[Rei Murasame]

Yea the SWP have long been hated by the rest of the British left,

Fair enough.

I was a member for a while and left very fucking quickly. The central committee banned local branches from having meetings in pubs in case it put off potential Muslim members. I mean for fucks sake a party claiming to be a working class party banning members from meetings in pubs? :?:

Trots belong against a fucking wall.

Oh fuck, wow. I don't even have any words for that. I think you had mentioned this months ago but somehow I hadn't realised that you were talking about the SWP.

It all adds up now.

If you guys could just end the SWP or something, leftist prospects in Britain would probably increase significantly as a result of the SWP's demise. I'd then be in a quandary over whether I really wanted to see good things happen for leftists or not. I'd never be able to accuse the left of sympathising with Islamists ever again.

[The Immortal Goon]

The SWP are oppertunistis and hacks. They treat Trotsky as a religious prophet, and in doing so, they assign meaning to his words that he deliberately spoke against. Not unlike calling the Soviet Union, "State Capitalist," something Trotsky thought was laughable and ridiculous, but doing so anyway because their imaginary version of Trotsky said so.

They do this in the same way hacks of all political stripes do, they smooth language itself over to mean other things entirelly and then—lo and behold—they create a, "ground breaking analysis, (ie, one nobody else agrees with) that proves that Trotsky proved Trotsky wrong, and that instead of the proletariat, the, "middle-class intelligentsia," which is really all the SWP has, are now, "a force capable of leading revolutionary struggles".

In consequence, Trotsky did not really confront the question of what would happen if neither bourgeoisie nor proletariat played a revolutionary role in the backward countries. Would the pressures toward social and political revolt in both town and country acquire no political expression? The answer is that they did, in a succession of Third World revolutions from China 1949 to Nicaragua thirty years later. In none of these cases did either capitalists or workers take the lead. Rather, as Tony Cliff showed in a path-breaking analysis, a process of ‘deflected permanent revolution’ occurred, in which the vacuum left by the two main classes of bourgeois society was filled by the middle-class intelligentsia, a force capable of leading revolutionary struggles especially by the peasantry against imperialism but not of destroying capitalism. The result, as I have already pointed out, was at best (if that is the right way of putting it) bureaucratic state capitalism.

The imperfect solution this put themselves into meant that they had to take an ultra-leftist position of supporting any anti-imperialist no matter what the analysis. Because, of course, they were a vanguard against capitalism but imperialism (which is apparnetly not related to capitalism any more) needed to be taken up by anybody that was there. All the better, then, that they were not leftists or they would question the pepostrous web of self-deciet spun around the SWP to make them the most important anti-capitalists every in the history of everything.

I guess I should address noob, but I have little more to say on the topic. I would actually accuse him of doing the same thing as the SWP. He took an issue and then attempts to shoe-horn an analysis of it around his religious belief in the issue and has to keep knocking down reality in order to keep the ideological belief in tact.

In this case a fervent dislike of immigrants requires everything to warp around it.

There is no real consensus to be reached on this issue, and little more that I can add.

[Decky]

Oh fuck, wow. I don't even have any words for that. I think you had mentioned this months ago but somehow I hadn't realised that you were talking about the SWP.

It was during the whole Iraq thing, their plan was to use their control of stop the war (just as SWP puppet) to push the newspapers and such so they could get a whole load of new Muslim members. Then again members used to buy me drinks when I was still too young to get served in pubs so I do have fond memories of them based on that.

[Dagoth Ur]

Blaming the Brits for the SWP is like blaming Americans for the RCP. Those dudes are dumb as hell.

I especially dislike most of their points on Islam.

Oh and I'd like to post this to reiterate just how not-Communist the CPUSA is:

Position of KKE on the Webb's platform and the developments in the CPUSA


Athens, 13 April 2011

To the members and cadre of the CPUSA,
To the workers that struggle in the USA
To the communist and workers parties


Dear comrades,
In February 2011 the chairperson of the CPUSA, Sam Webb, published an article in Political Affairs, the electronic publication of the CPUSA, entitled “A Party of Socialism in the 21st Century: What It Looks Like, What It Says, and What It Does”. Even if the specific article is accompanied by an editorial note which claims that “The following article represents the views of its author alone. It doesn't necessarily reflect the official views of any organization or collective.”, it is obvious to us that the public position of the head of a Communist Party concerning such an important issue requires special attention.

On the 16th of February we received a letter from the editorial team of Political Affairs which invited us to send in our opinion.

Our party, after studying this article and the reactions it has provoked within the ranks of communists both in the USA and internationally, considers it necessary to take a public position through this letter, as is required by its responsibility as a part of the international communist movement.

Our assessment is that we are dealing with a comprehensive liquidationist platform of 29 theses which has been placed before the international communist movement and proposes the total revision of the principles and revolutionary traditions of the communist movement.

The KKE, as a section of the international communist movement, considers as its duty the refutation of this platform, which questions the need for the existence of a party of the working class in the USA, and in general is directed against the revolutionary and anti-imperialist movement internationally. The 18th Congress of our party stressed that “The battle against social-democratisation tendencies in Communist Parties – through the intervention of imperialist mechanisms, anti-communism and the bourgeois media – must be fought firmly and consistently by defending the historic role of the working class and its organised vanguard, the principles of Marxism-Leninism and of socialism. This task takes on even greater significance in face of the growing anti-communist offensive in the EU and internationally.”

Dear comrades,

The platform that has been presented today, through the article of the chairperson of the CPUSA, constitutes the culmination of a course of “adjustment” in the last decade as the author himself points out. There have already been developments in this intervening period which communists in Greece, as well as in the USA and other countries have monitored with concern, such as:

The handing over of the Party’s archives to the imperialists, the bourgeois state of the USA in 2007.
The closure of the print publication of the newspaper (People’s Weekly World) and the journal Political Affairs, with the simultaneous alteration of its character.
The organizational shrinkage and dislocation of the party.
The political “tailing”, behind one of the two pillars of the bourgeois political system of the USA, that is to say behind the Democratic Party.
The stance in relation to the ambitions of US imperialism ( e.g. rejection of the demand for the immediate withdrawal from Iraq)
The blocking of the Joint Statement of the Emergency Meeting of the Communist and Workers’ Parties in Damascus, because in the final text there was the position for the withdrawal of the imperialist occupation forces from Iraq.
These elements intensified after the 29th Congress of the CPUSA. It was not by chance that immediately after the congress, an article was published in Political Affairs which called into question not only the need to maintain the name of the party, but the possibility and even the necessity of a Communist Party’s existence in the USA today.

Today the Webb platform comes as the culmination of this course and openly propagandises the abandonment of the Marxist-Leninist worldview, the abolition of democratic centralism, and the undermining of the principles of the party of a new type.

We would like to draw your attention to the following basic aspects of this platform:

ON THE QUESTION OF THE THEORY OF THE PARTY

It proposes the replacement of our theory by an eclectic hotchpotch which does not go beyond the limits of liberal bourgeois ideology. It attacks Marxism-Leninism directly, which constitutes one of the central laws of the existence and activity of the party of the new type, as V.I.Lenin pointed out “Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement… role of vanguard fighter can be fulfilled only by a party that is guided by the most advanced theory.” In this specific platform various extremely old opportunist positions are promoted as new (e.g. Marxism-Leninism is foreign, anti-democratic, it is a distortion of Marxism by Stalin etc.), these are positions which disarm the labour movement and surrender it, without theoretical tools, to the claws of the exploitative system.

ON THE QUESTION OF THE POLITICAL PROPOSAL OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY:

It promotes the view that there can be solutions in favour of the working class within the framework of capitalism. In this way, it promotes as an alternative solution the line of the so-called “green” capitalist restructurings. In addition, the Webb platform considers the characterisation of the crisis as a capitalist crisis of overproduction insufficient. It distorts the essence of the over-accumulation of capital as it associates it with…. A lack of investment opportunities. It states characteristically: “Short of a new New Green Deal on a global level, it is hard to see where the dynamism for a sustained upswing, let alone a long boom, is going to come from.”

These views recycle social-democratic and opportunist theories on economic recession and development which whitewash capitalism and conceal its class essence, leading the Communist Party to give up on its strategic goal and support political proposals, which have as their goal the acquisition of new super-profits by the capitalists, in the name of “ecology”, at the same time when they are turning nature and natural wealth into commodities, and destroying the planet in various ways.

THE QUESTION OF THE SOCIALIST PERSPECTIVE:

It renounces the struggle for socialism. The notion of revolution is entirely absent. It proposes an endless process of successive stages, in which the alliances will be formed not on the basis of the criterion of the era and the class interests of the working class. Webb proposes working for “- the balance of forces is to shift in a progressive direction”. This view condemns the party to submit itself to the temporary circumstances and not to work with a strategy for the overthrow of capitalism through the concentration of forces.

Nevertheless, it is obvious to us, that the tactics of a Communist Party must serve its strategy, which is the overthrow of capitalism and the construction of a socialist-communist society. The position of Webb in practice abolishes the strategic goal of the Communist Party, and finally aims to shake the very character of the Communist Party. Socialism is in any case on the agenda, from the moment that we live in the era of imperialism, the highest and final stage of capitalism. The timeliness and necessity of socialism-communism is projected by the impasses of capitalism, the imperialist wars, the economic crises, the huge social, economic, environmental, ecological and other problems which capitalist society gives rise to. A Communist Party must form tactics and alliances which facilitate the concentration of forces, the class unity of the working class and the social alliance with the popular strata, with the aim of maturing the subjective factor for the acquisition of power by the working class, and not to be trapped in alliances and stages, which will lead it to struggle under a “foreign flag” in the logic of managing capitalism.

-ON THE QUESTION OF THE FORMATION OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

The Webb platform proposes moving beyond the Communist Parties. It says that “A party of socialism in the 21st century embraces Marxism, understood as a broad theoretical tradition that reaches beyond the communist movement.” A party that does not struggle for the interests of the working class but “fights for the interests of the entire nation.”

This position denies the necessity of the existence of the Communist Party in the USA and indeed in the entire world. The KKE successfully dealt with similar views, when they emerged in our party 20 years ago under the influence of “Gorbachevist” theories. The communists of Greece fought hard to repel these opportunist views, for the preservation of the KKE, for the preservation and strengthening of its revolutionary, class and internationalist character. Today, 20 years later, the communists not only in Greece but all over the world can judge the positive results that the outcome of this battle had for the KKE. The KKE was able to stand on its feet, to elaborate serious theoretical and political issues, without deviating from the principles of Marxism-Leninism. It approved its new programme and came to important conclusions concerning the causes of the overthrow of socialism, enriching its conception of socialism. It has taken significant initiatives for the unity of the communist movement at a regional and international level. It strengthened its bonds with the working class and the other popular strata. The influence of its positions and its prestige has been strengthened as it plays the leading role in the regrouping and development of the class-oriented labour-trade union movement and in the tough strike mobilizations of the workers in our country.

None of the above would have been achieved, if opportunism had prevailed 20 years ago in the KKE. The KKE would have gone down the road of dissolution and the labour-popular movement would have lost its basic pillar of support.

-ON IDEOLOGICAL STRUGGLE

The Webb platform renounces the struggle against bourgeois ideology and opportunism. The party which Webb describes surrenders from the ideological struggle. He writes “A party of socialism in the 21st century doesn’t turn – liberals, advocates of identity politics, single issue movements, centrist and progressive leaders of major social organizations, social democrats, community based non-profits, NGOs, unreliable allies, and the “people” (according to some, a classless category concealing class, racial, and gender oppression) – into enemies.”

But can a Communist Party enlighten the working class, the other popular strata, if it does not have an ideological front against views which present capitalism as the only way, which simply promote different types of management of the exploitative system? The answer of the KKE to this is that it is impossible for the struggle of the people to develop without a firm and consistent ideological front against unscientific bourgeois and opportunist theories. This is especially true in today’s conditions, when the role of the various NGOs has become obvious, which are connected financially and in other ways with the imperialist organizations. In conditions when social-democracy has been in government and has demonstrated in practice that is a pillar of support for the bourgeois political system. In these conditions the communists not only must not give up on ideological work and struggle, but they must intensify the struggle even further against these forces.

-ORGANIZATIONAL OPPORTUNISM

Webb rejects the Leninist organization, the organization of the vanguard of the working class which corresponds to the needs of the class struggle for the abolition of exploitation. He rejects the Leninist organization because he rejects the struggle for socialism and has taken sides with the bourgeois class for the perpetuation of capitalism.

And so, a state machine which is both experienced and powerful will be opposed by a “party”, according to him, based on the Internet, with an open door policy for new members as an organizational principle: “Joining should be no more difficult than joining other social organizations”.

Thus we can see that not only does he reject the tried and tested organizational principles of the Communist Party of a new type, which were established in the era of Lenin, but he promotes the idea of a party of an NGO type, which corresponds to the content which he himself proposes and is in the direction of a “Communist Party” assimilated into the bourgeois system, which will work for the salvation and “correction” of capitalism and not for its overthrow.

-A PARTY OF REVOLUTION OR REFORM?

Reform is the answer given by Webb to this fundamental question, which was posed a hundred years ago. His view denies that the party is the vanguard of the working class and subordinates its activity to the lowest level of class consciousness (“A party of socialism in the 21st century takes as its point of departure the issues that masses (relative term) are ready to fight for”). Of course a reformist line is proposed as well as the prioritization of the intervention in the institutions of the bourgeois state. The struggle for reforms within imperialism is acclaimed not only as a “means” buts an end for this “new” party.

In reality, when has the path of reforming the capitalist system ever led to the abolition of the exploitation of man by man and the vindication of the workers’ desires? The “recipe” of reforms has been tested by the peoples through various social-democratic and centre-left governments, which in practice have been proved to be the main vehicles for the imposition of anti-people and anti-worker measures, and as pillars of support for the imperialist organizations and wars.

-“MARXISM”…WITHOUT MARX

Webb calls the class nature of bourgeois democracy into question. As he writes: “What I’m challenging is the notion that everything is subordinate to class and class struggle no matter what the circumstances.” He questions the class nature of the bourgeois state, that is to say the dictatorship of the US monopolies and claims that “Thus the nature of the struggle isn’t simply the people against the state, but the people winning positions and influence in the state and then utilizing them to make changes (within and outside of the state)”.

This is an old opportunist position which Marx had already rejected in his era, and was revived by the bankrupt eurocommunist current. And this alone would be enough for us to come to the conclusion that the “Marxism”, which is mentioned as being the theoretical basis of the “party of the 21st century”, has nothing to do with Marx and his theoretical contribution but aims at its vulgar distortion, the burying of revolutionary theory, and the deception of the workers.

ILLUSIONS CONCERNING THE ROLE OF THE US GOVERNMENT AND THE MONOPOLIES:

The Webb platform fosters illusions and works for the submission of the people to the government of the USA, that is to say the world’s leading imperialist power: “The point isn’t for the U.S. government to simply to crawl into a national shell, but to reinsert itself into world affairs on the basis of cooperation, peace, equality, and mutual benefits…”

At the same time he fosters illusions concerning a “ humanized” version of the monopolies: “big sections of the transnational corporate class have pulled the plug on the American people, economy, and state…the commitment of major sections of the transnational elite to a people-friendly public sector, a vibrant domestic economy and a modern society has waned…”

As the Chairperson of the CPUSA has given up on a class approach to society, the abovementioned positions are to be expected. These are positions which not only have nothing to do with the history and struggles of the party he represents, but they bear no relation to reality either. The continuing occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, the new imperialist war in Libya demonstrate what kind of activity the US government has developed outside its “national shell”. And it conducts similar anti-people activity for the defence of the interests of the monopolies inside its own country.

ESCALATING THE LINE OF “TAILING” CAPITAL AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

The strengthening of political reaction which is intrinsic to imperialism and is intensifying in the conditions of crisis is interpreted as “ultra-right extremism”. This leads to conclusions which violate the truth and reality, such as “we say too definitively that the independent forces stand no chance whatsoever of taking over the Democratic Party. That still may be the case, but it is a mistake to rule it out completely at this point.” The equation of the working class and its movement with the trade union bureaucracy of the AFL-CIO is consistent with the political line of alliance with sections of capital.

TURNING TO ANTICOMMUNISM

Webb’s article marks an overt siding with the class enemy and a complete alignment with contemporary state-level anticommunism. It calls for “an unequivocal break with Stalin” and lines up with the slanderous assault on socialist construction which offered so much to the Soviet peoples and played the decisive role in the anti-fascist victory of the peoples. In essence, these positions attempt to conceal the reality, the complex problems of the class struggle in the USSR and the tough confrontation of working class power with the bourgeois class in the countryside, the kulaks.

It adopts, in essence, every kind of slanderous simplification of complex problems, such as the sharpening of the class struggle in the USSR. The article goes a step further and joins up with Havel, Walesa and all the reactionary anticommunists of the EU who talk of “crimes against humanity”. It lines up with the tendency that attempts to criminalise the Communist Parties and the defence of socialism: “τo describe these atrocities as a mistake is a mistake – criminal”.

As is well known the opportunist current in Europe that forms the so called Party of the European Left (ELP) holds a similar anti-historical position.

Dear comrades of the CPUSA,

Members, friends and cadre of the CPUSA,

Conscious Workers of the US,

At this very critical moment for your party the KKE calls on you to take into account that the ideological attack against the Party of a New Type focusing on its identity, its character and its organisational principles was unleashed from the very first moment of its existence. The revisionists have always supported the dissolution of the party of the working class; they have always been a pillar of support for the bourgeoisie. The bourgeois class and its supporters understood from the very first moment the role of the party in the political emancipation of the working class and its movement. The ideological attack which was unleashed continues up to the present day as is demonstrated by Webb’s article.

We call on you to take into account the fact that the party can only fulfil the role of the proletarian vanguard on the condition that it is equipped with unity of will, unity of action, and unity of strict discipline. Its internationalist character stems from its nature; it constitutes an integral part of the world communist movement.

Experience confirms and practice which is the yardstick of truth proves that the revolutionary line of struggle not only does not restrict mass work but it reinforces it. It strengthens the expectations of the working people, it provides a way-out and a perspective, it contributes to the change of the correlation of forces. The independent action of the party is a prerequisite for the formation of a policy of alliances that will be subordinated to and serve the strategy for the overthrow of capitalism.

In addition, we consider it necessary to take into account that the necessity of the socialist revolution and the construction of the new communist socio-economic formation is not determined by the correlation of forces, which is shaped at the various historical junctures, but by the historical need to resolve the basic contradiction between capital and labour. The counterrevolutions in the USSR and the other socialist countries have not altered the character of our era which is an era of transition from capitalism to socialism which is timely and necessary as shown by the tragedy of the millions of workers and unemployed who suffer from exploitation and the intensification of the problems that the exploitative system causes.

We believe that the replacement of the principles of Marxism Leninism by revisionist approaches in the name of national peculiarities caused a great deal of damage to the communist movement and continues to do so. No national peculiarity can negate the necessity for the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism, the necessity for the conquest of political power by the working class, for the socialisation of production and central planning. The economic crisis that broke out in the capitalist world and the intensification of the inter-imperialist contradictions further highlight the timeliness of socialism. Under these conditions the driving back of the new wave of state anticommunism, the defence of the socialism we knew, of its great contribution to the world working class, of the identity and the revolutionary traditions of the communist movement acquire a special importance.

Dear comrades,

Historical experience, the developments themselves have refuted the views that spoke of “the end of history”, the “obsolescence of Marxism-Leninism” and the “end of the Communist Parties”. On the contrary, today there is a stronger need for the existence of Communist Parties that have roots in the working class and the workplaces, which believe in Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism. The labour movement must consciously act and rise to the challenge to ensure the existence of a revolutionary party of the working class. This is a crucial duty and a challenge for the most advanced workers and for communists in all the countries of the world and of course above all in the USA.

The consistent confrontation with and rejection of this opportunist-liquidationist platform is a requirement which springs from the historical traditions the labour and communist movement in the USA, it is a condition for the revival of revolutionary communist ideals in the US labour movement and society.


The International Relations Section of the CC of KKE

Reposted from Soviet-Empire since http://inter.kke.gr no longer seems to have a copy up.

[Noob]

I guess I should address noob, but I have little more to say on the topic. I would actually accuse him of doing the same thing as the SWP. He took an issue and then attempts to shoe-horn an analysis of it around his religious belief in the issue and has to keep knocking down reality in order to keep the ideological belief in tact.

In this case a fervent dislike of immigrants requires everything to warp around it.

That's fine. As for my fervent dislike of immigrants - it's not the immigrants themselves that I don't like. I would far rather spend time with some working class ethnics in Manchester's inner city than I would with some middle class suburb-living Starbucks-sipping wet lettuces, for instance. And I don't think that mass immigration itself is a cause of demise rather than a consequence of it. What I don't like is the policy of mass immigration, or what I'm seeing with many of the left, in that identity is ultimately something that is irrelevant, can be suppressed and bypassed for socialism. Much is said of the negative impact on the identity of the indigenous population that accompanies a policy of mass immigration - but what about the identity of migrants themselves? Many self-segregate because they want to retain their original culture - and indeed what does a culture that is being thrown to the wind in exchange for a pathetic mini-America have to offer anybody? Some on the left think that all migrants can be taken under the arm and can be assimilated into an internationalist cosmopolitan dream - what would amount to the dissolution of national and regional identities. I think this is just as harmful as an extreme xenophobia that would work to create a class of 'super-exploited' migrants. Both are errors.

I'll leave it there, but that's my actual position.

[JRS1]

It depends what saeko is describing as a party, as dagoth points out parties (in the liberal definition) don't exist serve their members, so even if they are called socialist one should not expect them to.

However their are many socialist organizations that work at a grass roots level, protecting communities from police occupation, organising workplaces, and evangelizing bout socialism.

This thread began by accusing middle class leftists of beige what is wrong with the western left, a nonsense accusation, what is wrong with the western left is it lost the capacity, language and channels to communicate an anti-liberal, socialist narrative to the working class. We should work together to address that not attack each other for the type of cheese we like.

Actually, the middle class leftists are what is wrong with the left.

You lost the capacity etc because "they" took control and moulded the movement into one that met "their" needs, and on their terms. There should be no debate over this.

Curiously it happened around about the time Thatcher dispossessed the working class of their agency and identity. Funny that.

[Goldberk]

Actually, the middle class leftists are what is wrong with the left.

Even members of the 'middle' class that identify as proletariat and identify with the rest of the proletariat?

You lost the capacity etc because "they" took control and moulded the movement into one that met "their" needs, and on their terms.

An example of when this actually happened to a left movement please?

Curiously it happened around about the time Thatcher dispossessed the working class of their agency and identity. Funny that.

I'm not sure Thatcher can be solely blamed for this, all political parties worked towards this end, this result is more about liberal hegemony than anything else.

[Gletkin]

I remember saying this before elsewhere and I think Cromwell brought this up earlier in this thread, but the ironic thing about the old Leninist regimes was that as officially "internationalist" as they were, due to their obsession with political control over their citizens they ended up imposing very strict limitations on immigration.

If one is genuinely "non-racist but anti-immigrant" then Leninism-as-was-practiced is right up your alley. As "excessively pro-immigrant" as Leninist parties may or may not have been before they gained power, it didn't really matter because after "The Revolution" the usual concerns over "ideological contamination" not to mention the planned economy incidentally put the kabosh on mass immigration. If anything, traditional Leninists were consistent in keeping their own people in as much as they kept foreigners out.

[The Immortal Goon]

As per a few pages ago, the big thing that we need to do is to organize unions. Especially in the United States, where unions are on a steep decline, I think that's something that can and should be exploited. I'm unionizing at the moment, and I'm planning on spreading that out. The issue with this is that it's hard to push for a radically leftist poltiical agenda.

Incidentally, it's why—for all their flaws—I think the IWW is the best organization out there at the moment. Most of the far left parties are liberal democrats in red or people simmering in their mothers' basements together. Or, I guess, academic oriented reading groups. The IWW is rebuilding itself into a radical organization to fill that void. In my city, at least, they're making some headway.

[Goldberk]

Is there room for more radical unions to challenge the establishment unions? Thinking like DRUM did in Detroit?

[Gletkin]

The problem is the same that's been dogging the socialist left since forever: socialism's focus seems to be not as much on economic growth than it is on redistribution (and even then often does that imperfectly). Socialists can't convince people that things won't stagnate after their revolution. Right now Venezuela seems to be proving that for the umpteenth time. The Soviet Union didn't live to see its 75th birthday. People are far less patient than that today. They literally can't afford to wait 75 years for a supposedly better alternative to start working right. The typical boom/bust cycles of the status quo are much shorter than that.

Racists, ethnicists, and nativists often like to present their solutions as realistic alternatives to left socialism. In the short term, it may look like a "cruel but effective" solution to figuratively snatch the bread out of the mouths of minorities and immigrants. But countries with highly homogeneous populations such as Japan and Korea still have economic downturns and even if you dispossess every single minority or immigrant in those countries there still wouldn't be enough to go around for all the natives (not that that stops the local xenophobes there from blaming them for everything anyway). Likewise I believe that under the old Axis regimes life was often hard even for "Aryans" despite their privileges.

If you look at the nativist right all around the world, that's really the only solution they have: dispossess The Others so that there's more to go around for those that's left. But as to what happens the next time when their economy tanks and they've already dispossessed The Others, they have no real answers. Except maybe creating more Others ("All people born on odd-numbered dates are plundering the Birthright of us righteous folk who have even-numbered birthdays!") or trying to conquer other nations.

Immigration is a symptom, not a cause. If goods, ideas, and capital flow across borders inevitably so will people themselves. In contrast even the most militant of "internationalists" will incidentally kill off immigration if they impose a totalitarian system in a ham-fisted attempt to forge their new order.

So far in history, Reds that may have screamed "Bigot!" at nativists often ended up presiding over regimes more concerned about keeping people in than out.

So for those of you wondering what leftists to support in order to stop "flooding" by immigrants, by all means fight for traditional Marxism-Leninism.

[ComradeTim]

Was there a positive alternative in that sea of criticism?

[Gletkin]

I suppose it depends on what one thinks is "positive".

If this whole thing is about supporting some kind of "anti-immigrant left" (this thread has certainly veered off towards that direction) I believe I made it clear that going by historical record, the majority of the old "Marxist-Leninist" regimes were very successful in staving off mass immigration. Not just in terms of tight border control and whatnot, it seemed not very many people wanted to immigrate to their countries in the first place.

The traditional Leninists (or "neo-Stalinists" if you prefer) demonstrated that immigrant-bashing is utterly unnecessary. Establish just about any of the old 20th-century-style Leninist regimes and an almost inevitable side-effect is the dying off of mass immigration to your country.

Otherwise, no. I don't really see much of a viable alternative. Which is exactly why everyone is in the condition we're in. If we don't like the "neoliberal" status quo then what's supposed to replace it? It seems an awful lot of "isms" have been tried.

Greece is the perfect example. "Mainstream capitalist democracy" has colossally fucked up over there. Unsurprisingly, popular support for various communist and fascist parties have skyrocketed. And yet, what viable long-term alternative has SYRIZA, Golden Dawn, or anyone else really presented? Hence the speculation that SYRIZA will in reality become not much more than a version of PASOK that indulges in socialist rhetoric a bit more. On the other hand we have Chrysí Avgí that just seems to rant about minorities, immigrants, gays, etc. "stealing" everything from "real Greeks". They seem equally unprepared for when Reality reminds them that having an ethnically homogeneous population isn't a cure-all.

[Rei Murasame]

I think that the parties on the right often have economic programmes that do not stagnate and collapse into burning wreckage, it's just that no one ever gives them credit for it.

After all, I'm pretty sure that Park Chung-hee's strategy was not to kick out all immigrants. He didn't have any immigrants to kick out, because no one wanted to be in South Korea anyway. He created the miracle on the Han River by implementing actual policies.

This is something I've spoken of before as well - that I would actually love to have a situation where I don't have to think about whichever group of insane migrants that is coming next, complicating life and making things difficult. In the absence of that problem, everyone would be able to give 100% of their time to other problems which I'm sure that people would like to hear discussed. Sadly, that will never happen, because the issue of mass migration will always be a deal-breaker, forever.

Take Europe for example. Imagine if all the added up hours by political figures on the far right spent arguing about Muslims, were instead directed toward "how to get dirigisme", or, "how to incrementally push the agenda until we breakthrough into a full-on national syndicalist offensive". Oh, wow, I think we'd actually see something getting done on that front. But it won't happen, because the priority for Europeans is to make sure that there is a recognition that in order to have a national syndicalist offensive, there has to be a nation left in which to have that offensive.

Which won't happen if the flag of the Mujahedeen is flying over your neighbourhood.

But everyone refuses to understand this. You have to initialise an object before you can use it. You can't have a national syndicalist offensive, if you don't have a nation. You can't have a path of national labour, if you don't have a nation. The key is in the names of these terms.

[The Immortal Goon]

The problem is the same that's been dogging the socialist left since forever: socialism's focus seems to be not as much on economic growth than it is on redistribution (and even then often does that imperfectly). Socialists can't convince people that things won't stagnate after their revolution. Right now Venezuela seems to be proving that for the umpteenth time. The Soviet Union didn't live to see its 75th birthday. People are far less patient than that today. They literally can't afford to wait 75 years for a supposedly better alternative to start working right. The typical boom/bust cycles of the status quo are much shorter than that.

It seems pretty incredible to say that Russia going to the most backward country in Europe to putting the first man in space in three or four decades was a focus on redistribution instead of economic growth.

The same for China, to say that going from a puppet despotism carved up at whim by the big powers to the world's largest economy has nothing to do with economic growth.

The problem has more to do with the fact that socialism is a world system, and both of these states attempted to create a national solution that was not viable with something that wasn't real.

For all the villainization Trotsky gets from both the Stalinists and his so-called adherents, he was completely right in dictating what a general policy with the two above examples should not be:

There are some who say that since the actual state that has emerged from the proletarian revolution does not correspond to ideal a priori norms, therefore they turn their backs on it. This is political snobbery, common to pacifist-democratic, libertarian, anarcho-syndicalist and, generally, ultraleft circles of petty-bourgeois intelligentsia. There are others who say that since this state has emerged from the proletarian revolution, therefore every criticism of it is sacrilege and counterrevolution. That is the voice of hypocrisy behind which lurk most often the immediate material interests of certain groups among this very same petty-bourgeois intelligentsia or among the workers’ bureaucracy. These two types – the political snob and the political hypocrite – are readily interchangeable, depending upon personal circumstances. Let us pass them both by.

[Eauz]

As per a few pages ago, the big thing that we need to do is to organize unions. Especially in the United States, where unions are on a steep decline, I think that's something that can and should be exploited. I'm unionizing at the moment, and I'm planning on spreading that out. The issue with this is that it's hard to push for a radically leftist poltiical agenda.

Incidentally, it's why—for all their flaws—I think the IWW is the best organization out there at the moment. Most of the far left parties are liberal democrats in red or people simmering in their mothers' basements together. Or, I guess, academic oriented reading groups. The IWW is rebuilding itself into a radical organization to fill that void. In my city, at least, they're making some headway.

I think this is the best response so far. The far-left is filled with too many excuses as to why they are not a major player at the table. Sure, some excuses may be valid and should not be ignored, however, in the end, what it boils down to is the need to be collectively organized in some manner. As I pointed out earlier, it was positive to see people collectively organizing against the concept of Wall Street and Capitalism, regardless of how the movement was actually managed. Getting people interested in struggling against the socioeconomic conditions is much more effective than being in disarray.

At some point, the far-left will have to mature and grow up from shouting anti-establishment comments to actually organizing anti-capitalist movements (and maintain them) that are grounded within far-left political theory. Are we going to continue to see failures? Of course, this isn't just going to be a day campaign.

Another thought would be that we need to rid ourselves of the identity politics related directly to historical socialist figures (i.e.: Stalin, Trotsky, Lenin, Mao, Godwin, Proudhon, Stirner etc.). Sure, the general theories can be discussed and understood, however, we must not allow these historical figures to rule our attempts to overthrow the capitalist system and replace it with a socialistic socioeconomic system. I think that this point is going to be the toughest option as we are actually fighting an internal battle amongst ourselves, fragmenting the already fragmented pieces of the far-left.

[redcarpet]

One problem is sloganeering. Including about what is plainly obvious and not a solution.

Take the Occupy Wall Street movement. Their "We are the 99%" slogan. Well, we know we are. That slogan is just stating the obvious, but it is not a solution or proposal.

[Gletkin]

It seems pretty incredible to say that Russia going to the most backward country in Europe to putting the first man in space in three or four decades was a focus on redistribution instead of economic growth.

Despite whatever achievements the USSR accomplished ultimately it collapsed of its own accord. It couldn't keep up with the capitalist rivals it was supposed to overtake. Of course the capitalist powers encouraged its downfall, but isn't that to be expected? If a new order can't survive the resistance of the old order, then what good is it?

The same for China, to say that going from a puppet despotism carved up at whim by the big powers to the world's largest economy has nothing to do with economic growth.

They initially industrialized roughly following the Soviet model.
But of course, that isn't what made them "the engine of the world's economy" today.
The economic growth that won them worldwide praise (despite its human cost, although there was immense suffering under Mao as well) was achieved by abandoning Mao's path and embracing state capitalism whole heartedly.
Dengist China is in reality what Chiang Kaishek wanted to achieve but with a cosmetic Maoist patina.
In fact by now the PRC has already been capitalist longer than it has been "communist". Mao's era lasted for roughly 30 years. Since then the PRC has been capitalist for 35 and shows no signs of leaving the "capitalist road" any time soon.

The problem has more to do with the fact that socialism is a world system, and both of these states attempted to create a national solution that was not viable with something that wasn't real.

But the likelihood of global revolution was slim. Not only was capitalism not overthrown, it tended to adapt and continue to prosper. Even when this or that country did succumb to communist revolution the leading capitalist nations continued to advance. Socialist regimes had little choice but to pursue "national solutions".


Back when I was still a socialist I said that one of Marxism's greatest weaknesses was that for all its critique of capitalism (and it's still useful to some degree for analyzing capitalism) it provided few details on how exactly the new socialist order would work. I also thought that that was also a great strength. By providing no blueprint to follow, future generations of revolutionaries were free to come up with their own designs for how "socialism" would work. But thus far, I don't see a successful model yet. It seems Marxists kind of retreat to this stance where they organize in preparation for when capitalism terminally tears itself apart with its own contradictions. But however bad capitalism gets, that final collapse never happens. Indeed that was what was supposedly happening 8 decades ago. But capitalism rebounded and however bad things have been since then, we've yet to meet a global crisis that matched "the Great Depression".

But all the same, even today when neoliberal fuckups present opportunities for socialists like in Venezuela or Greece, either the socialists attempt radical reforms and end up following the old train wrecks with new train wrecks or (in tacit recognition of this) they backtrack and fail to seriously challenge the capitalist status quo.

[Rich]

One problem is sloganeering. Including about what is plainly obvious and not a solution.

Take the Occupy Wall Street movement. Their "We are the 99%" slogan. Well, we know we are. That slogan is just stating the obvious, but it is not a solution or proposal.

The 99% figure is utterly ridiculous, trying to imply that 99% of us are exploited by just one percent of people. I haven't been able to find exact figures but I bet about 25% of people have above mean income. Then put that in an international context, adjusting for purchasing power parities I bet the majority of America's citizens have above the world mean income. The majority of the United States population gain from the unfair world system we live in.

The one type of capital that isn't mentioned is passport capital. Passports are based on Blut und Boden. If you're children of American citizens you normally get an American passport. If you're children of Congolese parents you normally get a Congolese passport. For the working class lower / class of prosperous western countries your passport is your most valuable piece of capital. Obviously flooding western countries with any immigrants but particularly high birth rate, ghetto creating, terrorist prone (even though the vast majority are peaceful, tolerant blah, blah) Muslims lowers the value of that passport capital.

Countries like Saudi Arabia and other Gulf State with very high passport capital values have tired to preserve the value of their passport capital by severely restricting the expansion of citizenship to foreign workers and their children.

[Lexington]

Then put that in an international context, adjusting for purchasing power parities I bet the majority of America's citizens have above the world mean income.

I'm just noting this here since I looked it up:

The median household income worldwide is $10,000. Only 7 percent of US households are poorer than that.