Between revolutionary realism and “socialism from below”

<table><tr><td>From <a href="http://signalfire.org/?p=20110">Signal Fire</a>

<blockquote>The Party must be, first of all, the advanced detachment of the working class. The Party must absorb all the best elements of the working class, their experience, their revolutionary spirit, their selfless devotion to the cause of the proletariat.

But in order that it may really be the armed detachment, the Party must be armed with revolutionary theory, with a knowledge of the laws of the movement, with a knowledge of the laws of revolution. Without this it will be incapable of directing the struggle of the proletariat, of leading the proletariat.

The Party cannot be a real party if it limits itself to registering what the masses of the working class feel and think, if it drags at the tail of the spontaneous movement, if it is unable to overcome the inertia and the political indifference of the spontaneous movement, if it is unable to rise above the momentary interests of the proletariat, if it is unable to raise the masses to the level of understanding the class interests of the proletariat.
-Stalin</blockquote></td><td><img title="maoists are dumb" src="http://anarchistnews.org/files/pictures/2012/corner_cops.jpg"></td></tr>...
<!--break-->
Black Orchid Collective’s recent piece “Between the Leninists and the Clowns: Avoiding recklessness and professionalism in revolutionary struggle” highlights the disingenuous inconsistency of the entire workerist and movementist tendency it originates from.
It asserts the necessity of construction of cadre organizations as an alternative to the swamp of amorphous informality while denying the centrality of the party form to the effective constitution of the class as a revolutionary subject.

The small and fragmented cadre collectives are advised to remain as such-abandoning the perspective of developing into the strategic nerve center of the diverse movements of the proletariat and popular masses-integrating the spontaneous activity of the masses into a single coherent strategy for the imposition of the dictatorship of the proletariat as the political superstructure required for the transitional process of abolition of capitalist production relations.

Instead they are advised to tail the spontaneous activity of the masses:
“The vanguard is simply whatever layer of the working class is moving fastest toward revolution at any given time – for example, a significant section of the Black working class acted like a vanguard during the 1960s. A small cadre group may aim to become one small part of a much larger vanguard- but it can only do that by advocating for, supporting, merging with, and defending the autonomy of broad working class revolutionary self-activity. In other words, it can only do this through generalized insurrection. Any attempt to control this self-activity will either kill the self-activity – or, much more hopefully, will kill the parasitic cadre organization, or make it as irrelevant as a dinosaur.”

The identification of whatever element of the masses is developing the leading edge of practices of confrontation with the vanguard is an economist deviation which denies the centrality of political line and strategic centralization and coordination.

The Party is the coalescence of the most advanced and conscious elements of the class and the masses-it is not a parasitic excrescence of the self-activity of the working class but the cohesion of this activity into a subject capable of coherently developing a strategic process.
“We need a significant layer of the working class to take up all the things that small cadre organizations currently do, and more but at a mass scale, not just among a small exclusive group.”

This is precisely the development of the hegemony of a revolutionary political line among the masses-the merger of the concentrated experience of the class struggle of the proletariat with the activity of the class on a broad scale.
What is this if not the application of the mass line? The integration of a revolutionary line with the activity of the masses is precisely what can be seen with the people’s wars developing in India and the Philippines in the experience of the Chinese revolution and the Peruvian communist party.

The cohesion of a “significant layer” of the working class and the masses around the development of a revolutionary process requires and involves inherently the emergence of an advance detachment from the masses and out of the experience of the mass struggles and organization of this advance detachment as a party around the communist program and the articulation of a strategic line for the implementation of this program.

BOC’s article attempts to obscure this through the regurgitation of the classic anti-communist line of the international communist movement as an elitist conspiracy of the petty bourgeois intelligentsia employing the workers as cannon fodder.

The metal worker and poor peasant cadre of the Russian and Chinese revolutionary movements would have been surprised by such a simplistic and misleading smear against the largest and most effective popular movements in history.

We are compelled to ask what is in fact “outdated”?
The living tradition of MLM which generated the first successful proletarian seizure of power in history, which organized a mass movement of unprecedented size against the transformation of the proletarian dictatorship into its opposite and carried out the most comprehensive critique in practice of the division between mental and manual labor which the comrades of BOC justly pinpoint as problematic or the sectarian workerists like Draper and James whose idolization of the spontaneity of the masses has never contributed significantly to any actually mass revolutionary movements?

One may also wonder if the first worker’s state in history which developed a non-market economy in the midst of imperialist encirclement, provided the most comprehensive social guarantees in the world at the time and was a beacon of inspiration to anti-imperialist struggles globally was an “authoritarian nightmare” perhaps another such “nightmare” on an even more extensive scale is precisely what we need.

We also note in passing and without the least surprise that the opportunistic “post-Maoists” of the Kasama affiliate Red Spark have reposted this unabashed liquadationism without substantive comment.

Comments

gimme my fucking rollover, worker

Fucking fuck fuck fuck those crypto-Maoists in Kasama. Can a surly one in Seattle please write up something mean and damning about them?

This request is relevant to my interests.

Why why why do Signalfire posts get reposted here? This asshole (who, like many anarchists, writes "we" when he means actually means a very sad, singular, isolated "I") is a straight up orthodox authoritarian communist. Black Orchid is wack, so is Red Spark, but that doesn't make the Maoists that criticize them any better or more relevant to anarchists. I know it used to be a decent riot porn blog and all but anyone who pays attention to this douche's own ramblings (very few people, I know) realizes he's really lost in the last year or so.

This is posted as hostile media at least.

stalin, bitches, straight stalin.

yeah, its right on the Marx.

marx on most surfaces

are you going to be Lenin me some cleaner for those Marx?

quit Stalin, you know Mao time is precious

dude what ever,the idea you have things to do is a Hoxha. I on the other hand have lots of things to do, first I have to take my kids to the park so he can ride the Tito-totter then I have to see my older kids choir recital so i can watch them Sung. Lastly I have to meet Khrushchev and Brezhnev at the bar for some drinks.

*they

jesus fukcing crhist

That post was awesome! Signal Fire gets better by the letter!

a-b-c-d-u-m-b

Freaking leftists can take their cadre organizations, "workers movements" and party's and shove them up their ass. Joel Olsen is dead. Let's make sure his authoritarian leftist ideas and all leftists ideas are dead too.

joel olsen was a sweet dude. it's important to debate our ideas because they might make a real difference in the long run (they might not) but getting this emotional and personalizing is some real narcissism of small differences shit

Joel Olsen was an authoritarian and one of the most over privileged white people I have ever known. I can understand leaving his name out, but BTR was dangerous and should be called out as such. Keeping leftists like him out of the anarchy discussion is extremely important. Its easy to be "sweet" when you are an over privileged brat like he was. 7

Better than an authoritarian juggalo

authoritarian yuppie versus authoritarian juggalo - i call it a wash.

that may be true, but BTR were dangerous to white power, whereas the juggalos are white power pretending to be neutral or apolitical

so i read i read it like this: 'BTR was dangerous to their own class', which may be something to take into consideration, since that class is comprised of friends and relatives.

So it seems no one here has anything constructive to say. This fact does not reflect well upon the readership of this website. If there is a critique to be waged against this article then do so, but to shout trademark anarchist slogans of "Authoritarian!" or "Communist!" are not valid forms of criticism. Please go into depth beyond ad hominem attacks against the author if you all are actually looking for coherent dialogue. Thanks

An Authoritarian Communist

Up against the wall motherfucker

I got a few criticisms for you 7.62×39mm at a time

(nb4 jokes about my clit)

The only thing we're looking for from you is to have our assholes cleaned with your tongue. Get busy!

commies are notorious brown nosers, iz tru

only to the glorious leaders and chairmen of the communist party, like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hoxha, Kim Il-sung, Kim Jong-il, Hồ Chí Minh, Pol Pot, Tito, and any other communist leader that I have not named and those that maybe yet to be.

wait upon further reflection I thought of others who they brown-nose. Basically any authoritarian regime who they see as an Anti-imperialist regime (any regime that is conflictual towards the united states), National Liberation struggles, any famous communist celebrity that supported any and all of the Authoritarian Communist regimes.

Okay, here's a substantive criticism. The revolutions in Russia and China were the most effective local paths of development for capitalism. The Party is an inherently State structure, and the State can only develop an authoritarian economic system-- the whole political-economic division being a Marxist simplification through and through. Don't make the cheap excuse of a Maoist revolution and a Gang of Four counterrevolution. The development of China towards the world's preeminent capitalist power (see Arrighi) is an organic outgrowth of the Party structure chosen by Mao himself, which his own cult of personality could only temporarily obscure, even while cementing the bases of its development.

Authoritarian communism has shown its true face, and its horrid results, even on a purely effective level, so many times; It can only find justification in an authoritarian personality that either craves power or is frustrated by a lifetime's inability to make friends and relate with the people it so easily abstracts.

Admit that you hate people, and just become an egoist already. Why do you cling to the idea of revolution when it has failed you so completely? (or rather, you it)

Wait... You actualy had a point? I thought this was just a rant from a loony maoist in the defense of maoism. Why would you think that this is interesting for us to read? Post this shit on your blog instead dude.

There is nothing to say to you that you will listen to. The information is damning and widely available. All the way back to the days of Lenin, all of your petty sects have been the enemy of anyone who dreamed of freedom.
The sailors of Kronstadt (Trotsky and Zinoviev).
The commune of Shanghai (Mao).
The autonomous Shenmin region (Mao).
The miners of Hanggai-Campha (Ho)
The peasant rebels of Tambov and Orel (You called them "kulaks" when they decided they would rather not starve.)
The Ukrainian insugents who fought with you against Wrangel's White army, only so you could slaughter them wholesale at the Perekop isthmus mere days after the Baron was gone.

Their dried blood is on your hands, and we can still see it, even if it doesn't smear when you try to shake ours.

The guy who runs Signal fire, who lives off his college professor daddy, is the same one who was trolling Gelderloos. Commies dont have shit to control anymore, no power to repress anyone, so they have to hang on to anarchist websites and troll. It,s the only game in town for them, that and entryism into the IWW.

admit it you're jealous

Our dear leaders, Mao, Stalin and Lenin will rise from the ashes as a three-headed beast that shall consume all enemies of the people, including the reactionary sect of anarchists/individualists/liberals. Prepare to face the wrath of the only truly revolutionary force in the world. Your inability to organize a mass front will be to the detriment of you all. We will give you only one chance to recognize your incorrect line before you find yourselves in the global gulags. Our forces have already been accumulated, THREE armies, anarcho-fascists, THREE. And we will call upon them all, from the Naxalite forces to the New Peoples Army all the way to the Peoples Liberation Army of Nepal. Surrender or face your demise...

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
CAPTCHA
Human?
3
x
i
V
k
2
H
Enter the code without spaces.
Subscribe to Comments for "Between revolutionary realism and “socialism from below”"
society