| Theory |
|
New Exhibits at the Lenin Wax Museum July 9, 2003 by RedStar2000 |
Now and then, I still like to visit the Lenin Museum and look at the new exhibits...the "parties" that lay claim to the vanguard heritage and, though living fossils, still claim that the future belongs to them. It is amusing...but also instructive. We need to be occasionally reminded of what lies down the path of "democratic centralism".
=======================================
St. Avakian's First Church of Mao
As most of you already know, Leninism-Maoism has little enough to offer working people in the advanced capitalist countries; it is and has been from its inception a peasant ideology created for the purpose of managing the transition from despotism/feudalism/colonialism to independent modern capitalism. It borrows a good deal of terminology from Marx and Engels...but "adapts" it to the situation found in pre-capitalist or emerging capitalist countries. It is a way to make a bourgeois revolution without calling it that.
What happens when people nevertheless attempt to "apply" such an outlook to an advanced capitalist country? The official dogma, now completely divorced from the material reality from which it emerged, becomes a "cult", a "church" in which reverence for the leader is the only paramount virtue. The prophet delivers oracles and his followers ponder among themselves the profundity of the leader's eructations.
I was reminded of this when someone in another thread invited me to inspect the forums of Bob Avakian's "Revolutionary Communist Party". You may have a look for yourself...just to see that I'm not making this stuff up:
http://2changetheworld.info/disc/index.php?site=changetheworld&mylang=en
quote:
What we have learned from history is that revolution tends to happen in the 3rd world countries...in the "weakest" link of imperialism.
From Avakian himself...
quote:
And I would add, in keeping with the thrust of what Mao is saying here, that if you don't have a poetic spirit -- or at least a poetic side, it is very dangerous for you to lead a Marxist movement or be the leader of a socialist state.
quote:
The Draft Programme is infused with the collective wisdom of the whole Party, highlighted by many path-breaking contributions of RCP Chairman Bob Avakian.
quote:
Now, there is something I have been wondering about. I was following Bob Avakian's last series on Grasp Revolution/ Promote Production very closely and really fighting to try to get an understanding of it. The more I think about this question of the Central Task, the more I wonder what the relationship of GR/PP is to the Central Task. How is it applied to carrying out the Central Task?
quote:
...but I’ll just cut to the chase on the above. I too love Stalin and Mao, but Bob Avakian is my Chairman...Should the RCP build a cult around our leader, Bob Avakian? Personally, I say damn straight...Do we take ourselves/our cause seriously enough to have cults around our best leaders - leaders like Lenin and Mao and Bob Avakian, the Chairman of our Party here, the RCP?... As long as class society exists, every leader is a political representative of a class. Every class has its foremost political representatives who advances/concentrates the vision/plan/mission of that class, and gives direction on how to achieve such...It should be obvious to anyone who’s read my posts over the past year on this website that I find the leadership of Bob Avakian to be indispensable for our Party and the movement as a whole to do what we need to do in order to change the world...In the storms now swirling and those ahead, we should build a huge cult around the personality of THIS leader of our class. The proletarian revolution needs THIS great proletarian leader.
And in Avakian's own words...
quote:
The point is that in class society and with the division of labor (or significant remnants of the division of labor) characteristic of class-divided society, it is the case that certain individuals come to “represent the truth” in a concentrated way (as others do the false). This, of course, is not a “once-and-for-all, lifetime-guaranteed” thing - and there is always the danger that building up such people could turn into a very bad thing if they no longer did “represent the truth” after a certain point. But even if there remains the real possibility that the individual may thus change, there will also remain the need for building up others who do continue to stand for the truth in a concentrated way. In any case such people play their role as leaders of a class…and thus there is, as Mao described it, the combination of the role of the individual (in particular in this context the individual leader) and collective leadership.
Were there any disciples of St. Avakian present, I daresay they would complain bitterly about my "ripping off" a few random (if embarrassing) quotes from their website(s). They would whine that "this is not a serious criticism".
Fair enough. In all the religion threads we've had at Che-Lives, I have rarely involved myself in the details of theological disputes...I, like most sane people, find them boring. A truly serious criticism of "The Thoughts of Chairman Bob" would be tedious to read and even more tedious to write.
Fortunately, it's not really necessary. Once you grasp the idea that the "Revolutionary Communist Party" is a church, nothing further should be needed to keep you away from them.
Unless, of course, you're looking for that sort of thing.
---------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on June 28, 2003
---------------------------------------------------------
Trotskyism, Stalinism and Leninism
Trotskyism is usually contrasted with Stalinism, since those guys were the two main associates of Lenin and both of them always claimed to be carrying out "Marxism-Leninism" in theory and practice.
I rather doubt that in practice today that you would find any consistent political differences...that is, if you picked out a random Trotskyist party and a random Stalinist party, you'd be as likely as not to find that their current views are quite similar. Of course, their views of history would be as far apart as you can get, each accusing the other of "counter-revolutionary treachery". It is a real morass.
There is one significant difference in their organizational practice...at least in theory.
Both groups claim to be the "vanguard of the proletariat" and both claim that the leadership of their particular party is essential to the victory of the revolution. Both claim to practice "democratic centralism"--wherein lower bodies in the party elect higher bodies and policy is made by those higher bodies and carried out by the lower bodies.
Here's the difference, at least in theory. In a Stalinist party, you are not permitted to form a "faction" within the party...an organized group with an overall program that is different from the official party program. In a Stalinist party, you can only petition the leadership for a change in the program as an individual member.
In a Trotskyist party, you are allowed to form a "faction" that advocates an overall change in the party program within the party. In other words, you can't take your dissident views to the public (the working class), but you can organize for change within the Trotskyist party.
From what I have read of such matters, in practice the leadership of Trotskyist parties is just as arrogant and bureaucratic as is the case in Stalinist parties...the nominal right to form a "faction" rarely (if ever) translates into a victory for the dissident faction and an altogether new party platform. At least, I've never heard of such a thing happening.
When you become a member of a Leninist party (Stalinist, Trotskyist, or Maoist), you are fundamentally expected to "shut up and do what you're told". You are like a soldier that has joined an army and your duty is to carry out your orders.
Needless to say, that has all the appeal of a bucket of shit for dinner...to me.
But some people like it.
---------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on June 29, 2003
---------------------------------------------------------
quote:
You seem to oppose authority (if it can even be called that) simply because it is authority.
Not necessarily. I rarely take it upon myself to oversee brain surgeons or airline pilots. They have special skills that I am not qualified to supervise, much less over-rule.
Politics is a different matter. When someone gets up in front of people and says (in effect) "follow me and I'll set you free", my suspicions go right off the chart. In what possible sense could I be "free" by surrendering my right to think and act regarding social concerns to the will of another?
You can say that, "oh, this leader is different; he's really sincere; he will really set us free, not like all the rest, who were fake, blah, blah, blah." But why should I or anyone believe you?
The common rationale for this sort of thing is: "Our Great Leader has truly mastered Marxism-Leninism-Bigturdism" and "therefore" will deliver on his promises. This goes all the way back to Lenin's proposal for a cadre of "professional revolutionaries" who, like lawyers, are "trained specialists" that ordinary people are supposed to just accept and obey. Since Lenin's own degree was in law, it's no surprise that he came up with the idea.
What depresses me is how many people have accepted it.
quote:
...only those 'advanced' and 'civilised' enough can build Socialism.
That not only follows directly from what Marx observed, it's actually what he said. Pre-capitalist countries become capitalist; highly delevoped capitalist countries move on to socialism/communism. You can disagree with that if you wish...but then you've left historical materialism behind and entered the murky realm of idealism, where social orders "can" be constructed "by command" without regard for material conditions.
quote:
You think Marx would of wanted us to sit around all day discussing things just to make sure everybody had gotten their point of view across on every single issue.
A common Leninist stereotype; without a boss, workers would just sit around all day and bullshit.
If you actually believe that to be the case, there's little I can say. There's historical evidence to the contrary, but it's fragmentary and the primary sources are not easily accessible. And how does one respond to a claim that "I am more 'qualified' than you...you must obey me or nothing will get done"?
Because that's the core of the matter...where Leninism breaks with Marx and Engels altogether. If you think that you are or will become "qualified" to give people orders--"for their own good" of course--then the only criticism you will accept from "the lower orders" is armed rebellion...and then only because you have no choice.
If successful, the Leninist party creates the nucleus of a new ruling class...inspite of its most sincere professions to the contrary. When the state owns and manages the means of production and a small group of "professional revolutionaries" controls the state machinery...what can they become but another ruling class? Better in some ways, worse in other ways...but with all the attributes that we associate with the term ruling class.
If the emancipation of the working class is not done by the workers themselves, then the net effect is simply a change of masters.
That's not good enough.
---------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on June 29, 2003
---------------------------------------------------------
quote:
What I know or believe I know about the situation in Russia makes me think that the Russians are fast approaching their 1789. The revolution must break out any day.
Yes, Marx and Engels were sometimes remarkably perceptive about forthcoming events...though their timing was, as always, atrocious.
But, what do you think they meant by Russia's "1789" and Russia's "1793"?
What happened in those years in France? (Hint: it was not proletarian revolution.)
Yes, Marx and Engels predicted a capitalist revolution in Russia...and, after many twists and turns, guess what we have in Russia today?
Those quotations, admirable as they are, say nothing about "weakest links" leading to "proletarian revolution" at all--they say, in fact, the opposite.
I'm surprised you didn't notice the forecast of Leninism, though...or maybe you did, and didn't want to mention it.
quote:
This is one of the exceptional cases where it is possible for handful of people to make a revolution, i.e., by giving a small impetus to cause a whole system to come crashing down, and by an action insignificant of itself to release explosive forces that afterwards becomes uncontrollable. Well, if ever Blanquism - the fantastic idea of overturning an entire society by the action of a small group of conspirators - had a certain raison d’ętre, that is certainly so now in St.Petersburg. Once the spark has been put to the powder… the people who laid the spark to the mine will be swept along by the explosion …. Suppose these people imagine they can seize power, what harm does it do?
Well, Fred, you'd be surprised...!
quote:
Fact is there's going to be some sort of hierarchy and bureaucracy, if you can't deal with that then it's plainly obvious that you're not going to get on with anyone except Anarchists.
No one wants to boss people around and command a army, where you get this idea from I don't know.
Fact is? Says who? And when you say that "no one wants" to boss people around or command an army, that doesn't mean very much...if they are willing to do it anyway.
If memory serves me, the "military metaphor" of revolutionary organizations is in the core classic work by Lenin himself: What is to be Done?. But I think it pops up all over the place--the "vanguard party" as the "General Staff" of the proletariat (that was a popular conception in 1900...the German General Staff had enormous prestige due to its exceptionally well-planned and methodical victory over Napoleon III's French Empire.)
Finally, how does a communist "deal with hierarchy and bureaucracy"? Do you accept it as "the price that must be paid"? Do you feel essentially indifferent to the matter? Are you enthusiastic about the career opportunities that it offers? Or do you feel that it's a deadly enemy of everything we struggle for?
Makes a difference.
------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on July 1, 2003
------------------------------------------------------
quote:
...the reason some sort of 'bureaucracy' is inevitable or what have you is because that's how the world goes round.
Well, the great founder of bourgeois sociology, Max Weber, would agree with you...so I hope you won't mind if I don't. The world "goes around" in many ways, some of the most important of which relate to class.
quote:
You may not like it but in a large party intent on actually achieving something sometimes you have to stop talking (which from my experience, 'so far' you do a lot of anyway) and take decisive action.
Yes, it's been noted that I have a "black belt" in mouth and I cannot deny the truth of that. Why do I yap so much and place such importance on yapping? "Decisive action" has a certain emotional appeal; it's, well...decisive.
Perhaps I could put it this way: what's the difference between someone who acts from personal conviction and someone who is just going along with the crowd or even carrying out orders?
I think the differences are obvious. People who have thought about various kinds of "decisive actions", talked over the strengths and weakness of each at length, voted agreement by a wide margin, etc., are people prepared to move forward with real conviction and are therefore most likely to be successful.
People who just "go along" and "don't want to cause a fuss" are most likely to not persevere in the "decisive action" because, in fact, they're really undecided. They say "Oh, I agree" but what they're really saying is "whatever!".
Those who are "carrying out their orders" will do so until such time as the orders cease to make sense altogether, when they will do what sensible soldiers have always done when commanded by idiots...desert.
If you actually look at what goes on in revolutionary situations, it is an explosion of talk...millions of people who've been silent all their lives now do nothing but talk, and read, and talk some more.
In fact, to speak of "decisive action" in such a situation is a misnomer...there are millions of "decisive actions" and people arguing about them constantly the whole time.
Did the Bolsheviks "make" the revolution of February 1917? The Mensheviks? The Kadets? The anarchists? Nevertheless, decisive action was certainly taken by the working class and the peasantry; the Czar was deposed and the aristocracy sent running for their lives.
The Leninists do have a "Blanqui-ist" conception of seizing power (I'm speaking of those who are serious; not the "Leninist" parties that have degenerated into parliamentary cretinism). A small group of "professional revolutionaries" gives the signal to strike...and capitalism is overthrown by a working class that "follows its leader and carries out his orders".
That ain't how it's gonna happen...but if it did, the result would be a very unhappy one, to say the least.
quote:
Just one point though Comrade redstar. what's your view the Mensheviks? Since your view on both the 'Leninist' form of party and Russia in 1917 seems to be the same as Mr Martov.
Then? Or now?
If I were a young fellow in Petrograd in the summer of 1917, I would have been a "left-Bolshevik" most likely...perhaps a "Kollontai-ist". I would have thought the Mensheviks were a bunch of capitalist ass-kissers, Marxists in words and Kadets in deeds.
That was then; this is now. As I have never read or even seen a Menshevik text, I can only assume that the common summary of their views is accurate--they are reputed to have maintained that only a bourgeois revolution was possible in the Russia of that period.
Well, they were right.
As to their practice, that is clearly a different matter. I see no reason why communists should not "push" a bourgeois revolution as far "left" as they can...it does not logically follow, from a communist standpoint, that simply because the bourgeois revolution is on your country's historical agenda, that you must therefore subordinate your own goals to those of the new ruling class...which is what I gather the Mensheviks did.
Am I clear here? The communist always fights for communism even when s/he knows that capitalism is "on the agenda" in his/her particular country. We are not trying to simply "be on the winning side"...we are trying to "push" history in the direction we think it will ultimately go and we don't stop pushing just because the train has made a regularly-scheduled stop.
------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on July 1, 2003
------------------------------------------------------
A Party of the Living Dead
One of the members of Che-Lives has recently joined a "Marxist"-Leninist Party in the United Kingdom, called the "New Communist Party". He should have asked me, first.
It actually appears pretty typical of such formations, not especially "good" or "bad"...just incredibly wrong-headed. The quotes that follow are from their main resolution, The Thirteenth Congress of the New Communist Party of Britain, December 2000. Source: http://www.londoncommunists.org/6628/index.html
quote:
Socialism remains the system upheld and developed in Asia as well as in Cuba. People's China, Democratic Korea, Vietnam, Laos and Cuba continue to advance along the revolutionary path charted by their communist parties which are applying the principles of Marxism-Leninism to the concrete conditions that exist in their countries.
quote:
The fact that China ranks economically 9th in the world and can feed, clothe and educate its people, who comprise 21 per cent of the world's population, with only seven per cent of the world's arable land is a tribute to socialist planning.
quote:
People’s China is making giant strides into the 21st century with rapid industrialisation and development.
quote:
It is recognised that any co-operation with capitalism may contain potential dangers. The growth of capitalist interests, both domestic and foreign, within China can have both positive and negative effects. The living standards of the Chinese people are rising, but there also exists a small minority of very rich. The Communist Party of China is actively organising itself by extending its membership amongst working people, and opposing all forms of corruption.
In fact, one of the "hot topics" in "Peoples" China is that of allowing capitalists (a "small minority" of the "very rich"...) to join the "Communist" Party.
In fact, the restoration of capitalism is far advanced in China and proceeding with quickening tempo...and this was widely known in 2000. There's really no excuse for this kind of nonsense--except a kind of unwillingness to learn from experience more characteristic of religion than of any variety of rational thought.
It should also be noted that the restoration of capitalism has well begun in Vietnam...they even have a (very primitive) stock market there (in what will sooner or later be called "Saigon" again).
Then, we move on to the "Labour" Party in the U.K.
quote:
Labour’s victory, based on the mass support of the working class, confirmed the correctness of the Party’s policy and call to vote Labour. It confirmed that the Party’s policies conformed and reflected the wish of the masses.
The Labour Party is not the enemy of the working class nor is it a barrier to communist advance.
We support those in the Labour Party fighting for left social-democratic policies.
And many sentences later, we read this...
quote:
All the main political parties in Britain seek to perpetuate capitalism.
So we "communists" went out and told the masses to vote for a capitalist party...and they did...and that confirmed "our correctness".
And this capitalist party "is not an enemy of the working class" even though it seeks to "perpetuate capitalism".
Would it be unkind of me to suggest that this is "dialectics gone mad"? Or is a simple explanation more suitable: these poor sods don't know what the hell they're saying.
Then there's this, on the subject of a new "communist international"...
quote:
Our view, based on our own experience and that of the world movement as a whole, is that a new international must be based on these principles:
* It must include and be supported by the ruling parties of China, Democratic Korea, Vietnam, Laos and Cuba.
I'm rather glad to see this, actually. The "Communist" Party of China is no more going to support such an endeavor than they are going to name a college after Mao's widow. The last thing they want to see is a real global communist movement.
But if there ever was a "new international" of these parties, they should call it the Cretaceous International.
And now we turn to more familiar matters, the old Leninist formulas for "revolution"...
quote:
The communist party is the monolithic party of the proletariat and not a party of a bloc of elements of different classes. It is based on democratic centralism. Every member must observe unified discipline. The individual is subordinate to the organisation, the minority is subordinate to the majority, the lower level is subordinate to the higher level, and the entire Party is subordinate to the Central Committee. The highest leading body of the Party is the National Party Congress, and, when it is not in session, the Central Committee elected by it.
Only a revolutionary party can make a revolution. Without a revolutionary party there can be no revolutionary movement. Only a revolutionary party can lead the class to overthrow the bourgeoisie...Only mass revolutionary action by a militant working class led by a revolutionary communist party can bring about revolutionary change.
A revolutionary party can only be built through iron discipline, hardship and sacrifice.
What is certain is that communist parties are essential to the process of preparing the masses for fundamental social changes in all countries, ensuring advance to socialism with minimum conflict, anarchy and suffering.
Right up there with "And surely goodness and mercy will follow me all the days of my life and I will dwell in the House of the Lord forever."
My criticisms of all that obsolete crap have shown up in numerous posts and are on my website as well...so I need not repeat them here.
But it's always kind of a shame to see someone fall victim to the old scam once more; about on the same level as seeing someone you like join a church.
------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on July 1, 2003
------------------------------------------------------
Should I Join a "Revolutionary" Party/Organization?
The answer depends on the organization and its politics.
That's not very helpful, is it? Inspite of many Leninist assertions to the contrary, there's not much in the writings of Marx and Engels to suggest that a "revolutionary organization" is "necessary" to overthrow capitalism...though a "good" one helps and a "bad" one hurts.
I hope no one here ever joins a self-proclaimed "revolutionary" organization simply because an organization is "necessary" and this one was the best (or even the only) organization they could find to hook up with.
If you are going to join a group (or remain a member of a group), there are some hard questions that you have to keep in mind at all times.
1. Do the ideas of this group "make sense"?
2. Are the projects that this group carries out consistent with their ideas; does the practical activity "make sense"?
3. Are you comfortable with these people and their "style" of work? Do you genuinely "like" them as comrades?
That third point needs some explanation. I've seen groups that "looked good on paper"...only to find when I actually met some of their members that, in practice, they related to each other and especially to prospective new members as arrogant, bureaucratic louts who would make a hard-core "Stalinist" blush. Believe it or not, there are "anarchist" and "libertarian communist" groups that are "just as bad" as any Leninist group when it comes to relating to people in the real world.
To be part of a "good" group of comrades is a joy and inspiration; being part of a "bad" group is like having a really shitty, low-paying job.
And you don't want that, do you?
-------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on July 2, 2003
-------------------------------------------------------
Mao in Wonderland Revisited--the Maoist Internationalist Movement
I don't think a serious discussion of Mao is in order in the same thread that discusses the "comic book Maoists" called the Maoist Internationalist Movement.
I was looking over their site and found this...
quote:
MIM Theory 2/3, "Gender and Revolutionary Feminism", is available for $6. In it we argue that all sex is rape under patriarchy.
http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/letters/sincere.html
These people are just plain weird.
------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on July 4, 2003
------------------------------------------------------
quote:
I've ran into this web site before and I believe that the people that orginated this page are giving people the wrong information and a false veiw of what Maoist Internationalist Movement accually represents.
I'm sorry but I thought this was their "official web site". Do you have a link to another site?
And their comment about "sex under patriarchy" comes from one of their own official publications, does it not?
By the way, they are very "money-minded"...every page that I looked at had some kind of plug for some book or pamphlet of theirs that you are strongly encouraged to buy. All they needed was a "shopping cart" to look like a commercial web site.
------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on July 5, 2003
------------------------------------------------------
quote:
I'm sure you didn't know that the Black Panthers were maoists.
Funny, that doesn't square with my memory...and I was around at the time. To the best of my knowledge, the Black Panther Party's "favorite communists" was the bourgeois liberal Communist Party USA...probably because the CPUSA gave them some money and some international contacts and publicity.
But perhaps it's the spirit that counts: the Black Panther Party was the only left group of that era that never held a voting convention of its membership. It was run by a self-appointed elite throughout its entire existence.
No doubt Mao would have understood.
------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on July 5, 2003
------------------------------------------------------
quote:
When did I say Malcolm X was a Maoist? I only acknowledged that he certainly had Maoist tendencies...
I rather doubt Malcolm X gave the matter much thought; but as a devout Muslim, he would hardly have thought much of an avowedly atheist point of view.
quote:
Do you seriously believe a revolutionary party would function "democratically" (referring to the bourgeoisie concept of "democracy" not proletarian democratic centralism)?
Well, it's pretty clear you don't think so...your message is just latch on to the "right" "great leader" and do what you're told.
Hasn't it ever occurred to you that, historically, all of the fascist political parties operated in exactly the same way?
Or perhaps you've simply never bothered to read any serious works on fascism as a political movement and how it operates. Try your public library.
quote:
What did the CNT in Spain accomplish apart from holding back the Republican army because they wanted to "vote" for where and when to make attacks? Compare it to what CHE accomplished by enforcing iron discipline on the Cuban revolutionaries.
That's a "question" so steeped in gross ignorance of the Spanish Revolution that I would have to copy and paste a book or two to "answer" it.
But you could ask yourself this one: how well would Che's alledged "iron discipline" served if he had gone up against the Italian Army and the German Air Force in 1937? Keeping in mind, of course, that it didn't help him in Bolivia all that much, now did it?
quote:
That is the reason Anarchists never succeed in revolutions, whilst communists or "evil authoritarians" do.
You dare boast of your successes? In Russia and Eastern Europe, capitalism is fully restored. In China, your "communist" party is about to admit "businessmen". In Vietnam, the restoration of capitalism is well underway. And Cuba--a revolution that wasn't even made by a Leninist party--teeters on the knife's edge of capitalist restoration.
A professional sports team (you're supposed to be "professional" revolutionaries, remember?) with your won-loss record would not only fire the manager but would probably have to relocate the franchise.
How does the "Kathmandu Paper Tigers" sound?
quote:
A centralized power is much more efficient than a Roman-style democracy.
"Roman-style democracy"? I can see that history is really "a closed book" to you. The Roman Republic was an oligarchy -- the Senate was composed of a heriditary landed aristocracy that governed with the consent of urban merchants. The closest modern equivalent would have been the German Empire, 1871-1918.
All of which has nothing to do with anarchism at all.
quote:
Anarchism is extremely unrealistic (especially directly after capitalism) as it puts faith into uneducated individuals that know little if not nothing about how to conduct a revolution and expect[s] the entire populace to live communaly without being forced to. A revolutionary leader is necessary to guide the movement properly. What's "popular," more often than not, isn't what's best.
A perfect example of imperial Leninist rhetoric...you plan to "force" us to do what's "best" regardless of our own wishes...what Roman Emperor could say less?
I hope you will keep up that kind of talk in public as much as possible...it will discredit your Leninist-Maoist politics far more effectively than anything I could say.
-------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on July 6, 2003
-------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Not very convincing, pal. You attempt to connect Marxist/Leninism to fascism simply because of its authoritarian elements. In that case, I could connect democratic socialists with the US Libertarian Party. So what's your point?
Hell, what's yours? Mine is obvious: we cannot free ourselves by setting up an "authoritarian" party to "do it for us". If you really believe otherwise, if you really believe that a new slavery will somehow "lead" to freedom, then you are a fool.
quote:
And at any rate, once the socialist state is created it is run through democratic centralism (you cannot know how a true socialist democracy works if you aren't knowledgable on that). It may not be considered a "democracy" by the western bourgeoisie simply because it is a one party state but there are checks and balances to it as there is in almost every case.
Horseshit! I know exactly what democratic centralism is...and there's not a fucking thing democratic about it. In fact, here is a very good summary of it from a thread in the Theory Forum...
quote:
The communist party is the monolithic party of the proletariat and not a party of a bloc of elements of different classes. It is based on democratic centralism. Every member must observe unified discipline. The individual is subordinate to the organisation, the minority is subordinate to the majority, the lower level is subordinate to the higher level, and the entire Party is subordinate to the Central Committee. The highest leading body of the Party is the National Party Congress, and, when it is not in session, the Central Committee elected by it.
This particular Leninist party doesn't have a "great leader" yet--but the general idea is pretty clear. Unless you wish to wallow in servility or climb the treacherous rope to the top, there's nothing for any self-respecting human being here.
quote:
Maybe a disciplined Republican army might have won, maybe it wouldn't, but you sure as fuck can't say that it helped to have a handful of pathetic anarchists whining and bitching about their commander (who knows about millitary strategy) giving them orders during times of war and creating factionalism with the rest of the coalition because they didn't approve of their opportunistic pipe dreams at the moment.
More grotesque ignorance and slander. Why don't you at least take the trouble to read three or four histories of the Spanish Civil War? I know, that's a silly question, isn't it? If you actually learned some of the details of that conflict, it would blow all your stupid stereotypes and mythology about anarchists right out of the water. In fact, you'd find that even the Spanish Trotskyists were better than the bourgeois ass-kissing "Communist" Party of Spain that you support.
And you don't want that, do you?
quote:
Can you please name one accomplishment by libertarian socialists that Marxist/Leninists haven't done? All you seem to do is slag off socialist states but not defend your own position.
Can you please name one of your "socialist states" that stays socialist? Can you please name one of your beloved "democratic centralist" parties that hasn't produced a crop of "traitors"?
Libertarian communists and anarchists are, in your eyes, "losers" and unworthy of respect...where are your victories? Even when you Leninists win a modicum of support from the working class, your arrogant authoritarianism pisses away your gains as fast as you make them. Even on those rare occasions when you actually succeed in seizing state power "on behalf of the workers", you transform yourselves into a new ruling (capitalist) class within a generation or two.
That's history, dammit, do you dare to deny it?
quote:
Again using authoritarian elements to childishly equate Marxist/Leninism with something completely irrelevant. Tell me, if a soldier dosen't want to make an attack at a strategic time and position because his ass is too lazy, what is better, what the commander says or his "own wishes"?
If you are the "commander", then the soldier's revolutionary duty is "to turn his gun on his officers"! Why the hell should he put his ass on the line so that a tin-pot despot-wannabe like yourself can become Imperial Commissar?
Assuming that you are representative of MIM, it's pretty obvious that your arrogance is right out in the open, plain for all to see. You think you, or at least your movement, has an inherent right to rule.
I can't deny that such a message "resonates" with certain types...people who, for one reason or another, find that increasing their personal status and prestige is blocked by the constraints of the capitalist system.
But if you imagine, even in your wildest dreams, that communist revolution is going to be your personal "road to glory"...man, are you going to be disappointed.
The most you guys can hope for is to end up as a pimple on the ass of the revolution...which, when it becomes sufficiently irritating, will be squeezed.
By the way, you never did respond to that "all sex is rape under patriarchy" line. Too embarrassed to admit that MIM enforces a vow of celibacy on its membership?
-------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on July 6, 2003
-------------------------------------------------------
======================================= |
|
| |
|
|
Navigation |
·
Welcome
·
Theory
·
Guest Book
·
Hype
·
Additional Reading
·
Links
·
Contact
|
|
Latest Theory
Collections |
· Communists Against Religion -- Part 19 June 6, 2006
· Conversations with Capitalists May 21, 2006
· Vegetable Morality April 17, 2006
· Parents and Children April 11, 2006
· The Curse of Lenin's Mummy April 3, 2006
|
|
Defining Theory
Collections |
·
What Did Marx "Get Wrong"? September 13, 2004
·
Class in Post-Revolutionary Society - Part 1 July 9, 2004
·
Demarchy and a New Revolutionary Communist Movement November 13, 2003
·
A New Type of Communist Organization October 5, 2003
·
The "Tools" of Marxism July 19, 2003
·
Marxism Without the Crap July 3, 2003
·
What is Socialism? An Attempt at a Brief Definition June 19, 2003
·
What is Communism? A Brief Definition June 19, 2003
·
A New Communist Paradigm for the 21st Century May 8, 2003
·
On "Dialectics" -- The Heresy Posts May 8, 2003
|
|
Random Quote |
| Voting in America’s fake "elections" is a sucker’s game that will change NOTHING!
|
|
Search |
| |
Statistics |
|
·
There have been 3 users active in the past 15 minutes.
|
|
