Ask A Red V: The Five-Year Plan

[Richard Cribb]

My apologies for late answer, but under the current circumstances it is quite a pull to try to construct intelligibel sentences.

What should make the people you know more representative?

A few things. But first I notice that you either don't have the time or consider it below your dignity to provide me with the information I asked for, which unfortunately still leaves me with a moment of speculation. However, I am almost sure where I have your little group of freedom fighters, so I don't think I am too mistaken in the following.
Basically, I think the people we talk about here are poster-boys for bourgeois mentality. I see little diversity in their age and socio-economic position, which means that we more or less deal with highly educated young men from so-called good families who have the notion of entitlement ingrained in them. That they should prefer the dictatorship of the bourgeois (= liberal capitalism) to the dictatorship of the proletariat (socialism). A quick examination of their posts seems to reveal that typical love of consumerism and hedonism coupled with at best an indifference towards manual labour. May I be so impertinent to suggest that on the whole they are resembling yourself?
So since we have established that I am a cynic, I am more than cynical enough to be indifferent about the jeremiads of those precious snowflakes, their lack of the empoverment, the privileges that they in their own minds so naturally deserve.
I currently have the dubious pleasure of spend most of my time in Poland where I, strangely enough got married some years ago. And I know plenty of the sort mentioned above. But I also know quite a few poor people, old people, woman people, working class people. (Which I also do in quite a few other Eastern Bloc-countries, especially Romania).And ho and belold, they are generally not that excited. That is what may happen to you when basic and secondary needs become more difficult to aquire. Or when wealth and power is shifted upward in society. Some people here might also nod familiar to this, I sure do.
So to make a long history short; "my" people are more representative because they come from and belong to different stations in society. Isn't diversity supposed to be so great?

 

[Hygro]

I think more people times more types of people is certainly more representative.

 

[Mouthwash]

It's a bit late, but who can say no to festive socialism?




Merry Christmas!

 

[_random_]

So I've seen Cheezy and other ML types (namely Reddit posters and whoever writes the Worker's Spatula tbh) use the word "opportunist" as a pejorative descriptor for various folks on the mainstream left. It seems to have a specific usage beyond the dictionary definition. Could you clear that up?

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Opportunism is an act or process that is consistent with the resources at your disposal, but inconsistent with your strategy]/i].

Our volunteer organizations could take government money, but it means putting your organization in the hands of people you are trying tp defeat.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

So I've seen Cheezy and other ML types (namely Reddit posters and whoever writes the Worker's Spatula tbh) use the word "opportunist" as a pejorative descriptor for various folks on the mainstream left. It seems to have a specific usage beyond the dictionary definition. Could you clear that up?

Worker's Spatula is great.

Opportunism is typically a type of right-deviationism. That means that in the heat of the political struggle, this group of people unduly compromise with the bourgeoisie and betray the working class struggle and the communist movement in doing so. The classic present example of this is SYRIZA, which rolled over almost without a fight, cozying itself up to the Troika and backing away from the struggle even while the Greek left and the Greek working class was urging them to keep fighting. Other famous opportunists include Kamenev and Zinoviev in October 1917, voting against the Soviet's seizure of power.

This is contrast with the other major deviation, which is left-deviationism, or more commonly shortened to simply ultra-leftism. This is the opposite problem and typically encompasses two different but related strategies: accelerationism and adventurism, which are united by their voluntaristic properties. Accelerationism is the belief that making conditions worse for the working class will accelerate their drive toward revolution; adventurism is the drive toward premature uprising, the fetishization of violence and revolt that inevitably proceeds without significant support of the population, proper preparations, and without attention to the politically opportune moment. Ultras tend to be purists, too, and simultaneously closer to anarchism.

tl,dr; Right-devs see friends where there are enemies, and left-devs see enemies where there are friends. As to which is better/worse? I defer to Stalin: "they are both worse." There is only one correct line: that is the one informed by the mass line that originates from the people, and the theory of revolution drawn by the party in conjunction with the masses.

 

[_random_]

Worker's Spatula is great.

Do you know who writes it? I can get their jokes about the modern American left usually and I find the Corbyn as Hoxha stuff funny even without a great knowledge of British politics or Albanian history, but a lot of their international commentary goes well over my head with an apparent level of detail that reflects multiple authors or one well-read and possibly well-traveled one.

Opportunism is typically a type of right-deviationism. That means that in the heat of the political struggle, this group of people unduly compromise with the bourgeoisie and betray the working class struggle and the communist movement in doing so. The classic present example of this is SYRIZA, which rolled over almost without a fight, cozying itself up to the Troika and backing away from the struggle even while the Greek left and the Greek working class was urging them to keep fighting. Other famous opportunists include Kamenev and Zinoviev in October 1917, voting against the Soviet's seizure of power.

This is contrast with the other major deviation, which is left-deviationism, or more commonly shortened to simply ultra-leftism. This is the opposite problem and typically encompasses two different but related strategies: accelerationism and adventurism, which are united by their voluntaristic properties. Accelerationism is the belief that making conditions worse for the working class will accelerate their drive toward revolution; adventurism is the drive toward premature uprising, the fetishization of violence and revolt that inevitably proceeds without significant support of the population, proper preparations, and without attention to the politically opportune moment. Ultras tend to be purists, too, and simultaneously closer to anarchism.

tl,dr; Right-devs see friends where there are enemies, and left-devs see enemies where there are friends. As to which is better/worse? I defer to Stalin: "they are both worse." There is only one correct line: that is the one informed by the mass line that originates from the people, and the theory of revolution drawn by the party in conjunction with the masses.

You talk about unduly compromising with the bourgeoisie; can you clarify what would constitute due compromise?

As an aside, I've recently come to identify with democratic socialism, and you and RT definitely played a part in my shift leftward. I don't know if you'll feel happy or ashamed to hear that, but I wanted to thank you for your patience and interesting perspectives.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Do you know who writes it? I can get their jokes about the modern American left usually and I find the Corbyn as Hoxha stuff funny even without a great knowledge of British politics or Albanian history, but a lot of their international commentary goes well over my head with an apparent level of detail that reflects multiple authors or one well-read and possibly well-traveled one.

I don't. But they do hilarious commentary on the Left the right way, whereas GMiL does it all the wrong way.

You talk about unduly compromising with the bourgeoisie; can you clarify what would constitute due compromise?

Well we aren't going to win the revolution just by deciding that we want it bad enough, and that we're going to be as intransigent as possible. We need achievable victories, and always to respond to the willingness of the working class to continue the fight. Undue compromise would be giving up before the people are ready; adventurism would be continuing the fight long after the people have ceased to support it. Both betray the trust of the working class and their confidence in our ability to represent them and defend their interests instead of bourgeois or liberal parties/movements. That's why a mass-line is important: we must not become separated from the will of the masses, but constantly responding to them, ever radicalizing them but never leaving them behind.

Think of it like how a strike works. If you give up too early, then you'll lose and accomplish nothing. Ideally you want management to give in to all your demands, but realistically you're probably going to have to negotiate in order to get some of what you want - but even in that, you never give up anything you don't have to. In contrast, you also don't want to try and force the strike to continue when people's emotional (or physical!) energy has run out and their will is no longer in the fight. You also don't want to try and start a strike before people are willing to support it, either. This is why both right and left-deviations are dangerous in different ways, but they both yield the same result: you lose, the bourgeoisie wins, and the working class doesn't support you and doesn't believe in itself.

So to answer your question: the time for compromise with the bourgeoisie is when the workers have struggled as much as they are willing to, when enough goals have been achieved for it to "feel like a victory" and serve as a staging point for further struggle, or otherwise when you can get the bourgeoisie to negotiate on your terms instead of having to bow to theirs. Where and when that is, is going to be different every time.

As an aside, I've recently come to identify with democratic socialism, and you and RT definitely played a part in my shift leftward. I don't know if you'll feel happy or ashamed to hear that, but I wanted to thank you for your patience and interesting perspectives.

Word. Glad to be of service.

As a friend of mine said: the T-34 wasn't built in a day.

 

[_random_]

I don't. But they do hilarious commentary on the Left the right way, whereas GMiL does it all the wrong way.

Great Moments in Leftism? Are there any issues with that besides it being poorly drawn and not particularly funny?

Well we aren't going to win the revolution just by deciding that we want it bad enough, and that we're going to be as intransigent as possible. We need achievable victories, and always to respond to the willingness of the working class to continue the fight. Undue compromise would be giving up before the people are ready; adventurism would be continuing the fight long after the people have ceased to support it. Both betray the trust of the working class and their confidence in our ability to represent them and defend their interests instead of bourgeois or liberal parties/movements. That's why a mass-line is important: we must not become separated from the will of the masses, but constantly responding to them, ever radicalizing them but never leaving them behind.

Think of it like how a strike works. If you give up too early, then you'll lose and accomplish nothing. Ideally you want management to give in to all your demands, but realistically you're probably going to have to negotiate in order to get some of what you want - but even in that, you never give up anything you don't have to. In contrast, you also don't want to try and force the strike to continue when people's emotional (or physical!) energy has run out and their will is no longer in the fight. You also don't want to try and start a strike before people are willing to support it, either. This is why both right and left-deviations are dangerous in different ways, but they both yield the same result: you lose, the bourgeoisie wins, and the working class doesn't support you and doesn't believe in itself.

So to answer your question: the time for compromise with the bourgeoisie is when the workers have struggled as much as they are willing to, when enough goals have been achieved for it to "feel like a victory" and serve as a staging point for further struggle, or otherwise when you can get the bourgeoisie to negotiate on your terms instead of having to bow to theirs. Where and when that is, is going to be different every time.

That mostly makes sense, but doesn't the subjectivity of the criteria make accusations of opportunism or adventurism a bit dicey?

Word. Glad to be of service.

As a friend of mine said: the T-34 wasn't built in a day.

Took me a minute.

I'm considering joining the DSA or the SPUSA. I doubt you approve of either organization, but would it be fair to say they're both more radical than the CPUSA at this point? And do you have any reason to recommend one over the other?

 

[ReindeerThistle]

That mostly makes sense, but doesn't the subjectivity of the criteria make accusations of opportunism or adventurism a bit dicey?

It's objective criteria, really. If an organization claims revolutionary aims, it must act like it.

I'm considering joining the DSA or the SPUSA. I doubt you approve of either organization, but would it be fair to say they're both more radical than the CPUSA at this point? And do you have any reason to recommend one over the other?

Speaking for me, I personally know an organization in Columbus, OH that is a zillion times more revolutionary, but they do it without the rhetoric. IM me on facebook and I'll give you the info.

In a time so rife with contradictions, responsible folks dare not refrain from action. So, whether it's hacking at the branches of evil, or its roots, doing something beats not doing anything

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Great Moments in Leftism? Are there any issues with that besides it being poorly drawn and not particularly funny?

It's edgy leftcom defeatism.

That mostly makes sense, but doesn't the subjectivity of the criteria make accusations of opportunism or adventurism a bit dicey?

What RT said. The proof of the pudding is the eating.

I'm considering joining the DSA or the SPUSA. I doubt you approve of either organization, but would it be fair to say they're both more radical than the CPUSA at this point? And do you have any reason to recommend one over the other?

Both are revisionist, but I have friends in the SP that I respect. FWIW, neither will do business with us because it's written into their party constitutions that they cannot cooperate with vanguardist parties, so I'm more than a little salty. Plus SP can go really hard on the left anti-communism at times. I don't think either is better than the CPUSA.

If I were going to recommend a party-level organization it would be PSL, WWP, or FRSO.

 

[Lohrenswald]

I'm curious about the subject of natural (human, if you will,) rights not existing, but I have a hard time making a question of it.

I guess I can frame it as:
Why do people think these rights exist?
and
Why should people be treated well (as communism seeks) when natural rights don't exist?
not that I advocate the idea of natural rights, I just needed to frame the question

 

[Daw]

I'm curious about the subject of natural (human, if you will,) rights not existing, but I have a hard time making a question of it.

Disclaimer: this is my personal understanding, which I guess shall pass as a red's answer, other red's answers may vary.

Why do people think these rights exist?

Absolutely no idea. In fact, I even have trouble trying to define what a "natural right" is and what would be an alternative: an artificial right? Okay, I understand what a right is, but what makes it "natural"? No rights come from nature, every right we have is an artificial one, they are invented by men and written down in laws, constitutions, charters and such. They can be elaborated upon, expanded and extended, which is always a good thing (or restricted and even ditched entirely if circumstances get really tough), but it doesn't make them natural, they are still men-made.

The best guess would be that people call some rights natural because they want them to be the last to be ditched if it ever comes to that.

Why should people be treated well (as communism seeks) when natural rights don't exist?

Because of purely rational and materialistic reasons.

The better the people are treated, the better the HDI gets, and the happier and even more prosperous the life becomes, allowing even better treatment.

With people's basic needs (to start with, and then proceeding on to not so basic ones) satisfied resulting in little to no social tensions, efforts can be concentrated on the really hard stuff like, say, environmentalism and space programs. Because both will become the matter of mankind survival some day.

 

[Agent327]

The best guess would be that people call some rights natural because they want them to be the last to be ditched if it ever comes to that.

Or you could just google natural right and add your guesses after.

Perhaps the other Reds have better founded answers?

 

[Daw]

Or you could just google natural right and add your guesses after.

Or you could just give us a list of such rights perhaps?

 

[Lohrenswald]

I appreciate your answes Daw, but this thread is kind of strictly run

List of posters approve to answer questions:

Cheezy the Wiz
Traitorfish
innonimatu
FredLC
RichardCribb
ReindeerThistle
Aelf
Azale

 

[Daw]

Ooops, sorry, my bad.

 

[Hygro]

haha Cheezy edited me out

 

[aelf]

I'm curious about the subject of natural (human, if you will,) rights not existing, but I have a hard time making a question of it.

I guess I can frame it as:
Why do people think these rights exist?
and
Why should people be treated well (as communism seeks) when natural rights don't exist?
not that I advocate the idea of natural rights, I just needed to frame the question

Let me just preface my answer by saying that I haven't engaged in this mode of thinking for some time, so I might be a little rusty.

The concept of natural rights is prima facie baseless from a materialist perspective, as natural rights are necessarily ideas - and ideas are of human making, which makes them quite clearly artificial.

From here on, this is where my explanation might differ from the others'. The concept of natural rights is a convenient fiction for a few reasons:

Firstly, individuals as agents often have little or no influence on the structures that they live within. Hence, the concept of natural rights as it is taught to them would seem inexorable - not only because they are imposed on individuals through custom or legal-political structures, but also because if the vast majority of people agree to operate as though natural rights exist, your insistence that they don't exist will probably make no impact on the material conditions brought about by such a collective agreement. So in a sense, even if they don't actually exist, they might as well do for individuals if most social relations and structures are built on this agreement. Certainly, it's a losing proposition to try and fight it.

Secondly, while the above can be said about any ideas with enough support in society, natural rights also convey a very practical and ethically appealing set of principles that are much more potent than most other ideas. Society knows that acting as though they exist has certain benefits that might be irreplaceable, which is not something that can be said about just any idea.

I don't know what would happen in a society that is fully cognisant of the fact that natural rights don't exist; or, rather, that rights are not "natural". Well, perhaps, a question we could ask is what is the big problem with man-made rights? Do they have to be understood as "natural"? Or, perhaps, they can be understood as "natural" insofar as they are more or less constants in any tolerable societies, even if people had to come up with them and may have to perpetually reformulate them. I guess "universal" might be the more appropriate term, then.

 

[_random_]

So my Wikipedia-level understanding is that Trotsky's chief deviation from the Soviet party line was on the question of how to best transition from Russia's agrarian economy to a socialist system. So with that, what makes Trotskyist parties distinct in modern, fully developed capitalist societies?