Internationalism: Our Starting Point is the World
Posted by Mike E on October 15, 2008
TNL responded to Bill Martin’s Part 1: At the Fork in the Road
I was struck here by your comment that:
“What one might say is that the rejection of the ethical basis of internationalism leads to a backing away from internationalism itself, and this appears to have happened with BA and the RCP (what remains of it), too.”
It made me reflect on a recent private correspondence I had over the nature of the RCP’s “internationalism” that is also, unfortunately, a quality of Kasama. The RCP’s “internationalism” has always been one of narrowly building its own international trend, and not of building broad anti-imperialist solidarity in the form of, say, the solidarity movements with the guerrilla movements in Central America in the 1980s. The RCP’s retreat from solidarity with the revolution in Nepal created a space that Kasama has, quite correctly, stepped into. My concern is that in so doing there is not taking place a deeper critique of this sort of ideologically “narrow internationalism.”
The Maoist-led movements in South Asia are vitally important to follow and support, and there is a legitimate sense in which the folks gathered here probably have a special responsibility to take up this task. But if we are serious about “regrouping as we reconceive” I think there needs to be considerably more attention on what is happening in other places as well, in particular Latin America.
Your piece helped me see that this is not simply a pragmatic question of what we need to pay attention to in order to advance theoretically, but also an ethical one of our responsibilities to the millions of people engaged presently in revolutionary processes in Brazil (the MST in particular), Bolivia, Venezuela, and Mexico. (n the last, I am preparing some of my own thoughts.)
Mike Ely replies:
Tellnolies: I welcome your critique, and I welcome the kicking open of the doors to a discussion of internationalism.
I think we need to approach this from even further back: I .e. the issue is not “solidarity with Maoists” vs. “solidarity with others in diverse revolutionary processes.”
I think it is a matter of starting with the world first.
I think we need to have a movement that embraces a profound (visceral, gut-level) sense of solidarity among people, and that sees this in a profoundly international way. And i think there is material basis for that internationalism (that did not always exist in human society) rooted in the extreme and intensifying interknittedness of human society, which in turn is rooted in the internationalization of production and exchange. And it is rooted in the existance of a propertyless class of working people who have profound interest in overthrowing the current world order — where the capitalist internationalization of capital, arms, information are turned into one massive machinery of exploitation, organized rape and unnecessary death.
Our slogan should be “Our starting point is the world.”
Our question is “what is good for all of humanity?”
And there is a huge opening for that approach (because of ecological understandings, but also the huge turmoil and sweatshopization caused by the latest round of imperialist globalization.)
And we should present this internationalist, global view in sharp and direct opposition to its opposite (i.e. “what’s good for me and mine, what’s good for America, what’s good for AMERICAN workers” and so on ad nauseum.)
Is it terrible that the U.S. is isolated in the world? Is “our prestige” diminished, and is that bad?
Do we use the word “we” for U.S. invasions? (No “we” that i’m part of invaded Iraq, or Afghanistan — it is that “them” that oppresses us that invaded — over our heartfelt opposition).
And I think that our movement has not yet found the ways to express and crystalize that internationalism — in popular and powerful ways (though I think that the red flag did this for some previous generations, and the NION “world flag” tried that for the immediate post-911 moment.)
Previous communists have, of course, expressed those sentiments (including Avakian after “conquer the world”) and including marx and lenin:
V. I. Lenin, “What Is Internationalism?” The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky
“I must argue, not from the point of view of ‘my’ country (for that is the argument of a wretched, stupid, petty-bourgeois nationalist who does not realize that he is only a plaything in the hands of the imperialist bourgeoisie), but from the point of view of my share in the preparation, in the propaganda, and in the acceleration of the world proletarian revolution. That is what internationalism means, and that is the duty of the internationalist, of the revolutionary worker, of the genuine Socialist.”
Karl Marx, “Communist Manifesto,”
“The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeiosie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.”
but I think there are major reasons (having to do with the development and crimes of imperialism) why such a internationalism is profoundly important — and needs to be a prominent, defining feature of how our revolution is perceived.
* * * * *
Second, Maoism has always held that you stand with the people in struggle. (That is the basic orientation pioneered by Mao in his famous article “REPORT ON AN INVESTIGATION OF THE PEASANT MOVEMENT IN HUNAN” — a work that is precious and worth reading for method.
and I think you are mistaken in saying:
“The RCP’s “internationalism” has always been one of narrowly building its own international trend, and not of building broad anti-imperialist solidarity in the form of, say, the solidarity movements with the guerrilla movements in Central America in the 1980s.
I think the RCP was rather supportative of those guerilla movements (despite real disagreements) and focused quite a bit of attention on opposing the U.S. contra war — and the danger of a full-scale U.S. invasion of Nicaragua. The issue was more that the RCP thought it was important to focus on the complexity of these wars — that they were both national liberation struggle against the U.S., and also (in many ways) some of the many proxy wars breaking out because of intensifying U.S./Soviet rivalry.
In many places, and in many times, the RCP has supported popular uprisings that were not led by Maoists — including the Vietnam war, and the haitian uprisings, and the Iranian revolution, and many more.
There is (of course) a countercurrent. and it is associated with deployment of the following quote from Lenin:
“There is one, and only one, kind of real internationalism, and that is — working whole- heartedly for the development of the revolutionary movement and the revolutionary struggle in one’s own country, and supporting (by propaganda, sympathy, and material aid) this struggle, this, and only this, line, in every country without exception.” (”The Tasks of the Proletariat in Our Revolution”).
There are many conjunctural reasons for Lenin’s expression (having to do with the profound demagogery around peace and internationalism in the midst of World War 1, and Lenin’s urgent attempt to form a new and distinct communist international).
the first part of it is important: I.e. that our main internationalist contribution is making revolution here. (And that is something Avakian has increasingly abdicated in spasms of anger and despair).
But I also want to speak in favor of the importance of making specifically COMMUNIST REVOLUTOIN known in the U.S.:
It is first of all because we are in the heartland of imperialism and have a responsibility (literally) to help prevent the U.S. from having a free hand in its counterrevolutionary actions. (This is understood here, and I won’t eleaborate more).
but it is also because people here NEED TO KNOW about COMMUNIST revolution (not just armed reformism, or militant movements, or anti-U.S. governments, or all the other struggles in the world that do, in fact, have much to teach). But peole need to know that a radical, all-the-way, communist revolution is possible.
And when that has the “dignity of immediate actually” — when such communist movements exist, or when socialist states exist, in all their inevitable complexity and contradiction — thee are potentially very powerful “seeding machines” for COMMUNIST revolutoinary ideas here in the heartland.
It is impossible to understand the rise of the first socialist parties in the U.S. without understanding the influence of German social democracy (and Marx/engels as a current within that). Or to understand the emergence of the first communist movement without the experience of Soviet russia.
And it is similarly impossible to understand the rise of black naitonalism without grasping the impact of the chinese anti-colonial revolution, or the role of the Cultural Revolution in the emergence of the New Communist Movmeent of the 1970s.
Personally, I have always thought that there were teenage Vietnamese kids who died during the Tet Offensive at the core of my political awakening — their sacrifice and consciousness (and their organized participation in the National Liberaiton Front of south Vietnam) shook me awake. And i literally never forget them. Their faces come before me in difficult times.
And we should hardly limit ourselves to our “own” history. It is impossible to understand the Russian revolution without understanding the profoundly attractive force represented there of the German social democratic movement. And it is even more impossible to understand the chinese revolution without seeing the huge impact of the Soviet revolution. (As Mao said: “it is the salvoes of the Russian revolution that brought us Marxism-Leninism.”)
The “dignity of immediate actuality” is a powerful force for helping people see what they cannot see: a possible road to a different future.
And so i have a very deep sense of the impact of COMMUNIST revolutionary movements here in the U.S. and their potential to spark (not just solidarity, or “anti-imperialism”) but literally COMMUNIST revolutionary thinking and action here in the U.S.
Sure, lets talk about Chavez. Let’s not forget the lessons of zapatistas (which you still owe us, TNL!)
but there is good reason nonetheless to take as a special task with high priority the public discussion of COMMUNIST movements — their goals, their contradictions, their line struggles, their achievements, their emergence. and if we (speaking of communists here) don’t do it, who will?
Carl Davidson said
I agree with Mike E that ‘our starting point is the world,’ and not the way usually meant.
Strategy begins by looking at the situation as a whole, on a global scale. The first question is discerning friends and adversaries, with and the nuances, and ‘in-betweens.’ The we would do well to look at some modern thinkers, like Bucky Fuller and Alvin Toffler, for a first new insists. (And to practice a little heresy, re-examine Kautsky and ‘ultra-imperialism’ to see if there’s anything there.)
Some of us started this nearly 10 years ago in the Global Studies Association. In nearly every one of our national annual gatherings, two main schools contend.
One, for want of a better term, is the ‘Monthly Review’ line, which argues that not much has changed since Lenin.
The other, which I’m part of, argues that there is arising a truly transnational capitalist class, tied to no particular county, and it is also trying to creating the components of a truly global state power, which doesn’t exist yet, by is implicit in any number of things. In the ruling class of every country, this creates a tension between globalists and nationalists, and in the ‘Great Powers,’ the nationalist in turn divide into two, between hegemonists and anti-globalists.
That’s only a thumbnail sketch, but is been a rich and fruitful discussion. One of the best theorists of my trend is William I Robinson of UC Santa Barbara. Jerry Harris has also written and important book, ‘Dialectics of Glbalization,’ an some early ideas were brought up in a book he and I co-authored, ‘Cyber-Radicalism: A New Left for a Global Age,’ available on Amazon or, for a better price, http://lulu.com/stores/changemaker The website for the group is http://net4dem.or/mayglobal and some of the older archives are at http://cyrev.net
This year we meet in Florida and the theme is globalization in the context of struggles for peace and justice. Serious submission are welcome.
Linda D. said
Below I’ve lifted small excerpts from TellNoLies and Mike Ely on the question of internationalism. While I have many points of agreement with both TNL and Mike, would like to emphasize a little different angle—maybe not all that different, but…
TNL:
“Your piece helped me see that this is not simply a pragmatic question of what we need to pay attention to in order to advance theoretically, but also an ethical one of our responsibilities to the millions of people engaged presently in revolutionary processes in Brazil (the MST in particular), Bolivia, Venezuela, and Mexico. (n the last, I am preparing some of my own thoughts.)
Mike Ely replies:
Tellnolies: “I welcome your critique, and I welcome the kicking open of the doors to a discussion of internationalism.
“I think we need to approach this from even further back: I .e. the issue is not “solidarity with Maoists” vs. “solidarity with others in diverse revolutionary processes.”
I think it is a matter of starting with the world first.
“I think we need to have a movement that embraces a profound (visceral, gut-level) sense of solidarity among people, and that sees this in a profoundly international way. And i think there is material basis for that internationalism (that did not always exist in human society) rooted in the extreme and intensifying interknittedness of human society, which in turn is rooted in the internationalization of production and exchange. And it is rooted in the existance of a propertyless class of working people who have profound interest in overthrowing the current world order — where the capitalist internationalization of capital, arms, information are turned into one massive machinery of exploitation, organized rape and unnecessary death.”
There has been an ongoing discussion about internationalism recently, emanating from the line struggle in Nepal, and I posed the question, what is OUR role in that? In other words, even if some of us have disagreements with the road being taken by some in the leadership of the CPN(M), etc. and while I welcome the notion that the revolutionary line struggle has become more transparent, and that as revolutionaries, we are able to participate—from afar—where do we stand as internationalists?
Seems to me if we weren’t internationalists, in a true and sweeping sense, we wouldn’t even be concerned with, nor feeling the urgency, around Nepal.
I think internationalism is a cornerstone in our view of revolution, be it in our own particular country, or in the world. And while Mike lays out the material basis for internationalism, IMO (I’ve dropped the H because I realize am not all that humble), i.e. “And i think there is material basis for that internationalism (that did not always exist in human society) rooted in the extreme and intensifying interknittedness of human society, which in turn is rooted in the internationalization of production and exchange…”– I think the question of internationalism, and our role as internationalists is equally concentrated in, and a battle in the ideological sphere. It is a basic a tenet of how we view ourselves as revolutionaries and the revolutionary process, how we envision the future, our vision of humankind, the world, and speaks volumes about our revolutionary outlook.
There is a lot of talk (and even fear) of our falling into economism and/or pragmatism—and I think internationalism flies right smack in the face of all that.
In the other discussion one comrade, who has painstakingly tried to understand the questions circling around Nepal, and has raised some very provocative questions himself, also came up with this characterization (and I think this was directed at some things I said but maybe not):
“I think, unfortunately, internationalism has become moralized here. There is nothing morally grand in the popularization of the struggle in Nepal as opposed to many other intense and vital struggles in the world.”
My response to just that part was: “And I think, we along with the Nepalis, are trying to learn how to walk on two legs. Frankly I wish we were centipedes—while still trying to focus on and analyze what is principle (fundamental), secondary, tertiary, etc. To put it somewhat crassly, I think the RCP taking a vow of silence, is pure cowardice…and they have been and as far as I know still are a player on the international scene, whereas we are just beginning that process. On the other hand, as part of our development, we need to engage in and dissect as best we can the lines and events in Nepal – which are part of our revolutionary and internationalist responsibilities. But how we approach that duty and responsibility says a lot about us as revolutionaries.”
I just finished reading Bill Martin’s 2nd post, and I think the discussion about internationalism dovetails with his proposition of “Ethical Marxism.” I don’t think being an internationalist means that we are chasing after every single spark, or new shoot, around the world, and that we mush everything together. So while I do agree with TNL that we need to be more atuned to say the events and revolutionary processes in e.g., Latin America (frankly I think Latin America is going to be the next Middle East, if not the next, a “two-headed monster” for the U.S. imperialists), I feel it is important for us to have some unity as to our basic stand and stance, as internationalists.
The comrade that I referred to earlier spoke about concentrating our efforts around a more developed country such as India, and the revolutionary process taking place there as opposed to say Nepal. This just went up against my whole concept of being an internationalist—and I guess “morally” speaking, from the heart. And I abhor the idea that we would only focus on or support revolutions and struggles that Maoists are involved in. Bringing a sense of internationalism to the masses, wherever we are, is a radical rupture with the dominant rulers’ ideology, wherever we may be, but certainly over the top concentrated in the U.S. I sincerely believe that we have to look at, and appreciate the “interknittedness” in the world, and have clarity as to who are our friends and who are our enemies. To look at what say the Nepali rev. means to us, in the U.S., as somehow not all that important, is to have a very myopic and limited view of the world and its interknittedness, and doesn’t see the dialectical relationship between “our” struggle and that of our comrades around the world.
In the aforementioned discussion in particular about Nepal, here is how I ended my mini-diatribe:
“In 1949, I was almost 6 years old when the Chinese revolution had its first success. I didn’t learn about the Chinese revolution until I was in my late teens. And almost 20 years later, there was the Cultural Revolution, which significantly added to having to think about revolution with its continued radical ruptures and complexities. Obviously I wasn’t alive when the Bolsheviks seized power, and the first proletarian revolution was born. But I started to study the Bolshevik revolution around the same time as I was starting to become revolutionary-minded. These two pivotal and grand historical events helped change my life (along with millions ‘round the globe) and in some rudimentary ways changed the way I view the world. I understand there are a number of comrades on Kasama who are bloody sick of hearing about the 60s—but the 60s weren’t just about the anti-Vietnam war movement, or even simply the Black and other oppressed nationalities’ liberation struggles (U.S.). To be cliché, the world was in turmoil—the national liberation struggles in Southeast Asia and Africa are part of our legacy. The struggle against apartheid in South Africa is another example of our legacy…whether or not those same struggles against colonialism and imperialism went all the way (or subsequently there were some jarring reversals). The armed struggles (and civil wars) in Central and Latin America are part of our heritage. Having some familiarity with the Zapatistas, I am sometimes taken aback at the rose-colored glasses view of them—not that I don’t support the Zapatistas, and morever the mainly indigenous people of say Chiapas (of course I do), but I do have some criticisms of the Zapatistas’ tactics and sometimes question their strategies. But even with the Zapatistas, for example, I try and take a little more humble approach in critiquing the situation in Mexico. So in sum, I maintain that while I welcome our participation, limited as it is for now, in the line struggle around the correct road in Nepal’s continuing revolution, and deepening our understanding of Nepal’s objective situation, its leadership, et al., I think we need to definitely approach this with some humility. While some of us may have different views of where we think Nepal’s revolution is headed, to me the people of Nepal and the revolutionary forces therein are our comrades, first and foremost. So to be silent on the question, or take a wait and see attitude, or to come up with some hard and fast, or mechanical verdicts, is not waging principled struggle. Certainly we want the revolution in Nepal to succeed, don’t we?”
One last, and perhaps minor point: TNL said—“ “The RCP’s “internationalism” has always been one of narrowly building its own international trend, and not of building broad anti-imperialist solidarity in the form of, say, the solidarity movements with the guerrilla movements in Central America in the 1980s..”
And Mike responded:
“and I think you are mistaken in saying:
“The RCP’s “internationalism” has always been one of narrowly building its own international trend, and not of building broad anti-imperialist solidarity in the form of, say, the solidarity movements with the guerrilla movements in Central America in the 1980s.
“I think the RCP was rather supportative of those guerilla movements (despite real disagreements) and focused quite a bit of attention on opposing the U.S. contra war — and the danger of a full-scale U.S. invasion of Nicaragua. The issue was more that the RCP thought it was important to focus on the complexity of these wars — that they were both national liberation struggle against the U.S., and also (in many ways) some of the many proxy wars breaking out because of intensifying U.S./Soviet rivalry.
“In many places, and in many times, the RCP has supported popular uprisings that were not led by Maoists — including the Vietnam war, and the haitian uprisings, and the Iranian revolution, and many more.”
Well, I think TNL has a point, and from my long ago (and somewhat limited—and empirical) experience, while I think it true that the RCP took a stand in its press, most especially, around the wars in Central America, when the salvadoreños sat down at the negotiating table, AFTER 12-13 years of civil war, and war against the Contras and the U.S., support for the guerrillas pretty much dissipated from the RCP. “Capitulation” became the new catchword from above. And I know this to be true—maybe not in the main, but amongst certain leadership, because I personally fought tooth and nail around this line. If nothing else, the U.S. imperialists hadn’t given up on their designs around Central America. And I think there are some real lessons for us to glean from that period in terms of the here and now, and in particular around S.Asia.
mike ely said
I think we have a responsibility to support the people rising in revolution. this is especially acute in an imperialist country (especially one involved in global counterrevolutionary intrigues.)
I also think that such internationalist work around communist revolutions is an extremely important way of bringing communist revolution back onto the radar screen of radical people (who are in a bit of despair over the lack of alternatives to capitalism).
I note that someone wrote:
And I’m not sure how to respond: there is (to me) clearly something exceptional and extremely important when people rise in COMMUNIST revolution — and not just the many forms of upsurge and struggle and resistance. It is not a question of “morally grand” — but it is a matter of people taking a road that can ACTUALLY lead to liberation. there is an acute importance to supporting that. And an acute importance to popularizing that.
If we communists don’t let people (especially oppressed people) know that something as radical as a mass communist revolution exists in the world, who will? And isn’t that existance (its material existance) a power fact in the constant argument over whether so radical a revolution is possible?
* * * *
On a factual note:
Linda writes:
“Well, I think TNL has a point, and from my long ago (and somewhat limited—and empirical) experience, while I think it true that the RCP took a stand in its press, most especially, around the wars in Central America, when the salvadoreños sat down at the negotiating table, AFTER 12-13 years of civil war, and war against the Contras and the U.S., support for the guerrillas pretty much dissipated from the RCP. “Capitulation” became the new catchword from above.”
Well, yeah. I think it is correct to support people when they fight U.S. imperialism, even it is not under communist leadership. But if their actual leadership capitulates (makes its peace with imperialism and essentially betrays the people) what would be the logic of continuing “support for the guerillas”?
Some of them were soon going to Harvard Business School for lackey-seminars.
What kind of internationalism responds to armed anti-imperialist struggle and subsequent betrayal with the same “support”?
If people are struggling against imperialism, we should support that. If they make peace with oppression, why shouldn’t “capitulation” enter our vocabulary?
In the case of China — we supported the chinese party and revolutionaries when they were on the revolutionary road. But when the leadership of that party was captured by reactionaries, such support should stop.
It was also similar with ANC: it was correct to support the people struggling against apartheid (and the RCP did over many years in many ways). But when one of the most conservative currents in that movement (the ANC charterists) made their compromise deal with the apartheid government for powersharing (and for no touching of the capitalist social order)… should “support” have continued for them? On what basis?
TellNoLies said
I guess my view of communism is broader than what is called here the International Communist Movement which in turn is often conflated with Maoism. To me, communism is an objective movement within society that takes a variety of organized (and disorganized) forms. Communism is a presence in a great many movements and just because some explicitly identify with a particular ideological current (Maoism) doesn’t neccesarily make them more (or less) communist. All of these movements, whether we are talking about the CPN(M) or the FMLN contain class and ideological contradictions within them.
I think Mike’s comments about El Salvador neatly illustrate my criticism of this sort of “narrow internationalism.” To view the peace agreements in Central America (and Ireland and Palestine) simply in terms of “capitulation” strikes me as profoundly one-dimensional. certainly there was an element of this involved. But it is critical for us to understand how changes in the international configuration of forces, in particular the collapse of the Soviet Union, transformed the objective VIABILITY of armed struggle in many places. This was a complex process in which the internal contradictions of different movements played out in different ways. The way I see it is that in country after country anti-imperialist class alliances broke down and the real revolutionaries were confronted with the question of going forward with a particular strategy in the absence of key allies. To lump all these forces together and smear them with the actions of the elements that really were capitulationists and to insist that anything short of continuing the armed struggle was capitulation is not only supremely arrogant coming from an organization with no immediate prospects of launching armed struggle itself, but is also theoretically indefensible.
The FMLN sat down to negotiate after ten years of brutal civil war had produced a stalemate. The collapse of the Soviet Union not only threatened their source of arms, but it also, paradoxically, predisposed US imperialism to offer a better deal than it had been previously willing or able to offer. This acted as a powerful pull on both elements in the FMLN, but also their allies in the FDR and, their respective popular bases exhausted by the war. For the FMLN, or a fraction of it, to have insisted on continuing the armed struggle in this context would have been almost certainly suicidal. It is to my ears, and I suspect those of most revolutionary-minded Salvadorans, puerile to sweepingly denounce the FMLN as capitulationsist.
Lets take a more current example. Like Linda I have a complicated view of the Zapatistas. And while they do not explicitly identify themselves as “Communists” I think that objectively, after all is said and done, they will have made a much more important contribution to the advance of communism as an objective movement than, say, Sendero Luminoso. Maybe the CPN(M)’s contributions will prove more important than those of the EZLN. I think its far too early to say.
The point here is not that this particular movement is more communist than that one, but rather that if we really are going to take the whole world as our starting point, as I think we should, we should be careful about allowing old verdicts to act as filters. We should, I believe, assume that communism is an objective presence everywhere and be open to the myriad ways that it finds to express itself. This is NOT a call to agnosticism on the merits of different and competing lines, but rather for a more expansive understanding of the implications that the correct analysis is not “just there for the taking.”
mike ely said
I just want to say that I think this is an extremely important discussion. And I want to you know that while I presented my current views (which I have long held), I am seriously interested in working this through.
With that orientation, let me share some related underpinnings of my current thinking:
It was a belief of the 1970s Maoist movement (and the RCP) that third world countries were more-or-less permanently in a revolutionary situation (explained by the ongoing desire of their deeply oppressed populations for radical change). And that therefore it was more-or-less constantly possible to organize and take up the armed peoples war for New Democracy (i.e. it was mainly a question of getting the “subjective forces” together.)
The actual history of revoution in the third world shows that the situation is far more complex. And (in fact) it is not always possible to “take to the hills” and if one does, the spark doesn’t necessarily start a prairie fire. (The most clear example of that lesson was not Maoist, but Guevara’s voluntarist foco attempt in Bolivia. But really, the experiences of the Turkish Maoists and some others influenced by Lin Biao in the 1970s were not that different in conception and defeat.)
I think that the revolutionary struggle faces formidable obstacles in all countries. There are particular problems in small countries on the periphery of powerful imperialist countries. (“So far from god, so close to the U.S.”) This underscores that there is a conjunctural nature to revolutionary oppotunity — even in third world countries.
The initiation of revolutionary movements in Peru and Nepal is not just the emergence of subjective forces that “decide” to take the road of peoples war — the possibility of doing that had deep roots in the objective situations (including the delegitimazation of existing forms of government) in aways that gave rise to both extremely radical subjective forces and to real openings in society.
And similarly the problems of making advances in many countries is not simply the lack of a “correct line” but also that for real and objective reasons the political conditions did not give rise to revolutionary forces of sufficient critical mass or openings in the political landscape of the society.
Now, having said the above I want to make two points:
1) Nothing justified becoming part of the oppression of the people.
There are moments in a revolutionary (or anti-imperialist) struggle where the options play themselves out. In El Salvador this involved the ending of the U.S. Soviet rivalry (which had created ‘space” for opposing the U.S. throughout latin America), and it involved the profound fatigue of the people with the horrific unending conflict that seemed to have no prospects of victory. (See the U.S. counterinsurgency strategy of “low intensity conflict” developed as an alternative to Vietnam-style interventions.)
This dilemmas were objective. but in dealing with the sharp conflicts of those moments, nothing justifies betraying the people and joining the oppressors.
By contrast it is better to “go down fighting” in those situations (if that is the only other possibility). It is better to “go from large to small” — staying true to the struggle for emancipation, even if that means losing (temporarily hopefully) support or positions previously gained.
Sometimes we must make compromises. And we can make some compromises without betraying the people — every real revolutoin is filled with examples of that.
Sometimes we have to walk back down the slope, to find some new more favorable opening to advance up again. But capitulation (joining the oppressors, becoming part of the oppression of the people) is not acceptable.
There is such a thing as betrayal. It is rather common actually. And I don’t think it is justifiabe to say: “there was no other road open to us.” There is always another road, even if it is difficult (or even very short.)
To give you an example from among the people: It often happens that you meet someone among the masses who says “I had to give names, they put a pistol in my mouth. There was nothing else I could do.” (You hear this in lumpen circles, where the police rely on many techniques to divide and turn.) But the answer is “No, this is not true. It is not true that you ‘had to.’ It is not true that there ‘was nothing else I could do.’”
Among lumpen, of course, there is no higher cause, and police exploit that. The lumpen follow the same dog-eat-dog logic as the rest of the capitalist world — and there is “no honor among thieves.” So in their logic “there was nothing else i could do” makes sense — it is of a piece with their world outlook and their “cause.”
But in the struggle of the people, there is a higher purpose that simple survival or holding on to positions gained. Some times you are beaten back, and you need to be beaten back AS A COMMUNIST, AS A REVOLUTIONARY, not as some new pathetic example of sell-out.
[This is even true in line struggle -- where i suspect some leading communists in the RCP, who should know better, and who have responsibity to DO better, have stayed with the RCP because 'I have no choice. Think of the sacrifice and implications of leaving.' It is different, but not that different.]
So TNL’s argument that continuing revolution “in this context” would have been ‘almost certainly suicidal” doesn’t impress me at all. Perhaps they could not continue the armed struggle in the old way. Perhaps they had not place to retreat to, and no way to “return to the underground.” Sometimes dying as a communist is the only option open to us — if the alternative is living as a new bootlicker demoralizing the people and spitting on their highest dreams.
Victory is our goal, not dying — obviously. But capitulation and joining the oppressors is not correct, ever.
2) A second point: I don’t disagree that the struggle of the people is complex and diverse. There are many classes in motion, and many programs in contention.
But, at the same time, “everything is not everything.” There is a difference between a communist revolutionary force that is seeking the kind of radical ruptures that can lead to socialism and communism — and the kind of armed reformism that wants to force some structural changes and an “opening” in the existing government. these are two very different things — and they are an objective dividing line in the world.
The struggle of the people is full of movements that use the masses as a battering ram for what are (essentially) conflicts within the ruling class. Sometimes they align with one power (Soviet Union in Latin America) against a main oppressor (U.S. imperialism.) Sometimes they adopt a radical and anti-imperialist coloration — but there is a lot of experience and analysis about how a movement must be organized at various stages in order to have any chance of carrying out the “two radical ruptures.”
In other words, i don’t think communism is not just some incidental difference in coloring — and essentially indistinguishable from non-communist forms of resistance and struggle.
One example: If in the third world you don’t have a profound and radical movement among the masses of peasants (for agrarian anti-feudal revolution), you cannot make a revolution. You can make coups in the superstructure (you can have “progressive colonels” come to power, you can have putches based in the parasitic cities) — but however radical your goals are, without a deep ground pounding base among the aroused peole themselves, you can’t possibly withstand the onslaughts that will now come down on you. And you can’t possible move forward to higher, socialist stages of the revolutionary process.
So I say this in contrast to TNL’s view:
Sure the struggle for communism is a broad struggle, drawn from many rivulets, and drawing in many classes (who bring with them their demands and outlooks). But you have no communist movement without conscious communists. And (perhaps this is obvious) when I say “communists” — I don’t mean “anyone who adopts the label.”
I spent time in Czechoslovakia under Soviet occupation — and I have no illusion that self-describes “communists” automatically have ANY relationship with liberation.
When I say “communist” i mean something much more specific (“narrow” if you insist).
and, as we know, it is not even clear that the whole International Communist Movement (or the whole Maoist movement) is made of such communists. The kind of communist movement we need (objectively) is not created by methods as simple as saying the right things, or pledging adherence to a body of verdicts and formulas, or adopting the right labels, etc.
Part of what we are fighting for is the central importance of real creativity, critical thinking, inventiveness and (what mao called) “a profound grasp of the practical movement” in being a communist.
that’s it for now (and perhaps until after the weekend). I am going to speak on internationalism around Nepal (!) in NYC.
Linda D. said
Well, I agree with TNL, and more specifically in terms of relegating internationalism to a narrow view.
Re our support and summation–The 3 examples that Mike used are very different–different conditions, forces, stages, aims, developments, et al. and I think his latter comments are contradictory with his former statement of “Second, Maoism has always held that you stand with the people in struggle.”
In relation to El Salvador, to say that “Some of them were soon going to Harvard Business School for lackey-seminars,” is a poor example, and faulty reasoning as part of some summation of the Salvadorans armed struggle and its developments as a whole. (Kind of a cheap shot if you ask me.) I am in favor of criticizing for instance, where the ANC landed, and side with those in So. Africa who were more visionary. But to reduce these struggles and warfare to simply “capitulation” is a pretty mechanical, “reductionist” (???) and even inhumane (uh oh) view.
I have raised this Mexican film before, but think it is oh-so relevant to watch–Voces Inocentes. It views the civil war and military dictatorship-pro imperialist government, as well as the revolutionary forces in El Salvador through the eyes of El Salvador’s children. It’s friggin’ real. It reveals most of the complexities in even waging armed struggle and civil war, whereupon thousands upon thousands of people were killed, and obviously not exclusively the guerrillas.
Am going to pull two quotes from TNL’s latest as a reiteration and reflection of my position on this matter, because I think TNL said it a lot more succinctly than I ever could:
“To lump all these forces together and smear them with the actions of the elements that really were capitulationists and to insist that anything short of continuing the armed struggle was capitulation is not only supremely arrogant coming from an organization with no immediate prospects of launching armed struggle itself, but is also theoretically indefensible….
“…The point here is not that this particular movement is more communist than that one, but rather that if we really are going to take the whole world as our starting point, as I think we should, we should be careful about allowing old verdicts to act as filters. We should, I believe, assume that communism is an objective presence everywhere and be open to the myriad ways that it finds to express itself. This is NOT a call to agnosticism on the merits of different and competing lines, but rather for a more expansive understanding of the implications that the correct analysis is not “just there for the taking.”
mike ely said
Linda: The FMLN went from fighting U.S.-backed forces, to themselves becoming a force that administers the robbery of El Salvador. Leaders of the FMLN went to harvard business school to learn how to be lackeys. And the picture of them, was exploited (as you can imagine) as a profoundly demoralizing event.
How is that a cheap shot?
And I don’t think it is true that my approach is anything like:
Many of these forces are not “capitulationist” until the struggle reaches a certain crossroads, and then some of the decide to caputulate and others choose a different path.
And this is not just true of non-communists — it is accutely true of communists as well (as the whole history of China, and the sharp conflicts of Nepal reveal).
We should (as you and TNL say) “be careful about allowing old verdicts to act as filters.”
But i am suspicious of a pragmatic approach that seems to define choices in such a way that nothing is betrayal.
If you call people to struggle, if they put their hopes and dreams and lives in a movement — there is such a thing as betrayal.
I am arguing (like TNL) that “the correct analysis is not just there for the taking.” That is why i wrote:
But history is full of capitulation.
Some of Mao’s forces in China stopped making revolutionary war — and became roving bandit gangs that essentially robbed the peasants for their own survival, without really being connected to any struggle for change.
Some communist leaders in Iran capitulated when they were captured by Khomeneis forces, and renounced the communist revolution.
Look at Mugabe — he led on of the most radical (on paper) liberation struggles in Africa, but at the key moment of seizing power, he made a historic compromise with the white racist landowners which gave him the government and gave them the economy. there were rational “reasons” for that deal — but it was betrayal and capitulation.
And it was an incorrect line. It involved an analysis of what was possible and what was not. It involved promises about future advances of the revolution that never came. It involved killing more radical forces within his own movement, and suppressing critics from other movements. It took place under very dificult international conditions (Zimbabwe was a very poor ‘frontline’ state — with severe economic problems after liberation). and so on.
But there is betrayal and capitulation. And to point that out (after living analysis) is not to “lump allthese forces together” or to “insist that anything short of continuing the armed struggle was capitulation.”
But…. sometimes putting down the gun IS capitulation — even if it take the form of rising to head the government.
And it is true that some movements are more communists than others. Mao’s movement was more communist than Titos. mao’s movement was more communist than Kim Il Sungs. (even if at the time, those differences were not visible at all, and even if Mao used language that was concilaatory, reassuring of Chinese property owners and so on.)
TellNoLies said
Mike,
There is such a thing as betrayal, and I think we can identify betrayals of the revolution that took place in El Salvador. But there are also such things as compromises and strategic retreats. The problem with saying that “nothing justifies becoming part of the oppression of the people” is that in actual practice these phenomena are often tangled up with each other. Indeed, the betrayal of some may make neccesary the simultaneous strategic retreat of others and sorting out who is who is not always a simple task. The peace agreement in El Salvador enabled the FMLN to contest for power in the electoral arena and this undoubtedly opened the door to new forms of opportunism and betrayal, but does this make the whole FMLN guilty of “becoming part of the oppression of the people”?
The characterization of a fraction of the FMLN, maybe even the dominant one, as “armed reformists” may be correct, but of course the same was true of a fraction of the Chinese Communist Party when it came to power, and its worth asking if the seizure of power in the first place would have been possible without them. And of course these aren’t neccesarily fixed categories. People can arguably move from one camp to another and back and so long as the main contradiction continues to be with the imperialists they might not even be aware of it.
I’m not saying that “everything is everything.” I am saying that once you ditch the (crazy) idea that Maoist protracted peoples war is possible everywhere and at all times in the Third World, it becomes a lot less easy to come to instant and tidy verdicts and that if this is the perspective that informed a whole bunch of past verdicts on different movements that it might be neccesary to abandon those verdicts and reopen the discussion of those movements.
Finally, while I agree that it is sometimes better to die than to accept the options on offer from this system, I think a measure of humility is in order in proclaiming when others should take that course.
mike ely said
I can’t dig into this much more (time is running out for me)…
so allow me a final (fragmentary) remark:
You write:
Of course these things are tangled up. Of course these things are complex (or else we wouldn’t be debating it.) In fact if they weren’t tangled (and if there weren’t powerful arguments working in favor of betrayal) it wouldn’t happen.
And yes “you need to break eggs to make an omlet.” And yes sometimes you sacrifice the part to preserve the larger whole. (Mao pulled his forces out of the base areas of the south in concessions after the Japanese defeat. Many wounded fighters were left behind and sometimes murdered under horrific conditions.)
I think you are raising a straw man in this discussion when you say:
“I am saying that once you ditch the (crazy) idea that Maoist protracted peoples war is possible everywhere and at all times in the Third World, it becomes a lot less easy to come to instant and tidy verdicts and that if this is the perspective that informed a whole bunch of past verdicts on different movements that it might be neccesary to abandon those verdicts and reopen the discussion of those movements.”
It is never easy to come up with “instant and tidy verdicts.” And it is (of course) necessary to reopen the discussion — and it is the Nepalis who have kicked that discussion open precisely because they have not stuck to any previous “instant and tidy verdicts.”
And those who cling to “tidy verdicts” hate that open discussion. And can’t stop it.
But I repeat: there is betrayal, there is capitulation. And a movement that has no sense of that, that can’t recognize that, is on a slippery slope from the start.
In the PLO there was a whole culture of the most incredible pragmatism: they would say “we can say anything we are forced to, but that doesn’t mean we believe it.” They would say “we can sign any agreement, that doesn’t mean we are the collaborators we appear to be.” There were huge (bitter and indisputable) adverse conditions… but still they went down the road where they have become the “partners” of the U.S. in that part of the Middle East.
And the blizzard of slippery pragmatic duplicitous explanations was part of how the people were suckered in, and bewildered. “Anything goes.”
It is not just a matter of what “you do,” it is also a matter of where it leaves the people (and what happens to the “revolutionary people” you have helped create and are entrusted with).
There are many revolutoinary movements who have “finessed their way” into a non-revolutionary end.
If we intend to lead people in a hard struggle for liberation, we certainly need a grasp of the real, and the complexity, and the dynamic nature of political conditions.
And the argument that “it would be suicidal” is (i believe) something to unravel.
Sometimes your openings close up, and there is no way out available to you (except become a bauble for the oppressors or to go to a bitter end.) And again (while i don’t advocate defeat) we can (in defeat) remain a manifesto for the people (Ibrahim Kaypakkayya, Rosa Luxemburg, Charu mazumdar, even che) while surviving as a domesticated house cat (in the name of “live to fight again another day”) is a demoralizing daily symbol of the enemy’s strength. (“You just can’t beat them.”)
These matters have to be fought out in the concrete. You can’t deduce the correct path from tidy formulas and “case studies” of old revolutions.
But I repeat: you can finesse your way (justify your way, explain your way) to betrayal. And that always happen in the name of “the possible” and in defiant mockery of the intransigent.
Sometimes we fight under extremely difficult conditions, and our task is to fight for communist revolution under those difficult conditions — not to go do something else.
TellNoLies said
Mike,
I don’t deny any of that, nor am I seeking to make apologies for actual betrayals. What I deny is the sweeping application of that to a whole set of roughly simultaneous negotiated peace processes which I think have to each be re-examined in their particularity. The element of outright betrayal is pretty naked in the case of Fatah, who arguably cut their deal under the most adverse conditions of the lot. You seem to assume that we all know or agree what the other betrayals were, and I don’t think this at all a safe assumption outside the circle of folks trained in the RCP’s line.
I don’t think this is a strawman. You come out of a tradition that made a whole set of sweeping verdicts based on the proposition that the world was divided into two kinds of countries each with their characteristic road to revolution and that peoples war was universally possible in the Third World. This line was as wrong as the RCP’s line on homosexuality and led, in my view, to a sectarian posture towards these movements and solidarity work with them that chased away sincere revolutionary-minded people from your own organization and, in its own little way, contributed to the international conditions under which retreat was neccesary and betrayals likely.
Linda D. said
TNL addressing Mike:
“I don’t deny any of that, nor am I seeking to make apologies for actual betrayals. What I deny is the sweeping application of that to a whole set of roughly simultaneous negotiated peace processes which I think have to each be re-examined in their particularity. The element of outright betrayal is pretty naked in the case of Fatah, who arguably cut their deal under the most adverse conditions of the lot. You seem to assume that we all know or agree what the other betrayals were, and I don’t think this at all a safe assumption outside the circle of folks trained in the RCP’s line.”
Maybe I’m just being lazy, but I don’t feel like further going tit for tat as to differences. I stated pretty much where I stand, y ya. But I went back over practically every single article and post about Nepal, in trying to understand better the differences.
Within these recent comments here, I think there are differences and it would be wise to acknowledge them, between COMPROMISE, CAPITULATION and actual BETRAYAL. (Certainly there have been dastardly betrayals—within the U.S. groupings as well!) And what was emphasized over and over again from those amongst the Prachanda forces was an analysis of both the concrete conditions and objective situation, as well as the subjective forces, and the application of mass line.
When we are referring to the wars and rev. forces in Central America, i.e. El Salvador, Nicaragua and/or Guatemala for that matter, we are not talking about simply Marxist-Leninsts, let alone Maoists. But the reason I raised “Voces Inocentes” yet again, was to try and illustrate where the masses in El Salvador were at after years’ long battling the reactionary and downright brutal government forces there (as well as the U.S. imperialists). Sometimes I think we assess these situations—both anti-imperialist, national liberation or revolutionary—as if the revolutionary forces are totally responsible (or in control) for how things fall out, and we don’t necessarily take into account where the people are at, or in actuality how strong the subjective forces really are. The CPN(M) has been making those kinds of assessments and adjusting and readjusting their tactics (and perhaps even their strategy). To me it’s too soon to come up with some verdicts on Nepal, although some (obviously much more astute than myself) can see some pitfalls in their more current assessments.
In talking about El Salvador, I couldn’t help but think about the Vietnamese, and the Progressive Labor Party’s line against sitting down at the negotiating table. As Mike has stated in other comments, he doesn’t (or didn’t) uphold PLP’s line, but I think along with the dangers of compromise—let alone capitulation or betrayal—there is a danger for us as communist revolutionaries to make some incorrect assessments, either current or in hindsight, when we do not know all the ins and outs of the situation. (While the Vietnamese had suffered untold losses, along with years of war against not only the U.S. but the French and Japanese imperialists, I always thought they were sitting at that negotiating table from a position of strength, not weakness.)
Like TNL, I am not apologizing for those that would not only betray the revolution, but the people themselves. But to focus on some betrayers, I think misses the point of what our internationalist stand should be, even our summation of overall struggles in hindsight as well as presently.
After Mao’s death, and with the revisionists’ hegemony and reversals, many around the globe saw this as complete defeat, a dismal defeat of not only revolution, but socialism (as well as the future of communism). I didn’t look at it that way, although of course was – to be euphemistic “upset.” Revolutionaries worldwide needed to pick up the gauntlet. Under Mao’s leadership, China’s ongoing revolution had reached indescribable heights for humankind, and the worldwide proletariat and oppressed masses in particular. Certainly the betrayers of revolution even in China, (China which had become the bastion of communist revolution), started their dirty work (at times more blatant than other times) long before Mao’s death. But who did Mao (and other revolutionaries) rely on in the (and his) lifelong battle of class struggle? What impact have other revolutionary, or national liberation struggles, etc. had overall on the world scene—both then and now? From my point of view, that’s what I feel is important to focus on.
saoirse said
There seems to be a disjuncture here between theory and practice.
I want to know what constitutes RCP for the non-maoist revolutionary movements such as those in Mexico, Palestine and So. Africa? While the RW did a better than average job reporting on these struggles this work largely existed in the realm of reporting. This reporting was often good while often it seemed the primary goal was to point out the failings of such and such political leadership for not following the correct maoist path.
I ask this not to rehash the errors of the RCP or the ANC. I ask b/c I want to shape a better model for solidarity organizing and building an anti-war and anti-imperialist politic in the United States. I ask because a central task of the left is stopping to wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.