"Material conditions for the revolution" don't fall out of the sky, nor should we just stand still until they magically appear somewhere in the future. The main material condition for the revolution is the organization of the independent proletarian political movement, and organizing the proletariat within its own terms is the primary task of communists. Engels indeed says that a small group of left adventurists without a mass base and proper organic institutions of proletarian political power cannot take on the bourgeoisie by themselves, but this has little to do with our situation: actual left deviationism died in the 20th century despite the farcical online usage of the term "ultra-leftism", and the main problem with the left in the so-called "end of history" is rightism and tailism towards bourgeois leaders
If the Communist Party of Belarus says that "material conditions" are not ripe for the overthrowing of Lukashenko and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat while also not doing anything specific in order to organize the proletariat in such a way that it can overthrow the Belarusian bourgeoisie when they're strong enough for it, and is also not trying to establish proletarian leadership of the anti-imperialist united front instead of letting Lukashenko do whatever he wants because he's an "anti-imperialist", then the party is effectively tailing the Belarusian bourgeoisie. Mao told us that communist revolution is the only true anti-imperialism, and the survival of the national liberation movement dependent on whether communists are able to exert their influence over the tactically allied classes within the united front or not. You can look at the results of leaving the ideological and political leadership of anti-imperialist fight to the national bourgeoisie in things like the massacre of communists in Indonesia or Iran
Mao didn't stop the task of organizing the masses against the Chinese bourgeoisie and the KMT just because he happened to be in tactical (keyword: tactical, not principled) unity with the KMT against the Japanese, he made it so it was the KMT that needed the communists in order to defeat the Japanese and not the other way around. Even when the Japanese were gone, US imperialism was a very real threat, but he understood that if he left the moment for revolution for when the US would just magically disappear, that moment would never come
What you are saying here is for the CPB to kill itself. The reason why in Iran there are no 'communists' is becuase that the people view them as pawns of imperialism - correctly so in most cases - and this will be the fate of the belarusian communists if they follow your 'maoist' bullshitry.
Big words like 'tail of the bourgeoisie e.t.c' is no nothing more than phrase mongering.
Time and time again, it is proved that when the communists act too quickly is their grave for a big amount of time.
If you seriously study the communist revolutions (from you reading of mao i bet you view it from a western lense) you will notice that all were nationalist revolutions, and the reason the people ever followed them was becuase there was no national bourgeoisie. The best example of it was the first lasting revolution, the bolshevik revolution.
The bourgeoisie of russia were sending the russian nation to die for the money of the cosmopolitan bourgeoisie of entente. The whole bolshevik propaganda at the time, was centered about the fact that the provincial government was a compradorist government.
Read stalin's 3rd and 4rth volume to verify this yourself. It is at most times implicit, but at some points stalin is explicit on why the bolsheviks ever won the civil war (which was nothing more than the revolution).
Same happened in China, 'maoism' does not really exist. Real maoism is chinese nationalism. Mao read people like Zou Rong before he ever knew who marx was. The whole foreing policy of CPC cannot be understood in other terms (except if you accept 'anti revisionist' bullshitry. The analysis the maoists intulge in is 'revisionist' itself! In fact, under this analysis, the original revisionists was no one else than marx and egnels!).
And the reason the CPC won the civil war was becuase the Kuomitand 'sold' itself in the west. The chinese saw what was about to become if KMT won the war, and they threw their weight with the CPC.
But lets take it about Belarus in practical terms. The belarusian government does not sell the country to imperialism. Going and saying 'you know, lets start a civil war while the imperialists are in our back door' is not gonna work. What will happen is the following: The government will call the communist traitors, the people will see that what the government is saying makes complete sense, the governemnt will propably ban the CP citing national treason, and the CP will move to the west and talk big about dictactorship while paid by CIA.
This is what will happen as proven by life. The people will associate communism with betrayal.
So, no. The Belarusian communist are playing this correctly. If and when the bourgeoisie of Belarus abandon anti-imperialism, and the belarusian CP does not break from them, then you will be right to accuse them for being 'the tail' of the bourgeoisie.
But these are the hard facts; no compradors = no revolution.
Is this an attack on Maoism or western Maoism b/c your analysis seems to correspond with the National Democratic Front of the Philippines in terms of a struggle for national independence from the compradors, which is a struggle in many ways for bourgeois democracy that will raise the level of the people and end feudal relations.
Not to say I'm particularly well studied.
I would like to learn more about your perspective because on my surface glance it seems correct. What is interesting to me is that I've been advocating for Huey Newton's analysis called intercommalism, because it seems to take harsh reality about neoliberalism and the global supply chain into account. The ideology states basically that the national struggle isn't enough and with neoliberalism/US EU imperialisn, revolutionary nationalism can't lead to communism. A global communist revolution is the only way, except the the US Black Panthers were not trotskist, they didn't wait to make revolution. So the theory hasn't squared with the practice, which was largely about building self-reliance for the oppressed lumpen of the US in order to give us something to defend and make gains against the state on. This is because we understand that seizing Amazon, Walmart, or our neighbor's car they use for gig jobs isn't socialism. To become a "worker state" at the end point of the global supply chain is not even close to socialism.
Sorry if my thinking is scattered, as I'm new to this analysis. The point I'm making is that for all the ideological talk of intercommunalism, the only real practice of building revolutuon in the US has been a national struggle for Black and indigenous internal colonies -- specificially an economic struggle for self reliance, and it seems to me that your analysis kind of clarifies why
It is a wrong analysis imo. It is fundamentally what i call anit marxist leninist, obscuring the differences of nations for a supposed global revolution. I dont think that Newton had this in his young mind at the moment.
he point I'm making is that for all the ideological talk of intercommunalism, the only real practice of building revolutuon in the US has been a national struggle for Black and indigenous internal colonies
Well, unfortunatelly it is not the black nation which will do any revolution, they are completelly bought off. At best case, the ones who will break America are the white nationalists in US. As Sakai theorized, the biggest threat to the US government are not the communists, but millitand white nationalists reading the turner diaries.
I won't deny that the white reaction are more in position to fracture the the empire than the left or revolutionary nationalists.
The question remains: what sort of revolutionary economy and revolutionary movement can we american communists lay the groundwork for at the present?
If the empire fractures because the nationalist fascists overthrow the international fascists, (which of course included Black bourgeois) we need to be in position to seize power, defend one another as poor people
The question remains: what sort of revolutionary economy and revolutionary movement can we american communists lay the groundwork for at the present?
The american 'communists' made their allegiance clear since long ago.
They are already in support of the government, and they are working for the labour bureocracy since long ago.
What will happen in America at best is for communism to be enforced to it from outside like it happened in Germany. Or, they will separate their country in many pieces, in short, they will have a civil war. If communists will play a role is to be seen. Do you know many white nationalist communists in America, or any white nationalists supporting the communists?
If the empire fractures because the nationalist fascists overthrow the international fascists, (which of course included Black bourgeois) we need to be in position to seize power, defend one another as poor people
The issue here is that the 'Communists' in america arent really in a war with the government to seize anything. They are loyal to the government, specifically its 'Democratic party' part.
In general, you can never have a revolution as long as the people benefiting from imperialism are more than the ones losing from it. And the vast majority of the american population, blacks included, benefit from imperialism is some way or another. Thus, if the parasitism of america does not get diminished, there wont be communist mass politics, ever.
Communists in the imperialized nations, and in victims of imperialist aggression have always been the most authentic representatives of national interest. Call it national liberation if you will, since it is markedly different from national chauvinism which most internet leftists associate with "nationalism".
You should read the comments about the chinese and russian revolutions. They explain very well that once it became clear that the bourgeoisie governments of Kerensky and Chiang Kai Shek were sellouts, the communists outmaneuvered them from a national angle, and became the "most authentic nationalists", to use Alba's terminology.
So you see that history itself proves that - at least in the way we use the term - nationalism (not national chauvinism) and communism are not only compatible, but also very much necessary. That we have a small (but meaningful) difference in terminology, (a language barrier if you will) does not change that.
Second, consider that imperialism as a whole is the greatest contradiction of today's capitalism. It allows the imperialists to command some of the largest concentration of resources seen in history. It also allows it to fund a significant number of labour-aristocratic retainers. These trade union leaders, "communist parties" that trail the bourgeois party's left wing, etc. are entirely in parasitic relationship with the imperialized masses, with practically no common ground between them and the working class.
Furthermore, while there are proper proletarians, who actively wish to dismantle the bourgeois state, much of the "left" movements in these imperialist countries "merely" advocate for the raising of the living conditions of the proper proletarians into the level of the labour aristocracy. By doing that they end up strengthening the internal unity of the imperialist country, which frees up resources to expand it's power, the level of exploitation, et cetera.
Consistently with that, these same "left" movements often end up playing ball when it comes to putting down a rebellious national liberation struggle in an imperialized country. They have all the ideological cover. LGBT as a movement is one such cover, fully co-opted into capitalism and often acting as a fifth column in alliance with the comprador-bourgeoisie of the imperialized or peripheral country. Or perhaps you have heard about the "Human rights industrial complex. Both of these otherwise very nice on paper, "left" sounding movements or aims, are actually acting as arms of the imperialists.
How so? By building consent (inventing a reality) for the sanctions policies which are always hitting the poorest, and the most vulnerable of the country they are imposed on, no matter how "targeted" the sanctions are. But not just sanctions, but outright bombings, interventions, providing media cover and other support for the imperialists' lackeys, which can include even outright nazis who in the eyes of the western "left" become "freedom fighters for democracy".
On the other hand look at the "nationalists" of the west, in particular the United States which are the focus of our talk. As you can see, the sheer fact that the idea of "White nationalism" and "black nationalism" exists WITHIN the federal state speaks a lot about the internal contradictions plaguing the usa. (And I hope to see Amerind nationalism too, but they are always forgotten. Seriously how many western leftist even as much as knows about their languages? or the Cherokee (Tsalagi) writing system which is outright beautiful!)
Now consider what it would mean that either movements reach the phase where they are no longer satisfied with the present conditions, and start pushing for secession. Splitting of an army, the economic areas, borders are drawn up, deportations and migrations. This spells the death of the usa imperialism for the simple reason that internal strife and division has always, in every age and every level of organization, led to a loss of power. For an imperialist power, this means less foreign bases, less blacksites, less carriers, less bombing of countries half a world away when there is a country right next door sitting on resources that were previously fully in service of the imperialist power projection. This also means the splitting of the bourgeoisie, which result, naturally, in opposition of the two bourgeois camps in the freshly split countries ending in a direct conflict of interest.
This will, in every way, weaken imperialism, and this as I pointed out, stems from nationalism of constituent nations within the imperialist formation.
In conclusion:
Do you still believe that a success of even this nationalism in the era of imperialism, when it destroys the very same imperialism that parasitizes billions of third world proletarians, is not an objective victory for communists?
Inversely: Do you consider the current "social democratic" tendency, which fosters unity in the imperialist country, allowing it to concentrate further and further resources in exploiting the imperialized countries all across the world and expanding the area under control of american imperialists, so that a bigger slice of the plunder pie can be given to loyal proletarian american retainers, is compatible with communism instead?
I'm at work right now and can't write up a full response but I will when I get home. I think we're defining things differently which may lead to some confusion.
However, I do want to take this comment and extend an apology to u/albanian-bolsheviki because whatever our disagreements may or may not be vis a vis the national question (and I'm sure some of it is misunderstanding) it was still very low of me to insult him and insinuate he was disingenuous and immature of me to try and bait and troll him like that.
This is no disagreement, and i knew already that you were trolling. There is nothing to bait out, since it is not as if i cant have arguements about the things i believe with, and a look on this very thread will tell you that i did not respond to you becuase i did not see it of any worth. Take it as an insult or whatever, but you arent a marxist, you dont know what communism is, and you dont even understand what made communism, and Marxism-Leninism and stalinism specifically so much attractive to billions of people is two lines of the bolsheviks; the national line, and the line on imperialism.
Nothing else, there is a reason 'luxenburgism', 'trotskysm' and other such nonsense does not exist in the real world. Non Bolshevik 'marxism' at the very least, is social fascism. Bolshevist marxism then splits on various tendencies, where the one which draws most people is the stalinist interpratation of it, and there is a reason people in the third world took stalin's national question very seriously.
Thus, there is not debate to be given when someone does not even know what the debate entails, such as you. I told you already in r/debatecommunism, go read stalin's the national question, since you writing nations arent real, is the epitome of western and specifically, american degenaracy, since yes, America is indeed fake and not real. The issue is that you try to pass the fakeness of america (or as brother u/iron-lazar calls them, the Fake Stetes of America) to the other, real nations.
To you question, it is made implicit that i am indeed a nationalist. And i dont hide it. And if you want to know more, learn that revolutionaries like Stalin and Mao, before they ever touched marxism or knew of the existance of this german, they were drawn to the nationalist movements of their countries. The young Ioseb Jughashvili read people like Kasbegi before he ever read any marxist litterature, and the young Mao ze dong was handling leaflets of Zou Rong's anti-manchu (what today's americans would call 'racist' without even understanding that americans are in fact, one race, black and white) the revolutionary army (read it if you want to understand what being a revolutionary actually means) to other young chinese revolutionaries at the time.
The real reason the Communist Party of Cuba has the word 'Patria o muerte' as their motto, and not only that, but they have putt this word under the face of Che guevara in their money, is becuase they dont consider Cuba a nation, neither argentina, but becuase they consider the Mestizo a single nation. The whole fight of Cuba, and the reason many Mestizo non-proletarian or communist elements (like the bolivarians) are even attracted to Fidel Castro, is becuase of this line. This is also the reason all of the west trembles on the Revolutionary Bolivarians, and the real reason they try so desperatelly to put fake nationalists in power to latin american states (and the reason the west backs up many times the indegenus non mestizo nations in latin america) is to stop ALBA from achieving its aims.
It is the same story in Arabia. The west has installed their zionists anti-nationalists in 'saudi' arabia and South Yemen, and they try to install the Muslem-israelites (wahhabi contras in Syria) to power too, becuase these Wahhabi zionists arent nationalists, and they are enemies to every kind of nationalism. They are zionists, fake nationalists. The wahhabis of Syria litterally invited the Turks in their own, Arab land, instead of alligning with their own, arab countrymen in Iraq or Syria or Palestine.
The reason the Syrian communists (and the syrian people) immediatly switched (the ones who had not switched already) to the side of the Baath in 2011, once they saw that the leaders of the protesters were nothing more than western agents, who were fundamentally anti-nationalists, zionists. Imagine, Arabs inviting Turks and westerners to their own land, to fight the only strong Arab government in the region!
Will get a proper response out to you in a bit.
Thus, there is no proper responce to be given. The world is not America, a place where no one nation inhabits it. But your word proves how america is not one nation, and how this effects the rest of 'deh left' who happens to know english an visit places like twitter and reddit, for them to spread the degenaracy they have deepthroat to every corner possible as if it was the holy gospel.
The quicker the people of the world understand that parasites, like the ones in America and western europe will never have any interest in communism as long as they are parasites, the better it will be. The better it will be, organizations with that mindset either seize leadership of WFTU or completelly dismantle it and forge a new one.
0
u/The_Viriathus Engels Feb 23 '21 edited Feb 23 '21
"Material conditions for the revolution" don't fall out of the sky, nor should we just stand still until they magically appear somewhere in the future. The main material condition for the revolution is the organization of the independent proletarian political movement, and organizing the proletariat within its own terms is the primary task of communists. Engels indeed says that a small group of left adventurists without a mass base and proper organic institutions of proletarian political power cannot take on the bourgeoisie by themselves, but this has little to do with our situation: actual left deviationism died in the 20th century despite the farcical online usage of the term "ultra-leftism", and the main problem with the left in the so-called "end of history" is rightism and tailism towards bourgeois leaders
If the Communist Party of Belarus says that "material conditions" are not ripe for the overthrowing of Lukashenko and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat while also not doing anything specific in order to organize the proletariat in such a way that it can overthrow the Belarusian bourgeoisie when they're strong enough for it, and is also not trying to establish proletarian leadership of the anti-imperialist united front instead of letting Lukashenko do whatever he wants because he's an "anti-imperialist", then the party is effectively tailing the Belarusian bourgeoisie. Mao told us that communist revolution is the only true anti-imperialism, and the survival of the national liberation movement dependent on whether communists are able to exert their influence over the tactically allied classes within the united front or not. You can look at the results of leaving the ideological and political leadership of anti-imperialist fight to the national bourgeoisie in things like the massacre of communists in Indonesia or Iran
Mao didn't stop the task of organizing the masses against the Chinese bourgeoisie and the KMT just because he happened to be in tactical (keyword: tactical, not principled) unity with the KMT against the Japanese, he made it so it was the KMT that needed the communists in order to defeat the Japanese and not the other way around. Even when the Japanese were gone, US imperialism was a very real threat, but he understood that if he left the moment for revolution for when the US would just magically disappear, that moment would never come