Ask A Red V: The Five-Year Plan

[Hygro]

America's judicial system is pretty strong supporting evidence that unelected meritocratic governing bodies can be effective and don't have to be corrupt. Interesting speech.

 

[jackelgull]

America's judicial system is pretty strong supporting evidence that unelected meritocratic governing bodies can be effective and don't have to be corrupt. Interesting speech.

What are you basing this claim off of?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Random, I promise I will answer your post when I get home.

I can't remember which poster here described themselves as a Stalinist, but how far is it possible to divorce 'Stalinism' from the less savoury actions of Stalin's rule? Certainly, I'd argue that xenophobia and mass murder are not simply extraneous parts of 'Hitlerism' but absolutely central to it: how are (say) the cult of personality and huge secret police repression seen in historical Stalinism different?

"Stalinism" isn't a political tendency, and if a communist used it to describe themselves they were probably being ironic for the liberal-terror-feels [and it was probably Mr. Cribb]. Stalin was a Marxist-Leninist. He was also a national leader. He was also a human being. Each of those things has strengths and faults. Much of what Stalin did, or what happened in the country that Stalin was in charge of, happened because of specific social phenomena at the time; unique challenges dictated by the country's domestic and political situation, and by its geopolitical situation vis-a-vis the West, the Nazis, the Chinese, etc.

Certainly no one worships the ethnic deportations or the cronyism and corruption as something desirable or worthy of emulation. And those are not things "essential" to "what it means to be Stalin" in the same way that Aryan blood-purity in Europe was an "essential" part of "what it means to be Hitler." Ethnic deportations and "mass murder" as you call it [hard to tell exactly which bourgeois myth you're propagating with that term, but it's not relevant at this second] are not constituent parts of communist philosophy, they became policies pursued by communists in the USSR during a specific time period due to specific circumstances. On the other hand, purifying Europe of non-Germanic bloodlines and of German society itself through conflict, and the elevation of The Leader to almost godlike status over society, those ARE essential parts of Hitlerite philosophy. Those are specifically-spelled-out goals that are central to measuring whether National Socialism "succeeded" in achieving its goals or not. Thus I do not feel that these things are comparable at all. A better comparison would be if you regarded the Manstein Plan or Battle of Britain as a constituent part of Hitlerite philosophy - those were things the Nazis had to do due to specific circumstances, there's nothing inherent in Hitler's philosophy that entails bombing London into smithereens or conducting a sneak-attack through the forest. Carried-out differently, one might imagine many scenarios where those things did not happen.

What do you guys think more generally about derivative artistic works like sampling in hip hop and dance music.

Not my taste really. I don't think about it politically.

What do you guys think about piratic media sharing.

Up the digital skull and crossbones!

 

[Flying Pig]

2Stalinism" isn't a political tendency, and if a communist used it to describe themselves they were probably being ironic for the liberal-terror-feels [and it was probably Mr. Cribb]. Stalin was a Marxist-Leninist. He was also a national leader. He was also a human being. Each of those things has strengths and faults. Much of what Stalin did, or what happened in the country that Stalin was in charge of, happened because of specific social phenomena at the time; unique challenges dictated by the country's domestic and political situation, and by its geopolitical situation vis-a-vis the West, the Nazis, the Chinese, etc.

Certainly no one worships the ethnic deportations or the cronyism and corruption as something desirable or worthy of emulation. And those are not things "essential" to "what it means to be Stalin" in the same way that Aryan blood-purity in Europe was an "essential" part of "what it means to be Hitler." Ethnic deportations and "mass murder" as you call it [hard to tell exactly which bourgeois myth you're propagating with that term, but it's not relevant at this second] are not constituent parts of communist philosophy, they became policies pursued by communists in the USSR during a specific time period due to specific circumstances. On the other hand, purifying Europe of non-Germanic bloodlines and of German society itself through conflict, and the elevation of The Leader to almost godlike status over society, those ARE essential parts of Hitlerite philosophy. Those are specifically-spelled-out goals that are central to measuring whether National Socialism "succeeded" in achieving its goals or not. Thus I do not feel that these things are comparable at all. A better comparison would be if you regarded the Manstein Plan or Battle of Britain as a constituent part of Hitlerite philosophy - those were things the Nazis had to do due to specific circumstances, there's nothing inherent in Hitler's philosophy that entails bombing London into smithereens or conducting a sneak-attack through the forest. Carried-out differently, one might imagine many scenarios where those things did not happen.

Fair enough, good answer - thank you.

 

[Daw]

A sort of personal question, and might have been asked before, but still:

ReindeerThistle, Cheezy the Wiz, do you guys consult each other before answering?
If not, does an answer given by one of you also counts for the answer by the other, or your positions can be discrepant?
If they can, do you dispute between each other to come to a compromise?

 

[ReindeerThistle]

A sort of personal question, and might have been asked before, but still:

ReindeerThistle, Cheezy the Wiz, do you guys consult each other before answering?
If not, does an answer given by one of you also counts for the answer by the other, or your positions can be discrepant?
If they can, do you dispute between each other to come to a compromise?

We do not consult each other before answering, and I believe that we generally think along the same lines. Cheezy has read a greater variety of authors and tendencies, but I have more practice -- when I started organizing, Cheezy was in the 2nd grade. When we post something the other disagrees with, it is reflected in the forum.

OTOH, RichardCribb and I think so much alike, he may be my lost twin.

 

[Hygro]

Not my taste really. I don't think about it politically.



Up the digital skull and crossbones!

Cool, thank you. (Amen) Interesting bit on Stalin.

We do not consult each other before answering, and I believe that we generally think along the same lines. Cheezy has read a greater variety of authors and tendencies, but I have more practice -- when I started organizing, Cheezy was in the 2nd grade. When we post something the other disagrees with, it is reflected in the forum.

OTOH, RichardCribb and I think so much alike, he may be my lost twin.

But he's so cynical and you're so not!

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

As I recall, you were unaffiliated for a while after leaving the CPUSA. Why'd you pick the PSL, out of the myriad of parties on the American far left?

I felt it was important to get back in the fight, and I pretty much agree with the PSL's priorities, philosophy, and approach.

And what does being a communist city council member look like in practice? A friend of mine works for a non-profit that lobbies the Memphis city council for more equitable public transportation and civilian oversight of police. If you were a member, would you work to implement an agenda like that? How do you balance serving people's material interests without lending legitimacy to oppressive institutions? And why would being mayor cross that line?

Yeah, I would say things like enabling the easier organization of labor; programs that benefit the public good or protect it from privatization, budget cuts, or corporate destruction; combatting gentrification and the eviction of POC and poor residents; measures that limit the powers of the police including increasing oversight, body cameras, or other rules that prevent them from operating with impunity; among other things.

Also, suppose, due to some outrageous far-fetched scenario (maybe a Clinton-Rubio sex tape leak in which both speak of loving ISIL and hating the American middle class), Gloria La Riva actually becomes president. What would she actually do?

Undermine the capitalist state the best she can given the powers she has and in all likelihood the limited time she has. The key will be to give labor and the working class maximum ability to organize, while doing her best to restrain the state from destroying them while they gather strength. Under no conditions should she take actions that would hinder any of this even one iota; if she does, as happened in Greece, she becomes an opportunist and is now in our way instead of clearing the way for us.

I figure we have probably six months after this scenario begins until the other boot drops - which is in this case an iron one.

What's the level of far-left involvement in the modern American labor movement? And what about votes for a union endorsement of a political candidate?

I'm not sure. RT talks a lot about being involved in labor struggles and the like, but how much influence communists have over the labor movement itself is questionable - and unknown to me. Labor leadership is by and large bourgeoisified now. The leaders of the AFL-CIO, UAW, et al are so deeply in bed with the corporate leaders they're supposed to be protecting their workers from. These are the progeny of Samuel Gompers, not of Eugene Debs.

I do not presently nor do I anticipate ever considering The Labor Unions to be "on our side."

Sorry for pestering you with so many questions. Do let me know if any are stupid. I have important things to be doing, so I figured I'd do this instead.

It's a Q&A thread!

A sort of personal question, and might have been asked before, but still:

ReindeerThistle, Cheezy the Wiz, do you guys consult each other before answering?
If not, does an answer given by one of you also counts for the answer by the other, or your positions can be discrepant?
If they can, do you dispute between each other to come to a compromise?

We are of course friends in real life too, but we don't typically coordinate answering here, no.

We do, generally speaking, think alike. We are [along with Cribb, who was very much my mentor] all Marxist-Leninists, and there might be some differences of opinion on certain issues, but there are no differences in terms of strategy. We all see the same way forward. When in doubt I would assume that one of us probably agrees with the other unless explicitly stated by us.

When we have disputes we settle them the old-fashioned way:

Link to video.

 

[Hygro]

What do you define as violence? Does it change with history?

 

[Daw]

When we have disputes we settle them the old-fashioned way:

Yee-haw! (or how do you spell that exclamation one uses to express positive excitement?) Thank you both for your answers.

Spoiler :

I was hesitating about adding that the true old-school die-hard honest-to-god hard-core authentic bolshevik Marxists-Leninists used do it somewhat differently, like in a sort of more organized fashion.


Link to video.


Modern I'm-also-not-so-sure-if-Marxists-Leninists-at-all do use similar practice though.


Link to video.


And then I thought I'd just tag it in here.

 

[_random_]

Thank you so much for all your answers?

I felt it was important to get back in the fight, and I pretty much agree with the PSL's priorities, philosophy, and approach.

What particular aspects? And is there anything you disagree with?

It's a Q&A thread!

I've been paranoid that my question on the first page of this thread that never got answered was deeply offensive and offputting and y'all have been annoyed with me ever since and I realize this may well just be my social anxiety manifesting.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

What do you define as violence? Does it change with history?

I'm not sure I really understand the question.

Thank you both for your answers.

I was hesitating about adding that the true old-school die-hard honest-to-god hard-core authentic bolshevik Marxists-Leninists used do it somewhat differently, like in a sort of more organized fashion.[/QUOTE]

Oh you mean like this:


Link to video.

What particular aspects? And is there anything you disagree with?

They might be more enthusiastic about Assad or the DPRK, whereas I have nuanced views on those things, but the fundamental point is that we both support them and their anti-imperialist struggles. That's about it really that I can think of.

Things I agree with them on are: Marxism-Leninism, attitudes toward Actually Existing Socialism, methods of organizing and conduct, and the path forward for socialism in North America.

I've been paranoid that my question on the first page of this thread that never got answered was deeply offensive and offputting and y'all have been annoyed with me ever since and I realize this may well just be my social anxiety manifesting.

We do miss questions or sometimes just not have the time or energy for them.

 

[_random_]

Since you were contrasting Debs and Gompers, where do you put John L. Lewis on that spectrum? My great grandfather was an organizer for him, and I was wondering what the socialist assessment of him was.

 

[Hygro]

I'm not sure I really understand the question.

There are different definitions for what constitutes violence. In the USA we generally refer to protestors who vandalize as violent. In western Europe, I believe this is not the case. In a long debate with my friend who introduced me to some of the good folks at Red Emma's, he defined violence as anything that causes physical damage to the person. I defined it as anything that is intended to hurt someone else, and discounted natural phenomena (slipping on a wet floor is not violence, even if the other definition "a violent fall" might apply).

I then went further and said the reason we might call certain forms of attacks on property violence lies in the difference between an accident that knocks out a tooth versus a fist to the face is that feeling. Specifically, that social feeling of shame. Additionally there is implied further threat.

As you believe in the violent overthrow of capitalism as the only way, I would like to know what you define as violence, where its limits are, and if what is violent is historically dependent or if it's more or less a trans-historical phenomenon.

 

[Flying Pig]

There are different definitions for what constitutes violence. In the USA we generally refer to protestors who vandalize as violent. In western Europe, I believe this is not the case. In a long debate with my friend who introduced me to some of the good folks at Red Emma's, he defined violence as anything that causes physical damage to the person. I defined it as anything that is intended to hurt someone else, and discounted natural phenomena (slipping on a wet floor is not violence, even if the other definition "a violent fall" might apply).

I then went further and said the reason we might call certain forms of attacks on property violence lies in the difference between an accident that knocks out a tooth versus a fist to the face is that feeling. Specifically, that social feeling of shame. Additionally there is implied further threat.

As you believe in the violent overthrow of capitalism as the only way, I would like to know what you define as violence, where its limits are, and if what is violent is historically dependent or if it's more or less a trans-historical phenomenon.

Purely by the by, you've just given the definition of 'assault' (hubris) from ancient Athenian law, which treated physical attacks and insults on somebody's honour equally. The defining point being that hubris is a challenge to the equality of all citizens.

 

[Daw]

the path forward for socialism in North America.

Since that is mentioned, do you see your efforts as laying ground works for further generation(s) of your followers, or do you see a possibility of you seeing that achieved in your lifetime?

 

[Hygro]

What are you basing this claim off of?

That our courts are made of lawyers trained in the art of law and then vetted by their peers to be ultimately recommended by elected officials, who trust the consensus. It works very will, with some obvious flaws.

Purely by the by, you've just given the definition of 'assault' (hubris) from ancient Athenian law, which treated physical attacks and insults on somebody's honour equally. The defining point being that hubris is a challenge to the equality of all citizens.

That's very interesting. I'm glad we live in a world where we don't negotiate honor so seriously.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Since you were contrasting Debs and Gompers, where do you put John L. Lewis on that spectrum? My great grandfather was an organizer for him, and I was wondering what the socialist assessment of him was.

The CIO started out as a protest to the business unionism of the AFL, but in the end the prodigal son returned. The feud was only over whether or not to expand their membership to industrial unions [which I do generally like], and so the CIO got their way one way or another.

There are different definitions for what constitutes violence. In the USA we generally refer to protestors who vandalize as violent. In western Europe, I believe this is not the case. In a long debate with my friend who introduced me to some of the good folks at Red Emma's, he defined violence as anything that causes physical damage to the person. I defined it as anything that is intended to hurt someone else, and discounted natural phenomena (slipping on a wet floor is not violence, even if the other definition "a violent fall" might apply).

I then went further and said the reason we might call certain forms of attacks on property violence lies in the difference between an accident that knocks out a tooth versus a fist to the face is that feeling. Specifically, that social feeling of shame. Additionally there is implied further threat.

As you believe in the violent overthrow of capitalism as the only way, I would like to know what you define as violence, where its limits are, and if what is violent is historically dependent or if it's more or less a trans-historical phenomenon.

I think violence is either the use of force or the threat of force. Thus, an idle police officer is still a force of violence upon challengers of the law and the state, because the use of force if one steps out of line is implied and has much the same effect as if you challenged him every time and got beaten down every time.

Violence is an essential part of maintaining the rule of one class over others in society. In any and all class societies. In State & Revolution Lenin is extremely clear on this point, which I don't have time to look up right now for exact wording: he points out that even under dictatorship of the proletariat, there is still class rule enforced by violence, and parts of society remain unfree. This is a consequence of any and all class rule., but because of the nature of the proletarian state, which is constantly erasing the differences between classes so that all eventually become of the same class, the need for this state repression slowly lessens until it is not needed at all because there are no classes at all.

So when I say "violence must be used to change from capitalism to socialism" what I mean is, the capitalist state will do everything it can to protect its rule - including no shortage of violence. This is a fact. That apparatus which is used to protect the rule of capitalists must be broken, and no amount of voting or passive resistance will turn away their desire - their need - to protect their rule at any cost.

Thus, all strategies which seek alternate routes of achieving socialism are ones that either never seek the decisive engagement with the bourgeoisie over who will rule the state, or they are going into that engagement woefully unprepared for the whirlwind they will unleash. In either case they will fail and they will have led the working class and its allies down the road to defeat for nothing.

Since that is mentioned, do you see your efforts as laying ground works for further generation(s) of your followers, or do you see a possibility of you seeing that achieved in your lifetime?

Either/or. Looking at the future, I don't see how liberalism can continue on as it has, but then many people have said that before. Capitalism, however, may live on a little longer. I'm inclined to think we will see the collapse of liberalism before the collapse of capitalism in much of the West.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Since that is mentioned, do you see your efforts as laying ground works for further generation(s) of your followers, or do you see a possibility of you seeing that achieved in your lifetime?

For me, it's both. I oversee training programs for over a dozen cadre, and hundreds of non-cadre volunteers, and I have seen the organizations double in 23 years. Also, given that the UN developinh nations pushed the Agenda for Sustainable Development , with the conditions that in order for these goals to be met, the system has to change, I really see a light at the end of the tunnel.

The CIO started out as a protest to the business unionism of the AFL, but in the end the prodigal son returned. The feud was only over whether or not to expand their membership to industrial unions [which I do generally like], and so the CIO got their way one way or another.

On a side note, it was John L. Lewis who said that the 1947 Taft Hartley Amendment (an anti-labor law passed over Truman's veto and written by 2000 attorneys working for the National Association of Manufacturers) "The first savage ugly thrust of fascism in the United States."

Lewis hired communists. They were the best organizers. He said "If management employs them, can labor do less?"

 

[Daw]

Either/or. Looking at the future, I don't see how liberalism can continue on as it has, but then many people have said that before. Capitalism, however, may live on a little longer. I'm inclined to think we will see the collapse of liberalism before the collapse of capitalism in much of the West.

Uh-oh, I feel worried. Wouldn't a non-liberal capitalism be a more formidable opponent than a liberal one?