the general strike that helped to bring down Batista. With the fall of Batista, the Cuban Workers Confederation was democratized and reorganized by the workers, and David Santiago was elected its new president. But Santiago and the "humanist" tendency in the Cuban labor federation didn't agree to the CP taking over control of the top posts, and making the labor federation a mere transmission belt of the party. The result? David Santiago was condemned to a long prison sentence. a lot of this is discussed by Victor Alba in his history of the labor movement in Latin America. the Castroites made deals with a number of the officers in the old Cuban army to ensure that a "professional", top-down army would continue. They didn't build a workers' militia. The French socialist Rene Dumont wrote a book called "Is Cuba socialist?" which is worth looking at. His answer: No.

[VukBZ2005]

I also read Réné Dumont's book "Is Cuba Socialist?" and I also actually tend to agree with him that it is not. I mean, if the workers actually control the means of production in Cuba as people claim, then why do unions exist? Then why is it that the state is the one directly responsible for the planning of the economy, not the workers? And then why is it that a currency system exists in Cuba?

Even though I support the Cuban Revolution's priority of the total industrialization of Cuba, there has to be a critical assessment of the situation as it is, otherwise, you risk falling under the delusion that Cuba is actually a socialist "state" and that the workers directly control the means of production, despite the government system and how democratic it is.