OneBrickOneVoice
31st May 2007, 00:17
EDIT: I misordered the rebuttels in the arguement originally so I fixed it
This is a ongoing disscussion I am having with a CPUSA member on his party's move to support the democrats and their bourgeois line. I hadn't ever heard a coherent arguement in support of a move which essentially sold out to social democracy, so I decided to confront the party and find out why they took this move. I figured some people here would be interested in this so check it out.
Originally posted by Me+--> (Me)Hi,
I'm a Revolutionary Communist. I'm active with the Revolutionary Communist Party and the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade.
I have a question about your organization. Why do you guys support a bourgeios party: the democrats. The party which started the war in Iraq and is now funding it. The party which continues the exploitation and oppression of the working class and has stood on that principle historically. It just makes no sense and is anti-marxist. It essentially turns you guys into liberal democrats, not marxist-leninists[/b]
Originally posted by CPUSA member+--> (CPUSA member)We know that the Dems aren't a people's party and nowhere do we say that they are. Still, there are differences (look at the fight for the funding for the war. Who pushed for creating timelines for troop withdraw and who vetoed it?) between the Republicans and the Democrats. Who would we pressure to pass legislation to end the war? Who would we work with to bring the troops home if we know that the only body capable of doing so right is Congress? Do we just yell from the sidelines?
Here is a link to a report given that discusses our view on strategy and tactics today
http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/819/1/140/
I would also suggest a look at Lenin's "Left Wing Communism" that talks about strategy and tactics, especially when it comes to electoral politics. [/b]
Originally posted by Me
thanks for your response and sorry if my message came off as rude. Your party's descision angered alot of comrades of mine and I had never heard a coherent arguement in support of the line until I took it to you.
Its good that you guys recognize that the Democrats aren't the people's party, but look didn't the democrats JUST pass a bill which funded the continuation of the war without timelines of any sort? It was basically bourgoeisie political theatre to appear LIKE at least they tried responding to the people who stood up and did the only thing they knew how to do to oppose the situation: vote. They are still acting in imperialist interests.
Still, even if the democrats did manage to stop the war, we as communists should want to build a mass movement that is responsible for ending the war not just in Iraq, but in Afghanistan too, which the democrats have no opposition for. In the 1960s we saw the low developments of this type of movement, by creating this type of movement we have the real opportunity to create revolution.
Thanks for the link, and while I do know that Lenin supported the policy of New Democracy in China, that was under the conditions that the proletariat and the communists were the or one of the major leading forces in the system, while as today that is not so with the CPUSA and the democrats.
CPUSA [email protected]
And we are unhappy that Congress wasn't able to pass a better piece of legislation. Though, I think, again we must note what took place. The Dems passed a bill calling on the withdraw of troops and the Republicans were able to defeat it because they have enough people in Congress to stop the Dems from overriding a veto. How were the Dems going to pass a piece of legislation that will end the war if they can't override a presidential veto? It seems to us that the fault lies with the Republicans that continue to act as cheerleaders for Bush. We should be focusing our discontent on them and getting them out office.
Again, no one in the CP is saying that the Democrats aren't a capitalist party. Nowhere would you see that written. However, that doesn't mean we can't use the Democrats as one of vehicles to push a people's agenda. If we need pieces of legislation passed, who are we going to work with to get it passed?
Again, do we just sit on the sidelines yelling supposed revolutionary slogans or do we get involved in the different arenas of struggle (including elections) to better the everyday lives of working people?
I think it is incorrect to say that they were just "appearing" to want to end the war, and then actually doing what they really wanted to do. That totally misses and doesn't address the real situation of what happened.
How does the RCP see ending the war? What should we be doing to stop the war and bring our troops home? How do we do this if we don't engage in electoral politics? How do we work to end the war with the current make up of Congress?
Left Wing Communism doesn't have much to do with what was going on in China. It actually addresses how Communists should being politically engaged, including electoral struggle in general. Which, I think, is very much needed today.
ME
the thing is that elections don't change anything. I think as Marxist-Leninists we should know this very well. Aside from the fact that this system has martyred or locked up those who oppose it in great force like the countless David Gilberts, Fred Hamptons, and Mumia Abu Jamals, the real objective truth is that the bourgeois state is rotten to the core and gradual reform gets us no where, it just gets us exploited and oppressed in a way which will ensure that we don't rebel. Yes we gotta oppose fascistic legislation thoroughly, but working within the system gets us no where. That's why Marx and Lenin advocated revolution: because the bourgeois state will always exploit and oppress us and the capitalist-imperialist system will always start these fucked up wars for empire as we've seen in Vietnam, Korea, and now in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is why Marx said "the proletariat cannot grab hold of ready made state machinery" Lenin made it crystal clear in SAR that this means we have to make a fundamentally DIFFERENT state.
The reason why I agree with the RCP's line over the CP's line, I think, is because rather than allying and supporting and relying on bourgieos politicians, people like Nancy Pelosi who won't settle for the luxury private jet to travel to and from home, but wants the deluxe luxury jet, instead of fuckers like her, we rely on the masses and getting the masses on the streets to at the very least force the fuckers in the white house to capitulate to the masses as they did in Vietnam, so we will make them do in Iraq, Afghanistan, and everywhere else through mass mobilization. Not through telling people that voting democrat will get it done. What does that do to raise the masses revolutionary conscious? See at the very best, getting millions on the streets will result in the creation of a revolutionary situation, or a resistant situation like the one where the BPP emerged from and from this we can make a revolution.
I think that's where our lines differ as self-proclaimed communists. I like to think that people can take history into their own hands. Your party likes to think that politicians take history into their hands so the people gotta side with the lesser of the two evils never improving their situation.
This is a ongoing disscussion I am having with a CPUSA member on his party's move to support the democrats and their bourgeois line. I hadn't ever heard a coherent arguement in support of a move which essentially sold out to social democracy, so I decided to confront the party and find out why they took this move. I figured some people here would be interested in this so check it out.
Originally posted by Me+--> (Me)Hi,
I'm a Revolutionary Communist. I'm active with the Revolutionary Communist Party and the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade.
I have a question about your organization. Why do you guys support a bourgeios party: the democrats. The party which started the war in Iraq and is now funding it. The party which continues the exploitation and oppression of the working class and has stood on that principle historically. It just makes no sense and is anti-marxist. It essentially turns you guys into liberal democrats, not marxist-leninists[/b]
Originally posted by CPUSA member+--> (CPUSA member)We know that the Dems aren't a people's party and nowhere do we say that they are. Still, there are differences (look at the fight for the funding for the war. Who pushed for creating timelines for troop withdraw and who vetoed it?) between the Republicans and the Democrats. Who would we pressure to pass legislation to end the war? Who would we work with to bring the troops home if we know that the only body capable of doing so right is Congress? Do we just yell from the sidelines?
Here is a link to a report given that discusses our view on strategy and tactics today
http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/819/1/140/
I would also suggest a look at Lenin's "Left Wing Communism" that talks about strategy and tactics, especially when it comes to electoral politics. [/b]
Originally posted by Me
thanks for your response and sorry if my message came off as rude. Your party's descision angered alot of comrades of mine and I had never heard a coherent arguement in support of the line until I took it to you.
Its good that you guys recognize that the Democrats aren't the people's party, but look didn't the democrats JUST pass a bill which funded the continuation of the war without timelines of any sort? It was basically bourgoeisie political theatre to appear LIKE at least they tried responding to the people who stood up and did the only thing they knew how to do to oppose the situation: vote. They are still acting in imperialist interests.
Still, even if the democrats did manage to stop the war, we as communists should want to build a mass movement that is responsible for ending the war not just in Iraq, but in Afghanistan too, which the democrats have no opposition for. In the 1960s we saw the low developments of this type of movement, by creating this type of movement we have the real opportunity to create revolution.
Thanks for the link, and while I do know that Lenin supported the policy of New Democracy in China, that was under the conditions that the proletariat and the communists were the or one of the major leading forces in the system, while as today that is not so with the CPUSA and the democrats.
CPUSA [email protected]
And we are unhappy that Congress wasn't able to pass a better piece of legislation. Though, I think, again we must note what took place. The Dems passed a bill calling on the withdraw of troops and the Republicans were able to defeat it because they have enough people in Congress to stop the Dems from overriding a veto. How were the Dems going to pass a piece of legislation that will end the war if they can't override a presidential veto? It seems to us that the fault lies with the Republicans that continue to act as cheerleaders for Bush. We should be focusing our discontent on them and getting them out office.
Again, no one in the CP is saying that the Democrats aren't a capitalist party. Nowhere would you see that written. However, that doesn't mean we can't use the Democrats as one of vehicles to push a people's agenda. If we need pieces of legislation passed, who are we going to work with to get it passed?
Again, do we just sit on the sidelines yelling supposed revolutionary slogans or do we get involved in the different arenas of struggle (including elections) to better the everyday lives of working people?
I think it is incorrect to say that they were just "appearing" to want to end the war, and then actually doing what they really wanted to do. That totally misses and doesn't address the real situation of what happened.
How does the RCP see ending the war? What should we be doing to stop the war and bring our troops home? How do we do this if we don't engage in electoral politics? How do we work to end the war with the current make up of Congress?
Left Wing Communism doesn't have much to do with what was going on in China. It actually addresses how Communists should being politically engaged, including electoral struggle in general. Which, I think, is very much needed today.
ME
the thing is that elections don't change anything. I think as Marxist-Leninists we should know this very well. Aside from the fact that this system has martyred or locked up those who oppose it in great force like the countless David Gilberts, Fred Hamptons, and Mumia Abu Jamals, the real objective truth is that the bourgeois state is rotten to the core and gradual reform gets us no where, it just gets us exploited and oppressed in a way which will ensure that we don't rebel. Yes we gotta oppose fascistic legislation thoroughly, but working within the system gets us no where. That's why Marx and Lenin advocated revolution: because the bourgeois state will always exploit and oppress us and the capitalist-imperialist system will always start these fucked up wars for empire as we've seen in Vietnam, Korea, and now in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is why Marx said "the proletariat cannot grab hold of ready made state machinery" Lenin made it crystal clear in SAR that this means we have to make a fundamentally DIFFERENT state.
The reason why I agree with the RCP's line over the CP's line, I think, is because rather than allying and supporting and relying on bourgieos politicians, people like Nancy Pelosi who won't settle for the luxury private jet to travel to and from home, but wants the deluxe luxury jet, instead of fuckers like her, we rely on the masses and getting the masses on the streets to at the very least force the fuckers in the white house to capitulate to the masses as they did in Vietnam, so we will make them do in Iraq, Afghanistan, and everywhere else through mass mobilization. Not through telling people that voting democrat will get it done. What does that do to raise the masses revolutionary conscious? See at the very best, getting millions on the streets will result in the creation of a revolutionary situation, or a resistant situation like the one where the BPP emerged from and from this we can make a revolution.
I think that's where our lines differ as self-proclaimed communists. I like to think that people can take history into their own hands. Your party likes to think that politicians take history into their hands so the people gotta side with the lesser of the two evils never improving their situation.