Found poem.
"Actually, everything is quite clear if one thinks it over and reaches the conclusion that indirect democracy is a hoax. Ostensibly, the elected Assembly is the one which reflects public opinion most faithfully. But there is only one sort of public opinion, and it is serial.
"The imbecility of the mass media, the government pronouncements, the biased or incomplete reporting in the newspapers -- all this comes to seek us out in our serial solitude and load us down with wooden ideas, formed out of what we think others will think. Deep within us there are undoubtedly demands and protests, but because they are not echoed by others, they wither away and leave us with a 'bruised spirit' and a feeling of frustration. So when we are called to vote, I, the Other, have my head stuffed with petrified ideas which the press or television has piled up there. They are serial ideas which are expressed through my vote, but they are not my ideas.
"The institutions of bourgeois democracy have split me apart: there is me and there are all the Others they tell me I am (a Frenchman, a soldier, a worker, a taxpayer, a citizen, and so on). This splitting-up forces us to live with what psychiatrists call a perpetual identity crisis. Who am I, in the end? An Other identical with all the others, inhabited by these impotent thoughts which come into being everywhere and are not actually thought anywhere? Or am I myself? And who is voting? I do not recognize myself any more."
From Les Temps modernes, no. 318, January 1973. Scanned from Sartre, Jean-Paul. Life/Situations: Essays Written and Spoken. New York: Pantheon Books, 1977. 198-210.
by Jean-Paul Sartre
In 1789 the vote was given to landowners. What this meant was that the vote had been given not to men but to their real estate, to bourgeois property, which could only vote for itself. Although the system was profoundly unfair, since it excluded the greater part of the French population, it was not absurd. The voters, of course, voted individually and in secret. This was in order to separate them from one another and allow only incidental connections between their votes. But all the voters were property owners and thus already isolated by their land, which closed around them and with its physical impenetrability kept out everything, including people. The ballots were discrete quantities that reflected only the separation of the voters. It was hoped that when the votes ere counted, they would reveal the common interest of the greatest number, that is, their class interest. At about the same time, the Constituent Assembly adopted the Le Chapelier law, whose ostensible purpose was to put an end to the guilds but which was also meant to prohibit any association of workers against their employers. Thus passive citizens without property, who bad no access to indirect democracy (in other words, to the vote which the rich were using to elect their government), were also denied permission to form groups and exercise popular or direct democracy. This would have been the only form of democracy appropriate to them, since they could not be separated from one another by their property.
Four years later, when the Convention replaced the landowners' vote by universal suffrage, it still did not choose to repeal the Le Chapelier law. Consequently the workers, deprived once and for all of direct democracy, had to vote as landowners even though they owned nothing. Popular rallies, which took place often even though they were prohibited, became illegal even as they remained legitimate. What rose up in opposition to the assemblies elected by universal suffrage, first in 1794, then during the Second Republic in 1848, and lastly at the very beginning of the Third in 1870, were spontaneous though sometimes very large rallies of what could only be called the popular classes, or the people. In 1848 especially, it seemed that a worker's power, which had formed in the streets and in the National Workshops, was opposing the Chamber elected by universal suffrage, which had only recently been regained. The outcome is well known: in May and June of 1848, legality massacred legitimacy. Faced with the legitimate Paris Commune, the very legal Bordeaux Assembly, transferred to Versailles, had only to imitate this example.
At the end of the last century and the beginning of this one, things seemed to change. The right of the workers to strike was recognized, and the organization of trade unions was allowed. But the presidents of the Council, the heads of legality, would not tolerate the intermittent thrusts of popular power. Clemenceau in particular became known as a strikebreaker. All of them were obsessed by fear of the two powers. They refused to consider the coexistence of legitimate power, which had conic into being here and there out of the real unity of the popular forces, with the falsely indivisible power which they exercised and which really depended on the infinitely wide dispersal of the voters. In fact, they had fallen into a contradiction which could only be resolved by civil war, since the function of civil war was to defuse this contradiction.
When we go to vote tomorrow, we will once again be substituting legal power for legitimate power. The first, which seems precise and perfectly clear-cut, has the effect of separating the voters in the name of universal suffrage. The second is still embryonic, diffuse, unclear even to itself. At this point it is indistinguishable from the vast libertarian and anti-hierarchical movement which one encounters everywhere but which is not at all organized yet. All the voters belong to very different groups. But to the ballot box they are not members of different groups but citizens. The polling booth standing in the lobby of a school or town hall is the symbol of all the acts of betrayal that the individual may commit against the group lie belongs to. To each person it says: "No one can see you, you have only yourself to look to; you are going to be completely isolated when you make your decision, and afterwards you can hide that decision or lie about it." Nothing more is needed to transform all the voters who enter that hall into potential traitors to one another. Distrust increases the distance that separates them. If we want to fight against atomization, we must try to understand it first.
Men are not born in isolation: they are born into a family which forms them during their first years. Afterwards they will belong to different socioprofessional communities and will start a family themselves. They are atomized when large social forces -- work conditions under the capitalist regime, private property, institutions, and so forth -- bring pressure to bear upon the groups they belong to, breaking them up and reducing them to the units which supposedly compose them. The army, to mention only one example of an institution, does not look upon the recruit as an actual person; the recruit can only recognize himself by the fact that he belongs to existing groups. The army sees in him only the man, that is, the soldier -- an abstract entity which is defined by the duties and the few rights which represent his relations with the military power. The soldier, which is just what the recruit is not but which military service is supposed to reduce him to, is in himself other than himself, and all the recruits in the same class are identically other. it is this very identity which separates them, since for each of them it represents only his predetermined general relationship with the army. During the hours of training, therefore, each is other than himself and at the same time identical with all the Others who are other than themselves. He can have real relations with his comrades only if they all cast off their identity as soldiers -- say, at mealtimes or during the evening when they are in the barracks. Yet the word "atomization," so often used, does not convey the true situation of people who have been scattered and alienated by institutions. They cannot be reduced to the absolute solitude of the atom even though institutions try to replace their concrete relations with people by incidental connections. They cannot be excluded from all forms of social life: a soldier takes the bus, buys the newspaper, votes. All this presumes that he will make use of "collectives" along with the Others. But the collectives address him as a member of a series (the series of newspaper buyers, television watchers, etc.). He becomes in essence identical with all the other members, differing from them only by his serial number. We say that he has been serialized. One finds serialization in the practico-inert field, where matter mediates between men to the extent that men mediate between material objects. (For example, as soon as a man takes the steering wheel of his car he becomes no more than one driver among others and, because of this, helps reduce his own speed and everyone else's too, which is just the opposite of what he wanted, since he wanted to possess his own car.)
At that point, serial thinking is born in me, thinking which is not my own thinking but that of the Other which I am and also that of all the Others. It must be called the thinking of powerlessness, because I produce it to the degree that I am Other, an enemy of myself and of the Others, and to the degree that I carry the Other everywhere with me. Let us take the case of a business where there has not been a strike for twenty or thirty years, but where the buying power of the worker is constantly falling because of the "high cost of living." Each worker begins to think about a protest movement. But twenty years of "social peace" have gradually established serial relations among the workers. Any strike -- even if it were only for twenty-four hours -- would require a regrouping of those people. At that point serial thinking -- which separates them -- vigorously resists the first signs of group thinking. Serial thinking will take several forms: it will be racist ("The immigrant workers would not go along with us"), sexist ("The women would not understand us"), hostile to other categories of society ("The small shopkeepers would not help us any more than the country people would"), distrustful ("The man near me is Other, so I don't know how he would react"), and so forth. All the separatist arguments represent not the thinking of the workers themselves but the thinking of the Others whom they have become and who want to keep their identity and their distance. If the regrouping should come about successfully, there will be no trace left of this pessimistic ideology. Its only function was to justify the maintenance of serial order and of an impotence that was in part tolerated and in part accepted.
Universal suffrage is an institution, and therefore a collective which atomizes or serializes individual men. It addresses the abstract entities within them -- the citizens, who are defined by a set of political rights and duties, or in other words by their relation to the state and its institutions. The state makes citizens out of them by giving them, for example, the right to vote once every four years, on condition that they meet certain very general requirements -- to be French, to be over twenty-one -- which do not really characterize any of them.
From this point of view all citizens, whether they were born in Perpignan or in Lille, are perfectly identical, as we saw in the case of the soldiers. No interest is taken in the concrete problems that arise in their families or socioprofessional groups. Confronting them in their abstract solitude and their separation are the groups or parties soliciting their votes. They are told that they will be delegating their power to one or several of these political groups. But in order to "delegate its power," the series formed by the institution of the vote would itself have to possess at least a modicum of power. Now, these citizens, identical as they are and fabricated by the law, disarmed and separated by mistrust of one another, deceived but aware of their impotence, can never, as long as they remain serialized, form that sovereign group from which, we are told, all power emanates -- the People. As we have seen, they have been granted universal suffrage for the purpose of atomizing them and keeping them from forming groups.
Only the parties, which were originally groups -- though more or less bureaucratic and serialized -- can be considered to have a modicum of power. In this case it would be necessary to reverse the classic formula, and when a party says "Choose me!" understand it to mean not that the voters would delegate their sovereignty to it, but that, refusing to unite in a group to obtain sovereignty, they would appoint one or several of the political communities already formed, in order to extend the power they have to the national limits. No party will be able to represent the series of citizens, because every party draws its power from itself, that is, from its communal structure. In any case, the series in its powerlessness cannot delegate any authority. Whereas the party, whichever one it might be, makes use of its authority to influence the series by demanding votes from it. The authority of the party over the serialized citizens is limited only by the authority of all the other parties put together.
When I vote, I abdicate my power -- that is, the possibility everyone has of joining others to form a sovereign group, which would have no need of representatives. By voting I confirm the fact that we, the voters, are always other than ourselves and that none of us can ever desert the seriality in favor of the group, except through intermediaries. For the serialized citizen, to vote is undoubtedly to give his support to a party. But it is even more to vote for voting, as Kravetz says; that is, to vote for the political institution that keeps us in a state of powerless serialization.
We saw this in 1968 when de Gaulle asked the people of France, who had risen and formed groups, to vote -- in other words, to lie down again and retreat into seriality. The non-institutional groups fell apart and the voters, identical and separate, voted for the U.D.R. [1] That party promised to defend them against the action of groups which they themselves had belonged to a few days earlier. We see it again today when S…guy asks for three months of social peace in order not to disturb the voters, but actually so that elections will be possible. For they no longer would be if fifteen million dedicated strikers, taught by the experience of 1968, refused to vote and went on to direct action. The voter must remain lying down, steeped in his own powerlessness. He will thus choose parties so that they can exert their authority and not his. Each man, locked in his right to vote just as the landowner is locked inside his land, will choose his masters for the next four years without seeing that this so-called right to vote is simply the refusal to allow him to unite with others in resolving the true problems by praxis.
The ballot method, always chosen by the groups in the Assembly and never by the voters, only aggravates things. Proportional representation did not save the voters from seriality, but at least it used all the votes. The Assembly accurately reflected political France, in other words repeated its serialized image, since the parties were represented proportionally, by the number of votes each received. Our voting for a single ticket, on the other band, works on the opposite principle -- that, as one journalist rightly said, 49 percent equals zero. If the U.D.R. candidates in a voting district obtain 50 percent of the votes in the second round, they are all elected. The opposition's 49 percent is reduced to nothing: it corresponds to roughly half the population, which does not have the right to be represented.
Take as an example a man who voted Communist in 1968 and whose candidates were not elected. Suppose he votes for the Communist Party again in 1973. If the results are different from the 1968 results, it will not be because of him, since in both cases be voted for the same candidates. For his vote to be meaningful, a certain number of voters who voted for the present majority in 1968 would have to grow tired of it, break away from it, and vote further to the left. But it is not up to our man to persuade them; besides, they are probably from a different milieu and he does not even know them. Everything will take place elsewhere and in a different way: through the propaganda of the parties, through certain organs of the press. As for the Communist Party voter, be has only to vote; this is all that is required of him. He will vote, but he will not take part in the actions that change the meaning of his vote. Besides, many of those whose opinion can perhaps be changed may be against the U.D.R. but are also deeply anti-Communist. They would rather elect "reformers," who will thus become the arbiters of the situation. It is not likely that the reformers will at this point join the Socialist Party-Communist Party. They will throw their weight in with the U.D.R. which, like them, wants to maintain the capitalist regime. The U.D.R. and the reformers become allies -- and this is the objective meaning of the Communist man's vote. His vote is in fact necessary so that the Communist Party can keep its votes and even gain more votes. It is this gain which will reduce the number of majority candidates elected and will persuade them to throw themselves into the arms of the reformers. There is nothing to be said if we accept the rules of this fool's game.
But insofar as our voter is himself, in other words insofar as he is one specific man, he will not be at all satisfied with the result he has obtained as an identical Other. His class interests and his individual purposes have coincided to make him choose a leftist majority. He will have helped send to the Assembly a majority of the right and center in which the most important party will still be the U.D.R. When this man, therefore, puts his ballot in the box, the box will receive from the other ballots a different meaning from the one this voter wished to give it. Here again is serial action as it was seen in the practico-inert area.
We can go even further. Since by voting I affirm my institutionalized powerlessness, the established majority does not hesitate to cut, trim, and manipulate the electoral body in favor of the countryside and the cities that "vote the right way" -- at the expense of the suburbs and outlying districts that "vote the wrong way." Even the seriality of the electorate is thereby changed. If it were perfect, one vote would be equal to any other. But in reality, 120,000 votes are needed to elect a Communist deputy, while only 30,000 can send a U.D.R. candidate to the Assembly. One majority voter is worth four Communist Party voters. The point is that the majority voter is casting his ballot against what we would have to call a supermajority, meaning a majority which intends to remain in place by other means than the simple seriality of votes.
Why am I going to vote? Because I have been persuaded that the only political act in my life consists of depositing my ballot in the box once every four years? But that is the very opposite of an act. I am only revealing my powerlessness and obeying the power of a party. Furthermore, the value of my vote varies according to whether I obey one party or another. For this reason the majority of the future Assembly will be based solely on a coalition, and the decisions it makes will be compromises which will in no way reflect the desires expressed by my vote. In 1959 a majority voted for Guy Mollet because he claimed be could make peace in Algeria sooner than anyone else. The Socialist government which came to power decided to intensify the war, and this induced many voters to leave the series -- which never knows for whom or for what it is voting -- and join clandestine action groups. This was what they should have done much earlier, but in fact the unlikely result of their votes was what exposed the powerlessness of universal suffrage.
Actually, everything is quite clear if one thinks it over and reaches the conclusion that indirect democracy is a hoax. Ostensibly, the elected Assembly is the one which reflects public opinion most faithfully. But there is only one sort of public opinion, and it is serial. The imbecility of the mass media, the government pronouncements, the biased or incomplete reporting in the newspapers -- all this comes to seek us out in our serial solitude and load us down with wooden ideas, formed out of what we think others will think. Deep within us there are undoubtedly demands and protests, but because they are not echoed by others, they wither away and leave us with a "bruised spirit" and a feeling of frustration. So when we are called to vote, I, the Other, have my head stuffed with petrified ideas which the press or television has piled up there. They are serial ideas which are expressed through my vote, but they are not my ideas. The institutions of bourgeois democracy have split me apart: there is me and there are all the Others they tell me I am (a Frenchman, a soldier, a worker, a taxpayer, a citizen, and so on). This splitting-up forces us to live with what psychiatrists call a perpetual identity crisis. Who am I, in the end? An Other identical with all the others, inhabited by these impotent thoughts which come into being everywhere and are not actually thought anywhere? Or am I myself? And who is voting? I do not recognize myself any more.
There are some people who will vote, they say, "just to change the old scoundrels for new ones," which means that as they see it the overthrow of the U.D.R. majority has absolute priority. And I can understand that it would be nice to throw out these shady politicians. But has anyone thought about the fact that in order to overthrow them, one is forced to replace them with another majority which will keep the same electoral principles?
The U.D.R., the reformers, and the Communist Party-Socialist Party are in competition. These parties stand on a common ground which consists of indirect representation, their hierarchic power, and the powerlessness of the citizens, in other words, the "bourgeois system." Yet it should give us pause that the Communist Party, which claims to be revolutionary, has, since the beginning of peaceful coexistence, been reduced to seeking power in the bourgeois manner by accepting the institution of bourgeois suffrage. It is a matter of who can put it over on the citizens best. The U.D.R. talks about order and social peace, and the Communist Party tries to make people forget its revolutionary image. At present the Communists are succeeding so well in this, with the eager help of the Socialists, that if they were to take power because of our votes, they would postpone the revolution indefinitely and would become the most stable of the electoral parties. Is there so much advantage in changing? In any case, the revolution will be drowned in the ballot boxes -- which is not surprising, since they were made for that purpose.
Yet some people try to be Machiavellian, in other words, try to use their votes to obtain a result that is not serial. They aim to send a Communist Party-Socialist Party majority to the Assembly in hopes of forcing Pompidou to end the pretense -- that is, to dissolve the Chamber, force us into active battle, class against class or rather group against group, perhaps into civil war. What a strange idea -- to serialize us, in keeping with the enemy's wishes, so that he will react with violence and force us to group together. And it is a mistaken idea. In order to be a Machiavel, one must deal with certainties whose effect is predictable. Such is not the case here: one cannot predict with certainty the consequences of serialized suffrage. What can be foreseen is that the U.D.R. will lose seats and the Communist Party-Socialist Party and the reformers will gain seats. Nothing else is likely enough for us to base a strategy on it. There is only one sign: a survey made by the I.F.O.P. and published in France-Soir on December 4, 1972, showed 45 percent for the Communist Party-Socialist Party, 40 percent for the U.D.R., and 15 percent for the reformers. It also revealed a curious fact: there are many more votes for the Communist Party-Socialist Party than there are people convinced that this coalition will win. Therefore -- and always allowing for the fallibility of surveys -- many people seem to favor voting for the left, yet apparently feel certain that it will not receive the majority of the votes. And there are even more people for whom the elimination of the U.D.R. is the most important thing but who are not particularly eager to replace it by the left.
So as I write these comments on January 5, 1973, I find a U.D.R.-reformer majority likely. If this is the case, Pompidou will not dissolve the Assembly; lie will prefer to make do with the reformers. The majority party will become somewhat supple, there will be fewer scandals -- that is, the government will arrange it so that they are harder to discover -- and Jean-Jacques Servan-Schreiber and Lecannet will enter the government. That is all. Machiavellianism will therefore turn against the small Machiavels.
If they want to return to direct democracy, the democracy of people fighting against the system, of individual men fighting against the seriality which transforms them into things, why not start here? To vote or not to vote is all the same. To abstain is in effect to confirm the new majority, whatever it may be. Whatever we may do about it, we will have done nothing if we do not fight at the same time -- and that means starting today -- against the system of indirect democracy which deliberately reduces us to powerlessness. We must try, each according to his own resources, to organize the vast anti-hierarchic movement which fights institutions everywhere.
Footnote:
[1] Union pour la Défense de la République (the Gaullist party). [Translators' note.]
Random reading link by way of the Bronx Bolsheviks
Hahaha.
Posted by: No comment | July 27, 2007 at 12:25 PM
BM R U still
a maoist? Ha ha ha
Posted by: jlg | July 27, 2007 at 04:18 PM
I guess I'd have to ask, "what is a Maoist"?
From the looks of it, it means no one thing. I'm not an icon dragger, or a bait-and-switch pragmatist. I think we can win, in some places we are.
Am I a revolutionary communist?
Yes.
With that said, my political muddle isn't unique to me. Nor is it static.
Ha ha ha
Posted by: JB | July 28, 2007 at 11:56 AM
I don't call myself a Maoist, but I think anybody who calls themselves a revolutionary and doesn't seriously study Mao is a fool. I consider myself some sort of post-Leninist, but again think our debt to Lenin is enormous. I call myself a Marxist, butthat doesn't mean I don't think Marx doesn't raise as many questions as he answers. I'm a revolutionary and a communist but painfully aware that recent history has not been kind to either revolution or communism. I want a new synthesis and I think that, among other things, that means re-reading some old thinkers with new glasses on. Sartre included.
Posted by: Christopher Day | July 28, 2007 at 08:42 PM
Maoism is dividing into two. In fact it is dividing into three or four. And it is revealing that it was (all along) rather divided into some rather distinct ideological currents.
This is not surprising -- but rather typical of the development of both ideas and human efforts.
There seems to be considerable consensus that a "new synthesis" is needed, but less on what it should be.
(Except for those who insist "Put Maoism in command of the world revolution" -- and who are, in fact, offering their "synthesis" while portraying it as some ortho-Maoism. (Beware of synthesis marketed as orthodoxy -- there is something problematic at its core.)
My view is that "new synthesis" will not be forged "anew from here out" and not "from scratch" -- but has been in the making. That there are valuable "offerings" being made from various sides in the ICM -- that need to be sharply, and critically evaluated.
Gonzalo, Prachanda, and Avakian are putting forward their sense of where Maoism needs to go. And I imagine there are other thoughts and work on this (documents from TKPML? From CPI(M)? From groups and writers unaffiliated in that way?)
One issue is this question Chris raises of whether one should be a "Maoist." Look, it depends and it needs to be looked at scientifically: I don't think that there can be a new communist synthesis that does not have its basis, its feet, within Maoism. There are key insights (philosophically, politically, ideologically and even economically) within Maoism (and Mao's work within that) that are crucial and precious. And I am writing this as an understatement.
And I think Chris sometimes conflates the two: as if seeking to develop a leap beyond Maoism, inherently implies a process "confined" to the issues, ideas, language, writers, verdicts that were shaped by previous Maoism. And assuming that implications, he complains that Maoism is too narrow a framework (and too narrow a "discourse.")
It is one thing to critically seek and draw ideas from everywhere and anywhere -- but that should not be confused with the importance of defending and developing that core which is existing Marxism (i.e. which has been called for now Marxism-Leninism-Maoism).
I think there is a complex of dialectical processes here: where the affirmation and defense of truths within MLM form a key prerequisite for development (and co-necessary destruction) within communist theory.
Two related thoughts:
1) I think we need to create a place, a locus, "a space" where some discussion can take place of this process of synthesis. And where an attractive dynamic can be unleashed.
2) I want to suggest that this would be a good time to think about "throwing in."
To give an example (that is not intended as a "ding"): Chris Day has said (over time) that he thinks there are valuable insights in Gramsci ("old thinkers through new glasses") AND that he thinks there are lessons to be learned from non-communist movements and attempts around the world (Zapatistas? "New thinkers through old glasses"?)
Well, I have only a vague sense of what he means in both cases. But a real curiousity to learn what Chris is getting at.
How about it Chris, are you writing a 3000 word piece each on Gramsci and the Zapatistas -- that *specifically* seeks to explore these corners to make a contribution to the "new synthesis" we need? YOu insist there is something valuable there... well, good, what exactly is it?
Some work needs to be done, so that critical evaluation can proceed.
This is not just aimed at Chris, of course, but at everyone reading this. Can we kick this discussion up a whole level -- in content, and sharpness -- to the level of theory?
As JB is fond of quoting "We are the ones we've been waiting for."
Posted by: r. john | July 29, 2007 at 10:06 AM
Gosh... who am I quoting? I think it's an old Hopi aphorism. True enough in any case.
I'll take a quick dig at what "Maoism" is today: Communists who have not made peace with capitalism, who do not fetishize parliamentary democracy and (should) place the key issue in socialist construction as the development of social agency among the oppressed, over the oppressor.
Without denying the necessity of state power (as proletarian dictatorship), it does not view socialism as the set of (mere) policies dictated "from the mountaintop", as some put it – but in the lived life of the masses of people.
Where Gonzalo has said the whole of society must be militarized, the Nepalese are talking about drastically down-sizing any national army (as such). Instead of a suffocating "center" – they are looking for both a federal structure in Nepal and a regoinal Soviet Union of South Asia.
Change the "color of the sky" through revolution, let the people breathe enough to create and bring change through their own lives.
Maoism is not "left Stalinism". It was picked up as a left critique of Stalinism in the face of the Soviet Union's move towards "great power" status (as opposed to a "revolutionary base area"). Samir Amin speaks of Kruschev as a "right critique" of Stalinism, and unfortunately one that got over far too much in the ICM.
--------
I agree with R. John that there are two (really three or more) directions that "Maoism" is taking, and I'll also say ain't nothing wrong with that!
My own take on a "new synthesis", thus far, is pretty broad. I'm very skeptical of scholastic takes on "orthodoxy" for exactly the reasons R. John states.
Another way of approaching that is to see how the formulation of "Revisionism" to describe insufficient or wrong tendencies (using a ML vocabulary) has a built-in motion towards a hackneyed orthodoxy.
This goes back to the divisions in the Second International, when Bernsteinian Revisionism was an actual sell-out trend, mainly in opposition to the "Orthodox Marxists" led by Karl Kautsky.
It was a "new synthesis" from Lenin, not just theoretically but with the "dignity of immediate actuality" that created modern, scientific communism. NOT orthodoxy. NOT an old wine in a new bottle.
How could we not be swimming in contention?
Use of (ultimately) facile terms like "revisionism" obscure more than they explain and short circuit critical, informed thinking. This is all the more true when the experimental (whether in Chiapas, Caracas or Rolpa, Nepal) don't necessarily even claim ML bonafides.
Revisionism of the classic sort is real, such as the South African Communist Party, our "CP"USA or Germany's Left Party. But all and all, the world is a (truly) changed place and simply "applying classics" won't cut it because the ground they grew up from is a new terrain.
People shouldn't be afraid to be wrong. To mouth off a little in the wrong directions. Convenient coming from me, no doubt. But I believe without that kind of scattershot in the mix, the temptation to cling to reassuring if impotent orthodoxies will continue to hold sway (ala the Belgian forums).
Things I want to see:
Overviews of who is on the field now, both in North America and abroad.
Philosophical investigations of "orthodoxy" and "revisionism", as well as noting where key ideological ruptures have occurred, such as Leninism.
An investigation into the practices of democratic centralism, the role of cadre in mass movements and the construction of "solid cores".
A re-examination of the proletariat, as concept within Marxist ideology and as an actually-existing class. Is the socialist revolution proletarian, in essence or fact? How do re-conceptions, such as the Zapatista "Other" play into this?
Without re-entering the complaint terrain regarding the RCP, that's what has been so frustrating to me: the reduction of the moment to an orthodox singularity, all claims to the contrary. To recognize the need (and to an extent, all Chicken Littlisms aside, the moment) – and to choke. To just assert a solution, like any other new product. Agitation as advertising.
Anyways, I'm writing today and there will be more to come.
Posted by: JB | July 29, 2007 at 10:40 AM
Jed, why have you stopped updating your blog? What's up? Have you decided that the prospects for a Maoist revolution aren't so rosy after all? What's going on?
Posted by: Chuck Morse | December 25, 2007 at 03:37 PM
Hi Chuck,
If you are interested in the keeping abreast of current discussions on the prospects of Maoism in the U.S., you should check out the polemic against Avakian and the RCP here:
http://mikeely.wordpress.com/
As for your semi-snarky question, I'd say that speaking internationally, the prospects for Maoism have improved pretty significantly in the past couple years just based on whats been happening in Nepal and India.
In the U.S., of course, the situation is less promising. The polemic launched by Mike Ely (and the discussion around it) address why this is, focusing on the RCP, but the issues raised are by no means exclusive to the RCP.
In any event thats where many of the folks who used to come to Red Flags are now going.
Posted by: Christopher Day | December 25, 2007 at 07:59 PM
How it this critique original. The New Communist Movement [sic] has been splitting over "mass-line" since RYM2.
Real Maoists see this for what it is, one more split in the bankrupt and degenerated NCM. "Nine Letters" will lead nowhere.
Hmph. As if mass-line is the reason for the overall and historical lack of revolution in Amerika... Are you seriously that dense??
But whatever, keep on chasing "mass-line" pipedreams.
Posted by: RGC | December 25, 2007 at 11:20 PM
Relevant Maoists think it is a real issue, RGC. Because they don't have some vulgar Three World Theory conception of the world.
What is more of the Pipe Dream I ask, organizing revolutionary struggle here and raising consciousness of the masses of this country...or expecting the armed invasion of the Imperialist centers of the world by the Third world in some version of bad Lin Piaoist thought.
Posted by: ShineThePath | December 27, 2007 at 05:16 AM
RGC -
The point of the critique is not "originality" but whether it's truthfulness. I found it to be rationally argued and supported by documentation.
More importantly it was done in the spirit of building a genuinely revolutionary communist movement, which partially draws on the some of the strengths of RCP's past.
The debate over mass-line is not about formulating slogans but of orientation towards revolutionary work among the masses. If you don't think this is of key importance communists, what is?
Of course there are structural reasons for the lack of revolutionary mass consciousness in the US. This is a matter for serious investigation, but for the dogmatists, it is mainly an excuse failing to engage in critical examination of one's own practice.
Posted by: zerohour | December 27, 2007 at 11:12 AM
Relevant? Relevant to what? Comparing the relative influence of a type of "maoism" {especially within the First World} is merely one more attempt to dodge a material class analysis.
Real Maoists engage in material class analysis. Psuedo-Maoists of all types have failed to do this. They have done everything they can to worm themselves out of actual class analysis.
What's to say we don't raise revolutionary consciousness (meaning first and foremost a material class analysis) in the First World. We just don't push "Marxist" dogma. Besides, it's not like psuedo-maoism has been even marginally successful recently. So I have to ask, what revolutionary struggles are you talking about???
The truth is, psuedo-maoists of your stripe can't even see what is in front of their faces. Amerikans are principally reactionary- a labor aristocrat class that has tied its lot in with imperialism. It's not like you need stats to figure this out. It's obvious to anyone who isn't wrapped up in "marxist" dogma.
Zerohour, your critique is philistinic.
In the future, I'm not going to go back and fourth on comment boards. If you have a critique of my supposed Three Worlds Theory or anything else I'm saying then write it out in its fullest. STP, you are a part of Good Morning Revolution, right? Last time I checked, there was a noticeable lack of original content on that blog.
That goes for everyone else. If you have a critique then elucidate it in a blog post for the world to see. If you have an attempt at an actual class analysis that would be even better.
Posted by: RGC | December 27, 2007 at 03:56 PM
RCG -
Generally dogmatists don't address what was actually said but what they wish was said. Your post is a case in point. What "revolutionary struggles" am I talking about? None. Maybe if you actually try reading my post, you'd see that.
Posted by: zerohour | December 27, 2007 at 05:20 PM
RGC,
Try drinking decaf. Even if everything you say were true (which it ain't) your belligerence makes it clear that you aren't really interested in a discussion so much as brow-beating your opponents.
Maybe you were convinced of your present line by being hectored into submission. If so I suggest you not assume this method will work on others.
There are undoubtedly big structural obstacles to promoting revolutionary consciousness in the US. If they are so insurmountable that nothing can be done then why don't you just go to the beach? Why do you even bother to argue with us? Why do YOU exist? It seems to me that your actual activity suggests a glimmer of faith in the possibility that some fraction of the US populace (if only us "pseudo-Maoists") might possibly be won to the brilliance of your analysis and that doing so might possibly be worth doing.
Presumably, you yourself somehow rose out of the ideological muck of Amerikkkan society and found your way to the one true light. If you think other people might be possibly guided to the light as well you should treat them with at least a modicum of respect instead of acting like you were raised by wolves or trained in political ettiquette by the Spartacist League.
Have a nice day.
Posted by: Christopher Day | December 27, 2007 at 05:53 PM
RGC writes:
"The truth is, psuedo-maoists of your stripe can't even see what is in front of their faces. Amerikans are principally reactionary- a labor aristocrat class that has tied its lot in with imperialism. It's not like you need stats to figure this out. It's obvious to anyone who isn't wrapped up in "marxist" dogma."
Is this your materialist class analysis? The one that needs no stats? This analysis of yours is clearly erroneous when we look at the number of people housed in prison, the number of immigrant workers, the number of people housed in the state welfare system and the number of people who simply aren't housed at all.
This is not to speak of those who live on reservations, or throughout a depressed rural landscape, and to say nothing of those who have jobs which barely keep food on the table and what food does get to them is processed shit that creates diseases like diabetes.
I don't think anyone is arguing against the development of a materialist class analysis. In fact it seems pretty clear that this is one of the things that is being called for, the difference is that no one outside of your cynical circle agrees with your particular class analysis, all the more so when you put it forward as being "obvious".
Posted by: repeater | December 27, 2007 at 09:40 PM
I'm not going to waste my time browsing comment boards and engaging in pointless debates on the backroads of the psuedo-maoist blogosphere.
If you can't come up with a reasonable public statement, I'm just going to assume that what you are saying isn't worth my time.
My original comment was a link to my critique, not an invitation for a back and forth debate. I simply don't have time for that shit
So like I said, if you actually have something to say, post it publicly on your own blog (or something similar), not on some obscure comment board.
RGC
Posted by: RGC | December 28, 2007 at 03:42 AM
Sorry, I guess my original post wasn't a link.
I must have been confused. I mean, i've sent out so many links and so many of them simply get blocked [right STP?]... it gets kinda hard to keep up.
Anyways, like I said, if you have something to say- say it, just not on a comments board. Otherwise, i guess this particular conversation is over.
BTW, there is a new post at RGC. Check it out at redguardcamp.blogspot.com
Posted by: RGC | December 28, 2007 at 03:48 AM
Thank you RGC for that exciting trip through the MIMite cyber swamp. I wish everything I read was that principled.
Posted by: Red Heretic | December 28, 2007 at 01:54 PM
Lessons in Dogmatism:
RCG said [attacking Mike Ely]: "Hmph. As if mass-line is the reason for the overall and historical lack of revolution in Amerika... Are you seriously that dense??"
Mike Ely actually said: "The objective conditions are the main reason why there has not been either a mass revolutionary movement or the basis for any actual revolutionary attempts." [in Letter 2]
That's the great thing about MIM politics, you can construct arguments without doing useless things like reading or research.
Posted by: zerohour | December 28, 2007 at 03:15 PM
"The objective conditions are the main reason why there has not been either a mass revolutionary movement or the basis for any actual revolutionary attempts."
What exactly does that mean?? It am failing to see a clear material explanation coming from your camp.
So if anyone wishes, they can also post their ideas on global class structure in a blog post. This would clear up the overall muddled positions you people take.
Posted by: RGC | December 28, 2007 at 04:29 PM
How many times do I have to stress the importance of reading? What does it mean? Find out from Ely himself: http://mikeely.wordpress.com/letter-2/
I never claimed to belong to any "camp". Another benefit of dogmatism is that you don't need to find out what people actually think. I'll clarify for you: my politics were influenced by RCP. For years I was a critical supporter of the Party, but I have grown further away from their orientation in recent years. However, I still consider Maoism a great contribution to political practice and theory, with insights that form a necessary part of any contemporary revolutionary strategy. I give the Party credit for keeping the question of revolution on the agenda when much of the left has been trying to avoid even discussing it.
Your insistent demand on an account of "global class structure" is nonsensical since: 1] there isn't a single world class structure and 2] an account of global class structures wouldn't really explain RCP's politics any more than the theory of relativity explains Hurricane Katrina.
Posted by: zerohour | December 28, 2007 at 05:05 PM
Mike Ely
"The objective conditions are the main reason why there has not been either a mass revolutionary movement or the basis for any actual revolutionary attempts."
RCG:
''What exactly does that mean?? It am failing to see a clear material explanation coming from your camp.
So if anyone wishes, they can also post their ideas on global class structure in a blog post. This would clear up the overall muddled positions you people take.''
As far as I can tell RCG, the above statement of Mike Ely's was posted in relation to your above statement.
"Amerikans are principally reactionary- a labor aristocrat class that has tied its lot in with imperialism. It's not like you need stats to figure this out."
The ''objective conditions'' that were being spoken to were the same ones pointed to when you were talking about Amerikas ''lack of revolution.'' Mike Ely was never talking about revolution on a global scale. He was speaking specifically about revolution in the US. He was saying that there are definate objective reasons why a revolutionary movement has not been easily built. one example would be the fact that, to put it crudely, even with all its problems, the US happens to be an imperial superpower that has bribed large sections of the populace away from revolutionary, and even socially mindful politics. As you stated.
But none-the-less he stresses the necessity for the Communist movement to sharpen up on its line / organizing abilities. That's the entire reason he wrote the ''9 Letters.''
It's officially spelled out.
Posted by: SS | December 28, 2007 at 06:42 PM
Sorry typo.
As far as I can tell RCG, the above statement of Mike Ely's was posted in relation to your statement BELOW.
"Amerikans are principally reactionary- a labor aristocrat class that has tied its lot in with imperialism. It's not like you need stats to figure this out."
Posted by: SS | December 28, 2007 at 06:44 PM
Despite his obnoxious manner of presentation and his own dogmatism on the question, RGC raises a real issue that deserves attention. That issue is not simply the question of whether "the objective conditions are the main reason why there has not been either a mass revolutionary movement or the basis for any actual revolutionary attempts." It is more particularly the question of WHICH objective conditions we are talking about.
I think MIM's account of the relationship between imperialist bribery and the (absence of) revolutionary class-consciousness in the US is crude and consequently blind to the cracks and contradictions that constantly emerge even among the most thoroughly bought-off sections of the working classes.
On a certain level, RGC is of course correct that no perfection of the methodology of the mass line will melt away the grip that white supremacy and imperial chauvinism has on the minds of broad swathes of the masses.
But this is actually just an expression of the more fundamental fact that revolutioanries can't just concoct revolutionary movements, that they arise to an important degree spontaneously out of the concrete conditions that exist within a particular country.
What revolutionaries CAN do is pay close attention to the struggles that arise all the time in every society and attempt to determine which ones have the greatest promise to become something more and to intervene strategically in these in various ways.
White supremacy and imperialist chauvinism aren't made of kryptonite. They have been powerful and persistent features of US society for a long time, but they are vulnerable to a variety of contradictions. Some of those contradictions came forward very sharply in the 60s and early 70s and there have been big changes since then. These changes have not been of a single character either. Revolutionary, radical and progressive movements have suffered big setbacks, but in many ways US hegemony and the domestic social peace it has bolstered has become much more brittle as well. We are at a moment when US imperialism is facing a big defeat in Iraq and when a much enlarged immigrant proletariat is beginning to feel its power as reflected in the massive immigrant rights marches last year.
In this context we have to be aware of how white supremacy and imperialist chauvinism are likely to act as brakes on the emergence of new popular forces. But we can't afford the dogmatic view that writes off whole swathes of the population and ignores the complexities of the civil war that is occurring in their consciousness. Our awareness of the obstacles should arm us for the fights neccesary to overcome them, and not serve as a permanent rationale for our puniness and isolation.
Posted by: Christopher Day | December 28, 2007 at 09:56 PM
I agree completely. Once again I would like to point out that that is the exact viewpoint Mike Ely is coming from in his article.
My point was not to express a comprehensive view of why there was and is no revolution in the US. Merely to explain Mike Ely's direction of thinking in a simple and as I and you said, crude way.
There are most certainly periods of time in which a revolutionary movement in the US can take a qualitative jump in power. This is based not only on the contradictions in a capitalist society itself but also very much on the revolutionary work we do.
There was another thread ôn this site that touched on this, but it never materialized into a discussion.
Questions came up like when is the best time to organize and when is the best time to throw newspapers at people. Another aspect that has been significatly ignored (atleast in my city)is revolutionary community organizations. I thinks that's one of the things we need to learn from the Anarchist movement.
Posted by: SS | December 29, 2007 at 07:05 AM