My response to Poltical Affairs

[heiss93]

Political Affairs is preparing a study of Lenin's Empirocriticism, and the blog has a debate going about the relevance of DiaMAt to 21st century Communism. This is my response:


"Carl Davidson said... Lenin's 'Empirio-Criticism' may be too narrowly focused for what you seem to want to do, defending dia-mat against 'bourgeois philosophy.'

Lenin was aiming at a few people going off the deep end around the time of Einstein, making too much of the 'revolution in physics.' Today there have been many more revolutions, and dia-mat, if it can't jettison some 19th Century baggage, itself ends up as dogma.

Taken Stephen J Gould, an historical materialist and scientist par excellance. In his book 'Full House,' he does a wonderful critique of the dia-mat notion of progress through history, especially any 'inevitable' flavor of it. He posits an open future, more chaotic and complex than that posited by dia-mat.

Same goes for John Dewey's instrumental theory of truth, which is more in tune with what scientists actually deploy when doing science today.

Who said Marxism is science or it is nothing? Not entirely true, but very well, the question then is what really is cutting edge science today? Hint: It doesn't all fit into the old dia-mat formulas, methods and catergories, which were themselves historically shaped."



I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with some of Mr.Davidson's comments on DiaMat and science. While some of the individual scientific claims in Engels' Dialectics of Nature may have been refuted (though I can not name any), by in large recent scientific studies have if anything enhanced the correctness of DiaMAt. For example recent evolutionary studies have found that there are qualitative leaps in evolution triggered by geological disasters and climate change, and thus evolution is not always as gradual as Darwin argued.

While it is important that Marxist-Leninists do not become academic debating societies, Marxist theory is critically important toward knowing which actions are correct. National Bolsheviks in Russia for instance claim to be Bolshevik yet have such incorrect theories that in practice they have degenerate into fascist thugs.

As for the CPUSA, I would say by and large theory is correct, but one aspect that concerns me is seemingly giving up the idea of state power forever. There is nothing wrong with supporting liberal Democrats, or taking power as part of a progressive coalition, but I do find it troubling abandoning the idea of EVER assuming stat power. Again theres nothing wrong with doing it through peaceful quantitative stages, that is the way Marx, Lenin, Mao, Castro, Ho Chi Minh attempted until they were forced to respond to counterrevolutionary terrorism. The problem is when the idea of quantitative change leading to qualitative change is completely abandoned. I don't see this as a major issue in the CPUSA but some recent papers seem to imply that strategy, although it may just be my misreading.

Anyway I look forward to reading an analysis of Lenin's work and I'm preparing my own critique and criticism of Stalin's interpretation of Dialectical Materialism

[Sleeping Dog]

Hey heiss93,

Joe Gottawife&3kids really is concerned.

[RedAnarchist]

Hey heiss93,

Joe Gottawife&3kids really is concerned.

I think its obvious that most people won't be concerned about it, which is why its on a leftist forum.

[Sleeping Dog]

I think its obvious that most people won't be concerned about it, which is why its on a leftist forum.Well OK the practical (as opposed to theoretical) I prefaced politics with is a personal problem. :cool:

[AlanMaki]

the Minneapolis (Minnesota) Club of the Communist Party he has never liked the term: Marxism-Leninism.

From reading what he has written in Political Affairs it is quite apparent he has no use for the science. It doesn't matter if it is called "scientific socialism," "modern scientific materialism," "dialectical and historical materialism," or "Marxism-Leninism."

In fact, there is a small grouping of revisionists, led by Webb, who have hi-jacked the CPUSA and control our publications, the "People's Weekly World" and "Political Affairs."

It is the science which has been rejected, not simply "terms."

The best example can be found in the article, which Webb has defended, appearing in Political Affairs, "Last Exit To Utopia; A traveler's guide to a new society," written by David Cavendish (December-January issue; Volume 86, No. 11). There is a complete lacl of understanding of what constitutes the "ultra-right" and advances the concept that the struggle for democracy does not take place around real life issues of importance to working people. What are the "liberal reforms" referred to in this article, the author never says... yet designates support for these "liberal reforms" one of the stages--- the second stage; with defeat of the "ultra-right the first stage) with the third stage being a peoples democratic revolution" putting us on the road to socialism. Even the author admits he can only talk of all of this in generalities... and, he is correct, because to talk of specifics proves him wrong about all of this.

In fact, I asked the author to define "ultra right" and there has been no response from him, or Webb to my question. Why, because the Democratic Party is not in any way shape or form an expression of anything remotely "liberal." It is in fact a Party of imperialism and war with the exact same goals and objectives as the Republican Party... defending the interests of capitalism. In order for anything to be considered "liberal" in politics today, requires bringing forward solutions to pressing problems working people are experiencing and ending these dirty imperialist wars.

There is nothing "general" about a plant closing, homes being foreclosed on, people sick and not having access to a doctor or health care, not being able to afford the costs of higher education, a minium wage that is at present a poverty wage--- nothing approaching a real living wage as what is required according to the calculations of the United States Department of Labor for a living annual income.

In fact, Webb and his little revisionist clique have refused to consider any solution to plant closings because such solutions involve challenging the right of corporations in a way that raises the "ownership question" which communists have always considered the most important and fundamental question at all times in every struggle... not excluding any struggles against the "ultra right."

In fact, this article, completely skirts and obscures the role for a Communist Party and the role of Communist Clubs where people work and in working class communities.

Revisionism always hides its ugly face behind the call to talk about things in "general" because to talk about specifics begs the question: What is to be done? When talking in "general," the only activity required is to sit in million dollar glass offices producing You Tube videos as advertisements for the Democratic Party.

There is little to no evidence that Political Affairs is advancing dialectical and historical materialism, which requires that specifics be considered when making statements about the "general."

[Guerrilla22]

Political affairs is very poorly written and researched . Any comrade that is actually a member of the CPUSA will acknolwledge this. The best thing to do would be to ignore this publication and stop buying it from newstands.