| Theory |
|
The Devil Returns to St. Avakian's April 12, 2004 by RedStar2000 |
My "dialog" with the American RCP (or "Remarkably Clueless Party" as one wit called them) seems to be approaching its end.
I can't blame them for losing patience with me, of course. I persist in my heretical rejection of Leninism-Maoism-Avakianism and the tone of my posts is...well, less than "properly respectful".
Hopefully, I have introduced a "worm of doubt" into their garden...to gnaw away at their archaic faith in the "wisdom of Chairman Bob".
They are not unintelligent (though, in many respects, woefully uninformed). Perhaps some of them will, someday, become real communists.
We shall see.
============================================
quote:
So to paraphrase what Engels wrote: "Theory must leap over gaps in data."
That leap is a leap of extrapolation and interpolation -- and it involves scientific faith in our ability to extrapolate and interpolate.
Perhaps...but what of a situation in which the "extrapolation" or the "interpolation" actually contradicts the existing data?
Consider your quotation from Mao:
quote:
We must have faith in the masses and we must have faith in the Party. These are two cardinal principles. If we doubt these principles, we shall accomplish nothing.
We know now that the masses were powerless to halt the establishment of modern capitalism in China...and that the Party led the drive to establish modern capitalism there.
Of what use, therefore, was Mao's "faith"?
I have no problem with the empirical necessity to "trust our own rational judgment"...we simply cannot stop to verify everything.
I do have a severe problem in asking people to "just trust me on this one"...because of the inevitable consequence of such an appeal.
If people start "trusting me", then they lose the habit (if they had it in the first place) of trusting their own rational judgment.
People often readily slide into "trusting their leaders" because it's easier...it requires less brain work.
But that seems to me to fundamentally contradict one of the core values of communist society...that the masses themselves must "think and act for themselves". If they "have faith" in their leaders, then they won't bother to do that. They won't see any "need" for it, since the "leaders" will "manage things".
So, in an epistemological sense, you're right...we "have faith" that the sun will rise, gravity will continue to exist, etc., etc., etc.
But I dispute that we should "therefore" ask people to "have faith" in us. On the contrary, I think every individual member of the working class must be encouraged as strongly as we can to think for herself/himself and to forget about "faith" altogether.
"Doubt everything", Marx once said...and I think his critical approach is one that is indispensable to a communist approach and a revolutionary communist movement.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at AnotherWorldIsPossible on February 27, 2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
There is in political life, struggle, strikes, revolutions, etc. always an element of "trusting" parties and leaders. Plans, decisions, reorientations simply can't all be vetted or debated before being implemented -- or you lose.
I would not dispute that there are "practical" limits to our ability to "vet" everything.
But if your "leader" says "do something crazy", you must be able to refuse with a clear conscience.
You must have the "habit of mind" of examining every political question "as if" you were the "only" communist around.
If something "sounds crazy" or "doesn't make any sense", then you must be able to say that...loud and clear.
If you can't do that -- for any reason -- then you are going to be screwed...either by your leaders, the class enemy, or both!
quote:
Zinoviev and Kamenev tried to publicly debate (and dispute) Lenin's plan for the October insurrection -- and basically blew the whistle on the whole operation, endangering everything.
Yes, inspite of being in the leadership, they had not fully understood the meaning of Lenin's conception of the party as a "combat organization".
In "combat organizations", there are officers and soldiers...and the latter must obey the former.
Comrades Z & K were on "the general staff" and yet took a dispute with their "supreme commander" public...an absolutely impermissible act in such an organization.
This was especially outrageous because Lenin was ordering a coup...in which the secrecy of the arrangements is paramount.
Fortunately for the Bolsheviks, the Kerensky government was utterly impotent...its authority did not extend beyond the front gate of the old Winter Palace.
Real "uprisings", massive revolutions, are a rather different matter. The question of "what is to be done" is heatedly discussed by millions and tens of millions of workers.
They want to "know about" and "speak their minds about everything".
And they do!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at AnotherWorldIsPossible on February 27, 2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
In a vanguard party, all members have a deep responsibility to argue for their view, including criticizing the actions and line of leaders. That is the democratic part of "democratic centralism."
You can imagine some "authoritarian" group of blind obedience if you want -- but please don't put those words into the mouths of others.
It seems to me that you fail to understand the difference between the "nominal description" of a "democratic" centralist party and the way they actually function.
Just as we "citizens" of a bourgeois republic have a large panoply of "civil rights" on paper but almost none that we can actually exercise without risk of imprisonment or death, the member of a "combat organization" (Leninist party) has, in principle, the "right" and even the "duty" to raise her/his political views and even criticisms.
In practice, this "right" is circumscribed to the point of non-existence.
How? First of all, criticism of the leadership is almost always an express ticket to the exit. Asserting that the leadership has blundered, even on a limited issue, is read by the leadership as a declaration of intent to oust them from their exalted position in the party, replacing them with yourself. They're not about to accept that as a legitimate exercise of "democratic" centralism...so they give you the boot before you can say "left deviationism".
Secondly, communication within the vanguard party has traditionally been permitted only vertically, not horizontally. You may, if you are foolishly brave, address a criticism upwards. You may not inform other party members at your level of what you have done and why. Horizontal communication between party groups is usually explicitly prohibited...because that could lead to an "organized" opposition to the party's leadership.
Thirdly, there is little practical reason for ordinary party members to discuss "big questions" -- their views are essentially immaterial and they know that.
Thus, for ordinary members, the discussions that they do have take the form of "how best can we carry out the party's line?" and almost never "what moron thought this up?"
It's really quite similar to the situation in a real army (since that's what it was copied from): real professional soldiers don't stop and discuss their orders or the strategy that their generals have come up with -- they have to at least attempt to carry those orders out and "hope for the best"...that they don't get killed and that the strategy is not an utterly hopeless blunder.
The "habit of obedience to authority" permeates the vanguard party, regardless of the desires of the leadership. Supposedly, Stalin made a whole bunch of speeches harshly criticizing mindless obedience and bureaucratic literalism...to no avail.
Everyone knows that such rhetoric is not to be taken literally; if you do make that mistake, it's your ass!
quote:
But clearly, in revolutionary working class politics (like in strikes or other processes relying on organized strength) it is also necessary to unite to carry out the decision (even if you personally had a different view.) That is elementary. You can't have a strike discussion -- and then afterwards everyone against the strike goes back to work, and everyone for the strike goes home -- no one would ever win a strike that way.
Well, let's fill in the details a bit.
Suppose we have a situation in which the workers vote 80% to strike and 20% not to strike. Even if those 20% scab, the strike could still win. And some may not scab...they may just not show up for picket-line duty, go off and find another job, whatever.
Now, suppose we have a situation where 51% of the workers voted to strike and 49% voted against a strike.
Now you really could lose the strike if most of the opposition decides to scab...you can hope they won't, but who knows?
There are things you could do to deal with this problem -- for example, you could insist on a "super-majority" of support before a strike is actually called. If 65 to 75% of the workers are in favor of a strike, what the minority does will not weigh very heavily.
What's really missing, though, is a sound argument and explanation why to strike is the best option. In nearly all unions today, the leadership calls and calls off strikes will little effort to explain to the membership what is at stake. Union contracts are written in language as obscure as that of an insurance policy...and much longer.
I've heard that some unions don't publish the contract at all -- even if the average worker could understand the bureaucratic language, s/he'd have to go to New York or Washington, D.C. to actually read a copy.
In this climate, it's pretty easy to understand why union members are at least willing to consider scabbing...they may well consider a strike to be really a squabble between two sets of bosses.
No matter who "wins", the workers lose.
As an abstract principle of human affairs, no one can argue against the assertion that "in unity there is strength".
But the "unity" imposed by "combat organizations" conceals a fatal flaw -- if the leader blunders, the organization loses. There's no one else who can "step forward" and "take initiative" to rescue the situation...the habit of obedience has eliminated that option.
Only when the source of initiative is widely dispersed -- as it is in real revolutions -- can the catastrophic effects of a "leadership blunder" be absolutely avoided...or, at least that's the best chance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at AnotherWorldIsPossible on February 29, 2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
This is kind of funny, redstar -- since you are constantly the one who "assumes" things without investigation.
There is such a thing as experience. I've also had close friends over the decades who were in other Leninist parties here and there across the spectrum.
In addition, of course, I've read widely in Lenin himself as well as many accounts of the histories of various Leninist parties.
So, actually, I've "investigated" quite a bit.
quote:
There are many in political life (and perhaps on this site as well) who have been part of the RCP's internal life, and have experience with it.
Let's get real: You have no idea how the RCP actually functions.
I am always willing to be instructed.
But the members of other Leninist parties make the same claim, you know.
That is, they say "our party is different; we don't operate like that at all".
After they get the boot, they sometimes have the decency to tell me that "I was right".
Who knows...maybe that will happen someday on this board.
That would be nice.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at AnotherWorldIsPossible on March 2, 2004
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Leninist supporter: "WTF?!! What kind of a pile of ignorant, insulting, presumptuous, condescending bull shit!...."
Yes, I can see how you would take it that way; there was certainly a time when I would have said precisely the same thing.
Whenever you dispute the views of another, there is a sense in which you are being "presumptuous" -- you're presuming that you're right and the other person is wrong.
And people will often say that you are being "insulting" and "condescending" as well; after all, the implication of asserting that you are right is that something is "wrong" with the person who is "wrong" -- in class society, "wrong" is often taken to mean "inferior" in the sense of status. That can be considered "insulting".
But what would you have me do? Just simply accept your claim that your Leninist party is "different from all the rest"?
But if I "take your word for it", then why not "take everyone's word" for everything?
Why not substitute faith for materialist criticism?
I'll concede that I've put you in something of an impossible situation; how can you "prove" that you don't "beat your wife" when nobody's looking?
You cannot, of course...nor could anyone.
But Leninist party practice has a long and at least quasi-public track record...plenty of former members have come forward publicly to say "this is what it's really like". Granted, some were disgruntled egotists, others were simply nutballs, and some were outright renegades who went over to the capitalist side.
But, over nearly ten decades, pieces start to "fit together", patterns emerge, etc.
For example, your campaign to "build up" the public image of Chairman Bob...hasn't that happened before? With awful consequences?
Why should it be "different" this time?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at AnotherWorldIs Possible on March 4, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Several people have tried to draw these distinctions between a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist view of democratic centralism and a revisionist views of it yet rs2000 continues to ignore these distinctions.
Well, I question whether the "distinctions" are real ones.
Did Mao's own party function significantly different from that of Stalin's or Khrushchev's?
Not that I can see. Some of the forms and some of the rhetoric might have been different...but the pattern looks pretty similar.
quote:
Instead of all this talk about groups, RS2000, what are your criticisms of Lenin's What is to be Done?
Here's a short summary...
quote:
The first major controversy that Lenin became involved in was a very practical one -- how should a member of the RSDLP be formally defined? Lenin put forward a very "strict" definition: a member was defined as "one who works under the direction of a party group".
If you are operating underground, you want no "loose cannons" rolling about the countryside apt to do or say anything that might hurt the struggle.
Lenin went on to develop this insight into a theory of the revolutionary party as a "combat organization" waging a war against the Czarist autocracy.
Whether commanders or soldiers, they must be trained professionals -- Lenin heartily despised "amateurs" and "part-timers".
Combat organizations are not "talking shops" or "debating circles" (or, for that matter, internet message boards). The senior members of the party -- "the General Staff" -- might have many heated discussions on the best way forward. They almost all lived in exile and were free to meet as often as they wished, had time to write theoretical articles, etc. But "in the front lines", there's no time for debate and, indeed, it is actually dangerous. Meetings take place only to accomplish immediate practical tasks...too many gatherings can attract police attention.
It's unlikely that Lenin's ideas were "perfectly realized" -- politicized people "like" to argue politics and, especially in the larger Russian cities, I'm sure there was discussion and argument between party members. The Bolshevik wing of the RSDLP was not nearly as "monolithic" in practice as it was "on paper".
But balanced against this must be the fact of Lenin's personal charisma -- his admirers and supporters in the party were, by contemporary accounts, extraordinarily impressed with the man and gave his opinions "the benefit of the doubt".
Once you form such a group, its evolutionary path is obvious (to us, not necessarily to people living in those times). Because combat organizations are not "talking shops", talk gradually ceases...except at the top. It doesn't happen all at once, of course...it can take quite a long time. Then it stops at the top as well...you get a Stalin or a Mao.
In summary, the Leninist conception of a revolutionary party as a "combat organization" rules out by definition any significant role for the ordinary members (much less the masses)...except carrying out the instructions of the leadership.
I suppose that a contemporary Maoist might argue that the "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution" departed from this pattern -- calling (at least in a limited sense) for the masses to directly participate in the struggle against the "capitalist-roaders".
But when Mao suppressed the Shanghai Commune, it was clear that he had "reverted to (Leninist) habit"...the masses were not to be "really trusted" to lead the struggle.
It always seems to turn out that way.
quote:
Do you believe that the truth can actually be known?
Of course. But there's a quote I remember...possibly from Shakespeare.
Truth is the daughter of time.
The closer we are to events, the easier it is to miss "the big picture" of what is really taking place. The "verdict of history" is not just a phrase...it's vital.
There are innumerable examples of this...even in our own personal lives.
But I think one of the best examples is the period leading up to the beginning of World War I...when (as far as I know) no one realized that the magnificent edifice of European social democracy was consumed by ideological rot. It looked so "strong" and "powerful" and even "revolutionary".
Knowledge comes from experience.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at AnotherWorldIsPossible on March 5, 2004
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Mao opposed the earlier notion of "a monolithic party" -- said that struggle and debate over what is correct is both inevitable and the lifeblood of a party.
I didn't ask what he said; I asked what he did.
I quite agree that towards the end, he did call upon the masses...and I don't deny that that was a "good thing" to do.
But he "backed away" at the crunch point!
quote:
...some had advocated a "Shanghai commune" but Mao urged against it -- he said the commune form had proven too weak in other revolutions (including the famous Paris Commune) and the conception did not leave any room (structurally) for the leading role of a vanguard party.
And that, boys and girls, was your ballgame!
No room for the "vanguard party"? Horrors!
The very party, of course, that got to work openly restoring capitalism before Mao's corpse was cold.
Perhaps the Shanghai Commune would not have prevented the return of open capitalism either...we have no way of knowing.
But it was at least possible that the Commune form could have spread to other cities, overthrowing the "capitalist-roaders" along the way.
Mao didn't let that happen.
quote:
Where do correct ideas come from? They come from social practice. But that "social practice" is not just experience, but also the social process of correctly summing up experience.
Guess where this is going...
quote:
This is why extracting knowledge from experience is not easy, and requires the study of science, economics, history, etc. And it requires debate and polemics and systematization as theory. And it requires ongoing organized practice (of a party, or a research institute, or a medical study).
Yes, yet another "reason" for a vanguard party.
To "sum up" experience..."correctly", of course.
This is an appeal to "expertise" -- just as doctors are "experts" in medicine, Leninists are "experts" in revolution.
And just as, if you are rational, you listen carefully and act on your doctor's instructions...likewise, you "should" listen carefully and act on your "leader's" instructions.
Is "revolution" a "hard science"...like medicine? If you think so, then you must seek "expert opinion". You have no choice.
But suppose it's not a "hard science"?
Suppose that what can actually be said in a definitive way about revolution is something that can be mastered in a relatively short period of time by anyone of normal intelligence?
Then the Leninist claim of "professional expertise" collapses.
Of course, that's a controversial hypothesis, to say the least. It goes "against the grain" of the history of 20th century "communism".
But I do not see how anyone could reasonably argue that the history of 20th century "communism" was anything but an abysmal failure.
Avakian calls it "fake communism" and I have no problem with that; but recall that that's a retrospective judgment. During and even after their lifetimes, people like Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Tito, Mao, etc., etc. were all regarded as experts by very substantial numbers of people...to no avail.
What can we say about "schools of medicine" where all the patients die?
I think what we ought to say, if we are rational, is that another and very different approach is required.
We need a new "theory of proletarian revolution" -- one that directly involves the participation of ordinary working people in its development.
That doesn't mean that there is "no role" for theoreticians, organizers, activists, etc. But it does mean that their role is considerably more modest than was thought in the last century. They cannot be permitted to take refuge behind the walls of "expertise" and "commandism".
That's been tried; it didn't work.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at AnotherWorldIsPossible on March 8, 2004
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
First, this whole argument is pure-and-simple American pragmatism. How can you tell if a line was mistaken? If it didn't win in the end. The struggle between revolution and counterrevolution gets replaced (in Redstar's pragmatic logic) by the comparison of "winners and losers."
Aren't you the guys who are always saying stuff about people being "serious" and "really wanting to win"?
Now, all of a sudden, "winning and losing" don't count???
What's the point of a Leninist paradigm that consistently loses?
I frankly don't care if you label that "American pragmatism" or "Plutonian perfectionism". It does not successfully escape the horns of your dilemma.
You want to argue that you are the self-anointed "experts" in proletarian revolution and communism; that we "can't win" without you.
When it is pointed out that the empirical reality is that you don't win but rather consistently lose, you squeal "foul" and claim that "it wasn't your fault".
Anyone who points that out "has to be" a vulgar "American pragmatist".
Do you think you can "have it both ways" and no one will notice?
quote:
It is also not true that the Party (per se) was the problem in China.
Oh? Who was that "masked man" anyway? The one that stole the revolution while Mao was taking a nap.
Come on! The party was the significant organized political force in China.
quote:
The problem was structures of organized revisionists within the party...
Earlier you contended that the Maoist party differed from the Khrushchev party in that the Maoist party was "not monolithic". Are you now saying that that was a "mistake", allowing the revisionists to effectively organize a take-over?
How about this "pragmatic" hypothesis? Governing elites naturally become corrupt, regardless of their nominal ideology, because it's in their material interests to do so?
The only way to stop that from happening is to never give an elite a chance to form.
quote:
And no one in American bourgeois politics respects or studies a "loser."
Well, American bourgeois ideologues consider Marx and Engels "losers" and I, at least, continue to learn from them.
But really, we're not speaking of individuals here, are we? We're speaking of the entire Leninist paradigm. Was Lenin right or wrong about the way to make proletarian revolution and achieve classless society?
His paradigm was implemented across the entire world in a whole variety of circumstances for three-quarters of a century...without lasting success. The evidence shows that Lenin was wrong.
When a paradigm fails, its most ardent defenders can make up an almost endless list of excuses, exceptions, special circumstances, etc., etc., etc.
Leninism v.6.0 will really work this time.
I don't see why it should; not that my skepticism will stand in your way. In the due course of events, I suspect there will be a version 7.0 and perhaps even 8.0.
Knowledge really does come from experience; some people just need more of it than others.
quote:
Well, then the logic goes, there is nothing to learn or do. It is all a "failure" -- and how do we know? cuz there are not socialist countries at this moment -- and (as any good American pragmatist knows) the measure of correctness is "winning."
Nothing to learn or do, eh? No need to develop a new revolutionary paradigm that might do some actual winning for a change?
Nah, let's just go on losing...at least we have "the moral high ground".
"Winning" is so...vulgar!
quote:
You can spit on our struggle, our victories. You can chuckle over our defeats, and mock us.
Actually, I don't particularly wish to do either...though I have been known to yield to the temptation to mock when provoked.
I do not question your sincerity or your good intentions; I question your methodology and its conclusions.
You stoutly maintain that the working class cannot emancipate itself unless you and your party runs the show.
That is not true.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at AnotherWorldIsPossible on March 9, 2004
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
You want to storm Normandy Beach without a plan, without a general staff, without diversions, without intelligence estimates. As if we can all just load up in canoes and challenge a modern machinery of war and oppression.
Get real.
And there's that "military metaphor" again...one that can only conceive of class war as analogous to wars between nation-states.
It's wrong as reality and wrong as metaphor.
As Engels pointed out back in 1895, no amount of "military expertise" on the part of the proletariat would enable an uprising to militarily defeat a modern capitalist army. The army itself must refuse to fight or the uprising is lost, period.
But it's even more wrong as metaphor. The masses in revolutionary periods (or even anything close to that) do not operate in a "military" fashion...they do not think of themselves as "soldiers" in search of the "right general" to "lead them to victory".
They see victory as something to be taken by their own hands and through their own efforts...right now!
That's not something that a small group can either "make them do" or "keep them from doing it" if the masses want to do it.
I do not argue, as you seem to imply, that "revolutionary theory" is "unnecessary". The more of it that exists, the better it is, and the more it is grasped by the masses...the greater the probability of successful proletarian revolution.
But revolutionary theory is (1) not the exclusive domain of self-designated "expert theoreticians"; (2) will arise spontaneously in revolutionary periods; and (3) if implemented in material conditions other than those which gave birth to it, will simply have no perceptible result other than frustration and subsequent demoralization.
Leninism fails the test on all three counts.
How many Leninist parties have there been in the "west" since 1920 or so? Didn't they all claim to have an exclusive monopoly on correct revolutionary theory? Haven't they all failed to organize even the "bare bones" of a revolutionary working-class movement?
Did Lenin anticipate the rise of the soviets as the organs of working class power prior to 1905? You know he didn't; no one did. Not even Marx or Engels or Luxemburg or Kautsky or Martov or Trotsky, etc., etc.
The workers themselves came up with the idea...one that still inspires revolutionaries a century later. Aren't you at least curious as to what our class will come up with next?
Finally, I note with resignation that you continue to equate a non-Leninist approach to communism with "armchair do-nothingism"...inspite of the fact that the most active people today in the anti-war and anti-globalization movements (as well as many other struggles) are not Leninists. That's not to say that Leninists are not active; it's just to point out that there are many activist approaches today that are non-Leninist and even anti-Leninist.
I think it wildly implausible that my critiques of Leninism have ever stopped a single person from being politically active against capitalist hegemony.
Or ever will.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at AnotherWorldIsPossible on March 16, 2004
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
When we talk about "the masses" we mean the people acting in their thousands and millions (not as individuals).
But isn't each one of those "millions" an individual person?
Doesn't each person look at the world through one pair of eyes?
It seems to me that your concept of "the masses" is rather...well, metaphysical.
Almost as if they operated with some kind of "group mind".
But the historical fact of the matter is that some single individual person actually got up in a meeting and -- for the first time in history -- said "let's have a soviet" (or words to that effect).
The idea was so "in tune" with material reality that it spread across urban Russia like the proverbial wild-fire. If the person who said it first had been hit by a truck on the way to the meeting, someone else would have been the first to say it.
But some individual would have said it first.
One of the crucial aspects of my critique of the Leninist paradigm is precisely the controversy over "who" can legitimately "say things first".
The Leninist conception of revolution very strongly implies (if it doesn't say outright) that only the "time-tested" leadership can "say things first"...that is, things that are correct and useful.
My view is rather different. Conscious communists may (or may not) have correct and useful things to say and be among the first to say them...but the real creativity of the revolution will come from individuals who are part of the masses. They might be fairly sophisticated politically or they might be complete "newbies" or something in between.
There is simply no telling!
And because of that demonstrated historical fact, there is no material reason to give "special weight" to the advice of a self-proclaimed group of "experts in revolution". You may indeed come up with some "good ideas" -- but I expect ordinary working people will come up with many more "good ideas" than you will.
For one thing, they outnumber you by a very wide margin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at AnotherWorldIsPossible on March 20, 2004
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think the problem is one of lack of theoretical expertise among the members of the vanguard party.
If you want to become a "theoretician", the stuff you need to read is "out there" and readily available...now, in fact, almost everything of significance is on the internet.
It takes some work...say two or three years of serious reading (you won't have time to do much else). And, like everything else that you're new at, your initial efforts to apply theory will be somewhat awkward and clumsy.
But it doesn't take a "genius" to do it; and, again like everything else, the more of it you do, the better you get at it. If you stay with it long enough, you can start suggesting improvements...that will be rooted in a solid understanding of both theory and material reality.
My impression is that Leninist parties don't, by and large, do very much to educate their membership in revolutionary theory...particularly the works of Marx and Engels. When I traveled in those circles, we were told to read Lenin's What Is To Be Done?, State and Revolution, and Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder. A Trotskyist party would add a couple of pamphlets by Trotsky, and a Maoist party would add some stuff by Mao. Of course, each Leninist party has a leader or a small collective of leaders...and you're supposed to read whatever they write in the way of theory.
But that's usually about it. The long tradition of independent Marxist scholarship is ignored. No one would dare be caught reading an anarchist theoretician. Even "left" petty-bourgeois critics of capitalism are rarely consulted...inspite of the fact that they often accumulate valuable empirical data on how capitalism actually works.
The real difficulty is that the membership cannot be "independent" of the leadership in a functioning vanguard party -- it would be like saying that soldiers should be "independent" of their generals.
Note that I said "functioning" -- there are occasions when a Leninist party (like an army) faces a crisis...and, briefly, what the membership thinks becomes very important and even decisive.
When an army is defeated in battle, soldiers can ignore their officers and flee the carnage...or even mutiny and kill the officers who led them into disaster. Things are not so drastic in a Leninist party (at least in the "west"). But it has happened that a leadership that has proven to be utterly incompetent is challenged by the membership.
Leninist parties are structured in such a way that it is normally impossible for the membership to "seize power" and expel the old leadership. What usually happens is a split...the dissidents leave or are expelled or both. If the rebels still adhere to the Leninist paradigm, then they proceed to set up a new party with a new leadership.
Much more rarely, two Leninist parties will find themselves in such close agreement that a merger will be discussed. The principle obstacle to the merger of two Leninist parties that are otherwise in theoretical agreement is, naturally, who is going to be in the leadership of the united party. (It bears a striking resemblance to a corporate merger in this regard.) Proposed mergers generally founder on this question...something that often happens in the corporate world as well.
Soldiers are rarely taught even the rudiments of military strategy; you have to be selected for officers' training school for that. The only thing a soldier really needs to know is what his orders are and the imperative necessity of executing those orders at all costs.
For the average member of the average Leninist party, it is not that bad...but pretty close!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at AnotherWorldIsPossible on March 22, 2004
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
The point is the struggle to develop true and correct analysis, to build on innovations, to develop a living sense of the living movement -- to sum up the expriences, innovations and views of the people, and develop (based on such summation) revolutionary policies that the people can understand and that can lead them to victory.
This is the mass line -- it connects the power and creativity of the masses with the scientific power of MLM and the organized vanguard. This is how real-world revolutionary political dynamics work.
With all due respect, it seems to me that your criticism of my "cartoon-like" description of Leninism results from the fact that I take phrases like the one above and re-state them in ordinary words. And when I do that, it doesn't sound so "good".
For example, all those fancy words in the first three phrases mean: "we pay attention to what's going on around us...what the masses are actually doing."
The rest of the first paragraph means: "If we think they're doing something good, we go back to them and tell them to do it some more."
The second paragraph applies a name to this process -- the mass line -- and asserts that this is how revolutions take place.
Now ask yourself this: if the masses are doing something "good", are they going to stop it unless there is an organized vanguard present to nag them into continuing?
Or, to put it another way, if the masses did something "good" for a while and then wanted to stop, would the presence of an organized vanguard keep that from happening?
The Leninist paradigm strongly implies an affirmative answer to those questions. But that, in turn, also implies that the Leninist party really does have the power of command over the masses.
Here it is in Lenin's own words...
quote:
We could only rejoice if the Social-Democrats succeeded in directing every strike, for it is their plain and unquestionable duty to direct every manifestation of the class struggle of the proletariat...
One Step Forward; Two Steps Back
If you are a Leninist, then you agree with this. Why?
quote:
But it would be..."tail-ism" to think that the entire class, or almost the entire class, can ever rise, under capitalism, to the level of consciousness and activity of its vanguard, of its Social-Democratic Party.
(Same source)
Thus the nominal intent to "learn from the masses" devolves into the practical activity of convincing the masses to follow the instructions of the vanguard party...which means, again in practical terms, the instructions (commands) of the party's leadership.
All this doesn't mean that a Leninist party "can't" learn from the masses...but I don't think they like it very much and will make whatever haste they can to restore the "normal" relationship of supremacy for themselves and submission for the masses.
Mao's negative reaction to the Shanghai Commune -- where the masses started to "get out of hand" -- being an excellent illustration of this principle.
quote:
The leadership does not simply "invent" theory or policy from "its head."
Quite so. There is now a century of "Leninist tradition" to draw upon and any Leninist leadership will "cherry-pick" whatever they find useful.
There's nothing "wrong" with that; some things do work better than others.
The controversy is over whether this tradition is a "vital" one...particularly in the advanced capitalist countries. Is there any reasonable chance that the Leninist paradigm will ever work in the U.S., Europe, Japan, etc.?
Will modern working classes "accept" the leadership of a vanguard? Will they "follow" its commands?
Or will they, as Marx and Engels thought, take matters directly into their own hands and emancipate themselves from wage-slavery?
There's no way they can do both!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at AnotherWorldIsPossible on March 22, 2004
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Communists don't just notice what the masses are doing -- but they "synthesize it in light of MLM" -- meaning they take the scattered, unsystematic, partial innovations that are constantly created -- and they synthesize and promote this in ways that develop a REVOLUTIONARY movement.
Translation: we compile whatever the masses are doing, check it against our tradition, and if there are no gross discrepancies, then we go back to the masses and tell them to do it some more.
The implication -- that the Leninists are "experts" and can pick out the "right stuff" to encourage -- is problematical.
So is the claim of being able to systematize the "scattered, partial" innovations of the masses.
The appeal of this approach -- to "intellectuals" -- is understandable. "We" are used to the idea that "real thought" by definition is "coherent" and "systematic".
Since real revolutionary struggles are rarely (if ever) either one of those things, "we" conclude that the masses innovate...but they need "us" to make their innovations "work" in a "systematic" way.
Without "us", the masses just sort of flail around at random and don't accomplish very much...if anything. If they do chance on a "good idea", they won't develop it into a coherent strategy...they need "us" to do that.
It strikes me that this is a question of historical evidence that cannot be resolved by theoretical claims and counter-claims.
Each of us must investigate (to use one of your favorite words) what actually happened in revolutionary struggles in the 20th century and decide: was the Leninist claim of expertise confirmed by events?
Or did it fail the test of practice?
The RCP claims that it has "synthesized" the experiences of 20th century Leninism and "this time" will "get it right".
The reader may consult their documents and decide if that claim is at least plausible.
But it seems to me that experience has demonstrated the fundamental flaw of Leninism that appears to be irreparable: it appoints itself as the leader of the masses and thus substitutes itself for the masses in the revolutionary process.
I don't think there is any possible way for that to "work"...at least in the advanced capitalist countries.
quote:
Leninists don't "agree" with every sentence, summation and utterance of Lenin.
Nor did I suggest that you did.
Nevertheless, do you not agree that the vanguard party has "the plain and unquestionable duty to direct every manifestation of the class struggle of the proletariat"?
That seems to me to be at the very core of the whole idea of a Leninist party as he himself conceived it.
Granted that it's not always practical to actually carry out that "unquestionable duty", the fact is that you would do it if you could.
I don't think you can "hedge" on this one; if you don't offer an enthusiastic affirmative answer, then you've abandoned Leninism.
quote:
The process of struggling for COMMUNIST leadership of the activity of the proletariat is not mainly an organizational matter (some kind of "commie takeover") -- it is mainly a political matter of "diverting" the struggles of the people from their limited, partial, spontaneous forms into a more united, conscious, politically focused struggle for power.
I think this is a very evasive reply. In fact, it sounds "almost" like something I would say: that communist ideas among the masses are what really count and the presence or absence of particular individual communists or organized communist groups is secondary and may even be irrelevant.
Your statement suggests that organizational positions of "leadership" are secondary or even trivial...which is wildly opposed to Leninist-Maoist tradition on this question. Every Leninist party that I ever heard of positively salivates at the prospect of getting elected to leading positions in mass organizations.
Realistically, I think you do too.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at AnotherWorldIsPossible on March 25, 2004
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Communists are fundamentally political representatives of the oppressed -- and their ranks are filled with the most advanced from among the oppressed themselves (together with communists from other classes who "come over" in their allegiance to the proletariat).
The fighters and leaders of the proletariat (at least those who want revolution and classless society) need this framework, ideology and organization to do their work in any meaningful way. And to be meaningful it must be (and is) connected to the masses themselves (their lives, aspirations and struggles) by a thousand threads.
This is a series of claims, of assertions; are they true? And if they are true, do Leninist-Maoists meet these criteria in actual practice?
1. Except in revolutionary situations, how much do conscious communists actually "represent the oppressed"?
If you ask the oppressed, the answer is generally "not much" or "not at all".
2. What is the class composition of Leninist parties? How many working class members do they really have? How many working class leaders?
Without speculation on the specifics of the RCP, I suggest the general answer (in the "west") is (1) not many and (2) almost none.
3. Is an organization of conscious communists required for successful proletarian revolution? If the answer is yes, then is the Leninist paradigm a "workable" version of one?
I would say that the first question remains open; but if the answer turns out to be positive, then the answer to the second question is: no, Leninism in the "west" has not worked.
4. What does it mean to have one's work "connected" to the masses? How is this different, in Leninist practice, from actually commanding (or trying to) the masses?
The first question is, I think, too "fuzzy" to have an objective answer. To the second question, it's my opinion that Leninists in general conflate the two.
That is, if a Leninist party "calls" on the masses to do something and the masses actually do it, the Leninist concludes that his line is "connected" to the masses.
If they don't do it, he has to go back to the drawing board and figure out how to "reconnect".
It's a "subset" of the question of "correct leadership" among Leninists. A Leninist leader who succeeds in seizing state power is "correct" by definition; failure is always caused (in the last analysis) by "incorrect leadership".
(Yes, the leader accused of failure will blame "objective conditions"...but that's not a popular concept in Leninist circles and probably won't serve to get him "off the hook".)
What we have here, it seems to me, are a series of very abstract -- and even idealist -- ideas about what the social role of communists is (and where they come from) mixed with a very pragmatic criterion...did we get state power or not?
quote:
In fact, the Maoists have a deeply-held principle of "leading through line" (not leading by grabbing bureaucratic organizational positions and operating "behind the scenes"). This approach flows from the Maoist view that "ideological and political line is decisive" -- and that "it is inexcusable to do things without the masses, even if you do them in the name of the masses."
This is likewise a claim: "we won't act like other Leninist parties have acted -- we promise".
I have no doubt that you are sincere about this at the moment...especially considering the fact that you probably lack the opportunity to do otherwise.
But within the overall context of the Leninist emphasis on leadership, how will you and why should you "resist temptation" when the opportunity does arise?
Granting your willingness and ability to resist the grotesque opportunism of a Workers' World Party or a Socialist Workers' Party, there are other and more subtle temptations.
Imagine if you were approached by a group of unhappy workers to run for business agent of your local? Imagine if you ran and won? How would this change in your material condition affect your "revolutionary vision"?
Or suppose you had the opportunity to become an editor of a "mainstream left" publication (Mother Jones might be a good example)...a chance to "work behind the scenes" to push for a more revolutionary line? (Even work in a plug or two for Chairman Bob...)
See what I mean? Realistically, I don't think you could "turn down" those opportunities; I think you'd see them as steps towards "a leading role" for the party.
Which, objectively speaking, they would be.
But is that a "good thing"?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at AnotherWorldIsPossible on March 26, 2004
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
============================================= |
|
| |
|
|
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 |
| If you settle for shit, that becomes the most you can ever hope for.
|
|
Search |
| |
Statistics |
|
·
There have been 2 users active in the past 15 minutes.
|
|
