|
Post by RosaRL on Apr 25, 2004 11:25:32 GMT -5
JC said: This isnt to say there is some sort of magical "Labour Aristocracy" in the "first" world .
There is a lot that you have said that I disagree with, but I want to focus on this since it has been an issue of debate on this board.
Yes, there is a Labor Aristocracy in the U.S. and its NOT the top heads of the trade union bureaucracy -- those people are in the camp of the enemy.
The Labor Aristocracy also is not just the better paid section of the working class that is in large scale industry such as steel, auto, heavy machinery, etc although these workers are relatively privileged.
The Labor Aristocracy tends to be the highly skilled craft. Precision and repair workers, employed in various industries from construction to telecommunications. They get a lot more than the crumbs that are passed along to the unskilled and simi-skilled industrial workers. they have become a more or less permanently bourgeoisified group.
Its important to keep in mind that this is a minority, yet it is a minority who's influence must be combated. If we deny we will not be able to deal correctly with them and their influence.
|
|
|
Post by redstar2000 on Apr 27, 2004 21:09:25 GMT -5
JC, you raise a lot of interesting questions in your posts; I'll try to reply to as many as I can.
But I have to ask: is English your second language? I mean, I can sort of understand what you're getting it...but it's tough!
That phrase that you like so much that you've used it in several posts is: petty bourgeois dilettante.
JC wrote: The black panthers were a Leninist party that gained over 5,000 members and obviously this organization drew from proletarian and lumpen classes.
The Leninist "credentials" of the Black Panther Party are...dubious, and I think your estimate of their membership is on the high side -- though it's certainly possible that 5,000 people were at one time or another members of the BPP.
As far as I know, the BPP was unique in the 1960s as being the only left organization never to hold a convention or congress of its membership. Its leaders were "self-selected" for life (or until expulsion).
I also think that the concept of the "lumpen proletariat" is at least as dubious as that of the "labor aristocracy" -- like the latter, the former doesn't really "fit" into Marx's economic analysis of capitalism.
What's the "difference", after all, between the "lumpen proletariat" and the "reserve army of the unemployed"?
JC wrote: The CPUSA in the thirties drew from these classes and was certainly a mass organization.
Yes, I agree. But how much of the American CP's appeal in the 1930s was based on its open support and endorsement of the bourgeois "New Deal"?
Not to oversimplify too much, but it seems to me that after the great organizing drives of 1937-40, the CPUSA became the "left wing" of bourgeois reformist ideology -- that is, the Democratic Party.
The CPUSA's "super patriotism" during World War II, by contemporary accounts, actually alienated its working class constituency -- the "no strike pledge" being particularly resented. After 1945, conservative trade union leaders were able to defeat CPers for union office on the grounds that the CP "went to bed with the bosses" during World War II.
Under slightly different circumstances, I think the CPUSA would have become very much like the French or Italian CPers..."communist" in name and left-bourgeois reformers in practice.
JC wrote: What matters in an organization is more its program and class composition than organizational structures (not to say that's not important).
I think those things are all "tied together" and interact with each other in pretty complicated ways.
It's certainly possible for a single (brilliant) individual to come up with a "correct program" -- at least one that is "correct" at the moment. Should he happen to be the "great leader" of a Leninist party, he can (more or less) impose this program on the membership and see that it's carried out.
But what happens when things change?
What's wrong with the Leninist "process" is that everyone "waits" for each new idea to come from the top. (They all deny this, of course.) If you're waiting for someone else to tell you "what is to be done", then you're not thinking and acting like a communist. You're acting and thinking like a soldier, waiting for your next set of orders, your next assignment, etc. Or like a bureaucrat, waiting for the next memo from your superior.
Thus, a "correct program" and even a "working class composition" are no "guarantees" that "things will go well".
If a group's programs and policies are not really collectively developed and formulated, then, sooner or later, the "great leader" will blunder...and all will be lost. (Of course, collectives can blunder as well...but relying on one person or a very small group of people makes the odds against you much worse. No one and no small elite in recorded human history has ever been "correct" about everything.)
JC wrote: Regarding the class background of [Chairman] Bob, he's a, well, PETTY BOURGEOIS DILETTANTE!
You know, perhaps, more than I on this subject. But, as critical as I am of Chairman Bob, "dilettante" seems to me to be unfair and unwarranted. Dilettantes "play" at politics. People don't spend decades of their lives writing tons of stuff on political questions unless they're pretty serious. JC wrote: Being determines consciousness. What I'm trying to say is, if you're on the run from the Russian state, your past doesn't matter!
I think this is a good point, but it's time specific. That is, you develop one kind of consciousness from being a revolutionary fugitive from the old order's repressive apparatus. But, later on, if you find yourself "in charge" of a new repressive apparatus, your consciousness also changes to reflect that change in your material reality.
JC wrote: I'd like to add that right now there are tens of thousands of Leninists in the USA, but they're in a state of disunity.
Again, I think your numbers are "high"...but that was not really my point.
My point is that a modern proletariat -- even one as backward ideologically as America's -- will not accept the idea of "vanguard leadership", much less "vanguard rule".
The idea that they should "trade in" the bosses they have (who are already despised by many) for a set of "new bosses" (who promise to be "benevolent") is simply out of the question.
As to "disunity" among Leninists, I think you know the most probable reason for that as well as I do: who gets to run the united Leninist party?
The leaders of the various Leninist sects do have principled political differences with each other. But even if those differences could be resolved, the real question remains...who gets to be "CEO" of the new outfit?
Lots of "rational" corporate mergers break down over this question...and it's the same among Leninists.
JC wrote: What is the bureaucratic mode of production (i.e., in regards to the Soviet economy)? Is it the same as the asiatic mode of production? Then how is it that the Soviet Union produced mass industry in the 30's?
An excellent question! It really deserves its own thread.
There are obvious differences between the Soviet Union and classical "oriental despotism". But there are some interesting parallels as well.
After all, social systems don't enter the world (or leave it) in "neat self-contained packages".
Even a "mature" capitalist system, like that of the United States, nevertheless contains "traces" and "remnants" of all the social systems that went before it.
(If you think that's "far-fetched", then consider the "prison labor industry"...a form of slavery where corporations actually buy and sell not just the labor power of prisoners, but the prisoners themselves. Specifically, a private prison in one state will sell a whole group of prisoners to a private prison in another state; the prisoners will be physically transferred to their new owners -- in chains -- and put to work!)
So I think it was both obvious and inevitable that many of the features of Soviet production should partake of Russia's history of oriental despotism.
As to Stalin's program of industrialization, there's no "historical rule" against "modernizing" despots. Indeed, in many ways, Stalin was a second edition of Czar Peter "the Great" -- who also forcibly "modernized" Russia in the 18th century.
(I likewise think Mao really belongs to the Chinese tradition of "modernizing" emperors, as do the "father & son" despots in North Korea.)
Despotisms that "modernize" (usually because they feel threatened by foreign powers) take a great risk. Modernization introduces the people, especially the exploited and oppressed masses, to the concept of "directed change". Things are not "eternal" but can be changed "in a purposeful way".
This lays the foundation for revolutionary ideas among the masses.
JC wrote: I do not endorse the RCP Cult.
Good for you.
What cult (if any) do you endorse?
|
|
|
Post by morpheus on Apr 28, 2004 1:58:21 GMT -5
The testimonie of that fellow is irellevant ( Becuase Testominie isnt empirical study ) What fellow? Kollontai? She was a woman, not a fellow, and a prominent Bolshevik leader. I didn't say the petit bourgeoisie seized power. Members of the techno-managerial class did. You are attacking a straw man. Kind of like the tiny Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, etc. working classes. And actually the workers in the French Revolution did eventually begin to develop their own "line" via the Sans-coullotes movement. And the techno-managerial class can also be a revolutionary class.
|
|
JC
Comrade
Posts: 76
|
Post by JC on Apr 28, 2004 18:29:34 GMT -5
Thank You Comrades for youre thoughtful responce's !
I Will know Respond to you in order :
RosaRL : While I certianly do accept that are "Priviliged" Section of the prolatariat , the only labour aristoracy is the buracracy of the union ! While Skilled workers are "Privilliged" They certainly dont earn over the value of there labour !
Redstar: Youre thoughtfull comments regarding this topic have forced me to retract my insult . And english is my first language , however i am its buthcher !
Firstly , regarding the BPP , this orginization at its peak DID have 5,000 members and 100,000 Subscribers to there periordical . But then they froze membership and began moving to the right . they disoved as a silhouteo of there once reveloutionary formaition !
Secondly , i agree with you on the CPUSA , however the party was certainly mass by 33' , and ya gota give them some credit for that !
Thirdly , When it comes to programs , in Oppritunist orginizations ( Like the RIM Affliated orgs ) the proccess is like that , concertaring on party plenums . However , in canada in The CPC , all motions for congress are proposed at the club level and then put on the congress docket ( In recent years , there have party congresses on a regular basis ) The hiearchy dosent interfere at the congressinal level.
But , at this point , most leninist partys are moving to left due to the fact there is no peking or moscow buracrats holding them back . Infact , to use the CPC as a point of refrence again , there are currents of trotskyists and maoists within the party and they are allowed to freely operate .
Fourthly, I hate to ignore your other points , but i cant type for ever , so ill just get on to youre comment on leadership . I Accept the crisis of leadership HOWEVER i belive we must orginize a external faction of anti-buracrats to builid unity amoung leninist workers .
fithly , dosent the despotism require large buracrat classes ( Yes , i used a plural ) ? Of couse the sovjet buracracy was large , the total of party members was only at 10% and state officials was at only at 6.5% at peak in size .
Morpheus : Firstly , there is no techno manegarial class ( And even if there was , theyed as atomizied as the petit bourgoise ). Secondly , the reason those workers took state power becuase under imperialism , the natinol bourgoise is evaporated . You must know that the french reveloution took place in a completely diffrent epoch !
|
|
JC
Comrade
Posts: 76
|
Post by JC on Apr 28, 2004 19:33:01 GMT -5
I forgot to metion one thing . Regarding Counsince of the Leninist Group .
The Leninist Group in the russian soviet acutly passed a law that said any official recivied the wage only of the highest paid worker . This law was only a interim measure , however it was not applied to the other natinol soviets . And you cant say that trotsky didnt have a line saying "Carry the reveloution into Germany " . After all , he was endorsining these ideas while he was still a menshivik ! if this would have happened , the despotism wouldnt have happened and the mordinization would have been quikined !
|
|
JC
Comrade
Posts: 76
|
Post by JC on May 9, 2004 17:57:42 GMT -5
Does anyone wish to countinue this debate or did i get the last word , or know one wants to debate with a revisionist .
Just checking !
|
|
|
Post by redstar2000 on May 9, 2004 18:50:51 GMT -5
JC wrote: Does anyone wish to continue this debate or did I get the last word, or no one wants to debate with a revisionist.
Like it or not, we are all "revisionists" in our various ways.
I was very puzzled when I first ran into that term...what's the matter with "revising" ideas to make them better?
It took me a while to grasp the "sub-text" -- "revisionism" really refers to those who seek to "revise" Marx by emptying his paradigm of revolutionary content.
Such folks will be found saying "yeah, Marx was right about this" or he was "right about that"...but that proletarian revolution stuff -- he was "totally wrong" about that!
If you've been reading some of the other threads, you've noticed that some people here have been "revising" Marx a good deal...to the point where there is "no proletariat" at all in the imperialist (advanced capitalist) countries. According to them, every legal resident of the United States, for example, is either a capitalist, a petty-bourgeois, or a "labor aristocrat"...thus getting rid of that pesky proletarian revolution stuff once and for all.
They can proudly call themselves "Marxists" without ever having to worry about the working class -- it "doesn't exist".
Or if it does, it's far enough away not to threaten their placid existence and sense of well-being. Like Nepal or some place like that.
So there are those who revise Marx in order to extend and deepen his revolutionary insights...and then there are revisionists -- who wish to encase Marx in a museum of 19th century antiquities along with the whole idea of proletarian revolution.
I can only hope I will live long enough to see material reality rise up and bite them in the ass.
They have it coming!
|
|
JC
Comrade
Posts: 76
|
Post by JC on May 15, 2004 15:00:48 GMT -5
what does that have to with the vangaurd ?
|
|
|
Post by morpheus on May 18, 2004 22:00:16 GMT -5
Rubbish. Capitalists claim their is no capitalist class, too. It's a way of protecting their class interests. The techno-managerial class is made up of those groups inbetween the capitalists & the workers who control the workers for the capitalists. Eg. middle management, the intelligentsia, etc. They're no more atomized than the capitalist class or feudal nobility.
|
|
JC
Comrade
Posts: 76
|
Post by JC on May 19, 2004 16:35:07 GMT -5
That class has a name . The Petit-bourgoise . And there by definition ATOMIZIED !
|
|
|
Post by morpheus on May 19, 2004 20:55:07 GMT -5
They're not "petit bourgeois." As Marx used that term it refers to artisans and sometimes peasants - people who own the means of production but don't exploit others. Of course, in practice Marxists use the term as a swear word and as a catch-all phrase to refer to any classes that don't fit their analysis.
It is a fact that most of the Bolshevik leaders came from this class. Even bolshevik leaders admitted it. This is true of most other Leninist revolutions, as well. You have presented no evidence that this class is "atomized" or that it cannot seize power, merely statements of faith.
|
|
JC
Comrade
Posts: 76
|
Post by JC on May 20, 2004 17:11:30 GMT -5
What proof do i have to produce ? With the exception of political expression's , the petit bourgoise ( Or as you call them , the Techno Managerial Class ) have no orginizations or formation's !
|
|
|
Post by KimChaeBong on Jun 13, 2004 13:30:19 GMT -5
Redstar2000 wrote: "Like it or not, we are all 'revisionists' in our various ways.
I was very puzzled when I first ran into that term...what's the matter with 'revising' ideas to make them better?
It took me a while to grasp the 'sub-text' -- 'revisionism' really refers to those who seek to "revise" Marx by emptying his paradigm of revolutionary content."
Actually, I always thought "Revisionist" referred to the ideas of Eduard Bernstein, who was a colleague of Friedrich Engels and basically thought that capitalism had changed enough so that proletarian revolution was no longer necessary. He might have even argued that class was no longer relevant or existant, but I'm not sure.
|
|
|
Post by kasama on Jun 13, 2004 19:05:53 GMT -5
i think this is a very important question.
I think that revisionism is when bourgeois politics is cloaked in the language and labels of communism.
When a political road is proposed that claims to lead to liberation but would lead us to (or back to) capitalism.
This is often confusing. New people say "but we socialists all agree, why can't we just unite and move on together?"
But, in fact, despite the common use of some words (socialism, even communism) the fact is that some very sharp differences are concentrated in the debates and differences between various political trends and lines.
Socialism is not just "some good idea" that we all agree on.
Let me give you an example: Some people went to eastern europe during the revisionist days of Soviet Union, and thought "I like this, this is what I want. I like this kind of society, cradle to grave state paternalism, and a snug police feel. While the workers just have to 'do your job and do what you are told.'"
While others (the Maoists) looked at that and said "this isn't socialism, it is capitalism. This is not what we want, this is another example of what we want to overthrow."
This is not a small difference! These opposing views! Opposite views of what is desirable.
And it has a very very practical difference (on the ground) in what we fight for, how we fight, and what we eventualy create.
|
|
|
Post by Salvador_Allende on Sept 18, 2004 19:01:43 GMT -5
I define revisionism as any ideology claiming to base off of Marxism that promotes the bourgeois over the proletariat and in some cases will try to promote State-Capitalism or Full-Capitalism while still claiming to uphold the Socialist mantle.
|
|