Religion and Socialism

[kasama]

rs writes: "If you are a Leninist (or any other kind of) political party seeking power for yourself, then "alliances" are a useful technique to expand your influence and credibility. Constructed skillfully and dismantled when they become a liability, "alliances" can make you considered "a player", a "mover and shaker", etc. Is that what you want to be? If so, then I don't see how you will avoid the consequent opportunism and careerism that generally comes with that approach."

This is confused.

We need alliances to accomplish things in the real world.

It is part of the mass line (i.e. the MLM understanding that history is made by the masses.)

The masses (and even communists) will never be homogenous. The masses (a MLM term) consists of different classes and different political currents. They are always divided into the advanced, intermediate and backward.

And these differences give rise to different political currents (and even movements and organizations).

And so, inevitably, struggle involves building alliances based on common goals, common struggle and common interests.

The point is to actually change the world! And nothing will be accomplished without a revolutoinary hard core (on one hand) that approaches the struggle from the point of view of our ultimate communist vision, and (on the other hand) broad numbers of people and groups that have different views on many issues.

rs writes: "If a communist takes part in an anti-imperialist movement, s/he should have as her/his primary concern that a real anti-imperialist line is actually prominent if not dominant in that movement. S/he doesn't have to necessarily agree with those folks about anything else...but there must be an agreement around that."

This is confused at best. Actually communists in mass struggle have many concerns. Most fundamentally that the struggle of today prepare conditions for revolution.

"Prepare minds and organize forces for revolution."

What that means tactically is far more complex than just (mechanically and apriori) asserting some "real antiimperialism" as the necessary basis of unity.

What is "real anti-imperialism" apart from communist politics? Are you saying that we can't unite with anyone who doesnt ALREADY agree with us that the imperialist system is the cause of unjust wars and oppression?

For example in a strike -- must we only unite with those workers who already see the system as their enemy?

In an antiwar movement, must we only unite with those people who see the invasion of iraq as a manifestation of monopoly capitaism as a system?

no.

We need to agressively and energetically build the revolutonary hardcore -- uniting new forces with MLM, the Chairman, and the vanguard.

And at the same time, we need to help promote broad unity along fault lines that bring large numbers of people into struggle against the system -- in ways that really make an impact, and enable them to learn more in the course of struggle. (I.e. fight the war and repression, not vote Bush out.)

It is important that the basis of unity NOT be ABB (anybody but bush) -- but it is not true that the basis of unity of the resistance (say in NYC during the RNC) should be narrowed to "only those who already see the system as the problem."

And that is because we have real-world goals we want to accomplish. Struggle is not a gimmick or a game. We struggle to actually defeat (and then overthrow) the system.

RS shows a related confusion with this remark: "If the movement simply wants to give imperialism "helpful hints" on how to be more "humane and effective imperialists"...that's just useless from a communist standpoint."

First, it is true and important that we don't want to give imperialism "hints" on how to be "kinder gentler."

However, we do want to win key demands.

When the revolutionaries say "Free Mumia" -- we actually mean it. We want to mobilize millions (who are not actually revolutonaries themselves) and drive back the system and force them to free this man.

In a sense this is a demand for a "reform" (i.e. a particular policy).

And fighting for reforms (in that sense) is not reformism. But part of "building the muscles" (prepare minds and organize forces) needed to actually overthrow a system.

RS writes: "All non-communist groups have, by definition, a non-communist line on most things...but might be convinced to put forward a communist line on a few things or even just one thing."

No. We unite with non- communist groups on common ground (based on common interests.) Not only when they (somehow) put forward communist views.

When the ACLU supports freeing Padilla from solitary (without a lawyer) we agree, and unite with them. We have our own, communist reasons for seeing this as important -- we oppose the ruling class having the power to lock up without trial for our own communist reasons. And we don't unite with them because they (somehow, momentarily) had a communist thought. they didn't. They have this view from their own, liberal, civil liberatarian, bourgeois democratic stand.

[redstar2000]

kasama wrote: We need alliances to accomplish things in the real world.

A truism. But what should communists want to accomplish "in the real world"?

I think this is a very difficult question and one that cannot be answered with slogans. I cannot, in all honesty, deny that my remarks may seem "confused" on this question...I'm not sure myself on the "best way" to proceed.

But here are some considerations...

Should we want to become "better reformists" than the reformists? Do we want to become known as "the people who get things done" -- achieve "real reforms" that actually make a real difference in peoples' lives.

In many countries, 20th century communists were "better trade unionists" than the professional trade unionists...and even became professional trade unionists themselves.

The same may be said of other struggles: better anti-war activists than the pacifists; better fighters for minority rights than the minorities themselves; better at writing meaningful social legislation and getting it enacted into law than the professional social workers and reformist politicians; better resistance fighters against foreign occupation than bourgeois armies, etc.

The idea seemed to be that people would actually see "how good we are" and therefore "trust us" when we called for revolution as well as after the revolution.

Mostly, of course, that revolution stuff never came up.

Did the alliances that were made have anything to do with that?

How do we distinguish between a principled alliance and one that is based on opportunism?

Not to mention one that begins on a principled basis but then degenerates into an opportunist maneuver.

Or should we just "wing it" -- ally with whoever is willing for whatever they want...and hope to "influence" them in a more radical direction?

It would seem to be self-evident that we should not ally ourselves with reactionary forces -- but then what of those who consider "some" religious formations "progressive"?

Don't forget: when we publicly ally ourselves with another political formation, we "boost them" at least as much as they "boost us". If their presence "adds credibility" to a particular struggle, so does ours.

It would seem reasonable to assume that our participation in a struggle must involve putting forward a communist line. But is that limited to the others who are involved in that struggle or is it necessary that our line must reach the general public (the working class) as a whole through our participation in that struggle?

Everything we do sends a message...how do we make sure that it's a communist message that gets sent?

[redstar2000]

Religious "progressives"...

Jesus Radicals

Or just giving anarchism a bad name?

[flyby]

redstar writes "what should communists want to accomplish "in the real world"?... In many countries, 20th century communists were "better trade unionists" than the professional trade unionists...and even became professional trade unionists themselves....The idea seemed to be that people would actually see "how good we are" and therefore "trust us" when we called for revolution as well as after the revolution.Mostly, of course, that revolution stuff never came up."

This is an important point, and an important experience.

And over all I agree with RS's point (if i understand it correctly.)

All too often (in communist history) there has been a theory of "minimum and maximum program" where alliances were made on the basis of shortterm reforms (and trade union movements inherently fixated on the most narrow struggle over wages and condition of work). and where the so-called "maximum program" (i.e. revolution, socialism and communism) was relegated to an occasional lip-service (and dry wooden rhetorical mention) if it came up at all.

This is the approach Maoists call "economism" and "revisionism" -- and it is an approach that is fundamentally different than the method and strategy advocated by the RCP.

In fact what revolutionary communsts want to accomplish is revolution, socialism and communism (not anything else)! And struggles, political work, alliances and everything else are seen and developed from the point of view of looking from communism and revolution back.

The alliance that communists seek to develop is the United Front under the Leadership of the Proletariat (UFULP) which is a strategic repoliarization of class allignments IN ORDER TO CARRY OUT REVOLUTION AND DEVELOP NEW POWER RELATIONS IN A NEW SOCIETY.