PLP?

But it is easy to get trapped in Socialisim isnt there ANYWAY to simplifiy the process?

Quote:

They took the line that all nationalism was counter-revolutionary, denying the need for liberalion movements in the 3rd world wiht a national chacter. They betrayed the BPP and NLF and many others in my opinion.

They also have anarchist idea about "going straight to communism"..

Like most 1st world parties they are chauvinists..

They seem like ultra-leftist adventurers to me. They should read Lenin's pamphlet Left Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder. We've had too much experience of idiots like this in Britain. Let's hope the American revolutionary Left doesn't make the same mistakes.

Quote:

But it is easy to get trapped in Socialisim isnt there ANYWAY to simplifiy the process?

No. If you want the payoff, you have to do the work.

That is a good point, no work, no payoff i suppose.

Quote:

That is a good point, no work, no payoff i suppose.

Unless your a kolak, lol. But really being stuck in socialism beats being stuck in the present system.

Druganov, what was it you wanted to know, specifically?

To address several other comments in this thread, PL is not "Stalinist." I'm actually quite confused as we have been called everything from Stalinist, to Maoist, to anarchist, to "Maoist-anarchist" (whatever that means). We are a Marxist-Leninist party. We are international, and not vanguadist. Our line, for those interested, can be found in our party manifesto, "Road to Revolution," at http://www.plp.org/pl_magazine/rr4.html as well as other documents like "Under the Proletarian Dictatorship: For Communist Economics and Communist Power" at http://www.plp.org/pl_magazine/commecon.html.

Maoismo- We still hold the line that all forms of nationalism are inherently capitalist in orientation, and that no nationalism is "progressive." The BPP and NLF leadership betrayed their own people by subverting the struggle for (at the time) socialism in favor of nationalism, and in the BPP's case, overt male chauvinism and sexist behavior. I can see why this was a debate during Vietnam, but not now. All one needs do is look at Vietnam today for the deadly--and dead-end--results of nationalism. That said, if you read through PL's documents, they did not expressly reject "national liberation" as a strategy, merely subverting the cause of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat in favor of a purely national program.

The notion of "going straight to communism" is not as simple as it sounds. Essentially it is a hybrid consisting of the state apparatus present in socialism, but a more direct transition to a communist economy. I would urge you to read the second link I posted, which explains more clearly what we mean when we say "fight directly for communism." You say that we are chauvinists, I would greatly appreciate any evidence for this claim.

Cheers,
u.

Quote:

I'm actually quite confused as we have been called everything from Stalinist, to Maoist, to anarchist, to "Maoist-anarchist" (whatever that means).

I am allso. I think you are anarchist organisation. Difference between Marx and Bakunin was the issue about socialism. Marx said there is a need for socialism before moving to communism, Bakunin disagreed.

Quote:

We are a Marxist-Leninist party.

You are not Marxist because you don't thrive for socialism. What cames to the Lenins idea for a party you are not that eather. I am not goinhg explain what kind of party is Marxist-Leninist because you can read it yourself from the books of Lenin. But what I am saying compare your party and way it works to Comintern's document "Thesis on the Organization and Structure of the Communist Parties" and you can get a picture. You can find it at http://ptb.sunhost.be/marx2mao/Other/PPO21.html

Quote:

[We still hold the line that all forms of nationalism are inherently capitalist in orientation, and that no nationalism is "progressive."

This reminds me one of uncle Maos quote:

Can a Communist, who is an internationalist, at the same time be a patriot? We hold that he not only can be but also must be. The specific content of patriotism is determined by historical conditions. There is the "patriotism" of the Japanese aggressors and of Hitler, and there is our patriotism. Communists must resolutely oppose the "patriotism" of the Japanese aggressors and of Hitler. The Communists of Japan and Germany are defeatists with regard to the wars being waged by their countries. To bring about the defeat of the Japanese aggressors and of Hitler by every possible means is in the interests of the Japanese and the German people, and the more complete the defeat the better.... For the wars launched by the Japanese aggressors and Hitler are harming the people at home as well as the people of the world. China's case, however, is different, because she is the victim of aggression. Chinese Communists must therefore combine patriotism with internationalism. We are at once internationalists and patriots, and our slogan is, "Fight to defend the motherland against the aggressors." For us defeatism is a crime and to strive for victory in the War of Resistance is an inescapable duty. For only by fighting in defense of the motherland can we defeat the aggressors and achieve national liberation. And only by achieving national liberation will it be possible for the proletariat and other working people to achieve their own emancipation. The victory of China and the defeat of the invading imperialists will help the people of other countries. Thus in wars of national liberation patriotism is applied internationalism.

The Role of the Chinese Communist Party in the National War" (October 1938), Selected Works, Vol. II, p. 196.

Quote:

I would urge you to read the second link I posted, which explains more clearly what we mean when we say "fight directly for communism."

I actually read it, but it didn really clarify your position on communism. I am bit confused because you talk about communism and then again you decribe on the link that you thrive for society "many raised the question of whether communism was the right name for the system we want to set up right after the revolution, because it's not quite the same as what Marx meant by the word." But that text doesn't decribe what is communism according your organisation. I admit I didn't try hard enought to find the decription of communism under PLP webpages, maybe you could explain it to me?

Quote:

I am allso. I think you are anarchist organisation. Difference between Marx and Bakunin was the issue about socialism. Marx said there is a need for socialism before moving to communism, Bakunin disagreed.

This is simply incorrect. The differences between Marx and Bakunin were many, but the primary difference had to do with the role and nature of the State. Marx said a great many things, as did Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc. This does not mean that 1) they were always correct, or 2) that if they were correct, this correctness does not change with historical circumstance, and 3) that they did not have contradictions within their own writings--not between each other, although there were these as well, but within Marx's own body of work, for example. To simply write of PL as "anarchist" as a result of this not only shows a failed understanding of Marxism-Leninism, but ironically, of anarchism as well.

Quote:

You are not Marxist because you don't thrive for socialism. What cames to the Lenins idea for a party you are not that eather. I am not goinhg explain what kind of party is Marxist-Leninist because you can read it yourself from the books of Lenin. But what I am saying compare your party and way it works to Comintern's document "Thesis on the Organization and Structure of the Communist Parties" and you can get a picture. You can find it at http://ptb.sunhost.be/marx2mao/Other/PPO21.html

The Comintern? Are we in a time warp?

Was socialism the primary goal of Marx? Or was it communism? Is it possible that the two-stage theory has been a historical failure because of its internal contradictions? You ask none of these questions, and relegate Marxism to the tomb of dogma.

You then go on to quote Mao to avoid discussing the very real failures of nationalism and "national liberation" as a philosophy. You ignore the contradictions, and the historical outcome of this theory. You are like an alchemist; perhaps if we keep trying we'll finally turn lead into gold--in this way, you castrate the "scientific" aspect of the Marxist movement.

Quote:

I actually read it, but it didn really clarify your position on communism. I am bit confused because you talk about communism and then again you decribe on the link that you thrive for society "many raised the question of whether communism was the right name for the system we want to set up right after the revolution, because it's not quite the same as what Marx meant by the word." But that text doesn't decribe what is communism according your organisation. I admit I didn't try hard enought to find the decription of communism under PLP webpages, maybe you could explain it to me?

The quote you reference is in regards to the fact that when we say we fight "directly for communism," this is not entirely accurate in its essence, as the immediate system for which we fight combines elements of the Marx's socialist state with communist political economy. We believe that socialist economic relations were part of the reason for the failure of past socialist states. This particular article describes in much greater detail what we mean by "communism" than Road to Revolution (our manifesto). I am, frankly, unsure of what you mean by being unableto find "the description of communism" by PL. Could you clarify for me exactly what you are asking here? Because I feel our literature is quite clear.

Quote:

Quote:

I am allso. I think you are anarchist organisation. Difference between Marx and Bakunin was the issue about socialism. Marx said there is a need for socialism before moving to communism, Bakunin disagreed.

This is simply incorrect. The differences between Marx and Bakunin were many, but the primary difference had to do with the role and nature of the State.

Well you could say so. Marx thought that communism can be achieved throught "dictatorship of the proletariat(a.k.a socialism)" and Bakunin thought that that wasn't neccecearly. Both agreed that in the "dictatotorship of the proletariat" there is a state, and both were eager to abolish it. But main point of Marx was that you need "dictatorshipo of proletariat" to achieve communism, this cames from following historical materialism. Bakunin thought that all states are against working class so the state should be abolished immediatly not throught with dying state of socialism. But ofcourse you can show me where I am "simply incorrect" and elaborate me.

Quote:

Marx said a great many things, as did Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc. This does not mean that 1) they were always correct, or 2) that if they were correct, this correctness does not change with historical circumstance, and 3) that they did not have contradictions within their own writings--not between each other, although there were these as well, but within Marx's own body of work, for example

You are absolutely right in your points. That doesn't anyhow change the fact that you are calling your self Matrxist when you are denying the "dictatorship of proletariat" which one of the main points of Marxism. There are people who also thinks that way and they call them Bakunist/Aanarchist/Anarcho-Communist or what ever title they came up with.

Then again maybe you could show some contradictioins in for example Marx that you talked about ? But thismight not be right forum to talk about them.

Quote:

To simply write of PL as "anarchist" as a result of this not only shows a failed understanding of Marxism-Leninism, but ironically, of anarchism as well.

I have given you sources and backed my claims with facts. So maybe you could point out the mistakes witch I have made. But point taken maybe I should have been more precise in talking about anarchism, because there a lots of groups that use that term to describe themselfs for example syndicalist, anarcho-capitalist and even some nihilist etc.... So I was referring referring you as Bakunist anarchist.

Quote:

The Comintern? Are we in a time warp?

No but you have to understand that Marxist-Leninist parties and their operating model was formed at the beginning of 1900 and end of 1800 century, so some of the "party manuals" are written at that time. That the books and these thesis were written at that time doesn't falsify them, but are actually pretty acurate to describe Marxist-Leninist party model, democratic centralism etc....

Oh by the way missed my point completely about what kind of party is Marxist-Leninist. To ellaborate answer this which one was Lenins idea about party
a)cadre party
b)mass party

Quote:

Was socialism the primary goal of Marx? Or was it communism?

You seem to think that socialism and communism overrule each other. If you would actually read Marx or/and Lenin you should have realised that goal of Marx and Marxist-Leninist parties is first to create socialist state and after the socialist state _dies_ away will there be communism. This makes that Marx wanted to create both the socialiist state and communist society.

Quote:

Is it possible that the two-stage theory has been a historical failure because of its internal contradictions?

No because Marx followed historical materialism, which is followed from dialectic materialism.

Quote:

You ask none of these questions, and relegate Marxism to the tomb of dogma.

Yes thats why I am called Marxist-Leninist

Quote:

You then go on to quote Mao to avoid discussing the very real failures of nationalism and "national liberation" as a philosophy. You ignore the contradictions, and the historical outcome of this theory.

What ever. Then again these are part of Marxist-Leninist theory of revolution. Ofcourse you can tell me where is really revolutionary situation going on without "national revolution". For example there is "national revolution" going on Colombia,Nepal and Peru to name few. And they are allso really the leading points of making revolution for socialism and shoving the path towards communism. Ofcourse you wan't to attack against them as your organization is attacking against Venezuela which is one of the biggest power which has taken stance to against imperialism. Guess which side that puts you in?

Quote:

You are like an alchemist; perhaps if we keep trying we'll finally turn lead into gold--in this way, you castrate the "scientific" aspect of the Marxist movement.

How am I "castrating scientific aspect of Marxism", please provide some information or points where I am totally agains dialectic materialism or historical materialism, instead of just atacking me with ad hominem attacks.

Quote:

The quote you reference is in regards to the fact that when we say we fight "directly for communism," this is not entirely accurate in its essence, as the immediate system for which we fight combines elements of the Marx's socialist state with communist political economy

Yes and idea of calling state as communist is strange to me. Why don't call it socialism as is should be called?

Quote:

We believe that socialist economic relations were part of the reason for the failure of past socialist states.

I absolutely agree. Main failures of USSR and China have been to stop state ownership and movement towards capitalism and market economy. USSR that happend after death of Stalin and in China after death of Mao.

Quote:

This particular article describes in much greater detail what we mean by "communism" than Road to Revolution (our manifesto)

What article, I didn+ t find anything which decribes your "communism" meaning what kind of society you are referring when you talk about "combines elements of the Marx's socialist state with communist political economy".

Quote:

Because I feel our literature is quite clear.

Yes they are wery clear. I just read the RR4 and It was pretty close to my own ideas. I allso read RR4.5 but it baffled me mainly to put reformism and revolutionary struggle as opposed each other. Marxist-Leninist party should use both tactics to achieve it's goals. Unfortunately I don't have much time on my hands to study more of your organisation.

Quote:

Marx thought that communism can be achieved throught "dictatorship of the proletariat(a.k.a socialism)" and Bakunin thought that that wasn't neccecearly. Both agreed that in the "dictatotorship of the proletariat" there is a state, and both were eager to abolish it. But main point of Marx was that you need "dictatorshipo of proletariat" to achieve communism, this cames from following historical materialism. Bakunin thought that all states are against working class so the state should be abolished immediatly not throught with dying state of socialism. But ofcourse you can show me where I am "simply incorrect" and elaborate me.

Quote:

That doesn't anyhow change the fact that you are calling your self Matrxist when you are denying the "dictatorship of proletariat" which one of the main points of Marxism.

I think, then, we have a misunderstanding. PL fights explicitly for the dictatorship of the proletariat. Our principal advance in our line of struggle is that we fight for a higher goal than past M-L parties, in that the nature of the state we fight for is different. In other words, we fight for a dictatorship of the proletariat that abolishes the wage system and systems of privilege immediately--i.e., for a more communist political economy as opposed to past socialist/state-capitalist formulations of political economy. We absolutely recognize the need for a state in the immediate, and probably long-term revolutionary and post-revolutionary period.

[Then again maybe you could show some contradictioins in for example Marx that you talked about ? But thismight not be right forum to talk about them.]

I would be happy to discuss any of this, although I am not sure which forum would be best, as I am new here.

Quote:

No but you have to understand that Marxist-Leninist parties and their operating model was formed at the beginning of 1900 and end of 1800 century, so some of the "party manuals" are written at that time. That the books and these thesis were written at that time doesn't falsify them, but are actually pretty acurate to describe Marxist-Leninist party model, democratic centralism etc....

PL is democratic centralist. Am I missing a broader point you're trying to make?

Quote:

Oh by the way missed my point completely about what kind of party is Marxist-Leninist. To ellaborate answer this which one was Lenins idea about party
a)cadre party
b)mass party

I am not sure precisely what you are trying to say here. Could you expound on this? Then I think I would be more able to respond.

Quote:

You seem to think that socialism and communism overrule each other. If you would actually read Marx or/and Lenin you should have realised that goal of Marx and Marxist-Leninist parties is first to create socialist state and after the socialist state _dies_ away will there be communism. This makes that Marx wanted to create both the socialiist state and communist society.

Again, I think we are not seeing eye to eye. I don't think socialism and communism overrule one another, as you say, or are mutually exclusive. What I do think is that socialism as it has been conceived of and put into practice contains too many important contradictions which force its own demise and make it impossible to transition, economically, from a socialist to a communist political economy. The state/proletarian dictatorship aspect of socialism, with important exceptions of aspects of privileges, etc., is preserved in PL's line.

Quote:

Quote:
Is it possible that the two-stage theory has been a historical failure because of its internal contradictions?


No because Marx followed historical materialism, which is followed from dialectic materialism.

Ah, but here at Marx, for you, the dialectical process seems to stop. Dialectics are continually advancing, creating syntheses, negating, etc. This makes it entirely possible, and in fact correct, to say that socialism both as a state and form of political economy failed historically in large part because of irreconcilable internal contradictions. This sort of dogmatism is, in fact, antithetical to Marxism-Leninism and dialectical materialism itself.

Quote:

What ever. Then again these are part of Marxist-Leninist theory of revolution. Ofcourse you can tell me where is really revolutionary situation going on without "national revolution". For example there is "national revolution" going on Colombia,Nepal and Peru to name few. And they are allso really the leading points of making revolution for socialism and shoving the path towards communism. Ofcourse you wan't to attack against them as your organization is attacking against Venezuela which is one of the biggest power which has taken stance to against imperialism. Guess which side that puts you in?

I see what you are trying to get at about revolutionary situations, national revolution, Nepal, Peru, etc. The problem is that the proof is in the pudding. This formula has been tried before. It does not work. I will wager anything that even "socialism" in the Soviet or Chinese sense of the word will never be achieved in any of these "national revolutions," let alone communism. PL does not attack Venezuela, we attack Chavez, who himself is a pawn of European imperialist interests against U.S. imperialist interests. Guess which side that puts Chavez on? The only side PLP takes is the side of the working class. Chavez merely masquerades a "socialist" in the generic sense of the word, and does not even call for communism.

Quote:

How am I "castrating scientific aspect of Marxism", please provide some information or points where I am totally agains dialectic materialism or historical materialism, instead of just atacking me with ad hominem attacks.

I did not mean this to come off as an ad hominem attack, but a principled criticism. If I failed in this, then I apologize. My point is that you write as though you believe Marxism-Leninism ends with Marx and Lenin, that it cannot advance beyond them, that they themselves are devoid of contradictions, and that dialectical materialism and historical materialism do not advance beyond a certain point. Also, my point is that in repeating the same historical errors over and over and over again in hopes that one day the lead will finally become gold is contrary to not only dialectical materialism but to the very scientific nature of Marxism.

Quote:

Yes and idea of calling state as communist is strange to me. Why don't call it socialism as is should be called?

This, to me, has always been more an issue of semantics. PL decided to change its slogan from "Fight for Socialism" to "Fight for Communism," for a number of reasons. Principally, "socialism" as it has been conceived of and executed in the past has brought about its own failure. Not only that, the seeds of its own failure had always been present because of its internal contradictions, particularly in its system of economic relations. Therefore, while it is not entirely accurate to say we fight directly for communism, it is equally or perhaps more inaccurate to say we fight for socialism. This, of course, has its own set of contradictions. However, in this way, it helps people avoid confusion with over parties and organizations that advocate the same old thing that has failed time and time again. I hope this clarifies somewhat.

Quote:

I absolutely agree. Main failures of USSR and China have been to stop state ownership and movement towards capitalism and market economy. USSR that happend after death of Stalin and in China after death of Mao.

Yes, and Mao's great contribution to Marxist-Leninist theory was that he recognized the Communist Party would eventually become corrupt, and the rank-and-file would need to organize to overthrow its leadership and re-establish the revolutionary party, or establish a new revolutionary party.

Quote:

What article, I didn+ t find anything which decribes your "communism" meaning what kind of society you are referring when you talk about "combines elements of the Marx's socialist state with communist political economy".

Again, perhaps this is the result of some unfortunate confusion. The article I was referring to is entitled, "Under the Proletarian Dictatorship: For Communist Economics and Communist Power," available on our site at www.plp.org.

Quote:

Yes they are wery clear. I just read the RR4 and It was pretty close to my own ideas. I allso read RR4.5 but it baffled me mainly to put reformism and revolutionary struggle as opposed each other. Marxist-Leninist party should use both tactics to achieve it's goals. Unfortunately I don't have much time on my hands to study more of your organisation.

Reform and revolution, as I believe the article properly formulates, are "a unity and conflict of opposites," a contradiction. To paraphrase, they are both part of workers' struggles (unity), but one aims to improve capitalism while the other to smash it (conflict). The point of this sections in RR4.5 is not that we as a Party should not participate in reform struggles, but that as far as reform and revolutionary struggles are in conflict with each other yet inseparable from one another, this is a critique that we have subordinated the demand for reforms to the fight for communism and party building too often. It is primarily meant as a self-criticism. PLP certainly participates in reform struggles, but with the goal of bringing a communist consciousness to them and developing that, and with the goal of building the party.

Quote:

I think, then, we have a misunderstanding. PL fights explicitly for the dictatorship of the proletariat. Our principal advance in our line of struggle is that we fight for a higher goal than past M-L parties, in that the nature of the state we fight for is different.

You are right and I was wrong, sorry. I read too hastly the PLP's documents over their website and I got wrong impression. I apologice my behiovor and wrong accusations. I was confused when you called the system "communist" and not "socialistic". I should have kept reading more and study more about your organization before making accusations.

Quote:

we fight for a dictatorship of the proletariat that abolishes the wage system and systems of privilege immediately--i.e., for a more communist political economy as opposed to past socialist/state-capitalist formulations of political economy. We absolutely recognize the need for a state in the immediate, and probably long-term revolutionary and post-revolutionary period.

In this issue I have to disagree somewhat with you. First of all goals and the "how much socialism" should be constructed after the revolution varies from country to country. And party must take and scientific approach of revolution and socialism the conclusioins will vary from country to country. For example ablolishing money might be probably good thing in countries which have had feodalism or somewhat "primitive" culture before socialism. In western countries abolishing money would be bad idea. For example thing about "concrete" revolution where some party member agitates people to take arms to "abolish money", the "(class)conceusness" of the people is not high enough to even realize that argument and they probably would thought that the "cadre" is somewhat lunatic and newer would join revolution(or some might but majority would probably not join). This conceusness will vary to nation to nation depending on material stand points.

Oh and your argument about post socialis states somewhat fails. Eventhought I think you are right about failure of socialism in the economy level. But you have the realize that economy for example Soviet Union was totally different in different time perioids. 1930 economy was totally different from 1980 economy so which one you are oppose or both of them.

Then again I might be _again_ misunderstanding you when you talk about abolishing wage system and priviledges. If you mean it by abolishing wage differencies eg. doctors gets payed as much as carpenters then I have to say we have same idea of socialism I might allso misundertant your point and think you are abolishing all wages eg.ablolish money allso.

Quote:

Quote:

Then again maybe you could show some contradictioins in for example Marx that you talked about ? But thismight not be right forum to talk about them.

I would be happy to discuss any of this, although I am not sure which forum would be best, as I am new here.

I am allso new in here, but my best would be the "communism" forum.

Quote:

Quote:

No but you have to understand that Marxist-Leninist parties and their operating model was formed at the beginning of 1900 and end of 1800 century, so some of the "party manuals" are written at that time. That the books and these thesis were written at that time doesn't falsify them, but are actually pretty acurate to describe Marxist-Leninist party model, democratic centralism etc....

PL is democratic centralist. Am I missing a broader point you're trying to make?

My point was that in the first page one of the PLP "thesis" is

Quote:

We fight to be a mass party, not a cadre elite. The communist organization of society requires the active commitment of millions of workers who understand it, agree with it, struggle to advance its ideas, and vow to make it succeed.

I think this is in someways not true. Eventhought millions can work and fight for communism, communist party basicly can't be that big. Eventhought millions can participate in activities which is provided by party the Marxist-Leninist party it self has allways been formed from " a cadre elite". For example I know that some Marxist-Leninist parties has very tight with their approval of membership. For example I am member in a "Marxist-Leninist"party where you can get membership just applying a form, but in the "good old days" there were 3 year "membership time", so you had to active member atleast 3 years before you could get membership to the party. This made the old party a "cadre party" and this new one which member I am a mass party. Anyway my point was that role of the Marxist-Leninist party is somewhat different than any other party that is around (democratic party, green parryty etc....), and activities of Marxist-Leninist party are totally different with any other party around. That means that member of Marxist-Leninist party has to cadre not just a hangaround person. But I think this is rather long topic and I would appreciate if you read "Thesis on the Organization and Structure of the Communist Parties" and you would understand what is Marxist-Leninist party and what are it's goals and basic principles of it's activities.

Oh I am NOT a member of Marxist-Leninist party, eventhought my party claims to be one. But I sure like to be

Quote:

I think, then, we have a misunderstanding. PL fights explicitly for the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Yes I had that misunderstanding, I was wrong and I like to apoligise that. Sorry

Quote:

Ah, but here at Marx, for you, the dialectical process seems to stop. Dialectics are continually advancing, creating syntheses, negating, etc. This makes it entirely possible, and in fact correct, to say that socialism both as a state and form of political economy failed historically in large part because of irreconcilable internal contradictions. This sort of dogmatism is, in fact, antithetical to Marxism-Leninism and dialectical materialism itself.

First I have to say that I am not speaking english natively, so maybe my writing is hard to understand and I may have understand wrongly what you are talking about. I got the impression when you talked about "two-stage transformation" you were talking about transformation socialism->communism. Are you now saying that socialism has failed because "irreconcilable internal contradiction(in socialism or it's economy)" without specifying what tose contradictions are?

And for the record I agree for economy point of view, when Soviet Union stated moving 1960 towards "commune" style economy, for example promotin kolhoses over sovhoses the sociaism turned movement towards capitalism eg.Soviet Union moved towards more market controlled state than state controlled economy. Which was root of collapse of socialism.

Quote:

Yes, and Mao's great contribution to Marxist-Leninist theory was that he recognized the Communist Party would eventually become corrupt, and the rank-and-file would need to organize to overthrow its leadership and re-establish the revolutionary party, or establish a new revolutionary party.

I absolutely agree with you, and Mao ofcourse.

Quote:

Reform and revolution, as I believe the article properly formulates, are "a unity and conflict of opposites," a contradiction. To paraphrase, they are both part of workers' struggles (unity), but one aims to improve capitalism while the other to smash it (conflict). The point of this sections in RR4.5 is not that we as a Party should not participate in reform struggles, but that as far as reform and revolutionary struggles are in conflict with each other yet inseparable from one another, this is a critique that we have subordinated the demand for reforms to the fight for communism and party building too often. It is primarily meant as a self-criticism. PLP certainly participates in reform struggles, but with the goal of bringing a communist consciousness to them and developing that, and with the goal of building the party.

Okay, I misreaded it then, my applogise. And this is precisly what I mean and I agree with you. Exspecially the reform part of your post and I think lot's of Marxist-Leninist parties or parties that claim to be Marxist-Leninist should do this kind of self-critisism.

No need to apologize, we all have misunderstanding. It is part of the human condition. Even if you had read with the utmost care all of our literature, position papers, etc., there is no way that a non-member would necessarily understand some of the "finer nuances" of inter-party struggle, relationships, and thinking. This is a failure on our part to not communicate more clearly.

Quote:

Then again I might be _again_ misunderstanding you when you talk about abolishing wage system and priviledges. If you mean it by abolishing wage differencies eg. doctors gets payed as much as carpenters then I have to say we have same idea of socialism I might allso misundertant your point and think you are abolishing all wages eg.ablolish money allso.

Here you do not misunderstand me, I think. We do advocate the immediate abolition of money *and* wages. This has been criticized a lot on the communist left here in the U.S., the most typical of which are made by the RCP,USA and MIM. Based on their view of historical strides and failures of socialism, their view of our line is correct. Based on our outlook in PLP, our line is correct. This is one of many areas where organizations such as ours simply disagree with others. The main critique is that, for example, doctors will turn against the revolution is we are going to take away their salary (see the RCP,USA draft programme for a similar critique). I do not believe this is the case. Some might, but some will not. And this will be the case whether money and wages continue to be used or not. But, it will root out capitalist economic relations, and--much more significantly--this will be much more effective in preventing the return of capitalist social/economic relations by reactionary forces in and outside of the party. Not only this, but maintaining a wage and privilege system (although when we say "privileges" this generally refers more the the historical "privilege" of Party members as opposed to the rest of society) is based on ideas of "skilled" and "unskilled" labor. This is a fundamentally anti-working class division, regardless of whether or not some or most workers make this distiction.

But then again, this is part of why we struggle for a mass party, not a cadre party. With a small cadre, a vanguard, it *would* be impossible to abolish money, wages, privileges, etc. practically overnight.

Quote:

I think this is in someways not true. Eventhought millions can work and fight for communism, communist party basicly can't be that big. Eventhought millions can participate in activities which is provided by party the Marxist-Leninist party it self has allways been formed from " a cadre elite".

The key of the quote you're referencing here is "The communist organization of society requires the active commitment of millions of workers who understand it, agree with it, struggle to advance its ideas, and vow to make it succeed." This ties into what I was just saying above, actually. For us to go as far as we desire in terms of rooting out capitalist relations as quickly as possible, we need to be a mass party. As a cadre/vanguard our goals would likely not be possible. And, if one were simply saying "the socialist organization of society," then you would be correct, a mass party in the sense we are talking about would not necessarily be required.

Quote:

Quote:
Ah, but here at Marx, for you, the dialectical process seems to stop. Dialectics are continually advancing, creating syntheses, negating, etc. This makes it entirely possible, and in fact correct, to say that socialism both as a state and form of political economy failed historically in large part because of irreconcilable internal contradictions. This sort of dogmatism is, in fact, antithetical to Marxism-Leninism and dialectical materialism itself.


First I have to say that I am not speaking english natively, so maybe my writing is hard to understand and I may have understand wrongly what you are talking about. I got the impression when you talked about "two-stage transformation" you were talking about transformation socialism->communism. Are you now saying that socialism has failed because "irreconcilable internal contradiction(in socialism or it's economy)" without specifying what tose contradictions are?

Your writing is quite good, comrade, despite any misunderstandings we may have had. When I was referring to the two-stage transition, I was indeed referring to socialism-->communism. And I am saying that socialism has failed due--in large part, although not entirely--to irreconcilable internal contradictions. And I did not specify what those contradictions were, which was an error. I should have. The biggest contradiction has to do with the maintenance of capitalist social and economic relations the have been historically found in socialist societies, and can still be found in some. Ultimately, this contradiction did not lead to the abolition of monied relations as many thought it would, but to the slow reisntatement of capitalism. This is primarily what I was referring to. But, there are other major contradictions as well, including privileges, nationalism, etc. that need to be addressed.

Quote:

I think lot's of Marxist-Leninist parties or parties that claim to be Marxist-Leninist should do this kind of self-critisism.

Criticism and self-criticism are critical to the maintenance of the party. Unfortunately, many other Marxist organizations seem to have forgotten about it, or conduct criticism in a tokenary fashion. This can occur in any party, including my own. We have to struggle to make sure criticism is structured, honest, and productive. Mao provided some great advice in this particular area of party interrelations.

What is your native language, out of curiosity? Your namesake would suggest German.

Cheers,
u.

Quote:

We do advocate the immediate abolition of money *and* wages. This has been criticized a lot on the communist left here in the U.S., the most typical of which are made by the RCP,USA and MIM. Based on their view of historical strides and failures of socialism, their view of our line is correct.Based on our outlook in PLP, our line is correct. This is one of many areas where organizations such as ours simply disagree with others.

Thank you this is very clear to me now, but I disagree with your standpoint about abolishng wages and money. Now don´t take me wrong I agree about need to abolish them, but I take more materialistic and practical standpoint about the issue. My main critic is based on conceusness of masses and materialistic standpoints of current society. As you know your social existence determines your conceusness, and as we both live in capitalistic society our conceusness is molded by capitalistic ideology. This has many problems just after revolution, the mases have made revolution and even when revolution will rise masses conceusness masses are still in a way prone to have capitalistic values. So our first task is to change the mode of production which affects to the labour force and relations to the production. These both things will reflect the masses conceusness and after that to other aspects of the society in a forms of ideologies, values, laws etc....

Well what you are saying is you are forcing people to accept right away those socialistic(well more like communistic) values(abolishing money and wages). This is really imposible because you need time to let those idelogies and values to develop first before people can accept them. Eventhought for me it would be very easy accept the idea of abolishing money, I just think that common people just coudn´t understand it. You will have hard time in trying to convince people about that idea in a capitalistic society and in the early days of socialistic state.

Quote:

The main critique is that, for example, doctors will turn against the revolution is we are going to take away their salary

Actually history has proven that kind of critic correct. For example just after the revolution in Russia allmost all "intellectuals(or so called skilled workers)" doctors, engineers and such fleed out of Russia. So in the beginning of Soviet Union there were lots of workers but virtally none of so called "intellectuals" to organise them for work. For example there were lots of construction workers but virtually none architects who could engineer a house. So even when the soviets thought that everybody should have equal pay they had to make dicision of paying more to the "intellectuals" to bring them back to country and work in the new socialistic state.

Quote:

Not only this, but maintaining a wage and privilege system (although when we say "privileges" this generally refers more the the historical "privilege" of Party members as opposed to the rest of society) is based on ideas of "skilled" and "unskilled" labour. This is a fundamentally anti-working class division, regardless of whether or not some or most workers make this distiction.

I absolutely agree with with this issue with you. In sosialism there are classes, you can´t avoid that(where are classes there are is a state). But in starting phase of socialism this is unavoidable. But thats why it is moving phases towards communism where those classes are destroyed and priviledge systems allso. Oh and there is no excuse why communist party members should have different priviledges compared rest of population, that is plainly wrong and against everything that party stands for. Only priviledge that communist party member has is working for the proletariat.

Quote:

But then again, this is part of why we struggle for a mass party, not a cadre party. With a small cadre, a vanguard, it *would* be impossible to abolish money, wages, privileges, etc. practically overnight.

Yes you struggle for being mass party that is fine. You are guided with thought of Marx and Lenin that is true too, but you are not a Marxist-Leninist party, eventhought you have some principles from the Lenins party theory for example democratic centralism. You have to understand that Marxist-Leninist party really is a cadre party which is completely different thing than mass party what was my point. I tried to explain it to you and that is the reason why I gave a link to the Thesis on the organization and structure of the communist party.

Oh and I allso think that it is imposible to abolish money, wages, priviledges etc of timeperiod of overnight. Thoses things will die away but that is much longer process.

Quote:

For us to go as far as we desire in terms of rooting out capitalist relations as quickly as possible, we need to be a mass party. As a cadre/vanguard our goals would likely not be possible.

First of all you have to make clear distinctions between goals of M-L party before and after the revolution. Before revolution the party _must_ be a cadre party because it´s goals are different than after the revolution when party may came as a mass party. And our goals such different today before the revolution that only way we can achieve them is by being a cadre party.

Quote:

The biggest contradiction has to do with the maintenance of capitalist social and economic relations the have been historically found in socialist societies, and can still be found in some. Ultimately, this contradiction did not lead to the abolition of monied relations as many thought it would, but to the slow reisntatement of capitalism. This is primarily what I was referring to. But, there are other major contradictions as well, including privileges, nationalism, etc. that need to be addressed.

I agree with you comerad. But those contradictions were not money or priviledges. It was the way how means of production were owned after counter revolutionaries took power on SU and China. They moved towards market based economy(in a means of commune owned production instead state owned) in SU that hapened after Stalins death and in China little bit before Maos death. Mao tried to fight against those tendencies, but he failed(well actually red guards but I am referring to Mao because he was theirs guiding star). That has lead SU to capitalism and in China to Facism.

But these things have nothing to do with nationalism, abolishing money or priviledge system. Even thought I agree these issues has to adressed and dealt fairly and slowly try to abolish them.