Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Breakaway Debates on Moden Marxism Volume 1 Issue 3
Again delayed...
This time partly on purpose. Finally we've gotten a listserver to
take care of mailing out Breakaway, and I wanted to wait until it was all
set up, so that I didn't have to mail out hundreds of issues manually
again...
Vidar Hokstad <vidarh@powertech.no>
Editor
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
BEGIN BREAKAWAY.003
B R E A K A W A Y
Debates on modern marxism
-+*+-
Issue no. 3, volume no. 1
August/September 1994
=======================================================================
CONTENTS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
(00) EDITORIAL
(01) column: WHAT'S UP?
Some informal notes on issues we want to tell you about
(02) STATE CAPITALISM AND STALINISM
An attempt at a reply to Jack Hills letter in issue #2
(04) column: A SEARCHLIGHT ON INTERNET
Revolutionary resources on the information highway
(05) column: ANNOUNCEMENTS
Red Orange ?!? What's that?
(06) series: FOR A NEW BEGINNING (2 of 2)
a critique of secterianism
(07) GENERAL INFORMATION
How and what to submit, how to contact us, etc.
=======================================================================
(00) EDITORIAL
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you!
The last two months my mailbox have been overflowing. Allthough
the number of submissions still is low, the amount of subscription
requests, interesting info, and positive feedback mailed to me have
been overwealming.
It is certainly enough socialists out on the net to justify this
publication.
The beauty of the net, is the lack of distribution-problems due to
geographical issues. For a truly international movement, the net is a
blessing of similar importance today, as the railroad was when Marx and
Engels wrote their famous _Manifesto_[1]. What before took years, can
today be done in weeks - the human factor being the last barrier...
We are as users of the net witnessing capitalism create the
ultimate tool for the working class to use. The final weapon to turn
against them. An anarchic structure where the number of voices crying
out their opinions into cyberspace is finally more important than the
money of the bourgeoisie.
Watch the drama unfold, as capitalist companies struggle to make
net access available to us all at low cost, so that we can turn it
against them even more easily, or wither away as loosers in an ever
hardening competition.
Look around you, and see virtual worlds, empires, of information,
be created, live and die, in an accelerating cycle of "living
knowledge" - the net is a medium in which a creation will never be
finished, never will be finite, but always lies open for new
exploration and new enhancements.
Enter the age of the virtual commune...
Vidar Hokstad
Editor
----
[1] "And that union, to attain which the burghers of the Middle Ages,
with their miserable highways, required centuries, the modern
proletarian, thanks to railways, achieve in a few years."
=======================================================================
(01) column: WHAT'S UP?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
- After a few series of adverts on a series of USENET conferences
and mailing-lists the numbers of subscribers practically went
through the roof. On 1th of July, shortly after my first round of
advertising for issue #2, 15 subscription requests arrived
during my less than an hour online that day (and several more had
arrived before I logged on), and that was only the beginning...
Breakaway is now distributed to subscribers in (sorted after
numbers of subscribers) USA, UK, Canada, France, Norway, Germany,
Ireland, Australia, South-Africa, Spain, Finland, New Zealand,
Sweden and South-Korea!
Most of our subscribers (approx. 60%) comes from the US. Breakaway
has also been uploaded to a few local BBS's around the world.
I would especially like to welcome our first subscriber in
South-Korea, who, in spite of the political oppression, still
takes the chance involved with subscribing to Breakaway. The
South-Korean government have, as naby of you will know, a
reputation for imprisoning revolutionaries, and I doubt they'd
like Breakaway very much...
- Breakaway is now archived in the ftp archive at
etext.archive.umich.edu in the directory /pub/Zines/Breakaway.
Another archive is expected soon...
- Red Forum have recently gotten it's own gopher archive at the
EDIN gopher. In addition to general information about Red Forum,
the archive also contains material from Breakaway, and a pointer
to the archive mentioned above. Try gopher to garnet.berkeley.edu,
port 1520, 1521 or 1522, and select "13. Political Movements and
Theory/", then "2. Socialist Political Groups/", and finally
"3. Non-US Socialist Organizations/" to find us.
- I've adjusted the size of Breakaway up to approx. 40kb from this
issue.
- The Red Forum meeting will be in late September or early October
instead of August.
- Two mailing-lists have been set up. One for Breakaway, and another
one as a discussion list for Breakaway subscribers and RFIC
members.
The address is "majordomo@powertech.no". Send a message with
"help" in the body to retrieve informations about the commands
at your disposal, or use "lists" to get a list of all the lists
administrated by Powertech (our service provider).
The discussion list may possibly not be set up correctly when you
read this. I'll post a short notice to the Breakaway mailing list
as soon as it is working. You will *NOT* be automatically
subscribed to this list even if you subscribe to Breakaway.
- Breakaway is now also available on WWW. Select the URL
"http://www.ifi.uio.no/~vidarh/" (my homepage) from Mosaic or Lynx,
or go directly to the Breakaway archive by adding "Breakaway/" to
the above URL. Starting with issue #4, most material will be
available on the web before it is being mailed out, since it
will be written in a custom SGML format, and converted to HTML
(for WWW), ASCII, and AmigaGuide.
For more info about World Wide Web, send mail to info@cern.ch
(automatic mailer)
The WWW editions will be _updated_ with current addresses, more
links etc. However, no new entries will be added.
=======================================================================
(02) STATE CAPITALISM AND STALINISM
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
An attempt at a reply to Jack Hills letter in issue #2, and more... [1]
I agree that naming all regimes "Stalinist" without a closer
examination, is to simple. But let me try to explain this
simplification.
Jack stated, in my opinion correctly, that the Chinese revolution
originated as a popular revolution despite the degeneration that
followed it, and the party that led it. This is an assertion that
seems to provide us with a major difference between the development in
China and Russia, as there are differences between Stalinism, defined
strictly as _Stalins theory and practice_, contrary to using Stalinism
in a broad sense for denoting any state capitalist regime using
communist symbolism, and Maoism.
And yes, Maoism is revisionistic where stalinism is reactionary.
While Stalinism were in effect, with it's bureaucratic system, trying to
reverse the process of building capitalism, Maoism was, at the time,
a force of liberation.
Even the Russian revolution was a popular revolution, allthough the
_October revolution_ did not have the support of the majority. In the
same way as the great French revolution of 1789 didn't consist of just
one attack on the establishment, but a series of struggles, the Russian
revolution was a process that at least must be said to include the
overthrowing of the Czar regime in February 1917, and later the October
Revolution, but which could be extended in both directions: Towards
the uprisings in 1905, and throughout the end of of Lenins life.
Or even further...
Some would even claim that the Russian revolution didn't finish it's
task before the State-Capitalist regime was overthrown, and Russia
finally got to experience the curse of developed capitalism in a
"free market" environment.
My opinion is that this is going too far. As always, history has
shown us some of it's innumerable variations, by providing us with a
series of "socialist" revolutions which all degenerated into state
capitalism. State capitalism has earned a position as an independent
stage in the development of our world at a place where we before only
knew the direct transition from feudalism to capitalism, as it had
happened in the developed countries.
State capitalism has earned a position as an intermediate step on
the underdeveloped countries way to capitalism, as socialism[2] by most
communists are seen as an intermediate step on our way towards
communism.
Again roughly simplified, Maoism played the role equivalent to the
role of Leninism in Russia. In the same way as Leninism, Maoism was an
adaption of Marxism to a severly underdeveloped, perhaps even non-existent
capitalism. It meant the inclusion of the poor peasants into the proletariat,
even though we have been able to witness how large parts of these peasants
didn't share the interests of the proletariat.
There's a lot to criticize about both Lenin and Mao, but there's little
doubt about their intent.
I don't feel I can say the same about Stalin. And it would be highly
unfair to call Mao China's Stalin.
True, good intent is no excuse for oppression, but there _is_ a
difference between unwillingly causing death by starvation, and organized,
well planned, executions. There _is_ a difference between causing the
creation of an oppressive regime by not foreseeing the consequences of
what you do, and actually intentionally strenghtening oppression.
Still the errors of Mao _and_ Lenin must be openly discussed, and
the crimes they _did_ commit condemned, as the actions of any revolutionary
must be constantly under attack by ourselves - we can't expect to win a war
against capitalism, if we don't dare to fight minor battles with our
comrades of fear that we might be wrong.
But we must also we very aware about what we are doing, and be careful
not to throw away the experiences, and ideas, that actually are worth using,
and developing.
What about state capitalism, then?
Certainly there must be valuable experiences to be extracted from the
state capitalist regimes, and conclusions to be made?
In opposition to some trends, I do not see state capitalism as a
highly developed capitalism, ready for the socialist revolution, but
as a backward regime created out of combining the political inheritance
from a feudalist past with the awakening capitalist economic structures.
As such, the development in China, towards a market economy controlled
by a highly totalitarian government is no surprise. Similar tendencies
could be seen in Europe during the early years of capitalist economy.
We just hadn't a good word for it until recently[3]
History always repeats itself, but it has a bad memory. It never
replicates the exact same patters over and over again. Like the
Mandelbrot set of fractals: the further you move from your point of
origin, the larger the differences, but changes never appear suddenly -
the patterns seems to go through a slow metamorphosis.
The revolutions of China and Russia have many differences. But
these are minor, cosmetic, differences. The main tendencies, the
radicalisation, and then degenerisation, of a bourgeoisie revolution,
are the same.
This tendency we find in every bourgeoisie revolution, but only
in the underdeveloped countries the bourgeoisie is weak enough to let
this radicalisation continue to a point where it causes the seizure
of state power by a vanguardist minority _strong enough to keep it_.
We remember from the French Revolution of 1789 a phase of
radicalisation. But this phase was ended by reactionary forces,
creating another dictature, and thus it isn't suitable for the
capitalists when they look for ways to fight communism.
They find their weapons in the "socialist" revolutions - the
revolutions where the bourgeoisie finds regimes that looks like
their visions of communism. For can their reign be ended without
replacing it with _another_ oppressive force? And won't this force
be the _state_? This is the nightmare the capitalists envision.
Their reign _will_ be replaced by new oppression. Not the state,
or rather not the state as in bourgeoisie terminology. It will by
neccessity be the dictatorship of the majority, of the proletariat.
But it will also be the democracy of the many instead of the few.
Here lies the problems of the "socialist revolutions". Until
now, they have been seizure of power by an elite - a minority - that
haven't understood that the time had not yet come for socialism.
To build socialism in countries that lack most fundamental goods,
that can't fulfill the basic needs of their populations, will
inevitably end in oppression:
The vanguardist parties will always be haunted by people in search
of power, by people that want more than their share. In a country
where poverty rules, how can you escape poverty? By seizing power
for yourself, by becoming emperor...
In a country with ONE party, or at least only one party with
power, which party do you turn to if power is what you want?
Vidar Hokstad <vidarh@powertech.no>
----
[1] Please note that the inclusion of Jack's letter in issue #2 was an
error on my behalf - the letter was not meant to be published. However
I've chosen still to comment on the issues he mentioned, because I find
the problems he rises interesting. I would like to hear more opinions
on these questions. Submissions are especially welcome, but write even
if you don't want to submit (just make sure you state that clearly,
so I don't mess up again...).
[2] That is, the political system, not the ideology or ideologies.
[3] It should also be noted that while early western capitalism
certainly showed remarkable resemblances to state capitalism as the
term is used here, there were also distinct differences - again the
natural variations of history? Or are the differences more fundamental?
I won't go into that now. Any comments?
=======================================================================
(04) column: A SEARCHLIGHT ON INTERNET
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
* CPUSA
E-MAIL: communistpty@igc.apc.com,
pww@igc.apc.com (Peoples Weekly World)
timwheeler@igc.apc.com (PWW editor Tim Wheeler)
Communist Party of USA. Publishes Peoples Weekly World, and the
theoretical journal Political Affairs. Their youth organization is
YCL - Young Communist League.
* Marxism (mailing-list)
E-MAIL: marxism-request@world.std.com (majordomo)
marxism-approval@world.std.com (the list moderator)
The Marxism list have had a steady stream of messages, and have
established itself as one of the more high-volume leftist lists.
It's highly focused on academic questions, but should still provide
interesting reading for others - at least you'd probably have no
problems getting enough suggestions for what to read ;)
* Marxist Leninist Bookstore
E-MAIL: <mlbooks@mcs.com>
Jack Hill writes:
" Actually, this is just an e-mail address that
the Chicago Workers' Voice (a small Marxist-Leninist political group
in Chicago, formerly the Chicago branch of the Marxist-Leninist Party
(USA) ) uses to exchange views and information on political issues.
We publish two periodicals: an agitational newsletter _The Chicago
Workers' Voice_/_Voz Obrera_ in English and Spanish, and _The Chicago
Workers' Voice Theoretical Journal_. I would certainly be willing to
send anyone who requests it the text of our agitational articles. I
can also inform anyone who asks what are the contents of our
theoretical journal. Each issue runs about 240-250K so it would be hard
to sent out the whole journal by e-mail, but I might be able to send
individual articles if someone is really interested. Of course, if I
start getting hundreds of requests, I may have to reconsider this offer.
M-L Books is an actual bookstore located in a storefront in the
Mexican community of Chicago. We have been in this community for 15
years. We have a wide variety of titles of Marx, Engels, and Lenin in
English and Spanish. Our prices are generally low, since much of our
stock was acquired years ago at low prices. I don't have a complete
listing of our current stock with current prices, but if there is a
title you want, let me know. We can probably help you.
Keep up the struggle.
Jack Hill <mlbooks@mcs.com>"
* Committees of Correspondence
GOPHER: See the EDIN gopher below.
LIST: cocdiscuss@garnet.berkeley.edu (The CocDiscuss list)
newman@garnet.berkeley.edu (the list moderator)
* EDIN gopher
GOPHER: garnet.berkeley.edu (ports 1520/1521/1522)
E-MAIL: newman@garnet.berkeley.edu (Nathan Newman)
The EDIN gopher is one of the main resources for revolutionary and
other progressive groups on the Net. Apart from pointers to a wide range
of leftist organization on the Internet, it contains massive information
about human rights organizations, economics etc., and pointers to tons
of other info. An absolute _must_. Red Forum can also be found here.
The maintainer, Nathan Newman, is highly active on Usenet, and also
moderates the Committees of Correspondence discussion list - CocDiscuss.
* Partei des Demokratischen Sozialismus
GOPHER:
USENET: cl.gruppen.pds
E-MAIL: PDS-BLV@IPN-B.comlink.de (PDS Landesvorstand Berlin)
Notice that this entry is by no means complete. The PDS have an
extensive list of e-mail addresses to a long range of local sections and
members of their party. The few addresses mentioned here have been taken
from the newsgroup "cl.gruppen.pds".
* Archiv fuer marxistische Theorie
EMAIL: CHRONIK@LINK-S.cl.sub.de
=======================================================================
(05) ANNOUNCEMENTS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
RED ORANGE
A Marxist Triquarterly of Theory, Politics, and the Everyday
Robert A. Nowlan, Chief Editor
Robert J. Cymbala, Managing Editor
The inaugural issue of Red Orange will be published in the spring
of 1995. Red Orange will contribute to the positive development of
revolutionary Marxist knowledges of contemporary capitalist economics,
politics, society, and culture. Red Orange will include critical,
theoretical, and pedagogical articles of sustained length, as well as a
dossier of briefer writings which deal with developments in popular
consciousness and mass culture. Red Orange will produce work that is
engaged in systematic investigation and explanation, and which is
concerned with extending and developing revolutionary Marxist critical
theory of capitalist society and culture. Red Orange will argue for the
necessary theoretical and political priority of such concepts as class,
class conflict and struggle, class consciousness, history, materiality,
mode of production, forces and relations of production, labor,
proletariat, revolution, socialism, communism, dialectics, ideology,
theory, and critique.
The first issue of Red Orange will begin to investigate the broad
topic of "Late Capitalism at the Fin-de-Siecle." This focus will
continue throughout the first year as the second and third issues of Red
Orange will (tentatively) focus upon the specific topics of market and
commodity culture (issue two) and globality, globalism, and global
post-ality (issue three) in fin-de-siecle late capitalism. We invite
submissions for this first and for the subsequent second and third
issues of Red Orange that focus on the development of revolutionary
Marxist critical theory of, and intellectual-pedagogical intervention
within, various institutions, discourses, practices, and social
relations of fin-de-siecle late capitalism. We invite submissions from
across the full range of traditional academic-intellectual
"disciplines." We are also particularly interested in articles which
will address the related question -- in the course of their
investigation of fin-de-siecle late capitalist economics, politics,
society, and culture -- of How and Why, on the Advent of the
Twenty-First Century, the Revolutionary Socialist Transformation of
Capitalism into Communism is -- Still -- Possible and -- Still --
Necessary.
Texts and inquiries should be addressed to Red Orange, Post Office
Box 1055, Tempe, AZ, 85280-1055, U.S.A.
=======================================================================
(06) FOR A NEW BEGINNING (2 of 2)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Written by Dave Hollis <ln_dho@pki-nbg.philips.de>
Co-authored by Maggie McQuillan
Please contact the author before republishing the article.
... continued from Breakaway #2
Democratic Centralism
Democratic centralism is usually justified by saying that it originates
out of the organisation the workers give themselves in struggle.
Leaving aside for a moment that its historical roots were completely
different, let me try and examine the concept as such.
Instinctively, the idea of democratically deciding and then acting
together is very appealing - at least in the cases when one is fighting
the class enemy. For a revolutionary organisation, however, democratic
centralism has meant and means something else.
Democratic centralism is usually defined as being "freedom of
discussion and unity of action". This definition, taken from Lenin
himself, doesn't tell the whole story. A democratic centralist
organisation is based on a separation of the task of leadership from
the task of carrying out the decisions. This separation takes the
form, in the best case, of a yearly election of a central or national
committee.
Whatever name this committee may have, I think that no one will
contradict me in saying that it has the right to lead the organisation
and take decisions in its name which are then binding on the members.
Before going into the ramifications of such powers, it is very
important to note that such a division of labour is nothing more than a
reproduction of the capitalist model of parliamentary democracy in a
workers' organisation. Instead of the majority leading the
organisation we have the majority drawing up the leaders. As is the
case with parliamentary elections when electing MPs, the rank and file
does not lead an organisation and the people do not lead parliament
because the leaders are elected at regular intervals.
The effects of the separation described above are not at first glance
apparent. To understand them it is necessary to not only investigate
the practical consequences of democratic centralism on the workings of
a political organisation, but also to look into what effects it has on
the minds of the members.
As experienced in the previous two sects, democratic centralism
required of the members that they put forward its programme and
policies when working within the movement. This makes it very
difficult for the members to question and develop differing ideas to
those internally agreed.
One could of course counter by saying that one can discuss anything
with anyone. However it should be obvious that members will feel
"obliged" to put forward the "line" in public and not develop ones
ideas in a dialogue with the workers. A tendency can and will develop
that engenders conformity, something very unhealthy for a revolutionary
organisation. Furthermore, it is very easy for a feeling to develop of
"us" and "them" - something we have already had more than enough
experience of in the past. The underlying processes at work here are
by no means easy to depict. Attitudes are shaped by an organisation
but an organisation is also shaped by attitudes. Cause and effect will
change places more than once
Ideas when taken up by people become a material force in their own
right. Separating the overwhelming majority of the members from the
decision making process has consequences that go a lot further than
depicted up to now.
A tendency will develop, as is the case in almost any workers'
organisation, of loyalty and acceptance of the leaders. Those who
decide will also be those who appear to be competent in the eyes of the
members. If the organisation grows, i.e. it is successful, the
position of the leadership will be strengthened, a bureaucracy can then
develop. If the organisation declines, it is by no means said that the
leadership will be weakened [1]. How often in the history of the labour
movement have leaderships survived bad decisions because of the loyalty
of the members? Leaderships of Stalinist organisations, for example,
have often committed great crimes against their members and still
survived to tell the story!
Looking through the documents of the factional struggle within
Militant, it immediately becomes apparent that the force of ideas were
by no means sufficient to break the loyalty built up in the leadership.
Loyalty to a leadership - be it blind or conscious - is poison for a
revolutionary organisation. This point has to be seen in context of
what I wrote above on sectarianism and the psychological background of
loyalty.
The development of loyalties, the inability to question ideas, to
understand differing ideas shows that democratic checks, as important
as they undoubtedly are, are in now way sufficient to prevent an
organisation from degenerating. To put it another way, there is always
a need for democratic checks when the organisation in question has un-
democratic traits in it right from the word go!
Bureaucratic centralism, or bureaucratism in general, begins with the
separation of the leaders from the rest, i.e. those who carry out the
decisions. As soon as no active control takes place - be it due to the
structure of the organisation or because the members do not want to -
bureaucratism will be the result. It must be the result.
Up till now, I have looked into the effects of democratic centralism in
the organisation itself. I would like to now portray how democratic
centralism affects the political work in the movement. In passing, it
should be obvious that the criticisms of democratic centralism are, in
a slightly modified form, just as applicable and relevant to the
organisations of the labour movement, i.e. the trade unions and the
Labour Party.
The discussion on the merits or otherwise of democratic centralism are
by no means new. Both Rosa Luxemburg and Leon Trotsky criticized in
detail, and independently of each other, Lenin's organisation concept.
Rosa Luxemburg's contribution appeared in English under the title
Organizational Question of Russian Social Democracy. Although the
translation is terrible, the translator managed to get the meaning more
or less across - the article is well worth a read. Trotsky's pamphlet,
Our Political Tasks, was published in 1904 in Russian and also
translated in 1970 into German.
One of Trotsky's criticisms of Lenin's organisation concept concerned
the question of self-activity, i.e. the ability of the working class
to act by itself. In Lenin's concept this self-activity was given
narrow bounds.
In contrast, Trotsky saw the main task of the Social Democracy as being
one of stimulating and fostering this self-activity. Trotsky saw in
Lenin's plans an obstacle for the development of political
consciousness of the proletariat. Moreover he saw the danger that the
party, due to its not legitimated claim to hegemony with regard to the
working class and the resulting strict separation from the proletariat,
taking up such a sectarian position that the proletariat could turn its
back on the party at the decisive moment.
Lenin's formal centralism would not lead to its declared aim, the
strengthening of the party, but, instead, to the danger of the
separation of the working class from the party. Trotsky saw the
guarantee for the party's stability "in an active and self-active
participating proletariat and not in its organisational head".
Trotsky counterposed to democratic centralism the concept of
democratic centralisation, i.e. a centralisation from below. In his
view, this centralisation can only be the majority will of the rank
and file organisations, which exercise a continuous control over their
delegates. To give a flavor and the direction of Trotsky's
criticisms, here are a few passages from his pamphlet:
"The system of political substitution is, as is the system of
'economistic' simplification, derived consciously or
unconsciously from a 'sophistic' understanding of the
relationship of the objective interests of the proletariat to its
consciousness. Marxism teaches that the interests of the
proletariat are determined by its objective conditions of
existence. These interests are so imperious that they in the end
cause the proletariat to transfer them into the area of its
consciousness, i.e. to reach its objective interests by its
subjective needs. Between both these factors - the objective
factor of its class interests and its subjective consciousness -
lies, in reality unavoidable, road of knocks and blows, mistakes
and disappointments, vicissitudes and defeats. For the tactical
wisdom of the party of the proletariat, the whole task lies
between these two planes, it consists in shortening and
facilitating the road from the one to another."
"... If the Economists do not lead in this way the proletariat
because it trots behind them, the 'politicians' also do not lead
the proletariat because they are themselves looking to perform
their duties. If the Economists shirk their colossal tasks by
devoting themselves to a modest role, to march at the tail of
history, the 'politicians' solve the question by making history
to its own tail..."
"We revolutionize the masses badly or well (mostly badly) by
waking in them their elementary political instincts. However, as
long as it is the question of the complex tasks of transforming
these instincts into the conscious efforts of a political working
class determined by the class itself, we resort to the short and
simplified methods of the thoughts of standing in for others and
substitution.
In the internal politics of the party, these methods lead, as we
will see, to the party organisation replacing the party itself,
the CC replacing the party's organisation and finally a dictator
replacing the CC; furthermore, these methods lead to the
committees creating and abolishing the 'lines', while 'the people
remain silent'. In the external politics, these methods appear
in the attempts to exert pressure on other social organisations,
not by the real power of the proletarian conscious of its own
interests but by the abstract power of the class interests of the
proletariat."
"We are speaking of the absolute necessity of the creation of
party members, of conscious social democrats, not, however, of
simple skilled 'detail workers'- and one answers us: 'That goes
without saying'. What does that mean? For whom does 'that' go
without saying? Does 'that' go without saying in the context of
our party work, i.e. does the creation of political thinking
party comrades an absolute, integral part of it?"
"Every thought that promotes the technical principle of the
division of labour to the principle of social democratic
organisation, consciously or unconsciously acquires the final
unavoidable consequence: the separation of consciousness and
implementation, the separation of social democratic thought from
technical functions by means of which these thoughts must
necessarily be realised. The 'organisation of professional
revolutionaries', more precisely its head, appears as the centre
of social democratic consciousness and underneath this centre,
the disciplined executors of technical functions are to be
found."
Originally, I planned at this point to look into the historical
background of democratic centralism in some detail. Due to lack of
time, I can only skirt over the subject. If enough interest is
present, I can into this subject in some detail.
If one reads 'What is to be Done', Lenin states clearly that his
organisational model stems from a terrorist organisation, 'Land and
Freedom'. Moreover, his ideas were based on an amalgamation of the
Marxism of the 2. International (in particular the German Marxism of
Kautsky) with the traditions of the Russian revolutionary
intelligentsia.
The idea taken directly from Kautsky that the proletariat is only
capable of developing a trade union consciousness and therefore the
bourgeois intelligentsia, collected in the Social Democracy, is
required to 'bring in' a socialist consciousness into the working
class, determined Lenin's organisational concept.
Despite the fact that Lenin modified his views on this subject under
pressure from without, the organisational principles derived from this
false understanding of the question of socialist consciousness
remained. The idea that the ideas of socialism are not to be explained
by the material conditions but instead are to viewed as a question of
science, higher morals and a successful propaganda activity, have since
this time bedevilled the labour movement.
The ideas of separating out the tasks of leadership, i.e. the
separation detailed above, also have their roots in this false
understanding of the question of socialist consciousness. Instead of
it being a question of the working class being able to free itself from
the chains of capitalism, this mentality leads to this question being
reduced to a technical problem that can only be solved by technicians.
Slowly, surely and unavoidably, the whole concept of socialism is
robbed of its human content: "We have the solution and you have to put
it into practice". Having experienced this way of thinking more than
once and over a long period of time, I think I can say that this way of
thinking was prevalent in the sects.
Instead of a conclusion
It is easy to criticize, it is easy to know better. I was tempted -
despite the shortness of time available to me - to pick up on a number
of points made in the documents for your national meeting. What struck
me on reading them however, is that it is very unclear as to what you
consider to be your tasks.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. What sort of
organisation is required and for what purpose? It is stated in the
document Establishing a new Tradition that there is a tremendous
political vacuum existing in the current world situation.
Unfortunately, it is much more than a vacuum. The ideas of socialism,
i.e. that the workers can take charge of society, have been
discredited and most probably for a whole historical period. The
rediscovery of these ideas can only take place over a long period of
time. As we have already said in Germany, it is not even clear whether
these new ideas will acquire the name "Socialism".
What alternatives are there going to be, how they are going to look,
etc. will only result from a long period of discussion in and with the
labour movement and also by learning from experiences. One very
important part of these discussions will undoubtedly be a reappraisal
of the history of the labour movement and its ideas. This reappraisal
will require socialists having to leave no stone unturned and really
questioning things we have always taken for granted.
From what I have said in the article as a whole, revolutionaries will
have to take more account of a number of things that it has never
really done to any great degree in the past. Life has changed a lot
since the "great teachers". Either one has to learn to come to terms
with this fact and draw the necessary conclusions otherwise how things
will end up will be clear right from the word go - sect No. 3!
To hold comrades together just on the basis of ideas is not going to be
a simple task. Once the pressure is off, those comrades who have
missed out on life up to know will want to catch up. Some, or perhaps
many, will leave politics altogether.
Life is no longer going to be rosy or easy. There are no simple
solutions and to call for the nationalization of the top 200 monopolies
at every appropriate and inappropriate occasion is not going to help
either. Only by understanding what went wrong in the past and why it
went wrong, is it possible to build for the future. The form and
content this will take are still very unclear - if we recognize this
fact, there is a chance that we can do it better. But only if we do
so!
Dave Hollis, 15.4.94
P.S. This document was written in a hurry and under pressure from an
ongoing struggle against redundancies. It would have been impossible
to have written it without the help and critical comments of Maggie
McQuillan, who agrees with the main lines of argument and conclusions.
In this sense, the document should be considered to have been co-
authored by her. All grammatical mistakes, mis-spellings, etc. are,
of course my responsibility.
----
[1] In fact, often the leadership have been _strengthened_, since it
generally is the opposition that leaves the organisation first, leaving
the sinking ship in an even worse condition than before. Editors remark
=======================================================================
(07) GENERAL INFORMATION
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Breakaway will be published as often as we have enough material.
"Enough" is at present about 40kb of text, but this might increase
if we get enough submissions. Under any circumstances we'll try to
limit ourselves to 40kb until we reach one issue every two weeks.
(Probably won't happen in your lifetime ;-)
The format is, as you can see, pure 7-bit ASCII.
Do you:
- want to subscribe?
- have an idea?
- have a question?
- want to submit, and want to know how?
Just send us a message, preferably by e-mail, and we'll send you
appropriate information as soon as possible. To ensure that we can
reply, please include your e-mail address in the body of the message.
SOME BRIEF NOTES ON SUBMISSIONS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
* BREAKAWAY will accept articles from people belonging to all trends
or ideologies related to marxism, or from people who are simply
interested in marxist theory or practice.
* You should limit yourself to articles between 100 and 300 lines if
possible (shorter pieces will naturally also be accepted). If you
find that difficult, try to divide your article into shorter
sections suitable for publishing over two to four issues.
* We will publish most articles or news reports we receive concerning
marxist ideology, the actions of marxist organisations, or
information of importance to the average revolutionary. Also
fiction might be accepted (contact us for more info)
* We accept anonymous submissions. However, if you choose to do so,
we would prefer if you give us a pseudonym to use as your
signature.
How to contact Red Forum / Internationalists Committee:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Editor : Vidar Hokstad
E-mail : <vidarh@powertech.no>
Snailmail : Boks 30, N-2001 Lillestroem, NORWAY
Tel. : +47 638 170 35 (5pm to 9pm GMT)
=======================================================================
Proletarians of all countries, unite!
=======================================================================
END BREAKAWAY.003
