I am writing this post because of a conversation I had with a comrade some time ago. He was saying that we (communist) shouldn't support a certain group (the Maoist Communist Party of China) because "they support capitalism." What he was referring to was point ten of their basic political program where it states:
"All privately owned enterprises and companies that do not rely on selling out the state, opportunism or gross exploitation, and do not harm the welfare of the public, can carry on running as before. At the same time, the law of the state protects the right of every person who wishes to engage in small-scale private businesses and will provide help when necessary."
But if one actually reads the language we can see that this is not supporting capitalism as much as recognizing that you can't destroy every business over night in a revolution. Also this was a moot point for two reasons; one being that the CPC has already opened up corporatist capitalism and two is answered by the MCPC which states in point one of their basic political program:
"We call for the overthrow of every big and small capitalist-roader and corrupt bureaucratic elements. We shall remove the capitalist constitution and law that has been imposed upon the peoples of China by the traitorous revisionist ruling bloc. We shall establish people’s supervisory councils, so that everyone takes part in the management and supervision of the state, army and government, so that the people are guaranteed to become the real rulers of the country."
They go on to mention this in point four: "People’s communes will be restored in the countryside. Concretely for each particular village, we shall respect the choices of the masses, those who wish to embark on the collectivist path the state shall give support, those who wish to keep things as they are will also be allowed to do so."(1) (2)
So what we see here (and I think is correct) is that small businesses would be allowed under socialism (not allowed to make profit under communism obviously.)
To kind of get to the main point here; some communist mistake the realization that small businesses will exist under socialism for a communist supporting capitalism. Allowing small businesses to exist is not supporting or encouraging capitalism. We would dismantle corporations that exploit the masses for the profit of the rich. We would nationalize the major corporations that use natural resources to make their profit. But companies that pay fair wages and are generally good to their workers, there would be no reason to destroy those companies under socialism.
In fact sometimes small businesses have an interest in proletarian revolution. Some small business owners make just enough to pay their shops rent and live off the rest. This is not to say that small business owners would stay on the side of socialist construction after a revolution, but with anti-corporate language that communist use it would certainly attract some small business supporters and small business owners. So theoretically some small businesses would initially side with the socialist revolution.
But what about after the initial stages? Where profit of any kind is starting to be shunned and exploitation is seen as a crime? Would these same small shop owners stay with in the revolution or would they succumb to reactionary elements?
My partner and I have a little disagreement here on this issue of small businesses and small business owners, their class orientation and their would be roles in social revolution.
She believes that the small business owners are usually among the proletarian class and do not make enough actual profits to be considered a bourgeoisie. Though she admits that a small portion do hold petty bourgeoisie ideologies she says that most small business owners are only trying to make ends meet and want to survive doing what they love doing. For example she believes that most people start small businesses because they wanna do what they love for a living such as if a person loves flowers they will open a flower shop. If someone loves cooking they will start up a restaurant etc.
She also believes in what I call her "nine million dollar theory" that is to say that any and almost every small business owner doesn't go into business to sell their business and make a lot of money. But if a chain restaurant or walmart offered to buy a persons business for nine million dollars, who wouldn't sell their company and retire early? Almost everyone including communist would take the nine million dollars. I personally would take that money and start a self sustaining commune wherever there was no land taxes.
She thinks that most small business owners would have every reason to side with a socialist/communist revolution. If for no other reason then that they wouldn't have to worry about competing with today's walmarts and other major corporations. Because these corporations would be destroyed or nationalized eventually, leaving small businesses secure from corporate competition. I agree with this point.
My major disagreement is that while some or even most people who start small businesses do it because they are following their passion. I believe that there is a significant amount of the small business owners who start a business strictly to become rich and who aspire to become the new walmart or McDonalds. I believe a sizable portion do it to become members of the capitalist class so that they can make money of the backs of workers that they exploit for their labor.
Her points and counter points (not all listed here) make it hard for me to make my own concrete analysis of the small businesses role as a whole in the occurrence of a communist led revolution. I think it would be important to have a "business by business" policy to research and feel out how the business owners feel towards proletarian revolution and emancipation before determining their possible role in a revolution.
I think at this point it goes without saying that there would have to be small businesses after a socialist revolution. I might even say that it would be useful propagandizing in support of small businesses before and during a revolution to gain support of both the small business and people who support small businesses. In my area the fight for small businesses are very popular among the population. Walmart in my area has been battling legally to expand to a supercenter for almost ten years. But do to petitions and other actions by the local population it has not been able to expand yet. It is amazing the level of resistance that my local walmart has been confronted with by the local population in defense of the local small businesses.
I'm not disillusioned that all small business owners are communist or want a socialist revolution. I'm just stating that if we got to the point to where the proletarian masses were revolting there would be a number of small business owners that would feel compelled to side with our cause. After and during the revolution undoubtedly some would side with the reactionary forces, but I find this question interesting. What role would small businesses and small business owners play in a communist led revolution? Both during and after?
I for one believe in what the MCPC states in point ten of their basic political program and I think that this is the most realistic stance a party or group can take during socialist construction.
(1) "The ten declarations of the Maoist Communist Party of China." Revolutionary Initiative. March 22 2009. Web. August 16 2011.
(2) "Maoist Communist Party of China on 2nd Socialist Revolution." Kasama Project. August 11 2010. Web. August 16 2011.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Monday, August 8, 2011
Back to Basics: What is a Profit Cap and How Would it Work?
so what is a profit cap? How would a profit cap be put into place? Here are some of my ideas:
The basic idea/principal behind the profit cap when used in a proletarian sense of the word is pretty self explanatory. It is a program that states that no one individual may profit X amount of money in a given year. And thus a cap is put on profit to where anyone making more many than X amount, their extra money is appropriated into different state/community programs.
After a fiscal year, a business tallies up their net profit after the cost of production, cost of labor, and cost of supplies you come out with you're over all profit (this is the money that ends up in the CEO's, presidents and the other capitalist of the companies pocket). Lets say as an example a company profits 3 million dollars in one year. I believe that $300,000 should be the maximum amount any one person should be able to profit off of any business (obviously there should be a smaller amount of profit after communist construction begins. and none after communism is achieved), because if you cant live off of 300,000 dollars a year there is something wrong with you. Anyway, two thirds of the profit that is left over should be split, one part of the left over profit should go back directly to the workers of that business to be evenly distributed among all the working class employees, no matter their rank. Now there is still a third of that profit left, so that money instead of siting in a rich mans bank would go back into the economy, to provide better schools, more grants for college, and it would help pay for the cost of health care, building streets etc. It is also important to state that in some companies the CEO's and all the higher ups might not take an even 1/3rd of the profit seeing as none of them would be allowed to take home more than 300,00 dollars a year. Keep in mind that this is the excess profit we are talking about so this is after everyone has received their yearly wages/salaries. The capitalist, bosses etc would not be allowed to take more than 1/3rd of the total profit so as to ensure the workers and the community get their fair share. So that would mean there would still be some left over money. That money should be evenly divided up into the workers and communities funds. If the shares of profit reach the point where even the workers hit the 300,000 dollar limit then the rest of the money should be put into social programs.
Now imagine a profit cap of this nature on the oil companies. We could put hundreds of billions of dollars back in the peoples hands and we could destroy debt in just a short amount of time. Since the oil companies wouldn't be able to profit massive amounts of money, they would have no reasons to keep giving us bullshit excuses for raising the cost of a gallon of gas while they are making record profits every year. They would have no incentive to strangle us for the cost of gas because higher prices wouldn't result in the higher profits for the bosses and capitalist.
Our children would get better, free education, all the way through collage. We could start paying firemen, Hell we could pay for universal health care. The money could go towards programs such as anti-malnutrition rations for the poor and needy much like the ones in Cuba and now Venezuela which have done wonders to help poor families get access to meats, dairies and other foods they otherwise wouldn't be able to afford.
Only we, the proletarian class can change the world, lets help the poor, lets give the oppressed a platform. Vote against greedy politicians, and openly advocate for communism. Unless you think capitalism will take care of your community? We all know how much the banks and oil companies have bent over backwards thus far to make our lives easier. The oil companies are giving so much back to our communities that they are only charging $3.50 to $4.00 for a gallon of gas. In most places it takes half of one hours pay per gallon, that's not just crazy, it is criminal. All while the oil companies are recording the biggest profits in history year after year. It is time for a profit cap! And under a socialist government or construction a profit cap should be of the highest priority.
I believe a profit cap would help lessen the class distinction and make the final jump into communism much easier, as one would assume that the further we would advance into communism the less the amount the capitalist and bosses would be allowed to profit.
Written by: Dustin Slagle
The basic idea/principal behind the profit cap when used in a proletarian sense of the word is pretty self explanatory. It is a program that states that no one individual may profit X amount of money in a given year. And thus a cap is put on profit to where anyone making more many than X amount, their extra money is appropriated into different state/community programs.
After a fiscal year, a business tallies up their net profit after the cost of production, cost of labor, and cost of supplies you come out with you're over all profit (this is the money that ends up in the CEO's, presidents and the other capitalist of the companies pocket). Lets say as an example a company profits 3 million dollars in one year. I believe that $300,000 should be the maximum amount any one person should be able to profit off of any business (obviously there should be a smaller amount of profit after communist construction begins. and none after communism is achieved), because if you cant live off of 300,000 dollars a year there is something wrong with you. Anyway, two thirds of the profit that is left over should be split, one part of the left over profit should go back directly to the workers of that business to be evenly distributed among all the working class employees, no matter their rank. Now there is still a third of that profit left, so that money instead of siting in a rich mans bank would go back into the economy, to provide better schools, more grants for college, and it would help pay for the cost of health care, building streets etc. It is also important to state that in some companies the CEO's and all the higher ups might not take an even 1/3rd of the profit seeing as none of them would be allowed to take home more than 300,00 dollars a year. Keep in mind that this is the excess profit we are talking about so this is after everyone has received their yearly wages/salaries. The capitalist, bosses etc would not be allowed to take more than 1/3rd of the total profit so as to ensure the workers and the community get their fair share. So that would mean there would still be some left over money. That money should be evenly divided up into the workers and communities funds. If the shares of profit reach the point where even the workers hit the 300,000 dollar limit then the rest of the money should be put into social programs.
Now imagine a profit cap of this nature on the oil companies. We could put hundreds of billions of dollars back in the peoples hands and we could destroy debt in just a short amount of time. Since the oil companies wouldn't be able to profit massive amounts of money, they would have no reasons to keep giving us bullshit excuses for raising the cost of a gallon of gas while they are making record profits every year. They would have no incentive to strangle us for the cost of gas because higher prices wouldn't result in the higher profits for the bosses and capitalist.
Our children would get better, free education, all the way through collage. We could start paying firemen, Hell we could pay for universal health care. The money could go towards programs such as anti-malnutrition rations for the poor and needy much like the ones in Cuba and now Venezuela which have done wonders to help poor families get access to meats, dairies and other foods they otherwise wouldn't be able to afford.
Only we, the proletarian class can change the world, lets help the poor, lets give the oppressed a platform. Vote against greedy politicians, and openly advocate for communism. Unless you think capitalism will take care of your community? We all know how much the banks and oil companies have bent over backwards thus far to make our lives easier. The oil companies are giving so much back to our communities that they are only charging $3.50 to $4.00 for a gallon of gas. In most places it takes half of one hours pay per gallon, that's not just crazy, it is criminal. All while the oil companies are recording the biggest profits in history year after year. It is time for a profit cap! And under a socialist government or construction a profit cap should be of the highest priority.
I believe a profit cap would help lessen the class distinction and make the final jump into communism much easier, as one would assume that the further we would advance into communism the less the amount the capitalist and bosses would be allowed to profit.
Written by: Dustin Slagle
Monday, August 1, 2011
Socialist Parties With a High Member Turnover.
We have all seen it. Anyone that has been in the movement for a while has encountered it. One week a person is attacking you for your political line saying you are wrong and how his/her party has all the answers and his/her party is the vanguard leading the charge. When you raise a question about his/her parties line they attack back with blind rage calling you a stalinist/trotskyist (depending on which they think is a bad word) reactionary, revisionist and all kinds of names.
Then the next week they are out of the party openly attacking its line. Obviously this is only an overview from the outside of what is happening. But why do certain socialist parties seem to have large member turnover rates? More plainly put; why do some party's have so many people coming in and at the same time have many people leaving?
Bad Party Democracy!
Lets face it, sometimes socialist and communist parties are run by right leaning authoritarians. These are people who see democratic centralism as a form of control more than a tool of creativity and democracy to be used by the proletariat. These leaders seem to think that democratic centralism means 'what the leaders say goes and everyone who doesn't follow is a bad communist/Marxist' etc. Others take it to mean that you do not question party lines or else you are a traitor.
This kind of party "democracy" does many things to its (rank and file) members.
First it stifles creativity of the members and creates a bad image of the party from the outside. As Ive said before it makes you appear like your party is full of mindless drones not capable of self thought, just walking around parroting whatever the parties newspaper and leaders tell them to. This is the kind of "democracy" that will help you have a large member turnover in your party.
No one wants to have their creativity and thoughts be discarded. When people first join these parties they brush off not having any say in the parties line. "Hey, I'm brand new. I wouldn't give a lot of power to new people either" is what one comrade said to me about his party (he is no longer a member.) But what happens is that as time goes on the person starts to realize that he/she is never asked for votes except to nominate people to go to conferences/congresses in which it is always people with the most inside friends. And it becomes discouraging to feel like you have something to contribute and yet are expected to not question party lines and to not say things that have not appeared in your paper or on your webpage.
I think bad party democracy is one of the worse reasons for a high member turnover. Not to mention when members only know how to and are only allowed to parrot they become impotent in debate. Thus discrediting your whole group to everyone outside of your group.
Populist Marxism!
Although this is not technically a real term I know some of my readers will understand what I mean by the term.
These groups are one of the biggest groups for member turnover. These are the groups who have a steak in every issue facing the nation today. They are there to protest every action of the government using liberal slogans and language to attract more people so they can point to their protest and events and claim to be huge. Even though the majority at those events go home and vote democrat. They are anti-everything to ensure they can get a member out of every demographic. They claim they are participating in elections to spread the idea of socialism when really they just want a spot light for fifteen seconds.
Don't get me wrong these recruiting tactics work! But they don't keep everyone in the party. Eventually some members realize that protesting everything only makes you FEEL like you are getting something done and are winning. In all reality you are just yelling with a bunch of liberals who also hate (insert current pet issue here) but would never riot or even vote third party.
Populism in Marxism rarely works in keeping members because it is easy to be too spread out on issues. Your group will gain members because it supports or opposes everything but your organization wont be able to focus on certain issues long enough to keep those same members. For example if I join a group because they support Ireland unification, (just an example calm down) and then when I actually become a member I realized you don't actually organize around that issue then I am going to leave the group. So you would have lured me in with the issue of supporting Ireland unification but if that is the issue that I care about the most and you only support the issue in talk then I will go seek out a group that does organize around that issue.
Another problem I have with populist Marxism is that the groups who follow it tend to only organize around the current 'hot button issues'. They are always organizing around whatever is popular at that time (get it, popular. populist it makes sense) this is very opportunist and a huge turn off.
For an example most of these Marxist populist claim to be revolutionary socialist/communist who think reform doesn't work. Then they participate in elections. Or when the government makes program cuts they are there to "fight back" (AKA stand around with liberal democrats and chant but would never actually do anything) which means they hope to reform the system to be more helpful, but in the leftist world the word revolutionary attracts people and reformist doesn't. This is called lying in the real world and if people feel like they have been lied to then guess what? They will want to leave your group.
Culture of Hype!
Have you ever had a friend talk up a movie, TV show or a band they love? Only then to find out when you watch or listen to it yourself that it sucks? This is kind of the same thing here but with socialist/communist parties.
Some groups are so good at talking themselves up that many people believe that they are the leading force in revolution today. The facts: they aren't! These groups claim many things, such as; they are the most active, revolutionary, they are the only ones with the correct science to achieve revolution.
But after you get members by this chest beating hype, what happens? They hang around for a while and learn the truth; that the group is full of shit. This can be very disheartening for comrades to come to terms with. After believing the hype for a while and even parroting it yourself, it can become very discouraging to accept that your party is not advanced, leading the charge, or on the brink of spreading world wide proletarian revolution.
Written by: Dustin Slagle
Then the next week they are out of the party openly attacking its line. Obviously this is only an overview from the outside of what is happening. But why do certain socialist parties seem to have large member turnover rates? More plainly put; why do some party's have so many people coming in and at the same time have many people leaving?
Bad Party Democracy!
Lets face it, sometimes socialist and communist parties are run by right leaning authoritarians. These are people who see democratic centralism as a form of control more than a tool of creativity and democracy to be used by the proletariat. These leaders seem to think that democratic centralism means 'what the leaders say goes and everyone who doesn't follow is a bad communist/Marxist' etc. Others take it to mean that you do not question party lines or else you are a traitor.
This kind of party "democracy" does many things to its (rank and file) members.
First it stifles creativity of the members and creates a bad image of the party from the outside. As Ive said before it makes you appear like your party is full of mindless drones not capable of self thought, just walking around parroting whatever the parties newspaper and leaders tell them to. This is the kind of "democracy" that will help you have a large member turnover in your party.
No one wants to have their creativity and thoughts be discarded. When people first join these parties they brush off not having any say in the parties line. "Hey, I'm brand new. I wouldn't give a lot of power to new people either" is what one comrade said to me about his party (he is no longer a member.) But what happens is that as time goes on the person starts to realize that he/she is never asked for votes except to nominate people to go to conferences/congresses in which it is always people with the most inside friends. And it becomes discouraging to feel like you have something to contribute and yet are expected to not question party lines and to not say things that have not appeared in your paper or on your webpage.
I think bad party democracy is one of the worse reasons for a high member turnover. Not to mention when members only know how to and are only allowed to parrot they become impotent in debate. Thus discrediting your whole group to everyone outside of your group.
Populist Marxism!
Although this is not technically a real term I know some of my readers will understand what I mean by the term.
These groups are one of the biggest groups for member turnover. These are the groups who have a steak in every issue facing the nation today. They are there to protest every action of the government using liberal slogans and language to attract more people so they can point to their protest and events and claim to be huge. Even though the majority at those events go home and vote democrat. They are anti-everything to ensure they can get a member out of every demographic. They claim they are participating in elections to spread the idea of socialism when really they just want a spot light for fifteen seconds.
Don't get me wrong these recruiting tactics work! But they don't keep everyone in the party. Eventually some members realize that protesting everything only makes you FEEL like you are getting something done and are winning. In all reality you are just yelling with a bunch of liberals who also hate (insert current pet issue here) but would never riot or even vote third party.
Populism in Marxism rarely works in keeping members because it is easy to be too spread out on issues. Your group will gain members because it supports or opposes everything but your organization wont be able to focus on certain issues long enough to keep those same members. For example if I join a group because they support Ireland unification, (just an example calm down) and then when I actually become a member I realized you don't actually organize around that issue then I am going to leave the group. So you would have lured me in with the issue of supporting Ireland unification but if that is the issue that I care about the most and you only support the issue in talk then I will go seek out a group that does organize around that issue.
Another problem I have with populist Marxism is that the groups who follow it tend to only organize around the current 'hot button issues'. They are always organizing around whatever is popular at that time (get it, popular. populist it makes sense) this is very opportunist and a huge turn off.
For an example most of these Marxist populist claim to be revolutionary socialist/communist who think reform doesn't work. Then they participate in elections. Or when the government makes program cuts they are there to "fight back" (AKA stand around with liberal democrats and chant but would never actually do anything) which means they hope to reform the system to be more helpful, but in the leftist world the word revolutionary attracts people and reformist doesn't. This is called lying in the real world and if people feel like they have been lied to then guess what? They will want to leave your group.
Culture of Hype!
Have you ever had a friend talk up a movie, TV show or a band they love? Only then to find out when you watch or listen to it yourself that it sucks? This is kind of the same thing here but with socialist/communist parties.
Some groups are so good at talking themselves up that many people believe that they are the leading force in revolution today. The facts: they aren't! These groups claim many things, such as; they are the most active, revolutionary, they are the only ones with the correct science to achieve revolution.
But after you get members by this chest beating hype, what happens? They hang around for a while and learn the truth; that the group is full of shit. This can be very disheartening for comrades to come to terms with. After believing the hype for a while and even parroting it yourself, it can become very discouraging to accept that your party is not advanced, leading the charge, or on the brink of spreading world wide proletarian revolution.
Written by: Dustin Slagle
Friday, July 29, 2011
Banning The Communist Party in the Czech Republic.
The Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia (the CP in the Czech Republic) is facing the possibility of being outlawed in the Czech Republic.
"The Czech Communists adore the violent communism based on Marx and Lenin," said the leader of the proposal to outlaw the CP. Some supporters of the ban claim that the CP is a threat to democracy in the Czech Republic(1). They go out of their way to ignore the fact the the CP participates in elections and even hold offices with representatives in the Chamber of Deputies, Senate, European Parliament, Regional councils and local councils (2).
Not to mention the slogan of the supporters seem to be "Preserve democracy by stifling it!" It is no doubt a reaction to the fact that the CP has experienced some growth in support recently as the support for the government has fell, due to scandals and proposed cuts to social programs.
The supporters of the ban seem to not be so anti-communist/socialist as much as they are afraid of Marxist Leninist. In the article cited above it mentions how most are just upset that the party has not accepted reformism as it's guiding light like most other Europeans communist parties did after the collapse of the USSR.
There is not a lot that can be done by the international communist movement to stop this move to ban the CP in the Czech Republic (though the right-wing seems un-likely to succeed in banning the CP). All we can do is to lend a voice to the communist party in that nation. Help raise awareness to their situation, and speak in favor of them and attack the government on a political propaganda level. This attempt to ban revolutionary communist thought in the Czech Republic could lead to their party and ideas gaining popularity.
The Communist Party in the Czech Republic are self defined Marxist Leninist and are also strong anti-imperialist(3)(4) that deserve nothing but full support from the communist community. Support the CPBM's right to exist!
Written by: Dustin Slagle
(1) JANICEK, KAREL. Czechs consider banning communist party. Yahoo. AP. July/29/2011. Web. July/29/2011
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Bohemia_and_Moravia
(3) Charfo, assan. Crimes of Imperialism. kscm.cz. 9/11/2008. Web. July/29/2011. http://www.kscm.cz/political-opinions/39984
(4) Joint Statement (on Libya). Kscm.cz. 4/18/2011. Web. July/29/2011. http://www.kscm.cz/international/55289
"The Czech Communists adore the violent communism based on Marx and Lenin," said the leader of the proposal to outlaw the CP. Some supporters of the ban claim that the CP is a threat to democracy in the Czech Republic(1). They go out of their way to ignore the fact the the CP participates in elections and even hold offices with representatives in the Chamber of Deputies, Senate, European Parliament, Regional councils and local councils (2).
Not to mention the slogan of the supporters seem to be "Preserve democracy by stifling it!" It is no doubt a reaction to the fact that the CP has experienced some growth in support recently as the support for the government has fell, due to scandals and proposed cuts to social programs.
The supporters of the ban seem to not be so anti-communist/socialist as much as they are afraid of Marxist Leninist. In the article cited above it mentions how most are just upset that the party has not accepted reformism as it's guiding light like most other Europeans communist parties did after the collapse of the USSR.
There is not a lot that can be done by the international communist movement to stop this move to ban the CP in the Czech Republic (though the right-wing seems un-likely to succeed in banning the CP). All we can do is to lend a voice to the communist party in that nation. Help raise awareness to their situation, and speak in favor of them and attack the government on a political propaganda level. This attempt to ban revolutionary communist thought in the Czech Republic could lead to their party and ideas gaining popularity.
The Communist Party in the Czech Republic are self defined Marxist Leninist and are also strong anti-imperialist(3)(4) that deserve nothing but full support from the communist community. Support the CPBM's right to exist!
Written by: Dustin Slagle
(1) JANICEK, KAREL. Czechs consider banning communist party. Yahoo. AP. July/29/2011. Web. July/29/2011
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Bohemia_and_Moravia
(3) Charfo, assan. Crimes of Imperialism. kscm.cz. 9/11/2008. Web. July/29/2011. http://www.kscm.cz/political-opinions/39984
(4) Joint Statement (on Libya). Kscm.cz. 4/18/2011. Web. July/29/2011. http://www.kscm.cz/international/55289
Monday, July 18, 2011
Review: The Battle for Spain by Antony Beevor
This is a book review of "The Battle for Spain: The Spanish Civil War 1936-1939" By Anthony Beevor. (This is my first shot at doing a book review so feel free to tell me if I do a horrible job or not I'd also like to hear how I could better review a book.)
For a book that has 432 pages of reading material the book has many ups and downs. During some parts of the book it is impossible to put the book down. Other parts get kind of dull and can be confusing at times.
One of my favorite parts of the book is the very beginning, Anthony Beevor (AB) does a great job of laying the political, class and economic landscape to show how events led up to the seeming inevitable chaos that would become the Spanish Civil War. By listening to the drawn out constant arguing between leftist, many factors of the war are left out and AB does a good job of filling many of these gaps.
The book is overall very informative and mainly un-biased despite a few comments which are baseless and pure attacks on communist, and later in the book he also starts calling the nationalist "brave" and things of that nature. Funny considering the Italian's practically won the war for the Falangist. But for example the author writes that while the fascist killed many people: "....if the Republic would have won , how many would have been executed and might have died in their camps? As several historians have pointed out, the winner of a civil war always kills more than the losers. Everything would have depended on the Republican regime which would have emerged. If it had been a communist regime, then to judge by other communist dictatorships, it would have been very high because of the paranoid nature of the system"(page 405-406)(1)
This is strange to me since in the book he says that around 200,000 people were killed and executed during and after the war by the fascist(page 94) he goes on to quote nationalist General Gonzalo Queipo de Llano as saying to the Republican forces: "on my word of honor as a gentleman that for every person that you kill, we will kill at least ten."(page94) And to prove a point further about how no one probably would have killed as many people as the Fascist Falangist did, again on page 94 he quotes Franco as saying when asked if he forgave his enemies: "I have none. I have had them all shot."
One thing the book confirmed for me is that the anarchist were not the angels that the modern day anarcho's paint them as. This is not to say that they were evil but the picture most anarcho's paint is that in the anarchist controlled areas that everyone was free and that it was pretty much a Utopia of classless freedom. This book is more realistic painting the CNT as a multi-tendency which at times acted childish not wanting to work with communist and republicans and at other times the CNT and UGT were the only organizations that were standing up for the poorer classes. I never knew that the CNT was a union that had both reformist and revolution Anarchist in its ranks. Untill reading this book I never realized how small of a roll the FAI actually played in the war as I thought the CNT and FAI had the same amount of influence.
It is strange how the anarcho CNT seem to support the republican one month then switch the next month. On one occasion Caballero invited the anarchist to form a government with out the communist and the anarchist refused. Not to mention that a anarcho leader was quoted as saying: ".....there is a foreign ambassador in Madrid who is interfering in Spanish affairs. We warn him that Spanish affairs only concern the Spanish."(all info on page 146) This is a lovely display of internationalism if you ask me (not). Not to mention that ambassador was the one helping to arm the different armies and militias. The book points out many times how without USSR weapons and ammunition, aircraft and artillery that the civil war could not have lasted three years.
In fact in one case some CNT members arrested both communist and CNT members for simply fleeing Madrid to escape death AKA for retreating. I think this display helps show that even libertarian socialist, anarchos etc can be authoritarian. They eventually release the soldiers on persuasion of the CNT national council. (page 171) But not to play one side of the field it should be said that the communist were more so authoritarian and made many useless arrest and some crazy generals would kill their soldiers for little or no reason.
But I don't mean this to demonize the Anarchist CNT as they did give an invaluable sacrifice against the nationalist/religious/fascist movement. At times even giving up their own wants and needs to better combat the fascist, something the POUM was not capable of doing. In-fact the book points out how even the POUM was getting weapons from the USSR until the POUM started critiquing the CNT/Communist party and the USSR.
History, as time has gone on has painted the POUM incorrectly and I think that AB does a good job of clearing this up. Most Trots and Stalinist claim that the POUM was a Trotskyist organization. However the author correctly points out many times how this was just assumed as time went on even though there is no basis for this other than the fact that the USSR called them "trotskyist fascist" and the leader of the POUM (Andres Nin) used to be good friends with Trotsky himself.
The book states many sources for how Nin had broken with Trotsky and how Trotsky and his fourth international criticized the POUM many times. Including how Trotsky himself repudiated his former colleague in furious articles. The fourth international attacked the POUM personally for joining the popular front in the elections to beat the Carlist, royalist and the nationalist.(page 262) But as time went on in the civil war the POUM was still discredited and attacked by both the fourth international and Stalinist alike until it was suppressed and its leaders arrested by the republican government. (page270)
Now I want to bring up Stalin in this civil war, I have heard him be single-handedly blamed for the lost of the Spanish Civil War. Despite the fact that the USSR was very poor and had little to give in weaponry at the time. The book goes to great lengths to explain how Stalin and his people in Spain had very different ideas for Spain. In-fact many Russians who served in Spain got executed for their actions in Spain.
Stalin was afraid to enter into the Spanish Civil War because he thought that Hitler would see this as a time of USSR weakness and that his nation would be attacked. But at the chance of proving Trotsky wrong (Trotsky wrote an article attacking Stalin for not intervening in Spain) he decided to send supplies to Spain. But it was the Russian workers who saved the day, forming up discussion councils and giving donations to help fund the supplies to Spanish militias to fight the fascist.(page 139)
Stalin said to his advisers going to Spain: "....Always remember that, in spite of the great solidarity which now exist between the Spanish people and the people of the USSR, a Soviet specialist, being a foreigner in Spain, can be really only useful if he stays strictly within the limits of an adviser and an adviser only." (page 256) He goes on to quote Stalin on page 257 that Spain should become a democracy.
The book makes it seems as though Stalin wanted one thing for Spain; a democracy and self-determination while his advisers and Comintern members wanted one thing; a communist ruled Spain.
One reoccurring theme through out the book is that AB says how the USSR and the Spanish Communist Party was paranoid of nationalist and fascist infiltration. And how they were practically crazy for being so paranoid about this "fifth column". Only to later in the book to go on to confirm that there was many fascist, nationalist and loyalist infiltrators into the republican army. (page 388, 390, 391)
The book overall is informative with a very in depth history leading up to the events of 1936. But the book is well written in some areas and in other parts the book is very poorly written. If you have a hard time concentrating then this book may not be for you. It jumps around dates and events that at times seems like a bi-polar kid hyped up on red bull. It is very hard to follow is what I am saying. AB jumps from date to date so fast and often that some times you have to re-read multiple pages to reassure yourself that you know what is going on.
The battle chapters (where he describes the battles and gives the layouts of the battles) are horribly written, unless you are an expert in Spanish geography you will mainly have no clue what is going on. There are no good maps in the book to really help you know where he is talking about. Only a few maps of battles and one map of Spain that labels the capitals are the maps you get, making it hard to know what and where he is talking about in many battles. However if you are an expert in Spanish geography then I'm sure you will love his descriptions of battles. He does give deep details of the battles to his credit.
Let me say that one thing that had me angry is the ending to this book. This is not structured or sold as an opinion book but as a history book. So there is no real need for a good ending or conclusion. The last sentence of this book reads: "Conclusions are much too convenient." So is laziness, there is a conclusion; The Republicans, Communist, Socialist, Anarchist and Independence movement's couldn't stop fighting among themselves long enough to fight the right wing forces. The nationalist, fascist, royalist/carlist Italian and German coalition forces won, the Falangist consolidated power, killed almost a quarter million people and denounced both Fascist Italy and Germany when it was obvious they were going to lose their wars. The Falangist ruled with an iron fist until the 70's. The conclusion isn't hard to come up with.
Overall I would give this book a five out of ten.
(1) Which Historians say this? And can one in a history book really claim that the winning side ALWAYS kills more? Not to mention the statement about communist is completely biased and a baseless claim almost as to humanize the fascist regime by saying 'well the communist would have been worse'
Written by: Dustin Slagle
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Qaddafi and Libya: A Self-Criticism.
I am writing this post to do a self-criticism of sorts because as a Maoist I see it as most important to be able to point out when you are wrong or when you have made mistakes on an issue or when you have given a false analogy.
When this conflict started Libyan leader Qaddafi was no less guilty then the so called rebels of being imperialism's friend with his connections to the UK and the Italians. But since the conflict has started and even more so recently, the battle lines have been drawn. All of Qaddafi's imperialist friends have turned their back on him, leaving him to fight off a NATO intervention.
The rebels on the other hand have used prejudice persecution of any African immigrants suspected of being a mercenary. Also the rebels dedication has even been brought into question. One has to wonder if the rebels would still be around if not for the NATO intervention. John Lee Anderson says of his first hand account that some rebels are offended when the Libyan army uses live ammo(1). How can we take any armed group seriously when they don't think live ammo should be used in a war? We can not take them seriously.
Not to mention there is no clear ideology among the rebels. This coupled with the fact the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Qaddafi I think the battle lines are even more clear(2). It is now all to obvious that the rebels will allow imperialist free reign in their nation if their side is the victors. The ICC will only issue arrest warrants for people who are not imperialist running dogs. Notice how no warrants have been issued for Uribe the ex-Colombian "president" or any leaders who have had their citizens murdered.
This is to say that the battle lines are more clear today than when this conflict started. Today it is clear what side the communist and anti-imperialist should be on. We should now be clearly on the side of Qaddafi. To where earlier on the battle lines were fuzzy (though I'm sure that some groups that jumped the gun with supporting Qaddafi just because he has an anti-US history will claim they knew and were right all along no matter how big of a lie that would be) because both sides had imperialist interest invested in them, and the rebels at the beginning wanted only supply aid and opposed intervention. Today the rebels want ground troop (probably because they are afraid of and offended by the use of live ammo) intervention and have even sold some oil to their imperialist masters, including the US.(3)
As an anti-imperialist my first desire for all nations is the right to self determination. The Libyan people have directly stood up in favor of their leader Qaddafi. There is no question in my mind that if had NATO never intervened that the rebels would have lost this fight months ago. There for my desire for the self determination of the Libyan people has left me with no other group to support than that of the Qaddafi regime.
I believe that in light of recent events and in light of recent information it is the duty of all revolutionaries and anti-imperialist to support the Qaddafi regime.
Death to imperialism, and all of their running dogs!
Self-determination for the masses of Libya!
Written by: Dustin Slagle
(1)Anderson John Lee. Who are the rebels. The New Yorker. 4/4/2011. Web. 06/05/2011
(2)Schreck Adam, Corder Mike. Gaddafi Arrest Warrant Issued by International Criminal Court. Huffington Post. AP. 06/27/2011. Web. 07/06/2011
(3)Crawford Jamie. Libyan rebel group sells first oil to U.S. CNN. 06/08/2011. Web. 07/01/2011
When this conflict started Libyan leader Qaddafi was no less guilty then the so called rebels of being imperialism's friend with his connections to the UK and the Italians. But since the conflict has started and even more so recently, the battle lines have been drawn. All of Qaddafi's imperialist friends have turned their back on him, leaving him to fight off a NATO intervention.
The rebels on the other hand have used prejudice persecution of any African immigrants suspected of being a mercenary. Also the rebels dedication has even been brought into question. One has to wonder if the rebels would still be around if not for the NATO intervention. John Lee Anderson says of his first hand account that some rebels are offended when the Libyan army uses live ammo(1). How can we take any armed group seriously when they don't think live ammo should be used in a war? We can not take them seriously.
Not to mention there is no clear ideology among the rebels. This coupled with the fact the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Qaddafi I think the battle lines are even more clear(2). It is now all to obvious that the rebels will allow imperialist free reign in their nation if their side is the victors. The ICC will only issue arrest warrants for people who are not imperialist running dogs. Notice how no warrants have been issued for Uribe the ex-Colombian "president" or any leaders who have had their citizens murdered.
This is to say that the battle lines are more clear today than when this conflict started. Today it is clear what side the communist and anti-imperialist should be on. We should now be clearly on the side of Qaddafi. To where earlier on the battle lines were fuzzy (though I'm sure that some groups that jumped the gun with supporting Qaddafi just because he has an anti-US history will claim they knew and were right all along no matter how big of a lie that would be) because both sides had imperialist interest invested in them, and the rebels at the beginning wanted only supply aid and opposed intervention. Today the rebels want ground troop (probably because they are afraid of and offended by the use of live ammo) intervention and have even sold some oil to their imperialist masters, including the US.(3)
As an anti-imperialist my first desire for all nations is the right to self determination. The Libyan people have directly stood up in favor of their leader Qaddafi. There is no question in my mind that if had NATO never intervened that the rebels would have lost this fight months ago. There for my desire for the self determination of the Libyan people has left me with no other group to support than that of the Qaddafi regime.
I believe that in light of recent events and in light of recent information it is the duty of all revolutionaries and anti-imperialist to support the Qaddafi regime.
Death to imperialism, and all of their running dogs!
Self-determination for the masses of Libya!
Written by: Dustin Slagle
(1)Anderson John Lee. Who are the rebels. The New Yorker. 4/4/2011. Web. 06/05/2011
(2)Schreck Adam, Corder Mike. Gaddafi Arrest Warrant Issued by International Criminal Court. Huffington Post. AP. 06/27/2011. Web. 07/06/2011
(3)Crawford Jamie. Libyan rebel group sells first oil to U.S. CNN. 06/08/2011. Web. 07/01/2011
Friday, June 17, 2011
The Schizophrenic American Left and Their Annoyingly Bleeding Heart Papers.
One of the best ways to advance an issue or to accomplish something that surrounds a certain issue is to stay on topic and keep the issue in the mouths of the people. That is to say that you need focus on a issue to keep it popular and stick to it. Anyone who has a facebook account can tell just how ADHD the left is in the US. One day we are attacking the police for the murder of Oscar Grant and as soon as another hot issue comes out the left opportunistically raises that issue as their own and then abandon it as soon as the next hot issue comes out.
I will use Oscar Grant as a good point in this case. Oscar Grant's photo was on everyone's facebook profile picture one day and every other post had something to do with the murder of Oscar Grant. But as soon as the next hot button issue came up all the left groups flocked away from the Oscar Grant issue and picked up the next issue almost as if Oscar Grant had never been murdered by the police.
Right now as of June 17th there are no issues that are being picked up by all the groups so of course now the groups and individuals are turning on each other. Attacking Syria, Libya, China, Cuba or any other nation that is not imperialist/capitalist if you are a member of the ISO. The left really needs to take up an issue and stick to it. Other wise we should never expect to be able to sway public opinion.
We have a rare chance in history when the news is becoming democratic and everyone has a say but instead we are just chasing around going from issue to issue. This not only does not help us to shape public opinion but it makes all of these groups seem opportunistic trying to get attention however they can. Remember when every left groups webpage was nothing but pages about the Wisconsin issue? The Wisconsin supreme court just made the union busting bill a law(1) (2)but since the issue is no longer popular to carry not very many left groups are picking up the issue. Notice how all the socialist parties were gun-hoe to pack up and go to Madison when there was camera's everywhere and people they could sell their papers to. Now there is no large commotion over the bill actually becoming law. In fact as of me writing this only FRSO-FB had an article on the matter out of what I see as the four most influential socialist org's (FRSO, PSL, Kasama, SP-USA).
This is an issue that should have never left the left's mouth til it was resolved and bargaining rights were insured. This inability to stick to an issue has cost the left dearly through out the years and unless there is some change made then it will continue to do nothing but hurt the American left.
BLEEDING HEART NEWS PAPERS!
What is the reason why everyone that is on the left of a conservative hates FOX news? Because they are grossly biased and only give one side of the story that best benefits their cause.
This applies to most socialist news sources here in the US as well. No one right of a socialist wants to read your paper because it is too bleeding heart and thus annoying. You can't be a respected news source when your argument is always "they are fascist, racist, bigots" etc etc etc. That is not news it is opinion and not to mention it de-sensitizes the words. By the time a fascist does come to power no one besides socialist will see it coming because in the leftist news scene every republican is a fascist or non-socialist is a fascist. Most people in the US do not even know what a fascist is.
No body wants to read a bleeding heart paper except bleeding heart activist. I'm sure people that are not bleeding hearts buy these papers but I doubt even 98% of people who buy these papers are going to go out and get involved the next day because they were moved by the papers contents.
I think this is a reason why Kasama is becoming a communist house hold name. Their articles are very very rarely bleeding heart and they have content, facts and explanation. I can't say the same for many other news sources on the US left. Most groups paper or website mainly sounds like they are yelling bleeding heart crap at you. You cannot make a article attacking the government as fascist for arresting protesters then have another article defending the Hungarian suppression by the USSR (sorry tankies but I won't defend it). Yes this tactic will get you praise from your own parties members and other groups who have the same line. However the rest of the nation will just see you as heavily biased with no content in your news and you are thus discredited.
What's worse is that with a small little line they could change all of this. All that has to be done is write somewhere on your paper/website "this is an opinion paper meant to reflect this organizations ideas and thought on current issues." This would let the outsiders reading the material know that it is meant to be a slant view and not a un-biased news source.
Here is one great example of bleeding heart stuff: "out of Afghanistan now!" Okay let us pick this bleeding hart statement apart. The government is not afraid of this slogan and here is why: when a bleeding heart activist says this, the government replies "or what?" "We get out of Afghanistan now or what are you going to do?"The fact that you are making a demand without a consequence makes you a joke to the people you are pointing the demand at in the first place.
bleeding heart language discredits you on many fronts, starting with credibility and ending with how serious people think you are as revolutionaries. Not everyone is guilty of this but I want to see the left stop with all the bleeding heart language and false posturing and starting using the tools at hand correctly. I write a blog because realistically this is the greatest way for me to express my ideas and thoughts on issues .
In today's world where the internet is allowing for the news to be democratized there is no reason why socialist and communist are not having more influence on public opinion. But as long as this bleeding heart language is being used we can not expect to sway public opinion. Fox news can get away with it because they have millions and millions of dollars to be on cable TV. We do not so we must use facts to sway public opinion .
Dustin Slagle
(1)http://consumerist.com/2011/06/wisconsin-supremes-reinstate-collective-bargaining-law.html
(2)http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/15/us-wisconsin-unions-lawsuit-idUSTRE75E5L520110615
I will use Oscar Grant as a good point in this case. Oscar Grant's photo was on everyone's facebook profile picture one day and every other post had something to do with the murder of Oscar Grant. But as soon as the next hot button issue came up all the left groups flocked away from the Oscar Grant issue and picked up the next issue almost as if Oscar Grant had never been murdered by the police.
Right now as of June 17th there are no issues that are being picked up by all the groups so of course now the groups and individuals are turning on each other. Attacking Syria, Libya, China, Cuba or any other nation that is not imperialist/capitalist if you are a member of the ISO. The left really needs to take up an issue and stick to it. Other wise we should never expect to be able to sway public opinion.
We have a rare chance in history when the news is becoming democratic and everyone has a say but instead we are just chasing around going from issue to issue. This not only does not help us to shape public opinion but it makes all of these groups seem opportunistic trying to get attention however they can. Remember when every left groups webpage was nothing but pages about the Wisconsin issue? The Wisconsin supreme court just made the union busting bill a law(1) (2)but since the issue is no longer popular to carry not very many left groups are picking up the issue. Notice how all the socialist parties were gun-hoe to pack up and go to Madison when there was camera's everywhere and people they could sell their papers to. Now there is no large commotion over the bill actually becoming law. In fact as of me writing this only FRSO-FB had an article on the matter out of what I see as the four most influential socialist org's (FRSO, PSL, Kasama, SP-USA).
This is an issue that should have never left the left's mouth til it was resolved and bargaining rights were insured. This inability to stick to an issue has cost the left dearly through out the years and unless there is some change made then it will continue to do nothing but hurt the American left.
BLEEDING HEART NEWS PAPERS!
What is the reason why everyone that is on the left of a conservative hates FOX news? Because they are grossly biased and only give one side of the story that best benefits their cause.
This applies to most socialist news sources here in the US as well. No one right of a socialist wants to read your paper because it is too bleeding heart and thus annoying. You can't be a respected news source when your argument is always "they are fascist, racist, bigots" etc etc etc. That is not news it is opinion and not to mention it de-sensitizes the words. By the time a fascist does come to power no one besides socialist will see it coming because in the leftist news scene every republican is a fascist or non-socialist is a fascist. Most people in the US do not even know what a fascist is.
No body wants to read a bleeding heart paper except bleeding heart activist. I'm sure people that are not bleeding hearts buy these papers but I doubt even 98% of people who buy these papers are going to go out and get involved the next day because they were moved by the papers contents.
I think this is a reason why Kasama is becoming a communist house hold name. Their articles are very very rarely bleeding heart and they have content, facts and explanation. I can't say the same for many other news sources on the US left. Most groups paper or website mainly sounds like they are yelling bleeding heart crap at you. You cannot make a article attacking the government as fascist for arresting protesters then have another article defending the Hungarian suppression by the USSR (sorry tankies but I won't defend it). Yes this tactic will get you praise from your own parties members and other groups who have the same line. However the rest of the nation will just see you as heavily biased with no content in your news and you are thus discredited.
What's worse is that with a small little line they could change all of this. All that has to be done is write somewhere on your paper/website "this is an opinion paper meant to reflect this organizations ideas and thought on current issues." This would let the outsiders reading the material know that it is meant to be a slant view and not a un-biased news source.
Here is one great example of bleeding heart stuff: "out of Afghanistan now!" Okay let us pick this bleeding hart statement apart. The government is not afraid of this slogan and here is why: when a bleeding heart activist says this, the government replies "or what?" "We get out of Afghanistan now or what are you going to do?"The fact that you are making a demand without a consequence makes you a joke to the people you are pointing the demand at in the first place.
bleeding heart language discredits you on many fronts, starting with credibility and ending with how serious people think you are as revolutionaries. Not everyone is guilty of this but I want to see the left stop with all the bleeding heart language and false posturing and starting using the tools at hand correctly. I write a blog because realistically this is the greatest way for me to express my ideas and thoughts on issues .
In today's world where the internet is allowing for the news to be democratized there is no reason why socialist and communist are not having more influence on public opinion. But as long as this bleeding heart language is being used we can not expect to sway public opinion. Fox news can get away with it because they have millions and millions of dollars to be on cable TV. We do not so we must use facts to sway public opinion .
Dustin Slagle
(1)http://consumerist.com/2011/06/wisconsin-supremes-reinstate-collective-bargaining-law.html
(2)http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/15/us-wisconsin-unions-lawsuit-idUSTRE75E5L520110615
Monday, June 13, 2011
The Socialist Parties: A Collective Problem (part 2 expansion and corrections on the original)
If you have not read my first entry on this subject you can find part one here where I try to explain the reason why democratic centralism naturally degenerates in bureaucracy. I wrote part one when the topic was very personal to me and I made some simple minded errors that make me disgraced to admit I had ever written it. Instead of deleting it and pretending I never wrote it I would like to make corrections and expand on why democratic centralism often becomes corrupt. A comrade that has been around for a while showed me one of the major errors of that article and I will address all the problems with my first article first.
In the first entry I wrote: "Even Trotskyist use the democratic centralism model in most of their parties but when a party or country degenerates to bureaucratic centralism the trots call that party/country Stalinist. Of course a Trotskyist is never going to pass up a chance to jab at Stalin but in reality it was Lenin's model of democratic centralism that is/was incorrect."- I would like to be clear that I was wrong in this statement because the fact is that parties who have degenerated from DCism into dictatorship of the leadership are not following real Leninism. Lenin called for open detailed debate and that the party would then chose the best course of action. What happens in most parties in the US is that their leader or leaders make all the choices and the rank and file are expected to follow suit or else they are party traitors. And do not be fooled I have heard this story multiple time from members of Trotskyist, Hoxhaist, Maoist, ML and any other party. But I wanted to clear myself for my mistaken ideas of attacking Lenin's style dcism when it is not a historical figures fault but it differs on a party to party basis. I would like to reiterate that this is not a form of "Stalinism" but is a dialectal problem and should not be so simply brushed off.
I also said: "When a party starts there are usually a few members who are more dedicated than others or do more work than other members. This rightfully earns this said person a certain amount of respect among the founding members and new members. So they are elected to a seat of power. The problem is that as time goes on the people who started the group want to make sure things are run the way they want and that they stay in charge. So what ends up happening is that the original members end up with multiple seats or too much power."- I was mainly wrong in writing this in that corruption doesn't have to start at the beginning. It can also happen after a certain wing takes over main seats in the party. The person who is the leader will assign people that follow his line or people that will parrot everything they say to the point that democracy is not even needed in the party because everyone 'already agrees' but in reality this is corruption. What will then happen is that any one in the party who challenges the leadership on party lines or tactics, the leadership will say that you are disrespecting the choice of the party when in reality you may just disagree with the leaders who have no desire for real line struggle.
"we may need to do away with democratic centralism all together."- I think this statement was a result of my emotions I fear because we do need democratic centralism. But there needs to be more emphasis put on the democracy of the many. A small central committee made up of all like minded people shouldn't control a whole party. I think this is the reason that the corruption problem lies within most parties CC's.
A suggested solution: Central Committee's should be made up of people of different ideas and backgrounds. If you have healthy debate and different representatives in the CC I believe this could help eliminate the corruption problem most parties face. There is no reason why then people who are all friends and who all believe in the same exact line should all be on the CC. There should be a wide variety of ages on a CC also. Young people are more militant and adventurous when it comes to politics and older comrades seem to be more reserved and calculating (in a good way). We need a healthy mix of the two, not one or the other extreme.
I wrote at the end: "Obviously this writer knows he doesn't have all the answers but I am sick of seeing hundreds of intelligent individuals walking around parroting what their leaders, elders and party tell them to."- this I still believe and yes it still makes me sick.
I still have a deep mistrust of democratic centralism but this does not mean that I do not think it can not be properly implemented. I still think that communal democracy could be a good substitute or should be intertwined with democratic centralism. I am still a strong supporter of local chapters, cells or whatever they are called in a party having more power over their locals than the national party. As I said in my last post: "Communal socialism would be better because how is some one in LA or DC or NYC suppose to know what we need in Mississippi or Illinois or Colorado etc? Only the people from those areas know exactly what they are producing and what they need. Each area would be more personally in charge of themselves and thus wouldn't feel the constant oppression of the centralized state." I still uphold this view.
Another problem I see is that the rank and file members of a group or party dogmatically defend their own submission to these kind of fake democratic centralism's. I think this half stems from a kind of sub-understanding of what real democratic centralism is and the other half can be contributed two ways. One; the dogmatic nature of communist who think just because Lenin said or wrote something and their party quotes him out of context that the must be right. And two; the party or group itself twist the ideas of democratic centralism to mean that rank and file members listen and are subordinate to their leaders and to self criticize or try to create a line struggle is against what Lenin taught and thus you are a naughty commie and need to be punished.
I think it may be time to start having Marxist Leninist debate nights between groups so as to force people to be theoretically involved and to force people to think outside of their parties little box. I for one can not stand when you are having a debate with someone from a party/ORG about their political line and all they do is shove their fingers in their ears and repetitively say the same thing their parties site says over and over again.
There is no reason why a group with less than 300 members should all be subordinate to 7-15 people. That is ridiculous and no one can make a strong enough claim to me that this is in any way democratic. Which brings me to my next point which is when the dogmatics after being out debated say 'well you have a liberal/bourgeois idea of democracy'. Democracy is a word that cannot mean but one thing. If we use word parts here it means "rule of the people" (google it if you don't believe me) so how can you call your group "democratic" centralist if you don't use democracy? In fact you are using a bourgeois definition of the word if you are defending a few people ruling over the greater number of people in your group. As this is how the bourgeoisie use the word democracy is to say that a few rule over the masses.
In short I think we need a open national debate on democratic centralism and what it means and how to use it properly. I think the true idea of democratic centralism has become lost and distorted to benefit a few leaders when it is meant to benefit the greater populace in a group.
I would really love to see some comments and peoples ideas at the bottom of this page. It is time to start discussing things of this nature.
Written by; Dustin Slagle
In the first entry I wrote: "Even Trotskyist use the democratic centralism model in most of their parties but when a party or country degenerates to bureaucratic centralism the trots call that party/country Stalinist. Of course a Trotskyist is never going to pass up a chance to jab at Stalin but in reality it was Lenin's model of democratic centralism that is/was incorrect."- I would like to be clear that I was wrong in this statement because the fact is that parties who have degenerated from DCism into dictatorship of the leadership are not following real Leninism. Lenin called for open detailed debate and that the party would then chose the best course of action. What happens in most parties in the US is that their leader or leaders make all the choices and the rank and file are expected to follow suit or else they are party traitors. And do not be fooled I have heard this story multiple time from members of Trotskyist, Hoxhaist, Maoist, ML and any other party. But I wanted to clear myself for my mistaken ideas of attacking Lenin's style dcism when it is not a historical figures fault but it differs on a party to party basis. I would like to reiterate that this is not a form of "Stalinism" but is a dialectal problem and should not be so simply brushed off.
I also said: "When a party starts there are usually a few members who are more dedicated than others or do more work than other members. This rightfully earns this said person a certain amount of respect among the founding members and new members. So they are elected to a seat of power. The problem is that as time goes on the people who started the group want to make sure things are run the way they want and that they stay in charge. So what ends up happening is that the original members end up with multiple seats or too much power."- I was mainly wrong in writing this in that corruption doesn't have to start at the beginning. It can also happen after a certain wing takes over main seats in the party. The person who is the leader will assign people that follow his line or people that will parrot everything they say to the point that democracy is not even needed in the party because everyone 'already agrees' but in reality this is corruption. What will then happen is that any one in the party who challenges the leadership on party lines or tactics, the leadership will say that you are disrespecting the choice of the party when in reality you may just disagree with the leaders who have no desire for real line struggle.
"we may need to do away with democratic centralism all together."- I think this statement was a result of my emotions I fear because we do need democratic centralism. But there needs to be more emphasis put on the democracy of the many. A small central committee made up of all like minded people shouldn't control a whole party. I think this is the reason that the corruption problem lies within most parties CC's.
A suggested solution: Central Committee's should be made up of people of different ideas and backgrounds. If you have healthy debate and different representatives in the CC I believe this could help eliminate the corruption problem most parties face. There is no reason why then people who are all friends and who all believe in the same exact line should all be on the CC. There should be a wide variety of ages on a CC also. Young people are more militant and adventurous when it comes to politics and older comrades seem to be more reserved and calculating (in a good way). We need a healthy mix of the two, not one or the other extreme.
I wrote at the end: "Obviously this writer knows he doesn't have all the answers but I am sick of seeing hundreds of intelligent individuals walking around parroting what their leaders, elders and party tell them to."- this I still believe and yes it still makes me sick.
I still have a deep mistrust of democratic centralism but this does not mean that I do not think it can not be properly implemented. I still think that communal democracy could be a good substitute or should be intertwined with democratic centralism. I am still a strong supporter of local chapters, cells or whatever they are called in a party having more power over their locals than the national party. As I said in my last post: "Communal socialism would be better because how is some one in LA or DC or NYC suppose to know what we need in Mississippi or Illinois or Colorado etc? Only the people from those areas know exactly what they are producing and what they need. Each area would be more personally in charge of themselves and thus wouldn't feel the constant oppression of the centralized state." I still uphold this view.
Another problem I see is that the rank and file members of a group or party dogmatically defend their own submission to these kind of fake democratic centralism's. I think this half stems from a kind of sub-understanding of what real democratic centralism is and the other half can be contributed two ways. One; the dogmatic nature of communist who think just because Lenin said or wrote something and their party quotes him out of context that the must be right. And two; the party or group itself twist the ideas of democratic centralism to mean that rank and file members listen and are subordinate to their leaders and to self criticize or try to create a line struggle is against what Lenin taught and thus you are a naughty commie and need to be punished.
I think it may be time to start having Marxist Leninist debate nights between groups so as to force people to be theoretically involved and to force people to think outside of their parties little box. I for one can not stand when you are having a debate with someone from a party/ORG about their political line and all they do is shove their fingers in their ears and repetitively say the same thing their parties site says over and over again.
There is no reason why a group with less than 300 members should all be subordinate to 7-15 people. That is ridiculous and no one can make a strong enough claim to me that this is in any way democratic. Which brings me to my next point which is when the dogmatics after being out debated say 'well you have a liberal/bourgeois idea of democracy'. Democracy is a word that cannot mean but one thing. If we use word parts here it means "rule of the people" (google it if you don't believe me) so how can you call your group "democratic" centralist if you don't use democracy? In fact you are using a bourgeois definition of the word if you are defending a few people ruling over the greater number of people in your group. As this is how the bourgeoisie use the word democracy is to say that a few rule over the masses.
In short I think we need a open national debate on democratic centralism and what it means and how to use it properly. I think the true idea of democratic centralism has become lost and distorted to benefit a few leaders when it is meant to benefit the greater populace in a group.
I would really love to see some comments and peoples ideas at the bottom of this page. It is time to start discussing things of this nature.
Written by; Dustin Slagle
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)