"Marxism recognises a class struggle . . . . in the most significant thing in politics - the organisation of state power." Lenin
Comment "Entering An Epoch of Social Revolution" by Nelson Peery is available on line in its entirety. (Quote) "We can honestly state that from the very beginning, we intended to build a political party based on the class struggle and guided by scientific socialism. There was no class struggle and we knew very little Marxism. We could not create a class struggle so we set about creating an organization of Marxists." There was no class struggle means there was no struggle for and over the organization of state power. Class struggle is political. It is the life and death fight to overthrow a social system. Class struggle is the struggle for political power. In the 1970's there was no class struggle, but bitter conflicts, strike waves, wage struggles, anti-war protest and rebellions. II. Russia was pregnant with revolution caused by the steam engine - industrial revolution. Insurrection was possible because Russian society was living the revolutionary leap or revolutionary crisis. Revolutionary crisis is not people being pissed off and hunger; marching in their thousands and hundred of thousands or in revolt. Millions can be in protest and revolt; general strikes can shake the country to its foundation, without "revolutionary crisis." What made this "insurrectionary posture" possible was the existence of "revolutionary crisis," intertwined with the revolutionary process. The revolutionary crisis grows out of class struggle - the fight for and over the organization of state power. Lenin's group became bolshevized in interactivity with a revolutionary environment, defined as the revolutionary crisis. This was the objective material context in which "the party of a new type was born." America was not pregnant with revolution but experiencing a cyclical crisis of capital, as the country passed through successive boundaries of the industrial revolution. III. During the past century American communist groups waged "the revolutionary struggle" for reform. All organizations had to conform to the reform movement no matter what rules, principles, ideology, or pronouncements adopted. This meant one could not sustain their membership based on class struggle - a struggle for political power. That is why none of us could Bolshevize in the 1970's, 80's or 90's, and why the CPUSA could not. There are other factors. We have our own experience between 1970 and 2011 "attempting" to build a revolutionary party or "party of a new type" and every effort by everyone has failed. Why? The answer cannot be simply revisionism. Waistline PS The concept of revolutionary process, revolutionary crisis and class struggle is specific. Marx describes the revolutionary process in the Manifesto. The revolutionary process is the quantitative development of means of production, the "advance of industry," and the boundaries a social system pass through. The revolutionary crisis is a process whereby the state is polarized and turned inward upon itself - brought to logger head; under conditions where qualitatively new means of production compel society to reorganize itself - leap forward or die, and this make it possible for an insurrectionary force to overthrow the political state. The revolutionary crisis, of which Lenin writes exhaustively, is the crisis period of leap - transition, from one political order to another. _______________________________________________ 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
