Is This Theory Compatible With Left Communism?

Over this last summer, my political outlook has been in flux, especially behind the scenes. Slowly but surely, I've been developing what I consider a distinctive communist theory. I recently briefly highlighted some of the main aspects thereof on this thread, the relevant portion of which I'll re-post below:

-The Soviet Union became a capitalist country in 1935 (and a specifically imperialist country in 1939), not 1956.

-Partially as a result of that, Mao significantly underestimated the direness of the situation in the mid-'60s and hence prescribed an inadequate solution.

-The Cultural Revolution should have been continued to its logical conclusion: the complete destruction and replacement of the old state and the old party with a new union of socialist communes and a whole new communist party, with the Cultural Revolution Group, the Red Guards, and the Shanghai Commune being the embryos thereof.

-The short-lived Shanghai Commune is what I consider an approximate model of socialism for the future.

-Socialist parliaments, secondary as they must always be, should be divided into two chambers: one featuring open elections and the other featuring contested elections between party members (who must be free to run on their individual political positions). The second chamber of which I speak may also allow general members of its revolutionary united front to contest perhaps one-third of the seats. Ultimately, once communism is entered into, this second chamber can be abolished. Its role must also progressively diminish over the course of the world revolution.

-Socialist countries shouldn't have and shouldn't seek diplomatic relations with capitalist countries, period.

-No socialist country should feature a national constitution. National constitutions should be understand as bourgeois implements, designed to perpetuate a certain status quo, whereas socialism by contrast must always be revolutionary in nature.

-Socialist states encompassing multiple nations must take the form of a confederation, not that of a federal system.

-Traditional forms of democratic centralism must be abolished. All command structures within communist parties must be abolished and organized factions recognized and tolerated. Only a party organized on this foundation can provide the atmosphere of open debate necessary to get at the truth of things and make the party's politics (both internally and externally) truly democratic in nature.

-Correct revolutionary tactics entail communists playing a genuinely vanguard role, taking part in and leading militant resistance, not just being "good protesters" and pamphleteers. In countries like the USA, our propaganda/political work should also initially be disproportionately online, where it can have a broader social impact.

-Correct revolutionary strategy entails establishing real base areas (no, bookstores don't count as "base areas") more or less immediately, not at some vague point in the distant future. Also, some variation of people's war (whether mostly urban or mostly rural) is a correct revolutionary strategy virtually everywhere.

-Third world communists can and should seek to unite with nationalist elements that are in opposition to comprador regimes. (Including yes jihadist nationalists.) Comprador forces can be united with tactically (not strategically, a.k.a. permanently) in the event of...and only in the event of...an outright foreign invasion.

-And more.

I wondered if anyone here might see the above theory as potentially qualifying me as an official left communist at this point? I realize that the said theory is distinctive, i.e. not in absolute accordance with the views of any existing group, including the likes of which prevail here (e.g. the ICC), but I meant in a more general sense than total agreement. I mean, tentatively one thing I was thinking of calling this for example was "Left Maoism", but that may be aping too much, I'm not sure. I tentatively call it that not because it's really 'purist' and 'all clear' in an idealist sense, but because it's primarily inspired by the thinking and practice of the more left wing elements of the CCP during the Cultural Revolution period (as in those elements left of Mao). But I feel that I have learned some lessons so far from studying up more on the 'communist left' and the positions of mine that have accordingly changed are also integrated into the theory described above. (Namely on the question of party structure, and I want to thank MilitantWorker in particular for providing me with valuable resources on that.)

All in all, it seems to me that about half or so of the positions listed above are pretty common to the 'communist left' in general, while the other half or so represent specifically Maoist elements. But I mean, it kinda seems like this to me: The ICC's line for instance might be described as "Left Leninism", to coin a term. My position is somewhat similar, only more in the 'Mao orbit' than the 'Lenin orbit'. I also figure this thread might serve as a good venue through which to maybe thrash out some of these individual issues anyway, understanding them as part of this broader theory. But anyhow, again, is the theory described above sufficiently "left", do you think, to be justifiably described as left communist?

-The Soviet Union became a capitalist country in 1935 (and a specifically imperialist country in 1939), not 1956.

-Correct revolutionary strategy entails establishing real base areas (no, bookstores don't count as "base areas") more or less immediately, not at some vague point in the distant future. Also, some variation of people's war (whether mostly urban or mostly rural) is a correct revolutionary strategy virtually everywhere.

-Third world communists can and should seek to unite with nationalist elements that are in opposition to comprador regimes. (Including yes jihadist nationalists.) Comprador forces can be united with tactically (not strategically, a.k.a. permanently) in the event of...and only in the event of...an outright foreign invasion.

At first glance I'd say these stances would be opposed by left communists.

agree with bricolage. Just to take one key point: most left communists would argue that all forms of nationalism, whether defined as national defence, national liberation, or anti-imperialism, have become reactionary, and that is the case since the capitalist definitively system entered its period of decline since 1914.

Think it's great that militants are ready to question their previous ideas a reflection of the times we live in with the deadend of various leftist groups. The struggle for Marxist clarity is part of the revolutionary struggle and one that can bring Marxist militants eventually together organisationally. One important point that is missing from discussion is the recognition that a communist revolution must be the conscious action of the world working class. That it's the class that must make the revolution and not the action of "the party."

Think it's great that militants are ready to question their previous ideas a reflection of the times we live in with the deadend of various leftist groups. The struggle for Marxist clarity is part of the revolutionary struggle and one that can bring Marxist militants eventually together organisationally. One important point that is missing from discussion is the recognition that a communist revolution must be the conscious action of the world working class. That it's the class that must make the revolution and not the action of "the party."

this idea maybe be missing from the OP, but im sure everyone that considers themselves left coms in this group accepts that notion

The Soviet Union became a capitalist country in 1935 (and a specifically imperialist country in 1939), not 1956.

Why in 1935?

Devrim

- The USSR had shown imperialist tendencies and 'become imperialist' much earlier than 1939, and demonstrated state capitalism much earlier than 1935. However, capitalist social relations don't disappear overnight. Even during the genuinely proletarian portion of the October revolution and years after, capitalism still existed, as it would in a future revolutionary wave until the revolution had spread to large parts of the capitalist heartland and periphery.

- Cultural Revolution was a travesty, organized Workerism.

- Shanghai Commune was an example of 'socialism from above', nothing else. It's similar to the way the Yugoslav party and state legislated participation in 'workers councils'- it goes against the organic nature of working class organizations in a revolutionary period. The Shanghai Commune represented a moment in the life of the state capitalist autarky ruling China where the old totalitarian form of government was bursting at the seams of worker and peasant anger and disillusionment. It was an attempt at finding a better means of control, a more acceptable way to govern. It was established and then replaced with what became the new form of government under Mao- the 'revolutionary committees' in every district/region (a body made up of Party members, army representatives, and local citizens).

The Shanghai Commune of 1927 was a genuine expression of the proletariat- unlike the one that came about 40 years later.

'Peoples war' is a bunk theory, it has nothing to do with genuine proletarian struggle.

There is no such thing as 'real existing socialism'; the revolutionary wave must be global and it must be victorious or it will fall and fade away. Communists must know when the struggle is over for the world working class, and after the struggle maintain the lessons and theoretical advances made for the next revolutionary wave. Any attempt to 'hold on to' the gains of the revolutionary wave will result in those gains becoming bourgeois (examples: the USSR, the Communist Parties, etc).

I think the description you gave of your ideas being better considered 'Left Maoism' is correct. The body of work and collective history known as Left Communism wouldn't agree with or support any of the points listed.

Here's a good read on what left communists think of national liberation and Maoism:

- http://en.internationalism.org/ir/068_natlib_02.html

- http://en.internationalism.org/ir/094_china_part3.html

Wow. Harsh. Maybe I don't have as much in common with you guys as I thought.

Okay well, I still want to at least go ahead and thrash out certain positions you all are taking that I've just never really understood. Let's start here...

Alf wrote:
Just to take one key point: most left communists would argue that all forms of nationalism, whether defined as national defence, national liberation, or anti-imperialism, have become reactionary, and that is the case since the capitalist definitively system entered its period of decline since 1914.

See to me it's not really that communists should be nationalists at all, but that I definitely think self-determination is part and parcel to authentic communism and that, as such, communists should be willing to unite with third world nationalists who are resisting the actual colonization of their lands. In reading the ICC's list of principles, one finds that they oppose national self-determination. This to me cannot but have a social-imperialist ring to it. Wouldn't you agree? I mean surely communist revolution doesn't in practice mean that some foreign army just comes in and imposes "socialism" on an unwilling population! I've argued elsewhere, in opposing the Afghanistan War, that no country can be democratic which lacks self-determination. I would think we should recognize that principle ourselves and apply it rigorously. This is a major area where I think communists come up short in the past and I think we should learn from those shortcomings.

devoration1 wrote:
'Peoples war' is a bunk theory, it has nothing to do with genuine proletarian struggle.

I strongly disagree and would argue that you're basically thinking of proletarian revolution as a form of identity politics. It isn't in the class interest of the proletariat to be construed as an identity group, but to be the motive force for revolution.

The Chinese Communists, in making people's war, were applying the principle that the primary revolutionary fighting force (as contrasted with the motive force) must be the social base of the society in question. The social base of a feudal society is the vast peasantry, not the tiny and well-contained proletariat.

The October Revolution, if anything, more much more the exception than the rule in terms of how communist revolution can be made. There were a host of special conditions applicable to Russia at the time of the October Revolution that have scarcely been principally replicated anywhere or any time since then. In particular, Russia at the time was at once an imperialist country and an internally backward country. This is an extraordinarily rare condition for any state to find itself in, and it brought with itself special opportunities to seize power that simply aren't commonly replicated at all. Namely: At once a large part of the military was out of the major urban centers (engaged in a war of aggression) and there was pretty much nothing yet in the way of bourgeoisification of the proletariat. (i.e. There were no significant bought-off sections of the proletariat yet.) This made it comparatively easy for the Bolsheviks to lead the way to a near-bloodless seizure of state power in November of 1917. But we here in the 21st century USA do not enjoy the luxury of such favorable conditions for revolution, and neither did the Chinese Communists. China was an oppressed nation, not an imperialist one, and, as a result, the enemy found the major urban areas to be their strongholds, where they could concentrate their armed forces. But even in the case of Russia and its hitherto colonies, you'll note that, in spite of how relatively easily they had managed to seize power, they still had to fight a full-fledged civil war in order to consolidate that. The only real, principle difference between the Russian revolutionary experience and the Chinese revolutionary experience then, in terms of seizing and consolidating state power, was that in Russia they had favorable conditions to work with that enabled them to easily seize power in the major cities and then basically liberate the countryside from those urban bases, whereas in China they had to apply that formula in reverse, first liberating the countryside and then taking the cities from without.

Here in the USA and countries like it, we find ourselves in an imperialist set-up wherein large chunks of the proletariat form a labor aristocracy. But we also find that the enemy here has largely abandoned certain urban areas (slums in particular) where many of the very poorest people live. These areas, I think, make for potential revolutionary base areas from which a successful guerilla war can be waged. If you want to succeed, you have to attack the enemy where the enemy is weak and build from there.

- Cultural Revolution was a travesty, organized Workerism.

My perspective on the essence of the Cultural Revolution can be found here.

- Shanghai Commune was an example of 'socialism from above', nothing else. It's similar to the way the Yugoslav party and state legislated participation in 'workers councils'- it goes against the organic nature of working class organizations in a revolutionary period. The Shanghai Commune represented a moment in the life of the state capitalist autarky ruling China where the old totalitarian form of government was bursting at the seams of worker and peasant anger and disillusionment. It was an attempt at finding a better means of control, a more acceptable way to govern. It was established and then replaced with what became the new form of government under Mao- the 'revolutionary committees' in every district/region (a body made up of Party members, army representatives, and local citizens).

The Shanghai Commune of 1927 was a genuine expression of the proletariat- unlike the one that came about 40 years later.

How do you figure? I mean yeah, Mao especially made a major mistake in seeking to limit the revolutionary potential of the Shanghai Commune to more secondary advances in the form of People's Committees (thereby causing to cease being a Commune very quickly), but I don't connect that fact to inevitability. Rather, I connect it to an incorrect assessment of the historical record and to yes a certain failure in terms of trusting the masses to make revolution for themselves. But I think this type of thing (the Shanghai Commune model) should instead have been synthesized and systemized, with the Cultural Revolution Group directing the Red Guards to similarly raise revolts in other areas systematically and urging the emergent Communes to form a new people's army with which to take on and defeat the regular army. This could have produced a radically different and much more advanced type of socialist state and system, I think. And there were some more advanced sections of the CCP that came closer than Mao to recognizing the need for such an approach. Namely, consider the examples of Lin Biao and Jiang Qing, who come to mind easily. These two recommended that the Cultural Revolution be applied to the army. And after the Wuhan Incident, Jiang Qing advised the Red Guards to actually replace the army if need be. Ultimately both of these two revolutionary leaders would lead attempts to seize power in different ways, with I think Jiang Jing's organization of people's militias being the better of the two. The problem I see with her is that she had too much of a sentimental attachment to her husband and accordingly was never really able to break with him. By the time the people's militias got going shortly after Mao's death, it was too late, and the reactionaries easily defeated them and had all the remaining revolutionaries in the state arrested.

[quote=Monkey Riding Dragon]

communists should be willing to unite with third world nationalists who are resisting the actual colonization of their lands.

National Liberation is an impossibility in the age of capitalist decadence any progressive function national liberation had has long since disappeared. Any communist who urges workers to ally themselves with any nationalist third world or not signs the death warrent of the respective proletariats. Nationalists are bourgeoise and can only bo so in todays capitalist world market. To me what seems to happen is that one bunch of bourgeisie seeks to ally themselves with one of the major capitalist powers. The proletariat needs to fight on our class terrain and this needs to be independent and conscious of the need to be part of a global working class revolution.

Wow. Harsh. Maybe I don't have as much in common with you guys as I thought.

I didn't mean to come off as being negative, just not in agreement The internet has a funny way of translating personality.

See to me it's not really that communists should be nationalists at all, but that I definitely think self-determination is part and parcel to authentic communism and that, as such, communists should be willing to unite with third world nationalists who are resisting the actual colonization of their lands. In reading the ICC's list of principles, one finds that they oppose national self-determination. This to me cannot but have a social-imperialist ring to it. Wouldn't you agree? I mean surely communist revolution doesn't in practice mean that some foreign army just comes in and imposes "socialism" on an unwilling population! I've argued elsewhere, in opposing the Afghanistan War, that no country can be democratic which lacks self-determination. I would think we should recognize that principle ourselves and apply it rigorously. This is a major area where I think communists come up short in the past and I think we should learn from those shortcomings.

Regarding your final statement, I think it has been the opposite- that communists have been far, far too willing to give the benefit of the doubt to nationalist, authoritarian, militarist, reactionary counter-revolutionary groups- just because they are from semi-colonial, colonial or simply poor/non-white regions or nations.

Left communism opposes all wars as imperialist wars, and all sections of the bourgeoisie as equally reactionary. Specifically, starting from the beginning of the decadence of capital on a global scale, it became impossible to 1) wrest durable reforms from the bourgeoisie and 2) it became impossible for a 'progressive' faction of the bourgeoisie to exist as an ally of a section of the proletariat. This was demonstrated with violent, brutal results in Turkey & China in the 1920's. Today, leftists (Maoists, Trotskyists, etc) want to support or 'critically' support regimes like those in Nepal. The Nepalese Maoists have simply entered into a bourgeois government, maintain capitalist production and social relations, act against the proletariat (bans on strikes, etc) and so on. They are simply another faction of the ruling class, with nothing positive to offer the workers.

I strongly disagree and would argue that you're basically thinking of proletarian revolution as a form of identity politics. It isn't in the class interest of the proletariat to be construed as an identity group, but to be the motive force for revolution.

The Chinese Communists, in making people's war, were applying the principle that the primary revolutionary fighting force (as contrasted with the motive force) must be the social base of the society in question. The social base of a feudal society is the vast peasantry, not the tiny and well-contained proletariat.

This I think is at the heart of the disagreement. Left communists believe that the working class is the only revolutionary class. The other non-exploiting strata of society (portions of the petit-bourgeoisie like the peasantry, the managerial/professional class, lumpenproletariat, etc) are not class enemies, but they are not the revolutionary subjects. They will be liberated in the course of a proletarian revolution; but they are not the subject or force of the revolution, this position can only be held by the proletariat because of their relation to the capitalist mode of production. Communist revolution is not about 'the people', it is about 'the working class'.

The October Revolution, if anything, more much more the exception than the rule in terms of how communist revolution can be made. There were a host of special conditions applicable to Russia at the time of the October Revolution that have scarcely been principally replicated anywhere or any time since then. In particular, Russia at the time was at once an imperialist country and an internally backward country.

All nations since the advent of capitalist decadence are imperialist. Some are stronger than others and thus dominant, but that doesn't mean the weaker or smaller nations are any less imperialistic. This includes backward and oppressed nations. The situation since the collapse of Bretton-Woods and the Bloc's in the 1980's (the ICC calls this the opening of a new period in capitalist decadence, decomposition) has changed again, where now it is each against all. Everyone for their self, the old bloc system used to hold these imperialist rivalries and challanges in check. Example: French and German bourgeoisie acting against the interests of the American bourgeoisie in the Middle East. Georgia vs Russia in South Ossetia and Abhkhazia, etc.

This is an extraordinarily rare condition for any state to find itself in, and it brought with itself special opportunities to seize power that simply aren't commonly replicated at all.

I disagree that it is rare for a nation to be imperialist and backward and at war. All revolutionary periods will be unique and dynamic- learning from and applying the lessons of past revolutionary waves is different from trying to re-create the exact course of a past revolutionary attempt.

Namely: At once a large part of the military was out of the major urban centers (engaged in a war of aggression) and there was pretty much nothing yet in the way of bourgeoisification of the proletariat. (i.e. There were no significant bought-off sections of the proletariat yet.) This made it comparatively easy for the Bolsheviks to lead the way to a near-bloodless seizure of state power in November of 1917.

So you believe in the 'Labor Aristocracy'? Left communism rejects the idea. There are workers who are paid better than others. But all workers are equal in their position in relation to the means of production, surplus value, etc. I don't believe that groups of the proletariat are the 'class enemy' or 'bourgeoisified'. Workers holding reactionary views is normal (because the ruling ideas of an epoch are those of its ruling class- nationalism, racism, sexism, religious superstition, etc) but they are still revolutionary subjects.

But we here in the 21st century USA do not enjoy the luxury of such favorable conditions for revolution, and neither did the Chinese Communists.

China had a genuine proletarian revolutionary wave in the 1920's, culminating in the brutal repression and massacre of the Shanghai workers (the original Shanghai Commune of 1927) by our 'nationalist oppressed ally' the Koumingtang and Chang Kai-Shek. This policy of national liberation-rights of nations to self determination held by the Third International lead directly to the repression of the genuine proletarian currents and organizations in China (and Turkey and Persia and a host of other nations).

A little known history is that there were embryonic soviets established in several places in the United States around 1919. Events like the Seattle General Strike and the establishment of worker's councils are evident that even in the capitalist heartland where the conditions do not seem favorable (and 1919 was a bad year for workers in America- strikers and unionists were being shot and tortured openly everywhere) the working class is capable of surging forward its class interests and setting in motion its revolutionary potential.

China was an oppressed nation, not an imperialist one, and, as a result, the enemy found the major urban areas to be their strongholds, where they could concentrate their armed forces. But even in the case of Russia and its hitherto colonies, you'll note that, in spite of how relatively easily they had managed to seize power, they still had to fight a full-fledged civil war in order to consolidate that.

Parts of the national Chinese bourgeoisie were weakened as a result of foreign exploitation (specifically the landowners and aristocracy/monarchy) however, Mao represented the national bourgeoisie. Large elements of the Koumingtang (aside from its right wing and far right wing, which continued to resist the CPC and eventually fled to Taiwan) defected and joined the CPC- becoming part of the upper echelon of the new ruling class and political order of China. Mao's "revolution" was a civil war and coup de etat, it was not a workers revolution, it was a bourgeois coup following a civil war between left and right wing bourgeois factions.

The only real, principle difference between the Russian revolutionary experience and the Chinese revolutionary experience then, in terms of seizing and consolidating state power, was that in Russia they had favorable conditions to work with that enabled them to easily seize power in the major cities and then basically liberate the countryside from those urban bases, whereas in China they had to apply that formula in reverse, first liberating the countryside and then taking the cities from without.

The difference is that in Russia there was a genuine proletarian revolution- starting in the class party, strike committee's, then the factory committee's and worker's councils, which first instituted a kind of dual-power/authority with the bourgeois state (Constituent Assembly) followed by the expansion of the Red Guards and workers militias and the insurrection which toppled the bourgeois state and the remnents of bourgeois political and military power. The working class had established a monopoly on arms and political power through the factory committees, worker's councils and worker militias/Red Guards. In China, you had a faction of the bourgeoisie which took over the former workers party (whose genuine leadership had been decimated in the repression of the 1920s genuine revolutionary wave in China) in the form of Mao and his rightwing of the old CPC, who then raised a large peasant army on petit-bourgeois promises regarding taxation and land reform, and fought a war against another faction of the national Chinese bourgeoisie for control of the state.

Here in the USA and countries like it, we find ourselves in an imperialist set-up wherein large chunks of the proletariat form a labor aristocracy. But we also find that the enemy here has largely abandoned certain urban areas (slums in particular) where many of the very poorest people live. These areas, I think, make for potential revolutionary base areas from which a successful guerilla war can be waged. If you want to succeed, you have to attack the enemy where the enemy is weak and build from there.

I disagree entirely. I've already said my piece on labor aristocracy, however I disagree with 'urban guerillasism', as does left communism in general. An insurrection is the final stage of a proletarian revolution, and the Maoist theories of urban warfare aren't relevant to it. There are no 'weak spots' in capitalism- no 'weak links in the chain' anymore. It is impossible to establish 'bases' within this system from which to 'escape' its domination or exert control. It's all or nothing, it's a global revolutionary wave or it isn't, there are no inbetweens. I don't agree that there are areas that have been 'given up' by world capitalism.

How do you figure? I mean yeah, Mao especially made a major mistake in seeking to limit the revolutionary potential of the Shanghai Commune to more secondary advances in the form of People's Committees (thereby causing to cease being a Commune very quickly), but I don't connect that fact to inevitability. Rather, I connect it to an incorrect assessment of the historical record and to yes a certain failure in terms of trusting the masses to make revolution for themselves.

I don't believe there was a proletarian revolution in China. I see the Chinese Communist Party as a bourgois party. If the revolution is not made by the workers themselves, it isn't their revolution, it cannot benefit them. The Shanghai Commune came about due to massive resistance to the system of government established in China by the KMT and Maoist CPC. In search for an alternative, they tried the 'Shanghai Commune', which in reality was an organization of local delegates (local workers), local students in the 'Red Guards' (which were just a state youth group) and local CPC representatives. It's very similar in structure to most bourgois states- it's nothing like a soviet/workers council or factory committee or mass assembly (genuine expressions of working class political power). This was replaced very quickly with a more efficient model of government that could be controlled easier (by including the PLA).

But I think this type of thing (the Shanghai Commune model) should instead have been synthesized and systemized, with the Cultural Revolution Group directing the Red Guards to similarly raise revolts in other areas systematically and urging the emergent Communes to form a new people's army with which to take on and defeat the regular army. This could have produced a radically different and much more advanced type of socialist state and system, I think. And there were some more advanced sections of the CCP that came closer than Mao to recognizing the need for such an approach. Namely, consider the examples of Lin Biao and Jiang Qing, who come to mind easily. These two recommended that the Cultural Revolution be applied to the army. And after the Wuhan Incident, Jiang Qing advised the Red Guards to actually replace the army if need be. Ultimately both of these two revolutionary leaders would lead attempts to seize power in different ways, with I think Jiang Jing's organization of people's militias being the better of the two. The problem I see with her is that she had too much of a sentimental attachment to her husband and accordingly was never really able to break with him. By the time the people's militias got going shortly after Mao's death, it was too late, and the reactionaries easily defeated them and had all the remaining revolutionaries in the state arrested.

I think that regardless of the radical rhetoric and Marxist language, the result would've been the same. Titoists often point to Yugoslavia as being 'more progressive' or radical than the USSR or other pseudo-'socialist' states. But it's really the same thing there as you describe- the authoritarian, bourgois government using radical language and legislating government organization.

I'd highly recommend the ICC's 3 part series on the Chinese 'Revolution' and Maoism, and the left communist perspective on it and why:

Part 1) China's "Revolution" Of 1949: A Link In The Chain Of Imperialist War

http://en.internationalism.org/ir/081_china.htm

Part 2) China 1928-1949: A Link In The Chain Of Imperialist War

http://en.internationalism.org/ir/084_china_2.html

Part 3) Maoism: A Monstrous Offspring of Decadent Capitalism

http://en.internationalism.org/ir/094_china_part3.html

I didn't mean to come off as being negative, just not in agreement The internet has a funny way of translating personality.

It's all good. No worries.

(I'm gonna leave the topic of 'all nations are imperialist' aside in this reply because we're already discussing the matter on a separate topic. And I can also see there are significant areas on which we just aren't going to agree, so I'll be focusing in on those areas where I think there might be some chance of coming into more agreement.)

Today, leftists (Maoists, Trotskyists, etc) want to support or 'critically' support regimes like those in Nepal. The Nepalese Maoists have simply entered into a bourgeois government, maintain capitalist production and social relations, act against the proletariat (bans on strikes, etc) and so on. They are simply another faction of the ruling class, with nothing positive to offer the workers.

In my observation, the vast majority of RevLefters are basically eclectics who are willing to embrace just about any party or regime that uses pseudo-Marxist or vaguely socialist rhetoric. Even Chavez's Venezuela seems to be quite popular here. But as for specifically Maoists, Maoism today seems about evenly divided between the revisionist Prachanda camp and others. I'm in the "others" category myself. Some time ago, I wrote a blog entry on the subject.

All nations since the advent of capitalist decadence are imperialist. Some are stronger than others and thus dominant, but that doesn't mean the weaker or smaller nations are any less imperialistic. This includes backward and oppressed nations. The situation since the collapse of Bretton-Woods and the Bloc's in the 1980's (the ICC calls this the opening of a new period in capitalist decadence, decomposition) has changed again, where now it is each against all. Everyone for their self, the old bloc system used to hold these imperialist rivalries and challanges in check. Example: French and German bourgeoisie acting against the interests of the American bourgeoisie in the Middle East. Georgia vs Russia in South Ossetia and Abhkhazia, etc.

I have a tendency to see it as the end of the Cold War represented the victory of U.S. imperialism and a short (but still ongoing) period of overall U.S. hegemonic domination of the globe. But in spite of its greatest attempts, American imperialism of course has been unable to prevent the emergence of new rivals, who are becoming increasingly resilient. This system offers, in a broad sense, two possible futures: either a third world war or a second cold war between the United States on the one hand and China on the other. Either way the world is in increasing danger of nuclear war.

So you believe in the 'Labor Aristocracy'? Left communism rejects the idea. There are workers who are paid better than others. But all workers are equal in their position in relation to the means of production, surplus value, etc. I don't believe that groups of the proletariat are the 'class enemy' or 'bourgeoisified'. Workers holding reactionary views is normal (because the ruling ideas of an epoch are those of its ruling class- nationalism, racism, sexism, religious superstition, etc) but they are still revolutionary subjects.

By labor aristocracy I refer to those workers who, in this country for example, might make an income of $60,000 a year or more. These workers clearly have a lot in common in terms of wealth and access to capital with the middle strata, and this, I think, impacts upon them ideologically as well, making it qualitatively more difficult to win them over to the idea of revolution. I don't mean to describe these workers as a "class enemy". They must be won over. I just mean that our main emphasis needs to be on those who are the most deeply oppressed and exploited.

In my observation, the vast majority of RevLefters are basically eclectics who are willing to embrace just about any party or regime that uses pseudo-Marxist or vaguely socialist rhetoric. Even Chavez's Venezuela seems to be quite popular here. But as for specifically Maoists, Maoism today seems about evenly divided between the revisionist Prachanda camp and others. I'm in the "others" category myself. Some time ago, I wrote a blog entry on the subject.

One thing I'd like to mention at the start is that when I or other left communists describe Maoism, Trotskyism, Stalinism, certain kinds of anarchism, etc as bourgeois and the left of capital, it refers to the groups themselves, their programmes/policies and actions. It doesn't mean that we think individual members of these groups are bourgeois or the enemy- the overwhelming majority of members of these groups want the same thing we do, we just believe that the groups they are a part of are part of the problem, not the solution.

I think the hurry to try and find progressive or 'socialist' regimes or movements is a sign of petit-bourgeois abandonment of class analysis. Especially embodied in student radicalism- slogans like 'Revolution Now!' and the rush to support any dictator who nationalizes private property is a symptom of this idealism. Rather than keeping to a class line, people feel frustrated because despite their own strong feelings and ideas, they can't create the revolution through will power. This in turn leads to voluntarism, substitutionism and opportunism in general. I see urban guerillaism as part of that- the voluntarist/substitutionist idea that a group of radicals can substitute themselves and their actions for the consciousness of the working class and thus start the revolution themselves. This in turn links back to these authoritarian, bourgeois regimes that call themselves 'Marxist' or 'Socialist' where such tactics originated and are espoused.

I have a tendency to see it as the end of the Cold War represented the victory of U.S. imperialism and a short (but still ongoing) period of overall U.S. hegemonic domination of the globe. But in spite of its greatest attempts, American imperialism of course has been unable to prevent the emergence of new rivals, who are becoming increasingly resilient. This system offers, in a broad sense, two possible futures: either a third world war or a second cold war between the United States on the one hand and China on the other. Either way the world is in increasing danger of nuclear war.

I agree with the ICC in their view of the international imperialist situation. During the Cold War, all nations were kept in line by their blocs, for the most part the petty antagonisms of smaller or weaker nations either didn't play out or were used as proxies by the leaders of the two blocs. Every now and then a nation would switch to the other bloc (such as China moving into the American bloc in the '60s) but thats it. Following the disintegration of both blocs, it's each against all, smaller weaker nations (Albania, Bangladesh, Georgia, etc) have their own imperialist agendas, while everyone conflicts with everyone else- the order to global imperialism is gone.

China has been in the American bloc and now American orbit since the '60s after it fell out with the USSR. They use various geopolitical strategies and conflicts as leverage to pressure the US (Taiwan, North Korea, Bhutan, etc) but they are far from enemies.

Regarding a third world war, I agree with the ICC philosophy of the historical course- http://en.internationalism.org/ir/10..._struggle.html

By labor aristocracy I refer to those workers who, in this country for example, might make an income of $60,000 a year or more. These workers clearly have a lot in common in terms of wealth and access to capital with the middle strata, and this, I think, impacts upon them ideologically as well, making it qualitatively more difficult to win them over to the idea of revolution. I don't mean to describe these workers as a "class enemy". They must be won over. I just mean that our main emphasis needs to be on those who are the most deeply oppressed and exploited.

I think it is only damaging to create divisions among the class for any reason, including salary. Some members of the working class are better paid than others. Those that make $60k+ in the US are often semi-skilled and skilled workers, they are firmly part of the working class. An unskilled laborer or retail cashier is closer to a well paid machinist or nurse practitioner or telecommunications equipment installer than a landed peasant or a poor merchant who runs a fruit stand. This is an aspect of Maoism that I think clearly shows how far away from Marxism it is- the emphasis on 'the poor' rather than on class.

devoration1 wrote:
I think it is only damaging to create divisions among the class for any reason, including salary. Some members of the working class are better paid than others. Those that make $60k+ in the US are often semi-skilled and skilled workers, they are firmly part of the working class. An unskilled laborer or retail cashier is closer to a well paid machinist or nurse practitioner or telecommunications equipment installer than a landed peasant or a poor merchant who runs a fruit stand. This is an aspect of Maoism that I think clearly shows how far away from Marxism it is- the emphasis on 'the poor' rather than on class.

I think both the ICC and yourself have a tendency to be overly simplistic. In your view, there are no (noteworthy) distinguishing characteristics among either working class people or among capitalists, for example. It seems that, in your mind, all workers are equally exploited and all capitalists are imperialists. That's not a serious, Marxist analysis of classes and contradictions. It's just a form of identity politics.

Furthermore, the labor aristocracy theory is original neither to me nor to Mao, but to Lenin, with whom you would claim to identify.

During the Cold War, all nations were kept in line by their blocs, for the most part the petty antagonisms of smaller or weaker nations either didn't play out or were used as proxies by the leaders of the two blocs. Every now and then a nation would switch to the other bloc (such as China moving into the American bloc in the '60s) but thats it.

I think that, at least temporarily, a distinct socialist camp emerged during the Cold War, and particularly toward the middle thereof. China didn't simply switch from one imperialist camp to the other. For over a decade, they had no trade or diplomatic relationship to either of the Cold War superpowers, but pursued an independent course. And it's this interim period that most people regard as the most radical and inspiring. My views on China's overall course during the Cold War can be found here. I also would regard those socialist countries and most of the communist parties that aligned themselves with China to one degree or another during this interim as authentic. e.g. Namely Albania and Cambodia (under the Khmer Rouge), but also, at varying points and to varying degrees, North Vietnam and the South Vietnamese revolutionaries. (Though by the conclusion of the Vietnam War, Vietnam was clearly in the Soviet camp.)

think the hurry to try and find progressive or 'socialist' regimes or movements is a sign of petit-bourgeois abandonment of class analysis. Especially embodied in student radicalism- slogans like 'Revolution Now!' and the rush to support any dictator who nationalizes private property is a symptom of this idealism. Rather than keeping to a class line, people feel frustrated because despite their own strong feelings and ideas, they can't create the revolution through will power. This in turn leads to voluntarism, substitutionism and opportunism in general. I see urban guerillaism as part of that- the voluntarist/substitutionist idea that a group of radicals can substitute themselves and their actions for the consciousness of the working class and thus start the revolution themselves. This in turn links back to these authoritarian, bourgeois regimes that call themselves 'Marxist' or 'Socialist' where such tactics originated and are espoused.

I hardly think an excess of communist revolutionary fervor is the main problem in the world at present. But I get what you mean in highlighting that people often hurry to find an example to latch onto out of frustration and so forth. But I don't think we should cast the possibility of revolution as something reserved for the distant, ambiguous future. We should be working toward creating the objective conditions required for revolution immediately, and I mean actually building a revolutionary movement, not just simply "intervening" and debating in committees.

All this said, we are in agreement on certain points, such as...

-There is no such thing as a "progressive" state that isn't socialist.
-There are no sincerely socialist countries on Earth at present.
-As such, there isn't a single government on Earth today that doesn't deserve to be overthrown.

I think both the ICC and yourself have a tendency to be overly simplistic. In your view, there are no (noteworthy) distinguishing characteristics among either working class people or among capitalists, for example. It seems that, in your mind, all workers are equally exploited and all capitalists are imperialists. That's not a serious, Marxist analysis of classes and contradictions.

I recognize there are plenty of differences between workers, groups of workers, etc. As a class, all workers are exploited for their labor at the point of production. Regarding the extraction of surplus value there is ambiguity. But these differences between industry, nationality, whether or not surplus value is extracted from them in the traditional sense, etc are not substantial enough to warrant theories like the 'labor aristocracy'- which believes that part of the class is 'cut off' from the rest in a negative manner, and that the working class should ally itself with the poor petit-bourgeois/lumpenproletariat into a 'united front'.

I don't believe that all capitalists are imperialists- I believe that in the epoch of imperialism starting with WWI, all nations are fighting for dominance and strength and influence against all other states (first in the bloc system and now in a free-for-all). Nation-states are imperialist, capitalists are not.

I think that, at least temporarily, a distinct socialist camp emerged during the Cold War, and particularly toward the middle thereof. China didn't simply switch from one imperialist camp to the other. For over a decade, they had no trade or diplomatic relationship to either of the Cold War superpowers, but pursued an independent course. And it's this interim period that most people regard as the most radical and inspiring. My views on China's overall course during the Cold War can be found here. I also would regard those socialist countries and most of the communist parties that aligned themselves with China to one degree or another during this interim as authentic. e.g. Namely Albania and Cambodia (under the Khmer Rouge), but also, at varying points and to varying degrees, North Vietnam and the South Vietnamese revolutionaries. (Though by the conclusion of the Vietnam War, Vietnam was clearly in the Soviet camp.)

After WWII, the French left communists of the GCF used a simple 'test' to see which groups were still proletarian or which new groups could be considered part of the proletarian milieu/camp: did they actively support one side in the imperialist war that just occurred (WWII)? did they support or fight with the partisans? If so, they are not part of the proletarian camp.

Reason being that they have betrayed the primary, highest principle of communism- Internationalism, by supporting one side or nation in an imperialist war.

This is one of the big reasons left communists do not and can not ally themselves with Maoist, Trotskyist and Stalinist groups- because they support the right of nations to self determination, national liberation struggles, and supporting partisan/paramilitary groups/movements (such as Hezbollah, FARC, EZLN/Zapatistas, etc).

Steadfast internationalism is the criteria to judge all other groups or philosophies. Even if we disagree on anything/everything else, if a group is truly internationalist, they can be discussed with or we could organize joint efforts (like joint leaflets against war, etc). Examples include the ICC publishing correspondence and leaflets from groups that they disagree with on almost everything else, such as some syndicalist and anarchist groups.

We should be working toward creating the objective conditions required for revolution immediately, and I mean actually building a revolutionary movement, not just simply "intervening" and debating in committees.

This is another big hurdle. I don't believe that revolutionary situations occur because of individual initiative- thats voluntarist and substitutionist. The class itself begins to act, and will construct its own organs of power. It isn't the place of communist militants to organize the class or take power in its name, or start the struggle for them.

In times of reflux in the class struggle, it's our job to educate and train communist militant workers, organize and regroup communist militants on a global scale into a centralized revolutionary organization, publish a press in as many places and as many languages as possible, be 'incubators' for past lessons and theories, refining history and theory using historical materialism to find and then maintain a proper class analysis on past and current events, and intervene positively in workers struggles where they occur (such as publishing a strike bulletin, propagating the formation of mass assemblies and strike committees outside the unions, etc).

In times of active class struggle, we need to be a clear and global voice of revolutionary positions and propagate them far and wide through all matter of media available, keeping a correct class line and class analysis, providing theoretical and practical guidance and leadership, push for the creation of organs of class power (workers councils, factory committees, mass assemblies, red guards, etc) and intervene in those political bodies, and the most effective way to do most of that is to work to create an international revolutionary class party which can do all of this effectively on an international level- though this is only possible in times of active revolutionary class struggle.

I think trying to create an organization in periods of low class struggle and call it a 'communist party', creating organizations and then trying to organize the masses of workers into them (like 'revolutionary unions' and 'united/popular fronts', etc), planning for urban guerillaism and building 'bases', etc is voluntarist and substitutionist.

The working class has to organize and take power as a class. This is another big divide between Maoism etc and left communism- the concept of what a revolutionary communist militant is and what their job description is.

MRD, could you please tell me why "The Soviet Union became a capitalist country in 1935"? What changed?

Devrim