centralism, epistemology, and stuff

[Maz]

I had an discussion with a friend the other night who raised some pretty interesting challenges. It was a little beyond my understanding. Here's the jist of it:

With centralized power, isn't the involvment of the masses an empty formality since the correctness/incorrectness of the ideas from the masses will be decided upon by the central authorities anyways? And isn't this even moreso the case because the central leadership has an agenda that pre-determines what they consider to be a good idea?

[Burningman]

That's a provocative question. I bet there's room for more than one answer.

[redstar2000]

Maz wrote: With centralized power, isn't the involvement of the masses an empty formality since the correctness/incorrectness of the ideas from the masses will be decided upon by the central authorities anyways? And isn't this even more so the case because the central leadership has an agenda that pre-determines what they consider to be a good idea?

Very well put!

I consider that a succinct and excellent summary of the reality behind the "mass line" process.

The "mass line" is rather like the "suggestion box" that used to be a regular feature of corporate offices.

[Maz]

i'm a little suprised there wasn't more interest around this question.

It seems to me that someobody has to be deciding the correctness or incorrectness of things. And i don't have a problem with this being the communists since they are concerned with the long-term goal of classless society and make this the determiner of what is correct or incorrect. Without this, things would end up in the hands of the bourgeoisie.

But how do you make it so the participation of the masses isn't an empty formality? That their participation actually matters? And how do you keep an open-mind about what comes from the masses and not dismiss potentially positive thigns out of hand?

[RedWinter]

Maybe cause most people who call themselves communists today in the USA (I am including myself in this generalization) seem to not really be implementing the mass line in the way that Lenin and Mao did, and the way that our comrades in Nepal and Peru, etc. are doing. Instead of gathering ideas from the masses, at times it seems that USA communists might not be doing this and taking the ideas "from the sky" or something. One of the reasons that groups like the BPP and Young Lords got a lot of popularity in the 60s and 70s was because of their community service programs. In one documentary on the YLP, I saw that the Lords actually went out to the masses in the neighborhoods (I believe this was in NYC) and asked them what they wanted to be done. A great number of people wanted the city to help with trash collection. So the Lords went out and actually set up a trash cleaning service program for the community, with educational aspects. Same kind of thing with the BPP breakfast for children program.

Needless to say the Bundistic "revolutionary" groups of the 60s and 70s failed in their aims, but is this aspect of their community service something that we as part of a USA "red renaissance" can pick up and wield as another weapon in our arsenal?

The theory of the mass line is intended to keep the revolutionary vanguard in touch with the masses and to ensure that they are still in line with its desires. If the vanguard is not following the will of the masses, how can it be the vanguard? Failure to implement mass line politics has similar results as the revolution in Cuba, where the leaders had good intentions but ultimately decided to follow the path they chose in their own circles rather than with the masses as a whole (and develop more self-sufficiency).

What do y'all think?

[damian g]

I think several things about this:

1) first the correctness or incorrectness of ideas is not "decided" by someone. it is an objective matter. In other words, things are correct or incorrect dependenton whether they correspond with reality. And this is true whether anyone knows it or not. And it is true whether or not the communists (including communists in power) grasp it or not.

2) Further, this issue is one of the matters at the heart of what BA has been writing about: his reaching series focuses on the fact that M'ists don't automatically know the truth, and don't inherently come up with true ideas first, and in fact sometimes they are wrong on points while others (and at times even people who are generally reactionary) may have the correct understanding of particular matters. And so he stresses the importance of being good at learning (including even from the criticism and work of people who generally are reactionary).

He examines this off the discussion of Lysenko, but quickly discusses this in terms of generalities.

And it is part of the insight from which he draws and stresses the importance of having a socialisst society in which people are free to raise criticisms and disagreements (including people who in many ways are not revolutionary), and it is a basis on which he stresses the need for communists to be first-rate at interrogating themselves, and being open to the interrogation of others.

And he argues hard that communists have not been good at this: not been good at taking criticism, not good at learning from the new ideas of others (especially when they seem to contradict the received truths of communism), and also not good at changing their own (seemingly communist) ideas when experience and new insights provide a basis for such change.

There are several works on this... which taken as a whole represent a rather radical new look at these matters (new in the sense of breaking with the "traditional" approaches of the ICM.

In particular, I would recommend listening to the third part of the Democracy talk on bobavakian.net, and also the key parts of the Reaching series (where the section heads speak for themselves).

-----------------------------------
Next point:

Maz wrote: "With centralized power, isn't the involvment of the masses an empty formality since the correctness/incorrectness of the ideas from the masses will be decided upon by the central authorities anyways? And isn't this even moreso the case because the central leadership has an agenda that pre-determines what they consider to be a good idea?"

This view of socialism is one that BA has been explicitly arguing against. In other words that argument of "centralized power" is an example of the "second door" that BA criticizes in his DOP talk.

(It is the part that was posted on this site that says: "there are three choices." and then describes the current system (enough said). Then mentions the "second door" which is a revisionist world where the masses are mobilized on the basis of revenge, and where socialism is conceived as a world where a new set of rulers give them the goodies.

The third door BA is arguing for is radically different -- and precisely basedon the understanding that if the masses are not involved, deeply, increasingly and in radical new ways, then the restoration of capitalism is inevitable. (He wrote a specific essay called "expanding the we."

So i think his recent writings on this are precisely the answer I would raise to your friend Maz. And the break from the traditional views of socialism is something i would urge and fight for.

It is not (as someone said on this site) simply enough to say "we represent the people, we have led the revolution, so therefore whatever we believe or do must be assumed to represent the people." That vision of socialism leads to capitalism, not forward to communism.

So: (a) it is not the communist leadership who decides what is correct or "a good idea" -- these are matters that are objective, and need a wrangling social debate.
(b) socialism must not be a "centralized power" where the involvement of the people is reduced to a formality -- because that is the death of the revolution.