Communism and the Long View of History

Many people have become discouraged with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the revisionism found in existing Asian communist countries, and the lack of a clear, unified revolutionary movement. Certainly the communist movement has faced setbacks. However, the situation radically changes when one takes a long view of history.

One should expect to see elements of the previous society within the transition. Feudalism arose from the destruction of the Roman Empire. The Germanic tribes needed to reorganize themselves from simple war bands into integrated hierarchical armies based on plunder and spoils to overcome the Roman legions. The very method used to destroy the ancient society became the foundation for the new society. Yet, even so the old society persisted more or less strongly either through social customs and practices or even with the continued existence of the Byzantine Empire as the slowly fading vestige of Rome which persisted until the middle of the fifteenth century. Feudalism lasted for more than a thousand years. Capitalism on the other hand is only around three hundred years old, but the cracks have already begun to show.
One should remember the history of struggles which have brought us to this point. Many characterize the American and French revolutions as the heralds of a new era. They certainly played a large role in ultimately bringing feudalism and monarchy to a close, but that hides the long history of failed struggles that set the ground for this. One should remember that Italy birthed numerous failed republics. The anti-feudal struggle of the peasants war ended in bloody defeat.

Capitalism itself has existed for only about three hundred years and therefore, the struggles against capitalism have existed for even less amounts of time. We should expect socialism as the struggle against capitalism to still contain the deep contradictions of capitalism within them. Nevertheless, the socialist camp liberated over a third of the world before capitalism and imperialist forces checked its growth. Socialist revolution has been wildly more successful than the capitalist and anti-monarchist struggles.

One must soberly examine the play of forces in the world. One can look at the world and simply see the struggling socialist movements threatened in Venezuela, Nepal, and India. Additionally, one can see the United States devastating Iraq, Afghanistan, and supporting corrupt regimes around the world. One can easily grow discouraged. However, one should simply look at the situation a century ago. Instead of one imperialist power, numerous imperialist power carved up the world. The devastation and revolutions of the twentieth century helped destroy the power of these capitalist imperialists. The Soviet Union had to fight of no less than nine imperialist powers attempting to destroy the socialist revolution. We primarily only have to fight one. This provides a huge advantage to the advancing socialist movement and we should never forget it.

Finally, we must remember and uphold our socialist heritage against attacks and distortions. Marx and Engels never led a revolution and the situation forced them to become the primary commentators and theoreticians of the emerging socialist movement. In 1916, Lenin found himself isolated in Switzerland writing against the powerful social democratic movement which had torn apart the workers movements through its support of imperialism in World War I. In 1936, the reactionary Nationalists had forced Mao and the Chinese communists to retreat from everything they had built and struggled to create for the sake of survival for the movement. They refused to give up. They refused to be beaten. They lead revolution. We as the inheritors of this proud tradition must do no less.

Proletarian and workers language!

Originally posted on: The Hone se Sun


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


Written by: Dustin Slagle

Resources:

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

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

Children Soldiers; are okay if they are fighting for US interest.

These are some chilling words released from the white house and specifically from the President himself:

"

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, pursuant to section 404(c) of the Child Soldiers Prevention Act of 2008 (CSPA), title IV of the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (Public Law 110 457), I hereby determine that it is in the national interest of the United States to waive the application to Chad, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan, and Yemen of the prohibition in section 404(a) of the CSPA.

You are authorized and directed to submit this determination to the Congress, along with the accompanying memorandum of justification, and to publish it in the Federal Register.

BARACK OBAMA" (1)

This press release from the white house is sick for two reasons; It tells the world that Americans are only opposed to children soldiers of groups or nations we oppose. But as long as the kids are fighting for our interest that it is okay to arm the children, FOR AMERICA!

But realistically this could cause a normalization of children soldiers. Because we can't charge one group with using these young soldiers while we support governments and movements that also use child soldiers.

While issues like this are usually left to the liberals to bitch about, this is something that all people of every nation should care about and oppose. Is it or is it not a huge Marxist principle to abolish child labor? And is forcing children into armed conflict not both slavery and child labor? I propose that child soldiers are against Marxist principals and we should do everything we can to support getting children off the battle fields.

But how can we do something about children soldiers, to make sure people are not using them? Well to be honest as a person who lives in a country who supports children soldiers there is not a lot you can do about it. You could support UNICEF but the US government will probably restrict them from working in the countries mentioned above.

You could go protest but as usual that won't change anything. I have no idea what we can do to stop child soldiers from being used but I hope this entry brought to light the fact that their government supports this sick and disgusting use of children soldiers.

Here is an article on the subject from Truthout: http://www.truth-out.org/white-house-says-child-soldiers-are-ok-if-they-fight-terrorists65145

Reference; 1, White house press release on October 25, 2010) http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/10/25/presidential-memorandum-child-soldiers-prevention-act

Written by: Dustin Slagle

The Socialist Parties: A Collective Problem

It is no secret that all the socialist parties seems to share one common trait; bureaucracy. As a person who has been a active socialist for some 6 years plus now, and has many friends in the communist movement. One story seems constant to me, the story of un-democratic bureaucracy ruling over the party. Or to put it plainly bureaucratic-centralism. To someone who may not know what this means, it means that instead of the majority choosing how things are run there are a few (leaders) members who make all or most of the decisions and the majority is expected to parrot (follow) the decision. If the bureaucracy has reached a high level than any criticism of the leaders decisions are usually treated as treason or you are simply purged from the party.


Democratic centralism is suppose to be where the majority chose what to do in a certain situation or the majority decide what stance the party will take on certain issues. And the people in the minority are expected to follow and defend the choice. A common slogan is "freedom of discussion, unity of action."

But why and where does this problem come from? I will attempt to answer these questions in this entry. Some people simply write it off as Stalinism, but this not only lacks in-depth analysis but also blindly ignores dialect materialism. The fact is that most all revolutionary (and non-revolutionary)socialist parties suffer from this to one degree or another.


Why did this problem develop?: This is no easy answer. Since democratic centralism started a long time ago it is hard to pin point exactly when it went wrong. So I will go with something that should be fairly obvious. 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. This writer personally believes if Lenin was alive today he would say the same thing. One thing communist seem to ignore is that we should always be advancing and moving forward. Of course it was not Lenin's fault it turned into a bureaucracy as I believe he would have called for a different approach if he would have seen what democratic centralism was to become.


In reality democratic centralism naturally leads to bureaucracy. 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. New members of a party may take years to realize the level of bureaucracy in their party, especially if the party lets its new members vote on the small things giving the member a false sense of inner democracy.

Some parties claim they use democratic centralism yet they just tell their members the party believes this about China or that about China (just an example) and expects the new members to parrot these stances even though the party never held a vote on the issues. Usually a parties "Central Committee" decides on the parties stances on issues, but why does a small group think they should decide what is the best stance for a party? Well since these people are nominated by other party members some people parrot that this is real democracy, but is it? No, this is another fault of democratic centralism today. A small number of older members just ends up running the party and making all the major choices.


The biggest problem that develops after this stage is when a member offers a criticism of the parties theoretical line or stances on a certain issue, they are usually treated as a traitor or are accused of not following democratic centralism. What happens next is that when the party should take his/her criticism seriously and figure out the best way forward theoretically, instead the criticizer is kicked out of the party.

Parties that claim to use dialect materialism should always be open to changing a position on an issue or international situation. If a party/org kicks one of their members out of for criticizing the theoretical line then that party does not follow dialect materialism and should not claim so. A party can expect its members to defend the parties choices but if the party does not include all or most party members in the decision making process then it is not following true democratic centralism. My point being that it is hard to up hold democratic centralism in the first place.

I'm not the kind of person to just write a criticism without offering some kind of alternative or a way to fix the said problem.

So how do we fix this bureaucracy with in democratic centralism? Well dogmatism in a communist might say we need to reform it. But the fact of the matter is we may need to do away with democratic centralism all together. Ive had many discussions with people about democratic centralism and no one has shown me a way to reform democratic centralism that would eliminate the bureaucratic element.

Since it does not seem possible to reform democratic centralism we must resort back to our revolutionary roots and find something new. This brings to mind something that has been tried before but was dismantled by the right wing of the CPC. Communal democracy and a communal run planned economy.

I do not personally believe that there has ever been a better example of true democracy in either a country or a party that represented the masses to the fullest. Plus we know from experiences that democratic centralism run on a national scale quickly turns sour and eventually ends up oppressing people who speak outside of what the party says it is okay to speak out against. 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.

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. It is time for the communist to start using dialect materialism correctly again, it is time for a revolution!

Written by: Dustin Slagle

(I plan to expand on this)

Cult of Personality and Other Reactionary Garbage

If you're a Marxist, you've almost certainly run into a host of arguments and criticisms about dogmatism, following a “prophet,” or just being a hero worshiper. Often, one will be attacked for “uncritically” accepting the views of some “great man” of the revolution. Approaching this problem can be incredibly difficult. How does one affirm the contributions of the leaders of socialism without seeming like a religious follower? It's pretty clear once you think about it.

First, people have no problem upholding a whole host of geniuses. Albert Einstein, Pablo Picasso, and Jimmy Hendrix are all upheld as pioneers and geniuses in their own field. Yet art and science are, in a certain sense, less difficult than the field of politics. A political leader must carefully weigh innumerable factors whereas a scientific or political genius only needs to be “good” in one field. In this case, leading a revolution, building socialism, and pointing to a new world remain at least equal to the tasks of finding a new conception of gravity, creating a new perception on painting, or revolutionizing the playing of music. In this case, the burden of proof is upon those who demand we don't celebrate the achievements of the leaders of socialism.

Next, it's important to note is that no leader appears in a vacuum. Every advance depends on the hard work and skill of other people. One can see the truth of this with the clear example of Michael Jordan. He was the most dominant basket ball player in history. However, even as a super-star he depended on the teamwork and cooperation of his team. Lenin and Mao didn't succeed without the support of the Russian and Chinese communist parties respectively. In this case, it's the masses who make history and it's both the masses and the leadership of those revolutionary movements we uphold.

In short, don't get blackmailed by liberals and reactionaries attempting to force you not to support the revolutionary struggle.

Regulated and Deregulated Capitalism.

Yesterday, I was watching a documentary called Plunder. A documentary created by Danny Schechter, A journalist who had written many good books, I have not read yet. But I hope I will get the chance to. In the Documentary he discuss the crimes committed by wall street criminals, which includes giving loans to people who could not afford to pay them back, tricking people and taking all of their hard saved money, away in their schemes.

At the end of the documentary, he suggests that we have economical reforms that would prevent this crisis from happening again. But here the problem, we have tryed that in the past and it never works. Reforms do not work because you cannot reform capitalism or regulate it. Capitalism is a system based on greed and you cannot put a human face on greed. Comrade BJ Murphy, say it best.

The point is we need a new system and fixing the old system that is tearing down would not help. Listen to how he compare regulating capitalism, to fixing a crumbling road that can not be fixed.

Scare Tactics

Nazi’s Are Not Socialist

First lets start with the biggest myth associated with socialism. The biggest scare tactic is associating the German Nazi party with communism or socialism. Firstly in socialism all the people equally benefit from working as a whole. Instead of producing goods for profit the goods are created for the society use as a whole. Workers rights are put before that of the rich and ruling classes. Socialism attempts to destroy the ruling class and replace capitalism with a workers democracy.

National Socialism is only socialism for the national majority or in the Nazi’s case, socialism only for white non-jewish Germans. But they benefited from the oppression and exploitation of the minorities. As anyone who cares to read up on history, the communist and social democrats were the first people thrown into the death camps or were just taken out into the country side and shot. The National Socialist party was actually more accurately described a fascist party. Fascism has been described by many people as corporatist jingoism (extreme and aggressive patriotism/right-wing-racist nationalism).

In Nazi Germany the unions were destroyed and profit for the ruling class and their factory owning friends was the number one priority. The only reason some Jewish men/woman lived through the Holocaust is they were a source of free labor.

All socialist/communist parties are staunchly anti-fascist and in most cases join forces with anarchist all the way to liberals to combat fascism. The two ideologies could not be more different.

Wrongful Name Association

One of the next biggest scare tactics against socialist is name association. As a socialist Ive been called many things in my life. It never fails for people to drop one name when trying to discredit socialism; Stalin. I have personally been called a Stalinist so many times I have lost count.

Let me start by saying this; the word Stalinism has no base. Mao, Marx and Lenin, all of these people contributed something to the ideology of their respective forms of communism. For example Mao created “people protracted war” (and many other ideas) and there for Maoism is distinct from other forms of specific socialism. Stalin (unlike Mao/Lenin/Marx) contributed no advancement of socialist ideology. Thus the word Stalinist/Stalinism is just a scare tactic used to scare people away from socialism and has no base or meaning what so ever.

Communism is “Un-democratic”

First lets explain that un-like the popular opinion in the US, there is more than one form of “democracy”. The US uses bourgeois democracy, meaning that the candidate with the highest funding mostly wins the election. In the US “democracy”, party candidates are nominated by the parties after paying a sum of money, then voters get to pick from them in the primaries.

In socialism run on democratic centralism people are nominated by other people at the local level. Then after this they will run in a popular vote at the local/state or national elections depending on what they are nominated for. This is commonly called a workers democracy. In democratic centralism everyone votes as individuals but acts as one. This also keeps the citizens of said country involved in their government but this system also has problems but I will touch on that in a later post.. The idea that communism is un-democratic is a truthful as saying Iraq still has WMD.

Socialism is an idea of peace, love for your brothers and sisters, community, equal rights, anti-oppression, anti-imperialism, and is all about giving the power to the majority, power to the people!

By:Dustin Slagle