New Zealand 4: Questioning fixed sect-like models
- Details
- Category: Communist Organization
- Created on Saturday, 21 January 2012 07:19
- Written by Daphne Lawless
"I don't believe in “Leninism” as it is usually understood today – or what Louis Proyect more accurately refers to as “Zinovievism”, after the 1920s leader of the Communist International who obliged foreign communist parties to adhere to a particularly narrow interpretation of how the Russian Bolsheviks worked."
"The clear record of success shows that a small sect of ideologues, outside of the most intimate association with the class struggle (including any “full-time revolutionaries”) only has success in becoming a bigger sect, and then crumbling later on. The question of whether it propagates its ideas is a different one.
"A small intellectual group can function as a “think tank”, and perform valuable ideological work. But unless intimately linked to the class struggle as it is happening here and now, it will decompose into sectarianism in the way Duncan Hallas would have understood it – the important thing becomes “defending the ideas”, rather than making the ideas useful to change social reality. In the jargon of science, that's called a “degenerating research programme”, and the path to becoming a religious rather than a political group."
"Let us be more concrete. Backroom dealings, manipulations, telling “acceptable fictions” to keep people enthusiastic, winning arguments by force of personality, using psychological arguments to discredit dissenters or simply not inviting them to the meetings any more, making excuses for or outright denying the mistakes or even crimes of “leading cadre”, declaring defeats to be victories or declaring them to be all the fault of unreliable allies,. is not the way to “build cadre”. "
The follow is part of our series from the unfolding debates in New Zealand. Daphne has been a member of Socialist Worker since 2001. She stood as a RAM candidate for the Auckland City Council in 2007 and for Parliament in 2008. This piece first appeared in Socialist Worker's Pre-Conference Bulletin, [Jan 2012], then on the Unity Aotearoa blog.
As should be obvious: Essays like this, that are posted for discussion, do not necessarily represent the views of Kasama.
Goodbye Lenin?
by Daphne Lawless
“... we are each given the experiences we need and I do not regret the craziness of those initial years, even though I know now that much of my energy and actions was misplaced.” - Llewellyn Vaughan Lee
This paper is an exploration of ten years experience as a member of a revolutionary socialist organisation, and a question about what happens next.
Since 2005 at least I have been attempting to reconcile the Leninist political tradition I was trained in with my personal experience of alienation and oppression (as a queer woman with extensive academic training, a medium-sized income in the publishing field and a long-undiagnosed cognitive abnormality) ; with my humanities training with its insight into mass psychology, ideology and “memetics”; and with my own, highly idiosyncratic vision of what a world which worked properly for human beings would be like. And this is where I have come to, so far.
The political is personal...
I have often talked to people about why I cannot simply do the kinds of things that I could do in my first years as a political activist. I used to be able to sell a socialist newspaper to my workmates, or at least try to; man a political stall and hold discussions with passers-by; participate in demonstrations; even recruit to the organisation. I castigated myself for a long time, blaming myself for “cowardice”, “lack of will”, etc. Any Marxist or feminist would recognize the effects of internalised oppression if this were in the capitalist workplace; it seems very wrong that we tend to resort to blaming of individuals for feelings that arise from our own movement.
But finally, and most simply, the thought struck me: I no longer believe. I no longer see, in other words, the essential relationship between these kinds of actions and bringing about the kind of social revolution that we need to preserve human civilisation and the integrity of the biosphere.
And let me be more precise. I still believe in “revolutionary politics”. Marxian political economy still seems to me to be the only intelligent way to describe the off-the-cliff trajectory of today's financial capitalism, and the effects of alienated labour and oppression on the collective social and mental health of working people are clearly obvious. It's also clearly obvious that the only way out is a social revolution which expropriates the ruling classes and their media/ideological enablers and puts real decision-making power and cultural capital into the hands of the working masses. What don't I believe? Well, I don't believe in “Leninism” as it is usually understood today – or what Louis Proyect more accurately refers to as “Zinovievism”, after the 1920s leader of the Communist International who obliged foreign communist parties to adhere to a particularly narrow interpretation of how the Russian Bolsheviks worked. This doesn't mean that I am rejecting the intellectual heritage of the Russian Revolution altogether, although I think we should be more critical of Lenin and Trotsky's belief that a socialist state would be like a gigantic corporation or “central bank”. Efficiency under socialism will have to mean something other than the assembly-line mass-production model of a large capitalist bureacratic firm.
But the more important point is that I certainly don't think that the “small group Leninist” model which remains with us from the post-war era until today – in Trotskyoid or Mao-oid flavours – is the way forward to social revolution. The two points behind this I see are one of strategy, and one of organisation.
As far as strategy goes, re-examining my Marxist ideas, it seems obvious to me that real change in the world can only be brought about by social revolution – a change in the real relations of power in society. This is of course intimately tied in with economic revolution – a change in the way that goods and services are produced, distributed and received. The question of political revolution – a question of who controls the organs of power – is, as any thinking Marxist knows, of less important than the first two.
The state is an outgrowth of social power relations – if society is not transformed, the state cannot be, not by the most enlightened of governments. And the question of state power is really the question of who owns the state – as, in our political tradition, we've fought for ages against the proposition that “state dominance of the economy = workers' power or socialism”. If the state expropriates the bourgeoisie (as in Cuba), then unless the social relations of alienated, waged labour and production for profit change, the actually existing real functionaries of the state (the bureaucracy) become the new, collective bourgoisie. The socialist government of Venezuela have tried an alternative – attempting to create a new “balance of power” between a revolutionised state and the bourgeoisie, in the hope that mass self-organisation will have the space to flourish. The jury is still out on whether this is working. But the point is that gaining political power is not the decisive question in which class is going to rule.
An effective revolutionary socialist movement has to be a movement for social revolution. I'm no ultra-leftist – inserting ecosocialist ideas into mainstream “political debate” via activism in everyday campaigns, and participating in bourgeois elections, is an undisputed part of that. But building a party and providing leadership will never, ever be enough, if the masses inside and outside the party are not concretely challenging the relations of production, on the ground, right now. In the modern era, I would say this would involve not only wages and conditions struggles of organised labour, but the growth of “non-market” ways of producing the necessities of life – community gardens, open source / no-patent software, local systems of barter and exchange, co-operatives producing for need and not for sale. It's happening right now, and are socialists taking it seriously or are we looking somewhere else for “real” revolutionary change? Any serious ecosocialist organisation, I feel, has to be up at the front of that as well as of the demonstrations and the election hustings. (One topic that we should be looking at, by the way, is the “Food Bill” currently making its way before Parliament, which would – if interpreted literally – actually make it illegal to sell or distribute home-grown produce without a licence.)
The other question is organisational. The clear record of success shows that a small sect of ideologues, outside of the most intimate association with the class struggle (including any “full-time revolutionaries”) only has success in becoming a bigger sect, and then crumbling later on. The question of whether it propagates its ideas is a different one. A small intellectual group can function as a “think tank”, and perform valuable ideological work. But unless intimately linked to the class struggle as it is happening here and now, it will decompose into sectarianism in the way Duncan Hallas would have understood it – the important thing becomes “defending the ideas”, rather than making the ideas useful to change social reality. In the jargon of science, that's called a “degenerating research programme”, and the path to becoming a religious rather than a political group.
… and the personal is political
To be concrete, I no longer believe in the central concept of “democratic centralism” as it has evolved in the small-group Bolshevik tradition (that is, the “party” debates things internally and then presents a united front in word and deed), because I do not believe it works in practice. And the simple reason for this is that I have suffered under its pains and never enjoyed the promised successes. I have never been subjected to any of the cultish insanity or bureaucratic atrocities that you read of in the really scary groups. But I have experienced what it is like to be on the losing side of the argument, of feeling obliged to give the majority argument in public, to defend it... and then to watch it fail, to realise that your own instincts were correct, and then to realise that there is nothing to stop exactly the same thing happening again.
The theory behind democratic centralism is that if the leadership screws up then the leadership can be replaced, or forced to account for its failings. But this is much, much harder than it sounds in practice in a small voluntary organisation. The people with the most time, energy and self-confidence will tend to win every debate, unless they're coming up against someone else equally strong in those regards. And every “victory” won by an incumbent leadership increases the habit of going along with what that leadership says.
What is worse is when the leadership dismisses dissent on the basis that only the leadership really knows what's going on - claiming special insight on the grounds that only the leadership has the capacity to know whether the leadership's initiatives have been successful. This may combine with the suggestion that dissent is due to ignorance of things that the leadership knows but doesn't feel the need to prove, or a lack of “revolutionary optimism” or “closeness to the working class” of dissenters. This lends itself to a certain circular definition of leadership. It's altogether too close to bourgeois democracy's “cult of the expert”, the belief that only certain people are qualified to be leaders - which reminds me of the increasing professionalisation of union leadership.
You can't have democracy in which the followers are disqualified from having their opinions taken seriously. If a group gets to the point where there is simply no ready alternative to the existing leadership (in part because all the contenders get slapped down hard and end up gun-shy), then it may end up in an ever-decreasing circle where the leadership's mistakes can never be corrected except on the initiative of the leadership itself. The members of the organisation who have lost confidence in the leadership have nothing left to do but to “vote with their feet”, or else to simply shut up and plow their own furrow.
No-one is “to blame” for this. It is certainly not the fault of the personality of any comrade, since it happens in so many other groups. We are all doing our very best, by our own lights, to do some good in this world. And I also reject the sectarian answer that the problems of a political organisation can be traced back to its programme... if by “programme” we mean the line it takes in its publications. But if by “programme” we mean how it actually operates, internally as well as within the movement, then perhaps we begin to make some progress.
Tony Cliff suggested that “you don't need a beautiful chisel to create Michelangelo's David”, by which I assume he meant “ugly means can create beautiful outcomes”. That's a supportable philosophical point. But I am increasingly also believing that, since we are a movement for the liberation of humanity into a new world where we live in harmony with each other and the rest of the natural world, change has to be prefigurative. “The master's tools will not dismantle the master's house”, as the feminist Audré Lorde put it.
Let us be more concrete. Backroom dealings, manipulations, telling “acceptable fictions” to keep people enthusiastic, winning arguments by force of personality, using psychological arguments to discredit dissenters or simply not inviting them to the meetings any more, making excuses for or outright denying the mistakes or even crimes of “leading cadre”, declaring defeats to be victories or declaring them to be all the fault of unreliable allies,. is not the way to “build cadre”. (Not all of these things have happened in our organisation, but they have happened in others on the Left quite close to us, here and overseas.)
We keep saying that working people can only become fit to be the ruling class as part of the struggle to become the ruling class. Do we really believe that the traditions of the post-war small-group Leninist left have produced a layer of people who have been positively transformed by their years in the milieu? Why are there so many casualties? Of course people get discouraged by years of failure, although perhaps they wouldn't if they weren't enticed into activism on false promises of the imminent millennium.
But my own personal, Quixotic quest has been to reconcile being an effective political activist with personal healing, a way to come to terms in one's own life with the effects of exploitation, alienation and oppression. I have always believed that the kind of political organisation that could really make a difference would make a difference for its own members as well as in the real world of the class struggle. Being a member of such an organisation would not be a comfortable escape from reality (as is the real motive behind sectarian decomposition), but would help comrades to live their lives in the world of exploitation, alienation and expression better, more healthily, as well as giving them the tools to change it in fundamental ways.
This is of course the same insight as many Marxist writers on pop psychology or pharmaceutical approaches to depression have had: that it's not the individual's fault they can't deal with reality, it's that capitalist reality is fundamentally unreasonable. But when the internal environment of a Marxist group is also fundamentally unreasonable – when it reproduces the hierarchies, dominance games and doublethink of the capitalist world – then you have to wonder what kind of a better or even different world can be produced by such a system.
Proposals
So, where does this leave me in practical terms? I completely endorse the analysis of American socialist Dan DiMaggio in his article “Road maps, dead ends and the search for fresh ground”, which has also been distributed. There is simply no point to building sect-type socialist organisations, around one particular “political line”, in the current era. That sort of behaviour will guarantee that the audience for socialist ideas remain tiny. In retrospect, it seems a terrible disaster that the Workers Charter newspaper, our most successful venture in almost a decade of broad-left initiatives, ran out of steam – if it still existed, perhaps in the form of a website, it would be exactly what I think we need right now.
I now do not think that collectively launching a terminal 5 website, devoted to promoting the collapse analysis, is a good idea at all. This is simply because I cannot imagine how this would mean anything more than “another sect” - another way of differentiating ourselves from the masses by a political line. Also, while I still find the analysis persuasive, I must admit that I feel like this is one more proposal which has been “pushed through” our organisation by force of personality. What is left of Socialist Worker cannot be cohered by “shared allegience to the collapse analysis” - that's the outmoded Zinovievist way of thinking that I now reject. This hypothesis must be tested in debate and practice with the broader left – and I do not think that building a website designed to promote it is the best way to start that.
Instead, I propose we throw ourselves into building a broad eco-socialist website, including both posted articles and a moderated forum, through which networking of broad-left activists for theory and practice can organically grow into existence. The “collapse analysis” can and should be promoted there by those who find it convincing, without any expectation that there is a membership organisation based around “believing” it which must “uphold it in public”. I have no interest in belonging to such an organisation. We should call for volunteers as quickly as possible for an initial Editorial Board of such a website.
We should commit ourselves to starting eco-socialist local groups, with a perspective of eventually federating into a national Eco-socialist network. These should unite theoretical discussion and practical action around ecosocialist politics, between the existing socialist and anarchist Left, those sympathetic to such politics within Mana, the Greens or even Labour, and ordinary people who are increasingly aware that something's got to “give”. This would not just be a “climate” group, in that it would treat the ecological crisis and the financial and legitimacy crises of capitalism as part and parcel of one another. Hopefully, such a group would have the kind of flexibility and internal culture which I have discussed above.
What of Socialist Worker as the lineal descendent of the Communist Party of NZ (established 1921)? I believe that SW's current organisational model (with the CC pretty much including all the active members) is not fit for purpose and is a “Potemkin village”. But we should continue to exist as a loose network for the next little while, prioritising building the Eco-Socialist website and networking, while of course discussing theory and practice in the various struggles and campaigns that arise. But I would envisage that increasingly, as the website comes into action, there would be less and less “internal discussion” and more and more our activism and discussion would be as “broad eco-socialists”, on that website and in the local groups and the national network.
There then remains two possible futures for SW – that it should “wither away”; or it should regroup with other broad-party socialists. In my opinion the latter option would be preferable – if and only if there really are other Marxist activists in this country who are ready to take the serious step to trying to build a “new-age cadre movement” rather than a “Zinovievist” group, with its accompanying problems of internal dominance of a few “leaders” and intellectual petrification. I have no way of knowing which is more probable from where we stand now.
People in this conversation
Comments (26)
-
Guest (jlowrieJ. Lowrie)
PermalinkThe experiences of this comrade are quite common:
our movement has been stultified by 'the party line' rigorously upheld by leaders who have a vested intellectual interest in defending ideas to which they have devoted their lives and in which they feel reassuringly secure. This is quite normal in other areas of scientific endeavour (cf. Rebels, Mavericks and Heretics in Biology. Yale University press 2008)
In socialism of course the political pressures are much greater.
We are all familiar with the dogmatist who wished to expel all and sundry because they had the 'wrong line' on parliamentarianism. Wasn't he called Lenin?
Frankly, socialism has no future if it continues to be narrowly sectarian; it will have to be a mass movement or nothing. The most egregrious example of this was Mao's attempt to establish the idea that the peasantry could be a mass revolutionary force.
This was denounced at the time, and still continues to be now by extreme Stalinists/ Trotskyists, as a betrayal of 'classical Marxism'. So much for social practice then!
Such latter-day leninists have become reactionary. Like some French socialists whom Marx condemned for refighting the battles of the French revolution, these 'comrades' imagine that 1917 will one day be re-enacted, that the blinkers will fall from people's eyes and they will finally storm the barricades, not forgetting to recognise the leninists as the revolutionary vanguard to lead them to the communist millenium. In the meantime they fight again all the old battles of the Russian Revolution.
I remember when I recommended that socialists should pay more attention to Bogdanov and less to Lenin, somebody asked me what my take was then on Bogdanov's line on the Duma of 1905. One I don't know, two I don't care, and three it does not matter. Could you imagine bourgeois politicians falling out over how to evaluate Cromwell or Danton? Truly at times we resemble the most extreme religious sects.
Marx said the proletariat has to liberate itself. It starts by winning ' the battle for democracy'. To begin to win this battle we socialists must put forward three demands that must be met even for a limited democracy;
(1) all major political decisions must be put to the people to decide on at a referendum e.g questions of war
(2) judges must be eliminated and be replaced by large juries, selected by lot.
(3) all government officials must be publicly elected for a period of a year and subject to scrutiny by a jury to render public account for how they have carried out their duties and what they have done with the public funds entrusted to them. If their account prove unsatisfactory,they are to be sent to trial. ( Yes the Greeks had a word for this- euthuna).
I think Daphne would find that people respond very favourably to such proposals, because this is empowering THEM, the people. They don't want to hand over power to yet another political party, especially some of the leftist ones. I know I don't!
My experience is that most of my right wing acquaintances prove sympathetic to such ideas, yet some of my left wing ones are antagonistic: the proletariat is too backward, it needs to be educated by a vanguard of intellectuals.
What? by the likes of Zizek? No wonder people are dubious!0 Like -
I don't think the problem is rejecting Lenin at all. But "let Lenin be Lenin."
In other words, the Russian/Soviet experience was a rich, nuanced history -- and (because it is one of our rare successes) it has lots of lessons for us.
What we need to reject is not that experience, but the historic habit of mythologizing it. And (worse) the habit of inventing particular organizational plans and then <em>justifying</em> them using an invented pseudo-history of the Bolsheviks, in part to avoid a topical and contemporary debate.
I think we should form communist networks (and broader revolutionary unities) based on our current conditions (which also include their own needs for discipline, security, membership membranes etc.) but not to "proceed from principles" (invented principled, inherited principles, self-serving principles -- that are not infact universal, or even necessarily principles). Instead we should proceed from our goals, our situation, our contradictions, and make a plan, and justifying it without arguing (like American rightwingers) from the supposed prophetic insights of our "founding fathers".0 Like -
Guest (Jach)
PermalinkIn my opinion, these discussions are worthless. In all these articles put out by different New Zealand socialists, there is little talk about the Maori people/indigenous groups but there is a whole lot of discussion about so-called "ecosocialism".
If the working class of New Zealand can't relate to a "Workers Party", how are they going to relate to socialists grabbing onto 'hippie issues'?
My point is that from what I know, as an outsider, the political understanding amongst the working class in New Zealand is absurdly basic. Shifting the political dialogue of the working class needs to be on the agenda for socialists in New Zealand. Getting the parasitic white working class to own up to their legacy of colonialism needs to be on the agenda. This means aligning with the Mana and Maori parties as well as any other indigenous organizations and participating (not leading) in actual work.
Right now, these introspective ramblings - as exemplified by the Cliffite above - will amount to absolutely nothing.
"Eco-Socialism" is just a disaster waiting to happen when the author talks about aligning with the Greens and Labour as well as those "other" groups.
Mike, I really think you're wasting your time trying to get a discussion going with these articles.0 Like -
Guest (North Star Radical)
Permalink"“Eco-Socialism” is just a disaster waiting to happen when the author talks about aligning with the Greens and Labour as well as those “other” groups."
Working with the Greens and Labour are problematic of course. However the idea of eco-socialism needs to be discussed. Any serious conception of socialism in this day and age is going to have to have serious consideration of ecological issues. It may be "alien" to many old school socialists but we've gone past the idea of "socialism or barbarism" and are now at, given the state of the environment "socialism or extinction."0 Like -
Guest (Jach)
Permalink"However the idea of eco-socialism needs to be discussed."
How can this idea be discussed when it hasn't be fully fleshed out yet? Right now, we can gather this rough idea of an attempt to build a environmentalist network between Liberals, Socialists, and Anarchists in New Zealand.
The third part of this series hails the Mana Party for their hard work but wants to bring them in and under White leadership.
This is already so problematic from the get-go.
"It may be “alien” to many old school socialists but we’ve gone past the idea of “socialism or barbarism” and are now at, given the state of the environment “socialism or extinction.”"
I think this is both overstated and an oversimplification of the times in which we are living in.0 Like -
Guest (SKS)
PermalinkGotta say, this debate we had 30 years ago. And I was a baby at the time
And the grass is always greener on the other side. I have experienced both DC and non-DC. And my experience tells me a new form is better: one where there is practical DC but theoretical right of dissent and constant - public - debate. So I defend my organizational decision to leave the Socialist Front - which we founded - and yet remain committed to re-foundation as an strategic goal. Its a debate that might be eternal. So be it. It is not keeping me from working, with a given organizational form, to go forward with the positive.
This takes subjective commitment. And to be honest, this critique reads like tons of others I have read from similar splits: they call out DC for being the problem, but a further reading shows that was not the problem. The problem is programmatic - the socialism the organization struggles towards, and the socialism the individual visualizes, have split into two.
What this tells me is that there was no D in the C, in the best of cases, or in the worse case, that there was D in the C, but the individual decided it was not worth it, because "the grass is greener in the other side".
In any case, it is nothing new, as a critique of DC, and teaches nothing new.
However, it is positive to put these things forth, even if they are not new: it shows that the mythologies are mythologies because many have seen them for what they are. In that sense, the critique is positive: lifting the rock to show light to darkness is a way forward.
JlowrieJ. Lowrie:
I appreciate what you are saying, but I think the tendency to believe that a program that "is attractive to people" is enough is one of the problems, not solutions, of socialist struggle. The stuff from Marx that you quote, was put forward in its time, and the result is what the result is - not socialism.
I think regarding program a fundamental issue is not what program is put forward, but how this program is put forward and under what conditions. Socialism is a radical idea, for radical people - and the left keeps trying rather to appeal to the masses before it can appeal to itself. I think there are zero revolutionary prospects in any country of the world for a radical program of communist revolution without the painful and long march of unifying the radical and militant strata around organization(s) that are of a revolutionary character, in their internal life and external outlook. It is a daunting task, but for some reason people feel this is a much more daunting task than speaking to the masses directly.
I think that is self-delusion - if revolution were easy, we would have them every Saturday before lunch.0 Like -
Guest (Ian Anderson)
Permalink"Shifting the political dialogue of the working class needs to be on the agenda for socialists in New Zealand. Getting the parasitic white working class to own up to their legacy of colonialism needs to be on the agenda. This means aligning with the Mana and Maori parties as well as any other indigenous organizations and participating (not leading) in actual work."A
All the major socialist groups have aligned themselves with Mana. Defs not with the Maori Party, which betrayed the Maori working class leading to the formation of Mana.
My article also doesn't mention eco-socialism once, that's coming out of SW. TBH you're far too dismissive with far too little information.0 Like -
Guest (Jach)
Permalink"All the major socialist groups have aligned themselves with Mana."
Besides in the electoral realm, what is the Workers Party, the ISO, Socialist Workers Party, etc doing for indigenous liberation? Aligning yourself with Mana in elections is not a bad strategy. However, this needs to be continuous as I'm sure you're already aware of.
"Defs not with the Maori Party, which betrayed the Maori working class leading to the formation of Mana."
This may be so. I don't have a rigorous understanding of the history of the Maori Party.
"My article also doesn’t mention eco-socialism once, that’s coming out of SW. "
Fair enough. I was referring mostly to the discussion of eco-socialism. I worded that incorrectly.0 Like -
Guest (Alex)
Permalink@ Jach: "“However the idea of eco-socialism needs to be discussed.”
How can this idea be discussed when it hasn’t be fully fleshed out yet?''
How can ideas be fleshed out if we can't discuss them until they are fully fleshed out? Don't ideas take shape, from small beginnings, through discussion? Or should we limit ourselves to ideas that are already completed into neat complete packages, packages that somehow enter the discussion fully fleshed out? What use would such a discussion be anyway?0 Like -
Guest (Mike E)
Permalink<blockquote>"And the grass is always greener on the other side."</blockquote>
I was reading the history of the Love and Rage collapse -- where a key issue in the struggle was an attempt to tighten the discipline of the cadre structure. Their operations were (by some accounts) disrupted by people "coming and going" -- and a general individualism amplied by the mobility of youth. So there was an attempt to get people to dig in, and buckle down etc.
And so, they were coming from the problems of a looser network -- and wanting to move toward the advantages of a more disciplined organization.
And it struck me as funny, coming (as I am) from a highly militarized and disciplined structure -- and realizing (as I do) its serious problems and costs.
But really the issue is not so binary. Really part of the argument is precisely that it has been posed as a simple either-or-binary. As if there is a fixed "democratic centralist" model (which there isn't, and which there never was!) and as if the only alternative is some loose and ineffectual "swamp."
I think that there are real advantages to a disciplined structure, an organized collectivity, a well-tuned and trained security culture, some legitimized and accountable leadership (with real powers to deploy and decide as needed), and so on.
Who would want to abandon that in politics -- especially under our conditions.
SKS says this was a debate he saw 30 years ago -- well, it has been (and should be) constant. We should have a <em>living</em> debate about "having organizational forms match the goals and the terrain." And we should not conduct it in mythologized terms that asset "models" which (in reality) never existed or operated as claimed.0 Like -
Guest (Binh)
PermalinkNorthStarRadical, you may be interested in this: http://www.thenorthstar.info/
0 Like -
Guest (Jach)
Permalink<blockquote>"How can ideas be fleshed out if we can’t discuss them until they are fully fleshed out? Don’t ideas take shape, from small beginnings, through discussion? Or should we limit ourselves to ideas that are already completed into neat complete packages, packages that somehow enter the discussion fully fleshed out? What use would such a discussion be anyway?"</blockquote>
Right. Silly me. Continue with small discussions about a vague strategy that isn't really saying much, is class collaborationist, and that tactically runs the risk of getting derided by liberal opportunists. The main problem seem to be that you have the Maori people which have been so beaten down that they just want basic rights nevermind national liberation and a parasitic White working class that is racist.
Take <a href="/http://workersparty.org.nz/2011/12/22/mana-in-the-election/#comment-14285" rel="nofollow">this comment</a>:
<blockquote>"Tracey-Lee is closer to the truth than most of you who seem to think MANA is left-wing. I’m Maori, I’m a strong supporter of MANA and a campaign worker, and I’m anything but left-wing. We do have a few socialists integrated into our team but they don’t call the shots – Maori tikanga always comes first. What’s different about MANA? Our policy is bottom-up instead of top-down so we fight for what our rank-and-file regard as important and never mind anyone else’s doctrine. Essentially anything Maori need for fair-and-equal treatment. The sale of State assets has much less impact on Maori than fairer taxation so never mind that National and Labour pretend it’s a pressing issue – we have more important ones like child poverty much closer to home, and we’re better judges of what Maori need than political theoreticians who know very little about Maori. I cringe when I hear the media say Maori want “sovereignty.” It’s only radical activists who mean that when they talk about tino rangatiratanga. The rest of us use the term to mean the right to be ourselves with equal opportunity to do things our own way and not be regulated out of existence by a nanny state. I don’t care who’s running the country as long as we have that.
I’m happy that socialist aims match ours closely enough that we have their support, but the people I know in MANA are as different from socialists as accountants are from doctors."</blockquote>
The conditions in New Zealand aren't ripe for Communist party building. Thus, "eco-socialism" is nothing more than a nice idea that will never pan out.
I know this may sound harsh and dismissive but, from an outsiders perspective, I feel like I am only being a realist.0 Like -
Guest (North Star Radical)
Permalink<blockquote>"How can this idea be discussed when it hasn’t be fully fleshed out yet? Right now, we can gather this rough idea of an attempt to build a environmentalist network between Liberals, Socialists, and Anarchists in New Zealand."
"I think this is both overstated and an oversimplification of the times in which we are living in."</blockquote>
My comments on eco-socialism are different than how the WPNZ is imagining it. I'm not advocating any kind of class collaboration or anything like that.
I'm saying the ecological component on how we envision socialism cannot be ignored in this day and age. You can dismiss it as an oversimplification, but the environment is only going to become more and more of a pressing issue. Ignoring it is a failure to adapt to the current situation.0 Like -
Guest (Mike E)
PermalinkJach doesn't just dismiss it as oversimplification. He calls it "hippie issues."
It is a blindness and ignorance that is mindboggling to me. And really not worth engaging (In fact, imho, it that borders on a trollish provocation of these discussions).
Humanity is facing a sharp and challenging set of disasters that capitalism has caused, and which capitalism is incapable of solving.
The cause of communism and the future of humanity are both entwined with the invention of a socialist sustainability. It is not merely a matter of imagining a new communist movement (one fundamentally incorporating ecological insights), it is a matter of imagining a new future society (where the path of socialism is severed from exhausted and erroneous 19th century European views of development and industry.)
In some ways, it is a problem that our conversation here is dragged down to jostling Jach's uninformed provocation. "Don't feed the trolls."
We have important matters to discuss in a nuanced and deepening way. We can't be deflected every time someone shows up to shout that they aren't worth discussing.0 Like -
Guest (Jach)
PermalinkIt's nice that I'm being disregarded as "just another troll". I guess that is the proper response for a viewpoint that doesn't fit with the orthodoxy of this site and the Western Left as a whole. I refuse to look at these strategies with rose-colored glasses and without looking at the prevalent contradictions.
And you'll notice that when I said "hippie issues", I used quotations marks because this is exactly how it will be depicted as in reactionary circles.
I believe the uninformed, trollish response would be to call you all murdering Stalinists and say that this is just another plan for Year Zero. I don't believe that I'm doing that, am I?0 Like -
Guest (SKS)
PermalinkMike E,
I find little to disagree with in what you said here.
The question then is, having abandoned the mythology - what reality we build now?
Are lose networks the alternative in pre-revolutionary times? Or is this approaching the NGO model of a small cadre of self-directing individuals supported via funding by actors who are not true stakeholders?
Is there really nothing to be learned from the DC experience? Is it all uniformly negative?
Is there not another mythology we are not exploring? Perhaps not just there being a mythology of form, but a mythology that hides other problems behind form?
The reality is that the most successful bourgeois parties in the world - which we should study precisely because of their success - assume forms internally that are essentially a "network of networks", in which each spoke in the hub has an internal discipline that in many cases would make the mythological ML DC seem anarchists, yet the relationship between them is loose and even tactical: Progressive America Rising and New Democrat Network have little in common in many issues, yet march in line to elect Democrats.
And hence lies one of the problems of mythology: not only are monolithic parties the exception rather than the rule in achieving revolutionary power, it is actually in a process of absorption of other forces - after the revolutions achieves state power - in which different forms have emerged, and at different times. The M-26 is Cuba is not the ruling party there, in fact, the ruling party emerged 5 years later, and with significant personnel changes.
My point is that organizational form is much less important than organizational consistency, and unity in action. DC as the sects and cults have defined it in the mythology, is not a way to develop this unity, but to force it. And this is much easier for a party in power than for one vying for power. For example, the fractured Democratic Party primary in 2008 has given way to a seemingly unified Party for the elections - likewise, the seemingly unified Republicans of 2004 imploded in 2008.
So my contention is that the primary mythology, the important one, the central one, is not that DC is incorrectly put forward as what gave the Soviets its power, but rather, the idea that the organizational form in power is the same as out of power, and that the sect can prefigure this.
Prefiguration, with its complex web of self-aggrandizing leaderships (the petty Lenin phenomena), delusional memberships in awe of being close to "power", and the insane belief that self-righteousness is enough to achieve victory (revolutionary hipsterism), is the biggest myth.
Nah, revolutionary organization and State power are not the same thing, and you cannot vie for State power (or its destruction) by forming its substitute now. That is the hardest myth to break with: the revolutionary organization as role-playing game.0 Like -
Guest (Ian Anderson)
Permalink"My comments on eco-socialism are different than how the WPNZ is imagining it. I’m not advocating any kind of class collaboration or anything like that."
Bah. Again. SW is where the eco-socialism stuff comes from. This is the only WP article so far:
http://kasamaproject.org/2012/01/19/new-zealand-on-the-party-question/0 Like -
Guest (Ian Anderson)
PermalinkWant to be very clear, SW comrades are critiquing "Zinovievism," and advocating for a broad eco-socialist network.
WP is arguing we need specifically communist (and, yes, democratic centralist) organisations, but that we need to deepen our engagement not simply apply a formula. We've yet to mention eco-socialism anywhere, though we do some theoretical and practical ecology work. We certainly don't advocate working with the Labour Party.
Understand that far-left stuff is often incomprehensible from a distance, but if people are commenting on our material it'd be good if they read it.0 Like -
Guest (Daphne Lawless)
PermalinkAs I've told Ian elsewhere, a broad eco-socialist network is a proposal which could be complementary, rather than an alternative, to a Marxist praxis organisation of a truly democratic organisation. Ridiculous sect-wars can and should be a thing of a past.
("parasitic White working class?" Really?)0 Like -
Guest (The Voice Collective)
Permalink"But my own personal, Quixotic quest has been to reconcile being an effective political activist with personal healing, a way to come to terms in one’s own life with the effects of exploitation, alienation and oppression. I have always believed that the kind of political organisation that could really make a difference would make a difference for its own members as well as in the real world of the class struggle. Being a member of such an organisation would not be a comfortable escape from reality (as is the real motive behind sectarian decomposition), but would help comrades to live their lives in the world of exploitation, alienation and expression better, more healthily, as well as giving them the tools to change it in fundamental ways.
"This is of course the same insight as many Marxist writers on pop psychology or pharmaceutical approaches to depression have had: that it’s not the individual’s fault they can’t deal with reality, it’s that capitalist reality is fundamentally unreasonable. But when the internal environment of a Marxist group is also fundamentally unreasonable – when it reproduces the hierarchies, dominance games and doublethink of the capitalist world – then you have to wonder what kind of a better or even different world can be produced by such a system."
This bit from Daphne's essay is worth highlighting. We need fresh thinking on how our new movements can be prefigurative. Without making the mistake that we can totally do away with things like security culture and so on because that is incompatible with the future that we're fighting for, revolutionaries need to look closely at the prefigurative dimension in things like the Occupy Movement.
The fact is that many in the movement talked about the encampments as "model societies." And I think that one of the most important features of this upsurge has been precisely that masses of people were able to have experiences of communal living and were able to experiment with forms of democratic decision-making. Because really, what democratic experience do most people in existing society have?
We shouldn't underestimate the "personal," experiential aspect of all this. People were not just crowded in parks because of their grievences with their bosses, and because they wanted future change They were also there because they were experiencing something transformative, here and now. They were experiencing community in ways that they never had, for example. They were feeling for the first time that they have a collective existence as a generation, and that their generation can change things.
People do come to movements not only for the end goal, but because participation in the movement itself holds the promise of transforming their lives in the present. I don't think that these two sides of movement participation are opposed. People need community and love today. They can't wait, even though liberation is a *social* phenomenon, and absolutely involves things like expropriating power and wealth from the ruling classes.But the transformations that people undergo now set the stage for what we are capable of doing later.
I am more and more sympathetic to ideas like "communization" (the idea that we have to start building "communism" from the get-go, even in our organizations that have not yet taken state power). I'm also a Maoist, and like to put this in a Maoist way: Revolution is not a single event, but rather happens in waves. One stage of revolution follows after another, but the seeds of the next phase are planted in the one that comes before. In China and other societies that were/are semi-feudal (probably should have happened with ex-slaves in the U.S., too) land to the tiller policies were necessary, or else there could not have been collectivization or communization (in the older sense of forming agricultural communes) later on. One wave of revolution lays the basis for the next, though there is not a rigid teleology here. But the seeds that will later sprout need to have some *communist* content, or else it will be more difficult to push things in a communist direction later on (socialism is precisely a battle between communist and capitalist roads).
Shouldn't our communist organizations have some communist content?0 Like -
Guest (Jach)
PermalinkDaphne Lawless writes: "(“parasitic White working class?” Really?)"
Yes, really. You should actually read Lenin (since the Cliffite tendency claims to hold Lenin as an ideological inspiration).
"Is the actual condition of the workers in the oppressor and in the oppressed nations the same, from the standpoint of the national question?
No, it is not the same.
(1) Economically, the difference is that sections of the working class in the oppressor nations receive crumbs from the superprofits the bourgeoisie of these nations obtains by extra exploitation of the workers of the oppressed nations. Besides, economic statistics show that here a larger percentage of the workers become “straw bosses” than is the case in the oppressed nations, a larger percentage rise to the labour aristocracy.[1] That is a fact. To a certain degree the workers of the oppressor nations are partners of their own bourgeoisie in plundering the workers (and the mass of the population) of the oppressed nations.
(2) Politically, the difference is that, compared with the workers of the oppressed nations, they occupy a privileged position in many spheres of political life.
(3) Ideologically, or spiritually, the difference is that they are taught, at school and in life, disdain and contempt for the workers of the oppressed nations. This has been experienced, for example, by every Great Russian who has been brought up or who has lived among Great Russians. "
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/carimarx/5.htm#v23pp64h-055
One of Lenin's most important observations is that he recognized the privilege and parasitism of the working class in Imperialist countries. Taking into account the legacy of White Supremacy in colonized North America, Australia, and New Zealand, Socialists in these countries should consider the working classes as nothing but.
This is a major reason why there has never been a successful social revolution in First World countries.0 Like -
Guest (jlowrieJ. Lowrie)
PermalinkMike says,
<blockquote>'' I don't think the problem is rejecting Lenin at all..... Russian/Soviet experience was a rich, nuanced history....it has lots of lessons for us.'' </blockquote>
Agreed, but unless we face up to the negative ones we are not going to advance.
How for example does Mike solve Mao's great paradox that the new bourgeoisie sits in the central committee? Has this not a lot to do with the leninist concept of the party?
Here is a proposal that I think all socialist parties should adopt: '
<blockquote>' The communist party differs from all other parties in that it does not intend to take power for itself, but will introduce a democratic system'' </blockquote>
What is the opposite of a democracy? An oligarchy i.e. rule by the few i.e. the rich. That is why no political party or trade union in the long term will ever work for communism: power corrupts, as the saying goes, and the political oligarchs soon want to be financial ones. There is n
ow enough historical experience to make this undeniable. No leninist party will ever succeed in the long term! This is quite clear when one studies democratic practice( cf. Aristotle's Politics). For example, how long did the Athenian democrats allow their president to stay in office? A day and a night! Now you might not like this, but it would rather have limited the emergence of a Hitler! Now this did not mean that there were no political leaders; there were e.g Pericles, but their powers were severely circumscribed: they proposed, but the people decided in referendum.0 Like -
Guest (Daphne Lawless)
PermalinkOne symptom of "Zinovievism" (or, as I'm increasingly fond of calling it, the Dogma/Guru/Sect model of organising) is the idea of classifying activists by "ideological pedigree" - Stalinists, Trots, Maoists, revisionists, reformists, etc - and assuming that that tells you everything you need to know. For example, Jach above calls me a Cliffite when for the last five years I've been increasingly in conflict with the British SWP/IST model or organising. This mode of argument is historically obsolete.
Also, "Lenin said it, I believe it, that settles it" is a religious statement, not a political one, so I will address myself to the actual quote, and question who the "labour aristocracy" is in 21st century Aotearoa/NZ.0 Like -
Guest (Jach)
Permalink"For example, Jach above calls me a Cliffite when for the last five years I’ve been increasingly in conflict with the British SWP/IST model or organising."
But you're still a member of an organization modeled after the Cliffite Wing of the Trotskyist tendency. It doesn't really matter that you're having some disagreements with the British SWP. The ISO here in the US has it's disagreements from time to time with the British SWP. They maintain the same general political line though. I mean, you even go out of your way to quote Tony Cliff for goodness sakes.
"Also, “Lenin said it, I believe it, that settles it” is a religious statement, not a political one, so I will address myself to the actual quote, and question who the “labour aristocracy” is in 21st century Aotearoa/NZ."
Hardly a religious statement but a completely political statement.
The labor aristocracy of NZ, just like any other country with a majority settler population, which practices capitalist imperialism, is mostly the White working class of that country. Not just based on superprofits gained from plunder of third world countries but on the slavery and colonization of indigenous populations and the privilege that arises out of White supremacy.
Re-read that quote. Tell me that doesn't completely speak of the times in which we are living in. Yes, even in a time of "global financial crisis". It is still an objective truth and I'm not saying that just because I posted it either.0 Like -
Guest (Harsh Thakor)
PermalinkThe point of dissent and debate is most valid.From the period of the Bolshevik R evolution in China to the last days of the G.P.C.R in China there was insufficient room for debate and dissent.There was also a tendency of a great personality cult.
However we must ask ourselves what we would have done had we been in the place of Lenin,Mao or even Stalin.Remember these were the first every revolutions and still achievements were made unparalleled in the history of mankind.Remember the lofty achievements of U.S.S.R.in literacy,health and industry and their winning of the World War 2.China's great strides in the Maoist era would never have taken place without a throrough grasp of Leninist dialectics and ideology .The Concepts of New Democracy and continuous revolution under the dictatorship of the Proletariat were innovated as a development of Leninism and not independent of it.The graet democratic innovation sin the G.P.C.R.in all walks of life were derived from applying Leninsm and not contradicting it.
Theoreticians have to make a deep study of how to build up the greatest amount of dissent and debate within the Socialist State.However we still have to be pupils of Marx,Lenin and Mao and also aknowledge the achievement of Stalin.Any headway the C.P.I.(Maoist) has made in India or the Communist Party of Phillipines has been by the thorough grasp of Leninist ideology and the upholding of the cutting edge of the party of the Proletariat.
Such works by Lous Proyet undermine the need for the re-organisation of such a party .It is a charasterictic New Left tendency.0 Like
Sustain Kasama
Latest Comments
Latest Open Threads
Kasama is a communist project for the forcible overthrow and transformation of all existing social conditions. We are open to learning, unafraid to admit our own uncertainties. We will not shrink from what we do know: the solutions cannot be found within the current world order or the choices it provides. We are for revolution. We seek to find the forms of organization and action for the people most dispossessed by this system to free themselves and all humanity.
To take this road, we need a fearless, open-eyed debate, discussion and engagement. We need fresh analyses of the rapid changes shaping the world around us. We need to sum up a century of revolutionary strategies and attempts, victories and defeats – instead of the conventional wisdom and facile verdicts that paralyze our movements. We need to re-imagine a radical politics that can take life among people and move mountains.
Dig in.