Theory of Productive Forces?

"Marxism-Leninism is a general term that encompasses those who claim adherence to the line of Marx, Engels and Lenin in opposition to Trotskyism."

While I'm not adherent of Trotskyism, I find this odd -- because in the opening sentence it raises a rather sterile and non-influential current to be the great opposite to ML.

Isn't it more appropriate to say:

"Marxism-Leninism is a general term that encompasses those who claim adherence to the line of Marx, Engels and Lenin in opposition to capitalism."

In other words, if ML is one pole of a struggle of opposites -- aren't we about destroying capitalism? Is that REALLY what we are in opposition to? (And isn't our conflict and disagreements with other currents a subset of that larger conflict with the actual system of opporession?)

Second question:

There does seem value in describing some key ideas that are associated with Marxism Leninism as an ideology historically:

* Internationalism
* Partisan rooting in the working class and the wider classes of oppressed people
* adherence to the dictatorship of the proletariat as a goal
* upholding the need for a disciplined and compact party of combat capable of working under both legal and illegal conditions -- and then capable of leading society after a victorious revolution.
* upholding the goals of socialism and communism (classless society where the oppressions of previous history have been uprooted by mass struggle and new consciousness)
* an understanding that oppressive forms of society can't be "peacefully" reformed and that liberation requires rupture, conflict and force by the masses of people
* An understanding that achieving communism requires a transitional society (socialism) which is marked by growing conscious planning of production, the struggle for new consciousness and culture, and repeated waves of revolutionary political effort.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

In other words, this intro by Ismael (which is interesting in many ways) is a kind of historical gloss on the twentieth century and demarcates different *kinds* of Marxist-Leninists.

But why not list (in a tidy, compact way) the beliefs and principles historically associated with Marxism-Leninism? We all understand that there are disputes AMONG self-described MLers.... but surely we can also deliniate what they have in common (or at least claim in words that they have in common.)

Or, on Ismail's point:

Stalin's work on "Foundations of Leninism" is a remarkable encapsulation of the approaches that would become known as Marxism-Leninism.

Perhaps an intro could speak (briefly! briefly!) about the points in each chapter (without necessariy quoting, or even necessarily referencing Stalin's book.)

The party, the national quesiton, etc.

In other words, it is hard not to agree with Questionable when s/he writes:

"I gotta say, should we maybe include something that is more related to what Marxism-Leninism stands for as a social theory? Obviously none of the information in Ismail's paragraph is in dispute, but it's more of a history lesson than an explanation of what Marxism-Leninism actually is."

Roach's description is more along the lines i assume a group like this shojuld go. I might nit-pick various formulations in Roach's draft... but overall it hits the main notes.

(Example of the nit-pick:

"The objective of Marxism-Leninism is simple, to guide the forces of labour in their inevitable victory against capital. "

Hmmmm. First, I have a bit of a problem with declaring very complex historical processes to be "simple" (even in conception). And this generally defines our goal as merely the overthrow of capitalism -- whereas our goal (as communists) is the overthrow of all class society.

Marx talked about the 4 alls:

1) the abolition of class distinctions generally,
2) the abolition of all the relations of production on which they rest,
3) the abolition of all the social relations that correspond to these relations of production, and
4) the revolutionising of all the ideas that result from these social relations.”

So (IMHO) if we communists talk about our objective (and the objective of Marxism-Leninism) it is more than the victory over capital (which is only the FIRST step of the communist revolution) it is the overthrow of the 4 alls.

Second, I would have a problem with the whole concept of inevitability (which seems unscientific to me...) but again, these are nitpicks.

Third nitpick: "a vanguard party composed by the most advanced and class counscious elements amongst the working class." This formulation seems to confuse things.

The leninist vanguard party is based and rooted among the most advanced and class conscious workers. But it is composed of the most revolutionary drawn from all of society. Lenin makes this point in many places -- including in What is to be Done? where he stresses dispersing the forces of the party throughout society, not just (with blinders) organizing and recruiting among the workers. Clearly a revolutionary party needs as its firmest partisan base the advanced among the workers -- but also clearly, every revolutianry party in history has been composed of people from many classes (including most obviojusly workers but also revolutionary middle class intellectuals like Lenin or Marx)

I agree on all your points on what I wrote, that was draft so I prefered to keep it simple rather than extrapolating which would probably make the description worse. Discussing it was exactly what I wanted.

But I think you kind of misses the point in the vanguard question, specially because I mentioned alliances with other revolutionary classes on the same item.

I also should have mentioned that:

Due to the laws of uneven and combined development of capitalism, the victory of socialism in one or more countries is possible. In no way should revolutionaries adopt a defeatist line on the false precise that socialism is imposible on their own countries. Or something along the lines

Roach:

You raise an interesting question. And look: there was a debate whether socialism was possible in Russia (after the revolutionary upsurge subsided in Germany). The revolutinaries argued that it would be wrong to not try -- and that starting a socialist construction was possible in Russia.

There were similar debates in China (where some within the party said the o****ry was too backward and poor to become socialist, and that the people should be content with some form of capitalism).

This is what we maoists call "the theory of productive forces" -- which claims (in a non-Marxist way) some absolute limit to what is possible (in a defeatist way).

And in some ways, i think the subsequent experience of China and the USSR shows that it was possible (even if in both countries it was clearly very difficult and impossible to maintain after a few decades).

However the fact that it is possible to have "socialism in one country" in the two largest countries of the world... doesn't mean that socialism is automatically possible in any country.

Is it possible to build socialism in one small Caribbean country (without a larger regional confederation, etc.)? Is it possible to have socialism in Nepal, without a larger South Asian revolution? Is it possible to have socialism in say Nicaragua or Zimbawe alone -- if there is not a larger regional revolution to create a larger framework (both militarily and economically).

In a number of smaller countries, it may prove true that their main role is as a base area or fuse for larger regional processes.

Perhaps Nicargua should have envisioned itself as a base area for a larger Central American revolutino (as Carpio suggestion). Perhaps the Zanu victory of Zimbabwe should not have involved a compromise with the white land-owners but (instead) turning Zimbabwe into a base area for revolution throughout Southern Africa.

I am convinced that "socialism in one country" is possible in large and developed countries. But perhaps it becomes less possible the smaller and poorer the country -- and so therefore there may be more need to think regionally (from the beginning).

This is a question that should be answered by revolutionaries from small countries themselves, not expeculated by big-country people like me and you. Much less should they be disencouraged because of geographical limitations and borders, only through their own revolutionary practice can these problems be solved. If there is a proletarian class basis, even if small like in Russia or China, socialism is possible.

Revolutionaries don't care about borders.

This is a question that should be answered by revolutionaries from small countries themselves, not expeculated by big-country people like me and you."

I don't agree with this method at all. Obviously we can't (and won't) decide the strategies adopted by various people. But there is nothing wrong with raising these questions -- and many reasons to engage them.

First, because these are world questions, and we are part of a world revolution.

Second because this kind of logic is used to shut down all kinds of vital explorations. (If you aren't Black, do you have an obligation to expore threoretical questions of Black liberation? If you aren't gay, do you have anything to add to discussions of ending anti-gay bigotry? yes you do. and the claims that you can't "expeculate" really are wrong).

Third, these issues actually impact the politics and strategies of "big country" communists as well. What stand should be taken on Puerto Rico? Should a communist organization in the U.S. extend its member ship to Puerto Rico -- or should it be considered possible that Puerto Rico will not take an independence route?

Is it valuable to break the U.S. into different socialist states -- or is there value in trying to keep as large a unified market and common process as possible? These are questions that we all need to grapple with.

"Much less should they be disencouraged because of geographical limitations and borders, only through their own revolutionary practice can these problems be solved. If there is a proletarian class basis, even if small like in Russia or China, socialism is possible.

I don't know what you are arguing? Are you saying that socialism is possible in ANY country, if there is a "proletarian class basis"? What does that mean?

What is a proletarian class basis?

If socialism is possible in (say) Grenada (a very small island), perhaps it is possible to build socialism in one city as well (say detroit)? Or? Are there no material constraints or limits? Is it just a matter of will?

Economics are now more and more entwined globally -- it was always hard to develop coherent economies in revolutionary countries when they are cut off from the world markets (imagine Cuba's problem wihtout oil for many years, and the pressure that imposed for accomodation to the Russians). But isn't it harder now, for many reasons?

I don't agree with this method at all. Obviously we can't (and won't) decide the strategies adopted by various people. But there is nothing wrong with raising these questions -- and many reasons to engage them.

It is wrong when it starts being used in a way to disregard the struggle of communists in small countries.

First, because these are world questions, and we are part of a world revolution.

You have once spoke out against universalizations in the International Communit Movements, don't you see this is exactly the case? Wheres one, completely outside the realities and uniqueness of each country, imposes his own vision on a group he does not belong without living the reality which he claims to know so much.

Second because this kind of logic is used to shut down all kinds of vital explorations. (If you aren't Black, do you have an obligation to expore threoretical questions of Black liberation? If you aren't gay, do you have anything to add to discussions of ending anti-gay bigotry? yes you do. and the claims that you can't "expeculate" really are wrong).

Theres is a diference between a white heterosexual person that supports black/queer liberation commenting about these issues and a white heterosexual person saying he/she wont support them because they will ultimately fail due not following, for example, a proper class line. In a similar manner, a person who lives on a big country should dictating the struggle in this or that country should not go because according to he/she, that country doesnt have the proper conditions for socialism is wrong.

Third, these issues actually impact the politics and strategies of "big country" communists as well. What stand should be taken on Puerto Rico? Should a communist organization in the U.S. extend its member ship to Puerto Rico -- or should it be considered possible that Puerto Rico will not take an independence route?

What would the Puerto Rican communists want? This the only question that needs to be asked.

Is it valuable to break the U.S. into different socialist states -- or is there value in trying to keep as large a unified market and common process as possible? These are questions that we all need to grapple with.

I dont live in the US, so in the end is up to US communists to decide. I will never have the same knowledge of the situation in the US as a person who daily experiences that countries political, social and economical reality. Again, after attacking universalizations so many times, you are arguing for the same thing that stagnated the Komintern on the 30s and 40s, universalizations that completely ignore each countries particularities.

If socialism is possible in (say) Grenada (a very small island), perhaps it is possible to build socialism in one city as well (say detroit)? Or? Are there no material constraints or limits? Is it just a matter of will?

Economics are now more and more entwined globally -- it was always hard to develop coherent economies in revolutionary countries when they are cut off from the world markets (imagine Cuba's problem wihtout oil for many years, and the pressure that imposed for accomodation to the Russians). But isn't it harder now, for many reasons?

Call me when there is a revolution in Grenada or Detroit, but real life revolutions do not happen in vacuum, take the examples you gave on your first post, Zimbabwe which was part of a bigger struggle in all of Africa against racism and colonialism, or Cuba who inspired communists, even if in a flawed way, to keep up fighting Imperialism and Capitalism. All revolutions, socialist or not, had regional or global reflects, no struggle can be dismissed a priori as much as it seems isolated and weak. Once more I say that problems must be solved by those who will immediatly have to face them and not speculated by outsiders.

You write:

"What would the Puerto Rican communists want? This the only question that needs to be asked."

Really? Isn't there also a question of whether what they want is possible?

Revolution is about far more than what people want. It is also about what will meet their needs. And often (very often in life) what people want is not what they need.

So you can't develop revolutionary movements merely by adopting what people "want" -- you also have to ask in very sober ways "will these desires meet their needs?" and "Where does this road lead?"

Often people "want" things that don't serve their interests. And it is part of the responsibility of communists to identify roads to liberation -- often quite independent of what the people involved currently think they want.

And (despite what you seem to imply) i'm not saying we should *decide* for the Puerto Rican people what they should do, or impose our views on Puerto rican people.

I'm merely wanting to have a discussion about "socialism in one country" in our world today, and I'm raising the question of whether this is true for all countries... and if not, how we think about this. And this is a discussion that can be deeply held without living in each small country in the world, and feeling (on our own personal skins) the distinctive conditions there.

And if we literally can't discuss possibilities in various places UNLESS we have "daily experiences that countries political, social and economical reality" then truly it is impossible to have a discussion of world events and trends... we would just be confined to discussing our own personal direct experienes. This is a fundamentally anti-theoretical and anti-scientific world view (that is completely alien to marxism and emerges from various forms of cultural relativism.)

Was Marx wrong to comment on the American Civil War? Was it wrong for him to comment on the Paris Commune even if he had no "daily experiences with the political, social and economic reality" of France? And more, isn't it possible that Marx understood the Paris Commune BETTER than those who had directly experienced France (and even better than the people who had personally and directly LED that revolution).

Of course it is possible that his insights were genuinely superior to the view of those who had the most "daily experience" possible. Theoretical insights don't require direct experience.

And the argument (arising from intensely anti-Marxist forces) that only those with direct argument have a right to speak -- it is essentially an argument against theory, against discussions, against objective investigation of complex problems.

American communists imposing their own line on Puerto Ricans, because apparently they "dont know what is best for themselves" goes against everything communists have upholded for years on Anti-Imperialism, self-determination, democracy and smells of white mans burden. Yes, if Puerto Rican communists dont want to, they dont need to follow the orders of North Americans, not even if they are communists.

Uh, I hope I am not asking too much, but could you please not edit the post after I answered it, because it kind of ends the discussions flow.

Oh please, try playing it fair and not editing after I answered, c'mon.

"American communists imposing their own line on Puerto Ricans, because apparently they "dont know what is best for themselves" goes against everything communists have upholded for years on Anti-Imperialism, self-determination, democracy and smells of white mans burden. Yes, if Puerto Rican communists dont want to, they dont need to follow the orders of North Americans, not even if they are communists."

Well, isn't that a straw man?

No one is arguing that Puerto Rican communists have to do what others say. Or that lines should be imposed by "American communists."

That isn't the issue.

The issue is whether we can even have DISCUSSIONS of world matters, or whether the "only question" is what do people with direct or daily experience think. It is common to identity politics that people are constantly told to shut up, that they have no right to speak -- it is amazing to me how often people on the American left tell each other to be silent, and suppress discussion of issues using these quite bogus arguments.

[I do sometimes edit comments, cuz i hit "post" too quick. But I obviously don't do it after I've noticed someone answering.]

no problem, with the exception that I had already answered it. And that was the issue before you edited that post.

nods. Obviously didn't mean to throw you off, brother.

So what you guys think, personnally I feel the currently description is simply too huge and it should list socialism in one country in a similar way to the other "principles" items.

I still support an update.

With all due respect to everyone who did a great job contributing to this new description, I feel like we should bring the old one back until we have it ironed out.

I think it is reasonable to have an update. But there is a problem; if we cut it down there is a danger that the information will be too light and not give an accurate picture of what Marxism-Leninism is. Conversely, if it is too long it would put many off reading it.

Do we leave it up for now and work on it, or should we do what Questionable suggests and put the old one up for now while we work more on the description? Views?

Ismail and I who were the main authors could work something more polished together somehow. I see no real problem in leaving as it is for now.