Sites of Beginning Part 3: Creating a Revolutionary Subject
Posted by Mike E on November 20, 2010
Radical Eyes writes:
“What is… the method by which we go about determining where, when, and how to pursue the investigations upon which we will then reconceive our communist (fault-line, nodule-directed, cohort-connecting) strategy?”
Nat writes:
“Once we ‘go’ to the site of the eruption and forge relationships among the advanced and create some type of a movement, how do we create a movement that is truly revolutionary and can see and take advantage of the opportunities to forcibly smash the old order?”
Harvey writes:
“This could be the heart of the matter: what goes into a new kind of subject, a revolutionary subject?”
Liam writes:
“What is the relationship between the main aspects of the fusion: The revolutionaries and the advanced. Which is primary? Which is secondary? How does that get expressed? What are the key aspects that make a revolutionary a revolutionary that must not be lost in this fusion, that we must also pass on to the advanced?”
Lenin writes (quoted in Letter 3):
“Only the fusion of socialism with the working-class movement has in all countries created a durable basis for both. But in every country this combination of socialism and the working-class movement was evolved historically, in unique ways, in accordance with the prevailing conditions of time and place. In Russia, the necessity for combining socialism and the working-class movement was in theory long ago proclaimed, but it is only now being carried into practice. It is a very difficult process and there is, therefore, nothing surprising in the fact that it is accompanied by vacillations and doubts.”
This is excerpts from the initial discussion of Sites of Beginning: Part 1 and specifically on Part 2
* * * * * *
By Nat W.
I do understand now the point Mike is making about eruptions not always being geographic.
Though it is also stated we need to find these distinct sites in space and time, I think it is also important that we understand the finite nature of these sites (the time is not infinite), when they do erupt. If we are lucky enough to be able to dig in and build roots, to figure how to do this, the need to think about what (revolutionaries and the partisan advanced they have successfully linked up with)to do to push that momentum forward.
In other words, once we “go” to the site of the eruption and forge relationships among the advanced and create some type of a movement, how do we create a movement that is truly revolutionary and can see and take advantage of the opportunities to forcibly smash the old order?
When the eruption takes place in one (or a few) significant spaces or in scattered sites all over the country or continentally or throughout the bi-continental region, it is true as you emphasize that new forms of popular power and activity will emerge spontaneously from the masses a lot of it led by the most advanced who we will have forged ties with (in this specific scenario, we have assumed we have learned how to forge ties and work with the advanced).
It is also true that where ever this has been done successfully, rather in Vyborg or Hunan or Rolpa, the forms of popular power and movements that were creatively developed were ultimately altered through the leadership of a party to meet the needs as the communists generally saw them, of seizing power first and then administering society. I think that along with understanding how to connect with the advanced, there also must be some clarity about our role as communists and how we react to contingent events in order to prepare for and then execute the seizure of power through leading the masses in feeding off their creativity in transforming their creations into organs fit to seize and exercise power.
In that regard the work Mike E is doing around the history and contradictions of the vanguard party in cohesion with the TNL work on Chiapas are of vital importance and eagerly anticipated.
* * * * *
by RW Harvey
Quite thought-provoking essays. Mike writes:
“This will need a mutually transformative process, and a resulting fusion will mark the beginning of a new kind of “subject.”
This could be the heart of the matter: what goes into a new kind of subject, a revolutionary subject? This is where our existential comrades have a leg up regarding the process of transforming consciousness. The two questions that begin to break the ideological ice that surrounds most of us in America are: “Who am I?” and “How do I choose to live?”
Or to put it another way, the advanced are those who have these questions and are constantly interrogating the world in which they live and the way they are living in it. It’s like that part of what constitutes a revolutionary situation: “the masses can no longer live in the same way.” The advanced are at this point but usually individually: they ache from the hypocrisy, the madness, the suffering this system lays down, and they ache to do something about it. Without revolutionary consciousness thee is only life in the grayness where they either seethe or stuff it.
So it is not primarily an intellectual dimension that have brought the advanced to this place; it is typically passionate, empathetic, and humanistic. To the degree that our communist work transforms the advanced into dogmatic (and oh so learned) robots, it is we who create the aliens that cannot function in the very communities that they came from! That we’ve turned them into “communists” in the worst sense of this word is a crime and a shame…
This is where Mike’s ongoing hammering on the role of imagination, creativity, “radiating our ideas and not overly intellectualized,” is so vital and potentially fruitful.
* * * * * * *
by Liam Wright
I think there are important questions that are being grappled with here. Also different methods and ways of looking at how to understand what are the “advanced” and what are the kind of events that we must seize upon. I’ll try to take a stab at what I think are some of these different approaches and my own thinking on these things.
On the question of Mike’s piece on fusion of the advanced with the revolutionaries:
I agree with what he’s fighting for here. Its important for developing an approach of “coming from within.” Of being a force that becomes the representatives of the interests (and increasingly understood by the advanced and people broadly) of the felt needs of the masses of people, through revolution.
I think however, we need to understand more thoroughly the relationship between the different components of this.
What is the relationship between the main aspects of the fusion: The revolutionaries and the advanced. Which is primary? Which is secondary? How does that get expressed? What are the key aspects that make a revolutionary a revolutionary that must not be lost in this fusion, that we must also pass on to the advanced? What do we want to learn and absorb from the advanced masses?
I think this is a way to come at what the FIRE Collective has been advocating for of being “deeply rooted and deeply revolutionary.”
I think the answer to the first question is obvious, or should be, the revolutionary aspect has to be primary. The question of revolutionary consciousness and ties to revolutionary organization are the most important part of this equation. However, without the secondary aspect that revolutionary consciousness and organization will be alienated from the advanced masses.
There is also a question of seeking to integrate while not tailing. This is going to be a tricky contradiction to handle. We must use the mass line through all of this; with a culture of listening, grappling, as well as being thoroughly unapologetic and unliberal about our goals and analysis.
We have to fulfill the role of being tribunes of the people and of actually leading them to take state power away from the capitalists. Or as Lenin talks about in State and Revolution of being “teacher, guide…” of the proletariat. Without all of these components the revolution part gets lost and it is meaningless.
I think too, we need elaborate further on the question of how to be tribunes of the people in the 21st century. In line with the development of the productive forces (in particular technology and means of communication) how do we do this? This is a question that is inextricably linked to the question of how to integrate into and relate to resistance from the masses of people as a part of a strategy for revolution.
This is mainly thinking off of having read what everyone has been saying and thinking briefly. This requires serious, ongoing thought.
chicanofuturet said
good questions here.
While it is correct that the revolutionary aspect should be primary.There have in practice been times in history when revolutionaries for various reasons have lagged behind or through incorrect theory and practice in effect isolated/alienated themselves from the people.
there are numerous examples from history where communists have failed to different degrees in “seizing the time”.failed to “fuse” socialism with the working-class movement.
The great communist revolutions of Russia and China were carried out in almost completely different historical objective and subjective class and social conditions from the ones we face here in the US.There are universal lessons-evolved Marxist-Leninist ideas,strategic,tactical lessons to be learned from these revolutions.We should study them for such universals .
Here in the US the communist left has not succeeded in creating an ongoing stable mass party or movement.Part of this has been due to crushing repression of communists by the ruling class national security state.Such objective obstacles are totally understandable.There were different periods in time when communists saw favorable objective conditions.The era of great depression was one of them.But due to other added objective conditions such as WWII and the international communist leadership role of the Soviet Union US communists found themselves conflicted,disoriented and repressed.Gradually that great movement began to fade away into the shadows of relative obscurity,irrelevance and revisionism.
Forward to the era of the great civil rights,anti-Vietnam war,and other important movements.
Once again communists found themselves in favorable objective and subjective conditions for making revolution.
We in our time are more directly descendants of the movements of the 60′s.There are still many people alive -a few active- who were involved,observed,witnessed this time of great social and political changes.There was at that time a higher level of political entropy taking place.
Once again repression,disorientation.confusion.failure.
We communists at this time have to deal with-face the fallout of this most recent failure of the left of the last five decades.
The communist left finds itself presently isolated,alienated from the working class and peoples of color.Communists are profoundly disoriented,confused,and yes ..discouraged.
In another post Mike E and others mentioned “the grayness” or the “gray area” where once active people slipped into.
I was one of those people.Personally,I found myself becoming increasingly discouraged (and disgusted) with the rigidity,alienation,and isolation of the main communist left,of it’s failure to fuse with the working class..especially with communities of people of color.
No becoming entirely disconnected from politics.I frequently participated and actually led my community in UFW,left progressive,anti-war activities.I am proud to have been involved in leadership..of actually winning some very real important hard fought victories through struggle.
Like most workers,I worked to support my family.I think I am relatively representative of many of those folks who slipped into the “Gray Zone” mentioned before.
As a poor working class kid coming from the barrio I had difficulty in making “psychic” personal connections with the communist left.
Frankly I was often turned off by arrogance,condescending and manipulative manners and attitudes.This is not to say I did not encounter some reds who were genuine warm loving human beings who to me were “for real” people.I learned and owe much to those exceptional rare wonderful people.
Many people of color who like me were at one time more politically aware,involved in progressive left politics to different degrees I believe were feeling many of those same feelings I experienced.
I venture to assume there must be many thousands of these people out there living in the “Gray Zone” who are extremely intelligent,aware,talented,experienced, ..”tuned-in” to the working class and communities of color.
Of course it is critical to concentrate on the youth as they are the future.This is beyond debate.
However,I believe it should also be a consideration worthy of attention by communists to convince those folks in living in the “gray zone” to move over into the “red zone”.
As objective conditions in the US continue devolve and deteriorate I think many of the folks in that “gray zone” would consider “getting into-jumping back into the game”.Of course I say this with humorous intent-we communists already know that we are the only real game in town.
Since the 60′s many people of color became educated,professional and highly skilled.
Many times in past and present conversations with brown,black,asian friends I have heard similar themes pop up with some variations being sounded…
…” hell,white folks had theirs..they’ve had the good life ..we want to make some jack too..now we want ours.. alot of those white communists look to me like they’ve had theirs now they are asking us to risk our asses getting thrown into prison or being blown away by the man”.
people of color are extremely tuned-in to this aspect..the stakes are very high for and dangerous for people of color..
this has characterized some of the objective conditions existing the US for many decades .
Despite the recent deterioration of the economy,social,political conditions,the US capitalist behemoth is still vast and profoundly powerful.It,becoming more darwinian in form,still has plenty of “play” left in it for co-optation of wide- significant segments of US society.
No doubt,The communist left faces extremely formidable obstacles yet to overcome.
In many ways Communists must follow the same stars as lovers do.
Humility and respect are winning ingredients for Communism and love.
It is good to see communists looking for answers to questions.
It is a step in the right direction…
cereberus said
One of the things we need to come to terms with is that revolutions are always black swans. They are predictable only in hindsight and by a selective reading of their history. The two great marxist revolutions happened exactly where the great majority of marxists did not expect them to happen. The expected revolutions never came.
chicanofuturet said
as an addendum to my post I’d like to address the critical question of revolutionaries and the advanced.
Unlike Russia and China during their time of revolution,social and class conditions in the present US are quantitatively and qualitatively different in terms of greater mass access to higher education,information technology,social inclusion and mobility.
Russian and Chinese social class lines were much more rigid -almost feudal in character.The destitute impoverished peasants comprised the vast majority of the population in those societies.
The educational/intellectual gap between the highly educated revolutionary and the advanced in the modern day US is not anywhere as great as it once was in the Russia and China of the past.
* It wouldn’t surprise me at all if at certain times during future stages of a revolutionary situation as revolutionary and insurrectional conditions become more intense, critical and sharp the advanced forces would change positions with some present day revolutionaries thereby assuming future communist party’s leadership roles.
Today there is much more fluidity- an almost osmotic relationship between revolutionaries and the advanced in terms of education and intellectual levels.
Millions of people of color today in the US are highly educated and most definitely capable of assuming revolutionary/intellectual and organizational leadership.
We need these people!
Past examples of great leaders coming from the middle strata Marx and Lenin. From the poor and lower strata Stalin and Mao.
I am sure we here in the US have many potential leaders yet to appear in the revolution who will arise from the advanced working class who will take on strong roles in leadership.This is much to be desired and critical for growth of the revolution.
That is why it is literally a matter of life or death for the revolution that the mistakes and errors of the past are corrected,that communists redeem the communist movement of past sins and proceed into the future with a bold new attitude,adapting to current objective conditions with creative imaginative ideas.
Only by doing so can they truly fuse socialism with the working class.
*IMHO,all of this conjecture and debate about communist revolution is just so much empty rhetoric if we are not all clear on the need of a party,because I am totally convinced to the core that there can be no revolution without a marxist-leninist communist party.without this goal in mind all talk of revolution and communism is just bullshit.
Mike E said
CF writes:
Where I agree is on the need for an organized communist core — with structures, leadership, common action, a dynamic internal life, and a partisan political base among the people.
But, CF, the simple fact is that “we are not all clear on the need for a party.” If the word “we” means all the people who will be needed to form such a party.
So our task is not simply to proclaim (as a principle) the need for a party, or to organize together those who already have some desire for a communist core.
It is not particularly helpful to demand that we all be clear — unless the work is carried out: to make a coherent and patient argument to those who are not “clear.” (And this includes a great many potential communists among the people and among the organized left.)
How do you propose to build a party that can creatively speak to these people? How will the engagement be carried out that wins over a core from among them? What are the forms of transition to bring about the strong core and partisan base that is needed?
This is what we are discussing here.
If you simply gather those few people who are “clear” now, and try to form a party you will not get a party, you will get another small propaganda sect that calls itself a party. What would be the point of that?
Second, this brings up a more difficult question, what exactly should we be “clear” on? I think clarity needs to be forged, not declared:
what kind of party should we be clear on?
how can such a thing be built?
who should be won over to forming and shaping such a party?
what transitional forms will help create the conditions for a new organized core?
These are important questions that remain to be creatively answered — and the work also needs to be done to popularize those creative answers.
Third point of clarity: Is it known exactly what kind of communist core is needed. You say we should be “clear” on the need for “a Marxist-Leninist Communist party.” Well, I would like you to articulate what you think that means (and looks like) under our conditions.
How is it different from (or similar to) the previous party-building attempts (in the 1970s and since)?
I notice that you say “Marxist-Leninist” and not “Maoist” — does that distinction mean you have something specifically pre-Maoist in mind (rather than, for example, post-Maoist)?
I agree with CF’s strong words:
I would not speak in language of sin and redemption, but I agree with the point. And I would not assume that there is only negative experience to sum up — there is a great deal of positive experience (including experimentation and innovation) to build on.
But when CF says this — i’m still not clear what specifically that means — what those sins are, what that form of party is, what process is envisioned.
Obviiously: arguing for an idea (a concept, a plan, a vision) requires more than putting forward a label (like ML party) and assuming that everyone knows what you mean.
CF: Why don’t you elaborate what kind of party you think we should be clear on, and who you think should be in on forming it, and how you imagine drawing them together in that common project?
lpa said
In reading Part 1 of this discussion I clicked on the link to John Steele’s Where’s Our Mississippi (which if you haven’t read I recommend checking out- riveting stuff). What stuck out to me was this statement:
This moral clarity was not always so clear in this country, but the result of a very long historical struggle against accepted beliefs on race which justified inequality. This moral clarity was a precondition for revolutionary activity and I have to wonder if we as communists have really made our case in a comparably compelling way.
RW Harvey said
My recent readings of Martn Jay’s “The Dialectical Imagination” (a history of the Frankfurt School) led me to this letter, written in 1927, about the orthodoxy plaguing the early years of the institute:
“…hours of exaaperating argument in a Marxist Institute with a younger generation settling down to an orthodox religion and the worship of an iconographical literature, not to mention blackboards full of mathematical juggling with blocks of 1000k + 400w of Marx’s divisions of capital’s functions, and the like. God! The hours I’ve spent listening to the debate of seminaries and student circles on the Hegelian dialektik, with not a single voice to point out that the problems can no longer be solved (if they ever were) by means of straw splitting ‘philosophical’ conceptions…. being forced to devise defences against the logical conclusion tht we may sit with our arms folded and wait for the millenium to blossom from the dung of capitalist decay. The fact is that Economic determinism cannot produce either fighting or creative forces, and there will be no communism if we have to rely for recurits on the sergeanty of cold, hunger, and low wages” [Oscar Swede to Max Eastman, 1927].
That these problems plague us now, then, and ever is important to note.
anar-kick said
sigh chicano…
you do not need an “educated” class or composition of people for a revolution, if anything they ruin it.
Nil said
On the need for and nature of ‘the party’…
It seems to me clear that ‘we’ need organizations of revolutionaries working together, and working with ‘the people’ for revolution.
It is not at all clear to me that there needs to be only ONE such organization.
And likewise, it is not at all clear to me that that this mythical one true revolutionary organization needs to be the formal structure that seizes state power.
One problem with thinking there must be one, is people tend to sectarian errors think THEIR organization is IT, and other organizations are to be crushed.
What seems to be a more common position on this site is that, well, right now there’s no way to tell which organization is The One, and it’s in fact quite likely that The Revolutionary Organization is not a pre-existing organization, but will come about through the continuing evolution and out of various revolutionary forces. So we should work be willing to cooperate with various other revolutionary organizations, not just exploiting them while they are useful to us, but genuinely cooperating with them.
Okay, as revolutionary forces continue to evolve, at what point do you know that one of them is The One, and all others should be crushed? It seems just as odd to me to think that this will somehow become evident in the future, as it does to think that right now that would somehow be evident.
Certainly we need disciplined organized forces, if we are to win. It seems both more likely and in fact preferable to me that this will come in the shape of a variety of disciplined organizations of various sorts, cooperating with each other — this seems both more likely to me to lead to victory (many headed hydra), as well as more likely to produce the ‘revolutionary subject’ — which to me means the same thing as James and Grace Lee Boggs ‘new way of being human’, a process which does not end with military victory, but is a constant process of leaning self-organization and self-actualization, of creating the revolutionary society.
RW Harvey said
Using health care reform as an example, Chris Hedges assesses the current conditions faced by those who still seek to reform the system. While there is much to argue with here (nonviolence, if the Democrats were ever really allies, etc.), his characterization of what is happening in the military-industrial-academic-political complex bears some scrutiny. If the vise-grip is tightening as he assesses, then our pre-revolutionary situation tactics may need to be altered as well. If nothing else, he is agitating against ANY hope of liberla-Democrat alliances, against any reform at all, as a waste of precious revolutinary energy.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/power_and_the_tiny_acts_of_rebellion_20101122/
Tell No Lies said
Somebody needs to review Hedge’s new book, “The Death of the Liberal Class” here. Hedges seems to be moving in an interesting direction and fast.