UNITE! Info #306en: A debate with Charles F. M. on "CPC(M-L)", Canada, and
on
Marxism
[Posted: 28.01.2008]
Note: The "UNITE! (etc) Info" posting series (1995-) advocates the
political
line of Marx, Lenin and Mao Zedong. For all items, see
www.rolf-martens.com.
INTRO NOTE:
This recent rather brief public debate perhaps may interest others. It
began
with Charles F. Moreira's putting some questions to me, in posting 1 of 4
of
those which I'm reproducing below (on 19.01.2008), concerning certain
things
which I had written earlier about the "CPC"(M-L)" in Canada and also about
the
earlier existing KPD/ML (NEUE EINHEIT) in Germany. (On the latter, see
also
under that subject and under "Sender, Klaus" and "Group Neue Einheit
(Germany)"
in my homepage section "Subjects in postings".)
I replied to Charles and also to Nikogda Nichevo and to Josh (S R) - why
this,
see below - in posting 2 of 4 in the below (on 26.01.2008), which also is
at my
homepage as "News with brief comments" item 343.
Charles replied to me with posting 3 of 4 (27.01.2008).
And in my posting, in reply to Charles, 4 of 4 in the below (27.01.2008),
I
said only:
"Thank you for this, Charles. I won't comment on it otherwise than to say
that
I stand by that analysis of mine of these matters which I sent last time,
and
want to let others judge on the validity of our respective arguments."
Which indicated of course that I on my part wanted to conclude that
debate, for
then, at least.
It naturally can be taken up again at some point later - if so, then most
suitably by me, perhaps, since it was Charles who had the last unanswered
arguments. But I would have nothing against Charles' continuing it with a
further posting either. In that case, I might reply only after some delay,
depending on whether there were other matters which I'd want to give
higher
priority or not.
POSTING 1 OF 4 - CFM TO RM:
From:
Charles F. Moreira <cfm@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Date:
Sat., 19 January 2008 10:42 GMT
To:
For the reaffirmation of Marxism-Leninism
<marxist-leninist-list@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject:
Re: [MLL] US Fascism - No Habeus Corpus for "Any Person" [Reply once more
to N.
N.]
Rolf,
[First quoting me:]
Now you, Nikogda, and Josh (see some earlier postings) assured me, and
others,
that in Canada, there was "a really Marxist-Leninist party", the CPC(M-L).
One brief look at its homepage however convinced me that that party is an
utterly Social-Democratic one. Which I have written too. Now both you and
Josh
have later complained that I haven't demonstrated this. And clearly, I
haven't,
in concrete details at least. But I've already promised both of you that I
shall get back to you on this question, which - sorry, Nikogda - I do
consider
a relatively unim****tant one, compared to many other issues which I think
are
more pressing at the moment.
But I do intend to keep that promise of mine. Only, please wait some more
time
for this.
[Charles:]
If you believe the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist -- Leninist) is
"utterly
Social Democratic," why do you need to take so long to explain why?
Like its sister party in the UK, the Revolutionary Communist Party of
Britain
(Marxist -- Leninist) which was also founded by Hardial S. Bains, the CPC
(M-L)
has tailored the language in its publications to one more comprehensible
to
workers, rather than the heavily convoluted language and ranting style
used in
Workers Weekly in the UK in the mid-1970s and that is a sign of political
maturity.
In recent years, both parties have embarked on initiatives to gain more
influence and become a mass party through publications, initiatives, etc
and
yes it participates in elections to serve as a platform to propagate its
ideas
at this time of the ebb of revolution to prepare to move forward.
The parties are trying to move beyond their early base of students and
immigrant workers to include the rest of the working class and I believe
they
have succeeded to an extent, though perhaps less so among the core
blue-collar
working class.
Also, why the party you were involved in, the KPD/ML "degenerated" as you
so
claim and what M-L party or parties or groups are there worth talking
about in
Sweden?
Charles
POSTING 2 OF 4 - RM TO CFM, NN AND J:
From:
Rolf Martens <rolf.martens@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Date:
Sat., January 2008 19:55 GMT
To:
modern_marxism@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
MaoZeDong@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
maoist@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Reply to Charles, Nikogda and Josh on the "CPC(M-L)" in Canada
and the
former "NE" in Germany
Also sent:
Date:
Sat., January 2008 19:56 GMT
To:
Charles F. Moreira <cfm@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Cc:
Nikogda Nichevo <intangibles@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>; S R <solrde@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
At my homepage www.rolf-martens.com I've added today, under "News with
brief
comments":
Saturday, 26 January 2008 (NWBC 343) Reply to Charles, Nikogda and Josh on
the
"CPC(M-L)" in Canada and the former "NE" in Germany
[Note, 28.01.2008: This NWBC item of mine was also sent to the Usenet
newsgroups 'alt.society.revolution', 'alt.politics.socialism.mao',
'swnet.politik', 'eunet.politics', 'alt.politics.socialism',
'alt.politics.radical-left', 'alt.activism', 'alt.politics.communism',
'de.soc.politik.misc' and 'alt.politics.india.communist', and to some
other
individual e-mail addresses.]
2008-01-26, 18:15 GMT:
Hello Charles (Charles F. Moreira <cfm@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>),
You asked me, on 19.01, firstly:
"If you believe the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist -- Leninist) is
'utterly
Social Democratic', why do you need to take so long to explain why?".
I had maintained this in a reply, even three weeks or so earlier, to
Nikogda
Nichevo <intangibles@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> and to Josh (S R <solrde@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>),
both
of whom had seemed to hold that that party, the "CPC(M-L)" was "really a
Marxist-Leninist one".
And yes, sorry about my long delay in providing some concrete reasons,
which I
did promise, for that contrary *****sment of mine. It has been caused by
my
giving some other things much higher priority. But here at last I've
gotten to
that point in my "need to do" list. I'm sending this posting of mine to
Nikogda
and Josh too.
Secondly you asked me (I'm quoting your entire posting further below, as
an
appendix now),
"Also, why the party you were involved in, the KPD/ML 'degenerated' as you
so
claim and what M-L party or parties or groups are there worth talking
about in
Sweden?"
Actually, that then existing party in Germany which I was in close contact
with, in 1974-1990, was called, not "KPD/ML", but "KPD/ML (NEUE
EINHEIT)".
There were quite a number of parties in that country, in those days, which
had
confusingly similar names. The one I was in contact with stood out
sharply,
against all other parties in Europe and in North America calling
themselves
"M-L", in that it really was a such, the only one in any of these
countries
that really, politically, corresponded to the enormous and - likewise -
brilliantly correct Communist Party of China at that time.
When writing this I'm already guessing at some disbelief on your part,
Charles,
Nikogda and Josh. Because probably none of you have ever seen or heard of
something even remotely like that "NE" - as I'm abbreviating its name. But
I'm
telling you now, there in the 20th century were three really im****tant
political parties in the world: The Bolshevik one as led by Lenin and
later by
Stalin (whose errors, no doubt, were considerably more serious than those
of
Lenin or Mao Zedong), the even more enormous and successful CPC as led by
Mao
Zedong and, yes, the always absolutely microscopic, and also rather
short-lived, "NE" as led by Klaus Sender (Hartmut Dicke). His, and its,
eventual degeneration may be called, like those of those other and much
bigger
and much better-known parties, "really a bit of hard luck - but let's try
again!". Among the existing experience, the ideological weaponry,
available to
any Marxism-interested "kid's-ass" (Swedish expression, not really rude)
in the
world today, that of the earlier "NE" in Germany makes up a quite vital
part,
in my judgment.
But your question about that party, Charles, and that third one of yours
too,
concerning (the likewise less im****tant) parties in Sweden, I shall reply
to a
little more in detail further below here. Now first about the "CPC(M-L)"
in
Canada.
And precisely for showing you (and others) what my approach has been when
*****sing or trying to *****s parties in other countries - trying to find
some
which Marx adherents here in Sweden can unite with, on a party basis, if
possible, or perhaps at least on a united-front basis, then concerning one
or
more of those questions which, in the world today, are of vital common
im****tance to the people in all countries - I rather recently made an html
version of an old "UNITE! Info" of mine, from 1998 (and now with some new
address etc info added), in the form of my #076en-rep, "Periodicals info
to
Stec etc", of 21.01.2008. This is not least intended to be a kind of
appendix
to this present reply to you and to Nikogda and Josh.
Michael Stec, by the way, obviously lives in Canada, as I'm guessing that
Nikogda and Josh may be doing too. My Info in 1998 was in reply to a
request by
him for contributions by others to his project of collecting the names,
addresses etc of as many communist/leftist or pur****tedly
communist/leftist
periodicals from around the world as possible. Michael's (present)
homepage, at
http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/7078/,
which I think looks rather
nice - I
still haven't investigated it further - has as programme lines at its top:
"Stec's Commie Pinko Homepage - Workers of the World Unite!". It could be
interesting to hear what he may have to say about the "CPC(M-L)".
Looking at the website of that party, at http://www.cpcml.ca/,
you first
of all
find, in its programme, at http://www.cpcml.ca/Program/Program.html,
nothing
about the necessity of proletarian revolution, of revolutionary war, or of
that
party's perhaps adhering to the political line of Marx, Lenin and Mao
Zedong,
which of course is a first requirement for any political party today.
You might say perhaps that there at least is a hint in that direction in
its
very name, since many of those new parties which arose in the late 1960s
as a
result (above all) of the Cultural Revolution in China, after the old
earlier
communist ones had turned completely revisionist, had names of that same,
general type, with "M-L", "ML" or "ml" at the end. But these things need
to be
said expressly too. (And adhered to in practice, above all, of course, but
a
party which doesn't even say them can be seen to be a bourgeois one
already
because of that fact.)
Further: At the top of that programme which it has, the "CPC(M-L)" does
not say
"Proletarians in all countries, unite!" (the well-known call by Marx and
Engels
from 1847) or "Proletarians in all countries and oppressed people[s],
unite!"
(the likewise well-known later call by Lenin, and the most suitable in
that
era, that of imperialism in which we still are living), or anything like
that.
Instead it (the party's programme, from 1997) says: "Preparing for the
21st
Century: Stop Paying the Rich — Increase Funding for Social Programs".
Which obviously is an out-and-out bourgeois programme. Beginning from its
last
part, you can see that it's the (existing) bourgeois regime in Canada that
the
"CPC(M-L)" is calling on to increase funding for social programs. Of
course it
would be a good thing if the Canadian government (the one in 1997, or the
one
today) did increase such spending. But the main thing here is, that the
"CPC(M-L)", when setting such a thing as the very headline of its
programme,
tacitly accepts that bourgeois regime. It precisely does *not* say that
that
regime, together with all the other ones of the same type all over the
world,
needs to be replaced by one which represents the vast majority of [people]
-
which is what Marxism says.
Furthermore, it holds up the illusion, even quite ridiculously, in the
previous
part of that programme headline, that it under a bourgeois regime - whose
continued existence tacitly is assumed - would be possible for the poor
(the
workers and their allies) - to *stop*(!!) paying the rich. But the very
basis
of capitalist society of course is that the workers *always* are paying
the
rich (the owners of the factories etc), by handing over a large part of
the
result of their labour to them for free. If you want to stop paying the
rich,
you first of all need to overthrow their rule, of course. About which that
"CPC(M-L)" says not a word, in the beginning of its programme.
Yes, I know; this is toddler talk. But what else can I do but explaining
these
things you as one would do to toddlers, when you, Charles, Nikogda and
Josh,
insist on putting such a toddler question to me as that concerning the
character of the "CPC(M-L)", whose website including programme is just as
easily available to you as it is to me?
And then I haven't even mentioned what comes next, only a few lines
further
down in that programme:
"...it is a program to build the nation afresh by involving *all*[!!]
Canadians
in solving the problems facing them[!!] and society[!!]."
In Canada as everywhere else today, there are cl***** in society, cl*****
which
have opposing, contrary interests, bourgeoisie and proletariat. The very
toddler-simplest thing a party claiming to be "Marxist" needs to do is to
recognize this and to help further the interests of the proletariat, the
workers and their allies, against the bourgeoisie, the rich people and
their
henchmen serving *their* interests, which are antagonistically opposed to
those
of the proletariat, you see, Charles, Nikogda and Josh.
But here there instead is talk - B-sh[]-t talk - of involving "all"
Canadians,
in solving the ["common" - it's implied here, of course] problems facing
"them", and not only facing "them", "jointly", but also *"society"* -
which,
even toddlers should know, in such contexts is a codeword for *the
bourgeoisie*, the rich people. And the "B" I used here above of course
stands
for "bourgeoisie" too.
As if this isn't enough, there are lots and lots of other things, already
at
that website, which clearly show[s] that this is a Social-Democratic
party, by
no means a Marxist-Leninist one.
One typical thing is the fact that, basically, that party only interests
itself
with Canada, and by no means is stretching out, most hungrily, so to
speak, for
allies in other countries, with which to unite. This however is what a
really
Marx-adhering party, or group, or even individual, is constantly doing.
Internationalism is one of the absolutely most necessary things in any
really
proletarian policy, while the bourgeoisie most often prefers that the
various
national struggles shall not coalesce into an international such.
Now there are some words of sup****t expressed too, at that website, for
various
just struggles by peoples in other countries. But this is still only on a
bourgeois level, under the tacit condition that the dictator****p of the
bourgeoisie in Canada and the rule of imperialism in the world shall
remain;
this you can clearly make out.
And doesn't the "CPC(M-L)"s (at least nominal) leader, Sandra Smith, look
like
a nice and friendly person, in the picture of her, at
http://www.cpcml.ca/NatLeader/NatLeader.html?
She may well be that too, as
far
as I know. Such parties very often however are being controlled, behind
the
stage, by some persons whom you never see on photos - besides being under
massive pressure from, above all, "Big-Big-Brother" in the world, just
across
the border from Canada too, not to deviate too much from what *he* "needs"
and
wants.
I on my part know a couple of persons, at a lower level, within the
Social-Democratic party here in Sweden - both of them women too, as it
happens
- who absolutely have made that impression on me that they do want to help
ordinary people and are not careerists. But they do not of course control
the
policy of that party, which is the same, bourgeois, one of defence of the
reigning "order" of society in the world today, and thus, of exploitation,
oppression and mass murder - some 11 million people in the world dying on
account of this each year. *That's* the type of party that the "CPC(M-L)"
is
too.
You thought, in your posting, that the "CPC(M-L)" was *helping* the
workers in
Canada forward. In reality, it's doing the opposite, *helping hold them
down*.
While being *forced* to do few good things too, just to try to keep *some*
people having some confidence in [it]. How can I tell this, when I don't
know
"what goes down" in Canada, you may ask. By reading the website of that
party,
that's how. In this case, already its words are enough to show, to people
on
the other side of the globe too, what [the] sum of the actions of that
party
must be.
You, Charles, from your vantage point in Malaysia, may not know much about
what
actually takes place in Canada either. You chose to take the "CPC(M-L)'s"
saying "we want to help the workers" at face value. A bad idea, I hold.
There's lots of experience with parties of that type in Lenin's writings,
for
instance: About the Mensheviks etc.
Further, that party says, as did Nikogda and Josh, that the ideas of its
founder, Hardial S. Bains, "are very im****tant". Then why the heck are
they not
even at its website??
I did want to take a look at them, as recommended. And how could this be
done?
The publisher advertised didn't even have a flipping e-mail address. OK,
the
party might help me, I thought. So I sent them a friendly mail, three
weeks
ago, with such a request. So far, no frigging reply from them.
Also, an honest and aboveboard party always wants to show others, what is
its
position on various im****tant questions in the world, and to have an
archive
showing how it has acted in various situations over the years - has it
been
consistent; has its deeds been in accordance with its words? Nothing of
such
things either, by the "CPC(M-L)".
After these explanations, on a not very high level of Marxism, I'd say, it
feels a little weird to go on to discuss that - quite unique - former
party in
Germany, the "NE", with which I was in close contact during some 16 years
and
from which I learned so much, but which, I eventually had to recognize, at
least by 1990 had turned into the very opposite of what it once was.
On how I did ascertain that it had turned bourgeois then, I refer you to
my
Info #106en, "More rattler 'NE' writhings", of 30.07.1999, part 3/7, which
contains in translation three main and already decisive points in my
criticism
of it in 1990. What I wrote there you'll not be able to corroborate for
yourself, for it was all about certain "only" oral, and repeated, things
by
Hartmut Dicke (Klaus Sender, once a most im****tant Marxist) and other "NE"
leaders, no such in writing.
But the fact of the complete bourgeois degeneration of Dicke and the party
(later, the "group") led by him you can see for yourself, Charles, if you
take
the trouble to read my rather long (150 k) Info #270en, "H. Dicke on the
Cultural Revolution - in 2006 vs in1976-78", of 05.02.2007. As shown
there, he
in 2006 lies terribly about the "Gang of Four" in China and (as everybody
can
see) what he himself wrote about it some 30 years earlier, in analyses in
1976-78 so excellent that there (as far as I know) was nothing remotely
like
them in the world.
But you didn't ask *whether* that party degenerated, but *why*.
This I've not been able to explain in detail; this to me has been a less
im****tant question too.
But I think that (in particular) one article by Lenin, from 1916, plus
some
much later quotes, from Dicke himself, may provide an approximate answer.
The
Lenin article I mean is "Imperialism and the Split in Socialism", at
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/oct/x01.htm.
Perhaps you
know
it already. It's very im****tant, still today, I hold. One sentence there,
for
instance, shows the gist of it:
"The bourgeoisie of an imperialist “Great” Power can economically bribe
the
upper strata of “its” workers by spending on this a hundred million or so
francs a year, for its superprofits most likely amount to about a thousand
million."
And some quotes from Dicke. First, from his "The International Situation,
Europe and the Position of the Marxist-Leninist Parties", written in 1973
here
in Malmö, Sweden. (In its translation into English, I, aka "Richard Adam",
was
very much involved.) See my Info #041en-rep,
[QUOTE:]
The historical development has manifested itself in the present situation:
Labour aristocratism and op****tunism, the corrupting of an upper stratum
of the
proletariat and the privileging of whole peoples as against others, are
based
precisely on the exploitation and the plundering of the third world. In
the
developed capitalist countries there reigns today a system which, brutally
as
well as by the most sophisticated means, is suppressing the proletarian
revolution in each country.
Proletarian revolutionary parties within those nations not only find
themselves
subjected to massive pressure, they also are constantly threatened by the
danger of their suc***bing to the influence of op****tunism, to the
bribing, to
philistinification and bourgeoisification.
Genuinely Marxist-Leninist parties in these countries, therefore, must
wage an
arduous struggle, walk along a complicated, tortuous road, must, in
passing
through different phases, pursue an all-round correct policy, wage an
extremely
consistent struggle, if they are to become genuine proletarian
revolutionary
mass parties, if they are to accomplish the aim of the social revolution
of the
proletariat.
This must be so, precisely because of that division into exploiting
nations and
exploited, and this is also taught by experience, already by that of Lenin
concerning the parties in the developed capitalist countries, as well as
by the
experience of the contem****ary Marxist-Leninist parties.
This situation obliges the Marxist-Leninist parties in these countries,
with
particular care to work according to the principles of Marxism-Leninism,
with
particular thoroughness to combat revisionism, with particular
thoroughness to
apply the above principles.
[END OF QUOTE]
And,
[QUOTE:]
In the last few years, there also has been a tendency in a number of
European
countries for this labour-aristocratism to be raised to an even higher
level,
by the massive im****tation of foreign workers from Northern Africa and the
"marginal zones" of Europe. Thus the workers of some European countries
were
unburdened - in part to a considerable degree - of the heavy and dirty
work.
[END OF QUOTE]
And from an article of Dicke's in 2006 (he still knows about many
im****tant
things), which I commented on in my Info #270en; here's one passage from
that
one,
[QUOTE:]
The teachings of the Cultural Revolution spread from China, led millions
of
activists to pursue these new principles in the communist movement, and
caused
panic, fear and horror among the capitalist forces of the whole world. In
the
Federal Republic of Germany, for example, a country pretending that all of
these events have been completely minor matters, the elements of the
dislocation of production, of the country’s transformation into a services
society were prepared exactly at that time of 1968-1974. On a large scale,
the
reduction started in 1974. Nothing caused greater fear than that these
revolutionary new principles might amalgamate with a large working class
in the
country. Even if the working class was living in relative prosperity, as
compared with international conditions, the history of the labour movement
in
this country and the high degree of socialization were too critical for
[the
bourgeoisie's - RM] feeling secure.
[END OF QUOTE]
That which I'm calling "green" warfare by the imperialists and which
includes
not least their de-industrializing many countries in Europe - and in North
America too - has created further difficulties for Marxism-Leninism there,
which is precisely one of the main objects of that warfare.
As for Dicke personally, a guess of mine is that [he] eventually suc***bed
to
the temptation of *seeming* - to one group of people - to be a very good
revolutionary, instead of actually *acting like* a such, which is much
more
"uncomfortable" and difficult. The legacy he left, after more than a
decade of
having done the latter, remains an im****tant one today anyway.
About "real M-L-parties in Sweden" today: Sorry, zilch and nada and
nichevo.
You can see a little more on what there is / has been, in my homepage
section
"On my background" and in the abovementioned Info #076en-rep.
Rolf
APPENDIX: Your posting on 19.01.2008,
....
[See posting 1 of 4 above]
POSTING 3 OF 4 - CFM TO RM:
From:
Charles F. Moreira <cfm@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Date:
Sun., 27 January 2008 12:15 GMT
To:
For the reaffirmation of Marxism-Leninism
<marxist-leninist-list@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject:
Re: [MLL] Reply to Charles, Nikogda and Josh on the "CPC(M-L)" in Canada
and
the former "NE" in Germany
Rolf,
Thanks for your reply to several questions.
However, why didn't you reply on the MLL where I originally posted the
question?
Anyway, I've taken the liberty to post this to the list.
I haven't been able to find the time for a long reply but this is it.
I have little direct experience of the CPC (M-L) but I do of its sister
party,
the RCPB (M-L) in the UK and I can say that it has played an active role,
especially in the student, immigrant worker, anti-imperialist,
anti-fascist and
anti-racist struggles in the 1970s, with some of its members and
sup****ters
being jailed.
The RCPB (M-L) or more accurately, the Communist Party of England (M-L) as
it
was called then played an im****tant role in the overseas students'
struggle
against discriminatory tuition fees through its front organisation, the
Confederation of Overseas Students and also in the anti-fascist,
anti-racist
and anti-imperialist struggles among immigrant communities through its
respective front organisations.
I've also heard from independent sources in Canada that the CPC (M-L)'s
office
in Vancouver was the target of racist and fascist attacks, clearly showing
that
it was effective.
The CPE (M-L) initially aligned with China and strongly opposed and
condemned
Soviet revisionism and Soviet Social Imperialism and on the banner of its
party
organ, Workers Weekly had the statement, "Workers, Oppressed Nations and
People
or the World, Unite!."
In 1977, following the split between the Party of Labour of Albania and
the
Communist Party of China over several issues, including the three world
theory,
the RCPB (M-L) aligned with Albania. It was following this re-alignment
that
the CPE (M-L) changed its name to RCPB (M-L) and adopted the slogan,
"Proletarians of all Countries Unite!" or something to that effect.
Well I disagreed with actions and policies resulting from China's "Three
Worlds
Theory." These included CPE (M-L) sup****ting Britain's member****p of the
European Economic Community (EEC) on grounds that that the EEC was a
"bulwark
against Soviet Social Imperialism." The CPE (M-L) also backed UNITA in
Angola,
as opposed to the MPLA just because the MPLA was backed by the Soviets and
Cubans.
While I don't say that all of the CP of China's policy's especially when
Mao
was still alive was incorrect. In fact much of it was correct, especially
for
anti-colonial, anti-imperialist and socialist struggles in the colonial
and
neo-colonial world during the middle of the 20th century and while the
division
of the world into the three worlds as described was largely true, the
actions
of aligning towards the western imperialists was wrong.
The RCPB (M-L) has toned down the heavily convoluted sentences and ranting
style it used in Workers Weekly in the 1970s to a more easily
understandable
language for everyone, which is a sign of maturity.
It also realises that to gain any influence within the working class, it
has to
involve itself in their day-to-day struggles against capitalist
exploiters,
including struggles to defend the concessions, such as welfare state,
socialised medicine, unemployment benefits, etc granted by the bourgeoisie
to
buy off workers from fighting for socialism.
It's true that such social benefits granted by the bourgeoisie were
responsible
for blunting the contradictions between the bourgeoisie and proletariat in
the
imperialist countries for a while fighting to prevent them being withdrawn
is a
progressive action which will help sharpen contradictions.
Even a reform won through militant demands is a progressive step forward
which
will embolden the working class
The most im****tant thing is not necessarily in an organisation's slogans
or
lack of them but rather the implied messages in their slogans and their
actions
on the ground.
There are many ways, besides shrill rhetoric and ranting style, to tell
people
that capitalism is responsible for their deprivation and socialism is the
way
out.
On this point:-
Quote:- [from me, RM, in posting 2 of 4 above]
"The Lenin article I mean is "Imperialism and the Split in Socialism", at
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/oct/x01.htm.
Perhaps you
know
it already. It's very im****tant, still today, I hold. One sentence there,
for
instance, shows the gist of it:
"The bourgeoisie of an imperialist "Great" Power can economically bribe
the
upper strata of "its" workers by spending on this a hundred million or so
francs a year, for its superprofits most likely amount to about a thousand
million."
Unquote:
That was indeed true during Lenin's, Stalin's and Mao's time, when workers
in
the colonies and neo-colonies produced and extracted the raw materials for
the
industries of Europe and North America, which then turned them into higher
value-added manufactured goods which were then sold by the capitalists,
including to colonies and neo-colonies at much higher prices.
So yes, there was extra economic hard****p and deprivation among workers in
the
colonies and neo-colonies.
However, how about now, especially with outsourcing, when the competitive
market forces within a globalised world are forcing companies in the
imperialist nations to relocate not only their manufacturing but also
their
research & development, design, administrative and other skilled or
unskilled
operations to lower wage countries.
These lower wage countries, such as Malaysia, India, China, Vietnam and
others
are happy to receive these investment and workers welcome op****tunities of
better paying jobs, however tem****ary its benefits will be until the
imperialists find other lower wage places to re-locate to.
Malaysian workers enjoyed employment op****tunities and saw some increased
living standard for about a generation since Malaysia opened its doors to
imperialist investors to set up their assembly plans here but are now
seeing
jobs lost to China, Vietnam, Thailand and so on.
It's at times of economic hard****p that political sea changes, including
revolutions have happened.
Three things could happen, especially in the imperialist countries
1. The imperialist bourgeoisie resort to more imperialist war as a
distraction.
2. A populist right wing demagogue comes to power, ends US aggression
in
Iraq & Afghanistan and brings the troops home, while at the same time
throws up
tariff barriers, blames immigrants for "taking jobs," ends immigration and
practices or attempts to practice an isolationist foreign policy.
3. A revolutionary Marxist-Leninist party convinces workers that
capitalism
is the cause of all their economic woes, job insecurity, falling living
standards or wars and leads them to overthrow capitalism and replace it
with a
socialist system under workers control, where production will be for
social
need, rather than private profit.
This quote you put below:-
[QUOTE:]
In the last few years, there also has been a tendency in a number of
European
countries for this labour-aristocratism to be raised to an even higher
level,
by the massive im****tation of foreign workers from Northern Africa and the
"marginal zones" of Europe. Thus the workers of some European countries
were
unburdened - in part to a considerable degree - of the heavy and dirty
work.
[END OF QUOTE]
.... applies in Malaysia too, where Indonesians are employed in
construction,
Banglade****s, Burmese and Vietnamese in manufacturing, Burmese in
lower-end
cafes and restaurants, Nepalese as security guards, while Malaysians do
the
lighter white-collar jobs.
The politics of Malaysia has been highly race based since independence,
when
the Alliance Party which took over from the British, is a coalition of
three
parties, the United Malaysia National Organisation, the Malayan Chinese
Association and the Malayan Indian Congress -- all respectively parties of
the
respective ethnic bourgeoisie but claiming to represent the interests of
all
members of their community.
The Communist Party of Malaya attempted to bridge the racial divide with a
policy of "equal rights for all races in all fields" but the racist
propaganda
of the Malaysian compradore ruling class made it seem that the CPM was
mainly a
"Chinese party," in the eyes of the majority Malays, even though there
were
Malay members, fighters and leaders in the CPM Central Committee.
A leading member of the Socialist Party of Malaysia told me that even
today,
managements lay on ethnic sentiments to split workers involved in
industrial
disputes along racial lines.
So race, religion and ethnicity are powerful weapons in the arsenal of the
bourgeoisie.
Charles
----- Original Message -----
From: Rolf Martens
To: Charles F. Moreira
Cc: Nikogda Nichevo ; S R
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2008 3:56 AM
Subject: Reply to Charles, Nikogda and Josh on the "CPC(M-L)" in Canada
and
the former "NE" in Germany
[See posting 2 of 4 above]
POSTING 4 OF 4 - RM TO CFM:
From:
Rolf Martens <rolf.martens@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Date:
Sun., 27 January 2008 19:20 GMT
To:
modern_marxism@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
cfm@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:
Re: Reply to Charles, Nikogda and Josh on the "CPC(M-L)" in Canada and the
former "NE" in Germany
Thank you for this, Charles. I won't comment on it otherwise than to say
that I
stand by that analysis of mine of these matters which I sent last time,
and
want to let others judge on the validity of our respective arguments.
Rolf
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles F. Moreira" <cfm@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
To: "For the reaffirmation of Marxism-Leninism"
<marxist-leninist-list@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2008 1:15 PM
Subject: Re: [MLL] Reply to Charles, Nikogda and Josh on the "CPC(M-L)" in
Canada and the former "NE" in Germany
[See posting 3 of 4 above]
_____________________
Message posted by:
Rolf Martens
Malmö, Sweden
Phone and fax:
+46 - 40 - 124832;
rolf.martens@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
