I have not posted anything for well over a month now. I wanted to explain the reasons why I have been unable to write.
First of all I would like to explain that my life is very busy and full of stress I am a dad of a toddler and I don't live with his mother (though we are together) so I am constantly trying to find ways and time to spend with my family.
I do not have running water (no hot water for two years, no running water for nine months as of December 2011) and back in October the electric company turned out our power (number one reason I was unable to write) and charged us over one thousand five hundred US dollars for a meter that got messed up somehow and they stuck us with the bill. I was out of electricity for about three weeks. In that time I also happened to be at a very low place money wise and had about twelve dollars to feed me for about two weeks. So there were a lot of things on my mind at the time besides my blog.
I was also going to school three times a week (now two because I couldn't focus on my work and had to drop a class) and being distracted caused me to slip on my grades. Again I had to concentrate on my school work before my blog. I have one class up to a passing grade and the other class I am close to getting a passing grade.
When the electricity was out all of our food spoiled, so again I was busy with trying to get some money to get food into the house. And through all of this, the stress has cause a condition I have called Ulcerative Colitis or UC to have an abnormally long flare up. It seems as though when tough times come they make sure to test our strength to the fullest. Also they shut off our gas (which is how we heat our house and have for years, we have no central heat or A/C) making it impossible to heat the house.
I don't write this to complain or to cry about my position in life (I'm well aware that some have it far worse) I just wanted to offer a glimpse into my life at the current time and offer a reason for my absence in posting. Look for my regular posting to begin really soon. Most likely on the occupy movement and the Oakland Commune. Thank you to all who continued to check the site while I was away!
Written by: Dustin Slagle
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Friday, October 14, 2011
Some Thoughts on the Occupy Wall St. Movement.
I, like most of the American left have been following the Occupy Wall Street Movement (OWS) very closely. Unfortunately due to finals and my partner plus myself being sick. I've not been able to go down to my local occupy movement.When the "occupations" first started I was very wary of their origins and who was behind organizing them etc etc. This obviously was eventually discussed on Facebook between me and a friend to which Mike Ely from the Kasama Project asked me: "Share with me your "I don't know what I feel about it"? I am curious why some decent people are so ambivalent." Besides the fact that I was flattered that he called us "decent people" he raised a great point. Before I could answer him my friend replied with about the same answer I would have given: "I'm definitely down with the Occupy Wall Street end of things. They seem to have pretty good politics. I'm just a little worried about the Occupy St. Louis end. Looking at the page, it seems like there's a bunch of Zeitgeist Movement types, which makes me kind of nervous...So if the protest is going to be about limiting the financial sector, getting corporate money out of politics, preserving/strengthening the social safety net, and building a democratic, egalitarian, left-wing movement for radical change, I'm totally in. I'm just nervous that it might not be."
And I agree with this so I just added my two cents: "Ive gone to go to things close to this message and when I got there it was just a bunch of move on people raising money to lobby. Should have known by the fact that no anarchist or commies were invited."
To this day I am unsure of who or what started this movement. Another thing that baffles me is how it changes from city to city. Some cities seem to be led by radicals while other cities are being hijacked or were led by liberal the whole time. So it is hard at this time to really speak about or address the OWS movement as a whole because the orientation, the class background and direction of the OWS movement at this time is very blurred.
Permits: One thing I've heard differ from city to city is the question on rather or not to obtain permits for assembly in these public spaces.
Let me be very clear here; if you have a permit then you are not occupying a space. You are permitted to hang out in that spot. 'oh but that is just being ultra-leftist' some might say. But the truth is that you are as my comrade put it: "All we've got is a giant hang out spot"
The same quoted comrade above brought up another great point (and you can and should read the whole article here) that is the "pro-police" activity that has been occurring in some cities. The pigs are our class enemies, period. They defend structures like wall street. That is their job. Their pay rate may land them in the "99%" but they defend the 1% and thus are only logically our class enemy. Not to mention it shows how unorganized this movement is by the fact that the police are attacking this movement in some cities. Even in New York itself where all this started the police have attacked protesters. So show some solidarity with the people from your own movement and stop pro-police demonstrations and stop letting them control your occupation.
The populist nature of the movement: good or bad? I have actually had someone tell me that there is no basis for the claim that this movement is populist. My response is simple; How can a movement who's main slogan is "we are 99%" not be coined populist?
One reoccurring theme I hear from both the left and the right about these occupations is that "we don't know what they stand for or really what they want." I disagree because we do know what they want, they released a list of demands when all this started.
My problem with the populism? Is that it really lacks class analogy. The top twenty percent of the population in the US owns around 83% of all the wealth. Leaving the bottom 80% of the population with only 17% of the nations wealth (1). I must reiterate the lack of class analogy. The next 19% are no better than the top 1%. I'm sure most of those 19% would love to be in the 1%. I know "we are 99" is a better slogan than "we are 80" but siding with the other top 19% just doesn't sit well with me.
What do I think are the positives with the populism? I have thought for a long time now that any movement in the US has to be semi-populist to be successful. I like that a left leaning movement that is large and in the media is pinning "us against them" even if I disagree with the amount of "them" (the rich) they are pinning themselves against.
Plus as an anti-capitalist it is inspiring to see all the "eat the rich" "tax the rich" and "smash wall street" style signs. I truly think if we took the populism out of these occupations that they would disappear fast.
Final Thoughts? There is still a lot to be seen as far as what the future holds for the OWS movement. There is very lose organization going on, some cities are very radical while some cities are playing liberal pacifism. Denouncing each other in some cities, signing papers promising not to denounce each others groups in other cities. To me it is all still very confusing and I am eager to see the outcome and results from this when all is said and done.
One thing I think deserves mentioning is the international solidarity these occupations have received from many of nations, including but not exclusive to: Australia, Russia, France, Brazil, South Africa and many more nations. And another very interesting development is a Chinese protest that echoed the OWS protest.
Written by: Dustin Slagle
(1) William Domhoff. "Wealth. Income and Power". Who Rules America. UCSC, July 2011. WEB. October 14 2011. http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Review: Ho Chi Minh A Life by William J. Duiker
Ho Chi Minh is one of those historical figures that will always have a cloud of mystery surrounding their lives. Ive read a lot about Ho Chi Minh from multiple sources and with all of them put together I didn't know half of what I learned from reading this book.
I read a few reviews of this book before reading it and one person was upset that the author didn't go into enough details about the Vietnam war. I think he went into enough detail of Uncle Ho's life during the Vietnamese war with out focusing too much on war details and it balanced out quite nice.
Ive always seen Uncle Ho as a mixture between a Vietnamese nationalist and communist. After reading this book I believe he was truly both. Though at times through out the book it seems as though Ho Chi Minh was having second thoughts about communism. This was mainly because the Vietminh during WW2 were largely ignored by the USSR. In fact through out the book the author points out how the USSR failed to help the Vietnamese struggle. Uncle Ho said himself that the Democratic Republic of Vietnam had received more assistance from the US than that from the USSR through the course of the war(page 342).
This was all despite the fact that Ho Chi Minh had served as a Comintern for several years. This lead to a very confusing atmosphere within the Vietnamese independence movement. At the National People's Congress of the Vietminh front on August 16th 1945 in Tan Trao the meeting took place under portraits of Lenin, Chairman Mao and General Claire Chennault (a US general)(page 305).
I was hoping that upon reading this book that I would know more about the uprising against the French in Vietnam. This book goes into great detail about Ho Chi Minh's life before and during the french resistance. Uncle Ho spent most of the planning years in south China, collecting assistance and gathering their forces. I was surprised to read that the wife of Sun Yat-sen (the ex-leader of the KMT) actually was very close to the CPC and even helped Uncle Ho while he was in China (page 210).
Another thing that stuck out in this book was Uncle Ho's dislike for Trotskyist. Uncle Ho saw Trots as "Utopian" and "unrealistic" He said to his Indochinese communist party comrades "The Trotskyist have betrayed their reactionary essence everywhere, and in Vietnam as well. our party must dissociate itself from them most resolutely. There must be no compromises."(page 226).
He had even sent a letter from China to the Central Committee of the ICP in 1938 and in point four of this letter Uncle Ho wrote: "We can not make any alliance with or any concession to the Trotskyite group. We must do everything possible to lay bare their faces as the running dogs of the fascist and annihilate them politically"(page 235)
Some Trotskyist were even arrested and executed by the ICP(page 320).
Something I took away from this book was the great amount of help that the DRV received from the CCP and how hard Mao and other leaders from China worked to help the Vietminh and later the Vietcong defeat their oppressors. Especially seeing as how for almost a decade the USSR ignored the Vietnamese people (periodically page 416-419).
China even made great sacrifices at their own cost to help the DRV, granting the DRV diplomatic recognition knowing that its relations with France and western nations in general would suffer because of it (page 420). Though eventually Stalin agreed to send assistance to Vietnam after WW2 "Because of limits of natural conditions, it will be mainly China that helps you. What China lacks we will provide."-Stalin. To which Mao assures Ho Chi Minh "Whatever China has and Vietnam needs, we will provide"-Mao. On the train ride home Mao told Uncle Ho that "Getting something from Stalin is like taking meat from the mouth of a tiger." (page422).
During the Vietnam war between the US and the Vietcong forces, many farmers had to lay down their farm equipment to go and fight in the war. This lead to a shortage of food in the DRV. But again the Chinese Communist came to the aid of the DRV and the Vietcong, saving many from starvation during the war by sending generous amounts of rice to the DRV (page 553).
It was because of the endless help of the CPC that the DRV chose the Chinese model of socialism (page 428) over that of the USSR in its earlier years before the CPC moved away from its Maoist and more democratic model and became hostile towards Vietnam.
One theme through out the book, that you can tell the author really wanted an answer to in his research was if Ho Chi Minh was a nationalist or a communist. I think the author was correct when towards the end of the book when he claims that Ho Chi Minh was some one who wanted national independence for Vietnam. He is also correct I believe in saying that Ho Chi Minh was both a nationalist and a communist. Even if he was a nationalist before a communist one can not discount his many denunciations of world capitalist and imperialism in general. One also has to believe that a non-communist would have never implemented the extreme land reform that the DRV did with such a great success. The land reform program helped to radicalize the peasantry and motivate them to fight against the landlord and rich peasant classes(page 488).
Over all the book was easy to read and the series of events was easy to follow and made sense when reading it, I never felt confused as to what year it was or what country Uncle Ho was in. I was happy how in-dept the book went into about his Comintern years with such great detail.
When reading this book I could really tell that the author was passionate about this writing. I also could tell that he worked very hard on gathering facts from many different sources to write this book. There were point in the book where I could simply never put it down. I lost quite a few hours of sleep to this book and I'm glad I did.
If I had to rate this book from 1 to 10 I'd give it a 8.9, and I don't give easy ratings to anything. This is one of the best biography books Ive ever read. Second only to "Che: A Revolutionary Life". And that says a lot, thank you for writing this book Mr. Duiker it is a great achievement.
(all page numbers taken from paperback version)
Review written by: Dustin Slagle
Friday, September 16, 2011
It Hurts Doesn't it Palin Supporters?
I hope most of you reading this by now have heard of the new book that just came out called The Rogue: Searching for the Real Sarah Palin.
In this book the author makes claims that Sarah Palin had an affair with a business partner of her husband. Apparently she also did cocaine with her husband(1). Blowing her image wide open to criticism.
Of course the Palinites have gone to extreme lengths to denounce this book as lies and just general misinformation.
Her own husband (probably in denial) came out calling the author a liar and "This is a man who has been relentlessly stalking my family to the point of moving in right next door to us to harass us and spy on us to satisfy his creepy obsession with my wife,"(2)
I just want to ask the republicans and Palin supporters one question: How does it feel?
As Maoist we know how it feels to have someone release a book about some one who inspires us, and that book is full of lies. The book "the private life of Mao Zedong" was written by a Dr who claimed to be Mao physician yet no evidence exist that points out that this Li Zhisui ever even met the red sun. Let alone this is a second release of this book. His first edition didn't sell. But when he added bad things about Mao it started selling like crazy among capitalist nations. I think he even apologized to Mao's family for the lies he put in this book to sell it.
The book: "Mao the untold story." is another case where people quote untrue things from this book to me all the time. Academic experts have criticized the book for its falsifications of interviews and selective sources. Professor Andrew Nathan of Columbia University said of the books sources: "many of their discoveries come from sources that cannot be checked, others are openly speculative or are based on circumstantial evidence, and some are untrue." David S. G. Goodman, Professor of Contemporary China Studies at the University of technology, Sydney said of the book: "the 'facts' in The Da Vinci Code are about as reliable as those to be found in...Mao: The Unknown Story." Goodman argued that the style of writing was "extremely polemic" and that the book could even be thought of as a "form of fiction" where "a strong narrative" is "a substitute for evidence and argument." And many other criticisms were made of the book's facts, even by people's who studies are specific to modern China.
And what were the writers response to these criticisms? "the academics' views on Mao and Chinese history cited represent received wisdom of which we were well aware while writing our biography of Mao. We came to our own conclusions and interpretations of events through a decade's research." Wow, this is suppose to be a research/history book of a leader of China and the writers say themselves the cited 'RECEIVED WISDOM' and what takes the cake here in what is suppose to be a book on history, there for a non-fiction they say "WE CAME TO OUR OWN CONCLUSIONS" How was this book ever printed in the first place? Even worst: "we came to our own conclusions AND INTERPRETATIONS OF EVENTS"(3) I'm sure most people who would read this has had to write a research or argument paper at some point in their life. Never has a teacher in the history of ever allowed a student to cite their own conclusions and interpretations of events as evidence. A conclusion is the only place a student would be allowed to use this. So as writers of a research/history book it is completely unacceptable for this to happen.
But yet I still have these books quote to me all the time to point out the horribleness of Mao's personal life. At least now there is a book I can use to quote from to attack republicans on their hero's personal life. So I ask: How does it feel?
(1) "Sarah Palin: Bio Says She indulged in Sex and Drugs Husband says Biographer Has 'Creepy Obsession'". Montreal Gazette. AFP. September 16 2011. Web. September 16 2011. http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Sarah+Palin+says+indulged+drugs/5410793/story.html
(2) Philip Elliott. "Palin Camp Denounces Racy Bio of Former Governor. Yahoo. AP. September 15 2011. Web. September 15 2011. http://news.yahoo.com/palin-camp-denounces-racy-bio-former-governor-162709708.html
(3) (all quotes take from wiki page for easier access to reader) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao:_The_Unknown_Story#Criticism
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Proletarians! Walking Like Capitalist?
Most anyone living in the United States has a friend or family member in retail. If not then you have at least had someone try to sell you something you don't need for way too much money.
One thing I have noticed about my proletarian brothers in sisters in my personal experience is that at work and even after work they seem to pride themselves on how much they know about the money of the business they work for. For example one of my friends who made minimum wage would always brag about knowing how much money the restaurant made in a night, week etc. Because the bosses told him this small bit of information he would bend over backwards for the bosses no matter what. He would call people in for them do inventory for them and never asked for a raise in wages because he was their "friend" (aka a worker who did everything except ask for a raise). But because his bosses would tell him stupid information about the company and let him eat sword fish when he would work fifty plus hours a week he felt important to the company. I say felt because he was threatened at work by a co-worker and the bosses told him to deal with it. So he had to quit.
Another friend of mine was bragging to me that she had sold people some things they didn't need and got them to buy three hundred dollars worth of shit they didn't need. She was saying this like it was some kind of accomplishment. You would have thought she got all of the three hundred dollars. But she doesn't even make commission, she gets paid seventy cents over minimum wage. But yet she is proud and happy to have exploited these average everyday people for the mass benefit of her bosses and exploiters.
It drives me crazy to see this behavior specially by the poorest class in the USA. In the first example I gave you, the person is now homeless because he did the same thing at his new job and started drinking 12 year old scotch and smoking seven dollar cigars and just generally acting like he was of a higher class. But we see how much his capitalist friends helped him when after two years of breaking his back for them and never getting one raise they fired him.
What I have the hardest time understanding is where this behavior comes from. I don't understand why so many workers care about the business side of the company they work for let alone want to act like they have a steak in it. I'll never understand why someone in sales who doesn't make commission would care about selling people things they don't need. In fact I'm sure that makes them a horrible person.
The last thing I would like to rant about is the poor proletarians who complain about the Unions. That same guy Ive mentioned said on many occasions "why should one person get paid a days work everyday for three days for a job that takes one day""a non-union could probably do all three jobs on one day for one days pay." This baffled me and led to almost a strangle match. But the serious question is; why are proletarians feeling this way? Why are they acting and talking/walking this way? What has labor, communist etc failed to do so much that the proletarians of this nation think they are some mystical "middle class" and aspire to be the new bosses? Maybe it is time to do some self reflecting in the movement and make a huge change.
One thing I have noticed about my proletarian brothers in sisters in my personal experience is that at work and even after work they seem to pride themselves on how much they know about the money of the business they work for. For example one of my friends who made minimum wage would always brag about knowing how much money the restaurant made in a night, week etc. Because the bosses told him this small bit of information he would bend over backwards for the bosses no matter what. He would call people in for them do inventory for them and never asked for a raise in wages because he was their "friend" (aka a worker who did everything except ask for a raise). But because his bosses would tell him stupid information about the company and let him eat sword fish when he would work fifty plus hours a week he felt important to the company. I say felt because he was threatened at work by a co-worker and the bosses told him to deal with it. So he had to quit.
Another friend of mine was bragging to me that she had sold people some things they didn't need and got them to buy three hundred dollars worth of shit they didn't need. She was saying this like it was some kind of accomplishment. You would have thought she got all of the three hundred dollars. But she doesn't even make commission, she gets paid seventy cents over minimum wage. But yet she is proud and happy to have exploited these average everyday people for the mass benefit of her bosses and exploiters.
It drives me crazy to see this behavior specially by the poorest class in the USA. In the first example I gave you, the person is now homeless because he did the same thing at his new job and started drinking 12 year old scotch and smoking seven dollar cigars and just generally acting like he was of a higher class. But we see how much his capitalist friends helped him when after two years of breaking his back for them and never getting one raise they fired him.
What I have the hardest time understanding is where this behavior comes from. I don't understand why so many workers care about the business side of the company they work for let alone want to act like they have a steak in it. I'll never understand why someone in sales who doesn't make commission would care about selling people things they don't need. In fact I'm sure that makes them a horrible person.
The last thing I would like to rant about is the poor proletarians who complain about the Unions. That same guy Ive mentioned said on many occasions "why should one person get paid a days work everyday for three days for a job that takes one day""a non-union could probably do all three jobs on one day for one days pay." This baffled me and led to almost a strangle match. But the serious question is; why are proletarians feeling this way? Why are they acting and talking/walking this way? What has labor, communist etc failed to do so much that the proletarians of this nation think they are some mystical "middle class" and aspire to be the new bosses? Maybe it is time to do some self reflecting in the movement and make a huge change.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Communist Led Revolution, and Small Businesses!
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.
"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.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)