flyby
Revolutionary
Posts: 243
|
Post by flyby on Feb 4, 2004 18:05:14 GMT -5
sonofrage quotes Eugene Debs who said: "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."
Let me point out: Debs never led a revolution. His party never led a revolution. And the line he was putting forward here (which was widely believed in the Second International) led Luxemburg and Liebknecht to throw away the 1919 chance for revolution in Germany (dying in the process).
It is wrong on every side. In fact our class (the working class) uses organization as its main weapon, and that collectivity needs to be led. Victory is not automatic. It is not something that 'just happens" as if society fall over on our plate like a big slab of cake.
And any successful revolution (China, Russia, Vietnam are the proletarian ones, but even in a different way the bourgeois ones: France 1789, Cuba 1960) had active, far-seeing energetic, visionary leaders of the first rank.
No revolution has ever happened without producing leaders of that quality. And the death of such leaders has always been a terrible blow to the revolutionary process (Lenin, Mao, Kaypakkayya, Charu Mazumdar, Ho chi Minh etc.) -- because it is not that easy for the next tier of leaders to just "pick up and carry one."
You can elect someone to be "chairman of the communist party of china" but that doesn't make them a Mao Tsetung.
(edited: was that a mistake, flyby? -Andrei X)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2004 19:33:08 GMT -5
It's true, Deb's never "led a revolution" but what happened to all these people who were "led" in the end? That's right, they were "led" right back out. Where was Debs wrong again?
|
|
|
Post by readpunk on Feb 4, 2004 19:59:07 GMT -5
It's true, Deb's never "led a revolution" but what happened to all these people who were "led" in the end? That's right, they were "led" right back out. Where was Debs wrong again? Sam, you and I are going to be like totally slaughtered after the revolution. Kronstadt 2 time! Boo-YAH!
|
|
|
Post by questoin on Feb 4, 2004 20:02:32 GMT -5
what are the politics of someone who denies that his ideology is Green Beret macho (in one thread) and then yells "booyah" like some killer grunt (in the next thread)?
hmmmmmm
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2004 20:11:07 GMT -5
wow, talk about nit-picking. Since when is the use of one little phrase indicitive of someone's ideology?
|
|
|
Post by redstar2000 on Feb 4, 2004 20:14:08 GMT -5
Flyby's post is a good illustration of the idea of revolution as a product of "will".
He pays a kind of lip-service to objective material conditions, but insists that the outcome then depends on "the leadership" and the decisions that it makes.
I've already made the argument that both those decisions and the leaders that make them are products of objective material conditions...but clearly to no avail.
Flyby wants a leader to follow and thinks he's found one...
And if you have people who are really capable of leading the complex, tumultuous 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."
Against such faith, mere argument is irrelevant.
flyby wrote: Let me point out: Debs never led a revolution.
Neither did Marx or Engels.
Neither has Bob Avakian.
flyby wrote: And the line he was putting forward here (which was widely believed in the Second International) led Luxemburg and Liebknecht to throw away the 1919 chance for revolution in Germany (dying in the process).
What did Fermi say once: "That's so bad it's not even [good enough to be] wrong."
The 2nd International was a collection of parliamentary political parties, organized in more or less the same hierarchal fashion as the bourgeois political parties of the day.
In fact, Lenin would have organized the Russian affiliate in exactly the same way were it not for the fact that Russia was an autocracy...and the "normal" functioning of a social-democratic party was impossible.
The Spartakist Bund, of whom Luxemburg and Liebknecht were the most prominent members (but not leaders), was organized "in the shadow" of the Russian October revolution and heavily influenced by it. The "young hot-heads" carried a motion to launch an insurrection (Luxemburg was against it on the sensible grounds that there was insufficient working class support for the idea).
She and Liebknecht were perceived as the "leaders" of the insurrection by the army units that captured them and thus they were immediately murdered.
The whole episode had nothing to do with the statement by Debs or the political line that it implied.
It might also be noted that Debs' vision was not reflected in the actual practice of the U.S. Socialist Party. When proponents of the Third International threatened to gain a majority in the SP, the leadership promptly resorted to mass expulsions...including the entire membership in the State of Michigan.(!)
flyby wrote: And any successful revolution (China, Russia, Vietnam are the proletarian ones, but even in a different way the bourgeois ones: France 1789, Cuba 1960) had active, far-seeing energetic, visionary leaders of the first rank.
All that's saying is that the winners won because they were...winners.
Bah!
flyby wrote: No revolution has ever happened without producing leaders of that quality.
Funny, I didn't notice Tito in your list. I know Maoists don't like Tito--"fucking revisionist bastard" is the technical term, I believe--yet he did lead a successful revolution. And, as we have seen so many times, after his death, everything turned to shit.
But if "winning" is "what counts", why aren't you carefully studying the collected works of Tito? Learning from him? Cherishing him, even?
Are you going to say that Tito was "lucky" while Mao was "really great"?
Can you say internal contradiction?
|
|
|
Post by question on Feb 4, 2004 20:15:39 GMT -5
isn't *booyah* the chant of the u.s. army as they kill or what?
and what does it mean when someone comes on this site and yells that?
I'm not nitpicking, i'm trying to understand where this ultra individualists who talked about ramming guns down our throats is coming from.
There is a place where anarchism bleeds over into rightwing survivalism. And the talk about killing people on this board one minute and shouting booyah the next minute -- just made me ask this question.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2004 20:22:35 GMT -5
I think the yell you are thinking of is "uhh-rahhh"
|
|
|
Post by redstar2000 on Feb 4, 2004 21:09:28 GMT -5
I thought it was hooo-ahh! or huuh-ahh!
|
|
|
Post by question on Feb 4, 2004 21:14:00 GMT -5
I don't get the point made by redstar.
Isn't it obvious that major political moves require both great will (organized and led) and "objective conditions."
this is true everywhere in the world. There are the "objective conditions" for a field of wheat here, but a farmer has to decide and know what he is doing.
Just cuz there are objective conditions for something in society (like ending jim crow racism) doesn't meanthat ACTUALLY MAKING THE CHANGE -- doesn't require thought, will, organization, luck, even genius.
And just cuz there are objective conditions for something doesn't mean it will happen.
The importance of will, and leadership, and good decisions, and penetrting theoretical analysis -- is that it hastens events, it brings changes faster.
But fast or slow, it will never happen unless humans decide and carry it out.
As the International says "we must ourselves decide our duty, we must decide and do it will."
Isn't that exactly true?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2004 22:05:44 GMT -5
I thought it was hooo-ahh! or huuh-ahh! I think we are talking about the same "scream" but just spelling it differently.
|
|
|
Post by redstar2000 on Feb 5, 2004 12:43:21 GMT -5
question wrote: I don't get the point made by redstar.
Ok, I'll try again.
I think we would all agree that objective material conditions in the United States are today extremely unfavorable for proletarian revolution.
If anyone tried to start one now, they'd be crushed...and it would be so trivial an event that it might not even make the national news programs.
This is regardless of the qualities of the would-be "leader"!
Now let's look at Petrograd in February 1917...where the objective conditions for proletarian revolution to overthrow the autocracy were so extremely favorable that no conscious "leadership" was "required" at all. The repressive apparatus of the Czarist state simply melted away. (The only people who actually fought for the Czar to the bitter end was the Petrograd police force and it took several weeks to "mop up" their sporadic resistance.)
The Leninist paradigm purports to address conditions "between" these two polar extremes.
The Leninists assert that "the right leadership" can "make a crucial difference" when objective conditions for revolution are marginally favorable--they "can", by an act of "will", force open "a small window of opportunity" and seize power "in the name of a proletariat" that is not quite ready to do so for itself.
Of course, only Lenin himself ever actually did this; Leninist parties in capitalist countries never managed it. The Leninist explanation for this is "bad leadership".
The Maoist heirs of Lenin assert that Mao's leadership was crucial in the victory of China's peasant revolution of 1949.
Without Mao, they say in effect, Chiang's gangster-fascist despotism would have won.
I am deeply skeptical of this assertion. We have no way of knowing, of course...we can't re-run the Chinese revolution and see what would have happened without Mao.
But it seems to me that the objective material conditions in China in 1945 were highly favorable to peasant revolution...and that any number of the leading personalities of the "Communist" Party of China could have successfully led the revolution to victory.
It seems to me that there are quite a number of "third world" countries where the objective material conditions decidedly favor peasant revolution...and this is where the heirs of Mao have been markedly successful.
I frankly think that they would enjoy success in those areas if they were led by monkeys..."third world" peasants have much to be pissed off about.
At any rate, Maoism is irrelevant to those of us who live in the developed world...we have no peasantry to speak of, and those we do have are well-entrenched in the middle class and probably the most reactionary element of that class. We have "kulaks" and an agricultural proletariat and that's about it.
So we end up with the modern Leninist party asserting that its leader is "the next Lenin"...that he will seize that tiny "window of opportunity" whenever it opens--due to his genius and will--and "save us" the need to "wait" for the working class itself to rise up en masse.
It's an audacious plan, in a way...the idea of "kick-starting" the revolutionary process.
But it depends on the leader really being the next Lenin...no "lesser man" will do.
And that's where the trouble starts, of course.
|
|
|
Post by Porole on Feb 5, 2004 15:55:00 GMT -5
LOL, Rs2000 You had me laughing the whole time. Is it your common practice to act like you know history, when you do not? Any way thanks, your rewritten history was not only funny, but a hilarious joke on the revolutionary masses that rose up in Eastern Europe and China. Especially the part where you said the Chinese masses could have followed a monkey...thats funny because you the Chinese people must have been dumber than a monkey... that was great!!! I like jokes that insult whole peoples and underestimate their revolutionary spirit and the sacrifices they make. But just to set the record straight.. I wanna tear thru some of your fantasy history. (Is it more like an RPG game or like fantasy baseball? You be the judge.) Wow that is a stirring rewrite, when after the crushed revolution in 1905 revolutionaries were being hunted down by the Czarists and their lackeys. A revolt that was actively opposed by Mensheviks, social democrats, and many anarchists, this opposition gave strength to he Czar and weakened the revolutionary masses.. In fact Lenin had to struggle hardcore with other revolutionaries to rise up.. including in his Party, where he threatened to quit if the Bolsheviks didn't rise up, guns in hand, and lead the masses to do this. The Czarists were dismantled, the army destroyed, and replaced with a Red Army, and a situation of dual power came into existence. In this dual power, state power was not yet firmly in the hands of the proletariat, the bourgeoisie had a significant amount of power. It was the leadership the Bolsheviks provided, that lead the proletariat to overthrow the bourgeoisie as well. Otherwise there would have been a capitalist state established there and then. Obviously, the Bolsheviks, led by Lenin, were pivotal in not just one instance, but many crucial instances. And it should also be obvious, but that without a hardcore revolutionary group pushing for a revolutionary outcome, not only would there not have been a class-conscious working class, but there would have a been a bourgeoisie in power of the state. It may not matter to you who rules the state, but communists do care, they understand that who rules the state, hold power. On a sidenote (not particularly commenting on RS2000 viewpoints) communists also understand that there is no way to just "smash the state." and do away with state and national contradictions. lol thats funny... wow...Rs2000.... not knowing, but still talking..... Communists do not blame leaders for not starting revolutions, unless they could have started one and did not! In fact we are, in the US, in a non revolutionary situation. And before a revolution is possible, this will obviously have to change. We have an approach of hastening while awaiting such a situation. The RCP DP speaks to this: Draft programme Maybe a few other could have led the revolution...so what.. Mao did, and in doing so he struggled with the many to understand road to revolution and military strategy of a country like China. However this is not the only area of our understanding that Mao led in developing, it was just the tip of the iceberg. In oppressed countries the material conditions do favor peasant revolution. However the leadership of the China CP before Mao became Secretary was influenced by the thinking of the the Societ Union. Which held that the revolution should be fought in the style of the October Revolution. They were wrong and Mao led the Party to understand why and how they were wrong. Also when you say Maoism has no place in countries that are not a part of the "third world". You obviously show how little you understand communist ideology, in particular what Mao contributed to this ideology. Though Mao did contribute to the world movement an understanding in how to wage revolutions in countries like China, he didn't end there. Afew notable contributions he made that effect all of us no matter what kind of country we live in. -He led the way in developing our understanding of the dialectical materialist understanding (which it seems you do not understand, and therefore, disagree with) -He developed our understanding on how to develop and correctly unleash dissent and criticism in a socialist country, recognizing the necessity of such dissent to socialism. -He led the Chinese masses in the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. A lesson to the worlds people in how to fight a new bourgeoisie from rising in a socialist world. This last one is critical, and the GPCR represents the furthest our class has gone towards communism. I think comrades have explained this to you before, but instead of listening to this you doggedly ignore it, as it disproves one of your favorite criticisms of communism. In fact the way you do this, and other things: -ignoring strong arguments and try to take on weak points in people arguments -rewriting of history to serve your arguments -selective and partial quotes of people, that misrepresents what they are trying to say -potshots at individuals and those they respect -the way you dishonestly label yourself a communist .. and more, all this comes off to me as very opportunist and anti communist. On another board someone said they had a problem with the way you raise the red flag to fight the red flag, I agree. I think that you are very ignorant on many things, and that is why you act the way you do, but I also think that your attitude and approach reveal a very plain and aggressive anti-communist view. I hope you can break with this and one day raise the red flag to fight for revolution.
|
|
|
Post by porole on Feb 5, 2004 17:53:01 GMT -5
one more point on stuff: leadership must be chosen based on revolutionary ideology.
a revolutionary internationalist stance and ideology, a self-critical and scientific methodology, and a consistent and thorough class-conscious stand.
revolutionary leadership should not be chosen in some nonpolitical, or incorrect way.
A pragmatist might argue that a revolutionary leader is good when they lead a revolution, but until then, they do not deserve respect. A communist would not argue this.
many would argue that leadership should be chosen based on nationality, sex, sexuality or some such qualification.
But lets be real, revolutionary leadership should be chosen based on revolutionary line and method.
|
|
|
Post by honky tonk on Feb 5, 2004 18:34:42 GMT -5
Part 1
I'd like to add some thoughts to porol's excellent post.
Redstar writes: "Flyby pays a kind of lip-service to objective material conditions, but insists that the outcome then depends on "the leadership" and the decisions that it makes."
This is mistaken. First, you can't act without objective material conditions. No one denies that. Everyone understands that. There is no lipservice.
However, on the basis of those material conditions, there also need to be subjective conditions. This is what you deny. It is called "the overestimation of spontaneity." This is what we are talking aobut.
Marx wrote (in a pithy concentration that gets right to this point): "Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past." From 18th Brumiare.
In other words, Marx is dealing with the dynamic role of human action AND the objective conditions on which they act. You are raising the need for objective condition to make the argument that human agency (leadership, correct decisions, theory, ideology, etc.) essentially don't matter.
But -- and here is the key point -- revolutions (at least socialist revolutions that survive) don't just "happen" they are organized and led. They are created.
This is the point about February 1917. Did the Tsarist king fall? Yes. Was the uprising spontaneous (well, it took place on International Women's Day after years of socialist work) -- but there was not a party center that said "today we rise up." In that sense it was spontaneous.
Was it a socialist revolution? No, and it couldn't be. As the Bolsheviks said: The king fell, and the bourgeoisie seized power.
In other words, there are objective conditions for revolution in February 1917, but the subjective conditions (i.e. the connection of the Bolsheviks -- AND LENIN IN PARTICULAR -- with those revolutionary sentiments of the people) were not yet developed, and would only ripen through the coming months of struggle -- that made a SOCIALIST REVOLUTION possible.
There are lots of uprisings that topple governments (fall of baby doc duveier in Haiti, or the Shah in Iran, and many more exampled) -- but that doesn't produce a change in class power. A revolutoin (in the sense of a new class rising to power) is a different thing, and it is a very different thing to seek a socialist revolution (where the masses seize power and wield it, through the agencies of new instutions and their party and their own ongoing struggle).
flyby wrote: And the line he was putting forward here (which was widely believed in the Second International) led Luxemburg and Liebknecht to throw away the 1919 chance for revolution in Germany (dying in the process).
Redstar doesn't like this argument. And quips "What did Fermi say once: "That's so bad it's not even [good enough to be] wrong." (which doesn’t mean anything)
He follows with his version of this history -- which is mistaken. You can go read it yourself, I won't paste it in here.
Here is the point: The 2nd International (including Kautsky, and Debs, the Russian Menshiviks like Martov, and even many of the Left forces like Luxemburg) had a view that revolutions happen (and do not need to be organized and led.)
They had a specific vision of revolutoinary strategy -- one that has proven deeply mistaken. Here was their vision: The workers party organizes the worker by fighting for their interests -- in economic struggle -- and by waging political battles (including with the parliamentary arena as a battle ground). Then (according to this model) after the workers party wins the allegiance of the masses, and grows large, and develops a sophisticated network of unions, associations, parliamentary caucuses etc. -- there inevitably comes a moment of crisis. It becomes clear that the bourgeoisie will not give into key demands, and that it (in fact) needs to crush the workers party to maintain stable rule. In this crisis the workers go over from making demands to seizing power, and socialism starts.
In this scenario, the job of the socialists is to organize the struggles the workers are already waging (economic struggles, political demands) AND to conduct an overlay of socialist "education" in the process.
But they don't need a backbone organization of revolutionaries, or a strategy for actually seizing power, or whatever -- because the workers will just decide, AND THEN USE THE ORGANIZATIONS THEY CREATED (unions, electoral networks, etc.) to seize that power.
This has been a dismal failure everywhere it is adopted. And it was essentially the Kausky vision, and was often adopted by the later European and American CPs of the Comintern (but not by Mao!).
|
|