Discussion on Trotskyism and Maoism [Archive]

chegitz guevara

26th August 2008, 17:55

Well that's a bit defeatist isn't it?

Not so much. I've been a communist for over 18 years. I've experienced enough to see that Trotskyism is just spinning its wheels, engaging in fruitless arguments about who more closely hues to the Old Man's writings. I'm tired of that. I'm tired of fighting the arguments of men who died more than fifty years ago. I've tied of trying to recreate revolutions that were tied to a specific place and time. I want to build an American revolution, in our era.

The fact that you separate "Trotskyism" from Marxism says enough in and of itself, but the fact that you call yourself a "post-Trotskyist" is even more absurd.

So you're a post-Marxist then?Trotskyism, by and large, has separated itself from scientific socialism. Rather than being a living movement, applying the scientific method, constantly referring to reality, it is a "Talmudic" movement, similar to students in Yeshiva who constantly pour over ancient texts to find the minute argument to prove their case. Trotskyism, by and large, relies on a prioi definitions and discards reality when it doesn't measure up, rather than looking at reality and modifying its definitions when they fail.

Consider the whole nonsense of splits among Trotskyists occurring because of the definition of what sort of state the USSR was or was not or the splintering of the SWP over Cuba. Instead of saying, 'huh, the peasants in China have overthrown capitalism, it must not really be socialist then,' we should have said, 'perhaps Marx was wrong or perhaps we misunderstand what he wrote.' All this little Leninism (to use your words) and dick measuring does nothing but inflate our own egos in our tiny sects. It doesn't get us any closer to the revolution.

Yes there's a lot of dogmatism and sectarianism in the Trotskyist movement, now please name one revolutionary leftist movement where there isn't dogmatism or sectarianism? Maoism? Hoxhaism? Are you really going to go that low?Today, not so much. In the early seventies, however, the New Communist Movement was extremely fertile ground for discussion and new ideas. The sectarianism and dogmatism that came to dominate that movement came later. There has been no similar period of exploration and freedom of discussion within the Trotskyist movement, ever.

Blaming everything on the people instead of looking at the conditions which bring forth those negative features is idealist, and eventually serves no purpose but to disillusion yourself, if you want to go down that road, I wish you good luck on it, the last stop is becoming a reformist or pro-capitalist.At a certain point, we need to take responsibility for ourselves. We may not be able to control the concrete material circumstances in which we operate, but we can control how we operate within the concrete material circumstances in which we find ourselves. It's one thing to understand that our separation from the workers' movement and our inability to test our ideas in practice has resulted in sectarian infighting and the fracturing of the movement. It's another thing to accept that as a given, and refuse to swim against the current.

Until you get there though, could you please limit your anti-Marxist rantings in the Trotskyist sub-forum? You can do that in the other forums, there is no reason for you to do that here, in fact there's no reason for you to be a member of this group if you feel that way.And this is why Trotskyism is bankrupt. Because you cannot stand to have a difference of opinion. Because when someone shines a light on the fundamental problems of Trotskyism, the response is to shout, "Get out!"

I am perfectly ready to admit I'm wrong. That's part of the scientific process. You make a hypothesis. You test it. If the data prove inconclusive or disprove you, you modify your hypothesis and start again. That's a process that involves being wrong, inherently. But Trotskyism already has all the answers. The only task left to you now is to just try and get the execution right. That is a fundamentally religious methodology.

Oh really? Care to name some anarchist/Maoist organizations (that's right, not individuals) who you can work with while being a Trotskyist? If you can, then you're not a Marxist to begin with and I suggest you just join them and drop the facade.Ready for a list? (Maoist) Freedom Road Socialist Organization, Prairie Fire Organizing Committee, League of Revolutionaries for a New America, (anarchist) the Black Mangrove Collective, Bring the Ruckus. Kasama is in a weird category, as it is not self-defined as Maoist, but Maoism is definitely a major factor as most of the comrades are Maoists. But it also attracts anarchists, Trots, me, etc. This is also a rather incomplete list. How would I categorize Workers World and PSL which are both Trotskyist/Maoist fusions? Solidarity and FRSO are moving closer together, and may someday fuse. There was a fusion in Norway between Maoists and Trotskyists, on which I'd like more information.

No Marxist could work in an organization with a Stalinist ideology, that's a contradiction in terms. Your idealogy would be meaningless to you if you could do such a thing, and as such you would yourself be meaningless to the movement as a whole, because "activists" without a solid ideological basis are like feathers in the wind, they go wherever the wind blows them.You think it's impossible for Maoists to abandon Stalinism? Do you think it's impossible for Trotskyists to be Stalinist (in practice, not ideology)? Do you think Stalinists can't overthrow capitalism? You seem to think ideology is more important than practice. That is the fundamental problem with Trotskyism, and your post is infused and completely demonstrative of the problem.

So what is the solution. Abandon Trotsky? Absolutely not. His writings are absolutely indispensable for understanding the Russian Revolution, the nature of the Stalinist state, and fascism. We need to transcend Trotskyism. I do not call myself an ex-Trotskyist. There is too much of value to do that. I am a post-Trotskyist, i.e., I take what is of value and I move on. There is value in Maoism as well. There is value in anarchism. There is even value in the Stalinist movement, if you know where to look. (I highly suggest the movie, Seeing Red, in this regard--while hagiographic, there are real lessons to be learned).

Take was is valuable, discard what is useless and especially what holds us back. Trotsky's views on party building, for example, are utterly sectarian, and not Leninist in the least. Trotsky drank from the same poison well as Stalin and Mao, Zinoviev's pronouncements on what the Leninist party model was, when in fact, Lenin's ideal model of the party was the German Social Democratic Party (pre WWI). Lenin's party was mutitendency. Trotsky's party never was, except when he was a Bolshevik. That's whey there's a party or organization for every difference of opinion in Trotskyism.

There is a very simple way to end sectarianism.

Stop being sectarian.

Sectarianism and dogmatism are two sides of the same coin. It's impossible to be dogmatic without being sectarian and there's no point in being sectarian if you don't have a dogma to defend. If we can overcome one, we will, of necessity, overcome the other. When that happens, Trotskyism will cease to exist.

Led Zeppelin

26th August 2008, 18:46

First of all I have moved the discussion from the Trotskyist forum, you are obviously not a Trotskyist, just a disillusioned whiner, so you have no place posting in that forum, I shall have you kicked out of it as soon as possible by a vote.

Secondly, I am not really interested in debating Trotskyism with a...disillusioned whiner, but I'll indulge you for once:

Not so much. I've been a communist for over 18 years. I've experienced enough to see that Trotskyism is just spinning its wheels, engaging in fruitless arguments about who more closely hues to the Old Man's writings.

The Stalinist movement is filled with this kind of nonsense, even moreso than the Trotskyist movement. I remember when I was in the main communist party here, the main subject of discussion was "who was closest to Stalin or Lenin theoretically?", no wonder that that type of thinking lead to me Hoxhaism...

Anyway, just because some organizations or individuals want to "be as close to Trotsky as possible" doesn't mean that the movement as a whole is like that. What you just did is generalize a trend, which definitely exists, and apply it to the movement as a whole, and then say "voila, there is my criticism of Trotskyism!"

I'm sorry but it doesn't work like that, to reduce the entire movement to "they just want to be like Trotsky as much as possible" is childish, absurd, and I can't take you seriously when you say you have spent 18 years in the movement and have only learned that from it. Either you were hanging out with the wrong crowd, or you're just lying. This is the internet so I'm not sure which it is, but either way, it's nonsense.

I'm tired of that. I'm tired of fighting the arguments of men who died more than fifty years ago. I've tied of trying to recreate revolutions that were tied to a specific place and time. I want to build an American revolution, in our era.

Yeah, let's not talk about the past ever again and just focus on the here and now, then all our problems will be magically solved!

You're so typical that you don't even know it. Yes, there's too much debating about pointless things going on in the Trotskyist movement, do you think there isn't in other revolutionary leftist movements? Well I've been there, and yes, it's the same. There is of course a real material reason for this, it's not just because "they like talking about it" or "they're bored" or whatever else idealist reasoning you want to give for it. No, it is because the revolutionary left has had to deal with failure after failure for decades, and therefore it has to look to the past for "guidance". This is not just typical for the revolutionary leftist political movement, it is typical for all political movements.

So before you start whining about Trotskyism, you should step back and look at the movement as a whole. Is the problem the same there? Yes, so then, what are the causes of it?

Think about that if you want to do something productive, don't just throw your hands up and say "I'm tired of it all so I give up!!!"

With that attidute you were never worth much in the movement to begin with.

Trotskyism, by and large, has separated itself from scientific socialism. Rather than being a living movement, applying the scientific method, constantly referring to reality, it is a "Talmudic" movement, similar to students in Yeshiva who constantly pour over ancient texts to find the minute argument to prove their case.

This is another one of those "generalizing up to the point of absurdity" comments of yours. If you're going to keep doing this then I suggest you stop replying to me right now, because I'm not interested in you saying; "You are such and such" And me having to reply to you proving that it is not the case.

That's not a serious debate, that's wearing your opponent down by asserting things over and over again based on nothing but a few personal experiences of yourself.

Idealism again runs through your mode of thinking here.

Trotskyism, by and large, relies on a prioi definitions and discards reality when it doesn't measure up, rather than looking at reality and modifying its definitions when they fail.

See above, same thing.

Consider the whole nonsense of splits among Trotskyists occurring because of the definition of what sort of state the USSR was or was not or the splintering of the SWP over Cuba.

You mean like the Stalinist movement splitting over Maoism and the USSR? Or over Hoxhaism and Maoism? Or over Titoism and the USSR?

Be serious, this is a general tendency in all political movements, not just Trotskyism.

Instead of saying, 'huh, the peasants in China have overthrown capitalism, it must not really be socialist then,' we should have said, 'perhaps Marx was wrong or perhaps we misunderstand what he wrote.' All this little Leninism (to use your words) and dick measuring does nothing but inflate our own egos in our tiny sects. It doesn't get us any closer to the revolution.

First of all please don't refer to Trotskyists as "us", you have obviously put yourself out of the Marxist movement and have chosen to side with Maoism or whatever.

Ironically your arguments are not based on anything at all, it is just based on the a priori assumption that Marx might have been wrong, and then you blame Marxists for saying that maybe Marx wasn't wrong, but Mao was...

Ok, fine, side with Mao if you want, we see how that ended up in China, just don't whine about Marx being wrong when history has vindicated him.

Today, not so much. In the early seventies, however, the New Communist Movement was extremely fertile ground for discussion and new ideas. The sectarianism and dogmatism that came to dominate that movement came later. There has been no similar period of exploration and freedom of discussion within the Trotskyist movement, ever.

You just agree with Maoism and Stalinism and therefore think that it was a fertile ground for discussion, while all the discussion amounted to was "China good, USSR bad, revolution now!", see, I can generalize up to the point of absurdity too? It's fun to reply to it, isn't it?

Yeah, have fun being a Maoist/Stalinist/Whateverist.

At a certain point, we need to take responsibility for ourselves. We may not be able to control the concrete material circumstances in which we operate, but we can control how we operate within the concrete material circumstances in which we find ourselves. It's one thing to understand that our separation from the workers' movement and our inability to test our ideas in practice has resulted in sectarian infighting and the fracturing of the movement. It's another thing to accept that as a given, and refuse to swim against the current.

You're totally right, Maoism is so connected to the working-class in the US, it's unbelievable! They're leading the revolution as we speak! We should definitely take their example and say that "perhaps Marx was wrong?"

You and your semi-arguments are a joke.

And this is why Trotskyism is bankrupt. Because you cannot stand to have a difference of opinion. Because when someone shines a light on the fundamental problems of Trotskyism, the response is to shout, "Get out!"

Please, you didn't shine a light on anything but your own ignorance.

You don't agree with Marxism/Trotskyism, so you whine about it, say that "maybe Marx was wrong", and then still expect to be within that movement....no, you have placed yourself out of that movement by doing so.

It's like saying; "You communists suck! All you ever do is talk about old dead guys! At least social-democrats do something!"

Replace "communists" with Trotskyists, and "social-democrats" with Maoists. You would no longer be considered a communist if you said that, the same applies with us.

I am perfectly ready to admit I'm wrong. That's part of the scientific process. You make a hypothesis. You test it. If the data prove inconclusive or disprove you, you modify your hypothesis and start again. That's a process that involves being wrong, inherently. But Trotskyism already has all the answers. The only task left to you now is to just try and get the execution right. That is a fundamentally religious methodology.

Anyone who says that Trotskyism has "all the right answers" is an idiot in the same manner that you are. Marxism does not have "all the right answers", mostly because circumstances change and the answers have to change accordingly. Sure, it has some right answers regarding historical issues, and those are very important as well (unlike your "maybe Marx was wrong?" nonsense), but answers to new problems and issues must themselves be new and appropriate to deal with them.

Ready for a list? (Maoist) Freedom Road Socialist Organization, Prairie Fire Organizing Committee, League of Revolutionaries for a New America, (anarchist) the Black Mangrove Collective, Bring the Ruckus. Kasama is in a weird category, as it is not self-defined as Maoist, but Maoism is definitely a major factor as most of the comrades are Maoists. But it also attracts anarchists, Trots, me, etc. This is also a rather incomplete list. How would I categorize Workers World and PSL which are both Trotskyist/Maoist fusions? Solidarity and FRSO are moving closer together, and may someday fuse. There was a fusion in Norway between Maoists and Trotskyists, on which I'd like more information.

Have fun with that "Maoist-Trotskyist" movement, I'm sure you'll lead the world revolution soon. :lol:

You think it's impossible for Maoists to abandon Stalinism? Do you think it's impossible for Trotskyists to be Stalinist (in practice, not ideology)? Do you think Stalinists can't overthrow capitalism? You seem to think ideology is more important than practice. That is the fundamental problem with Trotskyism, and your post is infused and completely demonstrative of the problem.

So what is the solution. Abandon Trotsky? Absolutely not. His writings are absolutely indispensable for understanding the Russian Revolution, the nature of the Stalinist state, and fascism. We need to transcend Trotskyism. I do not call myself an ex-Trotskyist. There is too much of value to do that. I am a post-Trotskyist, i.e., I take what is of value and I move on. There is value in Maoism as well. There is value in anarchism. There is even value in the Stalinist movement, if you know where to look. (I highly suggest the movie, Seeing Red, in this regard--while hagiographic, there are real lessons to be learned).

Take was is valuable, discard what is useless and especially what holds us back. Trotsky's views on party building, for example, are utterly sectarian, and not Leninist in the least. Trotsky drank from the same poison well as Stalin and Mao, Zinoviev's pronouncements on what the Leninist party model was, when in fact, Lenin's ideal model of the party was the German Social Democratic Party (pre WWI). Lenin's party was mutitendency. Trotsky's party never was, except when he was a Bolshevik. That's whey there's a party or organization for every difference of opinion in Trotskyism.

There is a very simple way to end sectarianism.

Stop being sectarian.

Sectarianism and dogmatism are two sides of the same coin. It's impossible to be dogmatic without being sectarian and there's no point in being sectarian if you don't have a dogma to defend. If we can overcome one, we will, of necessity, overcome the other. When that happens, Trotskyism will cease to exist.

This was a pretty lengthy rant and I don't really feel like responding to this because it's nothing but assertions and assertions...and more assertions.

"The way to stop sectarianism is to...stop being sectarian", well damn Sherlock, you are a political genius! Thank you for saving the movement with that wisdom!

Yeah, no, I'm not going to waste more time on this.

Nothing Human Is Alien

26th August 2008, 18:53

I take what is of value and I move on. There is value in Maoism as well. There is value in anarchism. There is even value in the Stalinist movement, if you know where to look. ...

Take was is valuable, discard what is useless and especially what holds us back.

That's a huge part of being a communist that many comrades today reject.

Thomas Sankara spoke of the need for this years ago: “We are open to all the winds of the will of the peoples and their revolutions, and we study some of the terrible failures that have given rise to tragic violations of human rights. We take from each revolution only its kernel of purity, which forbids us to become slaves to the reality of others.”

Che Guevara also spoke of it, and practiced it.

This is what PoWR is talking about when we say "we are not yet another sect declaring allegiance to this or that doctrine, but rather a force which basis itself on the living -- and constantly developing -- scientific communist theory first developed by Karl Marx and Frederich Engels. The Party’s theoretical roots lie in our synthesis of the world communist movement, from its beginnings to today, formulated through a thorough analysis of its failures and successes."

Led Zeppelin

26th August 2008, 19:09

This is what PoWR is talking about when we say "we are not yet another sect declaring allegiance to this or that doctrine, but rather a force which basis itself on the living -- and constantly developing -- scientific communist theory first developed by Karl Marx and Frederich Engels. The Party’s theoretical roots lie in our synthesis of the world communist movement, from its beginnings to today, formulated through a thorough analysis of its failures and successes."

No offense comrade, but pretty much every revolutionary leftist organization says the same thing, yet most of them are the same; sects, while of course each of them says they are different because when they say it, they mean it.

Nothing Human Is Alien

26th August 2008, 19:11

I'm not aware of many organizations or tendencies that base themselves on the contributions of all of the various tendencies in the workers' movement through history (or even accept that tendencies other than those of whoever they "uphold" have made any contributions). Doctrinaire sects are much more common.

Led Zeppelin

26th August 2008, 19:20

I was referring to the "changing" aspect, for example, from the CPUSA:

Socialism USA will benefit from the experiences, the mistakes and succesess of the countries who built and are building socialism. But mainly it will reflect the distinctive features of U.S. development and environment.

In the stages of struggle that lead to that ultimate aim, the Communist Party combines political, economic, organizational, and ideological struggle, the exact nature of which changes along with changes in the struggles and in the balance of power.

Our party claims no monopoly on wisdom or Marxism. We seek to work with all who are genuinely interested in building united mass movements—those on the Left, Center forces, and all who participate in progressive social activism and working-class organization.

Winter

26th August 2008, 20:27

First of all please don't refer to Trotskyists as "us", you have obviously put yourself out of the Marxist movement and have chosen to side with Maoism or whatever.

See, this is an essential problem not just with Trotskyism but with many other Communists. The fact that one can totally discard the contributions of certain Marxist theorists because they're ideas do not apply to the 19th century but to today's world shows how dogmatic some of us can really be. So long as society evolves so must Marxism. History has discarded what is no longer relevant.

You're totally right, Maoism is so connected to the working-class in the US, it's unbelievable! They're leading the revolution as we speak! We should definitely take their example and say that "perhaps Marx was wrong?"

Sure, we are not seeing the working-class in the U.S. taking up Maoism, but they're not taking up Trotskyism either. The strength of capitalism is the strongest in the U.S. Let us bring our attention to where capitalism is weak: Nepal, India, Phillipines, and many other. Maoists there are/have actually taking up arms and are fighting off imperialism and the reactionaries who cooperate with imperialism in order to open the path to socialism. I don't see how anybody can discredit Maoism seeing that it is the only Marxist ideology actually taking action in this day and age.

Rawthentic

26th August 2008, 20:51

Led,

why are you being an asshole?

Surely you dont attribute capitalist restoration to Mao. It was such a complex process. I mean, thats what bourgeois propagandists say too.

Maoism is a part of the many-sided Marxist movement, like or not. Not only that, but maoist communist parties are leading revolutionary wars in two countries (Nepal is no longer in that stage).

It is wrong of you and unfair (come on I mean you are an experienced comrade to be saying shit like this) to say Maoism is not Marxist or that it was Mao's fault that China restored capitalism.

If you want to get into China and Maoist theory, hell I'd love to do that. But let's not be childish.

Rawthentic

26th August 2008, 20:54

One more thing: Maoists are not Stalinists. Maoism is a guide to liberation that moves BEYOND many of Stalin's erroneous ideas on socialism and the economy.

So, to say that Maoism is Stalinism ignores objective history and how we have moved beyond in both theory and practice from Stalin.

Led Zeppelin

26th August 2008, 21:00

Stalinism does not mean; "lol you like Stalin". When Marxists use it is a term to describe a certain ideological tendency, of which Maoism is a part of.

Please read something about the term before you think you know what we mean by it: Link (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/s/t.htm#stalinism), although that's not the best description it goes well beyond the "lol you like Stalin" definition that you think we attribute to the term.

Devrim

26th August 2008, 21:29

Stalinists: Non-Trotskyist Marxists. :rolleyes:

Well no, there are other tendencies that describe themselves as Marxists, which are certainly neither Trotskyist, or Stalinist for example 'utopianism' or Bordigism.

Maoists are certainly a type of Stalinist though.

Devrim

Rawthentic

26th August 2008, 22:26

Stalinism does not mean; "lol you like Stalin". When Marxists use it is a term to describe a certain ideological tendency, of which Maoism is a part of.

Please read something about the term before you think you know what we mean by it: Link (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/s/t.htm#stalinism), although that's not the best description it goes well beyond the "lol you like Stalin" definition that you think we attribute to the term.
i dont care, it is still bullshit.

omfG! BuREucraCY !!

The theory of degenerated worker's state is crap as well.

JimmyJazz

26th August 2008, 22:32

You're totally right, Maoism is so connected to the working-class in the US, it's unbelievable! They're leading the revolution as we speak!

1) No revolutionary group is well connected with the US working class, so to use this in the context of sectarian debates makes no sense.

2) While some socialists--mostly Trots--"organize" for a U.S. workers' revolution that isn't going to happen in their lifetime, their bourgeoisie is happily plundering the rest of the world without any effective resistance (save that of Maoists and others).

Led Zeppelin

26th August 2008, 22:36

i dont care, it is still bullshit.

omfG! BuREucraCY !!

The theory of degenerated worker's state is crap as well.

Wow dude you like totally convinced me!

No revolutionary group is well connected with the US working class, so to use this in the context of sectarian debates makes no sense.

Which is exactly what was done by chegitz guevara, to which I replied in the same manner.

Please read the thread before replying to it.

Sentinel

26th August 2008, 22:40

Chegitz Guevara, the posts concerning your expulsion from the trotskyist group have been split into the members forum by a moderator -- please restrict discussion on that issue there from now on. Also, please calm down and stop flaming members -- consider this a verbal warning.

JimmyJazz

26th August 2008, 22:43

Which is exactly what was done by chegitz guevara, to which I replied in the same manner.

He committed one fallacy, so now I can. That's productive.

Anyway my main point was the second one, which you did not reply to.

Do you really believe there will be a workers' revolution in the U.S. in your lifetime? If so, under what circumstances?

I'm assuming you answered that there is always the possibility of some unforeseeable crisis of capitalism in the U.S. If that is your position, do you really believe that educating people--not even workers, for the most part--in preparation for a revolution that might happen if there is some unforeseeable huge depression or crisis, is a more urgent task than lending our solidarity and aid to third world groups fighting against neocolonial governments implementing neoliberal policies that are killing people right now?

Rawthentic

26th August 2008, 22:45

Wow dude you like totally convinced me!thats no my job. You can stay stuck in the mire of trotkyism all your life.

For all the shit maoists get from trots, where have the trots ever, ever, ever, made a real revolution, led a revolutionary war, had SERIOUS support amongst the people?

Nunca.

chegitz guevara

26th August 2008, 22:47

What does support for Third World Revolutions mean in practice? There isn't a lot we can do except act as cheerleaders or organize our own revolution.

Led Zeppelin

26th August 2008, 22:50

He committed one fallacy, so now I can. That's productive.

No, you're right, your non-argument of "while we organize the workers in the US the bourgeoisie is killing people in other nations" was much more productive and sensible, and not at all inane and irrelevant.

Please, don't throw stones from glass houses.

Anyway my main point was the second one, which you did not reply to.

For obvious reasons I thought, but maybe that was wishful thinking.

Do you really believe there will be a workers' revolution in the U.S. in your lifetime? If so, under what circumstances?

I don't live in the US, but perhaps there can be a workers' revolution in the US within now and, say, 50 or 100 years. I'm not going to say that it is sure that it will happen, nor am I'm going to say that I know exactly what it will look like, because I can't tell the future like you apparently can.

I'm assuming you answered that there is always the possibility of some unforeseeable crisis of capitalism in the U.S. If that is your position, do you really believe that educating people--not even workers, for the most part, just people--in preparation for a revolution that might happen if there is some unforeseeable huge depression or crisis, is a more urgent task than lending our solidarity and aid to third world groups fighting against neocolonial governments implementing neoliberal policies that are killing people right now?

The fact that you think that it is impossible to do both at the same time says enough about you. More than enough for me anyway.

But, the fact that you believe that you can somehow lend any kind of meaningful support to third world nations in their struggle against imperialism is just delusional.

And what do you mean by "just people, not even workers"? Are you one of those types who believes that the majority of people in the US are not workers?

Anyway, the answer isn't to bury your head in the sand and look to the east for salvation, like you apparently want to do.

thats no my job. You can stay stuck in the mire of trotkyism all your life.

And you can masturbate to newsreals from Nepal for all your life, it's irrelevant to me as well.

For all the shit maoists get from trots, where have the trots ever, ever, ever, made a real revolution, led a revolutionary war, had SERIOUS support amongst the people?

Nunca.

Well, I know that since he was removed from the pictures you perhaps missed it, but Trotsky was one of the leaders of the Russian revolution....oh no, that was all on Stalin, yeah, sorry, forgot.

chegitz guevara

26th August 2008, 22:51

thats no my job. You can stay stuck in the mire of trotkyism all your life.

For all the shit maoists get from trots, where have the trots ever, ever, ever, made a real revolution, led a revolutionary war, had SERIOUS support amongst the people?

Russia, 1917.

And this is not what I want to do. I want the opposite. Instead of comrades fighting I want them to be able to work together. We don't have to agree, but we need to stop tearing each other down. 100% of what I wrote about Trotskyism applies to Maoism as well, but since the original discussion wasn't about Maoism . . .

This is why Kasama is so exciting, because the Maoists are breaking with Maoism and re-imagining it, and the Trots are breaking with Trotskyism and re-imagining it, and the same with the anarchists. All our old hoary truths are being re-examined. What is of value, we keep. What is of no use, we toss.

JimmyJazz

26th August 2008, 23:00

What does support for Third World Revolutions mean in practice? There isn't a lot we can do except act as cheerleaders or organize our own revolution.

"Organizing for our own revolution" is the same as doing nothing.

As far as what we could do to fight imperialism that would amount to more than nothing, I'm sure you can come up with ways just as well as I can. Also, that's kind of what a community discussion board is supposed to do--serve as a place where people pool their brains to arrive at the best collective strategy. Not challenge one another to come up with strategies in order to shoot them down.

The frequent referencing of a potential future crisis of domestic capitalism is, to me, proof that most revolutionary groups in the U.S. know they aren't really doing anything useful in the here and now. Strategizing is useless if priorities are fucked up, and putting domestic revolution at the top of the agenda is fucked up. The U.S. ruling class is laughing at you. They are laughing because you do not realize that even a group like the Zapatistas, who don't aim to take state power, present an infinitely bigger real threat to their plans than a group which aims to take power and make radical changes in the U.S. but will never be able to do so in the present era.

The fact that you think that it is impossible to do both at the same time says enough about you. More than enough for me anyway.

Actually, this is you.

No one in this thread has said that organizing and propagandizing for domestic revolution shouldn't be a top priority. No one has said that Trots in general are not worth supporting. All that chevitz guevara did to make you fly off the handle was give some characteristics of the Trotskyist movement which explain why he does not call himself a Trot. He never implied that he would not FULLY support a Trotskyist-led workers' revolution in the U.S., nor did Rawthentic, nor did WintersDemise, nor have I. But you have been pretty much insulting Maoists (and lumping people as Maoists who themselves say they are not Maoists, seemingly in order to discredit them) and others throughout this thread.

In short, a few people have criticized the Trotskyist movements complete lack of results, whereas you are criticizing the Maoists (and others) precisely for the things they have achieved. The former type of criticism is in no way motivated by sectarianism, only by socialist zeal, whereas the latter type of criticism is 100% motivated by sectarianism. Do you seriously not see the difference?

Rawthentic

26th August 2008, 23:11

And you can masturbate to newsreals from Nepal for all your life, it's irrelevant to me as well.
At least its a real revolution! They led a 12 year war that ended a 240 yr old monarchy! They have the majority support of the people. What will happen next who knows? But I do know one thing: Maoists make more revolutions (and thats the bottom line).

Well, I know that since he was removed from the pictures you perhaps missed it, but Trotsky was one of the leaders of the Russian revolution....oh no, that was all on Stalin, yeah, sorry, forgot.
Trotkyism LZ, not Trotsky himself. Yeah, we all know Mao led a socialist revolution, but in this case, we are speaking of ideologies, not individuals. Hmm...take that ice pick out of your head please.

chegitz guevara

26th August 2008, 23:11

"Organizing for our own revolution" is the same as doing nothing.

As far as what we could do to fight imperialism that would amount to more than nothing, I'm sure you can come up with ways just as well as I can. Also, that's kind of what a community discussion board is supposed to do--serve as a place where people pool their brains to arrive at the best collective strategy. Not challenge one another to come up with strategies in order to shoot them down.

I'm not challenging you to come up with something in order to shoot it down. Third Worldist organizations have been around for decades, so they ought to have some ideas already. Given the state of the movement in the U.S., I don't see our organizations being able to have any practical effect in aiding 3rd world movements, short of engaging in terrorism. I'm with Lenin and Trotsky on the efficacy of terrorism and the need to avoid it.

I am not pessimistic about the possibility of organizing the worker class in the U.S. Neither do I have unrealistic expectations. Either way, we're starting from practically zero.

The problem with Trotskyism isn't its insistence on attempting to organize first world workers to overthrow capitalism. What keeps Trotskyism from being able to connect with the First World worker class, keeping in consideration the extremely narrow range in which revolutionaries have to operate, is its sectarianism and dogmatism and its failure to embrace the mass line.

Besides, didn't Mao reject Lin Biao's 3rd Worldist theories in the mid 60s?

Led Zeppelin

26th August 2008, 23:16

In short, a few people have criticized the Trotskyist movements complete lack of results, whereas you are criticizing the Maoists (and others) precisely for the things they have achieved.

They have after all achieved great things, haven't they?

Notice how JimmyJazz didn't reply to any of my points, instead deciding to post a long rant about nothing.

At least its a real revolution!

Yeah it's awesome! Them joining the capitalist state makes shivers run down my spine!

Trotkyism LZ, not Trotsky himself. Yeah, we all know Mao led a socialist revolution, but in this case, we are speaking of ideologies, not individuals.

Ironically the Russian revolution was based on the Trotskyist theory of permanent revolution, but I know that's too much historical information for your little Maoist head to grasp.

Rawthentic

26th August 2008, 23:22

Russia, 1917.

And this is not what I want to do. I want the opposite. Instead of comrades fighting I want them to be able to work together. We don't have to agree, but we need to stop tearing each other down. 100% of what I wrote about Trotskyism applies to Maoism as well, but since the original discussion wasn't about Maoism . . .

This is why Kasama is so exciting, because the Maoists are breaking with Maoism and re-imagining it, and the Trots are breaking with Trotskyism and re-imagining it, and the same with the anarchists. All our old hoary truths are being re-examined. What is of value, we keep. What is of no use, we toss.

I agree.

Listen, I am the one that began a comradely discussion here. I asked LZ to take on a more respectful tone, and encouraged him to discuss Maoism with me. Like I said, I'd love to do that. But then he comes in with his patronizing comments, and well, they just piss me off.

Charles Xavier

26th August 2008, 23:23

I think the fact that trotskyists are continually used by the states as agent provocateurs, informants, and split progressive movement speaks louder than words.

Led Zeppelin

26th August 2008, 23:25

I agree.

Listen, I am the one that began a comradely discussion here. I asked LZ to take on a more respectful tone, and encouraged him to discuss Maoism with me. Like I said, I'd love to do that. But then he comes in with his patronizing comments, and well, they just piss me off.

I'm the one who was not respectul huh?

Well, let's see here:

i dont care, it is still bullshit.

omfG! BuREucraCY !!

The theory of degenerated worker's state is crap as well.

Yes that is very mature, you are definitely not to blame at all for the hostile turn the discussion took.

chegitz guevara

26th August 2008, 23:25

I think the fact that trotskyists are continually used by the states as agent provocateurs, informants, and split progressive movement speaks louder than words.

That, is complete and utter slander.

JimmyJazz

26th August 2008, 23:38

I'm not challenging you to come up with something in order to shoot it down. Third Worldist organizations have been around for decades, so they ought to have some ideas already.

I am not a member of a TWist organization, nor have I read anything by any members of one. It hardly requires you to be a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist to see that the first world-third world gap is the primary contradiction in the world today. Anyone of any political orientation can see this. In fact, it's this dogmatic insistence that we should focus primarily on domestic revolution that turns off most non-Marxists (Greens, liberals, etc.) from Marxism. They have eyes, and can see that (1) welfare capitalism is serving the Western countries decently, there aren't huge sections of the population on the brink of starvation, and (2) globalized capital is ravaging the rest of the world horribly, where it is indeed creating huge sections of the global population which exist on the brink of starvation.

If you even go to a mostly-liberal progressive site like Common Dreams, you'll see more postings on subjects like free trade than you will on this site. It's embarrassing that the perspective of some of these radical groups is so incredibly off of today's obvious realities. It's not a wonder that they remain small.

The idea that a socialist revolution is the smallest possible practical step we in the U.S. could take to fight imperialism is laughable. Not just to me, but to a huge group of people who object to imperialism yet are alienated from radical socialist groups by these groups' apparent lack of attention to imperialism. It isn't a tangential issue; it's the issue in today's world. The most human-produced suffering in the world today is due to neoliberal policies--led by U.S. corporations, and enforced by the U.S. military. Many of us on this site live in the belly of the beast. To sit here and say that there's nothing we can do short of carry out a revolution (which we can't do) is no more than an excuse.

How many countries would be socialist today if the U.S. military didn't exist? I don't need to answer that, most people here know their history even better than me. We should be working on exposing U.S. imperialism (economic and political) and building a coalition to fight this. Don't bill it as the universal need for socialism, but as the fundamental right of each nation to self-determinacy, including the right of third world nations to try out socialism if they so wish. You would get tons of liberals, a few conservatives, and a good portion of libertarians behind that. And if it achieved anything policy-wise, it would be unbelievably progressive for the world at large. If you can prevent one single TW socialist revolution from being undermined through your actions, you've done a lot more for socialism in this generation than you will by fighting for workers' revolutions in the U.S. and Europe. I mean, if we're being realistic.

Or, you can keep exclusively agitating for domestic revolution and getting blank stares. Oh, and shouting down anyone who suggests that there might be more useful activities for revolutionary socialists who take a global perspective.

I am not pessimistic about the possibility of organizing the worker class in the U.S. Neither do I have unrealistic expectations. Either way, we're starting from practically zero.

The problem with Trotskyism isn't its insistence on attempting to organize first world workers to overthrow capitalism. What keeps Trotskyism from being able to connect with the First World worker class, keeping in consideration the extremely narrow range in which revolutionaries have to operate, is its sectarianism and dogmatism and its failure to embrace the mass line.

Right, I agree:

No one in this thread has said that organizing and propagandizing for domestic revolution shouldn't be a top priority. No one has said that Trots in general are not worth supporting. All that chevitz guevara did to make you fly off the handle was give some characteristics of the Trotskyist movement which explain why he does not call himself a Trot. He never implied that he would not FULLY support a Trotskyist-led workers' revolution in the U.S., nor did Rawthentic, nor did WintersDemise, nor have I. But you have been pretty much insulting Maoists (and lumping people as Maoists who themselves say they are not Maoists, seemingly in order to discredit them) and others throughout this thread.

In short, a few people have criticized the Trotskyist movements complete lack of results, whereas you are criticizing the Maoists (and others) precisely for the things they have achieved. The former type of criticism is in no way motivated by sectarianism, only by socialist zeal, whereas the latter type of criticism is 100% motivated by sectarianism. Do you seriously not see the difference?

Louis Pio

26th August 2008, 23:43

Do you really believe there will be a workers' revolution in the U.S. in your lifetime?

I for once think it's highly plausible, but that it of course depends on alot of things.

The defeatist position you seem to have is quite unmarxist in my humble oppinion, and will quite frankly lead you on the road of moderation and reform with the argumentation that "we can't go to far" because it would provoke reaction from the US, as has happened to countless others with the same pessimistic outlook.

JimmyJazz

26th August 2008, 23:55

I for once think it's highly plausible, but that it of course depends on alot of things.

The defeatist position you seem to have is quite unmarxist in my humble oppinion, and will quite frankly lead you on the road of moderation and reform with the argumentation that "we can't go to far" because it would provoke reaction from the US, as has happened to countless others with the same pessimistic outlook.

No, I tried to avoid giving the false impression that I am defeatist about domestic revolution, but evidently I failed.

Obviously a socialist revolution in all Western countries is desirable, requires organizing for, and in my opinion is inevitable. But it is not imminent. My problem is when comrades treat a revolution as imminent just because it is inevitable. Meanwhile, there actually are imminent and ongoing struggles against global capitalism in other parts of the world, and to shout down anybody who believes that our primary focus should be on the critical evaluation and (for the ones we agree with) support of these movements is just silly and dogmatic. A revolution requires more organizing the more imminent it becomes. Since revolution in the U.S. is not at all imminent, I don't think organizing for it should be our top priority to the exclusion of everything else--such as building a broad anti-imperialist coalition like I mentioned before which would, if effective, lead almost immediately to better conditions of struggle for socialist groups which have the imminent potential at taking power in their countries.

gilhyle

27th August 2008, 00:25

Rawthentic

27th August 2008, 00:38

Gilhyle:

Kasama is not as you characterize it. I would appreciate it if you actually did some research about Kasama before saying things like that.

The goal of Kasama is encapsulated in the slogan "reconceive as we regroup." What does that mean? Well, in the US there is no vanguard force with ties to the people can become a serious communist pole for revolution.

Our aim is "the forcible overthrow of existing social conditions", or communism. That does not mean that we subscribe to a particular trend, but that there is a dire need for radicals and progressives to "regroup" to "reconceive" how revolution can be made, and every question that pops up in relation to that. We are not and won't become a mini party that has verdicts on every issue. Thats the outdated and old method. We need to reconceive this whole process and our history as we regroup with each other.

Die Neue Zeit

27th August 2008, 01:56

chegitz guevara

27th August 2008, 05:02

The problem with what you are saying Chegitz Guevara is that it is a sentiment. Its not a political point of substance. Just to complain about 'sectarianism' as a blanket category is totally inadequate.

So you dont agree with trotskyists...on what: democratic centralist discipline, organising for revolution in imperialist countries ?

Spell out the alternative. Kasama ? Think we havent had that before ? An unprincipled alliance of marginalised militants is just a way to have a bigger sect experience. The 'mass line' What is that when it isnt just a cover story for the latest zig zag of a stalinist party ?

Fine, express your emotional response to failure.....but LZ is right to shoot you down if you start suggesting your emotional response is a point of political substance.

Now you're the first person to deal with this seriously. You're asking questions. That shows curiosity and it says to the world, "I don't know the answers." That is a profoundly revolutionary stance, as opposed to someone declaring they already know the answers.

In fact, if someone had bothered to ask, with what is it in Trotskyism that I have a disagreement, it would very soon become obvious that I share most of the main points of Trotskyist theory: permanent revolution, no socialism in one country, degenerated workers state, the nature of fascism, the stance on terrorism, etc. Where I disagree with Trotskyism is on democratic centralism, because Trotskyism doesn't practice it.

Democratic centralism is effectively meaningless in most self-styled Leninist groups. In groups where everyone is required to tow the same line, dc is meaningless. If everyone agrees, how can there be democracy? Democracy can only be meaningful if people disagree, and when people disagree in modern "Leninist" groups, they are either thrown out of the organization or they split away. This is the complete opposite to the Bolshevik organization. Trotsky's group joined them. The Independent Mensheviks joined them. It was a multi-tendency, multi-faction organization. People disagreed, and were unafraid to do so. Kamenev and Zinoviev, when they publicly opposed the plans for the October seizure of power, were not acting in an way totally outside the Bolshevik experience (though I would argue it was unprincipled, since it involved military action). Comrades in the Bolsheviks routinely disagreed in public with the leadership of the party, publishing pieces in the presses of other parties if necessary to get their point of view across. Even Lenin did this!

In the Trotskyist movement, and also in the later New Communist movement, every disagreement is the basis for a new organizations. Every idea has its own group. This is the antithesis of democratic centralism. It is the opposite of Leninism.

Lenin was known to say, "No unity for unity's sake," and also, "better smaller, but better." When he was talking about unprincipled unity, he was talking about the tendency for the revolutionary majority to give in to reformist minority demands to avoid a split. It's not having different ideas in the same group, including completely different ideas on organizing and actions, that is unprincipled. It is surrendering majority rule to the minority to keep them from walking (and the threat of walking itself) that is unprincipled. The Bolsheviks had seemingly irreconcilable factions: those who argued to participate in elections, those who argued against it, those who argued for ignoring the elections altogether. Those who argued to rob banks, those who opposed it. These are fundamentally opposed ideas, and they didn't split. Lenin never referred to this as an unprincipled combination. So why would it be unprincipled for those who think the USSR was socialist and those who think it was a degenerated workers state to be in combination?

What is the mass line? As I understand it (and I'm likely wrong) it is going in to the community, learning from them their issues, the conditions of their life, their real lived experiences, then attempting to connect that to, and explain it with, how socialism understand the world, and what we can do to organize against it. There is a reason what Maoists have been able to organize effectively in First world oppressed communities where Trotskyists have not. That reason is the mass line.

So am I wrong about Trotskyism? Well, let's look at the response. I was told I'm no longer a Marxist. How is that not a symptom of dogmatism. I don't agree with you, I'm outside the whole movement. I'm not even a Marxist because I reject sectarianism and dogma. And this disproves me how? The reaction to boot me was so quick my head spun. Immediately I'm attacked and called a Stalinist and a Maoist, simply because I called myself a post-Trotskyist. Who is that not dogmatic and sectarian? How does that not immediately prove my point. As far as I know, only Rakunin came to my defense in the group.

You want to know something ironic? I'm a member of a Trotskyist organization and a leader of a Trotskyist faction in another organization. I call myself a post-Trotskyist precisely because I'm trying to overcome the petty sectarian dogmatic BS and try and rescue the valuable aspects of the movement and build on it. But someone wasn't ready to hear that.

I think I proved my point.

Die Neue Zeit

27th August 2008, 05:15

^^^ Don't worry, comrade. If you need a place to rant about revisionist Trotskyism and particularly the "bump your head against the wall" approach known as the "transitional method" (HOW to provide the "bridge" was answered incorrectly by Trotsky), there's the small-r revolutionary Marxist forum. :)

P.S. - Comrade Rakunin isn't really a Trot, either, in spite of joining the CWI.

chegitz guevara

27th August 2008, 05:22

Well yes, but that's preaching to the choir, which is a sterile activity. The point being I'm not trying to rant about the Trotskyists. I'm trying to scream to the Trotskyists, "WAKE UP!" Trots have more in common with other Trots, and with Maoists and anarchists and even Stalinists, than they have with social democrats, liberals, etc. We are comrades! It's time to start acting like it.

Die Neue Zeit

27th August 2008, 05:38

You may be interested in the "nationalization" thread in this forum. I caused a bit of a raucous regarding that "sacred cow" known as the TP. :D

Winter

27th August 2008, 07:24

I think it's less important for Trotskyists to unite as it is for revolutionary socialists to unite. I'm perfectly comfortable working with Maoists an anarchists, while some Trotskyists I find are the most dogmatic, sectarian, annoying shits ever. I am less interested in working with those who already have all the answers than I am with those who are seeking the answers and who realize that any answers they may find today might not be applicable tomorrow. I'm certainly not interested in fighting the old fights of dead men.

You bring up a great point, not just about Trotskyists, but revolutionary socialists in general.

I find it hard to believe that any progress will ever get made so long as we're divided into small groups. As it is, Socialists in general make up a very small population. When you divide that small population into tiny sects, you get insignificant voices claiming to represent "the true path" of Marxism, and this really confuses the working class about what to believe ( considerring they are willing to listen in the first place! )

I, myself, have created the Anti-Revisionists group for this very reason. Instead of being divided on Mao and Hoxha, I think unity is important because we unite under a single foundation. Now, we can make the foundation even more broader, which is what you are arguing for, to include all revolutionary socialists, and I completely agree. Well done, and I commend you for bringing this up.

I think this post really showed how sectarian certain people can be and was in itself, a self-fulfilling prophecy! Continue to do great work with Kasama, amongst the other organizations you mentioned. You trully grasp the meaning of non-sectarianism. Strength lies in numbers, and only when we get past certain "dogmas" and unite can we expect to have the working class pay attention to us. :)

black magick hustla

27th August 2008, 07:34

chegitz guevara.

I think you suffer from the same wrong perspective as a lot of people. You are hungry for action and therefore you want to insert yourself in every movement that uses leftist slogans. I don't think that is the correct approach. I also think youre disillusionement has also to do with the fact that you live in the US where there is very little class struggle, and therefore a lot of "marxists" are confused and fragmented. ¿

Also Rawthentic you should cut the crap about "maoists leading revolutions". That argument is meaningless, I could use that argument and say that I am a Bonapartist because Bonaparte had a lot of military successes. I think your obsession with military successes has also to do with the maoist fetish of violence. Military successes are meaningless to us communists if they don't bring revolution.

My tendency is right now more worried about reuniting militants from the proletarian millieu, whether left coms or anarchists, etc (the millieu is defined by those who defend internationalist principles) and discussion and political clarification than spouting leftist slogans in marches. I think that is more important right now. There is no revolutionary situation and we cannot become professional activists and volunteer to do the revolution ourselves. The question of building a communist party (and for my tendency, a world communist party centralized internationally) will emerge in revolutionary times. A lot of folks here look down at discussions because they see it as "armchair". I think discussion between communists and workers is one of the highest proletarian principles. The Russian Communist Party died when the discussion was silenced.

Winter

27th August 2008, 07:57

Also Rawthentic you should cut the crap about "maoists leading revolutions". That argument is meaningless, I could use that argument and say that I am a Bonapartist because Bonaparte had a lot of military successes. I think your obsession with military successes has also to do with the maoist fetish of violence. Military successes are meaningless to us communists if they don't bring revolution.

Wait, what? These Maoists military successes are part of revolutions. Just because they're happening in third world countries does not make these successes irrelevant to us. How is the fact that Maoists are leading revolutions meaningless? These are one of the few revolutionary actions being done in the name of Marxism and the oppressed around the world! How can you dismiss this so easilly?

The CPN(M) led a revolution to overthrow the monarchy! We are currently seeing history in the making in Nepal, yet you blow it off because they're not taking the steps you believe in? Give it a chance before you make any rash judgements. This is exactly the type of sectarianism that damages us.

Which brings us back to the evil "fetish of violence" of Maoists. I'm sorry, but if you do not believe armed struggle is an essential element in revolution, then you may just be following the wrong ideology. Imagine living in crap conditions in India while at the same time, police and militias that are hired by the state persecute you and take you away from your home. This is exactly what is occuring and exactly why Maoists like the Naxalites are needed in India. Armed exploitation must be fought with armed revolution.

To think that one can get involved in a sit-in within these enviroments is ridiculous. They will blow you away! Methinks alot of revolutionary leftists need to get pass this hippie, liberal notion of non-violent actions against lethal contradictions.

This is the last thing we need.

Devrim

27th August 2008, 08:45

The CPN(M) led a revolution to overthrow the monarchy! We are currently seeing history in the making in Nepal, yet you blow it off because they're not taking the steps you believe in? Give it a chance before you make any rash judgements. This is exactly the type of sectarianism that damages us.

I don't think that there is anything revolutionary about what is happening in Nepal. The bourgeois state is merely under new management.

These Maoists military successes are part of revolutions. Just because they're happening in third world countries does not make these successes irrelevant to us. How is the fact that Maoists are leading revolutions meaningless?

We don't believe that these 'revolutions' are successes. We don't believe what the Maoists are doing has anything to do with working class struggle.

On the point of the 'third world', I live in the Middle East, Marmot is a Mexican, and you are...?

It has nothing to do with the 'third world' and everything to do with Maoists being anti-working class gangs.

Which brings us back to the evil "fetish of violence" of Maoists. I'm sorry, but if you do not believe armed struggle is an essential element in revolution, then you may just be following the wrong ideology.

There is a difference between realising that violence is necessary in a revolution, and fetishising violence. I think what he is pointing out is the way that leftists in the west will support any sort of reactionary anti-working class movement just because they have red flags and guns.

Imagine living in crap conditions in India while at the same time, police and militias that are hired by the state persecute you and take you away from your home.

I think part of the point here is that you are imagining it. People in the Middle East (and I imagine Mexico) do live in 'crap' conditions, and are subject to violent attacks by the state.

For example where I live, Ankara in Turkey, we don't have a drinkable water supply (it has levels of arsenic unfit for human consumption), large sectors of workers don't have a right to strike, within recent memory the state elected within a period of six months just over one percent of the population for political reasons, and political murder is still a part of life.

I imagine that Mexico is reasonably similar, so we don't have to imagine it.

This is exactly what is occuring and exactly why Maoists like the Naxalites are needed in India. Armed exploitation must be fought with armed revolution.

It in no way follows that what is needed is anti-working class gangs.

To think that one can get involved in a sit-in within these enviroments is ridiculous. They will blow you away! Methinks alot of revolutionary leftists need to get pass this hippie, liberal notion of non-violent actions against lethal contradictions.

It is not about 'hippie, liberal notions of non-violent actions'. It is about the needs of the class struggle, which in my opinion are in no way advanced by middle class students joining armed gangs.

Devrim

BobKKKindle$

27th August 2008, 14:58

Wait, what? These Maoists military successes are part of revolutions.Overthrowing the bourgeois state is meaningless unless the society which emerges from the process of political transformation is progressive and allows for the democratic participation of the working masses. When Maoist party organizations have gained power after a period of prolonged armed struggle (otherwise known as People's War, which has served as the inspiration for Maoist movements throughout the developing world, including many countries where the struggle is currently ongoing) the resulting systems of government have exhibited a serious lack of democracy and have also invariably led to the restoration of capitalism and hence the elimination of many of the social gains which were made possible by the planned economy. This process of capitalist restoration signified the conversion of the bureaucratic stratum into a new ruling class, which allowed the bureacracy to strengthen its material privileges.

The CPN(M) led a revolution to overthrow the monarchyThis is a progressive advance which should be celebrated, but the CPN(M) has not moved beyond this basic institutional change and has even promised to protect the rights of private investors by limiting the extent of state ownership and maintaining the rule of law, and so the Nepalese bourgeoisie (who are closely tied to the interests of foreign investors and are not committed to national industrial development) will be able to continue the domination of the Nepalese working masses. From this perspective, it is wrong to describe the recent political changes in Nepal as amounting to a "revolution", because the term revolution in Marxist terminology implies a fundamental transformation in the structure of social relations, or a change in the mode of production (as exemplified by the historic victory of the Russian proletariat in 1917, which destroyed the bourgeois constituent assembly and also resulted in the expropriation of the bourgeoisie and the cancellation of Russian war debts) and Nepal has merely experienced a change in the political superstructure, comparable to the German transition to parliamentary democracy in 1919 following the abdication of the Kaiser. This exposes the shortcomings of the "stageist" approach to historical change, which argues that an extended period of capitalist development must take place before the proletariat can seize power and take control of the productive forces, whereas in reality the pressures of imperialism make development within the framework of capitalism an impossibility, as recognized by the Dependency school of analysis.

Rawthentic

27th August 2008, 17:27

I think that what is happening in Nepal is a part of the maoist theory of New Democratic Revolution. And we need to look at it from that angle.

Can there be another way? Is there another political force other than the Maoists that has the support of the people can lead the needed social transformation? There isn't. And I am not saying this to be complacent with the Maobadi. They are legitimate, most importantly, in the eyes of the people they lead. I can effectively say that if the revolution (because this is a revolutionary process) stops dead at a democratic republic and national industrial development, it would be a failure. The future is not written, so I dont know what will happen.

I dont know the particulars of how foreign investment will work, but I am sure the Maoists have an understanding of the conditions on the ground, and have maintained that this development and foreign investment will be regulated.

Here is something Dr. Bhattarai from the CPN(M) said:

We would like to assure everyone that once the Maoists come (into government) the investment climate will be even more favourable. There shouldn’t be any unnecessary misunderstanding about that. The rumours in the press about our intention are wrong, there are reports of capital flight, but this shouldn’t happen. And the other aspect is that once there is political stability, the investment climate will be even better. Our other agenda is economic development and for this we want to mobilise domestic resources and capital, and also welcome private foreign direct investment. The only thing we ask is to be allowed to define our national priorities.
We want to fully assure international investors already in Nepal that we welcome them here, and we will work to make the investment climate even better than it is now. Just watch, the labour-mangement climate will improve in our time in office. What happened in the past two years with the unions happened during a transition phase, but the business sector also hasn’t identified the other factors that are causing them losses...

What do you mean by national industrial capitalism?
Local development is important. Every state wants to give priority or protection to its own industry. Otherwise why have a state? When we allow foreign direct investment we will give priority to those who have a local partnership. That way the national entrepreneurial class will also develop and the national economy will benefit.
How about the hydropower deals that have already been agreed on?
The ones that have been signed needn’t have been done in a hush-hush manner, after all we were in an interim period and we could agreed on it collectively. By agreeing to these projects a day before we returned to government has aroused suspicions. But we understand that big hydro projects are not possible without foreign investment. The deals could have been negotiated in a more open manner. If there has been major irregularities, we need to investigate them, correct the decision-making process but we don’t want to discourage investors by shutting down projects.

Just as a note, the Nepalese bourgeoisie is not one equal mass. There are serious cleavages within it, mainly the one between what is called the "comprador" bourgeoisie and the "national" bourgeoisie. The latter need to be allied with due their having interests opposed to that of imperialism (as do the peasants and workers) and because of their role in the development of the capitalist mode of production. After all, the NDR (two-stage) was the method used in the chinese revolution (that liberated what fraction of humanity?).

I don't think we should compare Nepal to outdated events or try to fit what is happening into "what Marx said."

chegitz guevara

27th August 2008, 19:41

The first post makes little sense divorced from the context, i.e., should Trotskyists (only) unite. By itself, the meaning is changed utterly. At least some understood that it meant Trotskyists should unite with Maoists and anarchists in a larger revolutionary socialist organization, rather than continue to separate themselves off into their own sect.

gilhyle

27th August 2008, 20:49

Well I didnt follow the Trotskyist debate - I was too busy trying (and probably failing, I guess) to provide some perspective on Rosa's hegemonising of the whole philosophy forum.

I share this though, despite coming very much from the Trotskyist tradition, I hesitate to call myself a trotskyist, mainly because I dont know what the term means any more. I know what it means to believe in refounding or refurbishing the fourth international - I know that means believing that there are cadre there who can be brought together to form the nucleus of a new revolutionary movement....and that is an idea I no longer hold to. But I dont know what 'trotskyist' means.

But if that idea of a revolutionary bloc is the political content of your position, I think its very wrong. If your point is that Democratic Centralist cadre parties may no longer be appropriate, it seems to me you may, unfortunately, have a point......but its a seriously dangerous and difficult point, to be approached with great caution.

What it seems to me is quite wrong headed is the idea of a block of 'revolutionaries'. Look, for the purposes of this board its fine to lump stalinists, including maoists, trotskyists, left communists and even anarchists (though is it my imagination or are there fewer anarchists on this board than there used to be ?) together. But that is because this board stands to one side from politics. In real politics, for all their talk, maoists are the dedicated enemies of the emergence of working class militant leaderships. They stand for dictatorial party hegemony which is deeply destructive and in the third world they are the agents of the bourgeois revolution.

If we are not having a cadre party of disciplined revolutionaries united around a programme which has been ironed out to represent the long term interests of the class, then lets just have a mass party united around a programme of minimum demands and a belief that the working class must displace the bourgeoisie as the ruling class......The bloc of revolutionaries is a half way house, neither fish nor flesh. It unites the Troskyists....who at least stand in an entirely honourable tradition.... with people who have restored capitalism, murdered whole generations of worker militants and brought betrayal and unprincipled behaviour to shameful levels. The fact that they read Marx just doesnt make up for that. I would rather compete with those people within a larger organisation, than to try to suggest that they are I share some fundamental perspective and merely differ on details.....the detail we differ on is that stalinists are reformists and revolutionaries for capitalism in Marxist clothing. That kinda big detail.

Rawthentic

27th August 2008, 22:09

Devrim

27th August 2008, 22:46

What it seems to me is quite wrong headed is the idea of a block of 'revolutionaries'. Look, for the purposes of this board its fine to lump stalinists, including maoists, trotskyists, left communists and even anarchists (though is it my imagination or are there fewer anarchists on this board than there used to be ?) together. But that is because this board stands to one side from politics. In real politics, for all their talk, maoists are the dedicated enemies of the emergence of working class militant leaderships. They stand for dictatorial party hegemony which is deeply destructive and in the third world they are the agents of the bourgeois revolution.

I agree with you about the Maoists. They are certainly a completely anti-working class tendency. I don't think that they are revolutionaries in any way.

This though is a discussion board. I don't think it is in any way revolutionary, and we shouldn't see it as such.

Devrim

Winter

27th August 2008, 23:00

In real politics, for all their talk, maoists are the dedicated enemies of the emergence of working class militant leaderships. They stand for dictatorial party hegemony which is deeply destructive and in the third world they are the agents of the bourgeois revolution.

Wow, this shows how little you know about Maoism. The second you hear the concept of New Democracy you come to the conclusion that it's not going to work because Marx and/or Trotsky never mentioned it. How is it an enemy of the working class? The vanguard party and the proletariat are the ones who lead it!

Dictatorial party hegemony? By mobilising pro-democratic masses to fight off imperialists and reactionaries? The party liberates the people and begins a path towards Socialism. Please, you need to take into consideration various contexts, such as enviroment and culture. Don't jump to conclusions, I urge you to study the subject seriously and not merely to mock it.

Winter

27th August 2008, 23:02

I don't think that there is anything revolutionary about what is happening in Nepal. The bourgeois state is merely under new management.

We don't believe that these 'revolutions' are successes. We don't believe what the Maoists are doing has anything to do with working class struggle.

On the point of the 'third world', I live in the Middle East, Marmot is a Mexican, and you are...?

It has nothing to do with the 'third world' and everything to do with Maoists being anti-working class gangs.

There is a difference between realising that violence is necessary in a revolution, and fetishising violence. I think what he is pointing out is the way that leftists in the west will support any sort of reactionary anti-working class movement just because they have red flags and guns.

I think part of the point here is that you are imagining it. People in the Middle East (and I imagine Mexico) do live in 'crap' conditions, and are subject to violent attacks by the state.

For example where I live, Ankara in Turkey, we don't have a drinkable water supply (it has levels of arsenic unfit for human consumption), large sectors of workers don't have a right to strike, within recent memory the state elected within a period of six months just over one percent of the population for political reasons, and political murder is still a part of life.

I imagine that Mexico is reasonably similar, so we don't have to imagine it.

It in no way follows that what is needed is anti-working class gangs.

It is not about 'hippie, liberal notions of non-violent actions'. It is about the needs of the class struggle, which in my opinion are in no way advanced by middle class students joining armed gangs.

Devrim

At least explain how they are anti-working class, please. Enlighten me.

Devrim

27th August 2008, 23:05

Wow, this shows how little you know about Maoism. The second you hear the concept of New Democracy you come to the conclusion that it's not going to work because Marx and/or Trotsky never mentioned it. How is it an enemy of the working class? The vanguard party and the proletariat are the ones who lead it!

It is quite ironic that the only people who are posting on here in support of Maoism are North Americans, and that those coming from the 'third world' are generally against it.

I believe this poster comes from India where they have more than enough experience of Maoist gangs.

Devrim

Devrim

27th August 2008, 23:13

At least explain how they are anti-working class, please. Enlighten me.

Here is an article in three parts from our press on the Chinese revolution:
http://en.internationalism.org/ir/081_china.htm
http://en.internationalism.org/ir/084_china_2.html
http://en.internationalism.org/ir/094_china_part3.html

It explains our view on Mao and the Chinese revolution.

As for Maoism today it is capitalist to the hilt (please read some of the comments coming out of Nepal), calls for cross class alliances, backs nationalist terror gangs, and often ends up murdering workers, and peasants.

Devrim

black magick hustla

27th August 2008, 23:15

What makes maoists in nepal different than other left leaning tendencies that talk about developing national capital? Just because the former one uses marxist rhetoric?

I think maoists have a wrong perspective mainly because they don't see capital as being a world system. Their analysis are based on national economies while the capitalist system is one big, worldwide interconnected creature. The nepalese economy is just a margin of world capitlaism. They don't need to "develop capitalism" because they are already integrated to capitalism. That is why the revolution needs to be international, and the workers' councils centralized into an international organ in the future.

Vargha Poralli

27th August 2008, 23:49

I believe this poster comes from India where they have more than enough experience of Maoist gangs.

I don't think she is from India but I am.

Some 38 years of fight from the jungles if we look at the current situation the struggle of the Maoists have accomplished nothing but loss of many people. There are numerous reasons why their struggle was a total failure but the primary reason is that though they originally had support among the people they lost it mainly due to the blind obedience to Chinese regime who used them as a leverage to its foreign policy just like the USSR used the official CPs. You cannot win in a situation when your policies are decided in Moscow or Beijing while yor acticity isbased in rural and semi urban areas.

Despite of the claim by Naxal supporting websites MCC-PWG group have no influence outside their strongholds which are basically Tribal and Rural areas in just 3 of the 28 states. In the State I live their activity was crumbled some 20 years ago.The remaining guerillas though they can kill police,peasants and politicians then and there they cannot defeat the Indian State. It is too strong.They cannot lay down their weapons also. They have travelled too much in their path.

Anyway it cannot be said of every Naxal groups. Some like CPI(ML-Liberation) and Kanu Sanyaal group have renounced violence and have strated to tke part in numerous struggles in various forms geniunely unlike the CPI and CPI(M). Unlike the latter they don't have enough support among the workers and peasants in other states. But the situation is changing right now.

Dros

27th August 2008, 23:52

This is why Kasama is so exciting, because the Maoists are breaking with Maoism and re-imagining it, and the Trots are breaking with Trotskyism and re-imagining it, and the same with the anarchists. All our old hoary truths are being re-examined. What is of value, we keep. What is of no use, we toss.

That's exactly what Kasama is. "Maoists" breaking with Maoism and embracing revisionist Trot/menshevism.

Communists unity is only valuable when that unity is fundamentally grounded in the most revolutionary Communist theory. That and that only can be the basis for a unity that will have actual implications for revolution.

Winter

27th August 2008, 23:55

Rawthentic

28th August 2008, 00:09

That's exactly what Kasama is. "Maoists" breaking with Maoism and embracing revisionist Trot/menshevism.
No.

It is Maoists and communists keeping within the scientific method of marxism. Lenin broke with Marx to make revolution. Mao broke with Lenin and Marx to make one of the most radical revolutions in human history. That is what we need today.

Rawthentic

28th August 2008, 00:20

Just because Vargha Poralli is from India, does not mean he has the correct standpoint on the Maoists there. Just like being a worker does not mean you understand capitalist oppression, or being Russian understand the transformations their country has gone through. I myself have little understanding or knowledge of that movement, so I wont say anything on that.

I think maoists have a wrong perspective mainly because they don't see capital as being a world system. Their analysis are based on national economies while the capitalist system is one big, worldwide interconnected creature. The nepalese economy is just a margin of world capitlaism. They don't need to "develop capitalism" because they are already integrated to capitalism. That is why the revolution needs to be international, and the workers' councils centralized into an international organ in the future.

marmot,

Maoists DO see capital as a world system. Nepal has not been able to develop the capitalist mode of production because imperialism has kept feudalism in its place, along with the monarchy and the forces that maintained its rule. Now, with the maobadi at the fore, there is the opportunity to begin the elimination of feudalism (and has begun in rural areas that have communes and collectives) that, as Im sure you understand, releases capitalist relations. It is precisely because nepal is integrated and subordinate to the world imperialist-capitalist system that it is in the semi-feudal state it is now.

I dont understand how a revolution can be simultaneous. I think that concept misunderstands why revolutions are more apt to happen where the contradictions for it are more ripe, and that is (generally) in the imperialist-oppressed nations (like nepal, mexico, etc.).

How can a tiny nation like nepal with the small and scattered working class populace it has (even more so than russia 1917 or china 1949) have a revolution where the central component are worker's councils? I think workers councils are important, but they need to be a part of the overall social transformation that goes far beyond the workplace and workers committees.

If nepal does not need to develop national capital (as a process after eliminating feudalism that then releases these capitalist relations), then what can be done? Surely you dont suggest that nepal has conditions favorable to the building of a socialist, planned economy.

Dros

28th August 2008, 01:10

One thing that must be made clear is that not ALL Maoist groups are following Mao Zedong Thought correctly and are able to make erroneous choices. I am a follower of the ideology, not all groups claiming to be Maoists.

That makes two of us. Many people who call themselves Maoists don't actually practice Maoism at all.

Red_Dialectics

28th August 2008, 01:16

If nepal does not need to develop national capital (as a process after eliminating feudalism that then releases these capitalist relations), then what can be done? Surely you dont suggest that nepal has conditions favorable to the building of a socialist, planned economy.

Does this not mean that a socialist revolution is not possible at this time in Nepal? If there is no significant presence of capitalism, has history not shown us that a socialist revolution will not succeed?
I also think that it is kind of weird for socialists to be the ones developing "national capital". Wouldn't that lead to a state-capitalist economy, which has ALWAYS returned to a state of regular capitalism? I am not very familiar with Maoism at all, so I'm mostly asking questions.

Rawthentic

28th August 2008, 01:19

Like who, drosera?

and what does "practicing maoism" mean to you?

As far as I am concerned, in its basic form, it is conducting the mass line, leading the people in struggle against the system based on political programs based off of the results of the mass line (that is an ongoing process). It means to serve the people in both theory and practice.

And I hope you dont say "kasama does not practice maoism" because kasama is not a maoist organization (even though the main leaders come from that and maintain that tradition) and we arent claiming to be the vanguard of the american proletariat.

Rawthentic

28th August 2008, 03:23

Does this not mean that a socialist revolution is not possible at this time in Nepal? If there is no significant presence of capitalism, has history not shown us that a socialist revolution will not succeed?
I also think that it is kind of weird for socialists to be the ones developing "national capital". Wouldn't that lead to a state-capitalist economy, which has ALWAYS returned to a state of regular capitalism? I am not very familiar with Maoism at all, so I'm mostly asking questions.The particular aspect of expropriation, collectivization, nationalization,etc (all elements of building socialism) are simply not possible or desirable at this point in nepal. I think you should look at my previous posts in this thread, the Nepal Tea Workers thread in Politics, and others where I explain this.

Developing national capital would lead ( or is) the development of the capitalist mode of production in nation that has never undergone this development due to the fetters of imperialism and feudalism. When feudalism is eliminated, this releases capitalism (in a sense).

Socialism is a protracted, long, arduous process. In its inception and longer, state capitalism coexists alongside a planned, socialist economy, but the former is on an ever decreasing scale and is subordinate to the latter.

I recommend this site for a lot of theoretical and practical information on what is going on in Nepal. Look through it, there are many important works that get into what you are saying. Some of the recent posts include a video by Dr. Bhattarai of the maoist party (that gets into your question) and also a post by cmrd Basanta, also a maoist, thats gets deeply into your question. www.southasiarev.wordpress.com (http://www.revleft.com/vb/www.southasiarev.wordpress.com) (i dont know how to use the fucking link option anymore).

black magick hustla

28th August 2008, 03:33

marmot,

Maoists DO see capital as a world system. Nepal has not been able to develop the capitalist mode of production because imperialism has kept feudalism in its place, along with the monarchy and the forces that maintained its rule. Now, with the maobadi at the fore, there is the opportunity to begin the elimination of feudalism (and has begun in rural areas that have communes and collectives) that, as Im sure you understand, releases capitalist relations. It is precisely because nepal is integrated and subordinate to the world imperialist-capitalist system that it is in the semi-feudal state it is now.

I dont understand how a revolution can be simultaneous. I think that concept misunderstands why revolutions are more apt to happen where the contradictions for it are more ripe, and that is (generally) in the imperialist-oppressed nations (like nepal, mexico, etc.).

How can a tiny nation like nepal with the small and scattered working class populace it has (even more so than russia 1917 or china 1949) have a revolution where the central component are worker's councils? I think workers councils are important, but they need to be a part of the overall social transformation that goes far beyond the workplace and workers committees.

If nepal does not need to develop national capital (as a process after eliminating feudalism that then releases these capitalist relations), then what can be done? Surely you dont suggest that nepal has conditions favorable to the building of a socialist, planned economy.

I don't think you got what I said. maybe I need to communicate myself a little better.

Nepal has developed the capitalist mode of production because today there is no such thing as a "nepalese economy" - there is a world capitalist economy. It weould be like saying that the rural areas in Tennessee where the good ol' boys live somewhat of a self-sufficient life, aren't capitalist because the commodity isn't as dominant as in New York City. You see the question of economy as a question of nations. There are margins and backwaters in the world economy, but still this backwaters are capitalist in as much as they are integrated to the economy.

Its not a question of "what would yo do in nepal". If there is a workers' revolution in nepal it won't survive for long if it doesn't start spreading. Its not what I want to do, its just an objective fact.

That there is more violence in poor countries doesn't means that contradictions are ripe. Not all violence is revolutionary violence. Revolutionary violence are not murder-gangs of students and philosophy faculty dropouts that go to the country to wage a guerrilla war (which is basically the story of most guerrillas in latin america). Revolutionary violence are not a minority of gangsters trying to impose their revolution. Its not the most opressed sections who are generally the most class conscious. In fact, its the urban poor (not the same as working class), the peasants, the lumpen that are easiest manipulated by factions ofd the rulng class. This is why in the most miserable countries there is more sectarian strife than "class struggle".

Revolutions aren¿t "simultaneous", but certainly a real proletarian revolution cannot survive for much long without a revolution in other countries. World revolution doesnt means a generalized shaking of the world, it is something gradual. Anyway, world revolution is more possible than you think, because generally when class struggle rises, it rises internationally, like in 1917. Its not something that generally happens in one country. Same with 1968.

Devrim

28th August 2008, 06:41

How can a tiny nation like nepal with the small and scattered working class populace it has (even more so than russia 1917 or china 1949) have a revolution where the central component are worker's councils? I think workers councils are important, but they need to be a part of the overall social transformation that goes far beyond the workplace and workers committees.

How can you have a socialist revolution without workers' councils? The workers' council is the organ by which the working class asserts itself and ultimately seizes power.

This has not happened in Nepal.

The reason for this is that what has happened is not a working class seizure of power. What has happened is that a leftist bourgeois faction has used an armed campaign to achieve a level of power within the bourgeois state.

Devrim

Die Neue Zeit

28th August 2008, 06:46

^^^ Wrong - the party is the organ by which the working class asserts itself and ultimately seizes power:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htm

That this collective appropriation can arise only from the revolutionary action of the productive class – or proletariat - organized in a distinct political party

Also:

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/618/McNair%20-%20Strategy3.htm
http://www.revleft.com/vb/road-power-and-t83963/index.html

If, out of sheer dynamic-materialist necessity, such a maximalist (not in programmatic terms) mass organization were to encompass the vast majority of the proletariat in very literal terms, thereby going beyond the false dilemma presented by mass movements and typical traditional “parties” (the cadres-only party wrongfully put forward as an international model by the Bolsheviks only well into the civil war, the mass-but-reformist party, and even mass revolutionary parties not encompassing the vast majority of the proletariat in very literal terms), would it not be entitled to initiate the political revolution?

black magick hustla

28th August 2008, 06:49

:shrugs; what are you trying to prove? That marx didnt agree with me? I dont really care about those arguments. I think you it would be better if you posted why is it wrong rather than just because marx said so.

Die Neue Zeit

28th August 2008, 06:53

Tower of Bebel

28th August 2008, 07:31

For the very simple reason that, without political parties operating in workers' councils, these organs would be little more than strike committees. In 1917, parties formed the Petrograd Soviet (namely the Mensheviks and SRs). Political parties have power as their goal, not glorified strike committees, factory committees, "socialist industrial unions," etc.
Yes, but on the condition that the workers can control the party's elite. The distinction between full time members and workers is inevitable; so the workers need to organize themselves "independently" within that party in such a way that it can assert control over the leadership of the party. And that also means soviets or councils.

gilhyle

28th August 2008, 09:10

black magick hustla

28th August 2008, 09:33

Die Neue Zeit

28th August 2008, 14:55

I was replying to you, Marmot.

Yes, but on the condition that the workers can control the party's elite. The distinction between full time members and workers is inevitable; so the workers need to organize themselves "independently" within that party in such a way that it can assert control over the leadership of the party. And that also means soviets or councils.

That's true, too. The "crisis of theory" regarding the bureaucracy question is to be solved within the party (i.e., those with a singular transformative aim to seize power) before the revolution.

Rawthentic

28th August 2008, 16:24

I don't think you got what I said. maybe I need to communicate myself a little better.

Nepal has developed the capitalist mode of production because today there is no such thing as a "nepalese economy" - there is a world capitalist economy. It weould be like saying that the rural areas in Tennessee where the good ol' boys live somewhat of a self-sufficient life, aren't capitalist because the commodity isn't as dominant as in New York City. You see the question of economy as a question of nations. There are margins and backwaters in the world economy, but still this backwaters are capitalist in as much as they are integrated to the economy.

Its not a question of "what would yo do in nepal". If there is a workers' revolution in nepal it won't survive for long if it doesn't start spreading. Its not what I want to do, its just an objective fact.

That there is more violence in poor countries doesn't means that contradictions are ripe. Not all violence is revolutionary violence. Revolutionary violence are not murder-gangs of students and philosophy faculty dropouts that go to the country to wage a guerrilla war (which is basically the story of most guerrillas in latin america). Revolutionary violence are not a minority of gangsters trying to impose their revolution. Its not the most opressed sections who are generally the most class conscious. In fact, its the urban poor (not the same as working class), the peasants, the lumpen that are easiest manipulated by factions ofd the rulng class. This is why in the most miserable countries there is more sectarian strife than "class struggle".

Revolutions aren¿t "simultaneous", but certainly a real proletarian revolution cannot survive for much long without a revolution in other countries. World revolution doesnt means a generalized shaking of the world, it is something gradual. Anyway, world revolution is more possible than you think, because generally when class struggle rises, it rises internationally, like in 1917. Its not something that generally happens in one country. Same with 1968.

marmot,

I think you are going to have to concretely show how, compared to other countries (yes, we all know every nation is a part of the world system) has developed the capitalist mode of production. It clearly has not. It is still held down by feudalism, a result of long years of imperialist exploitation (starting with british rule).

I agree that a revolution does need to spread. But I dont think we should be mechanical and say that it has to spread immediately, or that socialism is a simple process. It is a long, long and protracted process.

Also, why do you use the formulation "workers revolution"? What does that mean? I think that is a very narrow and wrong concept. There are clearly other classes and strata that have a stake in socialist revolution, namely peasants, lumpen-proletariat, intellectuals, small farmers, amongst others. I think using "workers revolution" is a narrow concept that does not account for the more dynamic class forces that exist today in the world.

edit: i forgot to read where you said world revolution is gradual. I agree.

chegitz guevara

28th August 2008, 16:37

But if that idea of a revolutionary bloc is the political content of your position, I think its very wrong.

Well, we've tried this since the failure of the Russian Revolution to spread. What are the results? Would the Bolsheviks have been able to make the revolution in Russia without the support of the SRs and later the left-SRs? Eventually there was a parting of ways, but if there had been no alliance of revolutionary socialist forces, then both the provisional and soviet governments would have eventually fallen to a general's dictatorship. Every successful revolution has been the result of alliances among revolutionary forces, even alliances among classes. Reading Lenin's writings from around the turn of the century are very enlightening when he's discussing the support for the RSDLP by sectors of the bourgeoisie, because that party was leading the struggle to overthrow Tsarism.

If your point is that Democratic Centralist cadre parties may no longer be appropriate, it seems to me you may, unfortunately, have a point......but its a seriously dangerous and difficult point, to be approached with great caution.No, I think democratic centralism is very appropriate, it's just that no one practices it. Democratic centralism has come to mean its opposite. Instead of majority rule and a unified organization, it has come to mean the leadership of a top clique or single leader. Either you follow their line or you get tossed. I have yet to meet a single democratic centralist organization which has competing ideologies inside it . . . with the exception of Workers World and the Party of Socialism and Liberation, which are the result of a fusion of Maoists with Trotskyists. And yet they both hue to a single line. There's no difference of opinion evident in either organization. When was the last time you ever heard of a member of a DC group disagree with his party's line, and it didn't lead to an expulsion/split?

[snip]In real politics, for all their talk, maoists are the dedicated enemies of the emergence of working class militant leaderships.There is a great deal of variation among Maoists. Compare groups as different as Freedom Road and MIM. Yes, certain sections of the Maoist movement are deeply hostile to the working class, but can you honestly say that Trot sects that merely shout at workers, such as the Sparts, are honestly not also hostile? The Dodge Revolutionary Union Movement and the Black Revolutionary Union Movement were both organized and led by Maoists. In the 1970s, the New Communist Movement threw itself into the working class and started organizing a decade before the SWP (US) began its turn back to the working class or more than two decades before the ISO did the same. There is a lot to learn from those experiences, but because of sectarianism, there is no cross tendency discussion. Now learning, and lessons have to be continuously repeated by every new group.

In What is to Be Done?, Lenin wrote that as soon as a new circle set itself up, it would soon be crushed by the police, and every new circle of workers and militants would have to learn anew the lessons that had already been learned by previous circles. There was no continuity, no sharing of experience. We have that same problem today. Trots won't learn from Maoists, Maoists won't learn from Trots, groups within each trend won't lean from each other (although during the early 70s, there was a lot of discussion and cross fertilization between NCM groups). Neither group even thinks it has anything to learn from the other. Both groups reject the other as enemies of the working class. The same goes for the anarchists. The same goes for the Stalinists. At what point is anyone in these groups, having failed to not just archive revolution, but even a healthy organization capable of having a real impact in the lives of the workers of even a single factory, begin to sit down and think, "Maybe we have it wrong. Maybe we don't know everything."

If we are not having a cadre party of disciplined revolutionaries united around a programme which has been ironed out to represent the long term interests of the class, then lets just have a mass party united around a programme of minimum demands and a belief that the working class must displace the bourgeoisie as the ruling class......The bloc of revolutionaries is a half way house, neither fish nor flesh.Well, that's what Lenin argued and that's what Lenin built. While I certain don't argue we should ape previous groups and follow leaders slavishly, this is something that worked, and is something we stopped doing after it worked once. We don't know if it will work today or not. We haven't tried it. The only victories since Russia have been guerrilla movements, which aren't really an option in an urban society.

It unites the Troskyists....who at least stand in an entirely honourable tradition....It's not entirely honorable. It is blemished and tarnished, too. Healy, a Trot, betrayed many communist militants by turning over information to the Libyan government, in exchange for millions of dollars. Those betrayed comrades ended up tortured and dead.

with people who have restored capitalism,In Sri Lanka, the Trotskyists joined the government. In Brazil, the followers of the USFI have supported the Lula government.

murdered whole generations of worker militantsTrotsky's Red Army and Mahkno ring any bells? What about Kronstadt?

and brought betrayal and unprincipled behaviour to shameful levels.They have also improved the lives of the masses of people. They have engaged in acts of incredible heroism. They have advanced the struggle against capitalism.

The fact that they read Marx just doesnt make up for that.That goes for everyone, not just Maoists, anarchists, Stalinists, etc.

I would rather compete with those people within a larger organisation, than to try to suggest that they are I share some fundamental perspective and merely differ on details.....the detail we differ on is that stalinists are reformists and revolutionaries for capitalism in Marxist clothing. That kinda big detail.I'm not arguing that we shouldn't critique each others ideas, that thre shouldn't be political struggle and debate. I'm arguing the exact opposite. But if you actually talk to Stalinists, and I mean the kind of folks who really think Stalin was a genuine leader of the international proletariat and a dedicated socialist and the heir to Lenin, these are not comrades who are consciously attempting to betray the working class or reform capitalism. Not all of them anyway. Many, many of them, fervently believe in communist revolution and work hard to organize in the working class.

The leader of the Communist Party USA in Chicago once wrote to me something interesting. He said that most American workers, in his experience, weren't really bothered by the Soviet dictatorship. They already lived in a dictatorship of their boss. What they didn't like about the USSR, and by extension, communism, were the bread and meat lines. If you have to live under the thumb of someone either way, then better to be under the thumb where at least there was food on the shelves. That's interesting and useful information to know. It's not something I have heard repeated by anyone else. So the only way I could learn it is by breaking ranks, and listening to other tendencies.

The sectarianism and dogmatism has to end. The fact that we put it aside to organize together around important actions and politics (anti-war, strike support, etc.) shows that we all know it's BS. That we reach out and work together when we need to shows that our differences are shallow and rather unimportant. If we can do that in time of crisis, we can't we do it in between? Sectarianism and dogmatism is wasteful. It is inefficient. And in the end, it is harmful to the very cause we claim to support.

We have to stop it. Now. Here.

chegitz guevara

28th August 2008, 16:48

And my experience of Maoism is that when there is a struggle going on maoists have argued against rank and file committees and the development of leaderships out of the working class, prefering to deny that militants need to organise......which leads to a an inchoate organisation of the mass in which, what a coincidence, they can use their party organisation to lead....in other words, in practice, they do insist (as was once falsely said of Lenin...by a young trotsky) that the party substitute for the leadership of the class, rather than living within the leadership of the class.

I don't think anyone should argue that Maoism is perfect. Far from it. That doesn't mean that they haven't achieved real breakthroughs in practice and theory. Just like Trotskyism has much of value to offer, Maoism also has much of value to offer. If we were willing to to fight together instead of against each other, we could learn from each other and build a more vibrant movement.

chegitz guevara

28th August 2008, 16:57

Does this not mean that a socialist revolution is not possible at this time in Nepal? If there is no significant presence of capitalism, has history not shown us that a socialist revolution will not succeed?
I also think that it is kind of weird for socialists to be the ones developing "national capital". Wouldn't that lead to a state-capitalist economy, which has ALWAYS returned to a state of regular capitalism? I am not very familiar with Maoism at all, so I'm mostly asking questions.

What was the NEP? Was it not an attempt to build national capital? And if we read The State and Revolution is it not clear that Lenin though the transition from capitalism to socialism was a process that took time, not one to be achieved overnight. It was only the necessity of organizing production to fight the civil war that lead to war communism. It was not the Bolsheviks plan to nationalize everything right away.

What were Marx, Engels and the Communist League attempting to do in Germany in 1848? Can you honestly say that capitalism was even remotely developed in 1848 Germany? The Communists have always organized and fought in areas of the world where the capitalist mode of production was not merely incomplete, but sometims barely existent. Communists overthrowing feudalism and attempting to carry out the tasks of the bourgeois revolution in Nepal is not something unique to Maoism. It's what Lenin aimed at up until 1917. It was only when the bourgeois revolution was carried out that he began to advocate for permanent revolution, i.e., that he became a Trotskyist.

Dros

28th August 2008, 20:29

Like who, drosera?

Like MIMites for instance. Like Dengists. Like the Patriotic Worker's Party in the United States. Like the "Maoists" in Kasama. Like some of the members of the CPN(M). Like K. Venu before he totally degenerated.

Since the time of the Cultural Revolution, there have been people who have used Maoism for anti-Communist reasons or poorly implemented Mao's thought in a way that ended up being counter productive. See Lin Biao et. all.

and what does "practicing maoism" mean to you?

It means implementing Marxism-Leninism-Maoism in the most scientific and revolutionary way you can.

As far as I am concerned, in its basic form, it is conducting the mass line, leading the people in struggle against the system based on political programs based off of the results of the mass line (that is an ongoing process). It means to serve the people in both theory and practice.

I suspect that you have a revisionist understanding of what applying the mass line is about and what it means to lead and serve the people.

And I hope you dont say "kasama does not practice maoism" because kasama is not a maoist organization (even though the main leaders come from that and maintain that tradition) and we arent claiming to be the vanguard of the american proletariat.

Good.

Rawthentic

28th August 2008, 20:38

I suspect that you have a revisionist understanding of what applying the mass line is about and what it means to lead and serve the people.I just explained what the mass line was and how it was used. This is basic Maoism. This is what Mao did and what the Panthers did! Prove how it is revisionist or shut the fuck up.

It means implementing Marxism-Leninism-Maoism in the most scientific and revolutionary way you can.
What does this mean? Explain.

Good.Unlike some parties, like the RCP, that claim to be the vanguard and have not ever been and never will.

JimmyJazz

29th August 2008, 23:07

I think maoists have a wrong perspective mainly because they don't see capital as being a world system.

Can you cite this somehow (for someone who has no way of knowing whether it is true or not)?

I know extremely little about Maoism, but it *seems* to me that they believe in worldwide revolution, but that they believe it must come first in the neocolonial and imperialist-oppressed countries, and only later in the West. This part of it would make some sense to me, since profits in the West will have been squeezed down to zero as foreign markets and foreign cheap labor have been lost due to the anti-imperialist (be they nationalist, anti-capitalist or both) revolutions in the third world. In practice, apparently, the Nepalese Maoists are promising to make Nepal friendly to foreign investors--I have no idea what that's all about. But I'm curious about why you say they are not internationalists even in theory.

How can you have a socialist revolution without workers' councils? The workers' council is the organ by which the working class asserts itself and ultimately seizes power.

In that case, is most of the world never going to achieve socialism? Because modern production is efficient enough to meet the needs and even wants of all humanity by employing the labor of only a fraction of humanity in actual manufacturing jobs. So to wait for worldwide proletarianization is to wait forever, since it's never going to happen. This is the thing I've always wondered about strict, orthodox Marxist socialists: do they really expect worldwide proletarianization? Who is going to grow our crops then? Did Marx himself really expect worldwide proletarianization?

Rawthentic

30th August 2008, 00:08

Can you cite this somehow (for someone who has no way of knowing whether it is true or not)?

I know extremely little about Maoism, but it *seems* to me that they believe in worldwide revolution, but that they believe it must come first in the neocolonial and imperialist-oppressed countries, and only later in the West. This part of it would make some sense to me, since profits in the West will have been squeezed down to zero as foreign markets and foreign cheap labor have been lost due to the anti-imperialist (be they nationalist, anti-capitalist or both) revolutions in the third world. In practice, apparently, the Nepalese Maoists are promising to make Nepal friendly to foreign investors--I have no idea what that's all about. But I'm curious about why you say they are not internationalists even in theory.thanks for the post, Jimmy.

Yes, maoists, as marxists, of course do see capital as being part of a worldwide system.

Nobody knows where a revolution can happen. But, as Ive said, it is more common that it occurs in the imperialist-oppressed countries, due to the heated contradictions between imperialism, feudalism, and nascent capitalism, and how these forces interact to leave the people in a state of misery.

Yes, you are correct, the maoists, as part of their New Democratic Revolution (http://marx2mao.net/Mao/ND40.html) will invite foreign investment. This is a very important question. The reason behind the need for this foreign investment is the need to develop national capitalism. As I have said in the above posts, imperialist exploitation has been a fetter on the capitalist mode of production, effectively squashing it, whilst maintaining a feudal structure in its place. If the maoists were to reject foreign investment, they would be left with backward technology (and very little of it). This would not better the living conditions of the people. It is true, when the maoists invite foreign investment, finance imperialist capital will exploit the workers, BUT it will advance the productive forces and the technology. NOT allowing foreign investment would thus be very harmful. So you see, those who say that the maoists are "anti-worker" dont understand these contradictions. So, you see, it is either workers get exploited by what there is now (backwards productive forces), or by the new investment that will advance these forces. Nepal is in an extremely backward state, and it MUST develop the capitalist mode of production before it can develop socialism (although socialism also does begin to sprout within this process). The Maoists are looking to use the BOOT model (build, own, operate, transfer) in relation to foreign investment.

A society like Nepal suffers from several principal things:

imperialist oppression, expansionist oppression (from india, and although india is not an imperialist country, has backing from imperialist powers and uses that to exploit nepal and its resources - it is a manifestation of world imperialism in nepal), the feudal relations in agriculture (relation between landless, peasant, landlords, rural workers, tenants, etc), and bureaucratic, comprador capitalism (engages in finance capital and sends the profits and resources to the imperialist centers).

All of these things need to be (and hopefully will) be combated by the maoists. It will be a very long process of many years.

There are four main things that the maoists must do as a part of their economic program (new democracy): revolutionary change of production relations (meaning a new class system), independent and self-reliant development from the fetter of imperialism and feudalism, and land reform.

Bhattarai said:

New Democratic system is basically a capitalist system. However, in the present era of imperialism and in a situation of intensely backward state of productive forces as in Nepal, it is impossible to develop the capitalist system in the old form and to make it stable. Specially, it is not possible for the owners of small parcels of land and small capital to increase productivity by labouring individually and to protect themselves from the monopolistic assaults of the big capital. Hence it is only through gradual co-operativisation of agriculture and through state protection for industry, or by systematically moving ahead in the path of socialisation that the large number of small producers can preserve their existence and increase their productivity. In that sense the New Democratic system is only a transitional capitalist system and its contradictions would have to be solved through the higher form of a socialist system. Thus it is only through the process of a continuous revolution that it would be possible to solve the newly emerging problems and contradictions in the society at a higher plane. The process of People’s War in Nepal is a link in a chain of such a continuous revolution to solve the problems of the society. The principle objective and rationale of the People’s War in Nepal is, thus, to develop the social productive forces and create a higher form of society through a continuous revolution in the base and the superstructure or by putting “politics in command”. - from that article i linked below.

I suggest this work by Dr.Bhattarai: Politico-Economic Rational of Peoples War in Nepal (http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/2008/05/10/teach-in-politico-economic-rationale-of-peoples-war-in-nepal/).

JimmyJazz

30th August 2008, 01:56

Yes, you are correct, the maoists, as part of their New Democratic Revolution (http://marx2mao.net/Mao/ND40.html) will invite foreign investment. This is a very important question. The reason behind the need for this foreign investment is the need to develop national capitalism.

How will foreign investment develop national capitalism? To invite foreign investment is to ally oneself what you called, earlier in the thread, the comprador (sp.?) bourgeoisie. Basically, it's the same thing that all governments, including those led by pro-Western hacks in business suits rather than Maoists, are doing these days.

I realize it's difficult to shun trade with the West on its terms when you are just one single country and there is no real solidarity bloc of third world nations that you can get support from, but you seem to be saying that "free trade" with the West is a good thing in itself, not a necessary concession for the moment. "Free trade" with the West (i.e., trade with the West on its own terms) can only prolong dependence and make development of a national industrial sector impossible. In other words, foreign investment delays the development of national capitalism. It's something that third world countries need to get out of as soon as they possibly can.

I recommend any book by Ha Joon-Chang (Bad Samaritans or Kicking Away the Ladder) or Erik Reinert (How the Rich Countries Got Rich...And Why Poor Countries Stay Poor). They all make a good case for what I'm saying here: the countries that are now rich got that way through strategic protectionism, not free trade; all the more do today's undeveloped countries--who would face crushing competition from the developed countries were they to try and compete on the world market for, say, automobiles--need to shun complete free trade if they hope to develop national capitalism and national capitalists. I'm not saying they can't take any foreign investment, and I don't know details about the kind of foreign investments the Nepalese Maoists are allowing, but generally speaking, accepting foreign capital is like the national equivalent of selling your labor power. Sure, you'll get something out of it (wages), but it isn't ever going to make you yourself a capitalist. You will always be dependent on someone else for your existence.

gilhyle

30th August 2008, 10:37

Every successful revolution has been the result of alliances among revolutionary forces, even alliances among classes.

Alliances and blocs are two different things.

When was the last time you ever heard of a member of a DC group disagree with his party's line, and it didn't lead to an expulsion/split?

By definition I should not hear about it. Disagreements should be internal, unless an open factional struggle has been declared...which is justified if there is a fundamental difference; but by definition that should lead to a split after full debate IF what is being organised is a cadre party. On the other hand if you are not organising a cadre party then DC is not appropriate. It would be a deceptive ruse to combine the two, i.e. combine a non-cadre party with democratic centralism. The only effect of that would be to stifle spontaneous working class militancy.

There is a great deal of variation among Maoists. Compare groups as different as Freedom Road and MIM. Yes, certain sections of the Maoist movement are deeply hostile to the working class, but can you honestly say that Trot sects that merely shout at workers, such as the Sparts, are honestly not also hostile? The Dodge Revolutionary Union Movement and the Black Revolutionary Union Movement were both organized and led by Maoists. In the 1970s, the New Communist Movement threw itself into the working class and started organizing a decade before the SWP (US) began its turn back to the working class or more than two decades before the ISO did the same. There is a lot to learn from those experiences, but because of sectarianism, there is no cross tendency discussion. Now learning, and lessons have to be continuously repeated by every new group.

I have no doubt that is true. There is a lot to learn from the Maoist influenced Black Panthers as well, but that doesnt amount to much as a statement of political intent....which is where I came in: sentiment is no substitute a clear political course.

It's not entirely honorable. It is blemished and tarnished,

Again, vagueness about the key point. In the end, Trotskyism has been a political movement that attempted to build a revolutionary International in the heat of Capitalist crisis and which repeatedly descended into centrism, and on occasion worse. By contrast Maoism has been a bracnh of Stalinism, representing the perspective of bureaucracies in the workers states, balancing between the working class and the bourgeoisie and having a fundamental agenda to prevent working class-led revolution.

This is a class divide. That Maoism has at times looked like the 'left face' of Stalinism and that Trotskyism has at times been pathetic to the point farce does not eliminate the class divide.

Mahkno ring any bells? What about Kronstadt?

Class divide again: Makhno represented a peasant revolt desiring to balance between the Reds and White to maximise peasant independance. He had no loyalty to the revolution (despite allying with it at times). Kronstadt....well meaning people who could not bear the cost of the revolution and were willing to dilute working class power in a way which would have undermined all the sacrifices made in the civil war.

these are not comrades who are consciously attempting to betray the working class or reform capitalism. Not all of them anyway. Many, many of them, fervently believe in communist revolution and work hard to organize in the working class.

Its not about whether they are conscious or not. After all few ideologies involve self conscious awareness of their own class significance. But it is naive to ignore the fact that Maoism has a certain definite history - frustrating revolutionary activity etc. It is an ideology not just a well meaning layer of people.

If you want to deal with well meaning people, there are a lot of well meaning people in the ranks of open reformism......why prioritise well meaning reformists, just cos they call themselves Marxists ?

Devrim

30th August 2008, 12:19

^^^ Wrong - the party is the organ by which the working class asserts itself and ultimately seizes power:

Well actually this is your opinion. Others have different ones. Telling them that they are 'wrong' and asserting something with a word in bold letters is not very convincing.

Devrim

Devrim

30th August 2008, 12:24

Also, why do you use the formulation "workers revolution"? What does that mean? I think that is a very narrow and wrong concept. There are clearly other classes and strata that have a stake in socialist revolution, namely peasants, lumpen-proletariat, intellectuals, small farmers, amongst others. I think using "workers revolution" is a narrow concept that does not account for the more dynamic class forces that exist today in the world.

At least this lot of Maoists are honest. This is a clear abandonment of class based politics. It is also an abandonment of Marxism.

Of course, it was something that has been prevalent in Maoism from the start. At least Mao tried to cover his class collaborationist ideology with a fig leaf of 'Marxist' respectability about the 'leading role of the working class'.

Now it has all been thrown to the wind.

Devrim

Rawthentic

30th August 2008, 17:41

At least this lot of Maoists are honest. This is a clear abandonment of class based politics. It is also an abandonment of Marxism.

Of course, it was something that has been prevalent in Maoism from the start. At least Mao tried to cover his class collaborationist ideology with a fig leaf of 'Marxist' respectability about the 'leading role of the working class'.

Now it has all been thrown to the wind.

DevrimNo.

I am not abandoning class politics by correctly saying that revolutions, even communist ones, are made by a coalition of classes, whether you like or not.

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):

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,

[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:

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).

Denying the struggle against the japanese invasion (with the unity of the Nationalists), would be to deny class struggle itself, since without defeating japan, china would have become another japanese colony, and the struggle between the CCP and Kuomintang would never have started again.

Your view is also a manifestation of trade unionist ideology, as Lenin correctly said. It proceeds from the narrow, workerist view (from the factory floor and workplace) that if you unite with the bosses, you are a class enemy. Well, that is wrong. The unity with the Kuomintang was a tactical move in order to defeat japan, and they both well knew what would happen as soon as the war against japan was finished.

The working class is the leading class in society when its line is at the fore. It is wrong and un-marxist to take a fetish for class composition and equate that with the ideology of the proletariat. Communism is the ideology of the proletarian class, NOT proletarian individuals.

Devrim

30th August 2008, 17:51

Rawthentic,

I think you clarified the argument very well. The whole Maoist idea was about serving the national interests and mobilising the Chinese peasantry to fight in the Imperialist war.

Whatever rhetoric it uses to do this, the Mao line is no less anti-working class then Kautsky's line in 1914. The idea of a ' united front against imperialism, under the leadership of the proletariat' actually had nothing to do with the proletariat whatsoever, and was about acting as recruiting sergents for imperialism.

The actual working class struggle in China had been defeated, and savagely crushed in 1927, unsurprisingly by the same bourgeois forces that certain so-called communists, including Mao, advocated alliance with.

Devrim

BobKKKindle$

30th August 2008, 18:11

If Maoism advocates the proletariat taking a leading role as part of a broad front encompassing the peasantry and the section of the bourgeoisie which allegedly supports national economic development, why did the CCP agree to the disarmament of the workers militias when major urban centers fell under the control of the KMT, firstly in Canton (1926) and then subsequently in Shanghai (1927) which eventually led to the brutal destruction of the organised working class in April (of 1927) when the KMT in cooperation with local criminal groups conducted a series of massacres against local proletarian activists, who were unable to respond because they lacked access to weapons which could have been used to fight against the reactionary forces? This would seem to be an obvious example of the CCP undermining the interests of the working class in favour of preserving unity with the bourgeoisie, which disregards the fact that the class interests of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie will always be in direct opposition and cannot be reconciled, despite the best efforts of Maoists to create inter-class alliances.

Winter

30th August 2008, 19:37

Rawthentic, I think you clarified the argument very well. The whole Maoist idea was about serving the national interests and mobilising the Chinese peasantry to fight in the Imperialist war.

Socialism would never have been able to come about so long as imperialists and reactionaries had control. Contradictions between proletariat and bourgeois are often antagonistic, but in the case of China, the foremost exploiter that had to be defeated was Japan and the KMT.

But in the concrete conditions existing in China, such an antagonistic contradiction, if properly handled, can be transformed into a non-antagonistic one and reolved in a peaceful way. But if it is not properly handled, if, say, we do not follow a policy of uniting, criticizing and education the national bourgeoisie, or if the national bourgeoisie does not accept this policy, then the contradiction between the working class and the national bourgeoisie can turn into an antagonistic contradiction as between ourselves and the enemy. ( Japan, KMT ) - Mao, On Correct Handling of Contradictions

Winter

30th August 2008, 21:14

Rawthentic

30th August 2008, 21:18

Bob:

Those dates that you put up there, have little do with maoism. Mao was not at the fore of the party or its chairman. What happened during those times was the product of wrong lines within the CCP, and wanting to stay loyal to the standard Comintern line, which definitely not suited to the needs of china. This is in fact, why Stalin worked hard AGAINST the chinese revolution - Mao broke from the soviet model during the revolution and during socialist construction and correct said: marxism needs to be applied according to concrete conditions, not verdicts set in stone.

About the inter-class alliance. New Democracy is a theory that mao set out and is applicable only to feudal-colonial nations that seek to free themselves from the chains of both feudalism and imperialism. In these cases, since imperialism no doubt leaves such a majority of the population in a state of misery, there are several class strata that have objective interests against imperialism and feudalism. The national bourgeoisie is oppressed by the comprador bourgeoisie in that the former cannot develop itself and consequently, industrial capitalism. The latter serves as the agents of imperialism within that semi-feudal/colonial nation. And then of course, the workers and peasants, homeless, landless, radical intellectuals, are oppressed by these factors as well.

Like I said before: denying the unity of the communists with the nationalists would be to deny the class struggle and any pretense towards socialism itself. But wait...what happened in china? The japanese were thrown off, the communists beat the Kuomintang, and socialism liberated 800 million people in china. I dont mean to say that socialism came about immediately, but its construction was under way, china was on the correct path after the seizure of power. It took many years, but both the comprador and national bourgeois were fully expropriated (the latter in a protracted manner).

Rawthentic

30th August 2008, 21:21

I think you clarified the argument very well. The whole Maoist idea was about serving the national interests and mobilising the Chinese peasantry to fight in the Imperialist war.

Whatever rhetoric it uses to do this, the Mao line is no less anti-working class then Kautsky's line in 1914. The idea of a ' united front against imperialism, under the leadership of the proletariat' actually had nothing to do with the proletariat whatsoever, and was about acting as recruiting sergents for imperialism.

The actual working class struggle in China had been defeated, and savagely crushed in 1927, unsurprisingly by the same bourgeois forces that certain so-called communists, including Mao, advocated alliance with.No.

Listen: if ALL of China, if everyone that the CCP could unite with to defeat Japan, was not united with, I bet China would be a Japanese colony right now. What you advocate is ridiculous. You are effectively saying that the unity between the different class forces should not have been made! In other words, clear capitulation to imperialism.

Or, what is the alternative to what the CCP did?

black magick hustla

30th August 2008, 22:19

I really doubt China would be a Japanese colony today. Colonies, as in the 19th - first half of the 20th century don't exist anymore.

Anyway the theory of New Democracy is pretty much watered down socialdemocracy. I don't get why is this difference just because some Maoist party advocates it. What is the difference between the Mexican PRD and the CPN(M) - just that the latter calls itself maoist?

Rawthentic

30th August 2008, 22:39

Wow, wow, wow.

Marmot, are you seriously suggesting that there is no difference between NDR and social democracy? Or between CPN and PRD?

For the first part, NDR aims to clear the path for capitalist development (after ending feudalism) that is necessary to build socialism. Im still waiting to hear from you how Nepal is capitalist thus does not need this process. Social democracy is welfare within capitalism.

PRD does not aim to make social revolution or end capitalism. Dont be ridiculous. The entire program of the Maoists is to lead nepal towards socialism. If you think that the NDR is wrong and something else should be done in nepal, please, dont be afraid to say what (but, dont be dogmatic, apply using nepali conditions).

Now, some people will say, "oh lookie here, how can the maoists want to end socialism if they first call for developing evil capital?"

Well, little one, the answer to that is, as ive said many times, Nepal has for too long been under the shackles of feudalism, held down by imperialism. A period of capitalist development is crucial.

Die Neue Zeit

30th August 2008, 22:56

^^^ Wrong - the party is the organ by which the working class asserts itself and ultimately seizes powerWell actually this is your opinion. Others have different ones. Telling them that they are 'wrong' and asserting something with a word in bold letters is not very convincing.

Devrim

Then try reading (or re-reading) Chapter 6 of my work. Once more, the link:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/road-power-and-t83963/index.html

Die Neue Zeit

31st August 2008, 03:30

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htm

After the programme was agreed, however, a clash arose between Marx and his French supporters arose over the purpose of the minimum section. Whereas Marx saw this as a practical means of agitation around demands that were achievable within the framework of capitalism, Guesde took a very different view: “Discounting the possibility of obtaining these reforms from the bourgeoisie, Guesde regarded them not as a practical programme of struggle, but simply ... as bait with which to lure the workers from Radicalism.” The rejection of these reforms would, Guesde believed, “free the proletariat of its last reformist illusions and convince it of the impossibility of avoiding a workers' revolution.” Accusing Guesde and Lafargue of “revolutionary phrase-mongering” and of denying the value of reformist struggles, Marx made his famous remark that, if their politics represented Marxism, “ce qu'il y a de certain c'est que moi, je ne suis pas Marxiste” (“what is certain is that I myself am not a Marxist”).

Given the further development of bourgeois capitalism, however, it would seem that many Marxist groups have adopted a similar "bump your head against the wall" approach, ranging from transitionalist Trotskyists and directionalist "Trottists" (http://www.revleft.com/vb/replace-transitional-demands-t82816/index.html) (mixing a vulgar, defensive interpretation of minimum demands with perhaps "revolutionary phrase-mongering" in the form of nigh-high ultimate reforms that the bourgeoisie can't give) to left-communist and other rejections of reform struggles.

Was Guesde right?

black magick hustla

31st August 2008, 05:58

Wow, wow, wow.

Marmot, are you seriously suggesting that there is no difference between NDR and social democracy? Or between CPN and PRD?

For the first part, NDR aims to clear the path for capitalist development (after ending feudalism) that is necessary to build socialism. Im still waiting to hear from you how Nepal is capitalist thus does not need this process. Social democracy is welfare within capitalism.

PRD does not aim to make social revolution or end capitall.

It doesn't matter what they "aim". They clearly stated they were going to develop industrial capitalism with the help of the national bourgeosie. That sounds like what Lazaro Cardenas did in the 50s. They can call themselves however they want, but just because they talk about some distant future, doesn't means there practical platform is distinguishable from bourgeois politics.

However, even if they didn't mention New democracy and instead took power in order to install socialism, they would still be wrong. Socialism is only possible with conscious class violence, not voluntarist guerillas.

Winter

31st August 2008, 07:49

Socialism is only possible with conscious class violence, not voluntarist guerillas.

The people are class conscious. The CPN(m) are not a bunch of isolated freedom fighters living in the wilderness. On the contrary, the vast majority of the people understand what they are struggling for and are participating with their cause, because it is their cause.

http://www.massline.info/Nepal/janasarkar_gosana.jpg
A huge revolutionary mass meeting in rural Nepal.

As of 2003, one of the most advanced revolutionary struggles in the world is that led by the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist). The CPN(M) launched a People's War against the current semi-feudal Nepalese regime on February 13th, 1996, and major progress has been made in mobilizing the Nepalese masses in revolution. Not only has the People's War been progressing very well overall, but there is clear evidence that the great masses of Nepalese people have been brought to support that war. This can be seen, for example, in the very successful bandhs (general strikes) against the reactionary state that the CPN(M) calls for from time to time.
http://www.massline.info/Nepal/Banda120701.jpg
Deserted street scene (in Kathmandu, I think)
during general strike called by the CPN(M).
It is not yet completely clear to me how the term mass line itself is being used by revolutionaries in Nepal, though it seems obvious that what I would call the mass line, namely the method of revolutionary leadership which is also known as the method of "from the masses, to the masses", is definitely being widely used by the CPN(M). An illustration of this comes from the following anecdote related to me by a friend:

There was a conference of anthropologists working on/in Nepal a year or two ago. A number of these anthropologists were working in villages that CPN(M) cadre came to. These anthropologists came to the conclusion that really, the Nepalese people are not fighting for Maoism. Why? Because the CPN(M) cadre who came into these villages were remarkably adept at identifying the issues of concern to these villagers and uniting the villagers in struggle around these issues, not around "struggling for communism."

Apparently these bourgeois anthropologists are completely ignorant of the Maoist mass line method which connects up the immediate and short-term interests of the masses with their long-term (revolutionary) interests. They don't understand that this is the way to lead a revolution that brings about socialism, and eventually communism.

But while the Nepalese Maoists are using this powerful leadership method, they appear to be using the term 'mass line' itself in a more general sense, to mean something like "involving the masses themselves in struggle".
In an interview in 2001 in a newspaper in India, Comrade Prachanda, the Chairman of the CPN(M), said that "Another distinguishing feature of a Maoist movement is the pursuance of the mass line, or the involvement of the large masses of people in every military and political action..." [See "Interview with Chairman Prachanda" (http://www.insof.org/w7/int_prachanda.htm), The Worker, #7.]

A similar use of the term 'mass line' is reflected in the report Comrade Prachanda gave to the Second National Conference of the CPN(M) in 2001. (See below.) In this report Comrade Prachanda refers to how the Party is organizing and leading struggles of various sections of the masses, including women, national minorities, workers, students, the intelligentsia, artists and cultural workers, and so on.

Winter

31st August 2008, 09:07

I think this helps explain New Democracy quite well, replace China with Nepal if that helps:

Because of the leadership of the proletariat, the politics, the economy and the culture of New Democracy all contain an element of socialism, and by no means a mere casual element but one with a decisive role. However, taken as a whole, the political, economic and cultural situation so far is new-democratic and not socialist. For the Chinese revolution in its present stage is not yet a socialist revolution for the overthrow of capitalism but a bourgeois-democratic revolution, its central task being mainly that of combating foreign imperialism and domestic feudalism. In the sphere of national culture, it is wrong to assume that the existing national culture is, or should be, socialist in its entirety. That would amount to confusing the dissemination of communist ideology with the carrying out of an immediate programme of action, and to confusing the application of the communist standpoint and method in investigating problems, undertaking research, handling work and training cadres with the general policy for national education and national culture in the democratic stage of the Chinese revolution. A national culture with a socialist content will necessarily be the reflection of a socialist politics and a socialist economy. There are socialist elements in our politics and our economy, and hence these socialist elements are reflected in our national culture; but taking our society as a whole, we do not have a socialist politics and a socialist economy yet, so that there cannot be a wholly socialist national culture. Since the present Chinese revolution is part of the world proletarian-socialist revolution, the new culture of China today is part of the world proletarian-socialist new culture and is its great ally. While this part contains vital elements of socialist culture, the national culture as a whole joins the stream of the world proletarian-socialist new culture not entirely as a socialist culture, but as the anti-imperialist and anti-feudal new-democratic culture of the broad masses. And since the Chinese revolution today cannot do without proletarian leadership, China's new culture cannot do without the leadership of proletarian culture and ideology, of communist ideology. At the present stage, however, this kind of leadership means leading the masses of the people in an anti-imperialist and anti-feudal political and cultural revolution, and therefore, taken as a whole, the content of China's new national culture is still not socialist but new-democratic.

Nepal, like China in the past, cannot just jump into a socialist revolution as long as contradictions with feudalistic landlords and foreign beuracratic capitalists remains. The first task is to eliminate these tendencies within society while at the same time, educate the people on socialist principles.

Mao later said:

With the overthrow of the landlord class and the bureaucrat-capitalist class, the contradiction between the working class and the national bourgeoisie has become the principal contradiction in China; therefore the national bourgeoisie should no longer be defined as an intermediate class.

Led Zeppelin

31st August 2008, 11:25

Well actually this is your opinion. Others have different ones. Telling them that they are 'wrong' and asserting something with a word in bold letters is not very convincing.

Devrim

Or how about posting about something totally unrelated in a semi-coherent manner?

Jacob I have noticed you doing this a lot, please stop it. The "transitional trottist" whatever your last post was about has nothing to do with this discussion at all, it was totally pointless to post it, and it wasn't the first time you have done that either. In the future any unrelated posts will be split into a new thread or just merged with the thread you link to in your post.

You can't substitute posting a response to someone with linking to one of your other threads, especially not when your response has nothing to do with the discussion at all.

Rawthentic

2nd September 2008, 00:05

Jimmy:

sorry for taking longer than usual to reply to your question.

I think that if we understand that there was foreign investment in socialist societies (in particular in the beginning) we can see that for nepal it isnt something counterrevolutionary or out of the question, it is a real necessity.

Dont you think that if nepal threw out the foreign investors now in nepal, would lead to economic disaster? There is a choice and dichotomy (and contradiction ) here. Obviously nepal's primitive productive forces cannot stay the way they are. So, we can be romantics and declare that foreign investment is wrong and unprincipled for nepal, or we can be materialists and understand that foreign investment will be a path towards the development of national infrastructure. The workers can be exploited by what there is today, or by the new investors that will aid in nepal's development. Which option is in the interests of the workers and peasants?

This does not mean that foreign investment is to play a leading role, that it will or should dominate the national economy; on the contrary, it is there to serve it, and the NDR state needs to regulate that. Now, there are particular needs for foreign investment. In the soviet union, it was oil. In china, it was steel.

In Nepal, it is hydroelectric power, nepal's most precious and valuable natural resource. To develop it to a great capacity definitely requires that foreign investment.

Nepal needs (and wants) to find its place within the world system, but to do so, it will need to develop its hydro power.

India monopolizes (thru unfair treaties) this resource (rivers, dams, electricity) that leaves nepal starved for this main resource. Nepal is billions of rupees in debt due to this. See the things that are being contended with?

So when there is talk of foreign investment, bet your ass that it almost certainly has to do with hydro-power. Part of the plan is to have national electrification, most of the countryside does not enjoy this. Plus, it provides nepal with a great and huge source of income (or revenue not sure what the correct term to use is). It can sell this for foreign exchange.

Nepal has the second largest water resource potential in the world, of which only .5% has been tapped into! Bhatarrai said:
Main stress would be on harnessing the immense hydropower potential of the country through small hydro-electricity projects for the supply of necessary industrial energy and to ensure self-reliant, pollution-free and sustainable development.So, this is not just about "developing capitalism", I hope I havent come off as that. There are a few main components of this new democratic process: agrarian revolution, hydro power potential, and also developing the national infrastructure. It is a socialist process, not a capitalist process.

gilhyle

5th September 2008, 23:42

This thread started wth a sggestion that maoists and trotskyists should put aside their supposed sectarianism and join together as revolutionary socialists , what has been made clear in the last few pages is the sense in which those maoists with which trotskyists are supposed to form a single party bloc are pople who form blocs with bourgeois class forces priritising bourgeois nationalist tasks. Thus the callfor revolutionary socialist unity can be seen as a call to become mere agentsof capitalist development tasks

Die Neue Zeit

6th September 2008, 19:53

^^^ gilhyle, keep in mind who Rawthentic is. He is speaking from a First-World Maoist perspective (at least one that isn't influenced by the "Three Worlds" crap), so I'm not sure how much of a priority "bourgeois nationalist" tasks are to guys like him.

Devrim

7th September 2008, 08:32

Then try reading (or re-reading) Chapter 6 of my work. Once more, the link:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/road-power-and-t83963/index.html

No thanks.

Devrim

Devrim

7th September 2008, 08:34

No.

Listen: if ALL of China, if everyone that the CCP could unite with to defeat Japan, was not united with, I bet China would be a Japanese colony right now. What you advocate is ridiculous. You are effectively saying that the unity between the different class forces should not have been made! In other words, clear capitulation to imperialism.

Or, what is the alternative to what the CCP did?

Actually what I am saying is that the working class forces were destroyed and the CCP mobilised the peasantry on behalf of imperialism to die in WWII.

Devrim

Rawthentic

7th September 2008, 18:01

jacob:

thanks for that.

A lot of people think that one cant be a maoist in the united states because it isnt a underdeveloped nation, as if maoism was a set of verdicts that were to be applied regardless of material conditions. Some ignorant people have the idea that you cant be a maoist here because that implies that you would want to wage a peoples war in the appalachian mountains or whatever, as if that theory is applicable here.

"Concrete analysis of concrete conditions" -mao

Devrim

7th September 2008, 18:38

Some ignorant people have the idea that you cant be a maoist here because that implies that you would want to wage a peoples war in the appalachian mountains or whatever, as if that theory is applicable here.

To me I don't think that it is surprising that the 'first world' country that has the most Maoist influence is the US.

Maoism is a rejection of working class politics. The low level of class struggle in the States has convinced these people that class struggle is no longer possible. They can't connect to working class struggle in the US, so they turn to peasant struggle in the 'third world'.

Devrim

OI OI OI

7th September 2008, 19:06

Rawthentic

7th September 2008, 19:37

To me I don't think that it is surprising that the 'first world' country that has the most Maoist influence is the US.

Maoism is a rejection of working class politics. The low level of class struggle in the States has convinced these people that class struggle is no longer possible. They can't connect to working class struggle in the US, so they turn to peasant struggle in the 'third world'.
No.

Where have maoists been convinced that class struggle is not possible? lol.

Can't connect with the struggle in the US? Left communism doesnt even exist here whatsoever. To you, "working class struggle" means leafleting factories and striking, as if that has ever created a communist consciousness.

Maoists understand the need to lead the masses in struggle and wage struggle over the major theoretical questions facing humanity. Communists are "tribunes of the people" and their job is NOT to help workers strike or whatever.

I wont respond any longer to such ignorant comments that clearly have nothing to do with the US.

Devrim

7th September 2008, 19:54

Where have maoists been convinced that class struggle is not possible? lol.

I don't think that you are really getting what I am saying, are you?

Maoism from day one has not been a working class movement, but an anti-working class one. Maoists have never taken working class positions.

Can't connect with the struggle in the US? Left communism doesnt even exist here whatsoever.

Yes, we have absolutely tiny groups in the US, but in a way that is a reflection of the situation. Revolutionary currents don't exist in isolation from the class struggle. The communist left (along with other revolutionary currents) is weak because the class is weak. Maoism can portray its anti-working class ideology as socialism for precisely the same reason.

To you, "working class struggle" means leafleting factories and striking, as if that has ever created a communist consciousness.

These are involved in class struggle. The Bolsheviks did the same thing by the way. What by the way is the Maoist line...?

Maoists understand the need to lead the masses in struggle and wage struggle over the major theoretical questions facing humanity. Communists are "tribunes of the people" and their job is NOT to help workers strike or whatever.

Well that is clear,... so what does it actually mean? What are 'the major theoretical questions facing humanity'?

I wont respond any longer to such ignorant comments that clearly have nothing to do with the US.

'Ignorant' is your new favourite insult when stuck for an argument, isn't it?

Devrim

black magick hustla

7th September 2008, 21:53

The US has the most pitiful "revolutionary politics". Its either maoist students and their fetish for violence. or anarcho-hippies weaving yoghurt and thinking being perpetually high is some sort of political statement.

Not that I have anything against pot.

Winter

8th September 2008, 01:11

Maoism from day one has not been a working class movement, but an anti-working class one. Maoists have never taken working class positions.

So you mean liberating the little working class China had from oppressive imperialism was not a working class position?

The US has the most pitiful "revolutionary politics".

Bravo with the national chauvinism Marmot.

black magick hustla

8th September 2008, 01:21

*shrugs* I live in the US. I use to live in Mexico though. It has nothing to do with national chauvinism though. The American working class is the weakest compared to the others in the first world. This is why folks who associate themselves with "revolutionary politics" in the US tend to be post-leftist anarcho-hippies folk or silly maoist students.

Rawthentic

8th September 2008, 03:02

Rawthentic

8th September 2008, 03:13

Maoism from day one has not been a working class movement, but an anti-working class one. Maoists have never taken working class positions.No. From day one it has been a guide to liberation for millions of oppressed peoples around the world (black panthers, may 68, sartre, badiou, peru, philippines, nepal, india, etc., etc.)

The fact is, where there are major radical uprisings or revolutionary movements, maoists will always be at the fore, or at least in the mix.

Yes, we have absolutely tiny groups in the US, but in a way that is a reflection of the situation. Revolutionary currents don't exist in isolation from the class struggle. The communist left (along with other revolutionary currents) is weak because the class is weak. Maoism can portray its anti-working class ideology as socialism for precisely the same reason.so, when the class struggle begins to rise, so will left communism? I'd love to see that.

The reason maoism exists is because of the chinese revolution and its breakthoughs for communist theory (cultural revolution, NDR, etc) and the potential it has in the world today.

These are involved in class struggle. The Bolsheviks did the same thing by the way. What by the way is the Maoist line...?So, the bolsheviks did, it so you must do it that way? This is why I have said that left communists are some of the most dogmatic people I have ever debated with. There is no "concrete analysis of concrete conditions" (yes i like using that quote because it is so needed and so ignored) just the same decade old verdicts. This is why the kasama project exists (ie "reconceive as we regroup").

The maoist line is the basic leninist line. So communists who are influenced by economism go among the people and focus on those issues that are most immediate FOR THEM, and focus on mobilizing them against their own immediate oppressors (their employer, or feudal landlord, or the local cop, or whatever). And they expect that out of increasingly militant struggle (the police come and beat people on picket lines, or the newspapers attack a just struggle) the workers and oppressed will "see" that there is a larger system, and that it is the obstable to their dreams of a better life.

The problem with economism (as Lenin pointed out in What is to be done?) is that it is based on a false view of how people become conscious. And it ignores the fact that struggles people wage over their own most immediate oppression have a built in tendency to get drawn into BOURGEOIS politics (elections, deal making, fighting for a slice of the pie, reaching agreements with the employer etc.)

Lenin argues, correctly, that revolutionary consciousness of a communist kind can only come to people from OUTSIDE the realm of their own immediate experience. To become class conscious (in a revolutionary way) you need information that only comes from studying history, and economics, and world affairs, and the larger events of society.

And so, Lenin argues, the task of communists is to systematically bring such information and analysis to people. Instead of focusing people's attention ON THEMSELVES (AND HOW THEY ARE FUCKED OVER) a communist work strains to bring into focus ALL the forces in society, what their position is, their politics, their programs.

This is what the bolsheviks did (and what is to be done? is a classic work on how the consciousness of the people is transformed; it has great relevance to today) This is not what left communists do.

Well that is clear,... so what does it actually mean? What are 'the major theoretical questions facing humanity'?What it means is explained above.

The 'major questions' that do not have any real answers are:

How can we make revolution in the U.S. — in alliance with the people of surrounding countries, and the people of the world?
What does revolution look like in this era of interconnected highly urban society?
What are the social forces at the core of revolutionary change?
What is the society and mode of production that will (can) replace modern capitalism?
What does it look like to sever or transform the linkages of imperialism, transforming capitalist globalization to socialist globalization?
What is internationalism in our era — before and after the revolution?
What does it mean to critically examine assumptions of models (including the cherished and instructive model of “October Road.”)

These are questions that communists here and around the world need to engage with, collectively, fearlessly, scientifically, in order to create a movement and political force with roots amongst the people (and where communist politics can fluorish). Without doing this, without "reconceiving as we regroup", the purpose is defeated, and we cannot make revolution.

This is the basic maoist tenet of "concrete analysis of concrete conditions".

'Ignorant' is your new favourite insult when stuck for an argument, isn't it?Stuck? Where?

Die Neue Zeit

8th September 2008, 03:19

In fact, i dont even know why I engage you people here. Its not like anarchists or trotkysists where also in the real world we could debate and work together and whatnot. But you dont even exist.

Having ultra-lefts in a multi-tendency, class-strugglist, non-"reformist" organization does have its purpose: to have lively debates on the maximum program and to ensure that the dynamic minimum program doesn't degenerate into a vulgar minimum program of "daily struggles." :)

Devrim

8th September 2008, 06:23

So you mean liberating the little working class China had from oppressive imperialism was not a working class position?

I don't think that China was 'liberated from oppressive imperialism'.

Devrim

Devrim

8th September 2008, 06:34

I think Rawthentic is continuing to do a great job of explaining why cross class Maoism is an anti-working class ideology. He doesn't really need my help.

Devrim

black magick hustla

8th September 2008, 15:10

marmot:

I supposed what is needed is super r-r-revolutionary left-'communists' huh?

Im a maoist student, son of mexican immigrants. You got a fucking problem with that? Its about politics, dont make it about something else. Im sure the fact that left-communism has virtually no existence has a lot to say about it.

In fact, i dont even know why I engage you people here. Its not like anarchists or trotkysists where also in the real world we could debate and work together and whatnot. But you dont even exist.

Actually what the US needs is internationalists, not just left-communists. Unfortunately, you aren't an internationalist.

:shrugs: Left communism does exist as an international tendency. The mexican section of the ICC is the second biggest one for example. it is true that we are small, but if I was preocupied with how big a tendency is I would have joined the bourgeois left a long time ago, like maoists for example. Actually, I think the maoists in Mexico are really small. The biggest marxists are either those in the reformist left or trotskyists.

My whole argument is political. I am analyzing the material conditions in the US. The fact is that maoism is suitable for the american conditions because it completely abandons the concept of class and instead argues for nebolous concepts like new democracy and anti-imperialist fronts.

Leo

8th September 2008, 17:09

Im a maoist student (...) You got a fucking problem with that?I actually find your and other american maoists situation to be quite hilarious, consider it a "problem" if you want.

I know a lot about maoists here as well as the ones generally in the third world. I know about their politics, their organizational structures and so forth. I know about the internal tortures in their organizations, I know how relatives of their leaders were treated like princes and princesses, even in the prisons with their fucking servant "comrades" and all, I know how their politics were anti-working class and nationalist, and I know why it is necessary for revolutionaries to oppose their politics as well as their methods. I also know that people they recruit as militants take serious risks, go through torture, prison, hunger strike and even execution.

and american maoists are people who think all this shit is "cool" and fantasize about it without understanding the first bit of it. Yeah, it's ridiculous. It is something everyone who actually has an idea what maoism is and knows about the situation of maoists in the us laughs about. You people haven't got the slightest idea what you are talking about. You never think these things through. you are talking here of the "national democratic revolution" and "new democracy" and "cultural revolution" as if they are some supreme bits of wisdom and you haven't even got the clue how it was in practice, or how it was actually applied in the "peripheral" countries, or what maoists meant when they talked about it. You simply think it's "cool" and "right" and that's it.

You say "im sure the fact that left-communism has virtually no existence has a lot to say about it." And that's the whole point for you, isn't it? All you saw of left communism were a bunch of "crazy fuckers" from Mexico or the middle east or england where there was a bunch of "cool" maoist kids in your neighborhood.

in what it expresses, the whole situation is sad, but of course it ain't much better than young peasants and students getting themselves killed for the interests of their organizational lords.

Rawthentic

8th September 2008, 17:23

and american maoists are people who think all this shit is "cool" and fantasize about it without understanding the first bit of it. Yeah, it's ridiculous. It is something everyone who actually has an idea what maoism is and knows about the situation of maoists in the us laughs about. You people haven't got the slightest idea what you are talking about. you are talking here of the "national democratic revolution" and "new democracy" and "cultural revolution" as if they are some supreme bits of wisdom and you haven't even got the clue how it was in practice, or how it was actually applied in the "peripheral" countries, or what maoists meant when they talked about it. You simply think it's "cool" and "right" and that's it.

I understand maoism, and what i means for the world. If not, I would never have taken the time to study it. I know it hurts that you dont exist, which is why I dont give much weight to these types of rants.

I dont have a clue about the GPCR...give me a break.

And there are no "maoist kids" in my neighborhood, but there are millions of workers and peasants around the world being led by maoists to actually make revolution, to actually change society based on actual conditions, not old, outdated, dogmatic verdicts.

Goodbye.

Leo

8th September 2008, 17:46

And there are no "maoist kids" in my neighborhood, but there are millions of workers and peasants around the world being led by maoists

i'm from the part of the world where you "brag" that there are "millions of workers and peasants" that are "lead" by maoists mate.

you don't have a clue what you are talking about whatsoever.

Rawthentic

8th September 2008, 18:13

I am not talking about turkey, im talking about nepal, india, the philippines, not to mention what happened in china.

Of course I have all the clues of what I am talking about.

Like i said, in any and every revolutionary movement, wherever in the world, maoists will always be in the mix, if not leading (and for a good reason) while left communists will keep on the fringe (or not even that) criticizing communists using their ultra 'revolutionary' words.

Thats why whatever you say doesnt really phase me much.

black magick hustla

8th September 2008, 19:02

{Quote}Like i said, in any and every revolutionary movement, wherever in the world, maoists will always be in the mix, if not leading (and for a good reason) while left communists will keep on the fringe (or not even that) criticizing communists using their ultra 'revolutionary' words.{/Quote}

lol i am sure you are all action too. i bet you are waging a protracted peoples war in the smoky mountains

Winter

8th September 2008, 20:25

lol i am sure you are all action too. i bet you are waging a protracted peoples war in the smoky mountains

Once again, we come across the whole "Why aren't you fighting a peoples war in America" remark. Even those with little to no knowledge of Maoism realize that the United States does not require a peoples war to rid ourselves of imperialists who would stagnate socialism. But you know this Marmot, and you're just mocking him at this point.

I understand the Communist Left will never see the perspective of Maoists and other Marxists-Leninists Anti-Revisionists. Considering that there will be no conclusion to this endless debating I see no reason to convince anybody of why Marxism-Leninism is superior.

All I can do at this point is to explain why I have chosen the path I have chosen:

At one point I was pretty idealistic myself on the whole question of "Was the Soviet Union a proper model for socialism?" I trusted the information I was given and believed the propaganda of Stalin being an evil man along with Mao being a failure. I was quite certain that an actual socialist country never existed and that progress can only come about by means of a world revolution. Obviously, that is a goal for all of us, but then I began to ponder why should we discredit national socialist progress I was confronted with a grave concern. This concern brought me to where I stand today. Was it wise for me to believe the history that I was taught? Should I ignore that all true statement that "the winners write history" and if so, how much more misinformation was I recieving by living in the country of the victors? I began to research history from the point of view of those living in the USSR and China at the times of revolution and socialism. These unbiased sources informed me of all the information I needed to conclude that the capitalist propaganda that was being fed to me were straight distortions of actual events. Sure, socialism may have not unfolded the way we thought it would, but we must accept reality for what it is. A classless world cannot come about without harsh methods. We should not try to run away from the examples of the past; we should correct and perfect ourselves by looking upon their mistakes.

It pretty much comes down to whos version of history you want to believe. The capitalist elite class will do all it can to divide us. In the end, when certain methods become applicable within our enviroment, we shall see where our paths lead us. Thanks for taking the time to read this.

gilhyle

8th September 2008, 20:53

Communists are "tribunes of the people" and their job is NOT to help workers strike or whatever.

I know Im harping on about the original point, when the rest of you have moved on. But it is very clear to me that revolutionary socialist unity with people who dont believe in working with, participating in strike action would be quite impossible for Trotskyists.....and rightly so. Trotskyists, CPers, left communists, left social democrats, cliffites, many anarchists etc. can all at least share this basic reference point. And it cant be shared with these maoists. Rawthenthics posts are very clear on this...and that is the lesson to take from this thread, i.e. that it is not a clear sign of trotskyist sectarianism that they dont form party organisations with Maoists....on the contrary, there is little or no basis (at least in the imperialist countries) for any sort of operational unity in action, whether in some form of united front or one party, between people who do and people who dont believe that it is worth while supporting workers in strike action.

Rawthentic

8th September 2008, 21:30

I never said we should not support workers in strikes, of course we should! Dont distort what I said. But, to think that the duty of a communist is to lead strikes (when has that ever made revolution or created consciousness?) is wrong. I explained this a few posts above.

Communists need to identify what are called fault line struggles, movements that arise amongst the people that bring up questions about the nature of the system itself. For example, in the united states, the immigrant workers struggle is such a struggle, because it poses an issue that the ruling class cannot solve, and also brings up questions of racism and imperialism. Historically, police brutality and anti-war have been such fault lines as well.

Winter

8th September 2008, 21:39

I know Im harping on about the original point, when the rest of you have moved on. But it is very clear to me that revolutionary socialist unity with people who dont believe in working with, participating in strike action would be quite impossible for Trotskyists.....and rightly so. Trotskyists, CPers, left communists, left social democrats, cliffites, many anarchists etc. can all at least share this basic reference point. And it cant be shared with these maoists. Rawthenthics posts are very clear on this...and that is the lesson to take from this thread, i.e. that it is not a clear sign of trotskyist sectarianism that they dont form party organisations with Maoists....on the contrary, there is little or no basis (at least in the imperialist countries) for any sort of operational unity in action, whether in some form of united front or one party, between people who do and people who dont believe that it is worth while supporting workers in strike action.

Let us look at Rawthentic's reply in it's full context:

This is what somebody else said:

To me I don't think that it is surprising that the 'first world' country that has the most Maoist influence is the US.

Maoism is a rejection of working class politics. The low level of class struggle in the States has convinced these people that class struggle is no longer possible. They can't connect to working class struggle in the US, so they turn to peasant struggle in the 'third world'.

No.

Where have maoists been convinced that class struggle is not possible? lol.

Can't connect with the struggle in the US? Left communism doesnt even exist here whatsoever. To you, "working class struggle" means leafleting factories and striking, as if that has ever created a communist consciousness.

Rawthentic is clearly comparing armed resistance which is taking place in many under-developed countries with what is taking place in the US and the rest of the first world. I believe his point is that socialist uprisings in the third world are far more revolutionary and progressive than anything we can do here in the first world. Personally, and I think Rawthentic would agree, leafletting and striking are pretty progressive in their own right here in the U.S., but just how much progress can they bring? To a point of armed struggle? It hasn't yet. It is unlikely for this to occur in the U.S. until economic and social conditions come to a point where the whole working class can be united to tear the system down.

Maoists understand the need to lead the masses in struggle and wage struggle over the major theoretical questions facing humanity. Communists are "tribunes of the people" and their job is NOT to help workers strike or whatever.

The first and foremost struggle to be confronted with in the third world is to free that country from imperialist domination. This does not neccesary refer to blatant colonizing. Reaping resources and cheap labor bars that country from ever developing in it's own right. The masses who oppose this type of imperialism must gather together, led by the working class and the vanguard party. I think Rawthentic is looking at the functions of Communism from this perspective.