Markin comment:
This one is almost self-explanatory, or should be for serious leftists militants, but just in case here is a sample of the way we look at bourgeois democracy from Comrade Lenin. Then go read the whole thing, and then especially the stuff in Left-Wing Communism-An Infantile Disorder on revolutionary work in bourgeois legislative bodies.
*******
Workers Vanguard No. 967
22 October 2010
The Fraud of Bourgeois Democracy
(Quote of the Week)
Writing at the close of World War I, Bolshevik leader V.I. Lenin exposed bourgeois democracy as a cover for brutal exploitation and oppression, a facade to conceal the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Lenin’s 1918 work—a continuation of his 1917 classic The State and Revolution—polemicized against apologists for “democratic” bourgeois rule, centrally Karl Kautsky, a leading German Social Democrat who bitterly opposed the 1917 October Revolution and soviet rule (i.e., workers democracy).
********
If we are not to mock at common sense and history, it is obvious that we cannot speak of “pure democracy” as long as different classes exist; we can only speak of class democracy. (Let us say in parenthesis that “pure democracy” is not only an ignorant phrase, revealing a lack of understanding both of the class struggle and of the nature of the state, but also a thrice-empty phrase, since in communist society democracy will wither away in the process of changing and becoming a habit, but will never be “pure” democracy.)
“Pure democracy” is the mendacious phrase of a liberal who wants to fool the workers. History knows of bourgeois democracy which takes the place of feudalism, and of proletarian democracy which takes the place of bourgeois democracy....
Take the bourgeois parliament. Can it be that the learned Kautsky has never heard that the more highly democracy is developed, the more the bourgeois parliaments are subjected by the stock exchange and the bankers? This does not mean that we must not make use of bourgeois parliament.... But it does mean that only a liberal can forget the historical limitations and conventional nature of the bourgeois parliamentary system as Kautsky does. Even in the most democratic bourgeois state the oppressed people at every step encounter the crying contradiction between the formal equality proclaimed by the “democracy” of the capitalists and the thousands of real limitations and subterfuges which turn the proletarians into wage-slaves. It is precisely this contradiction that is opening the eyes of the people to the rottenness, mendacity and hypocrisy of capitalism. It is this contradiction that the agitators and propagandists of socialism are constantly exposing to the people, in order to prepare them for revolution!
—V.I. Lenin, The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky (1918)
Showing posts with label WORKERS DEMOCRACY. Show all posts
Showing posts with label WORKERS DEMOCRACY. Show all posts
Friday, October 29, 2010
Friday, December 07, 2007
NO RELIGIOUS TESTS FOR OFFICE- FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
COMMENTARY
Every once in a while left wing propagandists, including this writer, are forced to comment on odd ball political or social questions that are not directly related to the fight for socialism. Nevertheless such questions must be addressed in the interest of preserving democratic rights, such as they are. I have often argued that socialists are, or should be, the best defenders of democratic rights, hanging in there long after many bourgeois democrats have thrown in the towel, especially on constitutional questions like abortion and searches and seizures.
A good example from the not too distant past, which I am fond of citing because it seems so counter intuitive, was opposition to the impeachment of one William Jefferson Clinton, at one time President of the United States and now potentially the first First Ladies’ man. How, one might ask could professed socialists defend the rights of the Number One Imperialist –in Chief. Simple, Clinton was not being tried for any real crimes against working people but found himself framed by the right wing cabal for his personal sexual preferences and habits. That he was not very artful in defense of himself is beside the point. We say government out of the bedrooms (or wherever) whether White House or hovel. We do no favor political witch-hunts of the highborn or the low for their personal predilections. Interestingly, no one at the time proposed that Clinton be tried as a war criminal for his very real crimes in trying to bomb Serbia, under the guidance of one Wesley Clark, back to the Stone Age (and nearly succeeding). Enough said.
Now we are confronted with another strange situation in the case of one ex-Governor of Massachusetts and current Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney on the question of his Mormon religious affiliation and his capacity to be president of a secular state. Romney, on Thursday December 6, 2007 fled down to Houston, apparently forced to deal with the issue by his vanishing prospects in Iowa, and made a speech about his Mormon faith, or at least his fitness for office. This speech evoked in some quarters, at least formally, Jack Kennedy’s use in the 1960 presidential campaign of the same tool concerning his Roman Catholicism as a way to cut across anti-Catholic bigotry in a mainly Protestant country and to affirm his commitment to a democratic secular state. I pulled up that speech off the Internet and although Kennedy clearly evoked his religious affiliation many times in that speech he left it at that, a personal choice. He did not go on and on about his friendship with Jesus or enumerate the virtues of an increased role for religion in political life.
Romney’s play is another kettle of fish entirely. He WANTS to affirm that his Mormon beliefs rather than being rather esoteric are in line with mainstream Protestant fundamentalist tenets. In short, Jesus is his guide. Christ what hell, yes hell, have we come to when a major political party in a democratic secular state has for all intents and purposes a religious test for its nominee for president. A cursory glance at the history of 18th century England and its exclusion clauses, codified in statutes, for Catholics and dissenters demonstrates why our forbears rejected that notion. It is rather ironic that Romney evoked the name of Samuel Adams as an avatar of religious toleration during some ecumenical meeting in 1774. Hell, yes when you are getting ready to fight for a Republic, arms in hand, and need every gun willing to fight the King you are damn right religion is beside the point. Revolutions are like that. Trying to prove your mettle as a fundamentalist Christian in order to woo the yahoo vote in 2007 is hardly in the same category. Nevertheless on the democratic question- down with religious tests, formal or otherwise, for political office.
Now to get nasty. Isn’t it about time we started running these religious nuts back into their hideouts? I have profound differences with the political, social and economic organization of this country. However, as stated above, I stand for the defense of the democratic secular state against the yahoos when they try, friendly with Jesus or not, to bring religion foursquare into the ‘public square’. We have seen the effects of that for the last thirty or forty years and, hit me on the head if I am dreaming, but isn’t the current occupant of the White House on so kind of first name basis with his God. Enough. Look, this country is a prime example of an Enlightenment experiment, and tattered as it has become it is not a bad base to move on from. Those who, including Brother Romney, want a faith-based state- get back, way back. In the fight against religious obscurantism I will stand with science, frail as it sometimes is, any day. Defend the Enlightenment, and let’s move on.
Every once in a while left wing propagandists, including this writer, are forced to comment on odd ball political or social questions that are not directly related to the fight for socialism. Nevertheless such questions must be addressed in the interest of preserving democratic rights, such as they are. I have often argued that socialists are, or should be, the best defenders of democratic rights, hanging in there long after many bourgeois democrats have thrown in the towel, especially on constitutional questions like abortion and searches and seizures.
A good example from the not too distant past, which I am fond of citing because it seems so counter intuitive, was opposition to the impeachment of one William Jefferson Clinton, at one time President of the United States and now potentially the first First Ladies’ man. How, one might ask could professed socialists defend the rights of the Number One Imperialist –in Chief. Simple, Clinton was not being tried for any real crimes against working people but found himself framed by the right wing cabal for his personal sexual preferences and habits. That he was not very artful in defense of himself is beside the point. We say government out of the bedrooms (or wherever) whether White House or hovel. We do no favor political witch-hunts of the highborn or the low for their personal predilections. Interestingly, no one at the time proposed that Clinton be tried as a war criminal for his very real crimes in trying to bomb Serbia, under the guidance of one Wesley Clark, back to the Stone Age (and nearly succeeding). Enough said.
Now we are confronted with another strange situation in the case of one ex-Governor of Massachusetts and current Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney on the question of his Mormon religious affiliation and his capacity to be president of a secular state. Romney, on Thursday December 6, 2007 fled down to Houston, apparently forced to deal with the issue by his vanishing prospects in Iowa, and made a speech about his Mormon faith, or at least his fitness for office. This speech evoked in some quarters, at least formally, Jack Kennedy’s use in the 1960 presidential campaign of the same tool concerning his Roman Catholicism as a way to cut across anti-Catholic bigotry in a mainly Protestant country and to affirm his commitment to a democratic secular state. I pulled up that speech off the Internet and although Kennedy clearly evoked his religious affiliation many times in that speech he left it at that, a personal choice. He did not go on and on about his friendship with Jesus or enumerate the virtues of an increased role for religion in political life.
Romney’s play is another kettle of fish entirely. He WANTS to affirm that his Mormon beliefs rather than being rather esoteric are in line with mainstream Protestant fundamentalist tenets. In short, Jesus is his guide. Christ what hell, yes hell, have we come to when a major political party in a democratic secular state has for all intents and purposes a religious test for its nominee for president. A cursory glance at the history of 18th century England and its exclusion clauses, codified in statutes, for Catholics and dissenters demonstrates why our forbears rejected that notion. It is rather ironic that Romney evoked the name of Samuel Adams as an avatar of religious toleration during some ecumenical meeting in 1774. Hell, yes when you are getting ready to fight for a Republic, arms in hand, and need every gun willing to fight the King you are damn right religion is beside the point. Revolutions are like that. Trying to prove your mettle as a fundamentalist Christian in order to woo the yahoo vote in 2007 is hardly in the same category. Nevertheless on the democratic question- down with religious tests, formal or otherwise, for political office.
Now to get nasty. Isn’t it about time we started running these religious nuts back into their hideouts? I have profound differences with the political, social and economic organization of this country. However, as stated above, I stand for the defense of the democratic secular state against the yahoos when they try, friendly with Jesus or not, to bring religion foursquare into the ‘public square’. We have seen the effects of that for the last thirty or forty years and, hit me on the head if I am dreaming, but isn’t the current occupant of the White House on so kind of first name basis with his God. Enough. Look, this country is a prime example of an Enlightenment experiment, and tattered as it has become it is not a bad base to move on from. Those who, including Brother Romney, want a faith-based state- get back, way back. In the fight against religious obscurantism I will stand with science, frail as it sometimes is, any day. Defend the Enlightenment, and let’s move on.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
HILLARY AND WORKING CLASS WOMEN
Commentary
One of the clearest trends to come out of the early presidential primary and caucus states, particularly New Hampshire and Iowa, is the fact that working class women-single moms, women factory workers, health care providers, black working class women, etc. have formed the core of Hillary Clinton’s support. This is surprising to me, at least. There is nothing in Hillary’s lifestyle, class background, interests or current political profile that would lead me to think that such would be the case. Women who want to finally get a woman president. Sure. Professional women who have fought the very uneven battle for gender equality at the upper end of the workplace. Sure. Well-educated women who see Hillary as a kindred spirit. Definitely. But I truly fail to see the pull toward Hillary from working class women.
From a purely liberal democratic political prospective one would think that John Edwards, a son of the working class at least, would have some sway with working class women. Or Obama and his personal fight against the racial barriers in the country. But no Hillary has the clear lead. I have read a couple of articles on this phenomenon and have found that part of the draw at least is no so much directly political as it is a matter of perception. Hillary stands in many minds for health care- a critical issue for working people, especially single moms. She is also perceived as a good mother. I do not know whether that is true or not but I do know that this matters to working women, especially working mothers. She is also seen as a fighter for women’s rights. She also benefits from a positive image of the prior Clinton (Bill) administration in the hearts of many blacks, the first ‘black’ president idea. Lastly, an odd point but one knows that electoral politics gets weird at times, that she stood by her man (the selfsame Bill) when he was down in the gutter over the Lewinsky affair. I would think that would cut both ways but apparently she gets credit for saving her marriage in an age of throw away marriages.
I would be interested in hearing any other theories about Hillary’s hold on working class women. Of course all of this mystery only concerns me as far as current political realities are concerned. I stand for the proposition that the way working women, and most women for that matter, will get ahead in this world is when we have our own working class party fighting for our own working class government. That is the simple part. The hard part is to propose such an essentially propagandistic solution today to these embattled women and have them response. The point of today’s commentary thus is really this –we have a long road and much work in order to realistically present working women an alternative to the same old, same old. The day when working women have the political wisdom to say Hillary, Hell no is the day when we will be a long way forward in the fight for socialism.
One of the clearest trends to come out of the early presidential primary and caucus states, particularly New Hampshire and Iowa, is the fact that working class women-single moms, women factory workers, health care providers, black working class women, etc. have formed the core of Hillary Clinton’s support. This is surprising to me, at least. There is nothing in Hillary’s lifestyle, class background, interests or current political profile that would lead me to think that such would be the case. Women who want to finally get a woman president. Sure. Professional women who have fought the very uneven battle for gender equality at the upper end of the workplace. Sure. Well-educated women who see Hillary as a kindred spirit. Definitely. But I truly fail to see the pull toward Hillary from working class women.
From a purely liberal democratic political prospective one would think that John Edwards, a son of the working class at least, would have some sway with working class women. Or Obama and his personal fight against the racial barriers in the country. But no Hillary has the clear lead. I have read a couple of articles on this phenomenon and have found that part of the draw at least is no so much directly political as it is a matter of perception. Hillary stands in many minds for health care- a critical issue for working people, especially single moms. She is also perceived as a good mother. I do not know whether that is true or not but I do know that this matters to working women, especially working mothers. She is also seen as a fighter for women’s rights. She also benefits from a positive image of the prior Clinton (Bill) administration in the hearts of many blacks, the first ‘black’ president idea. Lastly, an odd point but one knows that electoral politics gets weird at times, that she stood by her man (the selfsame Bill) when he was down in the gutter over the Lewinsky affair. I would think that would cut both ways but apparently she gets credit for saving her marriage in an age of throw away marriages.
I would be interested in hearing any other theories about Hillary’s hold on working class women. Of course all of this mystery only concerns me as far as current political realities are concerned. I stand for the proposition that the way working women, and most women for that matter, will get ahead in this world is when we have our own working class party fighting for our own working class government. That is the simple part. The hard part is to propose such an essentially propagandistic solution today to these embattled women and have them response. The point of today’s commentary thus is really this –we have a long road and much work in order to realistically present working women an alternative to the same old, same old. The day when working women have the political wisdom to say Hillary, Hell no is the day when we will be a long way forward in the fight for socialism.
Friday, October 20, 2006
HONOR THE MEMORY OF THE HUNGARIAN WORKERS UPRISING- 1956- HONOR PAL MALETER
COMMENTARY
HONOR THE 5OTH ANNIVERSARY OF THE FIGHT AGAINST STALINISM AND FOR SOCIALISM-HONOR THE MEMORY OF THE HEROIC PAL MALETER-MILITANT FIGHTER FOR SOCIALISM
In June of 2006 I wrote a blog concerning the meaning of the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 after United States President George W. Bush on a tour of Eastern Europe falsely claimed the valiant efforts of the Hungarian workers in 1956 to create a workers democracy there on behalf of Western imperialism. (See June 2006 archive, dated June 22). Now, as we approach the 50th anniversary of that uprising I am paying honor to that event at its proper time. I stand by the ideas expressed in the above-mentioned blog. Especially so, as I have read more about the extraordinary Pal Maleter. Forget Imre Nagy, who has received far more notice and acclaim- Defense Minister Maleter was the real, if flawed, thing in a world of stodgy Stalinist bureaucrats. The world Stalinist movement produced few such leaders. It produced many more rank and file subjective revolutionary militants. We could have used them then and we sure as hell could use more subjective revolutionaries now.
The world Communist movement would be in a very different place if there had been more militants like Maleter (and “Che” Guevara as well, to name another, for lack of a better term, Left Stalinist ). These were not our people- but they were our people. I would also include an additional point to that June posting mentioned above.
The official Stalinist Hungarian Communist Party in 1956 splintered under the impact of working class pressure from below. In that case, the mass of lower and middle (and in a few cases, such as Maleter's, leadership) cadre went over to the side of the working class revolutionaries. That fracture of the official party and state bureaucracies was observed more fully in the demise of Stalinism in Eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union in the 1989-1992 period. The difference between the two periods, however, was in the latter case the Stalinist bureaucracy was by then a house of cards easily blown away in the wind. The Stalinist bureaucrats were no longer interested in saving socialism (as they perceived it) but in saving their hides. Such is the contrary nature of Stalinism. Why the use of the word is instead of was in the last sentence? Events within the Stalinist Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese state bureaucracy are heading slowly toward such a crisis as occurred during both the above-mentioned events . One would have to assume that the same fracture in the Stalinist bureaucracy of the party and the state will occur there as well. Which way will the bureaucracies go? Hungary-1956 or the Soviet Union/ Eastern Europe 1989-1992? More later.
HONOR THE 5OTH ANNIVERSARY OF THE FIGHT AGAINST STALINISM AND FOR SOCIALISM-HONOR THE MEMORY OF THE HEROIC PAL MALETER-MILITANT FIGHTER FOR SOCIALISM
In June of 2006 I wrote a blog concerning the meaning of the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 after United States President George W. Bush on a tour of Eastern Europe falsely claimed the valiant efforts of the Hungarian workers in 1956 to create a workers democracy there on behalf of Western imperialism. (See June 2006 archive, dated June 22). Now, as we approach the 50th anniversary of that uprising I am paying honor to that event at its proper time. I stand by the ideas expressed in the above-mentioned blog. Especially so, as I have read more about the extraordinary Pal Maleter. Forget Imre Nagy, who has received far more notice and acclaim- Defense Minister Maleter was the real, if flawed, thing in a world of stodgy Stalinist bureaucrats. The world Stalinist movement produced few such leaders. It produced many more rank and file subjective revolutionary militants. We could have used them then and we sure as hell could use more subjective revolutionaries now.
The world Communist movement would be in a very different place if there had been more militants like Maleter (and “Che” Guevara as well, to name another, for lack of a better term, Left Stalinist ). These were not our people- but they were our people. I would also include an additional point to that June posting mentioned above.
The official Stalinist Hungarian Communist Party in 1956 splintered under the impact of working class pressure from below. In that case, the mass of lower and middle (and in a few cases, such as Maleter's, leadership) cadre went over to the side of the working class revolutionaries. That fracture of the official party and state bureaucracies was observed more fully in the demise of Stalinism in Eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union in the 1989-1992 period. The difference between the two periods, however, was in the latter case the Stalinist bureaucracy was by then a house of cards easily blown away in the wind. The Stalinist bureaucrats were no longer interested in saving socialism (as they perceived it) but in saving their hides. Such is the contrary nature of Stalinism. Why the use of the word is instead of was in the last sentence? Events within the Stalinist Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese state bureaucracy are heading slowly toward such a crisis as occurred during both the above-mentioned events . One would have to assume that the same fracture in the Stalinist bureaucracy of the party and the state will occur there as well. Which way will the bureaucracies go? Hungary-1956 or the Soviet Union/ Eastern Europe 1989-1992? More later.
Thursday, June 22, 2006
HONOR PAL MALATER, MILITANT-HUNGARY WORKERS REVOLUTION, 1956
As we approach the 50th anniversary of the heroic Hungarian uprising of 1956 let us remember the fallen militants who were fighting to bring a socialist solution to the problems of Stalinist-dominated Hungary. Honor the memory of Pal Malater, Defense Minister , anti-fascist fighter in World War II and fighter for socialism, executed by the Russian Stalinists in the aftermath of the Hungarian uprising.
SEE OCTOBER 2006 ARCHIVES, DATED OCTOBER 21 FOR ANOTHER BLOG ON THIS SUBJECT AT THE TIME OF THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY
In one of the cruel ironies of history anti-communists, including the current President Bush, and Hungarian nationalist have appropriated the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the Hungarian uprising of 1956. Militants must learn about that struggle and take back a heritage that is rightly ours and not the imperialists and their hangers-on.
Hungary, 1956 is a classic example of what the initial stages of a working class political revolution against Stalinist bureaucratic represssion looks like. In the main, the workers were fighting for some kind of indigenous workers government free from Stalinist repression. Let history and Mr. Bush note that the militant pro-socilaist workers were definitely not fighting for a restoration of capitalist rule in Hungary.
Did the militants have illusions in Western-style democracy? Surely, some did. Just as some Eastern Europeon and Chinese workers and students had in 1989. Did the Catholic church play a counterrevolutionary role in league with the agencies of U.S.imperialism and try to turn religious working class elements against socialism? You bet. Just as Pope John Paul and the Catholic church did in Poland in the 1970’s and 1980's. Did the Soviet Union motivate its invading troops by falsely claiming a fascist uprising was occurring? By all means yes, but the first wave of Soviet troops correctly fraternized with the Hungarian workers once they knew the score.
Notwithstanding the above stumbling blocks on the road to revolution , the central fight, the fight in the streets was for a new form of workers government. The prove is in the pudding-the uprising split the Hungarian Communist party to its core with the bulk of the party going over to the insurgents. The pre-conditions for success were there but the militants needed a party that knew what it was doing in the chaotic situation to have any chance of success. Unfortunately, for many reasons which can be read about in various postings on this site no such party emerged. Read about this important event in Cold War history.
REVISED OCTOBER 21, 2006
SEE OCTOBER 2006 ARCHIVES, DATED OCTOBER 21 FOR ANOTHER BLOG ON THIS SUBJECT AT THE TIME OF THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY
In one of the cruel ironies of history anti-communists, including the current President Bush, and Hungarian nationalist have appropriated the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the Hungarian uprising of 1956. Militants must learn about that struggle and take back a heritage that is rightly ours and not the imperialists and their hangers-on.
Hungary, 1956 is a classic example of what the initial stages of a working class political revolution against Stalinist bureaucratic represssion looks like. In the main, the workers were fighting for some kind of indigenous workers government free from Stalinist repression. Let history and Mr. Bush note that the militant pro-socilaist workers were definitely not fighting for a restoration of capitalist rule in Hungary.
Did the militants have illusions in Western-style democracy? Surely, some did. Just as some Eastern Europeon and Chinese workers and students had in 1989. Did the Catholic church play a counterrevolutionary role in league with the agencies of U.S.imperialism and try to turn religious working class elements against socialism? You bet. Just as Pope John Paul and the Catholic church did in Poland in the 1970’s and 1980's. Did the Soviet Union motivate its invading troops by falsely claiming a fascist uprising was occurring? By all means yes, but the first wave of Soviet troops correctly fraternized with the Hungarian workers once they knew the score.
Notwithstanding the above stumbling blocks on the road to revolution , the central fight, the fight in the streets was for a new form of workers government. The prove is in the pudding-the uprising split the Hungarian Communist party to its core with the bulk of the party going over to the insurgents. The pre-conditions for success were there but the militants needed a party that knew what it was doing in the chaotic situation to have any chance of success. Unfortunately, for many reasons which can be read about in various postings on this site no such party emerged. Read about this important event in Cold War history.
REVISED OCTOBER 21, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)