How can China and North Korea be considered "degenerated workers states"?

[Cheung Mo]

Yes, there was a peasant revolutionary movement in China that won a bloody civil war and improved China exponentially in such crucial quality of life metrics as literacy and infant mortality and yes there was a revolution in Korea that led to a stalemated civil war.

China, however, now has a new class of ultra-rich bureaucrats and business people (some of which are multi-billionaires) and has consistently backed (with far more than just words) the most reactionary factions of the ruling class in Hong Kong, Nepal (Beijing was the Royal Nepal Army's third biggest funder behind the USA and the UK...Sort of ironic given the strand of revolutionary thought with which the CPN-M identifies with and methods of guerilla warfare it has used.), and Taiwan. Furthermore, Beijing delivered Chilean leftists seeking asylum in the Chinese embassy to Pinochet's death chambers solely because Allende and his party were on the Soviet side of the Sino-Soviet split.

North Korea, for its part, has a state religion (Theocracy and worker states are inherently incompatible) and a massive personality cult (a Stalinist "contribution" to socialism).

They may have been worker/peasant states at the time of their respective revolutions, but they now come across as being well past the point of degeneration (especially in China's case).

[Led Zeppelin]

There are people who consider China to still be socialist, I think that it's a better question to ask why they believe that.

There aren't that many people who consider China to be a degenerated workers' state.

[Qwerty489]

Personality cult is not a 'Stalinist' creation, Stalin opposed and denounced personality cults multiple times.

[RedAnarchist]

Personality cult is not a 'Stalinist' creation, Stalin opposed and denounced personality cults multiple times.

Can we see some sources to back that up, because I'm fairly sure Stalin was one of the biggest personality cults of the 20th Century.

[BobKKKindle$]

In China, the bureacratic stratum has introduced market reforms which pose a threat to the gains which have been made possible through the abolition of capitalist property relations and the creation of a planned economy - for example, full employment, and the universal provision of healthcare. However, there are still some Trotskyists who argue that the PRC is a workers state suffering from bureaucratic deformation because important sectors of the economy are subject to state ownership (private ownership exists mainly in light industry, created through foreign investment) and the government also controls the financial system, which has protected China from speculative capital flows which have undermined financial stability in other states.

The concept of a workers state is based on the predominant property relations. North Korea suffers from bureaucratic deformation which means that the bureaucracy has taken control of the state and the proletariat does not have access to political power, but North Korea is still a workers state because capitalist property relations have been abolished.

[OI OI OI]

China was a deformed workers state so was Korea. They are not any more though

[OI OI OI]

When did property relations change in north Korea?

I am sorry. I made a mistake(on the way I said it). North Korea is still a deformed workers state. Although the junche is a terrible deformation it can still be classiffied as deformed workers state. Why is it deformed workers state I am quoting this.





Deformed Workers' State

Since its founding, the political model for North Korea was the Stalinist USSR. Power was centralised in the so-called Korean Workers Party (KWP), with Kim Il-Sung as General Secretary. A planned economy, also modelled on the USSR was introduced. Before and during World War II, the bulk of the country's assets had been owned by the Japanese or their Korean collaborators. When these were nationalised by Kim's regime in 1946, 70 percent of industry fell into state hands. By 1949, 90 percent of industry had been nationalised. The power of the landlords was broken through the mass distribution of the land to the peasants in 1946, and virtually all agricultural production had been collectivized and merged into increasingly large productive units by the late 1950s.
Due to mass investment in heavy industry, including agricultural machinery, the economy expanded rapidly in the 1950s. Despite the devastation of the Korean War, and in spite of the inefficiency and waste of the bureaucracy, standards of living increased dramatically in the North through the 1960s. But consumer goods were always in short supply, and the population was subjected to the most extreme "discipline" and pressure from above to increase productivity. By the 1970s, the stranglehold of the bureaucracy, the lack of democratic participation in the planning of the economy and the impossibility of building "socialism in one country" led to a long, steady decline of the system, which continues to this day. In its effort to maintain power, the regime's increasingly erratic twists and turns have dragged North Korea into total isolation from the rest of the world and meant terrible suffering for its people. Gross mismanagement and a series of natural disasters led to a famine in the 1990s, with deaths estimated as high as 3.5 million.
The expropriation of capitalism in North Korea was undoubtedly a historically progressive step. But from the beginning, the nationalised, planned economy was controlled from above by a totalitarian bureaucracy. Although there was some participation by the Korean masses in the social revolution that overturned private property in the years after WWII, there was never democratic workers' control and management through workers' councils (soviets), as existed in the early USSR under Lenin and Trotsky. Just as in most of Eastern Europe after the war, this expropriation was carried out bureaucratically from above, on the basis of the economic, military, and political power and interests of the Soviet Union. It was not the result of the active and democratic participation by the Korean masses in a proletarian revolution from below, and as a result, although Soviet control was not nearly as direct as in countries like Bulgaria or Czechoslovakia, it was from the beginning a deformed workers' state.
Juche

These totalitarian and bureaucratic beginnings set the tone for the entire subsequent and increasingly bizarre development of the regime. Far from the intransigent proletarian internationalism of the Bolsheviks, the North Korean Stalinist leaders have based themselves on the most narrow and reactionary nationalism and isolationism. They have taken the discredited theory of "socialism in one country" to extreme lengths, summarized in their concept of Juche (self-reliance), which according to Kim Jong-Il, forms part of "Kimilsungism". According to the DPRK state website, "The Leaders [Kim Il-Sung and Kim Jong-Il] are the sun of the nation and mankind". The country even has its own Juche calendar where "Year One" is the year in which Kim Il-Sung was born, 1912. This is an extreme example of the so-called "cult of the personality". Not even Stalin went this far.
But the nationalist particularism of the North Korean regime goes even further than this. Even the word "Marxism-Leninism" (which most of the Stalinist regimes at least paid lip service to in the past) was replaced with Juche in all Communist Party publications and even the North Korean Constitution in the 1970s. Access to the classic writings of Marx, Engels, and Lenin is severely restricted. From the above, it is clear just how far this regime is from genuine "Marxism-Leninism" which is internationalist to the core.
Compare this also to the behaviour of the Bolsheviks after they came to power in 1917. The Bolsheviks did the exact opposite of the North Korean Stalinists: they changed the Russian calendar to comply with that of the more generally accepted Western version, in order to better connect with the struggles of the world proletariat.
A creeping counterrevolution

The North Korean masses are suffering terrible conditions. They suffer under an unparalleled totalitarian regime and a despotic bureaucratic leadership, in addition to all the miseries inflicted on them by hypocritical imperialism. The North Korean economy hit a brick wall long ago, as the bureaucracy is utterly incapable of developing the productive forces within the narrow limits of its borders and the totalitarian system. But right next door we have booming China, where the opening up of the country to capitalism has resulted in unprecedented levels of economic development and growth. The fate of tiny North Korea has always been largely tied to that of its giant neighbour. As we said, North Korea depends heavily on China for supplies of material, food and so on. China has the leverage to put pressure on the North Korean regime and pushing it in the direction it wishes. This economic leverage is far more powerful than any atomic bomb.
Under these circumstances, in spite of the surface rhetoric, opening up to a more "free" market economy seems attractive to many bureaucrats in North Korea. But is the answer to the suffering of the North Korean people a return to capitalism? Most definitely not! Let's not forget that alongside the economic development in China we have a working class facing miserable conditions similar to 19th century Britain. There is a huge polarisation taking place, with extreme wealth at one end of the spectrum and terrible poverty at the other.
Marxists can in no way support a return to capitalism. We defend the fundamental gain of the North Korean revolution, the state-owned planned economy, in spite of the bureaucratic deformations. We are opposed to the military and diplomatic encroachments of imperialism. U.S. imperialism, through its local puppet, the South Korean regime, would love to get its hands on North Korea, thus gaining another foothold from which to squeeze China in the region. It would not do this to improve the conditions of life of the North Korean masses.
But the problem we are faced with in North Korea is that it is the very bureaucracy of the Kim Jong-Il regime that is endangering what remains of the planned economy. It would be foolish to believe that the gains of the revolution are safe in the hands of these bureaucrats. Let us not forget that the Russian and Chinese Stalinists (albeit following different paths) were prepared to abandon decades of "socialist" rhetoric and throw themselves into the rush towards capitalism. The North Korean is fundamentally the same.
The reason for this, in the case of Russia, was that their own bureaucratic regime had reached an absolute impasse. They could no longer develop the productive forces. Wanting to maintain their material privileges, they saw capitalism as an alternative. This was especially the case in the late 1980s when capitalism in the West was going through a major boom. In China, the bureaucracy could see its own future demise in the crisis facing the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Thus, they decided to actively guide the process towards capitalism rather than face a sudden collapse as in the Soviet Union. The North Korean bureaucracy seems to have already decided to pursue the path taken by their Chinese counterparts. These bureaucrats cannot be counted on to defend the gains of the planned economy in any serious way.

[Q]

I am sorry. I made a mistake(on the way I said it). North Korea is still a deformed workers state. Although the junche is a terrible deformation it can still be classiffied as deformed workers state. Why is it deformed workers state I am quoting this.

Ah, so you're IMT'er (http://www.marxist.com/where-is-north-korea-going101006.htm). Good article though.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

When did we decide that property relations determine the nature of the state? Did the rest of us miss a meeting?

That would make the Roman Catholic Church in, say, the twelfth century a socialist state!:lol:

[RHIZOMES]

Can we see some sources to back that up, because I'm fairly sure Stalin was one of the biggest personality cults of the 20th Century.

http://www.mltranslations.org/Britain/StalinBB.htm

[OI OI OI]

Ah, so you're IMT'er (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxist.com/where-is-north-korea-going101006.htm).

No I am not although I agree with most of their analysis

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

NHIA:


No it wouldn't. Capitalist property relations and the capitalist rulers were not overturned in a popular mobilization of workers and farmers that lead to the collectivization of property.

The point was that property relations cannot determine the nature of the state. That was all.

How those relations got to be they way they were/are is a separate matter.

But, there was no workers' revolution in North Korea or in China.

In that case, these two cannot be workers' states whatever else they are.

But, you too knew that already...

[Rawthentic]

But, there was no workers' revolution in North Korea or in China.Correct. There was a communist revolution in China.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Rawthentic:


There was a communist revolution in China.

Its political content was not communist in Marx's sense of that word, for it was not a workers' revolution.

End of story.

[Rawthentic]

Its political content was not communist in Marx's sense of that word, for it was not a workers' revolution.
Communism is not about, and has never been, about some "worker's revolution".

It has been about the proletariat and its ideology leading humanity to a new world. What about the intellectuals? Peasants? Farmers? Homeless? There are so many others that contribute from communist revolution and to call it a "worker's revolution" only downplays that and alienates people that we need in order to remake the world. They all have a stake in this, and your fetish for factory workers does not help.

Granted, the main force in the chinese revolution was the peasantry, but what was the leading ideology? Marxism. If the peasants in the countryside would have been led by peasant ideology, little would have changed. Only by political education and practice were they able to see that the root of their problems lay in imperialism and feudalism, and that an alliance with the workers was necessary (as this is how it happened).

Your comment reveals so much dogma. Oh, because Marx said this, we HAVE to do it! Marx didnt say it is it wrong!

No. Lenin broke with Marx in order to continue Marxism. Mao broke with Lenin to continue Leninism. Lets not treat revolutionary writings into holy writ.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Rawthentic:


Communism is not about, and has never been, about some "worker's revolution".

You have obviously never read Marx:


The emancipation of the working class will be the act of the working class

But then you say:


It has been about the proletariat and its ideology leading humanity to a new world. What about the intellectuals? Peasants? Farmers? Homeless? There are so many others that contribute from communist revolution and to call it a "worker's revolution" only downplays that and alienates people that we need in order to remake the world. They all have a stake in this, and your fetish for factory workers does not help.

Ideology leading to...

Where did you get that from?

And those other groups are important, but not central, as you should know.


Granted, the main force in the chinese revolution was the peasantry, but what was the leading ideology? Marxism. If the peasants in the countryside would have been led by peasant ideology, little would have changed. Only by political education and practice were they able to see that the root of their problems lay in imperialism and feudalism, and that an alliance with the workers was necessary (as this is how it happened).

Marxist phraseology is of no use. The collective organisation of workers in a Leninist party is the key thing here. I am not sure you have even read Lenin!


Your comment reveals so much dogma. Oh, because Marx said this, we HAVE to do it! Marx didnt say it is it wrong!

No. Lenin broke with Marx in order to continue Marxism. Mao broke with Lenin to continue Leninism. Lets not treat revolutionary writings into holy writ.

Let me get this straight, you want to replace Marx's ideas with the dogma of your choice -- Maoism?

And you have the cheek to call me dogmatist?

But, as we can see, history has refuted your dogma.

[Rawthentic]

The emancipation of the working class will be the act of the working classThis is obvious. This does not define its relationship to the other classes, just acknowledges that the proletariat liberates itself and is consequently, the leading class.

Ideology leading to...


Where did you get that from?

And those other groups are important, but not central, as you should know.No, not central, but w/o them, there is no revolution.



Marxist phraseology is of no use. The collective organisation of workers in a Leninist party is the key thing here. I am not sure you have even read Lenin!So, having workers in a party makes it Leninist? The Democratic Party has millions of workers, that does not make then leninist. What is central is what line is leading the party.

Lets not play with identity politics. As if only by being a worker can one understand oppression or communism. (of course there always needs to be workers in the leadership but lets not take a fetish). As if only Black people can understand black oppression, or gay people gay oppression, etc. :closedeyes:


Let me get this straight, you want to replace Marx's ideas with the dogma of your choice -- Maoism?

And you have the cheek to call me dogmatist?

But, as we can see, history has refuted your dogma.Not at all. But, unlike you, I do not take Marx's words, or Mao's, as holy writ and think that I have to follow them regardless of material conditions (as if the chinese workers could lead the revolution as the russian ones did. This clearly shows your ignorance as to the history and particularities of the chinese revolution).

Now I await your one-liners and personal attacks.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Rawthentic:


This is obvious. This does not define its relationship to the other classes, just acknowledges that the proletariat liberates itself and is consequently, the leading class.

Indeed, it is obvious, but you seem to have ignored it in your haste to justify the dictatorship over the proletariat by non-workers in China and N Korea.

The relationship with the other other classes, while important, is nowhere near as important as workers' power.


No, not central, but w/o them, there is no revolution.

That cannot be decided in advance.


So, having workers in a party makes it Leninist? The Democratic Party has millions of workers, that does not make then leninist. What is central is what line is leading the party.

Lets not play with identity politics. As if only by being a worker can one understand oppression or communism. (of course there always needs to be workers in the leadership but lets not take a fetish). As if only Black people can understand black oppression, or gay people gay oppression, etc.

Having a workers' party is central; the rest are desirable options.

And workers in struggle understand far more than you give them credit. Even Lenin had to learn from 1905.


Not at all. But, unlike you, I do not take Marx's words, or Mao's, as holy writ and think that I have to follow them regardless of material conditions (as if the chinese workers could lead the revolution as the russian ones did. This clearly shows your ignorance as to the history and particularities of the chinese revolution).

Where have I indicated I take the writings of Marx as 'holy writ'?


Now I await your one-liners and personal attacks.

I see, calling me 'ignorant' and a believer in 'dogma' isn't a personal attack is it?

[Rawthentic]

Indeed, it is obvious, but you seem to have ignored it in your haste to justify the dictatorship over the proletariat by non-workers in China and N Korea.

The relationship with the other other classes, while important, is nowhere near as important as workers' power.
I am not justifying it over the the DoP by non-workers in China (i am not talking about korea). The DoP is a system led by the proletariat and its party, but that includes far more strata and classes than just that. We cannot deny this.

The relationship with other classes and worker's power are key parts of the socialist system, it needs both of them.


That cannot be decided in advance.
Of course it can. Look at any country in this whole world. Besides there being a proletariat, society is far more complex than it was 150, 100, or even 50 years ago. There will be other classes that will be necessary to make revolution.

Every revolution has always been made by a coalition of classes, although there has always been one leading class.


Having a workers' party is central; the rest are desirable options.

And workers in struggle understand far more than you give them credit. Even Lenin had to learn from 1905.
Having a party with a lot of workers is more important than having communist ideology?

And I never underestimated how workers can come to understand this society and communism. Never. In fact, I recognize What is to Be Done? to be one of the most important (and correct) communist works ever.

When I speak of identity politics, I mean saying that only workers can understand workers oppression, while others cannot. This is obviously not true. But I did not imply that workers cannot understand capitalist oppression!


Where have I indicated I take the writings of Marx as 'holy writ'?
You did not explicitly "indicate it", but it is implicit in your arguments.

You saying things about Marx explaining the need for a "worker's revolution" ( I dont think he ever even said those words), and just implying that every revolution must be physically led by factory workers and that they need to be in the majority in every party, because thats what worked in Russia. Well thats not what would have worked in China, and Mao was correct in saying that we need "concrete study of concrete conditions".


I see, calling me 'ignorant' and a believer in 'dogma' isn't a personal attack is it?
I referred to your ignorance as far as the Chinese revolution, you have shown this, as well as your dogmatic methods of using Marx and making arguments.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Raw:


I am not justifying it over the DoP by non-workers in China (i am not talking about Korea). The DoP is a system led by the proletariat and its party, but that includes far more strata and classes than just that. We cannot deny this.

Marx clearly needed your advice when he foolishly left out the "and its party" when he talked about the "dictatorship of the proletariat".


The relationship with other classes and worker's power are key parts of the socialist system, it needs both of them.

They are important, but not as part of the dictatorship of the proletariat.


Of course it can. Look at any country in this whole world. Besides there being a proletariat, society is far more complex than it was 150, 100, or even 50 years ago. There will be other classes that will be necessary to make revolution.

Every revolution has always been made by a coalition of classes, although there has always been one leading class.

You cannot possibly predict the class composition of any state in the abstract in advance of a revolution; in that case it is not up to you, or anyone else, to dictate to the proletariat the preconditions of their seizure of power.


Having a party with a lot of workers is more important than having communist ideology?

Of course, why would you think otherwise?


And I never underestimated how workers can come to understand this society and communism. Never. In fact, I recognize What is to Be Done? to be one of the most important (and correct) communist works ever.

When I speak of identity politics, I mean saying that only workers can understand workers oppression, while others cannot. This is obviously not true. But I did not imply that workers cannot understand capitalist oppression!

Once more, you have been caught out as being rather too big for your non-proletarian boots.


You did not explicitly "indicate it", but it is implicit in your arguments.

You saying things about Marx explaining the need for a "worker's revolution" ( I don't think he ever even said those words), and just implying that every revolution must be physically led by factory workers and that they need to be in the majority in every party, because that's what worked in Russia. Well that's not what would have worked in China, and Mao was correct in saying that we need "concrete study of concrete conditions".

Ah, my 'dogmatism' is so deeply 'implicit' that only you can see it.

Marx was, in fact, merely stating the obvious, that in a workers' revolution the workers should take the lead. Had he not said that, I would not be a Marxist.

And, as you should be able to tell from the line I take in the Philosophy section, I do not accept everything in the Holy Books as gospel.

But, I note the fact that you seem to believe whatever you have read in Mao's writings. As I said earlier:


Let me get this straight, you want to replace Marx's ideas with the dogma of your choice -- Maoism?

And you have the cheek to call me dogmatist?

But, as we can see, history has refuted your dogma.

At least you have the decency to be explicit, not "implicit", about your belief in Maoist dogma.

[Rawthentic]

Marx clearly needed your advice when he foolishly left out the "and its party" when he talked about the "dictatorship of the proletariat".
No, he didn't. He's dead. Communism is an evolving ideology, not static, and should always rely on material conditions and a critical and fearless spirit.


They are important, but not as part of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Of course they are a part of the dictatorship of the proletariat. This dictatorship encompasses all of society, whether it be the peasantry, intellectuals, petty-bourgeoisie, or bourgeoisie. They are all a part of it, but, depending on class, the relationships are different.


You cannot possibly predict the class composition of any state in the abstract in advance of a revolution; in that case it is not up to you, or anyone else, to dictate to the proletariat the preconditions of their seizure of power.
I did not say in the abstract. We can't analyze the different classes in US society because we are not in a revolutionary crisis? It is is completely vital in order to carry out communist political work. Not doing so can lead to wrong alliances and mistakes.


Of course, why would you think otherwise?
Because you have revealed the essence of economist and workerist thought. Like I said, the Democratic Party has a huge base in the working class, but this does not make them communist, their line is an imperialist one! So, what is more important is the leading line.

Hell, Lenin was correct in saying (and I paraphrase him) is not if a communist party is leading a movement, but by what ideology and lines it does it with.


Once more, you have been caught out as being rather too big for your non-proletarian boots.
I'm sorry, but this is an insult, and you are wrong on two levels.

First, I am a proletarian. My family immigrated from Mexico to work in the US two decades ago.

Second, one does not need to be proletarian to understand communism, oppression, or revolution. One does not need to be working class to understand this overall concept.


Marx was, in fact, merely stating the obvious, that in a workers' revolution the workers should take the lead. Had he not said that, I would not be a Marxist.
And I agree. Well, I think the proletariat should take the lead.

To me, and many others, the proletariat has a deeper meaning the just "the workers". The proletariat implies that class and its historic meaning, while the latter is more static, has a reformist and economist connotation, etc.


At least you have the decency to be explicit, not "implicit", about your belief in Maoist dogma.
You may call it dogma, but you have not proven it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Raw:


No, he didn't. He's dead. Communism is an evolving ideology, not static, and should always rely on material conditions and a critical and fearless spirit.

Fine; you stick to your non-working class ideology, I'll stick to my working class politics.


Of course they are a part of the dictatorship of the proletariat. This dictatorship encompasses all of society, whether it be the peasantry, intellectuals, petty-bourgeoisie, or bourgeoisie. They are all a part of it, but, depending on class, the relationships are different.

Ok, but did you actually ask the working-class if they wanted elements from previous ruling-classes (or other classes) in their dictatorship?

No, I suspect you didn't. So, I think you'd be wise to let workers decide such weighty matters. Trying to dictate to workers what they should or should not do clearly defeats the purpose -- even if they bothered to listen to you.


I did not say in the abstract. We can't analyze the different classes in US society because we are not in a revolutionary crisis? It is completely vital in order to carry out communist political work. Not doing so can lead to wrong alliances and mistakes.

Once more, neither you, nor I, nor anyone else can determine the class composition of anywhere, or everywhere, in advance in order to tell workers what they should or should not do. Sure, we can advise workers, but it is after all entirely up to them.

As far as mistakes are concerned, I think workers can teach us Marxists a few things about how not to make mistakes -- we are not exactly the non-existent deity's gift to success.


Because you have revealed the essence of economist and workerist thought. Like I said, the Democratic Party has a huge base in the working class, but this does not make them communist, their line is an imperialist one! So, what is more important is the leading line.

Where did you get the idea that I was an 'economist', or even a 'workerist'?

Ah, you made it up. Well, that's Ok then. Can I make stuff up about you?


I'm sorry, but this is an insult, and you are wrong on two levels.

First, I am a proletarian. My family immigrated from Mexico to work in the US two decades ago.

Second, one does not need to be proletarian to understand communism, oppression, or revolution. One does not need to be working class to understand this overall concept.

Apologies for what you perceived as an insult, but you began the insults.

And, I think we have learnt over the last 150 years or so that even if one does not have to be a proletarian to understand communism, one should develop a healthy scepticism toward non-workers who seek to preach to workers.

Well, if you haven't, most workers have.


Well, I think the proletariat should take the lead.

Which is precisely what did not happen in China.


To me, and many others, the proletariat has a deeper meaning the just "the workers". The proletariat implies that class and its historic meaning, while the latter is more static, has a reformist and economist connotation, etc.

Well, if you can change the meaning of key words at will, perhaps I can, too?

So, for me 'communism' means a movement controlled only by workers.

Sorted!


You may call it dogma, but you have not proven it.

Well, if you recall, you were the one who used that word of me first -- and without proof.

So, why can't I do it?

[Rawthentic]

Fine; you stick to your non-working class ideology, I'll stick to my working class politics.
Ah, I see. So now its 'non-working class' to say "Communism is an evolving ideology, not static, and should always rely on material conditions and a critical and fearless spirit."?

Why do you keep repeating these ad hominems? Instead of saying this above, why can't you address what I actually said? If you disagree that communism should not be a dogma, explain why.


Ok, but did you actually ask the working-class if they wanted elements from previous ruling-classes (or other classes) in their dictatorship?

No, I suspect you didn't. So, I think you'd be wise to let workers decide such weighty matters. Trying to dictate to workers what they should or should not do clearly defeats the purpose -- even if they bothered to listen to you.This is nothing about asking the workers what they want or don't want. That is very important, and a key question of Mao's expansion on Marxist epistemology called the 'mass line', but also, we cannot tail the masses.

A large part of the workers believe in some 'God'. Maybe we should ask them if they want that too? We should investigate what they believe what they want, but this does not mean that we cannot come up with our conclusions, and that, everytime I make a point, I should go and 'ask workers.'

Whether we 'ask the workers' or not, having class alliances is crucial, there is no debating this, whilst maintaining class independence.

We should never preach to people, that implies a dogmatic approach to changing people's consciousness. But we do need to put out there an overall societal picture and struggle that through in the course of social struggle.

Your arguments have degenerated to the point of saying that we have to 'ask the workers'. Go figure.


Once more, neither you, nor I, nor anyone else can determine the class composition of anywhere, or everywhere, in advance in order to tell workers what they should or should not do. Sure, we can advise workers, but it is after all entirely up to them.

As far as mistakes are concerned, I think workers can teach us Marxists a few things about how not to make mistakes -- we are not exactly the non-existent deity's gift to success.So, if I go to a factory, I shouldn't explain to the workers how different classes react and why (or why not) we should ally with other strata? What?

Of course we can determine the class composition of a society through study and investigation. Marx did, Lenin did, Mao did. We can too.

And I agree, the masses can and do teach us a lot of things.


Where did you get the idea that I was an 'economist', or even a 'workerist'?

Ah, you made it up. Well, that's Ok then. Can I make stuff up about you?I am not making stuff up. Your positions are workerist and economist. Saying that a revolutionary party only needs workers to be revolutionary is assuming that only workers can obtain communist consciousness (and returns to my point about identity politics). What you do is reify the proletariat. The proletariat is only important in the sense because they are the ones that hold the key to liberates themselves, and consequently, humanity.

And, yes you can make stuff up about me.


And, I think we have learnt over the last 150 years or so that even if one does not have to be a proletarian to understand communism, one should develop a healthy scepticism toward non-workers who seek to preach to workers.

Well, if you haven't, most workers have.
Yes, based on whether they are correct or not. If a worker is preaching to another worker about fascism, and an intellectual talking about revolution and communism, who should we listen to? Hmm.

I don't mean to say (and i need to say this so my politics don't get distorted) that only intellectuals can do this, but my point is that not only workers can understand society or worker's oppression.

And no, most workers do not understand this. Most believe in God. Most want to obey the 'boss'. Things are not as simple as you make them out to be.


Which is precisely what did not happen in China.Yes, it did, it was led by the proletariat. Now, there does need to be discussion and serious insight into the relationship between physical representation (present in china's revolution) and its ideology (present as well). As far as china, the CCP held a communist, proletarian line. Without it, it could not have achieved such breakthroughs. If you disagree with aspects of Mao's theories and politics, bring them up, lets get into them. But the real crux of this question is not, "how many workers are there", but, "is the leading line and theories of this party serve the cause of the proletariat and humanity"? This is the communist method.


Well, if you can change the meaning of key words at will, perhaps I can, too?

So, for me 'communism' means a movement controlled only by workers.

Sorted!Be my guest. I'm not guilty of changing word's meanings, just interpreting them based on their history.


Well, if you recall, you were the one who used that word of me first -- and without proof.

So, why can't I do it?I did have proof:
You did not explicitly "indicate it", but it is implicit in your arguments.

You saying things about Marx explaining the need for a "worker's revolution" ( I dont think he ever even said those words), and just implying that every revolution must be physically led by factory workers and that they need to be in the majority in every party, because thats what worked in Russia. Well thats not what would have worked in China, and Mao was correct in saying that we need "concrete study of concrete conditions".You don't have proof.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Raw:


Ah, I see. So now its 'non-working class' to say "Communism is an evolving ideology, not static, and should always rely on material conditions and a critical and fearless spirit."?

It is indeed, since that is what happened in China (and eslewhere under 'communism') -- non-workers' states were set up. Sure they used 'Marxist' phraseology to cover their tracks, but these states were not workers' states.

And communism must evolve, I agree. One way that it can do so is to evolve into a fully proletarian movement (with that word not re-defined to include non-proletarians).


Why do you keep repeating these ad hominems? Instead of saying this above, why can't you address what I actually said? If you disagree that communism should not be a dogma, explain why.

There is nothing as such wrong with ad hominems:


One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is "ad hominem". It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don't need it when they've got ad hominem on their side. It's the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed.

In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments.

Bold added. You can read the rest here:

http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html

And, once more, you are the one who introduced the word 'dogma', not me.


This is nothing about asking the workers what they want or don't want. That is very important, and a key question of Mao's expansion on Marxist epistemology called the 'mass line', but also, we cannot tail the masses.

This is precisely the problem; your sort of politics treats workers as dumb sheep, and that is just one of the reasons why we have witnessed such horrors as 'communist' China, and N Korea (and the rest).

Indeed, your sort of politics ends up with a dictatorship over the proletariat, which, unfortunately, simply requires there be another, and this time working class, revolution.


A large part of the workers believe in some 'God'. Maybe we should ask them if they want that too? We should investigate what they believe what they want, but this does not mean that we cannot come up with our conclusions, and that, every time I make a point, I should go and 'ask workers.'

Ah, but 'communists' have their own religion: dialectics --, and their own Holy Books, and Gurus (Mao, Stalin, Kim-ll-Sung, Kim Jong-il, etc.), so I do not think you 'communists' can preach to workers.

And, it is not so much that you should ask workers what they want -- unless they are in power, at some point, they will seize it and tell you (the minority) what they want and then go and get it. You can't stop the class war by a minority seizing power and calling the state 'communist'.


Whether we 'ask the workers' or not, having class alliances is crucial, there is no debating this, whilst maintaining class independence.

We should never preach to people, that implies a dogmatic approach to changing people's consciousness. But we do need to put out there an overall societal picture and struggle that through in the course of social struggle.


However, in relation to this, you said earlier:


Mao was correct in saying that we need "concrete study of concrete conditions".

In that case, I do not see how, before the concrete circumstances are clear, you can possibly say what is and what is not crucial. How can you, or anyone, know what the concrete circumstances are going to be in 25 or 50 years time?

Of course, if you want to lay down rigid abstract principles in the here and now, then you will have to stop saying things like this:


Mao was correct in saying that we need "concrete study of concrete conditions".

Then you say:


Your arguments have degenerated to the point of saying that we have to 'ask the workers'. Go figure.

Already dealt with above.


I am not making stuff up. Your positions are workerist and economist. Saying that a revolutionary party only needs workers to be revolutionary is assuming that only workers can obtain communist consciousness (and returns to my point about identity politics). What you do is reify the proletariat. The proletariat is only important in the sense because they are the ones that hold the key to liberates themselves, and consequently, humanity.

My position is not 'workerist', which is a term of abuse invented by those who want to lord it over workers. I'd like to see your proof that I am as you say. All we have seen up to now is invention and baseless assertion from you.


And, yes you can make stuff up about me.

Ah, but I do not need to do this, nor have I any desire to do it; whereas you seem compelled to do it to me.


Yes, based on whether they are correct or not. If a worker is preaching to another worker about fascism, and an intellectual talking about revolution and communism, who should we listen to? Hmm.

I don't mean to say (and i need to say this so my politics don't get distorted) that only intellectuals can do this, but my point is that not only workers can understand society or worker's oppression.

And no, most workers do not understand this. Most believe in God. Most want to obey the 'boss'. Things are not as simple as you make them out to be.

And 'communists' entered into alliances with Nazis, and the Guomindang, which is even worse.

Once more, your whole tone is to treat workers as an ignorant lumpen mass -- so it is you who is 'reifying' the proletariat, not me.

This means, and has meant, that you 'communists' regard yourselves as prophets, superior to workers, and they are viewed as dim-witted 'children' who need to be taught Mao-Tse-Tung 'Thought' (just like previous ruling-classes have rammed religion down their throats), and who do not know their own interests. The bottom line is that after the 'revolution' the working class just gains a new set of rulers, the CCP (or the CPSU, etc.), and the mass of the population goes on being exploited and oppressed, but by a new gang of bosses calling themselves 'communists' -- and you buy it!

As I said, this will only mean that there will have to be another revolution, led by workers this time, to kick out these gangsters.


Yes, it did, it was led by the proletariat. Now, there does need to be discussion and serious insight into the relationship between physical representation (present in china's revolution) and its ideology (present as well). As far as china, the CCP held a communist, proletarian line. Without it, it could not have achieved such breakthroughs. If you disagree with aspects of Mao's theories and politics, bring them up, lets get into them. But the real crux of this question is not, "how many workers are there", but, "is the leading line and theories of this party serve the cause of the proletariat and humanity"? This is the communist method.

It was led by the 'proletariat' only in your re-defined sense. But, as I said we can all play that game. So, just because I can, or because might want to, I could call the gang in China with Mao a group of Fascists, and you'd have no come back, since we are all allowed to re-define stuff as much as we like.

This is not so much the 'communist method' as the con man's method.


I did have proof:

Your 'proof' amounted to your assertion that I held certain views dogmatically. And that was all, a bald assertion.

Now, in return I alleged you held certain views dogmatically, and then you demanded proof. But, your only proof was that assertion. So, how come you can just make assertions and I can't?

This is not 'proof':


You did not explicitly "indicate it", but it is implicit in your arguments.

You saying things about Marx explaining the need for a "worker's revolution" ( I don't think he ever even said those words), and just implying that every revolution must be physically led by factory workers and that they need to be in the majority in every party, because that's what worked in Russia. Well that's not what would have worked in China, and Mao was correct in saying that we need "concrete study of concrete conditions".

1) Nowhere have I asserted that "every revolution must be physically led by factory workers", I merely quoted Marx to the effect that the 'emancipation of the working class must be an act of the working class'. You have just read into this whatever your prejudices have told you. Yet more invention.

2) Sure it couldn't work in China, but that just tells me that without a revolution in the advanced capitalist countries to help it out, the Chinese revolution was doomed to become the horror story we have seen since, requiring a proper workers' revolution to put things right.

[Rawthentic]

It is indeed, since that is what happened in China (and eslewhere under 'communism') -- non-workers' states were set up. Sure they used 'Marxist' phraseology to cover their tracks, but these states were not workers' states.

Many times marxism was used to justify wrong things, such as the restoration of capitalism in China and in the USSR.

And communism must evolve, I agree. One way that it can do so is to evolve into a fully proletarian movement (with that word not re-defined to include non-proletarians).China was not a workers state. Correct. It was a socialist state. There is a lot of difference, and there can be no such thing as a 'workers state" because of the crucial need for the peasants, intellectuals, and farmers that have a stake in communism and will be included in the movement. We need them! We need those allies!

Why are you so adverse to class alliances? Every revolution, including communist ones, were made by a coalition of classes.

How does your point about a 'proletarian movement' have anything to do with marxism advancing and evolving?


There is nothing as such wrong with ad hominems:Wrong when one does not address the real points, like you.


This is precisely the problem; your sort of politics treats workers as dumb sheep, and that is just one of the reasons why we have witnessed such horrors as 'communist' China, and N Korea (and the rest).

Indeed, your sort of politics ends up with a dictatorship over the proletariat, which, unfortunately, simply requires there be another, and this time working class, revolution.So, the reason why the chinese revolution failed was because it treated workers like 'dumb sheep'? Wow, thats so materialist.

Have you ever read What is to Be Done? by Lenin? I think it does need to be restudied in light of our conditions, but it is a work that holds so much weight today. If I thought workers were dumb sheep, I would disagree with Lenin.

Either way, you are (again) making inventions. It is neither explicit or implicit in my argument that I think workers should be treated as stupid people, incapable of coming to consciousness. That is not my position, and unless you can prove it, stop making bald assertions with no substance.

I am opposed to tailism, meaning that communists should not (even though a lot do) just lead whatever the masses are saying at the moment, never really leading because they are not creating consciousness, they are just doing this and that to get support, instead of taking those struggles further into making them against the system, instead of against a particular form of oppression. Thats what I garnered when you say 'ask the workers.' Yes, we should ask them, and educate them, because we both have a lot to learn from each other.


Ah, but 'communists' have their own religion: dialectics --, and their own Holy Books, and Gurus (Mao, Stalin, Kim-ll-Sung, Kim Jong-il, etc.), so I do not think you 'communists' can preach to workers.

And, it is not so much that you should ask workers what they want -- unless they are in power, at some point, they will seize it and tell you (the minority) what they want and then go and get it. You can't stop the class war by a minority seizing power and calling the state 'communist'.
I am not a dialectician, so this does not apply.

Communists works can, and often are, treated like Holy Writ, although that is a wrong and un-communist method, one that I avoid. This also goes for the great Trotsky and his scientific, critical, revolutionary works and methods.:rolleyes:


In that case, I do not see how, before the concrete circumstances are clear, you can possibly say what is and what is not crucial. How can you, or anyone, know what the concrete circumstances are going to be in 25 or 50 years time?

Of course, if you want to lay down rigid abstract principles in the here and now, then you will have to stop saying things like this:I never said that many years in advance! I was speaking about today. There is a need to do that today, because things are far more complex than simply, "proletariat vs bourgeoisie".


My position is not 'workerist', which is a term of abuse invented by those who want to lord it over workers. I'd like to see your proof that I am as you say. All we have seen up to now is invention and baseless assertion from you.Baseless. You are saying you are not workerist, but not explaining why. Workerism, as ive said many times, means thinking that only workers can understand communism . Or that having workers is more important than rev ideology (a point you ignored).

I, on the other hand, explained in a passage that you quoted (!):
Your positions are workerist and economist. Saying that a revolutionary party only needs workers to be revolutionary is assuming that only workers can obtain communist consciousness (and returns to my point about identity politics). What you do is reify the proletariat. The proletariat is only important in the sense because they are the ones that hold the key to liberates themselves, and consequently, humanity.Ive also explained it in like my last three posts, so you cannot say that this is baseless (in comparison to yours).


And 'communists' entered into alliances with Nazis, and the Guomindang, which is even worse.

Once more, your whole tone is to treat workers as an ignorant lumpen mass -- so it is you who is 'reifying' the proletariat, not me.

This means, and has meant, that you 'communists' regard yourselves as prophets, superior to workers, and they are viewed as dim-witted 'children' who need to be taught Mao-Tse-Tung 'Thought' (just like previous ruling-classes have rammed religion down their throats), and who do not know their own interests. The bottom line is that after the 'revolution' the working class just gains a new set of rulers, the CCP (or the CPSU, etc.), and the mass of the population goes on being exploited and oppressed, but by a new gang of bosses calling themselves 'communists' -- and you buy it!

As I said, this will only mean that there will have to be another revolution, led by workers this time, to kick out these gangsters.What was wrong with the CCP allying with the Kuomintang? In order for the revolution to continue, China needed to ally all progressive class forces in order to defeat Japan. Not doing so would have meant China becoming a Japanese colony.

At this time, it was necessary for internal class conflict to subside, and for the anti-imperialist struggle against Japan to become principal. Going against this resistance, actually meant to go against class struggle, since the latter could not continue with the former did not happen.

There was never any class collaboration, in the sense that Mao or the CCP capitulated to the bourgeoisie and watered down or eliminated their communist politics (as the chinese trotskyists asserted at the time). As the situation in china changed, as a new stage of resistance came into being (as Japan started to invade China) class relations changed in relation to that imperialist invasion. There was what Mao called the comprador bourgeoisie, or the imperialist section of the chinese bourgeoisie (the "running dogs" of imperialism) that supported the various imperialist nations vying for control of China (USA, Japan, Britain) and the national bourgeoisie (which DID exist and still does in some oppressed nations) which had a section that supported Japan and a section that did not. Mao said that the section that did not support Japan had to be won over to the national united front, but always under the leadership of the proletariat and the communist party. We can also use dialectics for this: in the prior period of civil war against the Kuomintang, the main contradiction was that of between the oppressed masses and the kuomintang. In the new stage against Japan, it became a secondary contradiction, while the prime one became national resistance against Japan, because only ousting Japan could pave the road to socialism (as it did). I think it is wrong to assert then (and today) that if there are sections of other classes that for several reasons can support or be neutral to your cause that one would reject them under false notions of "class collaborationism". Resistance to Japan became the interests of the vast majority of chinese, including sectors of the national bourgeoisie, and the resistance needed all the forces possible to be able to defeat Japan.

Here's what Mao had to say on the national bourgeoisie (The Analysis of Classes in Chinese Society):
Quote:

The middle bourgeoisie. This class represents the capitalist relations of production in China in town and country. The middle bourgeoisie, by which is meant chiefly the national bourgeoisie,
Quote:

[3 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://marx2mao.com/Mao/AC26.html#en3)] is inconsistent in its attitude towards the Chinese revolution: they feel the need for revolution and favour the revolutionary movement against imperialism and the warlords when they are smarting under the blows of foreign capital and the oppression of the warlords, but become suspicious of the revolution when they sense that, with the militant participation of the proletariat at home and the active support of the international proletariat abroad, the revolution is threatening the hope of their class to attain the status of a big bourgeoisie. Politically, they stand for the establishment of a state under the rule of a single class, the national bourgeoisie. A self-styled true disciple of Tai Chi-tao[4 (http://marx2mao.com/Mao/AC26.html#en4)] wrote in the Chen Pao,[5 (http://marx2mao.com/Mao/AC26.html#en5)] Peking, "Raise your left fist to knock down the imperialists and your right to knock down the Communists." These words depict the dilemma and anxiety of this class. It is against interpreting the Kuomintang's Principle of the People's Livelihood according to the theory of class struggle, and it opposes the Kuomintang's alliance with Russia and the admission of Communists[6 (http://marx2mao.com/Mao/AC26.html#en6)] and left-wingers. But its attempt to establish a state under the rule of the national bourgeoisie is quite impracticable, because the present world situation is such that the two major forces, revoiution and counter-revolution, are locked in final struggle. Each has hoisted a huge banner: one is the red banner of revolution held aloft by the Third International as the rallying point for all the oppressed classes of the world, the other is the white banner of counter-revolution held aloft by the League of Nations as the rallying point for all the counter-revolutionaries of the world. The intermediate classes are bound to disintegrate quickly, some sections turning left to join the revolution, others turning right to join the counter-revolution; there is no room for them to remain "independent". Therefore the idea cherished by China's middle bourgeoisie of an "independent" revolution in which it would play the primary role is a mere illusion.
On Tactics Against Japanese Imperialism:
Quote:

Is it correct to object to our view on the ground that China's national bourgeoisie is politically and economically flabby, and to argue that it cannot possibly change its attitude in spite of the new circumstances? I think not. If weakness is the reason for its inability to change its attitude, why did the national bourgeoisie behave differently in 1924-27 when it did not merely vacillate towards the revolution but actually joined it? Can one say that the weakness of the national bourgeoisie is a new disease, and not one that accompanies it from the very womb? Can one say that the national bourgeoisie is weak today, but was not weak in 1924-27? One of the chief political and economic characteristics of a semi-colonial country is the weakness of its national bourgeoisie. That is exactly why the imperialists dare to bully them, and it follows that one of their characteristics is dislike of imperialism. Of course, so far from denying it, we fully recognize that it is the very weakness of the national bourgeoisie that may make it easy for the imperialists, landlords and compradors to entice them with the bait of some temporary advantage; hence their lack of revolutionary thoroughness. Nevertheless, it cannot be said that in the present circumstances there is no difference between the national bourgeoisie and the landlord and comprador classes.
http://marx2mao.com/Mao/TAJI35.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://marx2mao.com/Mao/TAJI35.html)

This is, after all, the strategy that Mao employed while defeating first Japanese and then American imperialism. He characterized the national bourgeoisie in China at the time as a small, weak, and vacillating class. Yet it had its contradictions with imperialism and, unlike the "comprador bourgeoisie," saw its interests in national economic development that would principally be based in China, rather than having an economy geared toward trade and international finance. So it was possible to unite with it to a degree, and proceeding from the standpoint of "uniting all who could be united," Mao's strategy was that it should be part of the united front against imperialism, *under the leadership of the proletariat.* True enough, many other parties, including nominally Maoist parties, have gotten this wrong, and have entered united fronts that were led by the national bourgeoisie, leading to disastrous results, particularly in Indonesia in 1965 (the pro-U.S. coup).
*******
Come on Rosa, can you REALLY prove that I believe workers to be an 'ignorant lumpen mass'? That has never been my position, so prove otherwise if you can. I already explained this above. Reifying the proletariat means treating them as gods, as superhuman people, just because they are the 'most oppressed'. The correct position to hold on the proletariat comes by realizing that they are only important in the sense that only they can lead humanity to liberation.

Communists should never see themselves as prophets or superior to workers. That is contrary to the revolutionary, and critical spirit embodied in Maoism ('serve the people', 'concrete study of concrete conditions', 'no investigation, no right to speak.') The workers and masses do need revolutionary communist theory taken to them (mao tse tung thought in China's time) but it needs to be done in a revolutionary way, not a religious way. That is why millions of peasants and workers and others rallied to the CCP and Mao's leadership. For the first time, a political organization treated its followers like humans and served their cause. But, we also need to learn from them.

If you really think Maoists see themselves are lords over the workers, you show little knowledge of china or his ideology. Ever hear the phrase, "from the masses, to the masses"? It is a beautiful phrase. It basically means, communists go out amongst the people to learn from them, their conditions, aspiration, etc, which are, for the most part scattered and non-systematic. We then synthesize those ideas into systematic policies and programs using communist theory which are then taken back to the masses during political struggle (or not all the time), and the masses use them, learn from them, criticize them, and the process continues.


It was led by the 'proletariat' only in your re-defined sense. But, as I said we can all play that game. So, just because I can, or because might want to, I could call the gang in China with Mao a group of Fascists, and you'd have no come back, since we are all allowed to re-define stuff as much as we like.

This is not so much the 'communist method' as the con man's method.No not redefined, and there you go again dismissing this passage:
Yes, it did, it was led by the proletariat. Now, there does need to be discussion and serious insight into the relationship between physical representation (present in china's revolution) and its ideology (present as well). As far as china, the CCP held a communist, proletarian line. Without it, it could not have achieved such breakthroughs. If you disagree with aspects of Mao's theories and politics, bring them up, lets get into them. But the real crux of this question is not, "how many workers are there", but, "is the leading line and theories of this party serve the cause of the proletariat and humanity"? This is the communist method.You disagree? Prove it then! Show why I am wrong!

If you don't think that the CCP help a proletarian line, show how. But there is nothing redefined in saying that the proletariat led the chinese revolution.

Lets take a look into history. Who led the french revolution? The bougeoisie? No, it was the workers and peasants, but what ideology and what class interests did it serve? The bourgeoisie's and the emergence of capitalism. This is bit crude, but it gets the main point across.

Like I said, what really matters is if a party's line serves the interests of the proletariat and humanity, although there should always be workers within a party (and there were in the CCP).


Nowhere have I asserted that "every revolution must be physically led by factory workers", I merely quoted Marx to the effect that the 'emancipation of the working class must be an act of the working class'. You have just read into this whatever your prejudices have told you. Yet more invention.In your first response to me in this thread, you said how the Chinese revolution was not socialist because it did not fit in with Marx's conception, without much analysis (none at all, actually) of China and its conditions. That is dogmatic.

And yes, there needs to be worldwide revolution around the world to support the current socialist states, but there are also many other factors that factor in as to why a revolution is defeated and capitalism restored (as China so starkly shows).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Raw:


China was not a workers state. Correct. It was a socialist state. There is a lot of difference, and there can be no such thing as a 'workers state" because of the crucial need for the peasants, intellectuals, and farmers that have a stake in communism and will be included in the movement. We need them! We need those allies!

Why are you so adverse to class alliances? Every revolution, including communist ones, were made by a coalition of classes.

How does your point about a 'proletarian movement' have anything to do with Marxism advancing and evolving?

I do not know how you know that there can be "no such thing as a 'workers state'"; is this yet another example of you not adhering to the concrete, and preferring instead the abstract?

And if you want to know what my comments about a proletarian movement helping Marxism advance we perhaps need to start another thread in Theory. In the meantime, I think it is reasonably clear what I meant, or it is as clear as anything you have so far said on the matter.


Wrong when one does not address the real points, like you.

Well, we can see that your lack of knowledge of logic is really beginning to show here, but still, that has not stopped you from pontificating on the matter in total ignorance.

What has an ad hominem argument got to do with not addressing 'the real points'? And which 'real points' did I fail to address?


So, the reason why the Chinese revolution failed was because it treated workers like 'dumb sheep'? Wow, that's so materialist.

That was not my argument, as well you know.

Once more you have to invent.


Have you ever read What is to Be Done? by Lenin? I think it does need to be restudied in light of our conditions, but it is a work that holds so much weight today. If I thought workers were dumb sheep, I would disagree with Lenin.

I probably read it before you were born.


Either way, you are (again) making inventions. It is neither explicit or implicit in my argument that I think workers should be treated as stupid people, incapable of coming to consciousness. That is not my position, and unless you can prove it, stop making bald assertions with no substance.

I am opposed to tailism, meaning that communists should not (even though a lot do) just lead whatever the masses are saying at the moment, never really leading because they are not creating consciousness, they are just doing this and that to get support, instead of taking those struggles further into making them against the system, instead of against a particular form of oppression. That's what I garnered when you say 'ask the workers.' Yes, we should ask them, and educate them, because we both have a lot to learn from each other.

Well, you seem to think that workers need to be taught their own best interests, and that they need a party of non-workers to do their thinking for them, and make the revolution for them. Why is this so? All you tell us is that they believe in 'God' and do not have the right 'ideology'. So, what am I to think about your motives, except that deep down you think that workers are intellectually backward in some way? In short, you reckon they are dumb sheep.


I am not a dialectician, so this does not apply.

I am glad to hear it, but the vast majority of 'communists' are, hence, they too have their own quasi-religious dogma -- just like you say workers have. So, they are not the least bit 'superior' to workers in their 'ideology'.


This also goes for the great Trotsky and his scientific, critical, revolutionary works and methods

I agree; but, where have I said that his works should be treated as gospel?


I never said that many years in advance! I was speaking about today. There is a need to do that today, because things are far more complex than simply, "proletariat vs bourgeoisie".

Again, I agree, but then the revolution is not around the corner, and you were speaking about the revolutionary transformation of society. So, you either do believe the revolution is around the corner, or you like to impose abstract schemas on the future.


Baseless.

What do you mean 'baseless'? I was here asking you to substantiate what you had said about me! How can a request be 'baseless'?


You are saying you are not workerist, but not explaining why. Workerism, as vie said many times, means thinking that only workers can understand communism . Or that having workers is more important than rev ideology (a point you ignored).

You made the accusation; you are the one who needs to show that accusation is true.

And where have I said that "only workers can understand communism"? I could hardly appeal to Marx, who was not a worker, if I believed that!

Once more you prefer to invent.


Or that having workers is more important than rev ideology (a point you ignored).

I did not ignore this; in fact, I'm happy to underline it. But, what you have failed to show is that this is 'workerist'. Just asserting that this is so might be enough for you, but if it is, then my flat denial should suffice, too.


What was wrong with the CCP allying with the Kuomintang? In order for the revolution to continue, China needed to ally all progressive class forces in order to defeat Japan. Not doing so would have meant China becoming a Japanese colony.

We can perhaps debate this in another thread.

And thanks for all that material; I have read this sort of stuff many times before.

But this is incorrect:


under the leadership of the proletariat

There was no such leadership in China, and you can only make this 'true' by altering the meaning of the word "proletariat". But, I have already covered this.


Come on Rosa, can you REALLY prove that I believe workers to be an 'ignorant lumpen mass'? That has never been my position, so prove otherwise if you can. I already explained this above. Reifying the proletariat means treating them as gods, as superhuman people, just because they are the 'most oppressed'. The correct position to hold on the proletariat comes by realizing that they are only important in the sense that only they can lead humanity to liberation.

Your own words and politics condemn you, I'm afraid. The rest of what you say is either window dressing, or a smokescreen.


Communists should never see themselves as prophets or superior to workers. That is contrary to the revolutionary, and critical spirit embodied in Maoism ('serve the people', 'concrete study of concrete conditions', 'no investigation, no right to speak.') The workers and masses do need revolutionary communist theory taken to them (mao tse tung thought in China's time) but it needs to be done in a revolutionary way, not a religious way. That is why millions of peasants and workers and others rallied to the CCP and Mao's leadership. For the first time, a political organization treated its followers like humans and served their cause. But, we also need to learn from them.

If you really think Maoists see themselves are lords over the workers, you show little knowledge of china or his ideology. Ever hear the phrase, "from the masses, to the masses"? It is a beautiful phrase. It basically means, communists go out amongst the people to learn from them, their conditions, aspiration, etc, which are, for the most part scattered and non-systematic. We then synthesize those ideas into systematic policies and programs using communist theory which are then taken back to the masses during political struggle (or not all the time), and the masses use them, learn from them, criticize them, and the process continues.

Yes I do think this of 'communists', and the behaviour of the CCP and CPSU confirms it.

And by this: "you show little knowledge of china or his ideology" what you really mean is "Rosa disagrees with me".


Ever hear the phrase, "from the masses, to the masses"? It is a beautiful phrase.

Yes, ruling elites have always spoken this way. In a communist society no one would need to do this since the masses would be in power, and would be able to implement their own ideas.


No not redefined

Yes re-defined, as I said. You make the mistake of believing state propaganda, that when the CCP elite said they were expressing the 'proletarian line' that what they said was true. They could only be doing this if the meaning of 'proletarian' had been re-defined.


Show why I am wrong!

No need to; your re-definition of this word condemns you.


But there is nothing redefined in saying that the proletariat led the Chinese revolution.

Well, for Marx, as you should know, the proletariat was the working class under capitalism. Not many of those took part in the Chinese revolution.

Now, if you re-define this word to mean "the party that says it is acting on behalf of the 'proletariat'" (or some such) then you would be right in what you say, but then that would only be because you had re-defined this word.


Lets take a look into history. Who led the French revolution? The bourgeoisie? No, it was the workers and peasants, but what ideology and what class interests did it serve? The bourgeoisie's and the emergence of capitalism. This is bit crude, but it gets the main point across.

Where did I say that all revolutions had to be led by just any workers?

What I have said is that a communist revolution (in the sense that Marx meant) has to be led by workers in a Leninist workers' party. [I am a Trotskyist, after all.]

That rules the French and the Chinese revolutions out.


In your first response to me in this thread, you said how the Chinese revolution was not socialist because it did not fit in with Marx's conception, without much analysis (none at all, actually) of China and its conditions. That is dogmatic.

And yes, there needs to be worldwide revolution around the world to support the current socialist states, but there are also many other factors that factor in as to why a revolution is defeated and capitalism restored (as China so starkly shows).

Well China was State Capitalist after 1948 -- yes I too am allowed to re-define stuff as I please, just like you.

And, even if I had been dogmatic (which I deny), you were too in your opening posts.

Or do you suppose we should all publish 5000 word analyses in every post we make in threads in Learning?

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

I don't think they really have anything to do with workers except for their party's names. Korea employs "self reliance" and god worship of the lord king Kim Jong Il. China has shopping malls full of Dior, Breitling and every other piece and conspicuous consumption.

[Rawthentic]

I do not know how you know that there can be "no such thing as a 'workers state'"; is this yet another example of you not adhering to the concrete, and preferring instead the abstract?Actually, I believe calling a socialist state a 'workers state' is abstract, rather than the other way around. I think this is the case because socialism needs the unity of several different classes, such as peasants, intellectuals, small farmers, and other strata that might have a stake in such a radical change.

So, I think that calling it a workers state is very narrow, and actually downplays the reality that different strata will be in alliance with the working class under socialism (out of both principle and necessity).


And if you want to know what my comments about a proletarian movement helping Marxism advance we perhaps need to start another thread in Theory. In the meantime, I think it is reasonably clear what I meant, or it is as clear as anything you have so far said on the matter.I agree, I think. Are you talking about Marxism advancing as a result of revolutionary practice (in the course of practical struggle)? In this case, I agree, though it is not as simple as just practical struggle.


What has an ad hominem argument got to do with not addressing 'the real points'? And which 'real points' did I fail to address?
I said:

No, he didn't. He's dead. Communism is an evolving ideology, not static, and should always rely on material conditions and a critical and fearless spirit.Then you said:

Fine; you stick to your non-working class ideology, I'll stick to my working class politics .You never addressed the issue, just accused me of not having 'working class politics.'


That was not my argument, as well you know.

Once more you have to invent.You said that Maoists believe workers are 'dumb sheep.' It has everything to do with your argument. I explained why this is horribly wrong, and you just wrote it off with one or two-liners.


I probably read it before you were born.So? That does not mean you understand it.


Well, you seem to think that workers need to be taught their own best interests, and that they need a party of non-workers to do their thinking for them, and make the revolution for them. Why is this so? All you tell us is that they believe in 'God' and do not have the right 'ideology'. So, what am I to think about your motives, except that deep down you think that workers are intellectually backward in some way? In short, you reckon they are dumb sheep.Workers do not need to be taught their own best interests, don't make it as simplistic as that, and distort my thinking in that manner, please. But the fact of the matter is that, the masses, in general, do not understand that their highest interests lie in communist revolution and overthrowing the system, and consequently, there needs to be a vanguard organization that can lead them in struggle and expose the system. I never said that this vanguard had to be of 'non-workers', thats another invention of yours. What I mean is that, what ultimately matters, is if that organization's lines and theories are correct! You can't lead millions of oppressed people in struggle with wrong policies and justify it because "oh look, we have our workers!" Come on. My position is the basic Leninist and What is to be Done?-ist line.

I brought up the point about God because you said we should go and ask the workers everything, and can't come up with our own conclusions. So I said, maybe we should ask them if they want a 'God' too, and stick with that.

You are just distorting what I have to say, when in reality, it falls in line with the basic Leninist conception of how the consciousness of the people is transformed. If you dont think so, then prove how different I am from Lenin.

I never said workers were dumb sheep (another invention), but that they did not have communist conciousness. This consciousness, according to Lenin, can only be changed from without the immediate experience of the masses. This consciousness comes through waging political struggle alongst key faultlines in society (immigration and war in US), studying economics, history, politics, etc., as well as an exposure of the system by the vanguard in the course of struggle. The people learn best in struggle. They cannot come to a revolutionary consciousness, only a reformist, trade-unionist one, in the realm of immediate experience, such as wage increases, police brutality, etc. These things are important, but need to be widened and led into its correct rev path. In addition, these struggles are for the most part driven into bourgeois politics because the leaders of these struggles assume (incorrectly) that they will 'see' the system through these immediate struggles.

So, how do you do deduct from this (and Lenin) that we think that workers are stupid? Lets see if you can really respond to this, or just write off.


I am glad to hear it, but the vast majority of 'communists' are, hence, they too have their own quasi-religious dogma -- just like you say workers have. So, they are not the least bit 'superior' to workers in their 'ideology'.
For the record, I dont see myself or any communist as 'above' the workers. Neither does Mao, and he understood this. He said, " The masses are the real heroes, while we ourselves are often childish and ignorant, and without this understanding it is impossible to acquire even the most rudimentary knowledge."

I agree with Mao.


Again, I agree, but then the revolution is not around the corner, and you were speaking about the revolutionary transformation of society. So, you either do believe the revolution is around the corner, or you like to impose abstract schemas on the future.Once you again, I think you misunderstood me.

We don't need to be a in a revolution in order to analyze social classes in a given society, although it is extremely important and, without it, bad things will inevitably happen. It doesnt even need to be around the corner to do this. We can do it now, and then analyze again during revolution, then again during socialism. It is necessary. I dont see what more there is to this.


You made the accusation; you are the one who needs to show that accusation is true.

And where have I said that "only workers can understand communism"? I could hardly appeal to Marx, who was not a worker, if I believed that!

Once more you prefer to invent.You say that a party is leninist only if there are workers within it; that party's revolutionary-ness is determined by how many workers there are.

What does this really mean? That only workers can have communist consciousness and be a part of the vanguard? This is what you imply, and it is completely wrong. It is a workerist position, and I explained this before.

If this is wrong, then why is having workers more important than having correct theory? And, why does having more workers determine the correctness of a party?


There was no such leadership in China, and you can only make this 'true' by altering the meaning of the word "proletariat". But, I have already covered this.Because it serves the proletariat! Not to mention the fact that there were countless strikes during the revolution, in large cities such as Beijing and Shangai that were in support of Mao and that Party.

But this still does not touch on the real point, and I think your methods are reductionist.

Again, we come back to the point about identity politics and how many workers there are in a party. Your idea that the proletariat did not lead the chinese revolution stems from the reality that there were little proletarians (relative to other strata) within the CCP. Well, (again) does having more workers make a party more communist? What if there are more workers (like in the Democratic Party and nearly every bourgeois party) but there line is reactionary? The CCP correctly upheld proletarian leadership throughout the revolution both because of the unity of the workers and peasants throughout, and because of the proletarian line in the CCP. If you think that the CCP or Mao were wrong, then show why! But don't just say that they were wrong and not say at least why.

Do you know why the CCP was forced into the countryside? The wrong line held by some in the CCP of focusing on unionizing workers in the cities and ignoring the vast countryside was what led to the massacre by the kuomintang in 1928. After this event, it became necessary for the communists to move to the countryside. This is where Mao developed his theory on protracted people's war, where, in a semi-feudal/colonial country like China, a revolution would amass forces in the rural areas (80% in China) and in this manner surround the cities. Had they not taken this proper path, the reactionaries could have easily taken control of the countryside and and smashed the revolutionary forces. This was also a break with the Comintern line, and by Li Li-san (a rep of the Comintern in the CCP) that a communist party had to focus on the workers (regardless of material conditions) in order to make real socialist revolution, and that there needed be simultaneous urban uprisings (idealist and adventurist at the time). This incorrect line came before Mao was in the leadership, and led to the betrayal by the Kuomintang. Mao broke from this wrong and dogmatic line. He saw that Chinese society was different than Russia's or any other countries for that matter, and Marxism had to be applied accordingly. This Comintern line have a reductionist view of class consciousness. They think that because there were little workers in the Party, there could be no proletarian class consciousness. Things need to be seen at the level of CLASS, not individuals, as trotkyists and others do. Communism is the guide of the proletariat as a CLASS, not individuals. The dictatorship of the proletariat means the proletariat as a CLASS and all the historic meaning that it has. Therefore, it is wrong to say that the peasantry could not obtain proletarian class consciousness because they were not proletarians. They did take up this view with the leadership of the CCP and became the main force, while the proletariat was the leading force. How was the working class the leading force? In representation and ideology. Ideologically, it was that class' viewpoint that led the CCP and the peasantry, while their strikes and movements in the cities and that of rural proletarians made up the representation in the Party.


Well, for Marx, as you should know, the proletariat was the working class under capitalism. Not many of those took part in the Chinese revolution.

Now, if you re-define this word to mean "the party that says it is acting on behalf of the 'proletariat'" (or some such) then you would be right in what you say, but then that would only be because you had re-defined this word.Not many took part in the chinese revolution! What! Granted, it was limited (due to the Kuomintang's repression in the cities) but there were strikes and movements in these cities that supported the CCP, not to mention the rural workers in the countryside that vastly supported Mao and the revolution and took a large part in it as well. Rural workers are different than peasants in that they have no land and can only sell their labor-power to survive.


Yes, ruling elites have always spoken this way. In a communist society no one would need to do this since the masses would be in power, and would be able to implement their own ideas.Way to write off such a thing as the mass line with this.

Anyway, in any socialist society, the masses will be in the leadership, but there will obviously be a government led by its vanguard and other leaders (such as the Bolsheviks in Russia and CCP in China). But lets remember that things are not simply and happy under socialism as you put them. A large part of the masses did support the revolution, but many did not, and there a lot of counterrevolutionaries.

As Marx said, socialism still bears the 'birthmarks' of the old society. Anyways, the vanguard in the leadership will still need to lead the masses in struggle to continue production, in political struggle, etc. We cannot do this in a commandist way, telling the masses what to do without explaining its importance to them and being respectful about it, while learning what they have to say in the matter. This is how the mass line is still useful in socialism, and up until there are no more classes or state or nations (called communism).

I think its a bit ridiculous to think we wont need correct communist leadership under socialism. Of course we will. The masses will input their ideas, and they should always be taken into account, but ultimately, socialism is in their highest interests, and, if they do not understand this (as many will not as a natural part of capitalism 'birthmarks') then the communist leadership needs to lead them to understand this and lead them to remake society.

And yes, I see that you mentioned 'communist society' not socialism, but I felt the need to clarify these things. Of course, this would not be necessary under communism, but vital under socialism.


And by this: "you show little knowledge of china or his ideology" what you really mean is "Rosa disagrees with me".No, you've honestly showed that you know little of the chinese revolution and its particular conditions. This has nothing to do with disagreeing.


Yes re-defined, as I said. You make the mistake of believing state propaganda, that when the CCP elite said they were expressing the 'proletarian line' that what they said was true. They could only be doing this if the meaning of 'proletarian' had been re-defined.Proletarian line means it serves the cause of the proletariat. If you think the CCP was wrong in their line show how, I'd live to get into it.

But stop dismissing things like this.


Where did I say that all revolutions had to be led by just any workers?

What I have said is that a communist revolution (in the sense that Marx meant) has to be led by workers in a Leninist workers' party. [I am a Trotskyist, after all.]

That rules the French and the Chinese revolutions out.DID Marx really emphasize that a communist revolution had to led by a 'Leninist worker's party'? For one, he died far before Lenin created his works lol, and secondly, he never said that it had to be led by workers in a party. That is not true. I've explained this above in relation to China. If you disagree, at least engage it in depth, dont dismiss it as before.

He said it had to be led by the working class, the proletariat, the oppressed, and this the proletariat leads humanity to liberation.

Correct. This does leave the French Revolution out.


Well China was State Capitalist after 1948 -- yes I too am allowed to re-define stuff as I please, just like you.

And, even if I had been dogmatic (which I deny), you were too in your opening posts.

Or do you suppose we should all publish 5000 word analyses in every post we make in threads in Learning?China was state-capitalist? Wow, I'd love to see that one defended.

And no, seeing how most of your arguments here have little substance in contrast to mine (and Ill start a poll to show how right I am and how others see it as well), I wouldnt dream of you writing more than one solid paragraph.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Raw, thanks for the reply; I will respond later in the week.

[Rawthentic]

Sounds good, hopefully this can be a productive exchange, for the both of us.