Re: Re: Re: The new EU

[Waistline2]

>I hope this helps to clarify the political and methodological differences
>between Louis Proyect and myself on the question of Europe and the struggle
>against US hegemonism. I hope it helps progressive people in the US to feel
>more confident in looking for international allies in this global struggle.

>Chris Burford

>London

Reply

I try and approach all social questions from the standpoint of the methodology of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, while taking into account the doctrine of the class struggle as it evolved during various stages in the development of capital. It was none other than Frederick Engels that reformulated the doctrine of the class struggle to include the use of the ballot box, while articulating why barricade fighting had been rendered obsolete.

What distinguishes Vladimir Lenin in history is not his method, which was the standpoint of the science of society and the method of Marx and Engels, but rather his doctrine of the class struggle.

I find it astonishing that a Marxist would speak of  “progressive people in the US” repeatedly and our need to struggle against hegemony when the most urgent task of the working class in the continental United States is its organization into a class body politic. What's involved is - in my individual assessment, the evolution of the doctrine of the class struggle and not Lenin's method, which was the method of the founders of the science of society.

The working class of America today has no ties to the farm or any dream of returning there. Our working class has no ties to Europe as in the past and consequently is not dominated by the ideology of the working class in Europe. Our ‘s is a native born, thoroughbred proletariat extracted from all nationalities, colors and countries on earth. It is the abstraction of the working class Marx wrote about.

Today– at this very hour, our working class is undergoing a deep polarization that expresses changes in the material power of the productive forces on the one hand and the evolution of capital's mode of accumulation on the other. Capital that becomes increasingly separate from direct investment in the productive forces – speculation, engenders a sector of the working class that becomes increasingly separated from direct laboring in the productivity infrastructure. This proposition represents the emergence of a new doctrine of the class struggle based on the method of Marx and Lenin.

One can of course speak of “progressive people” but this begs the question “progressive in relationship to what?” I assert that “progressive” is a category that can be qualified in relationship to the new features in the working class movement.

Actually, the question of hegemony and the fight against US hegemony is a class question pure and simple and not a question of tactical maneuvering between various imperialist blocks.

In the previous configuration of history the question of maneuvering between various imperialists blocks appeared on a planetary scale as the anti-colonial struggle. The doctrine of that era produced another path to power for revolutionaries based in the economically backwards colonial and semi-colonial world. This was the path of civil war. This was different from the path to power of the Russian revolutionaries and consequently birthed a new doctrine.

Soviet experience regarding the revolutionary process could be summed up as a detailed preparation of the masses for an uprising as the path to power.  This detailed preparation includes wining the vanguard of the proletariat to the cause of a society of associated producers, imbuing the masses with the idea of social revolution, and assisting the masses in perfecting their revolutionary institutions – teaching them on the basis of their own experience. The struggle against all forms of deviations from the class formation of the proletariat and popular masses was of cardinal importance. This was necessary because the seizure of power rested on the mass uprising. Hence, propaganda among the masses was of critical importance.

This doctrine of the class struggle was perfected by the Russian revolutionaries led by Lenin and establishes Lenin as a doctrine – Leninism. Leninism as a doctrine can be further summed up as clarifying the revolutionary process to consist of an era of the masses rebelling against the state authority, until it is weakened disorganized and begins turning upon itself producing a certain polarization and paralysis. It is this paralysis that sets the stage for the seizure of power by revolutionaries.

During the last configuration of history and the revolutionary process the path to power for revolutionaries was that of civil war – with the exception of the Ethiopian revolution. In Ethiopia the “men in uniform” overthrew the remains of the “old world.”

What is the path of civil war? Basically, the revolutionaries form an army that is essentially the party. This army, closely tied to and supported by the people learns war through war. They gradually enlarge and strengthen their fighting capacity until the army of the class enemy is defeated and the rebel seizes power. This path to power is the only one in the experience of revolutionaries since the mid- 1940s.


Actually, talk about “fighting hegemony” – as the first international duty of the US working class, echoes of a period and doctrine from history long gone. Using Lenin to justify this echo only sounds “progressive” to the young and not so young combatants new to the doctrine of the class struggle and not sufficiently distance from the ideology of the sector movements that followed the conclusion of the anti-colonial – anti-hegemony struggle.

The doctrine of the sector movement was that it is possible to emancipate the working class by liberating its various sectors in the battle for the extension of democracy. Echoes of this "doctrine" are still heard today in the call for “linking up” the various sector movements into a grand alliance to transform society. The peace movement is to join with the environmental movement, which will join with the movement of blacks, browns, women homosexuals, etc.


It is pretty obvious today that sector movement logic and the doctrine guiding the sector movements could only arise under conditions where there are no conscious class organizations of those who are compelled to sell their labor power for subsistence.

ComradeChris asserts:

>Justas Marxism is a method, so is Leninism a method. It is not correctly
Leninist to take statements of policy at one time and regard them as
automatically applicable in different conditions many years later. <


Marx of course used a method of inquiry or standpoint called materialist dialectics and historical materialism. Lenin used the same method pioneered by Marx and Engels. Marx and Engels founded the science of society, which explains better than other points of view, why, and how society advances from one mode of production to another. Based on this science, Lenin developed a doctrine for the seizure of power by revolutionaries based on the configuration of the productive forces, as they existed at his moments of operations.

I am compelled by my ideology to give the benefit of the doubt and will merely state that Comrade Chris has misarticulated the difference between doctrine and science on the one hand and is not sufficiently clear of a previous configuration of history and muddled the questions of class strategy. Communist have to deal with three definite, related but separate categories in their daily life activity. These categories are science, doctrine and art. Science is the study of the law system that governs a process. The scientific inquiry results in systematized knowledge of a law system based on observation, study and experimentation.

Doctrine is a body of principles in a given branch of knowledge. Art is creativity and skill. There is no such thing as a science of war. The results of science are used in warfare. Nuclear power, steel, jellied gasoline and biological agents, etc., – the results of science, are used in warfare. Neither is there a science of politics. G. Dimitrov described politics as the art of the class struggle. Direction of the class struggle rests upon and flows from the science of society. One cannot apply the science of society directly to leadership in the class struggle any more than a general can apply the science of metallurgy to the conduct of a tank battle. In warfare, each major advance of science – each quantitative stage of development, demands a new doctrine. The development of tank warfare put an end to the doctrine of trench warfare. Rapid-fire weapons put an end to the doctrine of massed infantry assaults, although hundred of thousands of lives were lost to understand the emergence of a new feature.

The various stages of the development of the class struggle require corresponding doctrines. As political conditions in Europe changed Frederick Engels – called “The General” by all of his comrades, developed a doctrine that included the ballot box. This doctrine was appropriate I the period of maturing imperialism with all its military and social consequences. As imperialism entered its moribund stage a new doctrine was developed. This doctrine is an aspect of Leninism.

None other than Stalin wrote that: “Leninism is the theory and tactics of the proletarian revolution in general, the theory and tactics of the dictatorship of the proletariat in particular.”

(In deference to the readers of Pen-L, I have reframed from writing “the Great Stalin” but do not seek to hide my politics or “trick anyone.”  I am convinced that thirty years of propaganda work allows me to articulate at the highest level available in the world class struggle and convey the most complex concepts in terms understandable to anyone that has 5 years of schooling. I ask that the reader make a leap of faith and believe that I have studied the question of a European Union historically and as it is occurring. I am bound by my understanding to leave the details to the experts who will be won to the side of the proletariat, although I study the details.)

Back to the point!

Neither science nor doctrine ever won a war – or class struggle. The necessary ingredient is skill or art. The ability to grasp and divine the inner meaning of impending events is paramount.

Here is the rub.

If comrade Chris assertions of the tactics to be fought for – “Bush versus Brown,” concerning the validity and importance of a United States of Europe and fighting US hegemony has importance, this is not to be confused with the doctrine of Lenin and the method of Marx.

The benefit of the doubt is given, but I personally believe that Chris is very wrong period. Perhaps it is ones isolation and loneliness in the class struggle and the historic defeat of revolutionary Marxism to blame.

Chris Burford states:

> But confident assertions do not always determine reality, as we saw with the citation.
Besides the issue is more whether for the people of the rest of the world,
the choice between US imperialism and European imperialism is like the
choice between cyanide and arsenic.

I think the Arab people would not say this. I think that the Argentinean
people would have been given more help in recovering from their
financial crisis. I think the people of Africa would do better with the
sort of international development proposals put forward by Gordon Brown
than by George Bush. I think the people of the world would do better with
>Europe's approach to global pollution than that of the Bush administration.

Comrade Chris,

I disagree with what you call “the choice” – and your doctrine.  You state:

>I think the people of the world would do better with
>Europe's approach to global pollution than that of the Bush administration.<

Wow.

End of Part 2

Melvin P.