This great! On Tue Feb 16th, 2010 11:00 AM EST Sithembewena tsembeyi wrote:
> > > >Redefining >our mode of thought towards Marxism-Leninism towards Socialism > > > > >Comrades >over and above we have been engaging in discussions within the forum, >some have deteriorated to a level of rhetoric's, some have been >fruitful, some lacking content and some left memories. But however >the intention was to maximize our understanding of Marxism – >Leninism, in strengthening our revolutionary tusk towards socialism >in conceptualizing and negating our theoretical understanding in the >cause. I am of the view, taking from the number of participation by >fellow comrades and those that can't live without felling the >revolutionary responsible caderiance around them, for Example the >members of the reactionary semi-imperialist organization COPE. It is >very overwhelming that almost all of us from YCL, SACP, ANC and the >YL don't even know of their forums nor do we even intend to >participate, provoking but they cant resist the amount of clarity >commanded by these revolutionary organization through the likes of >this YCL forum. > > > >Our >role in transformation theoretical interpretations, understanding and >analyzing is defensively unresistable to them. However as commun's >we now have a revolutionary duty of not just engaging on debated that >are unfounded and though we are context unclear of these, we would >further seek to derail such discussions with insults and name >calling, this should seize to be a habitual practice in our >revolutionary organization. > > > > > > >It >is also necessary for us as commun's to openly engage >discussions on a more Marxist -Leninist fashion, ours is to be guided >by the revolutionary tools of analysis and our theory in >understanding Marxism practices. In this we need to absolute reefer >to our responsibilities and undertake theory as a measure of great >relief to understanding our material conditions my point is one >should at all time seek to be a good communists, and it is by this we >need to vindicate the assumptions that this responsibility will come >natural so to say... we need further to take self cultivation seeking >to understand our roles as commun's..The >question I shall discuss is how members of the Communist Party should >cultivate and temper themselves. It may not be unprofitable to the >building and consolidation of the Party to take up this question at >this present time. > > > > > >I. >Why Communists Must Undertake Self Cultivation > > > > > > >Why >must Communists undertake to cultivate themselves? > > > > > > >In >order to live, man must wage a struggle against nature and make use >of nature to produce material values. At all times and under all >conditions, his production of material things is social in character. >It follows that when men engage in production at any stage of social >development, they have to enter into certain relations of production >with one another. In their ceaseless struggle against nature, men >ceaselessly change nature and simultaneously change themselves and >their mutual relations. Men themselves, their social relations, their >form of social organization and consciousness were all different from >what they are today, and in the future they will again be different. > > > > > > >Mankind >and human society are in process of historical development. When >human society reached a certain historical stage, classes and class >struggle emerged. Every member of a class society exists as a member >of a given class and lives in given conditions of class struggle. >Man’s social being determines his consciousness. In class society >the ideology of the members of each class reflects a different >position and different class interests. The class struggle constantly >goes on among these classes with their different positions, interests >and ideologies. Thus it is not only in the struggle against nature >but in the struggle of social classes that men change nature, change >society and at the same time change themselves. > > > > > >Marx >and Engels said: > > > > >“Both >for the production on a mass scale of this communist consciousness, >and for the success of the cause itself, the alteration of men on a >mass scale is necessary, an alteration that can only take place in a >practical movement, a revolution; >the revolution is necessary, therefore, not only because the ruling >class cannot be overthrown in any other way, but also because the >class overthrowing >it can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of all the muck >of ages and become fitted to found society anew. >” > > > > >That >is to say, the proletariat must conscientiously go through long >periods of social revolutionary struggles and, in such struggles >change society and change itself. > > > > > >We >should therefore see ourselves as in need of change and capable of >being changed. We should not look upon ourselves as immutable, >perfect and sacrosanct, as persons who need not and cannot be >changed. When we pose the task of remoulding ourselves in social >struggle, we are not demeaning ourselves; the objective laws of >social development demand it. Unless we do so, we cannot make >progress, or fulfill the task of changing society. > > > > > >We >Communists are the most advanced revolutionaries in modern history; >to day the changing of society and the world rests upon us and we are >the driving force in this change. It is by unremitting struggle >against counter-revolutionaries3 >that we Communists change society and the world, and at the same time >ourselves. > > > > >When >we say Communists must remould themselves by waging struggles in >every sphere against the counter-revolutionaries,3 >we mean that it is through such struggles that they must seek to make >progress and must enhance their revolutionary quality and ability. An >immature revolutionary has to go through a long process of >revolutionary tempering and self-cultivation, a long process of >remoulding, before he cam become a mature and seasoned revolutionary >who can grasp and skilfully apply the laws of revolution. For in the >first place, a comparatively immature revolutionary, born and bred in >the old society, carries with him the remnants of the various >ideologies of that society (including its prejudices, habits and >traditions), and in the second he has not been through a long period >of revolutionary activity. Therefore he does not yet have a really >thorough understanding of the enemy, of the people or of the laws of >social development and revolutionary struggle. In order to change >this state of affairs, besides learning from past revolutionary >experience (the practice of our predecessors), he must himself >participate in contemporary revolutionary practice, and in this >revolutionary practice and struggle against all kinds of counter >revolutionaries,3 >he must bring his conscious activity into full play and work hard at >study and self-cultivation. Only so can he acquire deeper experience >and understanding of the laws of social development and revolutionary >struggle, acquire a really thorough understanding of the enemy and >the people, discover his wrong ideas, habits and prejudices and >correct them, and thus raise the level of his political >consciousness, cultivate his revolutionary qualities and improve his >revolutionary methods. Hence, in order to remould himself and raise >his owl level, a revolutionary must take part in revolutionary >practice from which he must on no account isolate himself. Moreover, >he must strive to conduct self-cultivation and study in the course of >practice. Otherwise, it will still be impossible for him to make >progress. > > > > > >For >example, several Communists take part in a revolutionary mass >struggle together and engage in revolutionary practice under roughly >the same circumstances and conditions. It is possible that the effect >of the struggle on these Party members will not be at all uniform. >Some will make very rapid progress and some who used to lag behind >will even forge ahead of others. Other Party members will advance >very slowly. Still others will waver in the struggle and, instead of >being pushed forward by revolutionary practice, will fall behind. >Why? > > > > > >Or >take another example. Many members of our Party were on the Long >March; it was a severe process of tempering for them, and the >overwhelming majority made very great progress indeed. But the Long >March had the opposite effect on certain individuals in the Party. >After having been on the Long March they began to shrink before >arduous struggles, and some of them even planned to back out or to >run away and later, succumbing to outside allurements, actually >deserted the revolutionary ranks. Many Party members took part in the >Long March together, and yet its impact and results varied very >greatly. Again, why? > > > > > >Basically >speaking, these phenomena are reflections of our revolutionary ranks >of the class struggle in society. Our Party members differ in quality >because they differ in social background and have come under >different social influences. They differ in their attitude, stand and >comprehension in relation to the revolutionary practice, and >consequently they develop in different directions in the course of >revolutionary practice. This can clearly be seen in your institute as >well. You all receive the same education and training here, and yet >because you differ in quality and experience, in degree of effort and >self-cultivation, you may obtain different of even contrary results. >Hence, subjective effort and self-cultivation in the course of >revolutionary struggle are absolutely essential, indeed, >indispensable for a revolutionary in remoulding himself and raising >his own level. > > > > > >Whether >he joined the revolution long ago or just recently, every Communist >who wants to become a good politically mature revolutionary must >undergo a long period of tempering in revolutionary struggle, must >steel himself in mass revolutionary struggles and all kinds of >difficulties and hardships, must sum up the experience gained through >practice, make great efforts in self-cultivation, raise his >ideological level, heighten his ability and never loose sense of what >is new. For only thus can he turn himself into a politically staunch >revolutionary of high quality. > > > > > >Confucius >said “At fifteen, my mind was bent on learning. At thirty, I could >think for myself. At forty, I was no longer perplexed. At fifty, I >knew the decree of Heaven. At sixty, my ear was attuned to the truth. >At seventy, I can follow my heart’s desire without transgressing >what is right.”4 >Here the feudal philosopher was referring to his own process of >self-cultivation; he did not consider himself to have been born a >“sage”. > > > > > >Mencius, >another feudal philosopher, said that no one had fulfilled a “great >mission” and played a role in history without first undergoing a >hard process of tempering, a process which “exercises his mind with >suffering and toughens his sinews and bones with toil, exposes his >body to hunger, subjects him to extreme poverty, thwarts his >under-takings and thereby stimulates his mind, tempers his character >and adds to his capacities”.5 >Still more so must Communists give attention to tempering and >cultivating themselves in revolutionary struggles, since they have >the historically unprecedented “great mission” of changing the >world. > > > > > >Our >Communist self-cultivation is the kind essential to proletarian >revolutionaries. It must not be divorced from revolutionary practice >or from the actual revolutionary movements of the labouring masses, >and especially of the proletarian masses. > > > > > >Comrade >Mao Zedong has said: > > > > > >“Discover >the truth through practice, and again through practice verify and >develop the truth. Start from perceptual knowledge and actively >develop it into rational knowledge; then start from rational >knowledge and actively guide revolutionary practice to change both >the subjective and the objective world. Practice, knowledge, again >practice and again knowledge. This form repeats itself in endless >cycles, and with each cycle the content the content of practice and >knowledge rises to a higher level. Such is the whole of the >dialectical-materialist theory of knowledge, and such is the >dialectical-materialist theory of the unity of knowing and doing. >” > > > > >Our >Party members should temper themselves and intensify their >self-cultivation not only in the hardships, difficulties and reverses >of revolutionary practice, but also in the course of smooth, >successful and victorious revolutionary practice. Some members of our >Party cannot stand the plaudits of success and victory; they let >victories turn their heads, become brazen, arrogant, and bureaucratic >and may even vacillate, degenerate and become corrupted, completely >loosing their original revolutionary quality. Individual instances of >this kind are not uncommon among our Party members. The existence of >such a phenomenon in the Party calls for our comrades’ sharp >attention. > > > > > >In >past ages, before the proletarian revolutionaries appeared on the >scene, practically all revolutionaries became corrupted and >degenerated with the achievement of victory. They lost their original >revolutionary spirit and became obstacles to the further development >of the revolution. China’s history over the past century, or to >speak of more recent times, over the past fifty years, has shown us >that many bourgeois and petty-bourgeois revolutionaries in the past >and by the nature of earlier revolutions. Before the Great October >Socialist Revolution in Russia, all revolutions throughout history >invariably ended in the suppression of the rule of one exploiting >class by that of another. Thus, once they themselves became the >ruling class, these revolutionaries lost their revolutionary quality >and turned round to oppress the exploited masses; this was the >inexorable law. > > > > > >But >such can never be the case with the proletarian revolution and with >the Communist Party. The proletarian revolution is a revolution to >abolish all exploitation, oppression and classes. The Communist Party >represents the proletariat which is itself exploited but does not >exploit others and which can therefore carry the revolution through >to the end finally abolish all exploitation and sweep away all the >corruption and rottenness in human society. The proletariat is able >to build a strictly organized and disciplined party and set up a >centralized and at the same time democratic state apparatus, and >through the Party and this state apparatus, it is able to lead the >masses of the people in waging unrelenting struggle against all >corruption and rottenness and in ceaselessly weeding out of the Party >and the state organs all those elements that have become corrupt and >degenerate (whatever high office they may hold), thereby preserving >the purity of the Party and the state apparatus. This outstanding >feature of the proletarian revolution and of the proletarian >revolutionary party did not and could not exist in earlier >revolutions and revolutionary parties. Members of our Party must be >clear on this point, and — particularly when the revolution is >successful and victorious and when they themselves enjoy the ever >greater confidence and support of the masses — they must sharpen >their vigilance, intensify their self-cultivation in proletarian >ideology and always preserve their pure proletarian revolutionary >character so that they will not fall into the rut of earlier >revolutionaries who degenerated in the hour of success. > > > > >Tempering >and self-cultivation in revolutionary practice and tempering and >self-cultivation in proletarian ideology are important for every >Communist, especially after the seizure of political power. The >Communist Party did not drop from heaven but was born out of the >Chinese society. Every member of the Communist party has come from >this society, is living in it today and is constantly exposed to its >seamy side. It is not surprising then that Communists, whether they >are of proletarian or non-proletarian origin and whether they are old >or new members of the Party, should carry with them to a greater or >lesser the thinking and habits of the old society. In order to >preserve our purity as vanguard fighters of the proletariat and to >enhance our revolutionary quality and working ability that is >essential for every Communist to work hard to temper and cultivate >himself in every respect. > > > > > >These >are the reasons why Communists must undertake self-cultivation. I >shall now discuss the criteria for Communist self-cultivation. > > > > > >It >would be revolutionary irresponsible not to note some of the >discussions over an above from 2008. > > > >COSAS > under attack: > We > have failed to lead this discussion in trying to give ideological > clarity to what may have lead to the establishment of a > revolutionary student movement, However some of us in this > discussion we have tried to assist the PYA in general to further > engage with principle in the strengthening of COSAS, it is however > our responsibility to further engage towards its proper political > direction in advancing the struggle of the poor students. So it is > clear that we need to contemporary direct our fellow comrades > towards > > > Menshevicks > in the Party? > > The discussion around the > behavior and pegging in the party and seeking clarity on the issues > of discipline and how is the party has given its principle out look > to the society and generally who and what is the party stand for, > has given some surprising allusions on the surfacing of > personification of the party and the ongoing slaughter of those seen > problematic within the ranks of the party. Some had felt personnel > offended and this has set out the lack of analysis amongst ourselves > as cadres. > Nationalization > of Mines : > > Some have shown intolerance > informed by their personified classification of the debate itself > though this debate has taken a public spate it is equally our > responsibility to play the ball not the man, I may have some how > wanted that those found in favor or not of the Nationalization > question to dialectically give perspectives informed by either class > conditions and or materialistic condition of the debate. > > > > > > >It is however our take that >discussions should seek to give guidance to our theory, understanding >and further pave our perspectives > > > > > > >so further engaging on our stand >for Marxism I write: > > > > >Are >the Differences Political or Terminological? > > > >Let >us begin by posing the question of the nature of the South African >State not on the abstract-sociological plane but on the plane of >concrete-political tasks. Let us concede for the moment that the >bureaucracy is a new ”class” and that the present regime in the >South Africa is a special system of class exploitation. > > > >What >new political conclusions follow for us from these definitions? The >Fourth International long ago recognized the necessity of >overthrowing the bureaucracy by means of a revolutionary uprising of >the toilers. Nothing else is proposed or can be proposed by those who >proclaim the bureaucracy to be an exploiting ”class”. The goal to >be attained by the overthrow of the bureaucracy is the >reestablishment of the rule of the the working class, expelling from >them the present bureaucracy. Nothing different can be proposed or is >proposed by the leftist critics3. >It is the task of the regenerated society to collaborate with the >world revolution and the building of a socialist society. The >overthrow of the bureaucracy therefore presupposes the preservation >of state property and of planned economy. Herein is the nub of the >whole problem. > > > >Needless >to say, the distribution of productive forces among the various >branches of economy and generally the entire content of the plan will >be drastically changed when this plan is determined by the interests >not of the bureaucracy but of the producers themselves. But inasmuch >as the question of overthrowing the parasitic oligarchy still remains >linked with that of preserving the nationalized (state) property, we >called the future revolution political. Certain of our critics (WIVL, >Democratic Left and others) want, come what may, to call the future >revolution social. Let us grant this definition. What does it alter >in essence? To those tasks of the revolution which we have enumerated >it adds nothing whatsoever. Our critics as a rule take the facts as >we long ago established them. They add absolutely nothing essential >to the appraisal either of the position of >the >bureaucracy and the toilers, or of the role of the neo-liberals on >the international arena. In all these spheres, not only do they fail >to challenge our analysis, but on the contrary they base themselves >completely upon it and even restrict themselves entirely to it. The >sole accusation they bring against us is that we do not draw the >necessary ”conclusions”. Upon analysis it turns out, however, >that these conclusions are of a purely terminological character. Our >critics refuse to call the degenerated workers’ state — a >workers’ state. They demand that the totalitarian bureaucracy be >called a ruling class. The revolution against this bureaucracy they >propose to consider not political but social. Were we to make them >these terminological concessions, we would place our critics in a >very difficult position, inasmuch as they themselves would. > >Let >Us Check Ourselves Once Again >It >would therefore be a piece of monstrous nonsense to split with >comrades who on the question of the sociological nature of the South >Africans have an opinion different from ours, insofar as they >solidarize with us in regard to the political tasks. But on the other >hand, it would be blindness on our part to ignore purely theoretical >and even terminological differences, because in the course of further >development they may acquire flesh and blood and lead to >diametrically opposite political conclusions. Just as a tidy >housewife >never >permits an accumulation of cobwebs and garbage, just so a >revolutionary party cannot tolerate lack of clarity, confusion and >equivocation. Our house must be kept clean! Let me recall for the >sake of illustration, the question of democracy. For a long time we >asserted that democracy in the South Africa was only being prepared >but had not yet been consummated. Later, investing the analogy to >Democracy with a more precise and well-deliberated character, we >came to the conclusion that Democracy had already taken place long >ago. This open rectification of our own mistake did not introduce the >slightest consternation in our ranks. Why? Because the essence >of the processes in the >South African Society was appraised identically by all of us, as we >jointly studied day by day the growth of reaction. For us it was only >a question of rendering more precise a historical analogy, nothing >more. I hope that still today despite the attempt of some comrades to >uncover differences on the question of the “defense of the >democratic gains” — with which we shall deal presently — we >shall succeed by means of simply rendering our own ideas more precise >to preserve unanimity on the basis of the program of the Fourth >International. > > > >However >Scientifically and politically—and not purely terminologically—the >question poses itself as follows: Does the bureaucracy represent a >temporary growth on a social organism or has this growth already >become transformed into a historically indispensable organ? Social >excrescences can be the product of an ”accidental” (i.e., >temporary and extraordinary) enmeshing of historical circumstances. A >social organ (and such is every class, including an exploiting class) >can take shape only as a result of the deeply rooted inner needs of >production itself. If we do not answer this question, then the entire >controversy will degenerate into sterile toying with words. > > > >The >Early Degeneration of the Bureaucracy > > > >The >historical justification for every ruling class consisted in >this—that the system of exploitation it headed raised the >development of the productive forces to a new level. Beyond the >shadow of a doubt, the Soviet regime gave a mighty impulse to >economy. But the source of this impulse was the nationalization of >the means of production and the planned beginnings, and by no means >the fact that the bureaucracy usurped command over the economy. On >the contrary, bureaucratism, as a system, became the worst brake on >the technical and cultural development of the country. This was >veiled for a certain time by the fact that Soviet economy was >occupied for two decades with transplanting and assimilating the >technology and organization >of >production in advanced capitalist countries. The period of borrowing >and imitation still could, for better or for worse, be accommodated >to bureaucratic automatism, i.e., the suffocation of all initiative >and all creative urge. But the higher the economy rose, the more >complex its requirements became, all the more unbearable became the >obstacle of the bureaucratic regime. The constantly sharpening >contradiction between them >leads >to uninterrupted political convulsions, to systematic annihilation of >the most outstanding creative elements in all spheres of activity. >Thus, before the bureaucracy could succeed in exuding from itself a >”ruling class”, it came into irreconcilable contradiction with >the demands of development. The explanation for this is to be found >precisely in the fact that the bureaucracy is not the bearer of a new >system of economy peculiar to itself and impossible without itself, >but is a parasitic growth on a workers’ state. > > > >I >know comrades even within our ranks have notable lost confident in >the socialist revolution and to me I have made an observation in such >conclusions that: > > > >The >disintegration of capitalism has reached extreme limits, likewise the >disintegration of the old ruling class. The further existence of this >system is impossible. The productive forces must be organized in >accordance with a plan. But who will accomplish this task—the >proletariat or a new ruling >class >of ”commissars” — politicians, administrators and technicians? >Historical experience bears witness, in the opinion of certain >rationalizers, that one cannot entertain hope in the proletariat. The >proletariat proved ”incapable” of averting the last imperialist >war although the material prerequisites for a socialist revolution >already existed at that time. The successes of fascism after the war >were once again the consequence of the ”incapacity” of the >proletariat to lead capitalist society out of the blind alley. The >bureaucratization of the Soviet state was in its turn the consequence >of the ”incapacity” of the proletariat itself to regulate society >through the democratic mechanism. The Spanish Revolution was >strangled by the fascist and Stalinist bureaucracies before the very >eyes of the world proletariat. Finally, last link in this chain is >the new imperialist war, the preparation of which took place quite >openly, with complete impotence on the part of the world proletariat. >If this conception is adopted, that is, if it is acknowledged that >the proletariat does not have the forces to accomplish the socialist >revolution, then the urgent task of the statification of the >productive forces will obviously be accomplished by somebody else. By >whom? By a new bureaucracy, which will replace the decayed >bourgeoisie as a new ruling class on a world scale. That is how the >question is beginning to be posed by those ”leftists” who do not >rest content with debating over words. > > > >So >maqabane in my conclusion I will plead with comrades to neither try >to conceptualize discussions and replace content with words. > > > > > > >Haste >siempre > > > > >La >comandante > > > > >Sithembewena >Tsembeyi > > > > > >-- >You are subscribed. This footer can help you. >Please POST your comments to [email protected] or reply to this >message. >You can visit the group WEB SITE at >http://groups.google.com/group/yclsa-eom-forum for different delivery options, >pages, files and membership. >To UNSUBSCRIBE, please email [email protected] . >You don't have to put anything in the "Subject:" field. You don't have to put >anything in the message part. All you have to do is to send an e-mail to this >address (repeat): [email protected] . -- You are subscribed. This footer can help you. Please POST your comments to [email protected] or reply to this message. You can visit the group WEB SITE at http://groups.google.com/group/yclsa-eom-forum for different delivery options, pages, files and membership. To UNSUBSCRIBE, please email [email protected] . You don't have to put anything in the "Subject:" field. You don't have to put anything in the message part. All you have to do is to send an e-mail to this address (repeat): [email protected] .
