One of the best ways to advance an issue or to accomplish something that surrounds a certain issue is to stay on topic and keep the issue in the mouths of the people. That is to say that you need focus on a issue to keep it popular and stick to it. Anyone who has a facebook account can tell just how ADHD the left is in the US. One day we are attacking the police for the murder of Oscar Grant and as soon as another hot issue comes out the left opportunistically raises that issue as their own and then abandon it as soon as the next hot issue comes out.
I will use Oscar Grant as a good point in this case. Oscar Grant's photo was on everyone's facebook profile picture one day and every other post had something to do with the murder of Oscar Grant. But as soon as the next hot button issue came up all the left groups flocked away from the Oscar Grant issue and picked up the next issue almost as if Oscar Grant had never been murdered by the police.
Right now as of June 17th there are no issues that are being picked up by all the groups so of course now the groups and individuals are turning on each other. Attacking Syria, Libya, China, Cuba or any other nation that is not imperialist/capitalist if you are a member of the ISO. The left really needs to take up an issue and stick to it. Other wise we should never expect to be able to sway public opinion.
We have a rare chance in history when the news is becoming democratic and everyone has a say but instead we are just chasing around going from issue to issue. This not only does not help us to shape public opinion but it makes all of these groups seem opportunistic trying to get attention however they can. Remember when every left groups webpage was nothing but pages about the Wisconsin issue? The Wisconsin supreme court just made the union busting bill a law(1) (2)but since the issue is no longer popular to carry not very many left groups are picking up the issue. Notice how all the socialist parties were gun-hoe to pack up and go to Madison when there was camera's everywhere and people they could sell their papers to. Now there is no large commotion over the bill actually becoming law. In fact as of me writing this only FRSO-FB had an article on the matter out of what I see as the four most influential socialist org's (FRSO, PSL, Kasama, SP-USA).
This is an issue that should have never left the left's mouth til it was resolved and bargaining rights were insured. This inability to stick to an issue has cost the left dearly through out the years and unless there is some change made then it will continue to do nothing but hurt the American left.
BLEEDING HEART NEWS PAPERS!
What is the reason why everyone that is on the left of a conservative hates FOX news? Because they are grossly biased and only give one side of the story that best benefits their cause.
This applies to most socialist news sources here in the US as well. No one right of a socialist wants to read your paper because it is too bleeding heart and thus annoying. You can't be a respected news source when your argument is always "they are fascist, racist, bigots" etc etc etc. That is not news it is opinion and not to mention it de-sensitizes the words. By the time a fascist does come to power no one besides socialist will see it coming because in the leftist news scene every republican is a fascist or non-socialist is a fascist. Most people in the US do not even know what a fascist is.
No body wants to read a bleeding heart paper except bleeding heart activist. I'm sure people that are not bleeding hearts buy these papers but I doubt even 98% of people who buy these papers are going to go out and get involved the next day because they were moved by the papers contents.
I think this is a reason why Kasama is becoming a communist house hold name. Their articles are very very rarely bleeding heart and they have content, facts and explanation. I can't say the same for many other news sources on the US left. Most groups paper or website mainly sounds like they are yelling bleeding heart crap at you. You cannot make a article attacking the government as fascist for arresting protesters then have another article defending the Hungarian suppression by the USSR (sorry tankies but I won't defend it). Yes this tactic will get you praise from your own parties members and other groups who have the same line. However the rest of the nation will just see you as heavily biased with no content in your news and you are thus discredited.
What's worse is that with a small little line they could change all of this. All that has to be done is write somewhere on your paper/website "this is an opinion paper meant to reflect this organizations ideas and thought on current issues." This would let the outsiders reading the material know that it is meant to be a slant view and not a un-biased news source.
Here is one great example of bleeding heart stuff: "out of Afghanistan now!" Okay let us pick this bleeding hart statement apart. The government is not afraid of this slogan and here is why: when a bleeding heart activist says this, the government replies "or what?" "We get out of Afghanistan now or what are you going to do?"The fact that you are making a demand without a consequence makes you a joke to the people you are pointing the demand at in the first place.
bleeding heart language discredits you on many fronts, starting with credibility and ending with how serious people think you are as revolutionaries. Not everyone is guilty of this but I want to see the left stop with all the bleeding heart language and false posturing and starting using the tools at hand correctly. I write a blog because realistically this is the greatest way for me to express my ideas and thoughts on issues .
In today's world where the internet is allowing for the news to be democratized there is no reason why socialist and communist are not having more influence on public opinion. But as long as this bleeding heart language is being used we can not expect to sway public opinion. Fox news can get away with it because they have millions and millions of dollars to be on cable TV. We do not so we must use facts to sway public opinion .
Dustin Slagle
(1)http://consumerist.com/2011/06/wisconsin-supremes-reinstate-collective-bargaining-law.html
(2)http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/15/us-wisconsin-unions-lawsuit-idUSTRE75E5L520110615
Friday, June 17, 2011
Monday, June 13, 2011
The Socialist Parties: A Collective Problem (part 2 expansion and corrections on the original)
If you have not read my first entry on this subject you can find part one here where I try to explain the reason why democratic centralism naturally degenerates in bureaucracy. I wrote part one when the topic was very personal to me and I made some simple minded errors that make me disgraced to admit I had ever written it. Instead of deleting it and pretending I never wrote it I would like to make corrections and expand on why democratic centralism often becomes corrupt. A comrade that has been around for a while showed me one of the major errors of that article and I will address all the problems with my first article first.
In the first entry I wrote: "Even Trotskyist use the democratic centralism model in most of their parties but when a party or country degenerates to bureaucratic centralism the trots call that party/country Stalinist. Of course a Trotskyist is never going to pass up a chance to jab at Stalin but in reality it was Lenin's model of democratic centralism that is/was incorrect."- I would like to be clear that I was wrong in this statement because the fact is that parties who have degenerated from DCism into dictatorship of the leadership are not following real Leninism. Lenin called for open detailed debate and that the party would then chose the best course of action. What happens in most parties in the US is that their leader or leaders make all the choices and the rank and file are expected to follow suit or else they are party traitors. And do not be fooled I have heard this story multiple time from members of Trotskyist, Hoxhaist, Maoist, ML and any other party. But I wanted to clear myself for my mistaken ideas of attacking Lenin's style dcism when it is not a historical figures fault but it differs on a party to party basis. I would like to reiterate that this is not a form of "Stalinism" but is a dialectal problem and should not be so simply brushed off.
I also said: "When a party starts there are usually a few members who are more dedicated than others or do more work than other members. This rightfully earns this said person a certain amount of respect among the founding members and new members. So they are elected to a seat of power. The problem is that as time goes on the people who started the group want to make sure things are run the way they want and that they stay in charge. So what ends up happening is that the original members end up with multiple seats or too much power."- I was mainly wrong in writing this in that corruption doesn't have to start at the beginning. It can also happen after a certain wing takes over main seats in the party. The person who is the leader will assign people that follow his line or people that will parrot everything they say to the point that democracy is not even needed in the party because everyone 'already agrees' but in reality this is corruption. What will then happen is that any one in the party who challenges the leadership on party lines or tactics, the leadership will say that you are disrespecting the choice of the party when in reality you may just disagree with the leaders who have no desire for real line struggle.
"we may need to do away with democratic centralism all together."- I think this statement was a result of my emotions I fear because we do need democratic centralism. But there needs to be more emphasis put on the democracy of the many. A small central committee made up of all like minded people shouldn't control a whole party. I think this is the reason that the corruption problem lies within most parties CC's.
A suggested solution: Central Committee's should be made up of people of different ideas and backgrounds. If you have healthy debate and different representatives in the CC I believe this could help eliminate the corruption problem most parties face. There is no reason why then people who are all friends and who all believe in the same exact line should all be on the CC. There should be a wide variety of ages on a CC also. Young people are more militant and adventurous when it comes to politics and older comrades seem to be more reserved and calculating (in a good way). We need a healthy mix of the two, not one or the other extreme.
I wrote at the end: "Obviously this writer knows he doesn't have all the answers but I am sick of seeing hundreds of intelligent individuals walking around parroting what their leaders, elders and party tell them to."- this I still believe and yes it still makes me sick.
I still have a deep mistrust of democratic centralism but this does not mean that I do not think it can not be properly implemented. I still think that communal democracy could be a good substitute or should be intertwined with democratic centralism. I am still a strong supporter of local chapters, cells or whatever they are called in a party having more power over their locals than the national party. As I said in my last post: "Communal socialism would be better because how is some one in LA or DC or NYC suppose to know what we need in Mississippi or Illinois or Colorado etc? Only the people from those areas know exactly what they are producing and what they need. Each area would be more personally in charge of themselves and thus wouldn't feel the constant oppression of the centralized state." I still uphold this view.
Another problem I see is that the rank and file members of a group or party dogmatically defend their own submission to these kind of fake democratic centralism's. I think this half stems from a kind of sub-understanding of what real democratic centralism is and the other half can be contributed two ways. One; the dogmatic nature of communist who think just because Lenin said or wrote something and their party quotes him out of context that the must be right. And two; the party or group itself twist the ideas of democratic centralism to mean that rank and file members listen and are subordinate to their leaders and to self criticize or try to create a line struggle is against what Lenin taught and thus you are a naughty commie and need to be punished.
I think it may be time to start having Marxist Leninist debate nights between groups so as to force people to be theoretically involved and to force people to think outside of their parties little box. I for one can not stand when you are having a debate with someone from a party/ORG about their political line and all they do is shove their fingers in their ears and repetitively say the same thing their parties site says over and over again.
There is no reason why a group with less than 300 members should all be subordinate to 7-15 people. That is ridiculous and no one can make a strong enough claim to me that this is in any way democratic. Which brings me to my next point which is when the dogmatics after being out debated say 'well you have a liberal/bourgeois idea of democracy'. Democracy is a word that cannot mean but one thing. If we use word parts here it means "rule of the people" (google it if you don't believe me) so how can you call your group "democratic" centralist if you don't use democracy? In fact you are using a bourgeois definition of the word if you are defending a few people ruling over the greater number of people in your group. As this is how the bourgeoisie use the word democracy is to say that a few rule over the masses.
In short I think we need a open national debate on democratic centralism and what it means and how to use it properly. I think the true idea of democratic centralism has become lost and distorted to benefit a few leaders when it is meant to benefit the greater populace in a group.
I would really love to see some comments and peoples ideas at the bottom of this page. It is time to start discussing things of this nature.
Written by; Dustin Slagle
In the first entry I wrote: "Even Trotskyist use the democratic centralism model in most of their parties but when a party or country degenerates to bureaucratic centralism the trots call that party/country Stalinist. Of course a Trotskyist is never going to pass up a chance to jab at Stalin but in reality it was Lenin's model of democratic centralism that is/was incorrect."- I would like to be clear that I was wrong in this statement because the fact is that parties who have degenerated from DCism into dictatorship of the leadership are not following real Leninism. Lenin called for open detailed debate and that the party would then chose the best course of action. What happens in most parties in the US is that their leader or leaders make all the choices and the rank and file are expected to follow suit or else they are party traitors. And do not be fooled I have heard this story multiple time from members of Trotskyist, Hoxhaist, Maoist, ML and any other party. But I wanted to clear myself for my mistaken ideas of attacking Lenin's style dcism when it is not a historical figures fault but it differs on a party to party basis. I would like to reiterate that this is not a form of "Stalinism" but is a dialectal problem and should not be so simply brushed off.
I also said: "When a party starts there are usually a few members who are more dedicated than others or do more work than other members. This rightfully earns this said person a certain amount of respect among the founding members and new members. So they are elected to a seat of power. The problem is that as time goes on the people who started the group want to make sure things are run the way they want and that they stay in charge. So what ends up happening is that the original members end up with multiple seats or too much power."- I was mainly wrong in writing this in that corruption doesn't have to start at the beginning. It can also happen after a certain wing takes over main seats in the party. The person who is the leader will assign people that follow his line or people that will parrot everything they say to the point that democracy is not even needed in the party because everyone 'already agrees' but in reality this is corruption. What will then happen is that any one in the party who challenges the leadership on party lines or tactics, the leadership will say that you are disrespecting the choice of the party when in reality you may just disagree with the leaders who have no desire for real line struggle.
"we may need to do away with democratic centralism all together."- I think this statement was a result of my emotions I fear because we do need democratic centralism. But there needs to be more emphasis put on the democracy of the many. A small central committee made up of all like minded people shouldn't control a whole party. I think this is the reason that the corruption problem lies within most parties CC's.
A suggested solution: Central Committee's should be made up of people of different ideas and backgrounds. If you have healthy debate and different representatives in the CC I believe this could help eliminate the corruption problem most parties face. There is no reason why then people who are all friends and who all believe in the same exact line should all be on the CC. There should be a wide variety of ages on a CC also. Young people are more militant and adventurous when it comes to politics and older comrades seem to be more reserved and calculating (in a good way). We need a healthy mix of the two, not one or the other extreme.
I wrote at the end: "Obviously this writer knows he doesn't have all the answers but I am sick of seeing hundreds of intelligent individuals walking around parroting what their leaders, elders and party tell them to."- this I still believe and yes it still makes me sick.
I still have a deep mistrust of democratic centralism but this does not mean that I do not think it can not be properly implemented. I still think that communal democracy could be a good substitute or should be intertwined with democratic centralism. I am still a strong supporter of local chapters, cells or whatever they are called in a party having more power over their locals than the national party. As I said in my last post: "Communal socialism would be better because how is some one in LA or DC or NYC suppose to know what we need in Mississippi or Illinois or Colorado etc? Only the people from those areas know exactly what they are producing and what they need. Each area would be more personally in charge of themselves and thus wouldn't feel the constant oppression of the centralized state." I still uphold this view.
Another problem I see is that the rank and file members of a group or party dogmatically defend their own submission to these kind of fake democratic centralism's. I think this half stems from a kind of sub-understanding of what real democratic centralism is and the other half can be contributed two ways. One; the dogmatic nature of communist who think just because Lenin said or wrote something and their party quotes him out of context that the must be right. And two; the party or group itself twist the ideas of democratic centralism to mean that rank and file members listen and are subordinate to their leaders and to self criticize or try to create a line struggle is against what Lenin taught and thus you are a naughty commie and need to be punished.
I think it may be time to start having Marxist Leninist debate nights between groups so as to force people to be theoretically involved and to force people to think outside of their parties little box. I for one can not stand when you are having a debate with someone from a party/ORG about their political line and all they do is shove their fingers in their ears and repetitively say the same thing their parties site says over and over again.
There is no reason why a group with less than 300 members should all be subordinate to 7-15 people. That is ridiculous and no one can make a strong enough claim to me that this is in any way democratic. Which brings me to my next point which is when the dogmatics after being out debated say 'well you have a liberal/bourgeois idea of democracy'. Democracy is a word that cannot mean but one thing. If we use word parts here it means "rule of the people" (google it if you don't believe me) so how can you call your group "democratic" centralist if you don't use democracy? In fact you are using a bourgeois definition of the word if you are defending a few people ruling over the greater number of people in your group. As this is how the bourgeoisie use the word democracy is to say that a few rule over the masses.
In short I think we need a open national debate on democratic centralism and what it means and how to use it properly. I think the true idea of democratic centralism has become lost and distorted to benefit a few leaders when it is meant to benefit the greater populace in a group.
I would really love to see some comments and peoples ideas at the bottom of this page. It is time to start discussing things of this nature.
Written by; Dustin Slagle
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)