Re: [MLL] some thoughts on the CPUSA: a whole assessment of ourrevolutionary...
"There is much more to creating a “party of insurrection” than adopting formal rules and the Leninists trappings, like saying we are guided by democratic centralism. It was impossible to create, much less sustain a party of a new type in the absence of revolutionary CRISIS. The 1970’s, 80s, 90’s prove that." COMMENT: Building a Bolshevik type party is a subjective thing, based on the reality that a revolutionary working class exists. It can be built at any time during the capitalist / Imperialist menace. The truth is: that there are just "too, three, many parties of a 'new type'" in this here USA, and there always are, everywhere. They all enjoy their cliques and followings: you have the maoist RCP, the one and only anti everyone PLP, you have the Workers World Party, the Party for Socialism and Liberation, and an array of Trotskyist groupings mostly dedicated to red baiting and peddling the anti soviet line. You have those circles committed to party building, but who'd know; and then you have the good people of the LRNA with their 'new class' politics. There are plenty of parties and clusters who claim to lead the revolution. but everybody seems to hate working within the unions and among the broad sectors of the working class mass organizations, they prefer their own tiny clusters where they can assure their influence; they prefer anybody else who's not "white supremacist sell out unions", and some of them tail the petty bourgeois and the bourgeoisie too. So, those who do go among the unions and other mass organizations of the class to organize, get the prize and lead tailing the democrats; and then the "vanguard" parties complain that these "sell outs" don't want to unite with them. What's an advanced communist conscious worker to do? Well, we can't give up can we? We do the best we can, while we witness the charade. f580 --- On Tue, 1/25/11, waistli...@aol.com wrote: From: waistli...@aol.com Subject: Re: [MLL] some thoughts on the CPUSA: a whole assessment of ourrevolutionary... To: marxist-leninist-list@lists.econ.utah.edu Date: Tuesday, January 25, 2011, 3:41 AM In a message dated 1/25/2011 6:38:21 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, _Waist line2@aol.com_ (mailto:waistli...@aol.com) writes: There is much more to creating a “party of insurrection” than adopting formal rules and the Leninists trappings, like saying we are guided by democratic centralism. It was impossible to create, much less sustain a party of a new type in the absence of revolutionary class. The 1970’s, 80s, 90’s prove that. cORRECTION There is much more to creating a “party of insurrection” than adopting formal rules and the Leninists trappings, like saying we are guided by democratic centralism. It was impossible to create, much less sustain a party of a new type in the absence of revolutionary CRISIS. The 1970’s, 80s, 90’s prove that. WL. ___ 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
Re: [MLL] some thoughts on the CPUSA: a whole assessment of ourrevolutionary...
In a message dated 1/25/2011 6:38:21 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, _Waist line2@aol.com_ (mailto:waistli...@aol.com) writes: There is much more to creating a “party of insurrection” than adopting formal rules and the Leninists trappings, like saying we are guided by democratic centralism. It was impossible to create, much less sustain a party of a new type in the absence of revolutionary class. The 1970’s, 80s, 90’s prove that. cORRECTION There is much more to creating a “party of insurrection” than adopting formal rules and the Leninists trappings, like saying we are guided by democratic centralism. It was impossible to create, much less sustain a party of a new type in the absence of revolutionary CRISIS. The 1970’s, 80s, 90’s prove that. WL. ___ 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
Re: [MLL] some thoughts on the CPUSA: a whole assessment of ourrevolutionary...
George is most certainly entitled to his opinion. q Everyone agree the CPUSA was never a party of insurrection or a “party of a new type,” Bolshevized. Nor were any of the anti-revisionist clusters of the 70’s and 80’s. The question posed was why? There is much more to creating a “party of insurrection” than adopting formal rules and the Leninists trappings, like saying we are guided by democratic centralism. It was impossible to create, much less sustain a party of a new type in the absence of revolutionary class. The 1970’s, 80s, 90’s prove that. Waistline ___ 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
Re: [MLL] some thoughts on the CPUSA: a whole assessment of ourrevolutionary...
Comrade George, Your reply and is most certainly appreciated and I too do not have time at the moment to waste in answering Melvins absurdity. My only, and quick comment for the moment is that Melvin is wrong on mst accounts and wants only to assert his revisionist nonsense and I must admit it is most difficult to respond to this revisionist in a kindly manner. I will, however, respond as soon as I have time. His incorrect views must not only be challenged but completely dismissed as being anything close to Marxist. I am not sure why we even have to endure dealing with this revisionist who knows almost nothing but is slick enough to make his crap sound almost plausible in terms of Marxist sounding rhetoric. I think it has been shown that he is a wrecker and diversionist and genuine Marxists are sick of his revisionist rants Fraternally Mark Scott --- On Mon, 1/24/11, George G wrote: From: George G Subject: Re: [MLL] some thoughts on the CPUSA: a whole assessment of ourrevolutionary... To: "For the reaffirmation of Marxism-Leninism" Date: Monday, January 24, 2011, 4:36 PM Dear comrades and friends, This comment of Waistline's is both short enough (though I expect another series of posts from him shortly, which I will not have time to answer) and wrong enough that I need to comment on it. Waistline says that It was impossible to Bolshevize the CPUSA when there were not insurrectionary conditions. This is incorrect. Lenin was one who pointed out that the Bolshevik party had to know both how to advance under revolutionary conditions and to retreat when the enemy was stronger. Bolshevism was a method that allowed for insurrection under revolutionary conditions, and to prepare the advanced working class to take its place to be ready when conditions were right. The Comintern tried to help the CPUSA become Bolshevized, but it could not, and did not, "force positions" on the CPUSA. I do not know what happened to the langauge presses (if someone has specific information in that it would be good if they could send it to the list). But I do know something about the CPUSA's position on the Black National Question, mostly from reading Black Bolshevik. The position calling for the right of self-determination in the Black Belt South was raised by elements in the Comintern, and accepted by elements in the CPUSA (Haywood himself in particular). Together the pro-self determination elements in the Comintern (particularly in the SU) and in the CPUSA got the line accepted in both the Comintern and the CPUSA. There is no doubt that the fact that the CPUSA had a large portion of European immigrants led to many problems. This was true of the socialist movement in the USA for over 150 years: the first genuine Marxist leader in the US, Karl Wedemeyer, was himself a German immigrant. But Wedemeyer showed himself able to learn from US history, becoming a military and political leader in the North during the Civil War in the fight against slavery. The CPUSA was also able to go beyond its largely European roots by accepting the revolutionary position on the Black National Question, with international help. The CPUSA made tremendous strides forward during the 1930s, building a mass base among the industrial workers, playing a leading role in formation of the CIO; that it made mistakes in the application of the policy of the united front against fascism (and these have to be looked at carefully, not just by making blanket statements about its tailing Roosevelt) were certainly encouraged by the objective situation, that in the 1930s there was not a revolutionary situation in the US. But none of this means that there was nothing the CPUSA could do but "work within this flow." Even in a non-revolutionary situation one can win advanced workers to ML. Fraternally, George - Original Message - From: waistli...@aol.com To: marxist-leninist-list@lists.econ.utah.edu Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 10:58 AM Subject: Re: [MLL] some thoughts on the CPUSA: a whole assessment of ourrevolutionary... In a message dated 1/24/2011 9:18:50 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, _intangibles@aphenomenal.com_ (mailto:intangib...@aphenomenal.com) writes: If the party had bolshevised itself back in the 1920s in the manner recommended by the Comintern throughout the 1920s and 1930s, this distinction would have been strictly maintained. The toxic impact of Browder's line and leadership style was that liberalism on this front was not seriously dealt with, let alone dealt with in time. Comment If? Such was impossible. One cannot build a party of insurrection outside revolutionary conditions and the revolutionary crisis. The revolutionary crisis is an aspect of the leap - transition, from one economic-political-social formation to another. The struggle for industrial unions w
Re: [MLL] some thoughts on the CPUSA: a whole assessment of ourrevolutionary...
Dear comrades and friends, This comment of Waistline's is both short enough (though I expect another series of posts from him shortly, which I will not have time to answer) and wrong enough that I need to comment on it. Waistline says that It was impossible to Bolshevize the CPUSA when there were not insurrectionary conditions. This is incorrect. Lenin was one who pointed out that the Bolshevik party had to know both how to advance under revolutionary conditions and to retreat when the enemy was stronger. Bolshevism was a method that allowed for insurrection under revolutionary conditions, and to prepare the advanced working class to take its place to be ready when conditions were right. The Comintern tried to help the CPUSA become Bolshevized, but it could not, and did not, "force positions" on the CPUSA. I do not know what happened to the langauge presses (if someone has specific information in that it would be good if they could send it to the list). But I do know something about the CPUSA's position on the Black National Question, mostly from reading Black Bolshevik. The position calling for the right of self-determination in the Black Belt South was raised by elements in the Comintern, and accepted by elements in the CPUSA (Haywood himself in particular). Together the pro-self determination elements in the Comintern (particularly in the SU) and in the CPUSA got the line accepted in both the Comintern and the CPUSA. There is no doubt that the fact that the CPUSA had a large portion of European immigrants led to many problems. This was true of the socialist movement in the USA for over 150 years: the first genuine Marxist leader in the US, Karl Wedemeyer, was himself a German immigrant. But Wedemeyer showed himself able to learn from US history, becoming a military and political leader in the North during the Civil War in the fight against slavery. The CPUSA was also able to go beyond its largely European roots by accepting the revolutionary position on the Black National Question, with international help. The CPUSA made tremendous strides forward during the 1930s, building a mass base among the industrial workers, playing a leading role in formation of the CIO; that it made mistakes in the application of the policy of the united front against fascism (and these have to be looked at carefully, not just by making blanket statements about its tailing Roosevelt) were certainly encouraged by the objective situation, that in the 1930s there was not a revolutionary situation in the US. But none of this means that there was nothing the CPUSA could do but "work within this flow." Even in a non-revolutionary situation one can win advanced workers to ML. Fraternally, George - Original Message - From: waistli...@aol.com To: marxist-leninist-list@lists.econ.utah.edu Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 10:58 AM Subject: Re: [MLL] some thoughts on the CPUSA: a whole assessment of ourrevolutionary... In a message dated 1/24/2011 9:18:50 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, _intangibles@aphenomenal.com_ (mailto:intangib...@aphenomenal.com) writes: If the party had bolshevised itself back in the 1920s in the manner recommended by the Comintern throughout the 1920s and 1930s, this distinction would have been strictly maintained. The toxic impact of Browder's line and leadership style was that liberalism on this front was not seriously dealt with, let alone dealt with in time. Comment If? Such was impossible. One cannot build a party of insurrection outside revolutionary conditions and the revolutionary crisis. The revolutionary crisis is an aspect of the leap - transition, from one economic-political-social formation to another. The struggle for industrial unions was not revolutionary but a reform movement under condition of reform of the system. No one can turn one quality (a reform movement) into another (revolutionary movement/revolutionary crisis) based on thinking and ideology. No one can build a "party of a new type" and it operates as a party of insurrection because it is a good idea. The period of the 1970's, 1980's and 1990's prove this beyond a doubt. The Comintern had to force positions on the CPUSA; dismantle the language presses which needs to be understood. These were European language press in a country of English and Spanish speaking people. The largest group of American communists were foreign born barely speaking English going in the 1920's and beyond. This was under conditions where no less than 70% of the workers in Detroit - the party strong hold, spoke English. Then of course there was the Oct. 1928 Comintern written document - Negro Question, forced on the party. The CPUSA fundamental misunderstanding of the Negro Question and its urgency was not the re
