Cde Luzuko, uyi bethile Bovana! I cannot agree with you more! On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Luzuko Buku <[email protected]> wrote:
> *Reconciling the David and the Dominic Documents* > > > > Comrade Dominic is just being over difficult here. There might be > differences in the emails, but I don’t see any fundamental difference > between what comrade David and him are saying on their documents. As a > person that has been following the debates, which I think got out of hand > and strayed away from the conceptions of both documents, I believe it is > proper for me to reconcile both arguments. > > In his document comrade Dominic argues that, “The number of seats held by > the communists is not critical. The presence of communists in parliament is > tactical. In some circumstances there might even be a boycott of elections > or of parliament. But as a rule the communists have good reasons for wanting > to be in parliament.” This point has no difference with the arguments of > comrade David as he does not argue for a mere increase in the number of > communist in parliament, but stress the need for them to be accountable to > the SACP, as the title of the document explains. > > > > Comrade Dominic goes on to correctly argue that parliament, “is a > relatively minor site of struggle and views on parliamentary tactics should > therefore never be allowed to divide or split the revolutionary forces.” In > relation to the first argument of Comrade Dominic comrade David is scared of > the fact that in the current arrangement Communist are not represented in > Parliament, as those that are there do not report to the party of > Communists. Bear in mind that comrade David is not saying we should have > communist in parliament accounting to the SACP and it ends there, he treats > communist participation in parliament tactically. > > > > Comrade David’s document also says nothing about a break of the SACP with > the ANC, unless comrade David said this in an informal discussion with > Dominic, until this come to the fore, those remarks (if there are any) > remain unknown. > > The main point that clearly connects the document is when comrade Dominic > argues that, “Parliament is part of the enemy camp and party members go > there as agitators to carry out party decisions under the command and > control of the party leadership outside parliament..” Comrade David wants > party cadres in parliament to be accountable to the “party leadership > outside parliament”, and the title of his document says a lot about this > (Independence of the SACP in the post-2009). > > David’s document can be summed up by his quote when he says, “SACP cadres > are in the legislatures as ANC members and under the whip of the ANC, and > the modes of accountability as well as the tasks of communists in the > legislatures in relation to the independent role of the Party in the > legislatures are not very clear.” > > I am more than convinced that there is no point of fundamental difference > in both documents, but these things are expressed differently in both > documents. Both cadres should be commended for drafting these documents and > the documents should not be viewed as in opposition to each other. > > Lastly I admire comrade David for not reducing himself, to the fruitful but > rather unhealthy email debate in the forum, where this was reduced into this > person knows this Marxist document and can quote it very well and that one > has made a spelling mistake and that one has mistakenly said the Congress of > the People organised the Defiance Campaign rather than the Congress > Alliance. > > In as much as comrade Dominic follows the Critical Pedagogy, he does not > live it, because he tends to scare most of us with classical Marxists > documents and big references, every time when he is engaged. This is not to > say referencing is wrong, but we should remember that this is a > *Young*Communist League Discussion Forum, hence > *young* communists, like me, decide to abstain in discussions where > Dominic is involved. > > Aluta Continua > > > Luzuko Buku > YCL Chairperson, Rhodes University > ANC Rodgers Faltein > 0786172286 > www.lbuku.blogspot.com > > > "The state is the product and manifestation of the irreconcilability of > class antagonisms..."State and Revolution, Lenin (1917) > > ------------------------------ > *From:* morgan phaahla <[email protected]> > *To:* [email protected] > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 19, 2009 12:06:54 PM > > *Subject:* [YCLSA Discussion] Re: POLITICAL NOTES PRESENTED BY CDE MASONDO > > Cde VC, > > I did not quote or draw any argument intentionally not to complicate the > debate further. Cde Mduduzi pointed out clearly to you that he would rather > narrow the debate from its inception. This was exactly my plea to you > initially when the discussion documents from cde David and yourself were > posted to the forum in relation to the debate. > > As agreed to confine the discussion to a narrow focus, I challenged your > suggestion that "The communists are the ones who most consciously design > and build the institutions - the democratic institutions - of society. We do > not do it so that we can "win" those institutions as a party, and possess > them. We are not a bourgeois party, or anything like a bourgeois party." > > Having failed to unpack this statement it remained empty, if not the > illusion of a pre-Marxist socialist. In dismissing your suggestion, I quoted > in the Communist Manifesto to show that a "mode of entry" into the > bourgeois state is the quintessence of Marx and Engels, as indicated that of > 'all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the > proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class. The other classes decay > and finally disapper in the face of modern industry; the proletariat is its > special and essential product.' > > To this end, I appreciate our difference of opinion and thus end by > calling upon other cadres to give their own perspective so that we can > develop a position and move forward. > > You're welcome to challenge my point of reference. > > I remain, > > Morgan Phaahla > Ekurhuleni > > > "Sometimes, if you wear suits for too long, it changes your ideology." - > Joe Slovo > > --- On *Tue, 8/18/09, Dominic Tweedie <[email protected]>* wrote: > > > From: Dominic Tweedie <[email protected]> > Subject: [YCLSA Discussion] Re: POLITICAL NOTES PRESENTED BY CDE MASONDO > To: [email protected] > Date: Tuesday, August 18, 2009, 12:23 PM > > Dear Cde Morgan, > > You have not quoted or drawn out any argument from the second part of the > Communist Manifesto (Proletarians and Communists). You have only asked us to > read the whole thing. > > Let me demonstrate what I mean about quoting and drawing out an argument, > using the first page of the first part of Chapter 2 of Lenin's 1917 "The > State and Revolution" (see below). > > You will see that Lenin starts with "the first work of mature Marxism" > (written immediately before the Manifesto), and then quickly moves to the > Manifesto itself, in order to make the point, using the Manifesto in > particular, that the State that we want is "the proletariat organized as > the ruling class". > > The state that we have now is the *bourgeoisie* organised as the ruling > class. What you and David are proposing is a "mode of entry" into the > bourgeois state. It sounds like a Kama Sutra position, but whatever it is, > it is not revolution. > > Read what Lenin has to say about it, please, comrade, and then don't forget > what the very same Manifesto says almost at its last end: > > "The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly > declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of > all existing social conditions." > > *Here's Lenin: > > ** > 1. The Eve of Revolution* > > The first works of mature Marxism — The Poverty of Philosophy and the > Communist Manifesto — appeared just on the eve of the revolution of 1848. > For this reason, in addition to presenting the general principles of > Marxism, they reflect to a certain degree the concrete revolutionary > situation of the time. It will, therefore, be more expedient, perhaps, to > examine what the authors of these works said about the state immediately > before they drew conclusions from the experience of the years 1848-51. > > > In *The Poverty of Philosophy*, Marx wrote: > > > "The working class, in the course of development, will substitute for the > old bourgeois society an association which will preclude classes and their > antagonism, and there will be no more political power groups, since the > political power is precisely the official expression of class antagonism in > bourgeois society." (p.182, German edition, 1885)[1] > > > It is instructive to compare this general exposition of the idea of the > state disappearing after the abolition of classes with the exposition > contained in the *Communist Manifesto*, written by Marx and Engels a few > months later--in November 1847, to be exact: > > > "... In depicting the most general phases of the development of the > proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within > existing society up to the point where that war breaks out into open > revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the > foundation for the sway of the proletariat.... > > "... We have seen above that the first step in the revolution by the > working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of the ruling > class to win the battle of democracy. > > "The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all > capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in > the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling > class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible." > (pp.31 and 37, seventh German edition, 1906)[2] > > > Here we have a formulation of one of the most remarkable and most important > ideas of Marxism on the subject of the state, namely, the idea of the > "dictatorship of the proletariat" (as Marx and Engels began to call it after > the Paris Commune); and, also, a highly interesting definition of the state, > which is also one of the "forgotten words" of Marxism: "the state, i..e., > the proletariat organized as the ruling class." > > > This definition of the state has never been explained in the prevailing > propaganda and agitation literature of the official Social-Democratic > parties. More than that, it has been deliberately ignored, for it is > absolutely irreconcilable with reformism, and is a slap in the face for the > common opportunist prejudices and philistine illusions about the "peaceful > development of democracy". > > The proletariat needs the state — this is repeated by all the opportunists, > social-chauvinists and Kautskyites, who assure us that this is what Marx > taught. But they "forget" to add that, in the first place, according to > Marx, the proletariat needs only a state which is withering away, i.e., a > state so constituted that it begins to wither away immediately, and cannot > but wither away. And, secondly, the working people need a "state, i.e., the > proletariat organized as the ruling class". > The state is a special organization of force: it is an organization of > violence for the suppression of some class. What class must the proletariat > suppress? Naturally, only the exploiting class, i.e., the bourgeoisie. The > working people need the state only to suppress the resistance of the > exploiters, and only the proletariat can direct this suppression, can carry > it out. For the proletariat is the only class that is consistently > revolutionary, the only class that can unite all the working and exploited > people in the struggle against the bourgeoisie, in completely removing it. > > > VC > > > morgan phaahla wrote: > > Comrades, > > In relation to the discussion, let's read chapter 2 of Communist > Manifesto on Proletarians and Communists, and develop a position on this > issue.. > > Here is the link, > http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm > > So far there is no dissenting view, except VC's only point of difference. > Otherwise he must give in, by the force of circumstances, to be part of the > whole. > > Kindest regards > > Morgan Phaahla > > > > "Sometimes, if you wear suits for too long, it changes your ideology." - > Joe Slovo > > --- On *Tue, 8/18/09, Dominic Tweedie > <[email protected]><http://us.mc502.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]> > * wrote: > > > From: Dominic Tweedie > <[email protected]><http://us.mc502.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]> > Subject: [YCLSA Discussion] Re: POLITICAL NOTES PRESENTED BY CDE MASONDO > To: > [email protected]<http://us.mc502.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]> > Date: Tuesday, August 18, 2009, 4:42 AM > > Comrade Mduduzi, > > What is difficult is that you are trying to hold a bourgeois concept of the > State and a revolutionary understanding of it in your head at one and the > same time. > > Unfortunately, if you cannot see the difference, you will tend to fall to > the bourgeois side. I'm sorry to be so blunt about this but when you write > "Much as the state is according to Lenin "an organ of oppression", it can be > progressive if policies taken in parliament are pro poor," you must know > that you are doing something terrible. > > Because if people do not know better, they can think from what you have > written that Lenin thought that Parliament "can be progressive if policies > taken in parliament are pro poor," whereas nothing could be further from the > truth. > > I think the best remedy for you and for others is to read Lenin's "The > State and > Revolution<http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/index.htm>". > It is very direct and quite easy to read and it is relevant. > > In Chapter 3, section 3, "Abolition of Parliamentarism" Lenin quotes Marx > as calling bourgeois parliamentarism a "pigsty". > > In struggle, > > VC > > > > Mduduzi H Vilakazi wrote: Cadres, > > > The debate is too difficult for some of us. It needs the highest level of > analysis and some basic background of the alliance. I would be happy to > start at the beginning of the debate. > > Cde David raised some sharp discussions on the independence of the party > within the reconfigured alliance. Put differently, he questioned the big > brother approach where the ANC remains the only vehicle to state power. This > approach questions the hegemony of one party over the others within the > alliance. > > Set aside these structures, you have all of these structures operating > their own constitutions that guide their everyday organizational activities. > They hold their different conferences which translates into different > resolutions. It therefore becomes imperative that activities of the > structures of the various organisations in the alliance will be measured by > their separate resolutions. > > The fact that one alliance partner is interested in discussions and > decisions of the other alliance partners does not mean these structures > becomes one. they still remain separate. For this reason, I concur with > comrade Masondo that the resolutions of the Party shall independently find > expression in activities of the state. This can only happen when the > reconfiguration will clearly mean that the Party will in its own right > recall its members who functions contrary to the resolutions, traditions > and ideology of the Party. > > This will save the Party from having members who deliberately side with the > bourgeoisie (other than tactical) on policies of the state and hide with > democratic centralism. Much as the state is according to Lenin "an organ of > oppression", it can be progressive if policies taken in parliament are pro > poor. This will not come as a silver platter, it needs some strategic "mode > of entry" different from the one where the ANC holds the power of members of > the Party with regards to caucus, recalling and deployment. > > I agree with the views of Phaahla and Masondo on moving forward. Marxism > cannot remain dogma. The current situation needs current analysis that will > provide current solutions to current problems. > > I pause. > > > > > > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You are subscribed. This footer can help you. Please POST your comments to [email protected] or reply to this message. You can visit the group WEB SITE at http://groups.google.com/group/yclsa-eom-forum for different delivery options, pages, files and membership. To UNSUBSCRIBE, please email [email protected] . You don't have to put anything in the "Subject:" field. You don't have to put anything in the message part. All you have to do is to send an e-mail to this address (repeat): [email protected] . -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
