Communal Democracy-Great Proletarian Cultural Revolutionist-Feminist-Maoist Chinese Modelist...

"You are not a Maoist, you are a revisionist"


Things are not always black and white. The same goes with peoples ideological line. The acronym MLM can mean many different things to different people.


To some individuals or groups it means ML (which itself is used in many ways such as Hoxhaist or tankie or Stalinist) with some contributions from Mao. Some MLM uphold the Three head theory (Marx Lenin and Mao) and some uphold four (Marx Lenin Stalin and Mao). To some it means staunch anti-revisionism to any Marxist-Leninist revision. To others it means to revision all revolutionary theory to current and local conditions. Some Maoist support younger Mao's ideas and actions and some support older Mao's ideas and actions. Some dogmatically follow all his writing to a tee and some people see his ideas as a starting point and think it is against Maoism itself to be dogmatic. To some people to be a Maoist is to be a state-authoritarian, to others it is complete dictatorship of the proletariat from the bottom up.


I am writing this because I want to explain why I am the kind of Maoist that I am.


The great leap forward (GLF) is usually used as a way to attack Maoist so let me just say that first off the massive numbers of 16-70 million people that were "killed" by Mao has been disproved by many accounts (here is one). Many people did die during the GLF, but it was from starvation and not mass murder and no one set up the GLF so people would starve (there was also drought in some areas and natural disasters in others) . In fact it is impossible to prove how many people starved or that more people starved than in previous years. But the great leap forward was important in the country side because the nation didn't have good irrigation systems and in drought years whole villages would have to fight off starvation (which was a major problem under the old KMT and feudal system). So the CPC called for peasants to help build these huge irrigation systems. The problem was that no one was tasked with turning volunteers away and too many people volunteered and not enough people stayed home and grew food. So I see the GLF as both a success and a failure, if one person died because of the policy then it was one too many. However the GLF brought great harvest after this period and helped put a boot to the throat of mass starvation(many claims supported in link).


Just thought I should clear that up least someone thing Maoist think murdering millions is okay or justifiable.


One of the major reasons I am a Maoist is that I believe communal democracy as enacted in China during the liberation phase up til its dismantling by the soviet wing of the party was the greatest example of proletarian democracy. The old peasants associations and village congresses along with communal farms and kitchens were great corner stones for how a proletarian society should look.


Another reason is that I admire the right and ability of people to criticize the government and their policies and have a chance to steer policy. Under communal democracy and especially during the cultural revolution until 68 the peasants and the working class held control over almost all aspects of their lives. At one point in time during the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (GPCR) the people of Shanghai actually took a vote to change what the colors on the stop lights meant. They voted to make red mean go because red was the color of socialism and thus the color of progress and a movement forward. Some may see this as silly but it illustrates how much power communal democracy gave to the masses. They ended up not changing the light system because it was agreed that it would be confusing to people not from the city and more important things could be discussed.


Since I brought it up I will discuss why I uphold the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (GPCR) as the furthest advance towards communism and why I believe that many cultural revolutions will be necessary to achieve communism.


Many critics of the GPCR on both the right-wing and the reactionary left simply brush off the GPCR as a violent period that was a result of Mao trying to hold onto power. This is simply an incorrect ahistorical view of the cultural revolution. While there was violence used in the GPCR it was purely because of anger that came forth from the masses over right-wing politicians attempts to turn China into a capitalist nation.


One point of the GPCR was to revolutionize the masses and to smash the reactionary ideas and customs of the old Chinese society. It was direct action by the people to destroy all lines that advocated capitalism as the way forward. Violence was unfortunately needed sometimes to unseat politicians, reactionary landlords or bosses. Everyone was subject to the peoples will. Party members were especially targeted if they were seen as capitalist roaders or as reactionaries.


I believe that cultural revolutions would only be needed in backwards nations and bourgeois minded societies. I do think that the GPCR brought many lessons that we can draw from to revolutionize the popular masses and keep radical people's power in charge. It was reported that when Mao was forced to order the red guards to disband that he did so with tears running down his cheeks. Was this because he knew that this symbolized the end of people's power in China? And that it also showed that the government was to take more power over the people as opposed to the people holding power over their government? Meaning that the "revolutionary Committees" were to be reinstated and that the Soviet wing and the capitalist roaders had won? This writer think these are the reasons for his tears that sad day for China. Most of China's politicians speak ill of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution today because as reactionary capitalist roaders and capitalisms running dogs these politicians would have been targeted during the GPCR, and rightly so.


Anti-anti-ideologies- I do not uphold any anti ideologies, I do believe every branch has something to contribute to the movement to some degree. I am not a anti-revisionist, I think revision to MLism is very important and needed to move forward. We live in a different time and under different conditions and in different places than any of these people who have become demigods. To treat people as infallible is in my opinion in itself against a dialects position. Also to not unite with those who can be united with, over silly reasons is considered leftism.


Self criticism- Is the most important trait that is need in any person or group that plans on taking a leadership position. Not only being able to make self criticisms but also learning from and fixing your short comings is so important to me. Ive never heard any group in the States say "we were wrong" or "that wasn't a correct tactic/slogan" etc. Ive never even heard a member of a party or group say "we were wrong/incorrect". Instead we hear excuses or straw arguments on how they were actually correct.  This I believe is brought on by the luxury of these groups being irrelevant in the bigger picture, they can afford to be wrong and ignore it because they are not accountable to anyone and their decisions don't affect any ones life. But these groups need to learn to do self criticisms and learn and grow from their mistakes or else they run the risk of never being taken seriously.

China Quieting Maoist Opposition.

The Chinese right and reactionary wings are moving to quite voices of left opposition to capitalism and opening up the Chinese economy to western exploitation (1) (2).


These actions include the firing of radical and openly Maoist Bo Xilai, who was the party secretary in Chongqing and introduced the singing of red songs in public in his area. Bo is thought to be able to keep his seat on the politburo as long as he does not challenge his removal. His whereabouts are not know at this time nor is it known if he is in police custody, house arrest etc(3).


Another example of the crack down is that many anti-capitalist and pro-maoist blogs and websites have been take down (supported in the sources above). A book store that sells Maoist literature and many anti-capitalization books/propaganda was told by the state not to talk to the media.


This is thought to be in anticipation of the party congress coming up and the right/capitalist roaders are afraid of the new left uproar over capitalization and poor workers rights in China today. Recently the Maoist line has been receiving a spike in popularity as the people start to see the government as oppressive and selling out the interest of the people to foreign powers.


The true color of the CPC has been showing for years and denouncing revolutionaries in other nations, allowing imperialist to exploit their workers and corrupt officials is the norm in news coming out of China these days. This is sad news coming out of what was at one time the greatest example of proletarian democracy.





(1) Barbara Demick, "China puts a stop to Maoist Revival" Los Angeles Times. Mar. 21, 2012. Web. Mar. 31, 2012

(2) Rob Quinn "China Cracks Down on Maoist" Newser.com. Mar 21 2012. Web. Mar 31st 2012

(3) Brian Spegele "Beijing Tightens Grip After Purge" WSJ. Mar 21, 2012. Web. Mar 31st 2012

The Basics of the Nepalese Revolution (part 2)

The Opposition and Their Politics

The last issue I discussed the Maoist party and its leaders in brief. Since this article will be about the opposition and those parties it is important to mention the the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) won elections in the Constituent Assembly (in charge of writing a constitution) winning 29.28% of the popular vote and thus 229 seats in the assembly coming one seat shy of having double the seats as the next party.

Nepali Congress

While the name may not suggest it, the Nepali Congress (NC) is a political party and not the congress of Nepal. They describe themselves as Democratic Socialist and they uphold liberalism. They believe in a mix between neo-liberalism and a welfare state. They are in opposition to the Maoist in the UCPN and see market socialism as a good thing and support outright liberalism. The party is guilty of supporting the monarchy in the past. They stopped support opportunistically only when the king declared direct rule but were supporters of his constitutional monarchy until this point. Even then the party remained "open on the issue" of constitutional monarchy after direct rule was implemented(1). In the 2008 election the Nepali Congress won 21.14% of the votes and got 115 seats on the Constituent Assembly making it the second largest party in the assembly. The NC is a member of the Socialist International.

Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist Leninist)

The Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist Leninist) (CPN-UML) Describes itself as "firmly committed to nationalism, democracy, equality and justice and to enhance progress and prosperity of the people." They came up with an idea that has been coined "Peoples Multi-Party Democracy" which the party itself describes as "a creative application of Marxism and Leninism in the Nepalese condition"(2).
In February of 2011 with the support of the Maoist, the CPN-UML won the seat of prime minister of the assembly With 368 out of 601 votes approving the prime minister(3). This was seen as a compromise from the Maoist to show they were willing to share power but at the same time were committed to building socialism above being in charge of the nation. The party is the third largest holder of seats in the Constituent Assembly. Having won 20.33% of the vote the CPN-UML was awarded 108 seats in the assembly.

Madhesi Jana Adhikar Forum

The forth largest party in the Constituent Assembly will also be the last party we discuss as no other party got more than five percent of the vote nor holds more than twenty five seats after the Madhesi Jana Adhikar Forum (MJF). (The parties web site is currently down and has been for at least two weeks so unfortunately all this information comes from their Wikipedia page.) The MJF is a party that is dedicated to creating a federalist state in Nepal with autonomy for the Madhesh (Terai as it is more popularly known) region. The party has declared Social Democracy as its guiding principle. The MJF won 6.32% of the popular vote and earned 54 seats on the Constituent Assembly.

Conclusion

From the information provided here, we see that even the non-communist parties of Nepal uphold social-democracy and left of SD ideologies. The largest conservative party (also label themselves as monarchist and nationalist) the Rastriya Prajatantra Party only won 2.45% of the popular vote and holds 8 seats. Second largest conservative party? The Sadbhavana Party (also conservative monarchist but Hinduism instead of nationalism) won 1.56% of the vote. So I think it is a fair conclusion to announce that by far the people of Nepal are very progressive and the masses voted over overwhelmingly for at least some form of socialism to be built in Nepal.

It goes without saying that the revolution in Nepal is worth supporting, with all of its faults and its successes. In Nepal we are seeing something new. Multiple communist and left-wing parties competing in a democratic battlefield for the support of the masses. But what can we on the outside realistically do? Who do we support? That is easy, we should support any of the parties who are dedicated to advancing socialism! We should support Nepali independence from Chinese and Indian intervention and we should support them against Indian expansionism and imperialism. It is not important that we support one single party but that we support self-determination for the Nepalese people.


*For more information on all the parties visit the Wikipedia page "Napalese Constituent Assembly election, 2008" as a starting point to learn more about the election numbers and the different parties involved. It is interesting to see just how many communist/socialist parties won seats.

All claims supported:(1) "Nepali Congress An Introduction". nepalicongress.org. n.d. Web. Jan/22/2012. http://www.nepalicongress.org/index.php?linkId=2

(2) "Ideology and Peoples Movement." ucnuml.org. n.d. Web. Jan 31 2012. http://www.cpnuml.org/en/pmovement.php

(3) Walter Smolarek. "New Coalition of Forces Emerges in Nepal's Revolution" pslweb.org. Liberation news. Feb/10/2011. Web. Jan/31/2012

The Basics of the Nepalese Revolution.

This is something I wrote for The Proletarian Sun newsletter which can be found here.

The Basics of the Nepalese Revolution (part one)

The Toppling of a King

The people of Nepal were under the rule of a Monarchy/feudal system until a civil war that lasted from February 13 1996 til November 21st 2006 and was led by the Unified Communist Party of Nepal liberated the masses of Nepal from the old systems. The Maoist declared a three month cease fire in September 2005 to try and sway other political parties towards the overthrow of the government by showing that reformism was a dead end in Nepal. The King initially allowed elections but in 2005 but he sacked the government and decided to have direct rule over the country on his own. This brought on the wrath of all opposition forces. In early April 2006 the Maoist organized a general strike and promised to keep it a peaceful one. The next day on the 7th of April there is a huge clash between the police and the protesters on strike. Hundreds are arrested by the loyalist forces and a couple handful of people are injured. The day after the clashes the by now afraid king who has "direct rule" powers declares a curfew on Kathmandu and he gives the order that all people violating the curfew to be "shot on sight" (1). On April the ninth it is reported that three are dead, the curfew was popularly opposed as thousands defied the curfew and filled into the streets to demand more democracy (2). The king was forced to allow a new government to form and his throne was demoted to a mere ceremonial position until it was completely abolished by the government on May 28th 2008 and the now former king was given 15 days to vacate the palace.

The Names to Know in the UCPN

There are generally three names that ones needs to know in order to understand the UCPN and the different lines that are struggling with in the party at this current time. When reading about Nepal's UCPN leaders it can get confusing because two of these three leaders have nicknames of sorts and hopefully by the end of this section the reader will be able to tell the difference.

The Chairman of the UCPN is (most popularly known as) "Prachanda" (his nickname). His real name is Puspa Kamal Dahal. He used to be considered the middle line or the more moderate political line in the UCPN. More recently and more increasingly he has been seen as the conservative/right wing line in the party. He has been accused by the left-wing of the party of betraying the guerrillas and people's army (who fought for the liberation of Nepal) when he turned over the keys to the weapons cache's in the UN camps built to house the Maoist rebels. He did this without approval of the UCPN and has been accused of ignoring democratic process within the party. He has also been accused of compromising too much with the opposition and enemies of the UCPN. Giving too many concessions with out getting any demands in return. The left opposition within the party recently released a document critiquing the Chairman and his line and should and can be read here. This was not always the case as Puspa Kamal Dahal was once seen as the middle road and the hero of the Nepalese revolution. The chairman comes from a landlord peasant family which is the most oppressive position one can hold in a peasant society*. But there is no reason to believe that Pachanda carries this way with him in his politics.

Dr. Baburam Bhattarai is seen as more of the right wing line in the party and is the vice chairman of the UCPN. His relationship with the chairman has been through a lot of ups and downs but recently he has been siding with the chairman against the left wings call to continue the people's war to install a peoples government with a pro-peoples constitution. He has been accused by the left wing of misusing funds and using party money for personal gains and favors. Dr. Bhattarai was born to a lower middle class peasant family, meaning that most likely his family owned little land and little farming equipment but not enough possessions to feed their family all year and probably had to sell some of their labor*. Most middle peasants still live very hard lives and should not be compared to what we in the states call "middle class" workers. (I will refrain from writing too much about Dr. Bhattarai as I out right oppose his line and do not want to compromise the integrity of keeping this article un-biased). He is also the current prime minister of Nepal.

Mohan Baidya is the leader of the left-wing radical line and huge supporter of re-starting the people's war if the opposition parties refuse to sign a pro peoples constitution. His nickname is "Kiran", he is also vice chairman of the UCPN. Baidya saw a rise in support among the masses after he raised alarm to money issues and abuses in the party (3). He has even called for demonstrations against the chairman's decision to hand over the keys of the weapons cache in the peoples army cantonments. Baidya has even threatened to split the party if the UCPN continues down the path of revisionism, reformism and consession without demands being met. He has stated that he believes that the party on its current path is betraying the people of Nepal and he aims to put it back on the right path to revolution and serving the people. (I will also refrain from writing too much on Baidya because I support his line in the UCPN outright.)

Next month we will discuss the opposition leaders and the general politics of all the major parties.


Written by; Dustin Slagle


* these examples are taken from the class analogy of peasants given by Jen Pi-Shih in the book "several problems regarding land reform" written in 1948. translated and explained by William Hinton in his book "Fanshen" in the re-published version (2008) paperback page 27

(1) Gurubacharya, Binaj. "anti-monarchy rallies spread in Nepal". Boston Globe April 8th 2006. print

(2) "Violent Clashes Amid Nepal Curfew". BBCNEWS. BBC, Web. April 10 2006.

(3) B, Basnet, Kiran Pun. "Money issues boost Mohan Baidya faction". myrepublica.com. Web. 12/21/2011

Proletarian and Workers Language!

First of all it is important to point out that some one who is a proletarian is someone who is both oppressed in some form or another and that person is also exploited for his/her labor, meaning he/she creates more wealth for his/her bosses than he/she receives. Some one who works at say McDonald's as a cashier is a proletarian. They do not actually produce any wealth but they do collect it for their bosses. The person in a factory somewhere who is making the pre-made patties for the restaurant use would be a proletarian because he/she is creating a product to be sold at a profit higher than s/he is paid. So in short anyone who PRODUCES wealth and receives a lower wage than s/he creates is exploited for their labor and thus is a proletarian. The cashier, while not a proletarian (as in they do not produce any wealth) is still a member of the working class and is still exploited.


I tend to think that it is hypocritical when I hear communist say that "we shouldn't separate ourselves from the working class" and yet they insist on talking at people like they are ignorant and the communist try to use this superior language that makes themselves feel smarter. They repeat "we shouldn't separate ourselves from the working class" over and over and then go to the working class and TELL them what they should believe and how things really are and mainly they just come off sounding really condescending and turn people off of socialism.


If we are not to remove ourselves from the masses (I will be replacing the words "working class" with "the masses" from now on) then we must adapt their ideas to our own. Not try and force the masses to take on our ideas fully because that will never happen. What is more important? That the masses have Marxist principles? Or that the masses call it Marxism?

An example of adapting our ideas to theirs: In the US the masses see that there are multiple classes. So instead of applying dialect materialism to the situation and adapting and moving forward the communist would rather scream at the masses that they are wrong and only the communist are right that there are only two classes. But I tell you that we must adapt the ideas of the masses into our own rather we like it or not. If the masses believe there are multiple classes then we must say "okay, how do we go forward with this way of thinking." Of course we should attempt to slowly educate and advocate to the masses that there are two main class blocs but to refuse to listen to the masses is to refuse the masses support.


In the US there is a general understanding in the masses that there is a upper class, a upper middle class, a working middle class, Working class poor, and the lower class (poor, homeless etc). That is five classes, some may argue there is only four recognized by the masses and that is fine and can be applied as well. The most common way I hear to deal with this contradiction between the masses and the American communist is to simply "educate the working class about class consciousness" But as it was so well put by a successful revolutionary in a imperialist dominated country:
"Education requires money, people and instruments. In today's world money is entirely in the hands of the capitalists. Those who have charge of education are all either capitalists or wives of capitalists. In today's world the schools and the press, the two most important instruments of education are entirely under capitalist control. In short, education in today's world is capitalist education. If we teach capitalism to children, these children, when they grow up will in turn teach capitalism to a second generation of children. Education thus remains in the hands of the capitalists. Then the capitalists have 'parliaments' to pass laws protecting the capitalists and handicapping the proletariat; they have 'governments' to apply these laws and to enforce the advantages and the prohibitions that they contain; they have 'armies' and 'police' to defend the well-being of the capitalists and to repress the demands of the proletariat; they have 'banks' to serve as repositories in the circulation of their wealth ; they have ' factories', which are the instruments by which they monopolize the production of goods. Thus, if the communists do not seize political power, they will not be able to find any refuge in this world; how, under such circumstances, could they take charge of education? Thus, the capitalists will continue to control education and to praise their capitalism to the skies, so that the number of coverts to the proletariat's communist propaganda will diminish from day to day. Consequently, I believe that the method of education is unfeasible...."(1)


It is not the masses who should be parroting us, but it us who should lead them in the right direction while helping them help themselves. Only by putting "politics in command!" can we successfully move the masses forward to communism. But a big step is that we as revolutionaries have to put the peoples politics into consideration and stop thinking we know all the answers. We don't and we can't, they are always going to be contradictions that need to be met and all we can do is try to solve it for the betterment of the masses.


I for one see a huge connection between why there is a separation of the masses and communist and the communist condescending nature. Ive seen it too many times where some one will walk away because the communist "know everything" and aren't listening to the people. And that leaves an impression on that person that communist are all that way; controlling and condescending and unwilling to listen to other peoples theory's and ideas.


Ive said it many of times that we communist are the main reason why we are so unpopular. We are disorganized, over barring, constant in-fighting, some communist insult other people that don't share their ideas constantly (I have never changed my mind because I was called stupid or ignorant have you?), we talk tooooooo much about stuff that happened in Russia back in 1919 and while it is important to learn from the past it is also a waste to dwell on it.


So this is my call to all communist to start using the language of the proletarian or else stay on your sidelines and keep shouting cause no one is listening. And no one is going to start listening to you til you start listening to them also. I end this with a quote that addresses what I'm talking about:

"Twenty-four years of experience tell us that the right task, policy and style of work invariably conform with the demands of the masses at a given time and place and invariably strengthen our ties with the masses, and the wrong task, policy and style of work invariably disagree with the demands of the masses at a given time and place and invariably alienate us from the masses. The reason why such evils as dogmatism, empiricism, commandism, tailism, sectarianism, bureaucracy and an arrogant attitude in work are definitely harmful and intolerable, and why anyone suffering from these maladies must overcome them, is that they alienate us from the masses."(2)


"Production by the masses, the interests of the masses, the experiences and feelings of the masses - to these the leading cadres should pay constant attention. "(2)


"We should pay close attention to the well being of the masses, from the problems of land and labour to those of fuel, rice, cooking oil and salt.... All such problems concerning the well being of the masses should be placed on our agenda. We should discuss them, adopt and carry out decisions and check up on the results. We should help the masses to realize that we represent their interests and that our lives are intimately bound up with theirs. We should help them to proceed from these things to an understanding of the higher tasks which we have put forward, the tasks of the revolutionary war, so that they will support the revolution and spread it throughout the country, respond to our political appeals and fight to the end for victory in the revolution. " (2)


Written by: Dustin Slagle

Resources:

(1) "Communism and Dictatorship" by Mao Tse Tung November 1920 January 1921 [Extracted from. two letters to Ts’ai Ho-sen, in November 1920 and January 1921.]

(2) "The Little Red Book" (Quotations from Chairman Mao), Chapter:"The Mass Line", Published 1966. Quotes taken from; http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/red-book/

A short review for Robert Service: Comrades a History of World Communism.

This is going to be a very short review because I want to issue a warning to someone wanting to buy this book more so than give an overview and opinion.


Usually it is easy to tell when a book is going to be overwhelmingly biased. When I was reading the back of this book and the reviews online I didn't get the feeling that Robert Service was an anti-communist (specially seeing as he has written biographies about Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin). In fact from reviews online he seemed to write fairly. Upon reading this book I now feel like I was ripped off by the book store.


The book is very much filled with personal opinions written as truths and the writer even degrades to name calling towards soviet supporters from the 30's and 40's. One point in the book he claims that a reporter was duped by the soviets when the reporter visited a labor camp. He claims the reporter visiting the labor camp wrote positively about the USSR because when he went to a labor camp the local soviet government replaced the labor workers with guards so they appeared well fed and that rehabilitation was working and that the laborers were in good conditions. And his source for this assertion? It isn't a document ordering guards to act as laborers or anything official what so ever. No, he sources the reporters positive letter as a source. The book is filled with false sources like this through out.


The book is also filled with baseless assertions such as claiming that Marxism is dead and communism is dead. As though Cuba, Laos, Vietnam, While perverted types of socialism there is also NK and China, Venezuela and Bolivia, Uruguay just elected an ex-guerrilla just don't exist. These type of false statements are made through out. It is hard to believe he has read anything that was not written by McCarthy himself by his writing style. Whats more upsetting is that I already bought his Stalin Biography. Guess that is money and time I will never get back.


Written by: Dustin Slagle

Religion, Should it be Banned Under a Revolutionary Government?

It is a complicated question with a complex answer that varies between many different groups and individuals.


Most communist are atheist or follow the slogan that "Religion is the opium of the masses." But as Maoist we are taught that;


"To link oneself with the masses, one must act in accordance with the needs and wishes of the masses. All work done for the masses must start from their needs and not from the desire of any individual, however well-intentioned. It often happens that objectively the masses need a certain change, but subjectively they are not yet conscious of the need, not yet willing or determined to make the change. In such cases, we should wait patiently. We should not make the change until, through our work, most of the masses have become conscious of the need and are willing and determined to carry it out. Otherwise we shall isolate ourselves from the masses. Unless they are conscious and willing, any kind of work that requires their participation will turn out to be a mere formality and will fail.... There are two principles here: one is the actual needs of the masses rather than what we fancy they need, and the other is the wishes of the masses, who must make up their own minds instead of our making up their minds for them" (1)


The first four sentences of this quote spell out exactly what a communist stance should be towards the banning of religion. Especially in the USA it would be impossible to expect the proletariat to allow a revolutionary government to ban their religion. Religion is important to the proletariat. And to ban it would be to go against the wishes of the masses. It is also important to point out that some nations with strong religious roots have turned to communism our socialism.


It is an error to call for the banning of religion in a nation as a whole. It shows people who espouse this would run the nation as the few ruling over the masses. But I would never suggest that we ban religion as a whole.


But it can also go both ways. As a comrade of mine said "right wing deviations should be banned" I think watched and monitored would be the best at first followed by state criticism and propaganda against right wing deviations of religions. Then when the masses are ready and support it we can close down the right wing deviations of religions. The other side of the coin is that some religions and certain sects of different religions are left wing in nature. They would support a revolutionary government that is centered around empowering the masses over the few. They would support a government that puts needs above profits and material want.


Religion will only be our complete enemy if we constantly attack it and threaten to ban it. Not all sects will oppose a revolutionary state. Some sects should even be reached out to and brought into the communist and socialist circles. Many of sects espouse social justice at their services. Should we alienate these people because of a quote by Marx? NO! It is foolish how communist act towards the religious peoples when we need to be engaging them.



Written by; Dustin Slagle


1, Quotations from chairman Mao, the Mass line. Taken from Marxist.org

The Occupy Movement. Here to Stay?

There are many opinions and different ideas about what the Occupy Wall Street Movement (OWS) stands for and really what it is in general. But what are the concrete things we can see the OWS changing for everyday Americans (or for the world) and how is it changing the cadre of other organizations?


As for the things that the OWS has changed in the daily lives of the average person. I can't see any. Most people I talk to on my bus commutes, at school etc only know what they have seen on the news. Most are indifferent or think it is silly to camp in the middle of town as a form of protest. One person who rides the bus with me often is a guy named Jamal and he said (paraphrasing) 'these protesters mainly look like hippies, the government is not afraid of them. How do they expect to force change when the government is not afraid of being forced to change?' (he asked rhetorically).


There have also been charges that some of the local occupy are corrupt. I was told "sometimes when a proposition was blocked by a large group, the people who put forth the proposition would wait til the people who blocked it left then they would bring it back up to be voted on so it could pass" This may possibly be an anomaly but it seems like this could be a major problem with this sort of democracy.


To be frank the OWS has not changed the everyday lives of the average proletariat. But I do see a change in the advanced of the working class and even a new energy in the advanced section of workers (proletarian revolutionaries).


I saw this weekend at a local event that the OWS has really influenced the people in my area. At the event people were doing hand signs as they do in the GA here locally. Though I found it annoying, people would respond when "mic check" was yelled. I really felt a more sense of unity among the different groups at this event also (not too much unity, it was still a leftist event). There was open talk of breaking laws and of revolutionary actions and even a class where we discussed what we would want out of a revolutionary nation. These were from some of the same people who attacked me in the past as a ultra leftist etc. Even the numbers of this event was larger than any normal crowd in my local area for any left event.


I think this new radicalization of the left in my area is very exciting. I hope even if the OWS goes away that the new feeling will stay. That more people will become radicalized and realize that reformist pacifism is not a plausible way to change anything. That when the government is faced with change it doesn't want or like that it will attack the people, rather they are peaceful or not.


I fear that the OWS in some places will tire out and be co-opted into the parliamentary road of trying to change things. This historically has been the death of many and most radical movements (and people) who walk this path. It tends to make groups and individuals content with the political and economic status quot because they are apart of it and can brush off revolutionary's with a simple 'we are doing what we can'. Working for small gains within the government also tends to relax the anger to the extent you lose some of or all the anger of the masses. Health care that was passed here in the states is a great example. We had independents and democrats pissed at the democratic party because we were not getting any real health care that would help the poor people, not to mention the democratic party hardly lifted a finger to try and pass a real health care bill. but since their members got a compromise and passed "something, anything" it quelled the anger and the people returned to the democrats. This will probably be the similar outcome if the OWS is absorbed into the parliamentary road.




Written by: Dustin Slagle