Re: Civil Rights / Translations / Black Block

[Adam Levenstein <cleon42@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- Redaktion Red Globe <sammler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> @ Adam,
>
> I own you an answer. First of all, we using
> different words for
> situations: With revolutionary processes I am
> meaning the situation of
> militant (not necessarely armed struggles) to
> overtake the power of
> the current ruling class. You using the same for the
> development of
> the society before socialism. This of course
> includes some problems of
> understanding.

I think there is also a political/conceptual
difference in here. Your words "before socialism" give
me the clue. I don't subscribe to the idea of a
revolution proceeding to an "end state" of socialism
(or communism, depending on what you want to call it).

Leon Trotsky is probably best known for his theory of
"Permanent Revolution." The title is somewhat vague,
since the theory relates to the question of socialist
versus "democratic" revolution in underdeveloped
nations. However, that phrase--"permanent
revolution"--best describes what I think about the
revolutionary process.

I studied anthropology at Penn State. If there's one
thing I got out of that, it's that human societies are
very dynamic. I don't think there will ever be a
static "end state." With apologies to Aerosmith, I
believe that socialism is a journey, not a
destination.

Upon the seizure of power by the working classes,
there will be a constant, ongoing revolution. Not
merely to get rid of the last vestiges of bourgeois
society, but to improve society as a whole. For that
is the essence of socialism, and it doesn't end.

Militancy is not a "stage" within the process to
socialism. Militancy describes an attitude that
working people need to constantly have to preserve
that revolution.

But that's beside the point - I think you mean
"military." In other words, violent struggle. I doubt
seriously that there can be a working class power
seizure without it, unfortunately. But will this only
be a stage within a nation's socialist revolution? I
doubt it.

As Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, and Che (as well as others)
recognized, no national revolution can take place and
expect to hold power without the support and the
revolutionism of working people internationally. As
working people begin to take power in various
countries, the international class struggle, I think,
will lead to a global armed conflict between the
revolutionary states and the bourgeoisie. (Why I think
this didn't happen with the USSR is not appropriate
for this list, as Lou has recently warned us, and is
beside the point anyway.)

In summary, even the armed conflicts will probably not
be a let's-do-it-once-and-get-it-out-of-the-way
"stage." Instead, they will probably be recurring
nightmares until the red banner flies over the entire
world.

(That answer was a lot longer than I expected.)

> Nevertheless, I do not think that within your period
> of revolutionary
> process, one can have a 100 % positive situation for
> the so called
> "civil rights". That situation can vary from country
> to country.

I cannot disagree with that. The problem is that the
reduction/suspension/elimination of civil rights, as
I've explained, is a retreat for the revolution. The
question becomes, is it a strategic retreat, or is it
an indication that the revolution is falling to the
bourgeoisie or to bureacrats? (For Lou's sake, I won't
elaborate on the "bureacrats" part. For those of other
political tendencies, feel free to substitute
"revisionists" in there. It still applies.)

As you say, that can vary from country to country. The
reason I think socialists must be vigilant in
defending those rights even when they themselves hold
power is that by suspending freedom of speech, they
endanger the revolution for reasons I've discussed in
previous emails.

Does that mean I think socialists *won't* make that
retreat? No. I'm a realist. Cuba is, of course, a case
in point. I stand by their revolution even as I
disagree with certain policies of theirs. I, unlike
certain groups (*cough* SWP/WWP), have no problem
saying that I disagree with the Cubans in that regard.

However, I believe that their comes a point - and I
freely admit this "point" is fairly arbitrary - where
the suspension of those rights becomes the rule rather
than the exception, and it is used against political
disagreements *within* the revolution, rather than
against bourgeois elements outside of it. At this
point, I think, you can no longer say that the working
class truly holds power. Instead, you have a
self-perpetuating caste of bureacrats/revisionists
running society.

> Within the situation of defense of revolution and
> developement, it
> might be necessary to limit the freedom of speech to
> debates,
> discussions and votings within the organised
> revolution (whereby this
> can either be organisations or set-up, whereby I
> would define set-up
> as (e.g.) soviets, local meetings, elected corps
> etc.).

My experience within the YS/SWP (the only formal
socialist organization I've ever been a part of) is
that the best, most productive, most interesting,
political discussions are the informal ones. The ones
held in coffee shops, on the job, in bars, even
shooting the shit on the Internet (this list, as an
example) are infinitely more involving than anything
held formally, even in a revolutionary organ like a
soviet.

I personally hold the opinion that informal
discussions can be just as revolutionary as formal,
organized discussions.

I cannot see why it would be necessary to limit those
discussions.

> It might be necessary to limit the right to build
> further groups and
> factions etc. The dictatorship of proletariat means
> of course the
> oppression of the succeeded ruling class and
> includes to stop any
> attempts to recreate their rule.
>
> The point is to allow free speech in a revolutionary
> manner and to
> secure the right of debate within the revolution.

But you contradict yourself. By limiting peoples'
right to form factions, you limit the right of debate
within the revolution.

If the revolution is truly Leninist, by which I mean
democratic-centralist, the existence of factions
should not interfere with society, the government, or
the Revolution as a whole. Instead, they would agree
to abide by the majority decision. That is the essence
of democratic-centralism.

If, however, this is not the case and factionalism
becomes a disruptive force, the Revolution faces far
more serious structural problems.

Adam


=====
Adam Levenstein                          cleon42@xxxxxxxxx
ICQ: 17125158

And now, for something completely different.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/