Tuesday, September 15, 2015

Hope for a Left Revival?

Fifteen years have passed since the zenith of capitalist triumphalism, the peak moment of capital's successful penetration of nearly every inhabitable area of the globe. Not unlike the beginning of the last century, the wealthy and privileged saw few storm clouds on the horizon, a future of unlimited accumulation and placid rule. While there were some risings in the hinterlands and some rebelliousness in the air, they were easily suppressed or marginalized.


At the center of this capitalist utopia stood the world's gendarme-- the US Goliath-- with bases, military power, and unmatched technology, ensuring that the world was a secure haven for monopoly corporations. Moreover, the US sought and enforced international dominance. They pledged to bring “democracy” to the world with the same self-righteous hypocrisy and hubris that the earlier imperialists had masked their economic voraciousness behind religious missionary zeal.


But matters went awry in the new century.


The support for religious zealots organized by the US, NATO, and their allies against Middle Eastern secular, independent movements boomeranged. Unlike earlier puppets who were quickly jettisoned when their usefulness was exhausted, Islamic fundamentalists struck their erstwhile masters before they could be betrayed by them. Under the guise of a “war on terror,” a perpetual overt and covert war against Middle Eastern states and populations-- a veritable modern-day crusade-- continues to this day. The US, NATO, the EU, and a motley collection of scavengers cynically used the excuse of terrorism to reconfigure an entire region, destroying stable societies, killing millions, and leaving millions homeless.


At the same time, a global economy resting on the triumph of nineteenth-century bourgeois economic thought and practices began to falter. Faith in the bright future was shaken by the destruction of trillions of dollars of nominal value, a disaster brought on by the foolish speculations of a gang of the oracles of a new era of technological advance.


Before the effects of the so-called “dot-com” crisis subsided, the global economy was struck with another downturn, shaking the capitalist underpinnings like no other blow since the Great Depression. To answer this catastrophe, capitalism spun off millions of workers, stripped wages and benefits, and shredded an already meager social safety net. The wake of the 2007-2008 collapse continues to drown the hopes and aspirations of millions, with even more turbulence on the horizon.


To any sober observer, capitalism is in the throes of a deep, profound, multi-faceted crisis. The celebration of fifteen years ago was a hollow and unwarranted declaration of the unstoppable success of capitalism. War, deprivation, and uncertainty are the legacy of those hailing that moment. Few alive today know a time when the future looked so unsure.


The Basis for a Left Revival?


Years of disillusionment following the decline of the Soviet Union and its Eastern European allies produced an era of navel-gazing and an extreme dilution of the socialist vision for the left, especially in the US and Europe. Murky enemies like “globalization” or “empire” replaced “imperialism” and “capitalism” in public discourse. Gradualist programs, market-centered reforms, and a trivialization of diversity toward micro-identities guided a dispirited left. Revolutionary politics were smothered by a sense that a “humane capitalism” was the best that could be gotten.


Sure, the left rallied around the anti-imperialist project in Latin America, particularly the heroic rise of Hugo Chavez, and later, Evo Morales and Rafael Correa. The broad-based defiance of the North American gendarmerie served to inspire millions who had lost hope. But the leftist “Spring” that swept through the South has yet to spawn a real replacement for capitalist economic relations, not to mention, a rock-solid socialism, such as that in Cuba.


Now with capitalism on the ropes, one might expect a left upsurge. With political and economic crisis-- endless war and near-depression-- one would expect a revitalized left to emerge today.


It hasn't happened.


In Europe and North America, two flawed, failed currents dominate the left ideological landscape: anarchism and social democracy. The anarchist tendency is not the revolutionary anarchism of Bakunin, but a tame version based on the utopian idea that all that stands in the way of a just and fair society is restraint on the freedom of the masses-- authority, and not capitalism, is the ultimate oppressor. For the modern day anarchists, social change lies in radical democracy, removing the encrusted bureaucracies that rule over our society-- civil servants, agencies, union leaders, politicians, etc.


Of course there is some truth in this critique, but without a greater vision, without a plan to replace capitalism, overturning a bureaucracy simply invites another one. And insofar as its enemy is authority, modern anarchism differs little from its anti-government counterpart on the extreme right. The social base for this contemporary strain is, as it was in the 1960s, students and the economically marginalized. The failures of the 1960s New Left are reproduced today in the meteoric rise and quick collapse of the Occupy Wall Street movement and its European counterparts. Its clarion calls, as in the past, are spontaneity and “horizontalism.”


A second dominant strain in our time is social democracy, a posture that traces its origins and draws its life from hostility to Bolshevism. As an antidote to revolutionary socialism, it attempts to awkwardly straddle the divide between working class advocacy and accommodation to capitalism. It offers an evolutionary road map-- a socialism-lite-- that depicts capitalism as gradually eroding and giving way to a growing public sector. Moreover, the mechanisms established to insure capitalist rule are to be somehow harnessed to this end. The social base for social democracy is the ossified union leadership, opportunist politicians, and a neutered, cowed working class made impervious to revolutionary ideology.


For much of the twentieth century, social democracy rivaled Marxism-Leninism. But after decades of advocating market solutions and supporting imperial belligerency, social democracy-- in the form of center-left political parties-- stands discredited and unpopular.


Where successful campaigns of anti-Communism and fear-mongering had taken root, social democratic parties did thrive. However, when periods of deep crisis appear, social democracy invariably fails the working class. We are in such a period now.


The last gasp of social democracy arose with the election of SYRIZA in Greece. Garbed in a militant swagger and an outlaw persona, SYRIZA quickly became both the darling and flag-bearer for the left wing of social democracy. For Die Linke, France's Left Party, Spain's PODEMOS, and other European movements seeking to revive the social democratic corpse, the Tsipras government of open-collared and casual intellectuals promised the rescue of a spent political philosophy.


But as quickly as SYRIZA rose, it crashed and burned, delivering the Greek people a fate even more onerous than that delivered by earlier governments. But more than a failure, the SYRIZA tenure was a fiasco with an ill-considered national referendum giving the party a mandate to resist, only to be followed immediately by a humiliating surrender.


Not to be deterred by the debacle, the admirers of SYRIZA--- the last bastions of social democracy-- spun a web of apologetics, excuses, and obfuscations worthy of the best confidence artists. Where sober-minded observers drew critical lessons, these sycophants chose to deflect and deny.


Writing in the Peoples World (9-11-2015), Sam Webb, recently retired chair of the Communist Party USA, wrote: “Nevertheless Tsipras still hoped that the large ‘no’ vote of the Greek people in a referendum a week before the negotiations began might give German leaders reason to pause, to reconsider their draconian bargaining posture, and maybe, just maybe, consider some form of debt relief.


Or, alternatively that the vote would nudge France and Italy, as well as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), to show some backbone and stand up to the German capitalist juggernaut.” (my emphases)


“Nudge”? “Reason to pause”? “Reconsider”? “Maybe, just maybe...”?


Are these the considered negotiating objectives of serious leaders confronting the resolute and naked power of European monopoly capital? Do you “nudge” a bully? Do you chance that “maybe just maybe” a ruling class will show compassion? Webb sees history as not the history of class struggles, but the history of class “nudges.”


And then there is Oscar La Fontaine, the godfather of Germany's Die Linke party, writing on Jean-Luc Melanchon's blog (Melanchon is the leader of France's Left Party): “We have learned one thing [from the SYRIZA debacle]: while the European Central Bank, which claims to be independent and apolitical, can turn off the financial tap to a left government, a politics that is oriented towards democratic and social principles is impossible.


It is now necessary for the European left to develop a Plan B for the case where a member party arrives in a comparable situation.” (my emphases).


“Claims to be independent”? Did La Fontaine only recently discover that the ECB is a tool of monopoly capital? Like the cynical Captain Renault in the film Casablanca, La Fontaine is shocked, shocked that the ECB is neither independent nor apolitical! And how dare the ECB deny “a politics that is oriented toward democratic and social principles...” That's not cricket! Like Webb, La Fontaine does not see monopoly capital as the enemy, but as a partner acting unreasonably.


It should be no surprise, accordingly, that La Fontaine's “Plan B” depends upon the EU oligarchs agreeing to disarm the ECB, an outcome as likely as their acceptance of SYRIZA's original plan. Thus, the circle is complete: the Euro-left needs to secure an agreement from the very same forces that “shockingly” denied a moderate agreement in the first place. Could anything be more futile?


Curiously, the former Greek finance minister, Yanis Varoufakis, sees things differently and yet the same! In a long-winded speech in France (Festival of the Roses, 9-23-2015), Varoufakis locates the roots of Europe's problems in its unification: “Why? Because we let our rulers try to do something that cannot be done: to de-politicise money, to turn Brussels, the Eurogroup, the ECB, into politics-free zones.” (my emphasis). So where Germany's La Fontaine faults the European oligarchs for politicizing their decisions, his Greek counterpart faults Europe for de-politicizing its institutions! He goes on incoherently: “When politics and money are de-politicised what happens is that democracy dies. And when democracy dies, prosperity is confined to the very few who cannot even enjoy it behind the gates and the fences they need to build to protect themselves from their victims.


To counter this dystopia the people of Europe must believe again that democracy is not a luxury afforded to creditors and declined to debtors.”


So the debacle arose from a shortage of democracy. And the remedy is for the people of Europe to “...believe again that democracy is not a luxury afforded...” to the few. Varoufakis conveniently deflects the blame that he and his colleagues share for the Greek tragedy onto the people of Europe and their lost belief in democracy. “We do not have to agree on everything. Let us make a start with an agreement that the Eurozone needs to be democratised.”


If only there were more democracy! If only Europe's rulers would see the need to cooperate! And if only the people of Europe would make them act democratically! Smothered by Varoufarkis' petulant burst of disconnected ideas is the simple truth that rulers rule. They rule for their own interests and not to please or recognize supposed oppositional forces like SYRIZA or their ilk.


All three commentators, like many others who fawned after SYRIZA, are now left harboring wild illusions and offering shallow, unimaginative answers to the crises of capitalism.


A Path of Renewal


SYRIZA's harshest critic offers a different answer to the challenge of a wounded, but ruthless capitalism. From surveying most of the left press in Europe and North America, one would not know that the leaders of a Greek political party clearly analyzed the SYRIZA program and accurately predicted its failure. One would not know that only one Greek party now offers the only program even remotely hopeful of resisting the further impoverishment of the Greek people. One would not know that only one political force in Greece gives the Greek people a dignified path forward that does not depend on the “fair-mindedness” of monopoly capital or the condescension of European elites.


That party is the Communist Party of Greece (KKE), a party with both a long history and deep ties with the Greek people.


Shamefully, most of the leaders of the Western left ignore the KKE and its alternative program, a reflection of the deep strains of anti-Communism infecting political thought and the obdurate close-mindedness of the neo-anarchists and social democrats. Thus, the KKE is objectively blacklisted from the Western discussion of a road forward.


With Greek elections coming on September 20, KKE has adopted the campaign slogan: “You have tried them… Now the solution is to be found on the path to overthrow the system, joining forces with the KKE.” This slogan reminds the Greek people and others that finding a solution within capitalism is not only a bad idea, but a proven failure.


“KKE is stressing that the people must not give a 'second chance' to the parties that support the path of capitalist development and the EU, the path that brings the memoranda and the anti-people measures. They must not approve the implementation of the new anti-people memorandum with their votes. They must not give a 'second chance' to those who, in the recent past as well, sowed illusions about the ‘humanization’ of capitalism.” With the Greek people's standards of living approaching the tragic levels found after the Second World War, we are witnessing a preview of where the capitalist crisis is taking the rest of the world. For those who are open to seeing it, the collapse of SYRIZA is a demonstration of the futility of finding a way out of the crisis within the system of capitalism. KKE understands this and offers an alternative; not an easy road, but one more promising than following the dead ends traveled in the past.


KKE electoral success this coming weekend will shorten that road immeasurably as well as provide an inspiration for those of us seeking an alternative to the bankrupt model of social democracy.


KKE gains will improve the chances for a real left revival.


Zoltan Zigedy


zoltanzigedy@gmail.com

http://zzs-blg.blogspot.com/2015/09/hope-for-left-revival.html

To any sober observer, capitalism is in the throes of a deep, profound, multi-faceted crisis. The celebration of fifteen years ago was a hollow and unwarranted declaration of the unstoppable success of capitalism. War, deprivation, and uncertainty are the legacy of those hailing that moment. Few alive today know a time when the future looked so unsure.

The lead sentence is what is in question and cannot simply be asserted. What is the nature and characteristics of this capitalist crisis? More, what is the significance of capitalist crisis in general (since, clearly, crisis does not necessarily mean the system is about to topple)


Now with capitalism on the ropes, one might expect a left upsurge. With political and economic crisis-- endless war and near-depression-- one would expect a revitalized left to emerge today.


It hasn't happened.

Here is where ZZs thinking short circuits, owing at least in part to a (subtle?) strain of economism: capitalism is in profound crisis, he says, but the left not only fails to rise as a legitimate challenger -- it barely rises at all. He can't help but recognize this, but has no particular explanation for it other than the paucity of left "alternatives".
To drive home his point he goes on to assail anarchism (briefly and without much gusto) and social democracy. The latter of which he considers a counter-ideology -- and a failed one!!

Here is argument is barely coherent -- if social democracy is the system's violent retort against Bolshevism -- which is virtually non-existent -- how then is social democracy also an abject failure? Only if one considers "social democracy" to be a left project in the first place!!!

Zigedy vastly underestimates the scope of social democracy while at the same time VASTLY overstating its power by turning it into a monolithic and unassailable fortress of capitalist ideology (note that he effectively says that the "social base" for SD.. is "the working class"!!!)


The social base for social democracy is the ossified union leadership, opportunist politicians, and a neutered, cowed working class made impervious to revolutionary ideology.

How pray tell is the working class neutered and made impervious to revolutionary ideology? Social democratic ideology? Is this not cart before the horse? Do workers subscribe to SD because they are impervious to revolutionary ideology or does SD render them impervious? Furthermore..what revolutionary ideology is on tap?

This is simply a reprise of the MLToday analysis of the Soviet Union. Why is the left failing..due to a lack of leftism (rightist infiltration). In turn, the faltering of leftism (rise of rightist infiltration) suppresses the emergence of the left. W..T..F

Confusion, confusion, confusion. The end result is disorganization and incoherence.

One would not know that only one political force in Greece gives the Greek people a dignified path forward that does not depend on the “fair-mindedness” of monopoly capital or the condescension of European elites.

Karl Marx says that "the worker's have no ideals". The only way forward is to seize political power and turn class exploitation on its head. Then you can pursue the promise of peace, land and bread, not before.

Here is argument is barely coherent -- if social democracy is the system's violent retort against Bolshevism -- which is virtually non-existent -- how then is social democracy also an abject failure? Only if one considers "social democracy" to be a left project in the first place!!!

Zigedy vastly underestimates the scope of social democracy while at the same time VASTLY overstating its power by turning it into a monolithic and unassailable fortress of capitalist ideology (note that he effectively says that the "social base" for SD.. is "the working class"!!!)

Right. It does come out a jumble. This is both hand wringing and self castigation.


How pray tell is the working class neutered and made impervious to revolutionary ideology? Social democratic ideology? Is this not cart before the horse? Do workers subscribe to SD because they are impervious to revolutionary ideology or does SD render them impervious? Furthermore..what revolutionary ideology is on tap?

And throw this in from your next post to put a cap on it:


Karl Marx says that "the worker's have no ideals". The only way forward is to seize political power and turn class exploitation on its head. Then you can pursue the promise of peace, land and bread, not before.

Is ZZ just off his game, or is this some sort of reaction to events? Doesn't really matter, it is drift. I am reading a book on ancient Greek economics and the author is a very big name in Classical History, but his book is full of "factors", as Plekhanov would say, but very short on materialism. It is easy to see how someone can drift away from hard matter and find themselves spinning in air. Leftists (especially self proclaimed Marxists) ought not to spin, they had better be grounded.

I don't know if it is a drift -- crafting a consistently materialist outlook is very difficult and much of the tradition that serves as the pillars upholding the materialist worldview are no longer in place or very decrepit.

I don't know if it is a drift -- crafting a consistently materialist outlook is very difficult and much of the tradition that serves as the pillars upholding the materialist worldview are no longer in place or very decrepit.

Revisionist! I knew it! ;>)

So then these pillars...? I dunno, can't tell which ones you're talking about, but all of the 'givens' ain't, and that corner that we thought we might be turning about 2011 has turned into an endless curve, the fuckers got a shitload of game & ain't nothing gonna come cheaply. Damn good thing that we can rely upon their over-reach to provide an abundance of opportunity.

Double posted trying to edit, sorry

Revisionist! I knew it! ;>)

So then these pillars...? I dunno, can't tell which ones you're talking about, but all of the 'givens' ain't, and that corner that we thought we might be turning about 2011 has turned into an endless curve, the fuckers got a shitload of game & ain't nothing gonna come cheaply. Damn good thing that we can rely upon their over-reach to provide an abundance of opportunity.

Revisionism..

The chief pillar of materialism is the Marxist left -- communists and the large communist canon bequeathed to us (especially Marx, Engels, Lenin but also much broader and robust). You can see the effect of this in evidence in the DPR, Cuba (but..), KKE. ZZ is looking in the right places so I don't by any means think that his struggles are congenital.

Revisionism is a term complicated by its political usage over a lengthy period of time (basically the post Stalin era of really existing socialism). Prior to that it denoted the Bernstein doctrine (tacitly embraced by Kautsky) that socialism would gradually emerge out of its own accord from the womb of capitalism -- with a minimum of muss and fuss even.

The revisionism charges leveled by China and Maoist devotees is a jumble simply because it is wrapped up in a deep critique of Stalin/ism but it is a criticism that points squarely at DE-Stalinization. Often, the Chinese managed only to confuse themselves. That only leads to a lot of bluster and inevitably produces a bellicose outward posture from both parties to the dispute.

Meantime, in the hands of parties such as the KKE "revisionism" serves as a launching pad for a positive program -- rehabilitation of the Stalin era in its entirety. This is much, much more proactive than "defending the gains" and it is egged on by a monstrous and unyielding smear campaign in the West (especially western "scholarship").

The Chinese felt that breakneck industrialization was voluntarism (=primacy of willpower over really existing conditions) which forcibly subordinated the economic base to the political will in a way that could not be sustained or implemented except (if at all) through extreme distortions and gross abuses (loosely, we could call this war communism although it is often denoted as Stalinism which thereby becomes a slur). In particular, they objected to the black and white mentality which brooked virtually no disagreement whatsoever under the premise that all such dissension could only be signs of saboteurs, plotters or secret enemy agents and infiltrators.

The Chinese felt this hardened and undiscerning mentality and way of viewing the world (everyone not confirmed on the whitelist is automatically on the blacklist) would automatically develop alongside the aggressively voluntarist program because the only way to impose arbitrary political dictates was to deny the existence of internal class struggle (ie the really existing conditions which constitute/generate the topography and landscape of what is and is not possible at a given moment) and project all of those faults and rivets in society onto malevolent external forces and actors and their internal agents. (eg if you as an administrator say "this isn't possible" you stand to become subject to severe persecution as a class enemy)

But again, the Chinese argument typically came out in roundabout ways because they were very concerned with defending the legacy of the first socialist state which was hardly separable from the legacy of Stalin himself. That meant that much deference was paid to Stalin (even though the Chinese had many gripes dating back to the mid 20s) in particular as a counterpoint to the post Secret Speech SU (an event which was perceived as a disaster and undeniably had enormously negative and sweeping repercussions for world communism).

Let me just direct you straight to Mao to illustrate:

First the good (but notice that the first sentence informs you this is only a build up to what comes next)


The Communist Party of China has consistently held that Stalin did commit errors, which had their ideological as well as social and historical roots. It is necessary to criticize the errors Stalin actually committed, not those groundlessly attributed to him, and to do so from a correct stand and with correct methods. But we have consistently opposed improper criticism of Stalin, made from a wrong stand and with wrong methods.

Stalin fought tsarism and propagated Marxism during Lenin’s lifetime; after he became a member of the Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party headed by Lenin; he took part in the struggle to pave the way for the 1917 Revolution; after the October Revolution he fought to defend the fruits of the proletarian revolution.

Stalin led the CPSU and the Soviet people, after Lenin’s death, in resolutely fighting both internal and external foes, and in safeguarding and consolidating the first socialist state in the world.

Stalin led the CPSU and the Soviet people in upholding the line of socialist industrialization and agricultural collectivization and in achieving great successes in socialist transformation and socialist construction.

Stalin led the CPSU, the Soviet people, and the Soviet army in an arduous and bitter struggle to the great victory of the anti-fascist war.

Stalin defended and developed Marxism-Leninism in the fight against various kinds of opportunism, against the enemies of Leninism, the Trotskyites, Zinovievites, Bukharinites, and other bourgeois agents.

Stalin made an indelible contribution to the international communist movement in a number of theoretical writings which are immortal Marxist-Leninist works.

Stalin led the Soviet Party and Government in pursuing a foreign policy which on the whole was in keeping with proletarian internationalism and in greatly assisting the revolutionary struggles of all peoples, including the Chinese people.

Stalin stood in the forefront of the tide of history guiding the struggle, and was an irreconcilable enemy of the imperialists and all reactionaries.

Stalin’s activities were intimately bound up with the struggles of the great CPSU and the great Soviet people and inseparable from the revolutionary struggles of the people of the whole world.

Stalin’s life was that of a great Marxist-Leninist, a great proletarian revolutionary.

The other shoe..(it is mild and quite measured or perhaps even euphemistic which somewhat masks the deeper argument taking place)


It is true that while he performed meritorious deeds for the Soviet people and the international communist movement, Stalin, a great Marxist-Leninist and proletarian revolutionary, also made certain mistakes. Some were errors of principle and some were errors made in the course of practical work; some could have been avoided and some were scarcely avoidable at a time when the dictatorship of the proletariat had no precedent to go by.

In his way of thinking, Stalin departed from dialectical materialism and fell into metaphysics and subjectivism on certain questions and consequently he was sometimes divorced from reality and from the masses. In struggles inside as well as outside the Party, on certain occasions and on certain questions he confused two types of contradictions which are different in nature, contradictions between ourselves and the enemy and contradictions among the people, and also confused the different methods needed in handling them. In the work led by Stalin of suppressing the counter-revolution, many counter-revolutionaries deserving punishment were duly punished, but at the same time there were innocent people who were wrongly convicted; and in 1937 and 1938 there occurred the error of enlarging the scope of the suppression of counter-revolutionaries. In the matter of Party and government organization, he did not fully apply proletarian democratic centralism and, to some extent, violated it. In handling relations with fraternal Parties and countries, he made some mistakes. He also gave some bad counsel in the international communist movement. These mistakes caused some losses to the Soviet Union and the international communist movement.

Stalin’s merits and mistakes are matters of historical, objective reality. A comparison of the two shows that his merits outweighed his faults. He was primarily correct, and his faults were secondary. In summing up Stalin’s thinking and his work in their totality, surely every honest Communist with a respect for history will first observe what was primary in Stalin. Therefore, when Stalin’s errors are being correctly appraised, criticized and overcome, it is necessary to safeguard what was primary in Stalin’s life, to safeguard Marxism-Leninism, which he defended and developed.

Later on you see that a bit more comes out:


While defending Stalin, we do not defend his mistakes. Long ago the Chinese Communists had first-hand experience of some of his mistakes. Of the erroneous “Left” and Right opportunist lines which emerged in the Chinese Communist Party at one time or another, some arose under the influence of certain mistakes of Stalin’s, in so far as their international sources were concerned. In the late twenties, the thirties and the early and middle forties, the Chinese Marxist-Leninists represented by Comrades Mao Tse-tung and Liu Shao-chi resisted the influence of Stalin’s mistakes; they gradually overcame the erroneous lines of “Left” and Right opportunism and finally led the Chinese revolution to victory.

But since some of the wrong ideas put forward by Stalin were accepted and applied by certain Chinese comrades, we Chinese should bear the responsibility. In its struggle against “Left” and Right opportunism, therefore, our Party criticized only its own erring comrades and never put the blame on Stalin. The purpose of our criticism was to distinguish between right and wrong, learn the appropriate lessons and advance the revolutionary cause. We merely asked the erring comrades that they should correct their mistakes. If they failed to do so, we waited until they were gradually awakened by their own practical experience, provided they did not organize secret groups for clandestine and disruptive activities. Our method was the proper method of inner-Party criticism and self-criticism; we started from the desire for unity and arrived at a new unity on a new basis through criticism and struggle, and thus good results were achieved. We held that these were contradictions among the people and not between the enemy and ourselves, and that therefore we should use the above method.

https://www.marxists.org/subject/china/documents/polemic/qstalin.htm

Get it? The SU was 8 years removed from the War when Stalin died and the landscape of Europe (and the rest of the globe) was completely reshaped as was their position in the world. One way or another they had to change the paradigm. The PRC was in a very different place -- geographically and mentally -- and saw the same path the SU followed 1929-1945 in their future (including the high likelihood of WWIII) -- only they hoped to get there with fewer "mistakes".

Revisionism..

The chief pillar of materialism is the Marxist left -- communists and the large communist canon bequeathed to us (especially Marx, Engels, Lenin but also much broader and robust). You can see the effect of this in evidence in the DPR, Cuba (but..), KKE. ZZ is looking in the right places so I don't by any means think that his struggles are congenital.

Revisionism is a term complicated by its political usage over a lengthy period of time (basically the post Stalin era of really existing socialism). Prior to that it denoted the Bernstein doctrine (tacitly embraced by Kautsky) that socialism would gradually emerge out of its own accord from the womb of capitalism -- with a minimum of muss and fuss even.

The revisionism charges leveled by China and Maoist devotees is a jumble simply because it is wrapped up in a deep critique of Stalin/ism but it is a criticism that points squarely at DE-Stalinization. Often, the Chinese managed only to confuse themselves. That only leads to a lot of bluster and inevitably produces a bellicose outward posture from both parties to the dispute.

Meantime, in the hands of parties such as the KKE "revisionism" serves as a launching pad for a positive program -- rehabilitation of the Stalin era in its entirety. This is much, much more proactive than "defending the gains" and it is egged on by a monstrous and unyielding smear campaign in the West (especially western "scholarship").

The Chinese felt that breakneck industrialization was voluntarism (=primacy of willpower over really existing conditions) which forcibly subordinated the economic base to the political will in a way that could not be sustained or implemented except (if at all) through extreme distortions and gross abuses (loosely, we could call this war communism although it is often denoted as Stalinism which thereby becomes a slur). In particular, they objected to the black and white mentality which brooked virtually no disagreement whatsoever under the premise that all such dissension could only be signs of saboteurs, plotters or secret enemy agents and infiltrators.

The Chinese felt this hardened and undiscerning mentality and way of viewing the world (everyone not confirmed on the whitelist is automatically on the blacklist) would automatically develop alongside the aggressively voluntarist program because the only way to impose arbitrary political dictates was to deny the existence of internal class struggle (ie the really existing conditions which constitute/generate the topography and landscape of what is and is not possible at a given moment) and project all of those faults and rivets in society onto malevolent external forces and actors and their internal agents. (eg if you as an administrator say "this isn't possible" you stand to become subject to severe persecution as a class enemy)

But again, the Chinese argument typically came out in roundabout ways because they were very concerned with defending the legacy of the first socialist state which was hardly separable from the legacy of Stalin himself. That meant that much deference was paid to Stalin (even though the Chinese had many gripes dating back to the mid 20s) in particular as a counterpoint to the post Secret Speech SU (an event which was perceived as a disaster and undeniably had enormously negative and sweeping repercussions for world communism).

Let me just direct you straight to Mao to illustrate:

First the good (but notice that the first sentence informs you this is only a build up to what comes next)



The other shoe..(it is mild and quite measured or perhaps even euphemistic which somewhat masks the deeper argument taking place)



Later on you see that a bit more comes out:



https://www.marxists.org/subject/china/documents/polemic/qstalin.htm

Get it? The SU was 8 years removed from the War when Stalin died and the landscape of Europe (and the rest of the globe) was completely reshaped as was their position in the world. One way or another they had to change the paradigm. The PRC was in a very different place -- geographically and mentally -- and saw the same path the SU followed 1929-1945 in their future (including the high likelihood of WWIII) -- only they hoped to get there with fewer "mistakes".

I should make flippant reference to left internecine conflict more often, that was well done.

Its worth working out the ultimate implications of the Maoist idea. The true charge being made is economism and perhaps even monomania on the part of the SU: no amount of economic expansion and development by itself, China insists, directly presages communism any more than did the burning desires of revolutionares.

Here is Mao's alternative conception in a nutshell:


The correctness or otherwise of the ideological and political line decides everything. When the Party’s line is correct, then everything will come its way. If it has no followers, then it can have followers; if it has no guns, then it can have guns; if it has no political power, then it can have political power. If its line is not correct, even what it has it may lose. The line is a net rope. When it is pulled, the whole net opens out. (Mao Zedong, “Summary of Chairman Mao’s talks with Responsible Comrades at Various Places during his Provincial Tour from the Middle of August to 12 September 1971,” in Stuart Schram, editor, Chairman Mao Talks to the People: Talks and Letters: 1956–1971 (New York: Pantheon Books, 1974), p.290.)

(Unfortunately, almost every subsequent Maoist group gets so wrapped up in the subjectivist interpretation of the bolded line, that any further analysis stemming therefrom is entirely lost and/or discarded)

PS It should be noted that Stalin said basically the same thing in a response to the Trotsky bloc's allegations (not, ironically, endorsed by Trotsky for very stupid reasons) that Stalin was merely pursuing the policies they had advocated years earlier.

To which Stalin replied "It is not enough to be right. One must be right at the right moment".

Sadly, that is a paraphrase and the source is buried in a book I have somewhere so I can't document it at the moment.

PPS you can definitely see the deterministic point of view in the manner in which social formations were framed inside the SU. The non-party specialists and technical intelligentsia are simply renamed the "socialist intelligentsia". The logic being that in a socialist society, the elements of society can be nothing other than socialist.

Not so incidentally, the topic of the intelligentsia lead to some of the very most bizarre discussions and arguments about the SU.

During the NEP, there were claims that as long as the socialist umbrella remained in place that even the (semi?)-capitalist elements acquired/retained a socialist character. But the NEP was a weird time, and for the most part everyone follows the line that the entire era was obviated by developments post-29. (thus it becomes a footnote relating to Bukharinite deviations). It is also difficult to revisit the pre-Stalin times because they are held up (including by the left) as a precursor to the dramatic collapse of the "working existence" (as Marx puts it reference to the Paris Commune) of 20th century socialism.

Personally, I think this is all the more reason for us to "go there".

This is excellent stuff!


(Unfortunately, almost every subsequent Maoist group gets so wrapped up in the subjectivist interpretation of the bolded line, that any further analysis stemming therefrom is entirely lost and/or discarded)

This is dead-on.

The reason KKE is such a beacon of Marxism is because it is. They put huge efforts into getting it right. The things they print and post, the speeches they give and the slogans they endorse are painstakingly vetted, critiqued and analyzed. They know what they are doing.


The correctness or otherwise of the ideological and political line decides everything. When the Party’s line is correct, then everything will come its way. If it has no followers, then it can have followers; if it has no guns, then it can have guns; if it has no political power, then it can have political power.

This is what they are doing. It is what any communist party anywhere aught to be doing.

This is excellent stuff!



This is dead-on.

The reason KKE is such a beacon of Marxism is because it is. They put huge efforts into getting it right. The things they print and post, the speeches they give and the slogans they endorse are painstakingly vetted, critiqued and analyzed. They know what they are doing.



This is what they are doing. It is what any communist party anywhere aught to be doing.

Yes, its something that has to be achieved in practice and not on paper or in the realm of ideas. And it isn't easy.

Let me elaborate to be 100% sure we are on the same page.

I think you are saying that a (correct) concrete analysis of the situation precedes platforms, programs and is the basis from which all else is developed.

However, it is not literally true that the ideological/political line decides everything.

Lenin says that the task of every revolutionary party is to inform the masses when a revolutionary situation exists and to prepare the masses for the correct moment.

That does not mean that political power will automatically follow since the matter is contingent on the existence of a revolutionary situation.

In this case, the KKE explicitly does NOT believe that such a moment has been reached, even in Greece. They have stated as much on too many occasions to count.

This is a major point of dispute with ZZ where he often seems to equate "capitalist crisis" with "revolutionary situation" and therefore sees the failure of the left to contend for political power as an outright failure of the left.

Yes, its something that has to be achieved in practice and not on paper or in the realm of ideas. And it isn't easy.

No, it isn't easy. But where do we start?

No, it isn't easy. But where do we start?

Start with concrete analysis. Spread it around, see who else is at least on the same plan as us (if not exactly the same page). It would be nice if we could be prolific but we are rather short-handed

Part of the analysis is looking for others who are like-minded (such as ZZ) and comparing notes. Thats what I am trying to do by engaging with his articles.

It feels like grunt work (or at least, it is the kind of work that discourages us from getting grandiose -- which I feel is a much needed tonic) but as Cabral said "we tell no lies and claim no easy victories".

PS I still feel that an important avenue for us is "criticism" including of the left but my brother is more of a team first guy who feels that my proposed approach could lead to caricaturization and unnecessary hurt feelings..so I have backed down a bit.

PS I still feel that an important avenue for us is "criticism" including of the left but my brother is more of a team first guy who feels that my proposed approach could lead to caricaturization and unnecessary hurt feelings..so I have backed down a bit.

Yeah, I tend to agree with your brother, at least to a degree, the temperature should be raised in an appropriate manner as the conversation proceeds, the need might be overwhelming or nonexistant. The nature of the criticism should be in line with the Maoist method described in your 'revisionism' post. Question is, is there anyone out there who is reading what we put up here?

Yeah, I tend to agree with your brother, at least to a degree, the temperature should be raised in an appropriate manner as the conversation proceeds, the need might be overwhelming or nonexistant. The nature of the criticism should be in line with the Maoist method described in your 'revisionism' post. Question is, is there anyone out there who is reading what we put up here?

We may have to take our show on the road. To my mind, critiquing non-leftists is not very valuable. I think we should shore up those on the left who are doing good analyses and be hard on those who aren't. If a real leftist is shown an error or a material oversight, he/she will be glad for the light, if they are pushing an agenda that brooks no criticism, that must be exposed as well. We had a small (very small) discussion with Comrade about non-critical support for groups and individuals who are in opposition to imperialism. I still maintain that no one "deserves" non-critical support. Putin opposes imperialism, is the statement. I will ask again, "Does he?" Is he against all imperialism, ideologically? Or is he trying to avoid being colonized by the West, while at the same time trying to join them in colonizing others? We should support actions that are beneficial or protective of working class people worldwide, but never non-critically.
Is Assad the great socialist leader? I don't know. He shows signs of being many different things at the same time - most persons do. Should we support Assad and Syria against the murderous West (US, EU, NATO, et al)? Yes, of course. Uncritically? No. I gave an example of Marx's reporting on the US Civil War. He was a strong supporter of the North, yet he could and did still criticize the North for what it was - a bourgeois government trying to stamp out vestiges of slavery, not solely (or even primarily) for the benefit of the slave, yet the slave benefitted. The former slave would then be ground down into abject misery by that same society which had freed him/her.

There is only the material reality - that is it, there is nothing else. The hard part is sticking to that materialism through thick and thin. It seems easy for some, but it is very hard for others, myself included.

We may have to take our show on the road. To my mind, critiquing non-leftists is not very valuable. I think we should shore up those on the left who are doing good analyses and be hard on those who aren't. If a real leftist is shown an error or a material oversight, he/she will be glad for the light, if they are pushing an agenda that brooks no criticism, that must be exposed as well. We had a small (very small) discussion with Comrade about non-critical support for groups and individuals who are in opposition to imperialism. I still maintain that no one "deserves" non-critical support. Putin opposes imperialism, is the statement. I will ask again, "Does he?" Is he against all imperialism, ideologically? Or is he trying to avoid being colonized by the West, while at the same time trying to join them in colonizing others? We should support actions that are beneficial or protective of working class people worldwide, but never non-critically.
Is Assad the great socialist leader? I don't know. He shows signs of being many different things at the same time - most persons do. Should we support Assad and Syria against the murderous West (US, EU, NATO, et al)? Yes, of course. Uncritically? No. I gave an example of Marx's reporting on the US Civil War. He was a strong supporter of the North, yet he could and did still criticize the North for what it was - a bourgeois government trying to stamp out vestiges of slavery, not solely (or even primarily) for the benefit of the slave, yet the slave benefitted. The former slave would then be ground down into abject misery by that same society which had freed him/her.

There is only the material reality - that is it, there is nothing else. The hard part is sticking to that materialism through thick and thin. It seems easy for some, but it is very hard for others, myself included.

I have zero interest talking to liberals, progressives or libertarians, let them stew in their own contradictions. They can be on our side of the barricades, or not, our concern is the working class and more immediately preparing for that task.

It is easily possible to approve Russia's action in Syria while despising her behavior in Ukraine. It is clarifying, unlike some of the dour pronouncements from Murid and Suchan this Syrian action shows that Russia is not the complete lapdog of the West. The difference is the NAF and the anti-oligarchic bent they have shown. That the Russian ruling class should confront the imperial hegemon in one place while kowtowing to it in other to facilitate the elimination it's class enemy should confuse anybody but a materialist.