~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Weekly focus # 12 --
(1) Different and opposing ideologies
(2) Empty words in favor of "communism"
* At least the anarchists don't have this problem
(3) Do we support the working class--or a police state ?
* Analogy with the great betrayal of 1914
* Problems with "anti-revisionist communism"
* The Cone of Silence
(4) Are workers in the developed countries "bourgeoisified" ?
* Hook, line and sinker
(5) Dennis--follow up
(6) The urban dictionary
(7) When the core and periphery conflict
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hi everyone,

Many of the posts this week are focused on some of the key
questions. Samyabad expresses the view that the only real
alternative to capitalism is communism. Chris is in favor of
using the word "communism" to describe our goal--rather than
"proletarism" as advocated by Russia activist Grigory Isayev.
And new subscriber Kadri has contributed a short description of
some of the complexities of the class struggle in Karachi and
other major industrial cities in his native Pakistan where the
ruling class (employing the tactic of "divide and rule") works to
create antagonism between native workers and those who have
migrated from Punjab and the Northwest Frontier Provinces.

Kadri and Samyabad also discussed what they call the
"embourgeoisment" of the proletariat in the west.

I am very glad to see someone from Pakistan on this discussion
list. The international workers' movement needs communication
and solidarity between workers from the economically developed
and less developed nations. Asia, in particular, is the most
rapidly developing section of the world today and represents
approximately half of the world's population. Our movement also
needs calm and respectful discussion between activists of
different viewpoints and this list can help to create a example
of how this discussion can take place.

------------------------------------------------------------
1. Different and opposing ideologies
------------------------------------------------------------

I want to make clear, from the beginning, that I have different
views than Samyabad and Kadri. I am glad that Samyabad and Kadri
are here. The differences between us have potential to raise the
consciousness of all of us on some of the most fundamental
questions of our time. Calm discussion of these differences may
help to stimulate the thinking of some of the 50 subscribers to
this list.

The differences that we have are also central to the discussion
of whether we should call our movement a movement for "communism"
or a movement for "proletarism".

So this is a good time to give thought to the different views and
maybe ask some intelligent questions.

------------------------------------------------------------
2. Empty words in favor of "communism"
------------------------------------------------------------

Samyabad's posts in favor of "communism" strike me as being empty
of content because nowhere does Samyabad recognize that most
people associate this word with the police state regimes in the
former Soviet Union and in China and northern Korea today.

Samyabad--June 13:
> In the communist society the wars, the exploitation of man
> by man and the habit of greed will be the affair of the past.

No war?

But soldiers died as "communist" Russia and China fought with one
another, as did "communist" China and Vietnam and "communist"
Vietnam and Cambodia.

No exploitation of man by man?

The joke told by Soviet workers to one another was: "In the West,
there is exploitation of man by man--while here it is the other
way around".

Samyabad--June 17:
> I think the doctrine of communism seeks to create
> an environment where the very foundation of domination
> of all kinds become the things of the past and all-round
> democracy would flourish.

Democracy? The word "democracy" is a very complex word. A
simpler phrase is "democratic rights". But what democratic
rights existed in the supposedly "communist" regimes?

What about the Russia activist Grigory Isayev who was imprisoned
by the "communist" Andropov for organizing workers [see note 1
below] ? Or the thousands of activists who were massacred in the
streets of Beijing on June 3-4, 1989 [see note 2]? Or the
torture which appears to be routine (based on credible news
accounts that I have seen) at some of the work camps in
"communist" north Korea?

Samyabad does not address these issues and I suspect it is
because he is unable to understand the distinction in principle
between the communism that Marx and Lenin worked for--and the
"communism" that emerged in Russia and China in which a new,
parasitic ruling class suppressed the independent political life
of the workers.

For Chinese workers (just the same as for U.S. workers) the main
enemy is at home: their "own" ruling bourgeoisie.

It appears to me that Samyabad is unable to recognize this
fundamental truth. This is why Samyabad has the opinion (see his
June 6 post) that the Chinese activists who fought the troops of
the ruling regime in 1989 were "misguided".

At least the anarchists don't have this problem
-----------------------------------------------

I think that these kinds of questions are decisive for the
development of a revolutionary movement in the economically
advanced countries. For example many (possible most) of the more
serious non-reformist activists in countries like the U.S. are
attracted to the anarchist ideology because they refuse to
sacrifice their life energy for the sake of creating a police
state. These are activists who represented the core energy that
organized the anti-WTO protests in Seattle in 1999 and who, on
many occasions, have built spirited mass actions that stood up to
police intimidation and attack.

We need to create a revolutionary movement in the economically
advanced countries which attracts the energy of all the serious,
non-reformist activists. And this means that we must honestly
confront the nature of the goal of our revolutionary movement.

We cannot unite the revolutionary movement around the goal of
creating a police state which suppresses the masses and protects
the privileges of a new, parasitic ruling class.

If we fail to recognize this then we are not deserving of the
attention of serious activists. It is as simple as that.

------------------------------------------------------------
3. Do we support the working class--or a police state ?
------------------------------------------------------------

Chris--June 16:
> Ben, I don't see what the difference is between calling
> yourself a Proletarian or a Communist, and if there
> truly isn't a difference in doctrine then I think we should
> stick with Communism or Socialism because that is
> the real and original name. Just my .02,

First, Chris, I would like to thank you for your feedback. The
question of whether we describe the goal of the revolutionary
movement as "communism" or "proletarism" is, in my view, one of
the most important questions of our time. And, out of 50
subscribers, you are the only person to comment on this topic.

So here is my question for you:

If we keep the name "communism" -- then how will we make it clear
to serious activists that our goal is not to put into power a
parasitic ruling class which suppresses the independent political
life of the masses?

Analogy with the great betrayal of 1914
-----------------------------------------

> The European war of 1914-15 is doubtlessly
> beginning to do some good by revealing
> to the advanced class of the civilized countries
> what a foul and festering abscess has developed
> within its parties, and what an unbearably putrid stench
> comes from some source."
-- Lenin, "The Collapse of the 2nd International", May-June 1915

Many activists know (or should know) something of the history of
the German Social-Democratic Party (the original communist party,
advised and assisted by Marx and Engels) which, on August 4,
1914, solemnly declared: "In the hour of danger we will not leave
our fatherland unprotected" and voted for war credits--and
thereby put its stamp of approval on the mutual slaughter of
worker by worker known as the first World War.

In response, Lenin proposed that those sections of the workers'
movement which opposed this betrayal demarcate themselves, in the
strongest possible way, from this betrayal--by abandoning the
name "social-democracy" (by which they all had been known) and
instead adopting another name. The name chosen was the one used
by Marx and Engels in their first major work: "The Communist
Manifesto"

Grigory Isayev says that the betrayal of the masses by the
"communist" leaders of Russia and China has been every bit as
monumental as the betrayal of the leaders of the 2nd
International in 1914. (See the excerpts, in Appendix 2 below,
of his 1999 "Letter to Comrade Lobov".) I agree with this.

You ask if there is truly a difference in doctrine. I think
that Grigary Isayev--not to mention the experience of the last 80
years--make clear that there can be no greater difference in
doctrine than that between a revolutionary doctrine at the
service of the working class--and a revisionist doctrine used to
justify the permanent suppression of the independent political
life of the class.

So my question, Chris, is what do you think about this?

(For historical background readers may wish to review my essay
"The German Social-Democratic Party and the Great Betrayal" at
http://Leninism.org/pof/pof4.htm or the historic document by
Lenin himself at:
http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/jun/x01.htm ).

Problems with "anti-revisionist communism"
---------------------------------------------

I will note that historically, the phrase "anti-revisionist
communism" has been used by activists for this purpose: to make
it clear that our goal is the rule of the working class rather
than the rule of a corrupt new ruling class as came to power in
the Soviet Union and which betrayed and distorted (ie: "revised",
hence the term "revisionism") the principles of communism.

But it turns out that the term "anti-revisionism" also has
problems.

The term "anti-revisionism" became popular following the 1961
meeting in Moscow of 81 communist parties in which the Albanian
party confronted the Soviet leadership that came to power
following the death of Stalin. The Albanian party asserted that
the Soviet leadership (at the time headed by Khrushchev) had
given up on the revolutionary cause and was following a road that
would lead to a capitalist restoration in the Soviet Union. In
time, tiny Albania was joined by China and dozens of communist
parties in the capitalist countries. This was the birth of the
anti-revisionist movement.

History has proven that the anti-revisionist movement was both
right and wrong.

The anti-revisionist movement was right about the Khrushevite
revisionists. The ruling clique in the Soviet Union had
abandoned the revolutionary cause and emerged as a new ruling
class. Although outwardly powerful at the time, the "socialist"
Soviet Union would collapse three decades later.

However the anti-revisionist movement, from the time of its
birth, was marked by severe weaknesses. The anti-revisionist
movement was founded on the idea that, prior to Stalin's death in
1953, things in the Soviet Union were basically OK.

I know this from the point of view of an insider: having been
part of an organization (the Marxist-Leninist Party-USA, forged
in the period 1969-79, dissolved in 1993) that considered itself
part of the anti-revisionist movement. The activists who founded
the MLP were anti-war and anti-racist activists who were
disgusted with the betrayal of revolutionary principles by the
Soviet leadership and inspired by the Cultural Revolution in
China. The MLP made some progress on a number of key theoretical
questions--but not enough progress to avert organization meltdown
when the crisis of theory made it impossible for serious militant
activists to work together to chart the path forward.

It turned out that Stalin, Mao and the Albanians were not
holding high the red banner that illuminated the way forward.
Stalin, it turned out, was the architect of the Soviet
counter-revolution (the Trotskyists were right about this even if
they were wrong about so much else). Mao was a brilliant
military leader and propagandist who mobilized millions and made
possible the 1949 victory against US imperialism and its Chiang
Kai-shek running dogs. But, following the anti-feudal and
anti-imperialist victory, Mao was clueless concerning how to
avoid the capitalist restoration in China that was in full swing
in the Soviet Union (the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution
helped Mao in his fight against his opponents within the ruling
party--but today a modern capitalist economy is rapidly being
created in China and the only trace of revolutionary spirit in
Chinese politics comes in the form of mass actions by workers
that are circumvented and suppressed). And the Albanians did not
last any longer than their Soviet revisionist opponents: today
the fiercely independent Albania is essentially controlled by US
imperialism.

The Cone of Silence
----------------------

More than this, the "anti-revisionist" organizations within the
capitalist countries have nearly all evaporated or degenerated.
All along these organizations have based themselves on the "cone
of silence" organizational model put forth by Stalin (and a
Soviet theoretician, Zinoviev) in the mid-1920's in which the
internal disagreements within the organization were kept secret
from the outside world (even if this meant that these internal
disagreements were also kept secret from most of the members and
supporters of these organizations).

(The term "cone of silence" was not invented by Stalin or
Zinoviev--I have adapted it from the 1960's "Get Smart" sitcom
which featured secret agent Maxwell Smart in a spoof of the James
Bond films that were popular at the time.)

The "cone of silence" model was crippled from its birth and
stands as particularly absurd in the 21st century, the age of the
internet, where the organized forces of the proletariat must,
above all, take advantage of the speed at which ideas can be
discussed, debated and sorted out in scientific and public
forums.

The "anti-revisionist" organizations, to the extent that there
are any left, have made close to zero progress in separating
themselves from the Stalinist "cone of silence" organizational
model. They cannot build public forums on the internet because
they understand, correctly, that they would not be able to
control the flow of information and all kinds of questions would
be asked which they do not have the ability to answer. Such
developments would threaten the organizational stability of these
organizations which all tends to be based on the idea that the
leadership knows what it is doing and has the ability to answer
questions.

I think that we need to make a clean break, as Lenin did, and as
Grigory Isayev advocates, with the existing cesspool of treachery
(from the "communist" leaders of China and the former Soviet
Union) and self-deception (from the various "communist"
organizations within the imperialist countries that have their
heads in places that cannot be reached by light).

And if we need to make a clean break--then why not do as Lenin
did--and demonstrate that we have the courage of our
convictions--and leave the old name to the hopelessly corrupted
trends?

What do _you_ think?
-----------------------

Chris--June 16:
> I think we should stick with Communism or Socialism
> because that is the real and original name.

The history above, for those who may not have been aware of it,
demonstrates the opposite. The "real and original name" was
social-democracy. The name "communism" was selected because of a
need to make clear to workers that a movement existed which had
made a decisive break with the class traitors who, in 1914,
preached to the French and German workers that they
should gun each other down in order to protect their fatherlands.
Now (with the possibilities of the internet, which allow serious
activists to collaborate in a way that was never before possible)
it may be time to make another decisive break.

I tend to be in favor of Isayev's proposal that we call ourselves
the movement for proletarism--that we declare ourselves to be
proletarists. My only hesitancy in this is that, until now, I
have had no one to talk to about this. My peers (activists with
experience in the effort to build genuinely revolutionary
organization) have for the most part found themselves preoccupied
with matters which I consider to be of less real importance. I
would like to see all this change.

I will add a note here for all readers on this forum:

There are 50 subscribers to this forum. Everyone here is allowed
to post 2 to 4 times a week. We can talk, and we can dream, of
making history. And many do talk and dream. But actually making
history (as opposed to talking about it or dreaming about it)
requires the ability to recognize when the time has come to make
a clear statement. I would like to see 50 thoughtful comments on
this topic when I check this forum next week.

What is your excuse for remaining silent?

------------------------------------------------------------
4. Are workers in the developed countries "bourgeoisified" ?
------------------------------------------------------------

Samyabad and Kadri have both supported the idea that the western
proletariat has been "bourgeoisified".

And Samyabad and Kadri are not alone in this. Such ideas are
extremely common (in fact, unfortunately, such ideas tend to
dominate) within the anti-imperialist movement. All the same
these kinds of ideas are part of an ideology that, in my view,
serves the bourgeoisie.

I may be the case, of course, that there are particles of truth
to this idea. The conditions of workers in the US, Europe, Japan
and other highly industrialized countries (often referred to as
"first world" nations--or the center) tend to be, on average, a
hell of a lot better than conditions of workers in the less
developed countries (often referred to as the "third world"
nations--or the periphery). The ruling classes in the more
developed countries have more wealth which they can make use of
to bribe a strata of society (which includes trade union
bureaucrats, religious leaders, poverty pimps, progressive media
personalities and so on) in order to help shape "public opinion"
and maintain social peace and the illusion of popular consent.

In a much deeper sense, however, the idea that the working class
in the more developed countries has been "bourgeoisified" -- is
an idea which is used, on a daily basis, to attack the
development of a revolutionary mass movement in the developed
countries.

I do not have the time, unfortunately, to sketch out the many
ways in which this is true. It is a very big topic and my time
this week is nearly exhausted.

But I can promise everyone this--this topic will not go away. I
am glad that Samyabad and Kadri are here on this list. And I
intend to challenge and confront them on this topic (in a
respectful way, of course) as much as time and opportunity
permits. And I want to encourage them, also, to challenge and
confront me on this topic. To present their best and most
scientific arguments, and, so to speak, hit me with their best
shots.

I will say this much now. The idea that western workers are
"bourgeoisified" is inseparably bound up with the idea that the
developed countries are "democracies" and that the actions of the
western imperialist nations represent the will (and the
interests) of the workers of those nations. And this just so
happens to be one of the biggest lies of all time.

The truth is the opposite. All of these nations are ruled by a
class, the bourgeoisie, which is relatively small numerically
(probably under one percent of the population). The working
class of all of these nations is kept quiet by a variety of
factors other than comfort. The main factors are force and
political deception (these are the main factors in all
countries--whether "first world" or "third world").

Hook, line and sinker
-----------------------

The idea that the working class is a bunch of backward,
bought-off philistines is used to disorient serious activists--so
that these activists will not work on building organizations that
are focused on bring their message to the working class--but will
instead work on building organizations that are dependent on
social-democracy. But organizations that are dependent on
social-democracy are organizations that are built on a foundation
of sand. The first serious storm--and there will be nothing
left.

It is because of this kind of ideology that organizations such as
the Workers' World Party in the US (ie: the driving force behind
the "Answer" coalition) refused to describe the treachery of the
trade union bureaucrats on a host of questions (including their
outrageous blockade which kept thirty thousand workers from
assisting militant activists at the 1999 anti-WTO actions in
Seattle). And that is just the tip of the iceberg

Further, if we are serious about building organization that is
focused on the working class--and on making serious use of the
emerging revolution in communications--then we will find that we
need to answer questions for which activists and workers need
answers. And this brings us to the currently existing "crisis of
theory". We need to be able to describe our goal--a society that
is not run by the bourgeoisie--in a way that is fit for people
who have not had a lobotomy. We cannot do this at present.

I have attempted to address the crisis of theory in my
installments of the anarcho-leninist debate on the state at
http://struggle.net/ALDS . But my installments are the work of a
single person. And very few activists even know that they exist.
What is needed is a core of activists who grasp, at a deep level,
the principles sketched out in the debate--and who wish to bring
these principles to a wide audience of activists who need to see,
who very much want to see (and never have seen) a description of
how the working class can run society _better_ than the
bourgeoisie.

------------------------------------------------------------
5. Dennis--follow up
------------------------------------------------------------

Dennis, my apologies again that no one has shown you how to use
the wiki to create a page where you could list the various
articles that you find to be useful and post here. I regret that
I do not have the time right now to give you personal help
immediately. It is very important that you learn how to use the
wiki and as soon as I have an opportunity I will make certain
that it happens

Also--last week I suggested that you follow up with "D Gude", the
author of the article you liked on "The truth about American
Capitalism". I believe it would be useful to have the guy here.
He (or she, as the case may be) might be able to say something to
oppose the empty words about "communism" which are common here.
We need people on this list who can oppose empty words with calm
and careful arguments. The essay was carefully written and
represented the deeply thoughtful thinking of a lot of people.

If you choose not to follow up on this--that's your choice. But
I will remind you that, if you liked the essay enough to post it
here, why not follow up and contact the author? This forum may
be of interest to him or her--I really doubt that there is
another forum like it in the world. Why? Because the evasion
stops here.

------------------------------------------------------------
6. The urban dictionary
------------------------------------------------------------

Hey folks, guess what I found? (Actually a friend told me about
this.)

One of the wiki ideas I am attempting to popularize is what I
have called a "compete for attention" page where people who are
for (or against) communism, marxism, Leninism, anarchism,
reformism, materialism, third-worldism, etc could go to a page
and create their own definition--and then other people could vote
for the definition they liked best and the most popular
definitions would be at the top of the page and the less popular
definitions would be sorted in order of popularity.

Well it turns out that there is a site on the web,
http://UrbanDictionary.com that already does this. For example
if you go to:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=communism

you will see 50 definitions of communism and if you go to:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=leninism

you will see 2 definitions of Leninism.

All definitions are sorted by popularity.

Of course the Urban Dictionary implementation has limitations:
you cannot see a list of who voted for what definition. And most
of the people who contribute to the site are more interested in
being funny than in serious political discussion. But it
illustrates the concept better than I have been able to do so far
with our wiki.

Speaking of our wiki--if you have not used it--please tell us
why. I suspect the reason is that the wiki front page is too
cluttered and the wiki help files are too poorly organized. The
result (I suspect) is that it is too difficult for new people to
go to the wiki and figure out how to create a page. But that is
only my guess. Maybe there is a different reason. Maybe the
wiki is ignored as much as it is because most people do not see
any real need for it or use for it.

In any event I (and others who are focused on the wiki) would
like to know and need to know. Please tell us.

And if you have forgotten where our wiki is and want to look at
it again you can find it here:
http://mediaweapon.net/mediawiki-phase3/index.php

------------------------------------------------------------
7. When the core and periphery conflict
------------------------------------------------------------

I am pleased that a second person has replied to the
questionnaire
that is online at http://mediaweapon.com .

8th floor has contributed his assessment of our proposed mission
state and program of action. I am always glad to see this. (His
comments are reproduced in Appendix 1 below.)

8th floor asks, in his comments, about situations where the core
of our emerging community will find itself in conflict with the
periphery of our community. In my opinion I believe it is safe
to say that such conflicts will eventually exist. In fact I
believe that there will eventually also be conflict within our
core. Any real community that is focused on addressing with
integrity the class struggle will _never_ experience a shortage
of conflict!

You can count on that.

8th floor asks, in particular, about a possible situation where
the core of our community degenerates. All the software scripts
and political content of our wiki could be lost in such a
situation.

What can we do about this?

First--we must recognize that the scenario the 8th floor
describes is possible. All institutions, organizations and
communities in capitalist society are subject to corruption.
There is no reason to think that our mutual effort here has some
kind of special immunity to this.

8th floor suggests that we make our wiki code and content
available (ie: public) so that it would be easy for anyone to
copy or clone our wiki.

I agree that this would be a good thing and would be healthy.

There are a few practical issues that we would need to consider:
1. We need to segregate public information from personal
information. For example when someone copies or clones our wiki
they should not be able to read someone else's password to our
current wiki. Nor should it be possible to acquire any
information about someone else (for example an email address)
that is not already public.
2. We also need to consider this in balance with our other needs
and priorities. Our time and abilities are limited and we need
to develop a clear focus on those tasks which are most important
at the present time.

That's it for now.

By the way, I will most likely not be able to post next weekend.
However the weekend of July 3 and 4 looks better.

All the best,
Ben Seattle
----//-// June 20, 2004
http://struggle.net/Ben (my elists / theory / infrastructure)

Send email to: pof-100-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
No Spam!--Just 2 emails a year to keep you updated about my work

------------------------------------------------------------
Notes
------------------------------------------------------------

[1] http://Leninism.org/stream/99/isayev.asp
[2] http://www.socialistalternative.org/literature/china/ch1.html

------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix 1
more feedback on our proposed mission statement
and program of action
------------------------------------------------------------

8thfloor • When the core and periphery conflict
Sunday • 13-Jun-2004 • 4:31 am • # 210-9004

poll response--overall view? • not sure

• The following may sound like a lot of gibberish, but I feel it
is very fundamental to the mediaweapon. What mediaweapon needs
is an insurance policy against two things:

+ The community falling into disarray. Especially from
reactionary forces that try to disrupt the day to day operation
of the community. That is what the core is for. The core is that
group of people who are trusted to work in the interest of the
community within the constraints of its mission statement.

+ The core activists abusing their power by steering the
community against their will, or are becoming incapable of
performing their duties. Should they be trusted to give up their
position when the time comes?

It is important that should the community ever reach a crisis
that divides the core from its periphery that the periphery can
just pick up and go somewhere else. This means, mediaweapon must
do everything to make it possible for the periphery or any
subgroup thereof to 'fork' ie. reproduce the mediaweapon website
elsewhere under another name and core. This means having access
to the technologies from which mediaweapon was built as well as
the content and history mediaweapon has accumulated over time.

Note: I do not ever want this to happen and I don't expect it to
either, but if it must - then it must. But more than that -
allowing a fork lends legitimacy to mediaweapon. The periphery
can trust the core more because if the core fails, then the
periphery do not lose their hard work.
In the end, more than the ability to fork is that we how we
behave knowing that trust must be earnt and trust can be freely
given.

• likes:
I like the mission statement and proposed program of action
• don't like:
It is not clear how one becomes a core activist,
any criteria seems subjective
• question:
What is the current composition of the pof-200 readership?
• comments on proposed mission statement: Good
• comments on paragraph (i): Good
• comments on paragraph (ii): Good
• comments on 1. build channels: Good, but long
• comments on 2. puncture reformism: Good
• comments on 3. crisis of theory: Good
• comments on 4. unity and transparency: Good
• comments on Structure of community:
A vibrant and diverse community will probably mean that
core and periphery can sometimes be at odds.
• comments on communication system: Good

------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix 2
Excerpts from: "Letter to Comrade Lobov"
Grigory Isayev (Samara, Russia) -- April 1, 1999
------------------------------------------------------------

> Let me say a
> few words in defense of my position by referring to history.
> We find in it one analogy with what is happening to our
> communist movement. I have in mind the appalling
> opportunism of the Second International at the time of
> W.W.I. You know this history. Answer this question: Why
> did Lenin not even try to talk sense into the heads of the
> "lost ones" and to return them to Marxism? On the contrary,
> from the very beginning he waged a merciless struggle
> against them. Why? Wasn't it because the anti-Marxist
> mutation of those social-democratic leaders was
> irreversible? They all had to be thrown into the melting
> pot! Moreover, Lenin even rejected the formerly glorious
> name of "Social-Democracy" in order to separate it from the
> social-traitors. Otherwise, the Communist International
> would not have been born . . . Today we have
> communist-traitors. History did not know a more horrendous
> degeneration of the communist movement. It's terrifying! .
> . . if one does not understand the nature of what is
> happening. [...]
>
> the traitors still hide under red
> flags. And on these flags there are the same dear words,
> ideas, portraits. How to oppose this? Without hesitation,
> we resolutely rejected the words "socialism," "Bolshevism,"
> "communism" because these words which in the past were
> sacred to every worker have been now distorted, slandered,
> defiled. This is a fact, one cannot escape it. So today we
> say not "socialism" but "proletarism," not "communists" but
> "proletarists." Let it sound unusual, even odd but then we
> stand out clearly and do not get confused with the rest of
> the crowd. And second, these words in no way contradict
> classical Marxism. Indeed, if we closely reread Marx,
> Engels and Lenin it becomes clear that for them socialism in
> the political sense meant first of all the strong power of
> the working class. Everything else is secondary. Which is
> to say that the road to communism leads only through a
> revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. In
> connection with this, more shouldbe said about the term
> "proletarism."
>
> Proletarism designates what Marx and all his loyal followers
> meant by the "lower phase of communism" or "socialism,"
> i.e., the period of transition from capitalism to communism,
> from class to a classless society. Everything seems clear.
> But the traditional term "socialism" in no way reflects the
> class essence of this transition from one form of society to
> another. Rather it obfuscates, clouds this essence. Not by
> accident most reactionary regimes, but not the power of the
> proletariat, exist under the the name of socialism. In
> contrast, the term "proletarism" clearly designates not the
> power of the party, let it be even trice proletarian, not
> the power of the leaders, even if they are absolutely
> devoted to the proletariat, not the power of the state, even
> if controlled by the organized proletariat--but the power of
> the class itself. The power which is political and
> economical, the power at the center and locally, the power
> which is absolute and shared with no one.
>
> The term "proletarism" follows the logic of history. When
> slaveholders were the masters of society it was a
> slaveholding society, when feudals--feudalism, when
> capitalists--capitalism. That is every society was defined
> by the name of its ruling class. Why then right after the
> revolution, after the proletariat has taken power not call
> this social order proletarian? And proletarian it is! To
> sum it up, communism is the goal, proletarism is the road to
> it. But even a great goal is not worth much without the
> knowledge of how to reach it. Someone has said: "Cry sugar,
> sugar as you wish, it won't become sweet in your mouth."
> This could be said about those who today cry "communism,
> communism, communism," even if they cry sincerely, bleeding
> in their souls. In other words, if communism is not an
> empty sound for us but a really great goal then we have to
> direct all our efforts at showing workers the right road to
> communism. If we get on this road we will achieve the goal.
> It also means that we have to resolutely introduce the term
> "proletarism" in our everyday work. We should not be afraid
> that the new term will lead to a conceptual confusion or
> disorient the "dark" masses. As our experience shows,
> workers accept this new term as their own after a minimal
> explanation. Apparently, it is because the term is simple,
> understandable and precise. Besides, the phonetics of this
> word, the way it sounds won't let any one to forget whose
> power it is, what kind of society we live in and, above
> all, who is its Master!
>
> There is no analogy in the past with the tragedy of our
> proletariat. There were hard, and even terrible times but
> there was always some light in the end of the tunnel. The
> thought that sooner or later but "we will build our, new
> world" never died in the consciousness of our working class.
>
> But not now, today.
>
> Never before the proletariat was so betrayed by all. It
> seems as if history itself has betrayed us.
>
> The ideas, the goals, the meaning of the struggle have been
> lost. The very faith in the possibility of changing the
> world has been killed. The great majority of our workers are
> completely demoralized.
>
> What is to be done in such a situation, if one remains a
> Marxist? [...]
>
> Would you like to know the reason for the universal crisis
> of labor movement? It is the profound crisis of Marxism,
> the theoretical base of the labor (communist) movement.
> There is simply no and cannot be any other reason. [...]
>
> We, who have taken upon ourselves the organization of labor
> movement, need to shake off the stupor and acquire the
> boldness of a special kind. I mean not personal courage but
> the boldness of thought. We need to stop at last wallowing
> in the past and the present. We need to free ourselves from
> the entanglements of old ideas. One cannot go forward with
> one's head turned back. We need ideas so new and
> astonishing that one cannon immediately believe in them, yet
> so true that it is impossible not to believe in them after
> all.
>
> We have to immediately and resolutely acknowledge that the
> leaders of the communist movement have betrayed the
> interests of the working class. We have to acknowledge this
> and to proceed from there. What it means is that the work
> has to begin anew, from the very bottom, however hard it
> would be. Lenin was not afraid of this. He was always
> ready to address the masses directly.