Re: World Party of Socialist Revolution

[Shane Hopkinson <s.hopkinson@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: "Alan Bradley" <abradley1@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> From: Shane Hopkinson
> > Marx may have articulated it but the practice is given in worker's actions
> > and then they are articulated into theory.
>
> Which then raises the question: _why_ is it articulated into theory? What is
> the purpose/value/use of this theory?

I think the purpose of theory is as a guide to action (same as its always been).
This issue is whether the creativity called socialist is a product of good ideas
articulated by intellectuals (even Marxist ones) or by mass action. The point
of theory is a guide to action based on the solutions found by the working
classes to the problems that confront it.  Then our collective knowledge
develops and is generalised as theory from the practice of those that
those who have been there as it were. As revolutionaries we know what to
look for more clearly, what kinds of things are likely to occur.

> From: Macdonald Stainsby <mstainsby@xxxxxx>

> Shane, thank you so much for opening this pandoras box. In reality, at least
> here in North America if not all of the Imperialist countries, this is the 
> kind
> of thinking we need to develop. Yes, the form of revolutionary strucutres that
> give content to our movements in the First World need to develop organically.

Yes the challenge is how.  I think it is difficult when the movements are at a 
low
ebb as movements grow following the process of radicalisation and analysing the
ideas they throw up (like after 1917., or in the 1960s) makes sense but its 
easier
to see in retrospect.  The question is what can we learn from the mass actions 
now.
What in them is new and points the way forward.

I take my cue in this from some of Dunayevskaya's work.  I'm not sure about her
state capitalism stuff but the organising principle of works like 'Marxism and 
Freedom"
of following the practices radical workers seems to capture, the essence of 
socialism
for me. (What some IS comrades call 'socialism from below').

> Today, the primary questions of some form of socialism along side a radical 
> new
> concept of democracy are the lowest common denominators of all the social
> movements. How will equitable distribution, the utter smashing of the
> imperialist state, and new forms of participation evolve here? We simply don't
> know yet, but we should tinker with it in our minds.

Indeed I think democracy is the key one, I have just been rereading the 
Manifesto
and thinking about Marx in the light of 1848 - as part of the early democracy 
movement.
The stalinist history obscures the radicalness of these claims. Communism is the
raising the working class to level of ruling class, so that the majority rules, 
"to win
the battle of democracy".  I like some Michael Alburts stiff on economic 
democracy
which I see as another way to introduce the idea of socialism. We all believe in
democracy right? well why is the economic sphere excluded.  Ideas like that and
those of the 'commons' and 'reclaiming the commons' seem to me good ways
to introduce communist ideas (in the positive sense used by people on this 
list).
Likewise indigenous societies know how to regulate the commons, were the first
communists so we have something to learn from them (now that we have stopped
calling them 'primitive communists').


> The product of revolution, the revolutionary idea that galvanises the struggle
> so that workers see it as their own, is the key component. Are we simply 
> telling
> people about Soviets? Are we listening? What are we hearing?

Yes and so we need to look at the most radical marxist movements and see what
they are doing and go from there.  Are there some generalisations we can make
about the future directions of socialism from this.  I heard Petras give a good 
talk at
the DSP conference which looked at Latin America (the FARC and MST in
particular) and tried to draw lessons.  Does anyone know of he has published
anything along these lines?  People want actions in the present - thus MST
seizes the land now and people mobilise on this not on some promise that if you
vote for us then we will give you land, thus they have build a strong Marxist 
mass
movement. Likewise the FARC.  Kagalitsky has looked at some of the
European formations along these lines (eg Refundatizione in Italy). I think
we need some assessment of the Greens on these lines too.  What I've seen
of Kovel and Sheasby's stuff - ecosocialist ideas should be firmly integrated 
into
a Marxist program.

This difficulty in the core is that the majority of working people are pissed 
off
but feel powerless, not interested in politics etc so its hard to see where the 
edge
is.  Here the unions peak body (ACTU) is pro-war and at best supports
"fair trade not free trade" (ie nationalist) but that's where we are.  There 
are most
socialist elements but its early in the revival.

> Just as a small sect is inevitably doomed to it's own internal contradictions
> due to being divorced entirely from the workers or any other movement, so too 
> is
> an idea for the revolutionary structure which does not emanate from the people
> whose lives the idea is supposed to transform.

OK but we need to see also that people aren't too revolutionary at present and 
so
the question is what is best structure to get them there, but yet it has to be
their structure, - or they have to make it theirs.  This raises the question 
then of
how to orient to traditional workers organisations.  When the radicalisation 
begins
what will happen to unions, political parties.  How will the mass of people 
begin to
orient to them, will they form new ones? or try to rejuvenate the old ones etc. 
We
dont have to have (fortunately since its impossible) a blueprint but we do need 
ideas
of where to put our energies.

Enough for now

Shane


~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.