Dear Comrades, Why don't we discard the membership of such revisionists from this list? Moderators should consider this option.
Sandeep On 21 January 2011 20:27, frankenstein580 <frankied...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > COMRADE NIKOGDA, > > "What direction the U.S. working class takes at this moment is so > important to the future of the world revolutionary movement because > it possesses among its ranks the most advanced experience of modern > conditions of capitalist production. But it desperately needs > revolutionary theory and the last more than a century of American > pragmatic philosophy in all fields has blocked that theoretical > advance. The largest piece of that block was actually put in place by > Browder and his wrecking of the Party in his day." > > COMMENT: > > > Please go on describing the revisionist path of the OLD CPUSA.... and > perhaps some thing new and better would come of it. > > Something terribly happened in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe with the > collapse of socialism and it would have to be summed up sometime because it > would provide the clue to what is occurring in the communist movement today > in America, USA and perhaps throughout Europe and elsewhere. > > What the working class and its fight for emancipation is certainly > experiencing TODAY is the RESULTS of that phenomenon which two leading > Marxist during that time loudly proclaimed as REVISIONISM, and that would be > MAO and ENVER HOXHA. > > I blame the dominance of Imperialism for setting the conditions and > difficulties for a socialist society to survive in this era, but it only > meant that the communist parties had to be all that much more keen in its > dictatorship and vigilance, and correct in its manipulation and engagement > with Imperialism. That is why I maintain that some form of socialism and > indeed State Capitalism holds on in China, DPRK, Cuba, and Vietnam. I could > only wish the revolutionary contingents in these countries victory over the > REVISIONIST squadron and pray that the same retrograde fate of Russia and > Eastern Europe does not become of them. > > I'm a product of the anti revisionist movement of the 70's, which gave rise > to quite a few anti revisionist groupings which we may be familiar with and > which I won't elaborate here now. We had judged the CPUSA: Not > revolutionary, and so two aspects to the communist movement > interlocked...... and I'll say, even to this day! > > I dare say that this character, here, represents remnants of that > revisionist politics degenerated to its logical conclusion...... the > ostracizing of the working class as the revolutionary aspect in its > contradiction with capital. After all, the revisionists, starting with > Khruschev, began the process of removing the class, little by little, from > its commanding status, while the Party, being steadily infiltrated by extra > class elements, underground economists, criminals and the like, began to > dictate to the class. The RESULTS is what we now know. > > The dictatorship of the proletariat, via its non party organizations and > councils, etc. is very, very key in maintaining socialism and onward to > communism... if we haven't learned that lesson, then where the #$%^& is > our mind. > > We are still in the era of Imperialism...... what little has changed? > ..... What' a 60 years span in history? ..... Practically NOTHING! Sure, > there's been some qualitative changes in the process: Space exploration, > robotics, medicine...... many "breakthroughs" in the civil rights > movement. But the capitalist process has not changed. Imperialism, in > all its ramifications, remains more or less as that described by Lenin, > Stalin, Mao, and still, nowadays, by leading communists; IT CONTINUES TO > DECAY while the people's movement blooms. > > Lenin and Stalin, and perhaps even Fidel and sometimes Mao, represented an > advanced stage of people relationship during the era of Imperialism. They > supervised, if you will, the attempted construction of socialism in one > country.... and, may I add, were quite successful. Their major menace was > Imperialism and its internal objective agents within the Parties. The > DPRK, Cuba, [to name just these two, that I'm certain of] were able to > impose a more stringent dictatorship AGAINST CAPITAL AND IMPERIALISM and > perhaps that it why they've been able to maintain a stronger direction > toward socialism than, let's say China. I don't know.... it's a thesis of > mine. > > But, these socialist societies, representing an "advanced stage of > people's relationship", contain the substance of what it takes to build > socialism, and the fact that Imperialism oppresses and exploits them, to > this day, and imposes its upper heavy hand upon them and invents robotics > and techniques to further exploit and impoverish the working classes here > and there, does not indicate the preponderance of Imperialist "economic > communism" upon them. And that is the offense which the "new class" > theory, as expounded by this guy, is suggesting. > > There is no doubt that the new means of production will alleviate drudgery > and grant us, on the other hand, leisure and satisfaction...... that is the > power of the productive forces as supported by our materialist conception of > history, and there is no ifs and buts about it. The productive forces > leads the way. BUT, here is a BUT on a parallel matter....... the > Imperialist order is destructive and moribund. > > Marx and Engels, and Lenin, and Stalin, and the experience of socialism, > and the significance of the dictatorship of the proletariat, demonstrates > that it takes a seizure of the State, the center of the superstructure, a > revolution in the RELATIONS, in that the fetters of capitalism be abolished > and the release of the new productive forces be effective in serving the > people. Machines are nevertheless a TOOL in the hands of the proletariat > or its State. > > The "new class" thesis propagates much of this understanding, above, to its > merit.... but it commits a grave error in that it over emphasizes these > productive forces aspect of the contradiction between it and the RELATIONS > OF PRODUCTION to the exclusion of the Marxist revolutionary class, and > invents a new one which it claims has NO connection whatsoever to capitalism > yet does so to the ROBOTIC means of production in so much that the "new > class" does not labor and must be sustain according to the communist > principle: "to each according to their needs", OMITTING the first part of > that phrase: "FROM EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR ABILITY......" > > Nevertheless, the ostracism of the Marxist revolutionary working class is > revisionism of a very vile and new type. And world events prove otherwise. > > The time will come, here in America, USA, when the working class will > assume socialism again, like Engels predicted of the "bourgeoisified" > workers of England, and so confounding elements and unbelievers will come > again scrambling behind the working class begging forgiveness and > nonchalantly and casually redefining their revisionism to meet the new > demands of the time.... and again they will be judged by the revolutionary > class.... > > "Labor will become man's prime want" > Marx; when the working class is emancipated. > > Something not understood by the new class advocates. > > yours, > f580 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Thu, 1/20/11, Nikogda Nichevo <intangib...@aphenomenal.com> wrote: > > From: Nikogda Nichevo <intangib...@aphenomenal.com> > Subject: Re: [MLL] The Communist society thesis: Goodbye Stalin > To: "For the reaffirmation of Marxism-Leninism" < > marxist-leninist-list@lists.econ.utah.edu> > Date: Thursday, January 20, 2011, 6:17 PM > > Greetings on Day 4 of the Tunisian revolt! These youth are like our > own youth from the '60s -- they fear nothing and no-one. Outside the > country the situation looks very murky and unreadable but the > repeated turnout of the people into the streets every time the > caretaker transition government tries to pull another piece of wool > over the people's eyes is a pretty good indicator that nothing's > going to calm down until the people see a government shorn of agents > of the Old Guard. And every day the movement returns to the streets > the other Arab reactionary governments shiver and shake further in > their boots. Many more things are starting to come out, like the fact > that Ghaddafi offered the fleeing Ben Ali refuge before the latter > decided he preferred the relative safety and protected obscurity of a > palace in under the protection of the Saud royal house. The US seems > utterly flummoxed at the moment and France, the real neocolonial > power there is also at their wits' end. > > I raise this ... > > 1. because the Tunisian revolt from below is a development that > seems bound to further stir the movements in the Arab world at the > expense of the established oligarchies; > > 2. because it is the deed of the masses themselves from below in > which the youth seem to have lost all fear of the repressive powers > still in the hands of the state [although temporarily somewhat cowed > by the mass scale that they are expected somehow to "contain"]; and > > 3. because it seems to illustrate a very essential truth we all need > to remember in here that if one is revolutionary but not necessarily > or yet Marxist, matters can still progress, whereas if one is > [book-]Marxist but not revolutionary or revolutionary-minded, any > "movement" will become quickly co-opted. It took the U.S. authorities > some time to exhaust and co-opt the rebellious youth of the 1960s and > many of those who were revolutionary and became Marxist at that time > remained in motion for decades since, down to this day, whereas those > who were "Marxist" but revolutionary not-so-much drifted off or > joined the State one way or another. > > Matters will be settled in Tunisia when the working masses of town > and country can come together and put their stamp on things. > Apparently the Tunisian CP's return from exile and removed from the > stigma of illegality is widely mooted to be happening soon. > > The U.S. imperialist state has always been as murderous as they come > so literally thousands of activists suffered at their hands, yet > even among these comrades, those who took up M-L and were not > exterminated in prison "riots" or rigged-up assassinations were able > by and large to come to terms with the experience of state repression > and use it a source of lessons for the future. > > The working class did not lead the mass movement in the '60s but many > of its best activists recognised the temporary vanguard role played > for a short while by the youth, students, African-American community > etc. in re-stoking the spirit of rebellion that had been repressed > among the workers. The workers across the U.S. and Canada have been > playing a much bigger role in the antiwar movements of the last > decade than at any time in the preceding 40 years. > > So... the revolutionary instinct and the class instinct eventually > find each other and hook up but whether they accomplish much depends > on how consciously they make use of their collective experiences of > struggle and for this the telescope and microscope of dialectical and > historical materialism are indispensable as is the accumulated > political wisdom and lessons of the movement organised and led first > by V.I Lenin and then by J.V. Stalin. > > It is quite glorious to be alive and active at a time when this > spirit seems to be unfolding in the Arab world, and not necessarily > in antagonistic contradiction with Islam but on the basis of working > with all those whose thirst for social justice prepares them to stand > the gaffe and ready themselves for unprecedented sacrifice for the > collective goal of social and national liberation. > > Cdces here will have note that I allude from time to time to > Browderite revisionism. It really did untold damage to the movement > of the U.S. workers because it seriously proposed that the workers > should give up the independent politics of the revolutionary > proletariat and reduce Marxism-Leninism to the work of an educational > society. Longer-term veterans of the movement than me can point out > that such stuff is meaningless because the movement today doesn't > have any hangovers from that negative experience. However, here I > would have to disagree and pretty militantly, because the fact is the > US communists themselves did not put paid to Browder's legacy > themselves, and confined themselves to affirming the Cominform's > condemnation, as though that ended matters. Lenin's article about > "The Heritage We Renounce" provides a guideline that I wish the > communist worker comrades in the U.S. would reflect on and find a way > to apply with regard to explicitly putting Browderism behind the > movement from this point on. > > What direction the U.S. working class takes at this moment is so > important to the future of the world revolutionary movement because > it possesses among its ranks the most advanced experience of modern > conditions of capitalist production. But it desperately needs > revolutionary theory and the last more than a century of American > pragmatic philosophy in all fields has blocked that theoretical > advance. The iargest piece of that block was actually put in place by > Browder and his wrecking of the Party in his day. The U.S. working > class needs M-L theory today to move forward in the same sense that > Cde Stalin was telling the Soviet executives 70 years ago why they > needed to Bolshevik sweep combined with American efficiency in order > to ensure that Soviet socialist industrialization would be positioned > to ensure the country's ability not only to produce and distribute > industrial goods and consumer goods but also to ensure that > agriculture was modernized with the machinery needed to ensure the > populace was fed by agriculture adequately, as well as to ensure the > defence of the country from foreign invasion etc. The working class > has to play its leading role if revolution is to "take" in the U.S.; > lackadaisical attitude to theory will mean it can't fulfill that > leading role. The workers can always make use of M-L theory to wage > the economic struggle better, of course, but they also need it as a > guideline so they can plan to take and actually win state power. > > As annoying as I find individual revisionist lullabies in here and > sometimes feel provoked into responding to "directly", I try to keep > the thrust against revisionism as a trend that blocks the class and > the society from being able to move forward. Personally I find the > experiences that Cdes Mark Scott and f580 share here are quite > valuable because they reflect that fighting spirit of a working class > that has had to fight especially hard for theory and figuring out how > to apply it to solve or even address concrete problems confronting > the practical movement. > > Best regards > > PS - What can we call these characters or this thinking that > recognizes the contributions of Josef Vissarionovich Stalin and yet > repeatedly seeks ways of saying well this don't apply here or today. > Maybe we can call such thinking "Stalinoid"? What say you all? > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list > Marxist-Leninist-List@lists.econ.utah.edu > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list > Marxist-Leninist-List@lists.econ.utah.edu > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list > _______________________________________________ Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list Marxist-Leninist-List@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
