Ask a Red III

[Traitorfish]

well it makes it a statement of intent and purpose .... so i beg to differ from you.. it is their general programe

there is something to be said for chinese re-education .... the chinese KNOW what marxist aims are...

If that creaking stageist bullcrap is "Marxism", they can keep it.

 

[Old Hippy]

If that creaking stageist bullcrap is "Marxism", they can keep it.

seems we are in agreement after all...

 

[Takhisis]

Yeah, somehow. What?

 

[Old Hippy]

Yeah, somehow. What?

well i was not putting my point of view of what communism is or is not only challenging the view that it has failed in china... china could quite easily do a complete change of direction in say 5 or 10 years as has happened before... after all the do say that it is a 100+ year journey and they are not at that point yet... maybe i misled you talking about the freeing up of their production ... but they still have as their opening spiel to their consttuition

The Communist Party of China is the vanguard both of the Chinese working class and of the Chinese people and the Chinese nation. It is the core of leadership for the cause of socialism with Chinese characteristics and represents the development trend of China's advanced productive forces, the orientation of China's advanced culture and the fundamental interests of the overwhelming majority of the Chinese people. The realization of communism is the highest ideal and ultimate goal of the Party.

The Communist Party of China takes Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought, Deng Xiaoping Theory and the important thought of Three Represents as its guide to action.

I'm just saying its to early to judge yet... you never know they just might uphold their stated aims... they seem on track to me

 

[Traitorfish]

It's not too early to judge when their "stated aims" are a sloppy cocktail of turgid Kautskyisms and Three Worlds drivel.

 

[Old Hippy]

It's not too early to judge when their "stated aims" are a sloppy cocktail of turgid Kautskyisms and Three Worlds drivel.

maybe the current leadership payed to little attention to the little red book when they were young...

Spoiler :

Policy is the starting-point of all the practical actions of a revolutionary party and manifests itself in the process and the end-result of that party's actions. A revolutionary party is carrying out a policy whenever it takes any action. If it is not carrying out a correct policy, it is carrying out a wrong policy; if it is not carrying out a given policy consciously, it is doing so blindly. What we call experience is the process and the end-result of carrying out a policy. Only through the practice of the people, that is, through experience, can we verify whether a policy is correct or wrong and determine to what extent it is correct or wrong. However, people's practice, especially the practice of a revolutionary party and the revolutionary masses, cannot but be bound up with one policy or another. Therefore, before any action is taken, we must explain the policy, which we have formulated in the light of the given circumstances, to Party members and to the masses. Otherwise, Party members and the masses will depart from the guidance of our policy, act blindly and carry out a wrong policy.

"On the Policy Concerning Industry and Commerce" (February 27, 1948), Selected Works, Vol. IV. Pp. 204-05. *

Contradiction and struggle are universal and absolute, but the methods of resolving contradictions, that is, the forms of struggle, differ according to the differences in the nature of the contradictions. Some contradictions are characterized by open antagonism and others are not. In accordance with the concrete development of things, some contradictions, which were originally non-antagonistic, develop into antagonistic ones, while others which were originally antagonistic develop into non-antagonistic ones.
"On Contradiction" (August 1937), Selected Works, Vol. I, p 344

1937 and 1948, seems that the current leadership did read it tho...

but they are definitely not expresso marxists like kautsky.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Funny you should say that, because a lot of Communist Party intellectuals are begging to argue that China is the only authentic capitalist nation in the world, on the grounds that all other countries participate in imperialism and are therefore "semi-feudal".

What an interesting idea.

True ... but a lot of Communist party power brokers would see this phase as transitional, a necessary step towards "true" communism, I've heard this expressed in European ideas over 100 years ago.... actually I heard this idea expressed on CFCOT more recently...

and I did say if/when Chinese Communism is proved to work earlier...

If their guiding motive is still advancement towards a communist society (I don't know that it is), then it is essentially the realization of the Menshevik ideology.

What is the optimum political strategy for a Red in the United States? Voting for the Democrats in order to get closer (Even if not by much) to the society you want, vote for the Republicans in hopes that they will (Allegedly) screw the working class over and ultimately speed up revolution, or some other cause?

The Party says we should vote Democrat, and mostly refrain from strong protests against them, so as to crush the power of the extreme Right. I think it's a stupid policy, because the Democrats have proven to be everything the Republicans are, but still less honest about it. It's a farce.

I do think that Republican victories will advance our cause more, because they expose the system more obviously for what it is. However, when people see the GOP do that, right now they turn to the Democrats as the alternative. One of our prime tasks in this country should be the destruction of the two-party system by any means (even encouraging people to vote for libertarian or other third parties), and a big part of that is making them realize that the Democrats are not an alternative, but merely the reverse side of the same coin.

The preferred method of progression is grass-roots working class organization. We must cultivate the mindset of the society we wish to create, by instilling those values in people, or making them realize what those values (which they more likely than not already possess) translate into most productively. Such organization also works towards the other goal, which is the capability of creating a general strike. We work the machines, either literally or figuratively, and we also possess the power to shut them down. Organization not only makes this possible, but also protects against scabbing, by making workers realize their united cause.

Would you rather vote for a left-wing economic system which includes an authoritarian government, or a right-wing economic system that includes a socially libertarian government? I imagine the answers will differ there, but the question is more "Which is worse, for a liberal red?"

I don't know what a liberal communist is. When I think liberal communist, this is what comes to mind.

To answer your question, I would take an authoritarian socialist one over a libertarian society as right-wing libertarians are most likely to envision.

What's the difference between communism and socialism, exactly?

Different answers will arise according to who answers. My answer is that communism is a stateless, classless society. Socialism is the process which turns capitalism into that.

Do all socialists/communists agree with Marx's quote "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need?"

More aptly, from each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution. Marx's quote is the moral goal that we may one day reach, and toward which we should always strive. But my statement (actually Lenin's) is far more useful for the mean time. I think that once Marx's version is reached, Lenin's is implied. The two will one day become one and the same.

Enlighten me, Traitorfish, on how voting is counter productive. Are you saying a communist could not ever be democratically elected? Why the pessimism?

It is foolish to think the ruling class will allow their power and privilege to be voted away.

 

[Old Hippy]

If their guiding motive is still advancement towards a communist society (I don't know that it is), then it is essentially the realization of the Menshevik ideology.
.

Not to derail your thread, which I enjoy very much.
but here is some thoughts from Stalin... on this very topic

Ever since Marxism came into being, there have been true and false Marxists in the Marxist movement. The whole history of this movement is full of struggles between these two groups. Similarly, the Marxist movement in China has also been full of such struggles. This must be thoroughly understood by all our Party members.

Twenty years ago, Stalin correctly described these two groups. Let me quote him here in full:

There are two groups of Marxists. Both work under the flag of Marxism and consider themselves 'genuinely' Marxist. Nevertheless, they are by no means identical. More, a veritable gulf divides them, for their methods of work are diametrically opposed to each other.

The first group usually confines itself to an outward acceptance, to a ceremonial avowal of Marxism. Being unable or unwilling to grasp the essence of Marxism, being unable or unwilling to put it into practice, it converts the living, revolutionary principles of Marxism into lifeless, meaningless formulas. It does not base its activities on experience, on what practical work teaches, but on quotations from Marx. It does not derive its instructions and direction from an analysis of living reality, but from analogies and historical parallels. Discrepancy between word and deed is the chief malady of this group. Hence the disillusionment and perpetual grudge against fate, which time and again lets it down and makes a "dupe" of it. The name for this group is Menshevism (in Russia), opportunism (in Europe). Comrade Tyszka (Jogiches) described this group very aptly at the London Congress when he said that it does not stand by, but lies down on the point of view of Marxism.

The second group, on the contrary, attaches prime importance not to the outward acceptance of Marxism, but to its realization, its application in practice. What this group chiefly concentrates its attention on is determining the ways and means of realizing Marxism that best answer the situation, and changing these ways and means as the situation changes. It does not derive its directions and instructions from historical analogies and parallels, but from a study of surrounding conditions. It does not base its activities on quotations and maxims, but on practical experience, testing every step by experience, learning from its mistakes and teaching others how to build a new life. That, in fact, explains why there is no discrepancy between word and deed in the activities of this group, and why the teachings of Marx completely retain their living, revolutionary force. To this group may be fully applied Marx's saying that Marxists cannot rest content with interpreting the world, but must go further and change it. The name of this group is Bolshevism, communism. The organizer and leader of this group is V. I. Lenin. 5

it just seems to me its hard to tell which group is which now days... especially since the USSR made so many mistakes in its advancement of communism... it seems that Menshevism would not have changed China's dirrection on its still to come 100 year march forward.Now considering that the changes were made just after the US out produced the USSR militarily... and the changes started off with the reaffirmation of the party's revoultionary principals and then stated that production was the aim, to bring China ready for true communism... exactly who was being Menschevist those adapting to change or those believing in the status quo

"contradictions" an important concept...
keep up the good work in your thread, its very enjoyable

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Not to derail your thread, which I enjoy very much.
but here is some thoughts from Stalin... on this very topic

Where does this quotation come from?

Ever since Marxism came into being, there have been true and false Marxists in the Marxist movement. The whole history of this movement is full of struggles between these two groups. Similarly, the Marxist movement in China has also been full of such struggles. This must be thoroughly understood by all our Party members.

Twenty years ago, Stalin correctly described these two groups. Let me quote him here in full:

There are two groups of Marxists. Both work under the flag of Marxism and consider themselves 'genuinely' Marxist. Nevertheless, they are by no means identical. More, a veritable gulf divides them, for their methods of work are diametrically opposed to each other.

The first group usually confines itself to an outward acceptance, to a ceremonial avowal of Marxism. Being unable or unwilling to grasp the essence of Marxism, being unable or unwilling to put it into practice, it converts the living, revolutionary principles of Marxism into lifeless, meaningless formulas. It does not base its activities on experience, on what practical work teaches, but on quotations from Marx. It does not derive its instructions and direction from an analysis of living reality, but from analogies and historical parallels. Discrepancy between word and deed is the chief malady of this group. Hence the disillusionment and perpetual grudge against fate, which time and again lets it down and makes a "dupe" of it. The name for this group is Menshevism (in Russia), opportunism (in Europe). Comrade Tyszka (Jogiches) described this group very aptly at the London Congress when he said that it does not stand by, but lies down on the point of view of Marxism.

The second group, on the contrary, attaches prime importance not to the outward acceptance of Marxism, but to its realization, its application in practice. What this group chiefly concentrates its attention on is determining the ways and means of realizing Marxism that best answer the situation, and changing these ways and means as the situation changes. It does not derive its directions and instructions from historical analogies and parallels, but from a study of surrounding conditions. It does not base its activities on quotations and maxims, but on practical experience, testing every step by experience, learning from its mistakes and teaching others how to build a new life. That, in fact, explains why there is no discrepancy between word and deed in the activities of this group, and why the teachings of Marx completely retain their living, revolutionary force. To this group may be fully applied Marx's saying that Marxists cannot rest content with interpreting the world, but must go further and change it. The name of this group is Bolshevism, communism. The organizer and leader of this group is V. I. Lenin.

it just seems to me its hard to tell which group is which now days...

Well first, let me say that I think Stalin is full of [feces]. What this quote amounts to is that they want to use the name of Marx to justify their actions, but don't want to restrict themselves to following what he actually says. Thus, they demonize people who do, and create excuses for themselves for their deviations, as well as play that classic idealist/realist card that gets used so much against communists and their kin.

Any reading of Marxism should yield an expressly clear lack of application to Russia as it existed in 1917. That's why Trotsky came up with the theory of the Permanent Revolution, so that Marxism could be adapted to the Russian situation. It was this adaptation that Lenin built his April Theses upon (aka, a rejection of the classical Marxists, who were the Mensheviks, who wanted to follow the policy we have together described above with regards to the Chinese Communist Party, and a continuation forward with the socialist revolution before a mature capitalist society existed, the economic progress of which they would imitate themselves); at no point did either of those two men pretend that they were following an orthodox Marxist understanding of correct action. This was why, when challenged by Kautsky and Luxemburg on this very issue, Lenin's response was that they did not understand and appreciate the unique situation the Russian communists found themselves in, and thus their orthodox Marxism was incapable of leading them to the correct answers - with regards to Russia. He did not say that they were following the One True Path of Marxism as opposed to Western European supine Marxism. This also did not stop the Russians during the 1920s from supporting, for example, the Kuomintang over the Chinese Communist Party, an expressly stagist policy in direct contradiction to what Stalin has said above is the only correct action.

What Stalin is expressing above is one of the foundational principles of Marxism-Leninism: the path of the Soviet Union is the one true and correct path for all of society to take from capitalism and imperialism to socialism. It is not based upon an understanding of either Lenin nor Marx, but rather a justification for the hodge-podge regime that resulted in the USSR because of both its historical path, as well as the efforts by Stalin to consolidate his own power, and his successors and their political class to maintain it. It is one of the main reasons why Marxist-Leninists have no place imposing their ideology upon the communist parties of advanced capitalist nations like the United States, because our situation and history is wholly different from that experienced by Russia in 1917. They are espousing the defensive ideology created by one man and his caudillos as it was required of another country 80 years ago, not even a useful understanding of Marxist or ante-Marxist ideas today.

I realize the above puts me firmly in that supine Marxist category Stalin described. I don't care, because it's a stupid distinction. Sure, there are "Marxists" who are all talk (the type of people described by the quote in my signature about philosophy and opportunity) and lack a clear understanding that Marxism as the Philosophy of Praxis means that we actually have to think about how to really do stuff, and also people who do think about such practical matters as Making Revolution, but who lack either/or the philosophical, sociological, economic and ideological background. But the reality is that we need to guide ourselves towards a "Marxist phronesis," with a balanced understanding of both the academic as well as the practical sides of things. Pretending one is more important than the other is a good way to divide your forces, and as communists, that is the absolute last thing we can afford to do.

EDIT: I have realized that I did not respond to your post, merely the quote you included. I have edited the quotations in this post to reflect that reality.

... especially since the USSR made so many mistakes in its advancement of communism...

Socialism. The Soviets never claimed to have created communism.

it seems that Menshevism would not have changed China's dirrection on its still to come 100 year march forward.

As I have already hinted above, Stalin's explanation of Menshevik ideology is ridiculous. The Menshevik program was to allow capitalism to happen in Russia, but under the watchful eye of communists who could shut it down whenever they wished, and would do so when it had outlived its usefulness in getting them to the socialist starting point. Lenin's point of departure from them in April was that 1. they were collaborating with the Provisional Government, who were liberal capitalists, and not really taking actions to properly exert the sort of control they said was necessary to carry out their program, and 2. that there would be no guarantee of such a capability of power to shut down capitalism when that time came, and that at the present they did have that capability, and so the opportunity to establish socialist rule and nip capitalism in the bud should not be squandered. Trotsky's program simply provided Lenin with the capability to theoretically equal the economic development that which the Mensheviks could have theoretically allowed capitalism to do.

That was confusing grammar. I hope all that made sense.

 

[Old Hippy]

Where does this quotation come from?

sorry about that...
http://www.marxists.org/reference/index.htm

Liu Shaoqi
Eliminate Menshevist Ideology Within the Party
Written: July 1943
First Published: Liberation Daily, July 6, 1943
Source: Selected Works of Liu Shaoqi, Volume 1, pages 293 - 302
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/liu-shaoqi/1943/07/x01.htm

its rather ironic that he started the cultual revoltion that led to his downfall

Spoiler :

When Mao's Great Leap Forward became politically and popularly disastrous, Liu gained influence within the CCP. In order to correct the mistakes of the Great Leap Forward Liu and Deng led economic reforms, which bolstered their prestige among the party apparatus and the national populace.Once he said to Mao:"People write books about cannibalism!" [10] The economic policies of Deng and Liu were notable for being more liberal than Mao's radical ideas.

By 1962 Liu's opposition to Mao's policies had led Mao to distrust Liu.[11] After Mao succeeded in restoring his prestige during the 1960s,[12] Liu's eventual downfall became "inevitable". Liu's position as the second most powerful leader of the CCP contributed to Mao's rivalry with Liu at least as much as Liu's political beliefs or factional allegiances in the 1960s,[11] indicating that Liu's later persecution was the result of a power struggle that went beyond the goals and wellbeing of either China or the Party.

By 1966, there were few senior leaders in China that questioned the need for a widespread reform to combat the growing problems of corruption and bureaucratization within the Party and the government. With the goal of reforming the government to be more efficient and true to the Communist ideal, Liu himself chaired the enlarged Politburo meeting that officially began the Cultural Revolution. However, Liu and his political allies quickly lost control of the Cultural Revolution soon after it was called, as Mao used the movement to monopolize political power and to destroy his perceived enemies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liu_Shaoqi

on the rest (about where you stand in relation to)... well I'll be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes ...no matter who wins it.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

sorry about that...
http://www.marxists.org/reference/index.htm

Liu Shaoqi
Eliminate Menshevist Ideology Within the Party
Written: July 1943
First Published: Liberation Daily, July 6, 1943
Source: Selected Works of Liu Shaoqi, Volume 1, pages 293 - 302
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/liu-shaoqi/1943/07/x01.htm

I suspected as much.

on the rest (about where you stand in relation to)... well I'll be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes ...no matter who wins it.

Thanks for making me feel like the hour it took to write that post was worthwhile. So what was the point of posting that quote then, if you're not interested in my answer? This isn't a discussion thread, there's no room for you to "one-up" other posters in here with gotcha posts like that.

 

[Old Hippy]

I suspected as much.



Thanks for making me feel like the hour it took to write that post was worthwhile. So what was the point of posting that quote then, if you're not interested in my answer? This isn't a discussion thread, there's no room for you to "one-up" other posters in here with gotcha posts like that.

strange ... did not feel like i was doing that... i was very interested in your answer... should i tell you that you are wrong (when your augments made sense to me) or should I address this

As I have already hinted above, Stalin's explanation of Menshevik ideology is ridiculous. The Menshevik program was to allow capitalism to happen in Russia, but under the watchful eye of communists who could shut it down whenever they wished, and would do so when it had outlived its usefulness in getting them to the socialist starting point. Lenin's point of departure from them in April was that 1. they were collaborating with the Provisional Government, who were liberal capitalists, and not really taking actions to properly exert the sort of control they said was necessary to carry out their program, and 2. that there would be no guarantee of such a capability of power to shut down capitalism when that time came, and that at the present they did have that capability, and so the opportunity to establish socialist rule and nip capitalism in the bud should not be squandered. Trotsky's program simply provided Lenin with the capability to theoretically equal the economic development that which the Mensheviks could have theoretically allowed capitalism to do.

you see in my quote stallin did not mention the specifics, and that is what is important to take from the source of my quote from a chinese perspective on Mensheviks... what a Menshevik, is not

What this group chiefly concentrates its attention on is determining the ways and means of realizing Marxism that best answer the situation, and changing these ways and means as the situation changes. It does not derive its directions and instructions from historical analogies and parallels, but from a study of surrounding conditions.

when the main points of all my posts is that taking, quotes from 1937, 1943 and 1948 the Chinese have always emphased that policy, doctrine/dogma and ritual should never stand in the way of adapting to the situation and learning from past mistakes
that just like the great leap forward or the cultural revolution... nothing is static, so the productive stage that the party is pursuing at present should in no way indicate that they are not pursing their other stated aims
the Chinese emphasis seems to be one of attitude to policy and doctrine in general not which policy or doctrine is supported when deciding what a Menshevik is ...
maybe they feel that nipping capitalism in the bud would lead them to fall behind the US in the coming arms race, and that financing both sides to it would be adapting to the situation, after all no one could be more disappointed with the fall of the USSR than the Chinese communist party, they turned on a dime and now can afford the cost of building up their power, they are rapidly approaching being an urban dwelling nation of workers devoted to production,(rather than nation of peasant farmers) next time they turn on a dime, it could be to build the very things that are proclaimed in the party's Constitution's general principles

http://www.china.org.cn/english/congress/229722.htm

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Which leaves us at "maybe the Chinese are still communists, and maybe they aren't"...right where we started.

 

[Traitorfish]

And that's a question which can be easily swept away without the need for Graffito's multi-page bloviating by simply asking "Does the Chinese Communist Part represent communism as the real movement?", to which the answer is a resounding "no".

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Even if we allow for the possibility that the Chinese way is in deed the - in the end - best way to Communism for China. Even if we assume that strong economic development towards a powerful modern economy is such an important prerequisite of Communism that it justifies to trample on Communistic ideals for a while, and be it 100 years of trampling. Even then it is hard to actually perceive China as communist, because such a perception would only have relevant practical merit if we also assume that China will eventually turn towards nourishing those ideals. But that just seems unlikely, because right now China seems to nourish a symbiosis of economic and political elites who only stand to loose power and wealth if Communism was directly pursued.

 

[Old Hippy]

Which leaves us at "maybe the Chinese are still communists, and maybe they aren't"...right where we started.

well actually we started at chinese communism did not work... so we are making progres to "it is not determined yet", the chinese youth with their Iphones and city apartment, colourfull T-shirts might be happy tho.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I do think that Republican victories will advance our cause more, because they expose the system more obviously for what it is. However, when people see the GOP do that, right now they turn to the Democrats as the alternative. One of our prime tasks in this country should be the destruction of the two-party system by any means (even encouraging people to vote for libertarian or other third parties), and a big part of that is making them realize that the Democrats are not an alternative, but merely the reverse side of the same coin.

Libertarian/Socialist coalition?

Everybody vote Gary Johnson and we all win

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Libertarian/Socialist coalition?

Everybody vote Gary Johnson and we all win

You misunderstand. You voting for a third party serves the communist interest, regardless of which third party it is. We require the destruction of the two party system. Your departure from the false dichotomy of our national politics damages that system. We don't want libertarians to win, we want people to vote for libertarians rather than Republicans, if they won't vote for socialists or communists.

 

[GhostWriter16]

You misunderstand. You voting for a third party serves the communist interest, regardless of which third party it is. We require the destruction of the two party system. Your departure from the false dichotomy of our national politics damages that system. We don't want libertarians to win, we want people to vote for libertarians rather than Republicans, if they won't vote for socialists or communists.

I honestly think the odds of a REAL socialist (Not Obama) getting the Presidency in the next century is near zero. I think its even lower than the odds of a right-libertarian getting the job.

Socialism isn't going to happen here

Please explain to me how an LP vote is pro-socialist in any sense.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I honestly think the odds of a REAL socialist (Not Obama) getting the Presidency in the next century is near zero. I think its even lower than the odds of a right-libertarian getting the job.

Socialism isn't going to happen here

Please explain to me how an LP vote is pro-socialist in any sense.

I already have. Now stop littering my thread.