|
Post by redstar2000 on Jan 25, 2004 21:07:35 GMT -5
Reply Part 2...
honky tonk wrote: The whole thing of "participatory democracy" was a rather naive feature of SDS (similar to the consensus approach of today's anarchist circles) -- and really, there were networks of "movement heavies" operating behind the scenes, while everyone pretended it was run by "participatory democracy."
Which meant you had leadership -0- but because it wasn't officially chosen, or discussed, or evaluated, or supervised, it was often hard to struggle with the functioning leaders of SDS and help them improve.
Well, yes and no. You know that a really large movement in a turbulent situation has many currents. Yes, I was made aware, on occasion, that there were things going on "out of sight" of the membership...but nothing all that "heavy", if you understand my distinction.
The crucial aspect of "participatory democracy" is that there was no "formal mechanism" for imposing "unity of theory and practice".
Because, as Marxists, we learn at an early age that such unity is desirable, some succumb to the temptation of "democratic centralism"...which does have a mechanism for imposing that unity.
In SDS, you not only had to win a "formal majority" at a convention for your proposed theory & practice...the local chapters had to actually decide whether or not to carry out what the convention had decided and, if so, in what way. And even if your proposal "lost" by a significant majority, some chapters might think it was a good idea and implement it anyway...and return to the next convention with enough "success stories" that your idea might win approval at the national level after all.
Those are things that "can't happen" in a properly-run Leninist party.
The other thing, of course, was the regular rotation of officers at the national level in SDS. We never developed a "mystique" of "leadership" as such; a common saying in SDS was "we are all leaders"...and we believed that.
Leaders in SDS were never formally criticized in the fashion that some Leninist parties have employed from time-to-time; no one ever sat down and drafted a 50-page indictment of some guy who was "on the skids".
But anyone of antiquarian curiosity who wants to look through a few old issues of New Left Notes will find plenty of critical letters. (Many university libraries have files of New Left Notes on microfilm...I'm sometimes a little tempted to go back and have a look at my "youthful follies" myself--but, so far, I have resisted temptation.)
The absence of a "leader mystique" kept the channels open for creative thought and action from the membership and the local chapters. We did not have to await "the Leader's" next "brilliant revelation" before we could do anything; we were free to innovate according to immediate conditions of struggle.
And, of course, we were never "painted into a corner" by the outcome of the last convention; we never suffered what many Leninists privately complain of all the time--trying to "carry out a line or a project" that is known to be hopeless.
I know that we all have a tendency to "edit" our memories as time passes, not to mention looking back on our youth--our "glory years"--with "rose-colored glasses".
One thing that would have helped SDS a lot was much greater horizontal communications between chapters--we did have some regional groups that tried to do some of this, but as one who took a lot of interest in what other chapters were doing, I was often frustrated by the lack of real information. Today, in the age of the internet, there'd be no excuse for that.
My understanding is that the rule in Leninist parties (perhaps there are exceptions) prohibits horizontal communication. Information goes up to the top and orders come down from the top.
It must be confessed that SDS was theoretically "weak" and "left-bourgeois" ideology often permeated its analyses. I don't think people in SDS (for the most part) even really grasped why "participatory democracy" was something different and better than what the "old left" had to offer.
We had "something" that seemed to "work" and we never paused to inquire why.
That made us very "vulnerable" to the appeals of Leninism (yeah, me too!). Leninism seemed more "serious" and was definitely more "coherent".
In my view, our theoretical weakness caused us to "lose our way"--becoming entangled in bitter Leninist rivalries that, in retrospect, were utterly pointless and totally counter-productive.
But those were the times.
(Note: there was never much in the way of "consensus" in SDS--perhaps we were more "volatile" than some of today's anarchists.)
honky tonk wrote: First, the movement did not "dissipate" because SDS split. The dissipation happened because the upsurge subsided.
Not right away it didn't. Nearly a year after the June 1969 split was Kent State...and something like 130 campuses went on strike/occupation. Had SDS still existed, who knows what could have come of that?
Perhaps another period of explosive growth of SDS.
honky tonk wrote: And more: it was necessary to,,,develop communist cadre who would go deep into the working class and connect revolution with untouched sections of the people.
Ah, the irony. In my city, workers approached us...asking for our assistance in class struggle. I understand that this happened in a few other places as well.
Both PL and RYM II told us that we had to "go to the workers" and...they were already beginning to come to us.
honky tonk wrote: I don't believe this at all. And one of the deep problems of the 1960s is that the movement did not have mature, developed, thoughtful experienced communist leaders -- and real communist organization, when the movement was at its most powerful.
The 60s could have gone much farther, but ran into the contradiction of the lack of such leadership and communist organization.
If you just articulate what is already "in the air" you will have radical times, but not a revolution.
There were many older people around then who claimed that they were "mature, thoughtful, experienced, communist leaders".
They were lying or, to be charitable about it, profoundly mistaken...as you know.
And not much has changed in that regard. Many today proclaim themselves the heirs of this or that dead revolutionary. Many claim that "only they" know the "path forward". Many are those who style themselves guardians of the sacred flame and wearers of the ring of power. I daresay there are some who eagerly look forward to seeing their portraits...on the sides of 20-story buildings.
No...that really doesn't "fly" any more. When the next great rising comes, I think people will be even less trusting of "great leaders" than we were in the 1960s. "Personality cults" may still sell movies and cds...but not politics and especially not revolutionary politics.
Most people these days regard a group that features a personality cult as...a cult.
|
|
|
Post by honky tonk on Jan 26, 2004 17:58:18 GMT -5
RS responded to my discussion of "participatory democracy" by writing: Yes, I was made aware, on occasion, that there were things going on "out of sight" of the membership...but nothing all that "heavy", if you understand my distinction. The crucial aspect of "participatory democracy" is that there was no "formal mechanism" for imposing "unity of theory and practice"."
This was exactly the problem. Leadership was informal and often not accountable to anyone. And there was no "mechanism" for summing up experiences, setting policies, deepening the understanding of common experience etc.
On one hand you complain that SDS "saddly" shattered into a million pieces... on the other hand, you celebrate that they had no sophisticated organizational structure (which played a huge role in how they shattered.)
RS writes: "The other thing, of course, was the regular rotation of officers at the national level in SDS. We never developed a "mystique" of "leadership" as such; a common saying in SDS was "we are all leaders"...and we believed that."
This is of course not true. People like Bernadette Dorhn, or Tom Hayden (to pick names from very different "wings") were real leaders -- and represented lines.
There are always leaders -- but in some naive organizations people pretend (and even believe) there aren't.
RS wrrites: "Leaders in SDS were never formally criticized in the fashion that some Leninist parties have employed from time-to-time; no one ever sat down and drafted a 50-page indictment of some guy who was "on the skids".
There were lots of criticisms of leaders -- and often highly deserved ones -- as both RS and I know.
There were lots of documents criticizing leaders written up (as any collection of SDS papers shows!)
But there is a self-absorbing cycle in "participatory democracy" (or anarchist circles) that acts as if leadership itself is illegitimate -- so pepole were often criticized for leading, and not nearly so much for the content of their direction and line.
The absence of a "leader mystique" kept the channels open for creative thought and action from the membership and the local chapters. We did not have to await "the Leader's" next "brilliant revelation" before we could do anything; we were free to innovate according to immediate conditions of struggle.
SDS was a rather powerful upsurge of antiwar and radical activity -- but it was also primitive and incapable of sustaining itself or developing powerful common strategies for actually taking on capitalism. It was inevitable and necessary that SDS should be superceded.
Even the name showed that -- Students for a Democratic Society. As people became more conscious they wanted to united with working class youth (who weren't college students) and they wanted something much more radical than just some illusory "democratic society." People were looking for socialism, communism revolution.
And so the development of Revolutionary Youth Movement (RYM -- which become 1 and 2) -- reflected an understanding that to win, the movement had to become more radical, more communist, and it had to expand far beyond the campuses.
RS writes: "It must be confessed that SDS was theoretically "weak" and "left-bourgeois" ideology often permeated its analyses."
But then RS writes: "We had "something" that seemed to "work" and we never paused to inquire why. That made us very "vulnerable" to the appeals of Leninism (yeah, me too!). Leninism seemed more "serious" and was definitely more "coherent"."
This is upside down -- "participatory democracy" obviously didn't work, though the power of the mass movmement washed past such problems for a while. Leninism didn't just "seem" more serious and coherent -- it IS more serious and coherent.
You really can't make a revolution (or even develope a coherent national movement for less than a revolution) based in loose, consensus based chapters based only among students.
RS writes: "In my view, our theoretical weakness caused us to "lose our way"--becoming entangled in bitter Leninist rivalries that, in retrospect, were utterly pointless and totally counter-productive."[/b]
I don't agree at all. I think these debates were part of how theoretical weakness was overcome. And the line struggles (with PLP or with Weatherman) were over crucial issues (who is the working class? how will change be made? how should we be organized? etc.) that HAD to be answered.
There was nothing counterproductive about it -- though a more mature movement might have been able to avoid shattering the way SDS did.
RS writes: "Not right away it didn't. Nearly a year after the June 1969 split was Kent State...and something like 130 campuses went on strike/occupation. Had SDS still existed, who knows what could have come of that?"
This is confused. the people in SDS had not "disappeared" between the summer split and the following May upsurge -- they were the ones who led it.
The newborn communist organizations (including people influenced by Avakian and his RU across the country) played an important role -- and so did other forces that emerged from SDS. Weatherman's leadership had run away, but the rank-and-file of that faction was involved too.
RS writes: "In my city, workers approached us...asking for our assistance in class struggle. I understand that this happened in a few other places as well. Both PL and RYM II told us that we had to "go to the workers" and...they were already beginning to come to us."
This misses the point -- of course workers were reaching out to the radicals. But it wasnecessary to organize *as communists* and connect with them on a new basis. A movement that could take root among the workers was (necessarily) different from just the SDS chapters that were breaking up.
The point is not just "meet the workers" -- it is develop strategy and tactics for building a revolutionary workers movement -- and for that you need communist organization, communist cadre and communist leadership.
RS writes: "There were many older people around then who claimed that they were "mature, thoughtful, experienced, communist leaders". They were lying or, to be charitable about it, profoundly mistaken...as you know."
Acttually there were few older communist leaders around -- and many of those that claimed to be were neither communist nor leaders.
But that just underscores the fact: that the people NEEDED communist leadership -- and it had to be developed "from scratch" in the middle of an upsurge.
RS then goes into some cynical dissing of anyone who strains to find the path forward.
I'm not going to get a head to head. But the fact that there are fools in the world, doesn't mean we should not strain to be wise.
The fact that there are liars in the world, does not mean we should give up the fight for truth.
And the fact that there has been betrayal of revolution does not mean that we shouldn't cherish communist leaders who have not betrayed us, and who are fighting to forge a way forward.
RS talks loosely about "cults" blah blah blah.
And i am aware that anti-communism is such a strong stink in the air that people actually get angry and offended if we talk about building communist leadership, and a vanguard party.
But I really don't care if we have to "go against the tide" of defeatism and cynicism.
There can be no revolutin without revolutionary organization and theory. People won't just "figger it out" in big consensus meetings -- we are facing and fighting U.S. imperialism, with all its agents, and armed forces. We have to get serious. And we have to find and uphold and support those parties and leaders who have worked to identify the way forward (our strategies, alliances, ideologies, forms of organization, demands, stages of struggle, pitfalls etc.) Let's not start blind again!!
|
|
|
Post by redstar2000 on Jan 26, 2004 23:31:49 GMT -5
More on SDS...nostalgia is kind of fun, isn't it?
honky tonk wrote: Leadership was informal and often not accountable to anyone. And there was no "mechanism" for summing up experiences, setting policies, deepening the understanding of common experience etc.
On one hand you complain that SDS "sadly" shattered into a million pieces... on the other hand, you celebrate that they had no sophisticated organizational structure (which played a huge role in how they shattered.)
You misunderstand. I said there was no mechanism for imposing unity of theory and practice. I think that is what actually helped SDS become the only mass organization of the "far left" since...the Communist Party in the 1930s.(?)
As to "summing up", "deepening understanding", etc., we did that all the time. We just didn't have some guy in the front of the room telling us what we had just done.
It was obvious.
honky tonk wrote: This is of course not true. People like Bernadette Dorhn, or Tom Hayden (to pick names from very different "wings" were real leaders -- and represented lines.
There are always leaders -- but in some naive organizations people pretend (and even believe) there aren't.
Again, you misunderstand. People like Dohrn and (much earlier) Hayden were known and respected...but no one ever felt the "need" to "elevate" them to "cult status" or "icons". We didn't engage in struggle because we were "inspired" by Dohrn or Hayden or anyone else. Had someone suggested that so-and-so was "the red sun in our hearts", we would have been rolling on the floor in helpless laughter. Had any leader in SDS suggested that they "deserved" to be worshiped in such a fashion, s/he probably would have been expelled...after people stopped laughing.
At the 1969 convention, by the way, Dohrn was heckled vigorously from the floor, Mike Klonsky and a brazen sexist from the Black Panther Party (I forget his name) were booed off the podium, Jeff Gordon (PL) needed about a dozen guys as bodyguards just to get to the microphone at the front of the room, where he was also heckled vigorously.
Not much "respect for leadership" in SDS!
Yes, there are always leaders, but there need not be ***LEADERS***...if you get my drift.
honky tonk wrote: But there is a self-absorbing cycle in "participatory democracy" (or anarchist circles) that acts as if leadership itself is illegitimate -- so people were often criticized for leading, and not nearly so much for the content of their direction and line.
Yes, I've heard that one before. I recall an old ex-CPer complaining at a meeting once that we "don't let our leaders lead".
But I think that's the kind of criticism that has to be specific. If someone does something shitty, they can't hide behind the excuse of "well, I was just providing leadership". And if someone proposes an idea, it's not a legitimate attack to say "stop trying to tell us what we ought to do".
The real question is, in my opinion, this: does revolutionary leadership include the "power of command"?
In other words, if I get up and propose an idea to a group that's perfectly free to reject that idea for any and all reasons, am I exercising "leadership"?
Or is it a case that I am only a real ***LEADER*** if I can get up and say "Just Do It!" and the people in the room have to do it or be expelled.
Isn't that what Leninism really means?
honky tonk wrote: This is upside down -- "participatory democracy" obviously didn't work, though the power of the mass movement washed past such problems for a while. Leninism didn't just "seem" more serious and coherent -- it IS more serious and coherent.
You really can't make a revolution (or even develop a coherent national movement for less than a revolution) based in loose, consensus based chapters based only among students.
"The power of the mass movement washed past such problems for a while"?
That's what's known as a meaningless statement. Participatory democracy worked, period.
In my experience, Leninism in the United States has been neither serious nor coherent. I say it only seemed that way in 1968-69 because SDS was even less coherent. I do think we were much more serious though.
honky tonk wrote: RS then goes into some cynical dissing of anyone who strains to find the path forward.
I'm not going to get a head to head. But the fact that there are fools in the world, doesn't mean we should not strain to be wise.
The fact that there are liars in the world, does not mean we should give up the fight for truth.
And the fact that there has been betrayal of revolution does not mean that we shouldn't cherish communist leaders who have not betrayed us, and who are fighting to forge a way forward.
RS talks loosely about "cults" blah blah blah.
And I am aware that anti-communism is such a strong stink in the air that people actually get angry and offended if we talk about building communist leadership, and a vanguard party.
The reason that people get "angry and offended" is because of your message...that we "need" someone to "command" us. That we "can't" learn to be wise, that we "can't" learn to fight for the truth, that we "must cherish" (cherish!) a "communist" ***LEADER*** who will do these things "for us".
If you think this is "cynicism" or "the stink of anti-communism", then you don't really understand people very well at all...and even less as time goes on.
It's not communism that we are opposed to; it's the dictatorship/worship of "great leaders" that we reject.
Now and forever!
|
|
|
Post by eat the world on Feb 2, 2004 18:30:11 GMT -5
redstar2000 raises many points in an argument i disagree with.
but let me answer like this:
No one is arguing that any leader should be promoted as THE LEADER. Or that every party should promote their current leader in some big way.
What we are saying is: when, in the exceptional circumstance, you HAVE such a leader (in those rare and special moments when such a leader emerges on the level of a Marx or a Lenin or a Mao) it is very important to understand it, and act on that understanding.
If mao had died in 1935, or lenin had been captured in July 1917, it would have been a huge setback for our class -- literally a world historic setback.
These leaders didn't "make the revolution" -- that was done by the struggle and sacrifice and consciousness of millions -- but they were key in leading the revolutions, and in the way they turned out. Andw ere indespensible.
No one is saying that any leader (especially not a reformist like Tom Hayden or Jesse Jackson, or a fool like Sakai or dohrn or foster, or a revisionist like Browder etc) shouldbe promoted as THE LEADER.
But when you have a comprehensive revolutionary thinker, a leader who makes crucial needed breakthroughts in theory -- it is very important that they are known to the people. Because only the people can really apply this advanced work, and only the people can protect that leadership.
|
|
|
Post by eat the world on Feb 2, 2004 18:33:28 GMT -5
to be clear: I think it is ESSENTIAL that we cherish our leaders.
I certainly cherished Mao, deeply, and worked to understand (as deeply as i could) all that he laid before us.
And i really think we are extremely lucky to have a Bob Avakian today, at this moment. And it is very dangerous that his work is not yet widely known and engaged among people who are looking for radical solutions.
I think hooking up Bob Avakian -- his body of work, his approach and method -- with the movements and discontent of the people will play a huge role in deciding whether we bring something new into being in this crisis or not.
|
|
|
Post by redstar2000 on Feb 2, 2004 22:32:02 GMT -5
eat the world wrote: If Mao had died in 1935, or Lenin had been captured in July 1917, it would have been a huge setback for our class -- literally a world historic setback...they were key in leading the revolutions, and in the way they turned out. And were indispensable.I think this represents a "great man" theory of history that even serious bourgeois historians abandoned in the first decade of the last century. Marx and Engels would have laughed at the notion of "personal indispensability", of course. They didn't even apply it to themselves; I think there's a letter of Marx extant where he specifically says that if he had not lived, someone else would have made his discoveries. Whenever scientific knowledge reaches a certain level, someone is going to take the next step. Who it is appears to be largely a matter of chance.Had there been no Lenin, there still would have been a bourgeois revolution in February 1917 (Marx and Engels predicted it back in the late 1870s--though they thought it would happen a lot sooner than it did). There still would have been revolutionary groups influenced by Marxist ideas...as well as the presence of many individuals that we know of today. (Can you picture Stalin and Trotsky and Martov and Kollentai "fighting it out" in front of the Petrograd Soviet?) We don't know if a socialist revolution would have been attempted, of course, much less how it would have developed in the absence of Lenin's personal influence. We don't get the chance to re-run history with a different variable. But the idea that the "great motions" of human history are in some sense the product of the presence or absence of "indispensable men" is, from a materialist standpoint, untenable. As I noted earlier in this thread, leaders do not make history--history makes leaders. eat the world wrote: But when you have a comprehensive revolutionary thinker, a leader who makes crucial needed breakthroughs in theory -- it is very important that they are known to the people...And I really think we are extremely lucky to have a Bob Avakian today, at this moment.Well, I'm happy for you that you think you have found your "Moses" who will lead you "out of bondage" and into "the promised land". But in the last few weeks I have seen many "Quotations of Chairman Bob" put forward by several supporters (members?) of the "Revolutionary Communist Party"...and, frankly, I've seen nothing more than Maoist clichés and pragmatic observations that many people on the left have made. Where is the "crucial breakthrough" in "theory"? What has this guy said that is genuinely innovative? Perhaps it sounds "fresh" to people who haven't read Mao or Stalin or even Lenin...I couldn't say. But always risking the labels of "jaded" and "cynical", I've heard it all before...many times.Would you really like to read something "fresh" and "new"...something that might be a theoretical "breakthrough" on the mechanism of how communist (not socialist, communist) society could really "work"? Go to this site and read some of the stuff about "demarchy"... www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/This fellow--Brian Martin--is not even a revolutionary, except in a very fuzzy and vague way. He's an academic...with all the limitations that implies. But in the idea of "demarchy", he may well have "hit on something" that no one anticipated--how to develop managerial expertise without the "managerial mystique" that leads--as you know--to the restoration of capitalism. Of course, he has no wish to be "cherished" as a ***LEADER***.
|
|
|
Post by roman meal on Feb 3, 2004 12:54:55 GMT -5
I don’t think there is anything in itself wrong with promoting a revolutionary hero or theorist or organizer or martyr. I think it can be a good thing. Promoting revolutionary icons can be just another form of propaganda.
The problem is when promoting an icon gets in the way of really understanding things. And, this happens all the time. Instead of developing an argument, people fall back on “the chairman said so” or whatever. Or, reverence for the chairman or center or whatever can stand in the way of correcting a wrong line or approach. This kind of thing can snow ball until you have a rigid organization with a membership which is unable or afraid to criticize anything coming from the center. I think this is the situation in a lot of the sects today.
A “red version” of the great man Theory is pretty common to most sects today. Although I hadn’t seen it as blatantly stated as ETW did in this thread or about a current leader. Usually the great man theory shows up in the way they talk about Soviet or Chinese history. On the one hand, I understand the temptation. It is surely easier to embody varied and contesting groups and interests in a “great man” Khrushchev or Stalin or Trotsky or Mao or Deng, rather than really getting into the actual research. On the other hand, these kind of oversimplifications dumbs-down the movement and almost guarantees that revolutionary intellectuals will keep their distance. I don’t like the cartoon version of history, a lot of people do though.
On Bob Avakian, I agree with Redstar. I don’t think there is that new or interesting in much that he writes. I have been reading him on and off for years. The first secondary source on Marx I read was Avakian’s _Immortal Thought of Mao Tse Tung_. I thought it was great when I was young, but as I read and lived more, I realized how simplistic and inadequate that kind of Marxism is. Every year or so, because I have friends who support RCP, they convince me to read something or other by Avakian. And, every time, I am unimpressed.
In fact, I just got my cd burner working. I just downloaded the samples of Avakian on CD from the RW website. I have listened to them a couple of times. I wasn’t terribly impressed with anything he says in the samples, but he wasn’t bad. I do think he comes off better in the interview than he does in his works. Carl Dix comes off good too.
IMO, in his writings Avakian comes off as a rambling a bit and he doesn‘t get into much detail or research. Many of his writings seem as if they are originally dictated, then reworked on paper. I think if this were true, it would explain a lot.
On Sakai, even if you don’t ultimately agree with someone like Sakai, investigation into Settlerism and racist history is something that is really important to know. I think ETW calling him a fool is pretty childish, but also typical. Sakai has really pushed theory in new directions, and not just in an abstract way, he comments on all kinds of contemporary movements ranging from the anti-globalization movement to the European urban guerillas. Sakai has had a huge impact and will continue to.
Outside the RCP or “supporters“, nobody really reads Avakian, he is “not widely known” as ETW states. I guess Avakian is better than nothing.. But I think there is a lot more important stuff out there.
roman viva el che
|
|
Maz
Revolutionary
rock out
Posts: 106
|
Post by Maz on Feb 3, 2004 15:15:31 GMT -5
Bob Avakian doesn't write for the "revolutionary intellectuals" (sic). Isn't that an oxymoron anyways? He writes for the masses, to contribute to the revolutionary process in the real world, not to publish cute little papers for conferences to circle-jerk too and then go back to a classroom and train the next middle class.
|
|
|
Post by honky tonk on Feb 3, 2004 16:41:15 GMT -5
Redstar writes that thinking the death of leaders is a "a huge setback for our class" is "a "great man" theory of history that even serious bourgeois historians abandoned in the first decade of the last century."
I don't agree at all.
The great man theory of history is a presentation of history that denies classes, the underlying role of productive forces, the role of the masses etc. It is an idealist theory that sees history as the succession of kings and generals and "great thinkers" -- with the ideas of humanity and the crucial human events simply emerging from their doings.
Marxism is sharply opposed to that. It underscores several things: that the history of humanity is the history of class struggle -- specifically one class replacing the other in power as its mode of production rises to challenge an old mode of production. There is an underlying engine of human change -- which at its root lies in changes in the level of productive force compelling changes in the *social* relations in production -- and on that basis causing tremendous changes in the superstructure (and power structures) of society.
But that historical materialist approach does not deny the need for leaders, parties, pathbreaking thinkers, epoch-defining ideas, great movements of conversion and ideological change.
If you read Engels on the role of Thomas Muncer in the German Peasant wars, or the discussions of Danton and Robespierrein the French revolution, or the role of leading philosophers (like Kant, or Hegel, orDiderot, etc.) -- it is obvious that they don't have some dumbed-down populist view that "the masses make history and the rest is accident." Or that the specific approach, line, decisions and capacities of specific leaders can't have a decisive effect at times.
And further, we are not limited to Marx and Engels views on these things, we have come through an epoch ofrevolutions (including China and Russia) that teach a lot about the value of key leaders (and the problems that emerge when they disappear, or their successors are not up to the task.)
And there are lots (unfortunately) historical moments where the crisis was ripe -- but the organized leadership (both the parties and their leading people) werefucked, and reall opportunities were thrown away. There have been many countries that have had communist parties, but that were led by fools and timeservers, and where the key questions of theory and practice werent' even raised. (The CPUSA is a prime example).
Redstar writes: 'Marx and Engels would have laughed at the notion of "personal indispensability", of course. They didn't even apply it to themselves; I think there's a letter of Marx extant where he specifically says that if he had not lived, someone else would have made his discoveries. Whenever scientific knowledge reaches a certain level, someone is going to take the next step."
I think it is metaphysical to speculate on what Marx and Engels would have thought today if they had a chance to analyze our rich, subsequent century-plus of revolutionary history. It is a bizarre approach -- and i don't go there.
But more the point: i think redstar completely misses Marx's point. First of all, it is true that if Newton had died young, someone else would have developed the laws of physics. Marx corresponded with Joseph Dietzen, a proletarian philisopher who was INDEPDENDENTLY developing a version of dialectiacl materialism IN MARX'S OWN LIFETIME.
So yeah, if our movement is crushed, SOMEONE (sooner or later) will build another one. If our leaders are killed, SOMEONE (sooner or later) will try to take up the thread. Butwho knows when? or How?
If lenin had died, there would not have been a revolution in Russa at that moment (and perhaps no socialist revolution at all in that World War 1 conjuncture.) Is it true that someone (sooner or later, in some century) would have built a party to take advantage of some future crisis? Sure. But wouldn't it have been a world historic setback if THAT proletarian revolution, at THAT moment had not happened?
And isn't it fucked up, and upside down, to tell people "Aw it doesn't matter much if they kill your precious and beloved leaders, cuz there will always be someone new, sooner or later?" Isn't that exactly the wrong thing to tell the people? Doesn't it piss on their desire for change now? Their hopes? Their efforts?
Isn't it an armchair argument, that doesn't really care if it is now or two centuries from now?
I mean we were lucky to have a Marx, a Lenin, a Mao -- and now a thinker like Avakian. We haven't had that many (even if you include secondary figures like Engels, Stalin and others).
Isn't such leadership a key component of a successful revolution?
And more, isn't the emergence, training and testing of such leaders a key contribution that THE MASSES have made? Dont the masses and their struggle give rise to such people? Is marx conceivable without the French REvolution and the uprisings of 1848 and the (very material) emergence of the proletariat and its class struggle?
Is avakian conceivable without the tremendous turmoil of the 1960s in the U.S. and the world -- which was probably the most radical moment and wave in U.S. history?
Doesn't the creatiion of unique leaders COUNT as a great accomplishment of the masses?
Who it is appears to be largely a matter of chance.
|
|
|
Post by honky tonk on Feb 3, 2004 16:55:46 GMT -5
(ignore that last hovering sentence in the previous post.) On the issue of accident (though) -- first of all, there is a role of accident in the emergence of great leaders. You can't predict it. You can't simply demand it. Most parties and movements don't produce leaders of the first rank -- including not even most revolutionary communist parties with good and overall correct lines. (Just look at history -- there is a world of difference between an Ernest Thaelman and a Lenin, or between a Ho Chi Minh and a Mao.) There is also theoretical work on this. Communists have always upheld one work by the early Russian communist Plekanov (written before he became a revisionist). The work is called "The role of the individual in History" art-bin.com/art/oplecheng.html
Lenin for example talks openly about the value of "wise men" at the helm of the revolutionary movement. (from what is to be done?) "The political struggle of Social Democracy is far more extensive and complex than the economic struggle of the workers against the employers and the government. Similarly (indeed for that reason) the organization of the revolutionary Social Democratic Party must inevitably be of a kind different from the organization of the workers designed for this struggle. The workers' organization must in the first place be a trade union organization; secondly, it must be as broad as possible; and thirdly, it must be as public as conditions will allow (here, and further on, of course, I refer only to absolutist Russia). On the other hand, the organization of the revolutionaries must consist first and foremost of people who make revolutionary activity their profession (for which reason I speak of the organization of revolutionaries, meaning revolutionary Social Democrats). In view of this common characteristic of the members of such an organization, all distinctions as between workers and intellectuals, not to speak of distinctions of trade and profession, in both categories, must be effaced. Such an organization must perforce not be very extensive and must be as secret as possible.
I assert that it is far more difficult to unearth a dozen wise men than a hundred fools. This position I will defend, no matter how much you instigate the masses against me for my "anti-democratic" views, etc. As I have stated repeatedly, by "wise men", in connection with organization, I mean professional revolutionaries, irrespective of whether they have developed from among students or working men. I assert:
that no revolutionary movement can endure without a stable organization of leaders maintaining continuity; that the broader the popular mass drawn spontaneously into the struggle, which forms the basis of the movement and participates in it, the more urgent the need for such an organization, and the more solid this organization must be (for it is much easier for all sorts of demagogues to side-track the more backward sections of the masses); that such an organization must consist chiefly of people professionally engaged in revolutionary activity; that in an autocratic state, the more we confine the membership of such an organization to people who are professionally engaged in revolutionary activity and who have been professionally trained in the art of combating the political police, the more difficult will it be to unearth the organization; and the greater will be the number of people from the working class and from the other social classes who will [eventually] be able to join the movement, and perform active work in it. "[[On a side point: Unlike Maz, i don't think there is anything wrong with the idea of "revolutionary intelletuals" -- and it seems obvious that some of Avakian's writings are intended to be popular, and some are very difficult theoretically and are intended for smaller circles of people, who can only be described as "revolutionary intellectuals" (no matter which class of origin they are drawn from.)
|
|
Maz
Revolutionary
rock out
Posts: 106
|
Post by Maz on Feb 3, 2004 20:40:55 GMT -5
By "revolutionary intellectuals" I was meaning the university profs who claim to be revs. I don't mean anyone who does revolutionary intellectual work, we obviosuly need that. Avakian is very much a rev. intellectual in that sense, but more importantly, that's not all he is.
|
|
|
Post by RosaRL on Feb 3, 2004 21:59:16 GMT -5
Ahh.. I know what you are talking about. They are usually called 'academic Marxists' not 'revolutionary intellectuals'.
In fact, there is really nothing about them that is revolutionary and I would not apply the term 'revolutionary intellectuals' to them at all.
However, I dont think that being a proffessor necessarily makes you NOT revolutionary -- it comes down to what line you are upholding -- a revolutionary one or not?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2004 14:37:17 GMT -5
Whenever this issue of a 'dear leader' comes up, I remember something Eugene Debs said in a speech on industrial unionism:
"Too long have the workers of the world waited for some Moses to lead them out of bondage. He has not come; he never will come. I would not lead you out if I could; for if you could be led out, you could be led back again."
No Gods, No Masters! (and certainly no Chairman Bob)
|
|
|
Post by redstar2000 on Feb 4, 2004 15:04:34 GMT -5
Maz wrote: [Avakian] writes for the masses, to contribute to the revolutionary process in the real world, not to publish cute little papers for conferences to circle-jerk too and then go back to a classroom and train the next middle class.
Well, if you want to argue that Avakian is a reasonably-skilled popularizer of Maoist ideology, I won't quarrel with you about that.
In fact, I would agree with your sense of priorities; writing "for the people" is more important than writing for a small number of "intellectuals", revolutionary or otherwise. I had a number of frustrating experiences with communist "grouplets" over that very issue...that a revolutionary newspaper has to be primarily directed to the working class and written in language that they are familiar with.
I didn't have much luck--in fact, none at all. Lefties in America mostly like just to talk to each other...so that's what I end up doing too.
But it also seems to me that theory that can't be communicated to the working class in ordinary language is...not very good theory.
There are dozens of books available today that explain the most complicated areas of science in language that's readily accessible to ordinary people of normal intelligence.
There's really no excuse for the deliberately obscure...except, perhaps, the inflation of the author's self-esteem.
honky tonk wrote: But that historical materialist approach does not deny the need for leaders, parties, pathbreaking thinkers, epoch-defining ideas, great movements of conversion and ideological change.
No, it doesn't deny the "need", it places those things in their proper position...as derivative phenomena.
If, for example, you say that revolution A succeeded because of the positive qualities of leader X while revolution B failed because of the negative qualities of leader Y, you really haven't explained anything.
The real reason Comrade X was successful is that the objective material conditions for his success were present. The real reason Comrade Y failed was because the objective conditions were not present.
The reason it looks otherwise is because of our own limitations. Suppose you pick up to read a fat, detailed history of the Russian Revolution. What do you find? Mostly, you find a record of the words and acts of individuals...that's the easiest thing for the historian to document.
Objective material conditions are much more difficult to figure out--at the time and even long afterwards. And yet that's what governs not only the behavior of the "famous" or "historically significant" personalities but also the behavior of millions of people that determine the outcome.
Have you ever read how the February 1917 revolution began? It started in a line of women waiting to buy bread. Furious at the delays and the poor rations, they went to their husbands' workplaces and demanded that a mass strike begin at once!
It did. Five days later, three centuries of Czarist autocracy were history.
Didn't anyone remember to write down their names? Those women who made a revolution, I mean.
And what would have happened if the flour deliveries that morning in Petrograd had been a little faster, so that the bread-line moved faster and there was more bread to hand out?
And what if, etc.?
Change some of the material conditions and Lenin dies of old age in Switzerland. Change a few others, and Rosa Luxemburg becomes the first Reichschancellor of the Socialist Republic of Germany.
Material reality prevails...and the rest is froth on the waters.
honky tonk wrote: Or that the specific approach, line, decisions and capacities of specific leaders can't have a decisive effect at times.
I think you misunderstand what Marx and Engels would have meant by the phrase "decisive effect" (I'm not sure they ever actually used that phrase in this context, but ok, say they did.)
When we say that some person had a "decisive effect" on something, what are we actually saying?
They proposed a course of action that people accepted and acted on which resulted in an abrupt and favorable change in a struggle.
Or, "Grant defeated Lee at Richmond, sealing the fate of the Confederacy".
Grant rode his "decisive effect" into the White House...but if you've ever read any serious books that look at the objective material conditions prevailing in the U.S. in 1860, you know that the confederacy was doomed even if the generals of the union army had been selected at random.
It's really the same thing in revolutionary politics; this or that leader looks "brilliant" in retrospect because he won. Those other leaders look "stupid" because they lost.
Was Che Guevara "brilliant" in Cuba and "stupid" in Bolivia?
If the counter-revolution had won in Russia's civil war, would we be sitting around now talking about what a fuckup Lenin was?
When we "Monday-morning-quarterback" previous revolutions, successful and unsuccessful, how much of what we say was known before the coin-toss to begin the game?
honky tonk wrote: So yeah, if our movement is crushed, SOMEONE (sooner or later) will build another one. If our leaders are killed, SOMEONE (sooner or later) will try to take up the thread. But who knows when? Or how?
Who knows "when" or "how" anything?
There's no such thing as a "method" for predicting the future in useful detail.
Most so-called "revolutionary" groups never get off the ground. A small number do better. And even smaller number do very well and approach the actual threshold of insurrection. Of those, a tiny number actually succeed...at least temporarily.
When you take the first step on the "road to revolution", the odds against you are enormous. The chances that you will avoid blundering in some crucial way are very small. IF you have correctly understood objective reality, then the odds shift in your favor in a dramatic way.
But it's no piece of cake. Be reminded that neither Lenin nor anyone else realized as late as 1916 that the end of Czarism was at hand. If memory serves me correctly, Lenin addressed a meeting in Switzerland in which he said that he did not expect to live to see the revolution.
Bad call.
honky tonk wrote: And isn't it fucked up, and upside down, to tell people "Aw it doesn't matter much if they kill your precious and beloved leaders, cuz there will always be someone new, sooner or later?" Isn't that exactly the wrong thing to tell the people? Doesn't it piss on their desire for change now? Their hopes? Their efforts?
"Precious and beloved leaders"??? Is this North Korea we've stumbled into...or the Third Reich?
Anyway, it is always correct to tell the people the truth as best you understand it. Sometimes, the truth may be discouraging...so be it.
Encouraging false "hopes" and unrealistic "desires" is a disastrous "strategy".
If people ever find out that you've lied to them--even "for their own good--they will never forgive you!
Nor should they!
honky tonk wrote: I mean we were lucky to have a Marx, a Lenin, a Mao -- and now a thinker like Avakian...Isn't such leadership a key component of a successful revolution?
Marx, yes. Lenin and Mao, no. Who's Avakian?
As to successful revolutions, the figures you named are all 0 for 4.
So the answer to your question is: no.
honky tonk wrote: Lenin for example talks openly about the value of "wise men" at the helm of the revolutionary movement.
Well, of course he does! He thought he was one.
What leader of any political persuasion has not claimed to be "wise"? Or not implied, at least, that the masses were "fools" who needed to be led by "wise men"?
V.I. Lenin wrote: I assert that it is far more difficult to unearth a dozen wise men than a hundred fools.
Only a few are "wise" and "fit to rule"...all the rest are fools and must be ruled "for their own good".
Which are you, honky tonk? One of the "wise" or one of the "fools"?
I have a feeling that I already know which category you have placed me in.
V.I. Lenin wrote: I assert that no revolutionary movement can endure without a stable organization of leaders maintaining continuity...
And I assert, to the contrary, that revolutionary movements do not endure anyway. They either grow to the point where they actually make a revolution or they struggle for a time and then fade away.
For the most part, leadership (stable or otherwise) has little or no effect on this trajectory.
RosaRL wrote: They are usually called 'academic Marxists' not 'revolutionary intellectuals'.
Quite right. Some of them have offered very good critiques of capitalist society and of prior class societies. But they are not interested in the contemporary possibilities of revolution...they think that most people today are "fools". #nosmileys
|
|
flyby
Revolutionary
Posts: 243
|
Post by flyby on Feb 4, 2004 18:00:01 GMT -5
redstar makes several arguments. Here is one: "If, for example, you say that revolution A succeeded because of the positive qualities of leader X while revolution B failed because of the negative qualities of leader Y, you really haven't explained anything. The real reason Comrade X was successful is that the objective material conditions for his success were present. The real reason Comrade Y failed was because the objective conditions were not present."
This is not accurate, and completely denies the powerful impact of what we do and think and decide.
In fact, to make a revolution there is a necessary objective minimum condition -- but people can throw it away. They can make the wrong decisions in war, or decide on the wrong approach. They can advance when they should retreat, or retreat when they should advance.
In the Paris commune, the workers were influenced by anarchist ideas, and kept individual cannon in each neighborhood -- so there were not enough forces marshaled at the key places where the Versailles were advancing.
In China the ocnditions were ripe. When the Wang Ming or Li Li San line was in command, the communists were slaughtered and defeated. When Mao came to the leadership of the CCP (after 1935) his very different approach (under essentially the same objective conditions) led to victory.
There are openings for revolution that get thrown away (by poor leadership, immature theoretical understandings, weakness of the vanguard parties.) And there are other objective openings for revolution that get seized, and taken to victory.
If you think victory is automatic just cuz the objective conditions are there you are mistaken. What we do, what we decide, how we do our work, all matters a great deal.
Let's put it another way: there are objective conditions for a seizure of power. The masses must be in a high tide of discontent and upheaval. The ruling classes need to be divided amongst themselves, in disaray and discredited broadly in the population. And (!!) you need a mature vaguard party with deep ties among the masses, and a far-sighted leadership.
In one sense, the existance of a leadership of that caliber is one of the key preconditions for a successful revolution. It is not the only one. but it is a necessary one.
If you have everything else going for you, but you are led by fools (or even just honest-but-mediocre hacks) -- you will lose and the revolution will be thrown away.
And if you have pepole who are really capable of leading the complex, tumultous process of revolution, and the incredible blizzard of contradictions of forging a new society -- then you need to recognize them, cherish them, let them be known to the people -- and above all, study closely their analyses, methods, and their descriptions of what "we all need to do together to win."
|
|