When class interest and materialism gets thrown out the window, it all comes down to simply “convincing” a majority of people of all stripes. It essentially becomes a PR campaign for a set of ideas being pushed by a group of “universal reformers.”

This is the argument made by most of the left, which is — coincidentally — vastly dominated by petty bourgeois individuals who — coincidentally — model themselves after petty bourgeois revolutionaries of years past, and — again coincidentally — Communist regimes that were run by and for the petty bourgeoisie (bureaucrats, managers, officers, intellectuals, specialists, commissars, apparatchiks, etc.). This is all coincidence you see, because class doesn’t actually matter. Talk about condescending saviors….

“The democratic petty bourgeois, far from wanting to transform the whole society in the interests of the revolutionary proletarians, only aspire to a change in social conditions which will make the existing society as tolerable and comfortable for themselves as possible…. They further demand the removal of the pressure exerted by big capital on small capital through the establishment of public credit institutions and the passing of laws against usury, whereby it would be possible for themselves and the peasants to receive advances on favourable terms from the state instead of from capitalists; also, the introduction of bourgeois property relationships on land through the complete abolition of feudalism. In order to achieve all this they require a democratic form of government, either constitutional or republican, which would give them and their peasant allies the majority; they also require a democratic system of local government to give them direct control over municipal property and over a series of political offices at present in the hands of the bureaucrats…. The rule of capital and its rapid accumulation is to be further counteracted, partly by a curtailment of the right of inheritance, and partly by the transference of as much employment as possible to the state. As far as the workers are concerned one thing, above all, is definite: they are to remain wage labourers as before. However, the democratic petty bourgeois want better wages and security for the workers, and hope to achieve this by an extension of state employment and by welfare measures; in short, they hope to bribe the workers with a more or less disguised form of alms and to break their revolutionary strength by temporarily rendering their situation tolerable.” – Marx

200 years of the same old shit. No wonder what passes for communism has lost so much credibility that the majority of people around the world do not believe there is a valid alternative to capitalism, even as it collapses all around us.

The PolPot question is a very complicated one and I have not read the essay completely (I promise to do it as soon as I can).

But the party led by President Gonzalo in Peru has a definite stand on Pol Pot: the question always is: is what he did revisionist or was it communist?

We consider that it was communist, with big mistakes, but by no means did Pol Pot aim at orienting his revolution toward a capitalist road, or some kind of betrayal.

He committed mistakes mainly of going too fast. He based his policy on coersion. He wanted to destroy the economy based on the market immediately. He wanted to immediately solve the difference between city and countryside. He wanted to impose the collective farms. He wanted the people to understand and embrase the communist way of living without going through a period of learning, of experiencing communism and thereby to understand and feel its superiority.

But he fought against capitalism. He fought against imperialist aggression. He tried to organize his people.

We have to learn from his mistakes. But by no way can we treat him as an enemy. Or even to despise him. He was a comrade.

As far as I am aware most of the deaths in Tuol Sleng took place after Pol Pot embraced Chinese revisionism at the end of 1976 and launched purges of pro-Vietnamese elements. I don’t think Pol Pot would have behaved like this when Mao was still alive, despite Mao’s problems with the Vietnamese, he certainly would not have favoured this approach and he did have a lot of influence over the Communist Party of Kampuchea. The details of the massacres at this time are appalling. I have little doubt that Thet Sambath’s account of them in ‘Enemies of the People’ is sincere (in the future who knows?-he is under a hell of a lot of pressure from the Hun Sen regime at the moment-http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/25/journalist-khmer-rouge-fears-life). It is interesting that he is now starting to question the whole approach to the DK period and asking who precisely was killing who in the black period of purges. From the sound of it he is uncovering that pro-Vietnamese factions shared responsibility for the awful events, along with Pol Pot’s pro-US revisionists.

People might want to check out my short piece about this: http://www.maoists.org/democratickampuchea.htm

Aaron Aarons wrote:
“While I suppose that, if one can agitate for a socialist Greece, one could agitate for a socialist European Union (while opposing Fortress Europe), but I can’t imagine agitating for a socialist NATO.”

-I think here we’re getting at the core of the questions of state and revolution I’ve attempted to bring up here and in other discussions. I’ll state a few claims. A socialist Greek state is possible, but it doesn’t come from the existing Greek state. The existing political organisation of the Greek society is a capitalist nation state, i.e. one maintaining the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Same goes for all the constituent members of the EU. The EU is also in itself a fundamentally bourgeois political organisation, maintaining the dictatorship of the West-European imperialist bourgeoisie. A socialist union of European peoples is possible, but the EU must first be smashed to make way for it.

If all of this wasn’t true, it would be theoretically possible to talk of a “socialist NATO” as well. If capitalist nation states could be democratized into socialist states, if their imperialist unions could be democratized socialist unions, then surely their military pacts could also be democratized into socialist military pacts. I think this would be basically social-democratic thinking, which I reject for reasons that could be best discussed in topic devoted to the fundamental theoretical questions concerning state and revolution.

Maju00 wrote:
“What about a “Bolivarian change”. I’m personally supportive, even if also critical at times, of the processes inserted in the Bolivarian bloc in America (the other America). While it’s clear by now that these processes, rather successful in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua at least, and supported by the only surviving Bolshevik state: Cuba, and also supportive of it, are not full fledged revolutions, they are also NOT any mere continuity of the Capitalist regime but actual working class impelled processes, “by and for the People”, the real working class People.”

-Yes, I also assume this is the basic logic of those putting long-term hope on a Syriza government. I acknowledge the importance of the Bolivarian experiences, but disagree on two important aspects here. Firstly I’m more skeptical about its achievements and secondly I don’t think anything similar is materializing in Greece.

Venezuela is the most advanced of the “Bolivarian bloc”, in terms of actually achieved social change. The country remains capitalist, although under a patriotic and democratic regime. The people and its ideology has been transformed to a significant degree. A lot of the changes have become relatively permanent. Yet it seems that the “Bolivarian revolution” is running out of its progressive steam. This is my impression of Venezuela at the moment when Bolivia, Ecuador and even less Nicaragua are barely half-way compared to the progress in Venezuela. In short, I think the progressive potential of the “Bolivarian change” is just about exhausted.

In any case, by far the most undisputed achievement of the Chavez government was the political break with US imperialism. Tsipras isn’t even proposing anything similar vis-a-vis EU imperialism. Tsipras is no Greek Chavez. I’m not sure if the even could be one, considering the different level of productive forces, the different composition of the national economy and consequently the different make up of the national bourgeoisie of Venezuela and Greece. Yes, also the Venezuelan national bourgeoisie had sold out long before Chavez, but the state oil company provided a strategic tool to transform it. I don’t see a prospect of progressive patriotic state-capitalism in Greece.

Maju00 wrote:
“And the true revolutionary should never allow that to slip away for an illusion of a “perfect revolution”.”

The true revolutionary communist should never aim just for piece-meal either. As Lenin said:

“The proletariat is fighting, and will continue to fight, to destroy the old regime. Towards this end it will direct all its propaganda and agitation, and all its efforts to organise and mobilise the masses. If it fails to destroy the old regime completely, it will take advantage even of its partial destruction. But it will never advocate partial destruction, depict this in rosy colours, or call upon the people to sup port it. Real support in a genuine struggle is given to those who strive for the maximum (achieving something less in the event of failure) and not to those who opportunistically curtail the aims of the struggle before the fight.”

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1906/jun/14.htm

Its peculiar how many libertarian types defend capitalism by complaining about how bad they have it under capitalism. “I work all the time. I’m under so much pressure. I barely get by. Financial ruin is always around the corner.” Your right, the system sucks.

I am not a naive fan of “the left” — but I do believe there is often a community of values…. of wanting equality, an end to racism, an end to empire, mutual human solidarity, a protection of the young, old and marginalized, and more.

I am always startled (and saddened) when finding “left” people who don’t have such common values — and experience I have had with encounters with Gus Hall (and the politics of Deng or Breznev “socialism” whose values struck me as startlingly conventional, conservative and oppressive.)

But, in general, I do fee that many of us “on the left” share a community of values — even when we sharply disagree with strategic questions (mostly revolving around how radical the needed changes must be, and whether there is space within the state-political arena for progressive influence).

By contrast, the right in this country have values that strike me as repulsive on many levels. I often think about Young Republican college types who use the word “bleeding heart” as an epithet. Is it so wrong that our hearts bleed for others? What is morally wrong (or stupid!) about that? Or the whole politics of self.

With all respect for Roberto — his posting of politics is remarkably self-focused and self focused and self-justifying. He assumes he has wealth because he works hard, and those who are poor and desperate must not work hard. Really? Has he ever met undocumented workers in a meatpacking plant? Or single moms holding down two (or three!) shit-paying jobs to keep life together? Does he have any idea how hard hotel staff have to work scrubbing bathrooms, and how little they get paid?

The idea that the wealthy work harder than the rest of us, and therefore “deserve” their wealth is a remarkable case of blindspot.

Let’s just answer that with two more points:

First, if wealth should go to the hardworking (as Roberto implies) will he then agree with us that inherited wealth is an underserved form of entitlement — and agree with us that “the death tax” (which Repubicans want to abolish) should instead approach 100% for the extremely wealthy?

Second, let’s just mention that the narcissistic-and-successful make a basic assumption when they assume they “deserved” their success, and that their luck is typical. For every “hard-working” person who “made it” (beyond their wildest dreams), there are thousands of equally “hard working” people (equally deserving, equally talented, equally determined) who don’t make it.

And so if this society looks welcoming and “a land of opportunity” to you and your family you need to understand that it appears as a land of lies and crushed dreams to countless more. Fully a third of immigrants to the U.S. returned home (often feeling that coming here was a terrible mistake and a life of relentless exploitation).

Further, “opportunity” is itself a weighted word: First, immigrants from Europe have a very different experience from (say) immigrants from El Salvador. Immigrants who arrive with high literate skills (Indian doctors, German chemists, Russian computer geeks) have a very different experience from immigrants who come because their Central American farm lives have been crushed by cheap American grain. One of the most acute (and infuriating) facts of American life is the structural racism of the society — where white people perceive this as a land of class mobility and easy access to property acquisition, while African American people (with great justice) perceive it as a land of closed doors, castelike exclusion, hidden obstacles and unrelenting disrespect. And even for many white people, that common perception of opportunity is an illusion: All my life poor Black people have believed they were poor because they were Black, while the poor white people living next door to them thought they remained “poor white trash” because they were somehow fucked up.

The poor in the U.S. experience bitter resentment and self-hatred. But (in broad strokes) the mix varies: with bitter resentment more common among the Black and poor, and bitter self-hatred being dominant among the white and poor. In many ways the demand of white conservatives is that more Black people adopt the self-hatred and self-blame of the white poor — based on one-sided and morally-stacked arguments that racism is long gone, and that the hard-core poor among Black people are not victims of deindustrialization but of stubborn “social pathologies.”

All of these arguments are mobilized to promote a smug self-righteousness among the wealthy and successful. “I have this because I work hard and deserve it. You don’t have it because you don’t work hard and don’t deserve it.” In that view, the widening gap of wealth is just a result of a widening gap of merit. The rich get richer — and seem angrier and more disrespectful toward the poor (who are seen as sinfully “falling behind.”)

All of this is a worldview of self-serving blinders — and frankly in many cases it is cynical. In many cases it is really just a superficial ideological veneer covering a naked self interest “I want mine. I was more for me. Fuck you.”

To imagine a radically different U.S. we would have to imagine a radically different “political mainstream.”

In Germany, for example, the Nazi right (which once gripped large sections of conservative Germans) is now discredited and is literally illegal in modern Germany. It would be a shameful and discrediting act to stand up in modern Germany and defend Hitler.

Similarly, in the U.S. today, it is no longer part of the bourgeois mainstream politics to openly defend Jim Crow segregations, lynching, the killing of Black men for looking at white women, and so on.

There are still people who like Hitler in Germany and Austria (I’ve met them). There are still racists in America who like naked white supremacy and segregation (I’ve met them). But such views are discredited generally in the society.

I think, in a similar way, a socialist society would be one where the whole cluster of modern Republican, conservative and llibertarian ideas would be so discredited that they would not and could not function within a new socialist mainstream. If someone stood up and advocated (for example) that health care is not a right, or that evolution should not be taught in schools — it would something that virtually everyone would associated with a horrific past that must not come back.

This kind of shift in social verdicts is not simply by persuasion. After the defeat of Nazi Germany there needed to be a “de-nazification” — which required removing hard-core nazis from influential posts, and criminalizing Nazi successor organizations. (And it is interesting to compare the superficial de-nazification in West Germany and the far more serious version in East Germany). Similarly, after the Civil War, confederate officers and politicians were prevented from retaking political power (for a period Reconstruction), as a precondition for empowering those who they had dominated (and often literally enslaved). The renewed organization of Confederate forces had to take place (at first) in the shadows (in the semi-illegal networks like the Ku Klux Klan).

I’m saying that while we discuss with all kinds of people, and while we need coherent, rigorous, attractive arguments against conservatism, racism, libertarianism and liberalism, we should also understand that our purpose is not coexistence but revolution — where (as Mao puts it) one eats up the other. And where that which is honored in America today becomes that which is discredited and shameful in the society to come.

This is another Right-wing lie which has been popularized by Ron Paul. Some facts:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/kroszner20081203a.htm

“Only 6 percent of all the higher-priced loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in their CRA assessment areas… This result undermines the assertion by critics of the potential for a substantial role for the CRA in the subprime crisis. In other words, the very small share of all the higher-priced loan originations that can reasonably be attributed to the CRA makes it hard to imagine how this law could have contributed in any meaningful way to the current subprime crisis.”

http://www.occ.gov/news-issuances/news-releases/2008/nr-occ-2008-136.html

“Indeed, the lenders most prominently associated with subprime mortgage lending abuses and high rates of foreclosure are lenders not subject to CRA … A recent study of 2006 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data showed that banks subject to CRA and their affiliates originated or purchased only six percent of the reported high cost loans made to lower-income borrowers within their CRA assessment areas.”

The lies about the CRA being somehow the cause of the housing speculation boom have been peddled by every Right-wing crank from Ron Paul to David Horowitz. These are all an effort to divert attention from the crisis of capitalism caused by overproduction and declining rates of profit and to instead substitute charges that “socialism” was behind the subprime mortgage crisis. Roberto has allowed himself to be suckered by shysters like Ron Paul. The question is if he will climb out of the hole which Paul has duped him into digging for himself.