On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 12:12 AM, hari kumar wrote: Good am Marv:
Good afternoon (PST), Hari. Your comments in italics followed by my replies. I had not realised that you had thought this was so central at the moment in your concerns. To be honest for my own part, I was more concerned at the moment, to digest the elections and considering its immediate, medium and long term. FWIW - I'll re-look at this, since it was originally addressed as a reply to a comment I made. I’m surprised you regard my comments as a distraction. They were in reply to what I thought were implausible “blueprints” about how we politically isolated individuals could mobilize the working class, especially women, against Trump. (Your own skepticism was expressed more diplomatically). However, you challenged me to explain more fully what I meant by “wishful thinking” rooted in “idealism" on the Marxist left and the discussion proceeded from there. I also made my thoughts on united fronts fully known on a separate thread, evidence that I’ve also been trying “to digest the election” and its likely consequences. You write: Marv Gandall Nov 10 #33475 1. Thesis: 'Fidelity to the Leninist model-> sectarianism. "I've concluded that the Leninist model was designed for revolutionary conditions, and that absent such conditions, fidelity to the model leads to sectarian isolation. “ That has been the historical record, but it’s not inherent in the model and conflicts with what I said earlier, as you reference here: In this earlier note: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/33404. You had agreed: " that a Leninist group better “prepares" activists to intervene in outbreaks of mass activity by providing them with the necessary political education and organizing skills. And, finally, I agree that if such mass activity were to culminate in a revolutionary crisis, a democratic centralist party would be required to lead it to a successful conclusion. “ True. My biggest political growth spurt was my relatively brief but intense participation in the League for Socialist Action and, to a lesser, extent the breakaway Revolutionary Marxist Group in the late 60’s and early 70’s. I learned organizing skills, not least the need to always take into account the relationship of forces, which proved invaluable in the various unions and political groups to which I belonged. This was also true for the most part of Marxists from other tendencies which I encountered. 2. In fact you had also stated: Leninist model-> Was spectacularly successful." "What gave rise to these organizational forms was the underlying view that there was a crisis of leadership in the workers’ movement, with the reformist leaders lagging and restraining the revolutionary impulses of the base. This thesis proved to be spectacularly vindicated in the Bolshevik Revolution”. True. The Bolsheviks were more in tune with the revolutionary temper of the masses than were the reformist Mensheviks and SR’s and were therefore able to wrest the leadership away from them. In other advanced capitalist countries, particularly in Hungary and Germany, the revolutionary workers fell short of the necessary support from returning veterans, peasants, and other workers within the reformist parties which benefitted the Bolsheviks. 3. However you say that the situation is different now "Evidence that the reformist consciousness of the union and union-backed party leaders typically reflects rather than lags the consciousness of their members and supporters. If it were otherwise, Marxists who have intervened in the workers’ movement in the advanced capitalist economies would have long since recovered their lost influence." My comment. i) Marv - I do not know why you think anything is different. There were long 'fallow periods' in the First International, during which Marx and Engels were trying to prepare the forces of the Communist league; Lenin was preparing the Iskra with his Bolsheviks for years before a 'break'. Such is the very long period since end WW2. But, we are into change now - in a big way I suspect (see iv). We have been saying “we are into change now in a big way" since the Bolshevik Revolution. It was easy to believe this during the Depression through WW II and the leading role played by the Communist parties in the unions, social movements, and armed resistance. It was even possible to believe things were finally going to break our way in the postwar period through to the 80’s when rural-based national liberation movements in the global South led by the left were triumphant. But since then the Soviet Union collapsed, capitalism expanded and forced the revolutions in China and elsewhere into reverse, trade union growth and militancy effectively disappeared in the West, social democratic parties distanced themselves from the organized working class and dropped any reference to socialism in their programs, and Western Marxism was purged from the working class and exiled to the academy, where it has been subjected to postmodernist and other forms of philosophical idealism for decades. So, with respect, your comment about an impending major change in the balance of class forces is a sentiment I have repeatedly heard in our milieu for all of my political life, akin to the faith-based “optimism of the will” and similar references to Gramsci who, in case it needs reminding, belonged to the mass Communist movement of the interwar period rather than to its shattered and isolated remnants of today. Of course, the long sweep of history is not static and capitalism will not last forever, but theory and practice should be attuned to the world as it is now. ii) The reformist leaders "reflect the workers" - true - but I would have my cake and eat it, and say that a small layer of them also "lag it" the workers, that layer being the labour aristocracy. You are surely not saying they have disappeared? I’ve been involved at both the rank and file and leadership level in four unions across different sectors of the working class, as I’ve noted previously. I rarely encountered union leaders and activists in any whose political consciousness lagged rather than reflected the base. Many rose from the ranks as local militants and most were NDP supporters while the working class majority voted for the Liberals and Conservatives. In the US, most union leaders and members are Democrats and the growing legion of working class MAGA Republicans who have broken with them can hardly be said to represent a higher level of political consciousness. In industrial disputes, when strike votes fail or poor contracts are ratified, it’s invariably because the majority of workers voting have made an assessment of the relationship of forces based on their experience in the workplace. To suggest, as is so often the case on the left, that these workers are easily manipulated creatures of the bureaucracy is to deny them, in the modern vernacular, “agency”. As for the claim that the working class in the advanced capitalist countries is an “aristocracy”, this is true in relation to the workers in the global South but within their own societies they are still ruthlessly exploited and their living conditions have become increasingly precarious. Calling such workers “aristocrats” is for me too suggestive of bourgeois propaganda justifying the rollback of benefits from “pampered” and “privileged” workers, especially those belonging to unions. iii) I believe there are sectarians outside of any Leninist organisation. I think that Lenin gave advice against sectarianism. I think its repetitive rise reflects an 'easier path mentality' and is dangerous. I do not accept that the Leninist structure *of itself* gives rise to sectarianism. As so much else this requires a longer historical consideration, and I have not the time to do that now...I only say this in relation Marvyn's core concern- which I interpret that Leninist organisations inevitably bring about sectarian thinking. Marv If I mis-state your core concern in the last 2 notes, please correct. I also don’t believe that sectarianism is inherent in the concept of the Leninist party, and agree there are more left-wing sectarians outside of contemporary Leninist formations largely because of their greater numerical weight. In theory, a relatively homogenous party of politically advanced workers and intellectuals able to debate and resolve differences in a comradely and orderly way and to engage in sustained political work is the ideal. It would be quite unlike the unruly Marxmail list which contains disparate individuals at different levels of political consciousness and commitment to disciplined and constructive debate. The Bolsheviks under Lenin came closest to this ideal in a revolutionary period, but even they arguably fell short of it under the pressure of civil war and subsequent encirclement by the capitalist powers. It's hardly to be expected that the many Leninist groups wracked by finger-pointing faction fights and splits in a period of reaction would fare any better or even come close to the ideal. It's mostly due to objective conditions, but I also suggested it has something to do with what is IMO their sectarian orientation to the dominant left-centre parties. There seems to be little to no appreciation that “if the mountain will not come to Mohammed, then Mohammed must go to the mountain”. I expressed this thought more concretely in my reply to you, that the main forces of any new revolutionary socialist party would most likely emerge from these reformist organizations after an internal struggle to change their direction and leadership. However, most Leninist groups and their sympathizers oppose any orientation to the dominant left-centre formations even when there is motion to the left or groups like the DSA within them, which leads me to assume they would be by-passed in a more profound working class radicalization. Consequently, if we were in the same party, I would urge that our political direction be more determined by the criteria outlined here: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/32781. As always, I'd be interested in your further thoughts. Meanwhile all the best, Marv -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#33507): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/33507 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/109504727/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
