Hello all.

I have been following the activities on Kasama for a while now but have not yet posted on the forums. I find the creativity demonstrated by the people involved, and their willingness to ask tough questions, to be a very encouraging development among the revolutionary Left.

Anyway, I am a revolutionary communist who takes seriously the Marxist idea that we are ultimately striving for the elimination of class society AND the state.

I am sympathetic to Left criticisms of Leninism on the ground that it can lead to authoritarianism, but I'm aligned with anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninist-Maoist views in that I uphold the necessity of both revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat (and by that I mean a situation in which the working class collectively controls the economy and the state. I think that the more participation by the masses of the people in this process the better. I also reject the idea that the working class controlling the economy and the state is synonymous with a communist party controlling the economy and the state, as that encourages a host of problems, but I do think that a mass revolutionary party is still an historically necessary condition for effective revolution).

In other words, I can't agree with my ultra-left comrades who want to advance beyond state organization without going through the dictatorship of the proletariat. I am convinced of the necessity of establishing a revolutionary workers' state. But I don't think that this has been done well anywhere, for all the familiar reasons.

One problem as I see it is that the revolutionary state needs to be used to establish, or at least to foster (or even be prevented from hindering), revolutionary institutions that exceed the limits of the state structures, and which can eventually develop along different paths. An obvious historical example is of course the workers' councils/self management at the level of the workplace, though I know that in China, Yugoslavia and other places where this was implemented these forms of organization never acheived enough autonomy from the ruling parties, and this limited their revolutionary potential.*

Perhaps some advancement in this direction was made in China during the Cultural Revolution ("Bombard the headquarters!"), when many independent (or at least relatively autonomous) political organizations were established.

Perhaps there is potential in the growth of urgan agriculture in Havana, which is a creative adaptation to the collapse of the socialist trade system. Much of Havana's food supply comes from within the city itself, at the same time putting the food system on a more sustainable footing and creating a food system that goes beyond the old framework of state property.**

Or is there potential in the development of people's militias in Venezuela? How independent are they?***

And what about Nepal? I can't think of any specific examples right now but it is definitely a diverse and mass revolutionary movement that is not completely dominated by the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist).

I could be wrong, but overall, it seems to me that the early 21st Century socialist movements are in many ways more promising that the movements of the 20th Century, and there is greater hope of instituting socialism that is not authoritarian.

What are your thoughts?



*See, for example, The Erosion of Paternalistic Democracy in Chinese Factories. http://chinastudygroup.net/2009/10/the-ero...nese-factories/

**Urban Food Growing in Havana, Cuba http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRz34Dee7XY&feature=related

***Venezuela: The People in Arms http://kasamaproject.org/2010/04/20/venezu...people-in-arms/

I think that proletarian bonapartism is still possible in the 21st century, though there is a better chance that we will get much healthier workers' states than in the 20th century, mainly due to the changed nature of the peasantry in terms of their better education and the fact that many of them enter into economic relations as both workers and petty-commodity producers.

I don't agree with the critique of "authoritarianism." I would not think, for instance, that there is something fundamentally wrong with a single party state, or a state with a constitutionally-mandated leading role for a communist party. I don't think that communists should avoid seizing power without majority support if the situation permitted it.

I agree with a certain Hungarian revisionist that it should be "those who are not against us are with us" rather than "those are not with us are against us," meaning that the party should not insist on pervading all aspects of everyone's lives and should not demand active support of all the citizenry under socialism.

That said, it's always been the case that a better educated working people with a higher cultural level will yield a better socialism. The flip side is that in not a small portion of the world, cultural and human development are worse now than a few decades ago.

Hi folks,

This is an important topic and I am glad to see some interest in it.

Gregory_E:

You are completely correct, in my opinion.

My conclusion is that "authoritarian" socialism is not really socialism at all. At best it may represent the rule of organization that may (or may not) aspire to bring about the rule of the working class as a class. If it aspires to bring about the rule of the working class, then it may (or may not) succeed.

I will make an attempt to keep my post here short, but if any readers are interested, I have written about these topics at length in many articles on my website (and my RevLeft blog) that use clear and simple language.

TOR:

Your comments strike me as quite intelligent and interesting.

The experience of the working class with "proletarian bonapartism", as you call it (and, by the way, I believe that term is a much better, and theoretically far more accurate, term for the result of the 20th century revolutions than the term "socialism") is mixed. These revolutions improved the conditions of life for hundreds of millions--but ended up as degenerate police states that had no chance of resisting capitalism. These revolutions never reached their intended goal of the rule of society by the working class as a class. We should be clear on this. Never underestimate the value of clear and accurate ideas.

I believe you are correct that conditions are far better, in many ways, for revolutions in this century. In fact I have come to the conclusion that the capitlist system is highly unlikely to survive this century. As you note, the nature of the oppressed classes has developed. In nearly every country on earth now, the working class is either a majority or close to it. The educational level is much higher. The working class has much more historical experience (including the experience of great revolutions in Russia and China that appeared at first to defeat all their internal enemies but which degenerated into police states). In addition, there is the powerful factor of the emerging revolution in communications. As decade rolls after decade, this revolution will release ever-increasing amounts of oxygen, so to speak, into the political atmosphere of all countries, setting the stage for an eventually political explosion of stellar magnitude.

David D:

It is good to cautious about such things. There are two issues here:

(1) Whether a revolutionary mass organization should attempt to take power in conditions where it may not have the stable support of the majority of society (ie: conditions that will always more-or-less correspond to the need for the rule of a single organization with the ability to suppress criticism in whatever way it considers necessary) must be based on a sober and realistic assessment of whether it would be possible to win stable majority support within a relatively short period.

Lenin, as I understand it, would not have organized the insurrection against the provisional government in October 1917 if it had been certain at the time that it would not be possible to link up with a successful revolution in Germany. Unfortunately, the revolution in Germany was crushed. Now Lenin and the Bolsheviks were in a tough spot. By 1921 the Bolsheviks were deeply unpopular and democratic rights had to be suspended throughout Russia (including within the Bolshevik party) in order to survive in these extreme conditions. Lenin understood that, in such conditions, the party could easily degenerate (and he called this "the real and main danger" in his last major speech before the party at the 11th Congress in 1922). And that is precisely what happened.

Does this mean that the revolutionary mass organization should never take power in conditions where it may only have minority support for a prolonged period? Not necessarily. But we must understand that, in modern conditions, such a revolution is highly likely to fail and either be crushed externally (ie: like the German revolution in the 1920's) or suffocated internally (ie: bonapartism: as happened in France in the 1790's and Russia in the 1920's).

My study of Lenin indicated that, by 1921, he had come to the conclusion that it would be necessary for the Bolsheviks to suppress the independent voice of the working class for ten or twenty years (ie: until economic conditions could be improved and the mass of the population was less unhappy). During that period (ie: in which the working class would not have the ability to independently organize against the incompetence, hypocrisy and corruption that would inevitably emerge in the ruling party) the party was vulnerable to degeneration. And, after Lenin died, that is exactly what happened.

(2) Aside from the question of whether it might (or might not) be advisable for a revolutionary mass organization to take power in conditions where it would not have majority support (ie: and would need to suppress the independent voice of the working class) there is the far simpler and vastly more important issue of developing a clear understanding of the nature of our goal (ie: the nature of revolutionary society).

The great emphasis on taking power in conditions where the revolutionary state does not have popular support and is for this reason compelled to create a police state (ie: revolutionary martial law) serves to great an enormous cloud of confusion concerning the nature of workers' rule.

Until we can clear up this cloud of confusion--we will never be able to create a revolutionary movement in the economically developed countries that is deserving of the attention, respect and loyalty of the working class.

Finally, since I know that these topics are often difficult for many readers, I include (please see below) some charts that I have created in recent polemics to illustrate some of these ideas.

-- Ben




(readers: click here to view full-size image)

Ben, I like your diagrams. They really explain a lot. I also looked over your website, and your overall strategy for creating a mass organization of the working class that includes both reformists and revolutionaries of different tendencies as well as a mass base of undecided workers looking for an alternative is very similar to the position of the organization that I am with regarding the tasks of revolutionaries in the US, though the means by which I see this coming about and you see this coming about are very different.

Also, while I don't agree with all the words you utilize, I think your overall politics make a lot of sense and are, as you say, easy to understand.

My only criticism of your positions and strategy for organization is that they at times verge on idealism and fail to adequately consider the material conditions in play and how what you want will emerge out of those material conditions. While I know that you are providing general schematic diagrams and explanations, I think some more context-specific information is necessary as well as more materialist analysis of current conditions.

In addition, I find your strategy of internet organizing problematic in several ways, though I am sure you are doing very progressive work. It's just that you invest far too much in what is really one specific tactic that should not be over-emphasized or given the primary importance you seem to ascribe to it due to its inherent limitations.

Hi TOR,

It sure is good to hear from you. I am really glad that you liked my diagrams and found them easy to understand.

It may be a few weeks before I have time to respond because issues in my personal life require immediate attention. In addition to this, I usually need to give a lot of thought to something in order to make a post that is halfway intelligent.

In the meantime:

(1) You said:

Are there any public document(s) on this that your org has posted on the web?

(I do not even know what organization you support.)

Also (for readers who are not familar with this) TOR is referring to my article How to Build the Party of the Working Class.

(2) I have also posted on the topic of party building (in reply to David) on another thread on this bulletin board:

So what should Maoists do in the U.S.?

(3) I would be very interested in hearing more about your views (and the views of your organization) when you have time.

All the best,
Ben