I have so much internet brain rot that every time I hear someone say "MLM" (man loving man, or, as you mentioned, multi level marketing) I think of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
V.I.Lenin "Where to begin?" - another important article related to topic. Every organisation should have a newspaper(media channel) to disseminate ideas among workers movement. The concept of full-time professional revolutionary is a little bit confusing. At Lenin's time every worker had a 10-12 hour working day to support his life being, but it was not a real reason for such a worker not to become a part of vanguard. Vanguard term is much more about members of a working class who gained a class consciousness and joined organised activity. Then every organisation and their structures form a party which becomes the entire Vanguard who knows and struggles for its class interests. So, the first step is creating organisation. If you still haven't joined or created it, then it is the right time :)
There are many parties and at least one I know has "full time" revolutionaries, who are paid a "workers wage" to work full-time for the party. This was the first party I joined - a Trotskyist party, as I knew no better at the time (joined the first "socialist party" on a google search, sent a message and was recruited instantly, before even having a basic grasp on Marxist or Leninist theory) - and they have since split twice since I left over 10 years ago. But they have been prominent here over the decades and there are other parties too. The revolutionary left here is dominated by Trots, with many parties and there are a couple of ML parties but they are revisionist or useless, spook-ridden, borderline reactionaries (but sometimes put out good content) and then there are small ultra left groups. But the point is that there are many parties, some quite well established and with due-paying members who do contribute to the parties having full-time workers, who would be considered full-time revolutionaries and I am sure that this is what they believe themselves to be. A party takes dues or subs from its members to fund full-timers and also newspapers (especially Trots - you know they love a good newspaper) but also other things such as offices, stuff for demos, leaflets, whatever else.
In German (and presumably French) the term for the vanguard is avant-garde. Simply by being a less "militaristic" term it might help avoid the common misconception that the party seeks to command the masses. The term evokes the avant-garde artist who may seek to push the masses in a certain direction but does so through conversation rather than command.
@@Landofjellono difference, just what marxist theorists historically have tended to call them. there’s a tactical point to be made for developing a similar terminology, that way misconceptions are less common. also just sounds cool
Great job on clarifying this, comrade. I've been hounding my friends to watch your socialism 101 series and it's paying off. Thank you for what you do.
The lack of subordination of the standing committees to the party rank and file and the workers at large is definitely a problem, and the failure to resolve the dialectic between democracy and centralism is definitely one wrecking parties and preventing the overthrow of capitalism. But I feel like I don't see people talking about how the role of the party changes pre- and post-revolution, and how the party's actions during the transition set up the success or failure of resolving the post-revolutionary dialectics. For one, the dialectical tension between the true revolutionaries and the opportunists moves inside the party: pre-revolution, the most revolutionary movements are actively marginalized by the dominant class, so the kind of opportunists who want class-reconciliation for personal gain would be more focused on drawing away the workers from the vanguard; post-revolution, the worker state becomes the site for opportunists to self-aggrandize and push international class-reconciliation. In a system like what the Bolsheviks set up, the state is de facto subordinate to the party, and so the vanguard party becomes the primary site for opportunism. The knee-jerk, unprepared response is to go on witch-hunts for them, but witch-hunts can also be used by opportunists themselves to eliminate revolutionaries, and many true revolutionaries get caught up precisely because they are willing to fight for a position at all; the end result is only one faction surviving, and anyone else remaining is an opportunist, because the survivors went with whoever seemed to be winning (e.g. the Jacobins and the Thermidorians). In the long run the opportunists can overtake the revolutionaries inside the party once the revolutionary generation dies off. "Vanguard party" is also a historical role, not one that can truly be self-declared. Plenty of self-declared "vanguard" parties have not been at the vanguard of anything. And in the case of the Paris Commune, none of the parties had advanced enough theory to be the vanguard on their own, it was only together that the dialectic of their various theoretical positions produced something even remotely effective--they were only the vanguard collectively. The vanguard party has to be prepared for its own potential obsolescence. If it remains the end-all and be-all of revolutionary politics in the proletarian state, it's stagnancy necessarily means the stagnancy of the revolutionary role of the entire project--the party, formerly vanguard, drags the entire state down with itself. Even if one accepts the democratic nature of leading a revolution, that gauntlet of legitimacy doesn't last once the war's over: mass support during the revolution doesn't equal mass support a generation later, let alone that one deserves support in perpetuity, or that the party's line is correct in the long run. IMO Stalin's suggestion for the independence of the party and state was the better solution, and you see this more in Cuba and Vietnam. I think this also goes for pre-revolutionary party politics as well: opportunists will seek out committee posts, and the same mechanisms which allow this also allow infiltrators to wreck things, like with the Panthers. The goal is not to abandon the ability to act collectively at large scales by just abandoning all centralism out of ideological purity (like some would like)--that doesn't resolve the dialectic either, it just abandons trying to solve the problem. Personally I've been thinking that we need to start thinking about the dialectic between authority and leadership (or power and prestige; or formal and informal power; or whatever you want to call them). The perfect example of the distinction is Mao during the Cultural Revolution: out of authority, but still exercising revolutionary leadership, while those in control of the party had authority, but no real leadership. Those who have the most personal leadership within the party, those who are respected, and at the intellectual vanguard (the Lenins, the Trotskys, the Maos) should be near authority but not actually exercising it, while those who exercise official decision-making roles should be those with potential but who do not have the same personal clout, mentored by those who have respect within the party. (The CPP inspired this idea for me with their tactic of mixing younger and older revolutionaries in leadership to ensure that the next generation was being trained and could put a check on the ossification of the older members' thinking.) Basically, I don't think Lenin and Mao should've been committee members, but just standing delegates, with younger mentees exercising executive power. Committee seats would be effectively reduced to lower-status functionary jobs for up-and-coming party members; the point is to subordinate executive functions to the general body of the party, as the executive bodies of the state should be subordinated to the legislature (ironically meaning that you want to keep the politicians out of the executive and fill it with competent and loyal functionaries, leaving all the real politics and legitimacy to the legislature). I don't know if this is exactly how one would balance the dialectic between informal leadership and formal authority, but either way it's something that I think needs to be addressed, because the conflation of the two is a pre-requisite for despotic personality cults. The state itself would of course contain party members in good standing, but the point is that party committee members and delegates would serve no role in the proletarian state. The party itself would do what it's supposed to do: organize workers on the ground, educate, formulate theory, and train revolutionaries. As long as someone adheres to the theoretical framework of the vanguard party and has proven through work to be pro-revolution, they should be able to hold office without interference from any party committee (i.e. no hand-picked candidates in non-competitive elections *cough*USSR*cough*). The tendency the Communist Party of Vietnam has shown for letting the leadership of the state be separate from the leadership of the Party is a good example of this at work, as well as the non-partisan nature of local Cuban politics and the role of Party members as community leaders. And the other half is that the party needs to plan for its own obsolescence. The vanguard status is not maintained in perpetuity, so the immediate task of the party upon success is to propel the entire working class into revolutionary consciousness and economic capability as quickly as possible. This means going beyond just mass-literacy, but doing things like teaching everyone accounting, agriculture, and basic engineering from an early age as part of standard education, like Lenin talked about, so that any random person on the street could examine any company's books, or repair a machine, or grow their own food. Basically if your whole plan to defend your revolution is to just witch-hunt harder than the reactionaries can infiltrate you, your project is doomed. The best systems are the ones designed to survive catastrophic failure at multiple levels; brittle systems are for capitalists. Within 1-2 generations the average person should be effectively indistinguishable from any member of a revolutionary party in skills and ideological training, to the point that you could make half the population party members and it wouldn't matter. As many people as possible should have the formal knowledge and personal experience to fill as many roles as possible, to serve in union leadership, to manage shop floors, to act as political delegates, to fight revolutionary wars, etc. The first and most important role of the Party in constructing the proletarian state is to put in place systems to ensure that the next generation fits that description, otherwise the whole project can and probably will derail. The 2nd generation should be better communists than the revolutionaries themselves, not just going along to get along.
Very true, comrade, very true. I am a Chinese citizen and I can tell you that the reluctance of giving power to people would make a party of proletariat just another privileged class.
^ This is too insightful to remain just another TH-cam comment. I hope you at the very least save it and turn it into a blog, TH-cam vid, or letter, if you haven't already.
This comment was super eye opening, and I hope to come back to it at some point to better understand what you're saying. I'm in the process of unlearning the american understanding of Marxism and learning the experiences and lessons of the people that actually did revolution. I'm trying to put together and work my way through a reading list, is there any chance you might have some recommended works to flesh out the ideas you're talking about and/or their historical context. Much appreciated if you happen to have anything 😁
@@XDarkxSteel I highly, HIGHLY recommend you read about the Paris commune, from all sides. Contested historical events always have people leaving out things, even when they're being honest. It's easier to get a fair and complete history of the French Revolution than socialist revolutions, because Jacobin ideology now rules the world. A lot of good stuff on the commune is in French, so the best English source from the left is Gluckstein's book. Learning about the Commune is what made me a communist, long after reading Marx, because it all clicked--dictatorship of the proletariat, proletarian democracy vs bourgeois republicanism, the importance of an alliance of the most politically engaged and radical to develop theory and radicalize the masses in preparation for when the masses have an opportunity to seize power for themselves (i.e. a revolutionary vanguard), the mortal threat that organized liberalism poses to democratic revolutions, etc. It also I think modeled a more dialectical relationship between central and local institutions that needs to be more closely studied; it wasn't anarchist, but it also didn't look like the USSR, in part because it was based on the urban commune. The ultimate aim was to build the new nation as a federation of communes with a strong (but not independent or dominant) central government. Centralism and decentralism are in a dialectical relationship that needs to be synthesized, but I don't see that much in discussions about post-capitalist governance. But reading about the Commune from the anti-perspective in combination also gave me a better understanding of their errors, especially knowing as much as I do about the original Jacobins. (Also, you get to see how liberals blatantly gloss over the good things the Commune achieved, and how they seem compelled to turn everything into issues of politicians' individual personalities.) Like, Marx was right that they were too conciliatory initially, but what I never see talked about is how the Communards' early banning of the death penalty saved them from the worst consequences of their own political terror. Their best and most loyal general was constantly being imprisoned every time he didn't immediately crush the enemy, but they couldn't execute him, so a few days later they'd release him when they realized they needed him. He'd dutifully go back to leading the troops every time. One of the most frustrating things about the Russian Revolution is the degree to which they repeated the errors of the French Revolution. The dumbest thing Gluckstein says is that the original Jacobin terror helped them win the war, but I know that it didn't; they won in spite of it. The terror actually enabled the later reaction. The staunchest reactionaries all fled and joined enemy governments (a la Cuba); the people who stuck around were the ones who believed in the revolution. The political commissioners went around executing generals in front of their own men for strategic retreats from unwinnable situations, because the retreats were evidence that they were "secret counter-revolutionaries." Yet the biggest traitor in the military fled safely when his attempt to martial his men against the government failed. Fear is the most dangerous emotion for a revolution, because it's both highly motivating and reduces people to their stupidest selves on a neurological level. If you look at Vietnam historically and currently, what's striking is how confident they are, and how they don't let the reactionaries intimidate them into shooting themselves in the foot. The revolutions which most achieve their goals in the long run are the ones that quickly establish breathing room to develop their institutions and publicly debate, without constantly being at each other's throats. Rehabilitating genuine comrades who just succumb to an error was one of the good things about the Bolsheviks during Lenin's time, and it's the thing that seems to have most quickly gone out the window once he died. The people who care most about your shared goals are the ones who you want around, even if sometimes you fight, because the alternative is a bunch of opportunist sycophants and spies. Sincere error from a revolutionary socialist isn't the same as counter-revolution, even if it is very annoying. That's why I like Mao. He pioneered long-term revolution, which required that he couldn't pull the stuff the Bolsheviks did that alienated the peasants during the Civil War. The army had to be highly disciplined in how it interacted with the masses, and it needed to provide for itself as much as possible, to minimize conflict with the people for food and goods. He screwed up some stuff with economic policy later, but generally he improved on the errors of the Bolsheviks. Ho Chi Minh did the same, because he ran into similar problems with how long they had to fight to liberate themselves. They built governments that could fully function even while at war and lacking a monopoly on force. They built schools, they prosecuted police, and they trained the masses to fight, while literally getting shelled. At that point expanding those institutions once you've won is easy. The CPP is really showing the world what that looks like. Much more so the Bolsheviks were winging it once the revolution started, frequently implementing policies and building institutions out of expediency without considering the long-term impact they would have in the post-revolutionary society. (The Russian Civil War was a messed up time for everyone.)
After years of searching up this question, I have to say this is the most concise yet detailed explanation I've ever seen. Thanks for the upload and the recommendations!
So, Marxist Paul, there are a lot of people talking Marxism on TH-cam, but nobody does it like you do it. You are amazing and I'm glad you took the time to make these videos. Cheers, my friend. Wow. Just wow. Wonderful work you're doing.
@@leeroybrownish because capitalism’s logical conclusion is for power and wealth to consolidate into hands of peoples whose interest directly conflict with the health and well being of society. For true democracy, you need to have political and economic power shared more equally across society. While no system is perfect, our current capitalist system is not tenable, for the planet nor health and wealth of the people
@@JPlaceCrooner Do you know that people who have escaped from Communists countries, would tell you that Communism is solely about consolidation of control, land and wealth? Why is it do you think, when they escape they always come to the USA? Over the past 75 years, how many people have escaped USA in a boat going to Cuba?
This video shows why it's so important to actually study theory. I see so many terms and concepts be misunderstood or not critically examined online and that makes it very frustrating to move forward in a conversation. Then again, it's online. Even a constructive conversation won't exactly get anyone anywhere.
Great explanation, comrade. Very succinct without over-simplifying much. If folks are looking for other further reading on the topic, check out "Lenin and the Revolutionary Party" by Paul Le Blanc. ✊ Melody
"It can easily be shown, from Lenin’s copious discussions of the professional revolutionary for years after WITBD, that to Lenin the term meant this: a party activist who devoted most (preferably all) of his spare time to revolutionary work. The professional revolutionary considers his revolutionary activity to be the center of his life (or of his life-style, if you will). He must work to earn a living, of course, but this is not his life’s center. Such is the professional revolutionary type. I have come to believe that part of the confusion stems from the important difference in the meaning of professional between English and most Continental languages. In French (and I think the German, etc. usage stems directly from the French) the word professionnel refers simply to occupation. Whereas in English only lawyers, doctors and other recognized “professions” can be said to have “professional” activity, in French this can be said of anyone in any occupation; the reference is simply to occupational activity. Under the aegis of the English language, a “professional” revolutionary must be as full-time as a doctor or lawyer. (Of course this does not account for non-English Leninologists, and is only one factor in the confusion.) It follows from Lenin’s view that even the “core” of professional revolutionaries were not necessarily expected to be full-time party activists, which usually means functionaries. (The number of functionaries in a revolutionary group is a question with its own history, but this history is not presently ours.) The point of defining a professional revolutionary as a full-timer, a functionary, is to fake the conclusion, or “deduction”: only non-workers can make up the party elite, hence only intellectuals. This conclusion is an invention of the Leninologists, based on nothing in Lenin." Hal draper
I'm not convinced that Democratic Centralism can implement the mass line. I think it is better to have working groups that each have their own mandate to focus on. This and rotating the leaders makes the organization less efficient but more robust.
Thank you, comrade! I've been wanting to associate with two popular ML/MLM parties in my country, but wasn't sure yet which one. This really aided my decision. Thanks! Love from Brazil ❤️ 🚩
I totally understand the need for a vanguard party as a political and economic leader who has the scientific knowledge about marxism and the dialectics of the material conditions that the philosophy of building socialism is based on unlike the masses in ability to have the full knowledge of the complexity of marxism and its relation to building socialism . In order for the people in society to hold the administrative and planning tasks must have the scientific knowledge needed or required for that and due to their lack of being that because of the division of labour between physical and mental labour there will be the need for a transitional period where the vanguard party fills till the cultural scientific knowledge level of the masses reach the required stage .
I would highly suggest reading the capacity contract, I am really interested on what you'd have to say on its implications for Marxism when 'achieving class consciousness' can be viewed as a form of compulsory mental compacity that bars groups of people from being politically active in such a way
I have been studying Marxism Leninism and the early USSR may concern is a forced internal passport system freedom of movement is a basic human right solve that problem and I'm in
There are also other situations, where there are coalitions + several parties + own theories, joined in coalitions. of several.parties, parties factions, non party organizations,, individuals, etc., as in Commune of Paris, 1871, W + E Europe, 1918 including Russia, Spanish Republic, 1936 to 3?, France + Czecho slovakia, 1968, Portugal. 1974, some Central.America, 1970s 80s, etc.Thus, we encounter several self proclaimed vanguard parties, each + its own broadly similar theory.
Thank-you for covering this fundamentally important topic and the very interesting way you did it. However, I would just like to suggest if you could slow down your speech a bit - you've got a heavy accent so a slower speech I think would help some listeners. Also, some modulation and intonation would give your words more impact. Hope you don't mind me pointing this out to you.
Thanks! I'll keep this in mind. I was under a lot of time pressure with this one, so it's a bit rushed. I'll slow things down for the next video. In the meantime, perhaps watching it at 0.75x speed with the captions turned on will help
It just doesn't do it for me. Provides too much opportunity for bullies and chauvinists to find themselves consolidating a lot of power around them and their buddies. The potential for a huge amount centralisation of power is too great and I believe when power is too centralised the potential for serious harm is immense. Especially when you see how every political party ever tries to protect the party at all costs and places it above the needs of the people. It's too dangerous and rather than making excuses for terrible past regimes we should acknowledge the failures and create something new, socialism is a science it needs to keep evolving.
I agree with this exactly. Lenin completed Marx’s critiques of Capitalism in my opinion, but his revolutionary theory lead to a country that created a new bourgeoisie through the party and state apparatus that the party controlled. It was essentially capitalism of the state.
Sounds like all ideologies around Marxism (Socialism, Communism, ML and Maoism) were fraud ideologies that brainwashed poor people into thinking they’ll be given more power and self determination only to be fighting to give power off to another establishment totalitarian state
How do we differentiate between a fulltime professional revolutionary emerging from the working class, and a hanger-on from the "middle class" or "professional class" ? (yes I know these are within the working class in terms of relationship to means of production but the experiences of these groups are often so different from the general proletariat as to create a disconnect from the reality of most workers) Eg the DSA's discourse is full of insistence that the organization be "outward facing" to look "toward the working class" which implies the organization is not, or should not be, *of* the working class. Also how do you see the differences and similarities between vanguardism (MLM and ML) and platformist anarchism? As far as I can tell the main differences are organizationally, just how decisions are made internally, not calling the organization a "party", and of course some ideological distinctions about states and whatnot.
"After the “League” had been disbanded at my behest in November 1852, I never belonged to any society again, whether secret or public; … the party, therefore, in this wholly ephemeral sense, ceased to exist for me eight years ago … since 1852 I had not been associated with any association and was firmly convinced that my theoretical studies were of greater use to the working class than my meddling with associations which had now had their day on the Continent. Because of this “inactivity” I was thereupon repeatedly and bitterly attacked. … Since 1852, then, I have known nothing of “party” in the sense implied in your letter. … The “League”, like the Société des Saisons in Paris and a hundred other societies, was simply an episode in the history of a party that is everywhere springing up naturally out of the soil of modern society. … I have tried to dispel the misunderstanding arising out of the impression that by “party” I meant a “League” that expired eight years ago, or an editorial board that was disbanded twelve years ago. By party, I meant the party in the broad historical sense." - Marx's letter to Ferdinand Freiligrath, 1860.
Should not the Russian Nihilists be mentioned, as they were both thinkers and an art movement, and partially were involved in the cultural shift towards revolutionary activity; many of the Nihilists joined the Bolsheviks and we're heavily criticized by reactionaries like Dostoyevsky.
Anyone using the term „ultra-democracy“ as a pejorative term immediately disqualifies themselves as a liberator. There is no such thing as too much democracy. Everyone should have the right to decide on anything if they find that it’s relevant to them. It’s merely a question of organization. Instead of making all decisions in a plenum, have different councils for different areas of decision-making. And who should sit in those councils? -Those who are trusted by those most concerned by the decisions made by this councils. In other words: those who are considered experts by the interested public. I.e., WORKERS that actually are in touch with the reality on the ground not because they cultivate a habit of fraternizing with workers, but because they themselves *are* workers. But this system of councils should be granular enough that you can basically vote on everything. Otherwise it will favor the detached know-it-alls that try to convince us that it is in our interest to pamper them so they can be useless full time revolutionaries.
I do think that one thing that Liberal Democracies get right is the attempt (often failed and imperfect) to not allow democracy to become mob rule. To recognise that minorities must also have rights within a democracy, and that sometimes the minority needs to be protected against the will of the majority. In that sense, you can have too much democracy - if a white nationalist majority can decide to expel or execute an entire non-white minority, then that is too much democracy. Similarly, in a democracy some rights must be respected _even if the majority do not want them_ - otherwise, the democracy itself would cease to function. If, for example, a majority wanted to remove due process and replace it with a system of guilty until proven innocent, that would undermine democracy itself. It cannot be allowed to happen. What I'm getting that is that any form of democracy _must_ include checks and balances to make sure that everyone within that society has their interests and rights respected, regardless of what the majority might want. Pure populist majoritarianism can easily degenerate into tyranny. This must be the case on every level, whether national or at the level of a Soviet.
@@monkeymox2544 and who imposes those checks, balances and basic guidelines? Unelected and therefore unaccountable people? Or should they be elected and thereby be subject to the whims of the mob? I‘d clearly opt for the latter any day. Technocrats have no place in a democracy, they always corrupt whatever institution they’re allowed to run.
@@markuspfeifer8473 I don't claim to have a good answer, except that those checks do need to be there. Right now different countries have different solutions: constitutions, separate judiciaries, bicameral legislatures which contain unelected chambers appointed by the elected one, and the concept of representation rather than delegation. Some combination of these, perhaps with newer methods that haven't been tried, would serve the same function as they do now. Let me turn the question back to you: how would you protect the rights of the individual, and the rights of minorities? Or are you willing to sacrifice those rights for pure majoritarianism? Because personally, I think that the pure tyranny of the majority would be a dystopia. I also think that that's the kind democracy that Plato thought was apt to devolve into less equitable forms of government, ones easily seized by populist leaders who become tyrants themselves.
@@monkeymox2544 I‘d probably want a constitution, too, but what matters is who enforced it because otherwise it’s just a piece of paper. And yes, you may need judges or something like that. But to me, it is of utmost importance that the people have a vote who those judges are or you’ll get fools who say that the EPA can’t regulate carbon emissions or that states can ban abortions and other stuff. Ideally, I wouldn’t even want to have judges that can decide on such a variety of topics, but specialized judges for different areas and no single Supreme Court but one per area. If that system produces discrimination, so be it. Can happen in a system with technocrats too, but it’s way more likely there. Technocrats can’t prevent a radicalized mob from screwing minorities, but they can and will mess with a generally progressive population that trust the bureaucrats more than themselves: Your average Joe may be a jerk, but most of them don’t want people at the border to die or gay people to live in misery. Those things usually are outgrowths of an alienated bureaucracy that makes decisions without knowing the reality on the ground.
i cam here from the channel second thought... i don't exactly know why but I am having a tough time understanding your speech. I watch second thought's videos in 2x speed and still i have no problem in understanding each words of him. But here I watch in normal speed, though I found many many new words which I haven't heard at all before and also I think I am not understanding you accent. But you're topics are great. Can you give me some suggestions on what to do?
Did I understand this correctly? There is many references to Mao and his theory of how the party should work continuously with the objective parties to prop up the process of always moving towards the utopian society. Which part of this did Mao get wrong? He drove the economy into the ground by reckless agricultural policy after the elimination of birds supposedly eating the crops. 50 million dead due to starvation seems to be the most common consensus. Secondly, aspiring to compete with global steel production in a ridiculous timeline. Surely there was objection to that crazy idea? Lysenko another example of how an ideology left unchecked can kill millions of your citizens. My point being is that with a capitalist market at least it squashes bad ideas if you have a crap product by nobody buying it. In communism you are left open to a party telling you that this is what you will consume. Like I am sure many capitalists would have said on this channel, capitalism is not perfect by any means but it’s the lesser evil of the two options.
"we will just discuss it internally" Ah! that's where it comes from, professor dave "explains". I find it fascinating that you think that this has any chance of actually happening like you preach. On the positive side you are knowledgeable enough to get a spot in the vanguard so you should be fine $. Well this videos sure are useful, if you ever "win", I sure wouldn't go work the factories for you to debate it internally for me. I want that sweet vanguard position too! Better keep watching to learn more just in case.
@@expedition346in my opinion, no. I think all Marxism-Blablaist titles are pretty useless since all of these different branches of marxism are just marxism applied by a person to their current state. So being a Leninist while not being a marxist is believing in ones personal view of a system while not believing in the core principles if the system as a whole.
So, you say that Maoism gives workers the permission they need to overthrow the party should a day come when they become disconnected from the masses. Could it not be said that this state has already occured in China? China has more billionaires in it's communist party than any other political party in the world. Independent unions are impossible, socialism as an economic system was never even attempted (though up unitl the modern era they couldn't have, and I'm defining a socialist economic system by Marx's writings in Critique of the gotha program including labour vouchers and bottom up control of production and distribution). Given this, and the other problems in China such as mass survalience and discriminitory policies against muslims, etc. would you be willing to agree the time is now for change?
China has walked down that path ever since Deng rose to power. Along with the liberalization of Chinese economy and their warmth toward the USA during the Cold War, they have grown more into a surveillance capitalist state than the actual socialist state.
Im fine with most systems but the council i think is the best the ones i wouldn't be ok with is a totalitarian, authoritarian, or anything that has any oppression on the proletariat
Why don't we mix things up with references to Lukács and Gramsci. Gramsci and the 'Modern Prince' role of the party? Lenin on Dual power or Régis Debray on Foco guerrilla strategy. Why not reference real world historical precedents of Vanguard parties like The Black Panther Party and The Young Lords doing prefigurative politics or what they called 'survival programs'. Also perhaps the Bolshevik party schools in exile, The Chinese Communists established guerrilla base areas in the 30s and 40s where they did prefigurative politics like carried out literacy programs, combat training, they helped set up cooperatives and provided basic medical assistance to the locals. The Communists carried out land reform and mobilized women into the political process. I'm thinking of the Jiangxi Soviet and the Yan'an era. The Yugoslav communists during WW2, the Cuban leftist revolutionaries in the Sierra Maestra mountains and the Vietnamese communists in the North during the liberation struggle, all did similar things. Erik Van Ree has this interesting article about Stalin's organic theory of the party. Marxist-Leninist strategy is far more diverse and theoretically rich than what many comrades give it credit for.
To be honest, I think every Marxist with a minimum of common knowledge would agree with most of the MLM ideas. But there is something that bothers me. I am a ML and I agree with the Mass Line, critizism and self critizism, but I can't get behind the idea of the PPW. Also, I see kinda silly adding "maoism" to ML; ML is a developing science, I don't think adding new names is useful.
Within Maoism, there's also debate about the universality of PPW (though it's true that most Maoists see it's creative application as a universally applicable proletarian military strategy), so this in itself shouldn't prevent you from diving further into MLM. As for the latter point about it being silly to add that final M to ML, we could apply the same logic and say the very same thing about "Leninism" in Marxism-Leninism. Remember, the science is not Marxism-Leninism per se. The science is historical materialism (and the philosophy underpinning that science is dialectical materialism). So if we apply this same understanding, that historical materialism is a developing science and that we never need to update its terminology based on that, then we wouldn't need to differentiate between Marxism and Marxism-Leninism. But it's an undeniable fact that the quantitative developments brought forward by Lenin, Stalin, and the Bolshevik Revolution led to a qualitative leap to a higher level of revolutionary science. ML provided us with a concrete pathway to socialism, new inroads into the understanding of the national question, of the vanguard party, and expanded the understanding of capitalism into the age of capitalism-imperialism/monopoly capitalism. Likewise, the experience of the Chinese Revolution takes revolutionary science to a qualitatively higher level beyond ML again, advancing Marxism in each of its three core components: philosophy, political economy, and scientific socialism. The philosophy was deepened by Mao’s refinements of Dialectical Materialism through the universal Law of Contradiction; primary and secondary contradictions; antagonistic and non-antagonistic contradictions, etc., as well as the refined Marxist Theory of Knowledge. The Maoist understanding of Political Economy provides the theory of bureacrat capitalism; and that Politics must always be in command of the economy, necessitating struggle at the levels of both Superstructure as well as the Base And it further refines Scientific Socialism by clarifying that Class struggle continues in socialism via Cultural Revolution. It teaches the people how to capture power, with the fully developed proletarian military theory of Protracted People’s War. And, most importantly, it teaches us how to KEEP that power in the hands of the working class in order to avoid the backslide into capitalism, so that the class struggle can continue to advance towards communism. Less than 2 years ago I was making the same point that you're making atm. It took me years of testing theory in practice with various organisations before I came around to recognising MLM as the third and highest stage of revolutionary science, so I understand why you feel this way. I felt that way for a long time, too
@@Marxism_Today I have disagreements with most MLM regarding a few points. 1- I don't think Gonzalo was that good of a leader. 2- I support AES such as China and Vietnam 3- I dont think a contradiction can be non-antagonistic. In my eyes is like saying a non-contradictory contradiction.
If you disagree with non-antagonistic contradiction, then you disagree with Lenin on a fundamental principle of dialectics. "We must make a concrete study of the circumstances of each specific struggle of opposites and should not arbitrarily apply the formula discussed above to everything. Contradiction and struggle are universal and absolute, but the methods of resolving contradictions, that is, the forms of struggle, differ according to the differences in the nature of the contradictions. Some contradictions are characterized by open antagonism, others are not. In accordance with the concrete development of things, some contradictions which were originally non-antagonistic develop into antagonistic ones, while others which were originally antagonistic develop into non-antagonistic ones. As already mentioned, so long as classes exist, contradictions between correct and incorrect ideas in the Communist Party are reflections within the Party of class contradictions. At first, with regard to certain issues, such contradictions may not manifest themselves as antagonistic. But with the development of the class struggle, they may grow and become antagonistic. The history of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union shows us that the contradictions between the correct thinking of Lenin and Stalin and the fallacious thinking of Trotsky, Bukharin and others did not at first manifest themselves in an antagonistic form, but that later they did develop into antagonism. There are similar cases in the history of the Chinese Communist Party. At first the contradictions between the correct thinking of many of our Party comrades and the fallacious thinking of Chen Tu-hsiu, Chang Kuo-tao and others also did not manifest themselves in an antagonistic form, but later they did develop into antagonism. At present the contradiction between correct and incorrect thinking in our Party does not manifest itself in an antagonistic form, and if comrades who have committed mistakes can correct them, it will not develop into antagonism. Therefore, the Party must on the one hand wage a serious struggle against erroneous thinking, and on the other give the comrades who have committed errors ample opportunity to wake up. This being the case, excessive struggle is obviously inappropriate. But if the people who have committed errors persist in them and aggravate them, there is the possibility that this contradiction will develop into antagonism. Economically, the contradiction between town and country is an extremely antagonistic one both in capitalist society, where under the rule of the bourgeoisie the towns ruthlessly plunder the countryside, and in the Kuomintang areas in China, where under the rule of foreign imperialism and the Chinese big comprador bourgeoisie the towns most rapaciously plunder the countryside. But in a socialist country and in our revolutionary base areas, this antagonistic contradiction has changed into one that is non-antagonistic; and when communist society is reached it will be abolished. Lenin said, "Antagonism and contradiction are not at all one and the same. Under socialism, the first will disappear, the second will remain." That is to say, antagonism is one form, but not the only form, of the struggle of opposites; the formula of antagonism cannot be arbitrarily applied everywhere." (www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_17.htm )
@@Marxism_Today the Contradiction between countryside and towns is antagonistic because one exist because the other one. The thing is that in order to solve that Contradiction you firstly need to end clase conflict (because It is a secondary Contradiction)
? It's not clear whether you accept Lenin's clarification that "Antagonism and contradiction are not at all one and the same". Are you disagreeing with Lenin? If so, I strongly recommend reading both "Materialism and Empirio-criticism" (www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/ ) and "On Contradiction" (www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_17.htm ) To deny the role of antagonism, or antagonistic contradiction, is to deny the philosophical underpinning of all scientific socialist development from Lenin onwards
To unite the spontaneous movements of the masses within a larger strategy for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie and seizure of power for the working class, avoiding the cul-de-sacs of movementism, economism and adventurism
George Orwell got me into socialism. Can you give me a counter argument to Orwell's arguments against the vanguard party. You linked me to this video when I asked about the vanguard party on the democratic socialist video. I feel very confused after watching the video. You said Mao fixed the vanguard party and Mao fix look's like double-think/gaslighting based on Mao cult of personality and using the masses to remove his rivals plus CCP's human right abuse and going with kleptocratic state capitalism instead communism.
@@expedition346 He didn't directly criticize it because he mainly spoke in metaphors. He fought in the Spanish civil war where he talked to a bunch of anarchists that fled the from the Bolsheviks he the Russian civil war this is where he got most of his ideas about socialism. Over purification of the ideology which tends to lead to a hyper paranoid kill or be killed situation. Based on the idea that the problem with capitalism is that the capitalist class holds too much power of the economy and abuses it, what's the point of getting rid of capitalism if they just gonna give the means of production to a vanguard party and have them abuse it. Orwell thought they were implementing state capitalism during the Russian Revolution so Orwell would consider mao part of the bourgeoisie.
@@AndrewMellor-darkphotonI think Paul’s video covers a lot of these points on the correct implementation of the party line and the 3 tiered structure of the revolutionary party. One friendly point of clarification though, the Marxist critique of the state isn’t so much that the bourgeoisie has control over the economy. Our theory on the state is that it is a tool used by a ruling class for the suppression of all other classes in society (mostly bourgeoisie and proletarians at this point). Each class has its own political ideology, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism being that of the proletariat while the capitalist class’s ideology is liberalism. Under a liberal democracy, the capitalist class uses the state (police, military, courts, prisons, etc.) to suppress the working class and protect private property for capitalists. On the other hand, Communists seek to abolish the capitalist state and all its structures. In its place, the vanguard party must lead the working class in building its own structures of class domination, some of which will likely exist in some form or another before the revolution (i.e. military). The proletarian state embraces its class character and expropriates the means of production and distribution as common property. Therefore I think it’s inaccurate to describe Mao as a capitalist due to his relation to the means of production. While he and other communist party leaders have had a substantial influence on the countries they led and the people that came after, it’s important to remember that no communist party is a monolith. As Paul mentions, line struggle is part of any communist party. Unfortunately, internal and external pressures from the national and international capitalist class have won out in nominally communist countries. However, this doesn’t mean the ideas of Lenin and Mao were incorrect, it’s the opposite. The fact that these countries withstood the immense pressure of global capitalist imperialism for as long as they did is incredible. All the while, these socialist experiments were able to virtually eradicate poverty, homelessness, and starvation. They also increased life expectancy and literacy rates dramatically. All told, these historical experiences can guide our organizing and give us hope. Remember, capitalism tried and failed many times to establish itself in the world of feudal monarchies before finally taking hold and becoming the dominant global economic system. Climate change is here and time is running out, so we need to implement the ideas of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao as well as many others. It’s socialism or barbarism, and the vanguard party is the only proven path to socialism.
The Vanguard Party as a solution to these problems is something given rise to by the prominence of the party organisation as a generalised structure of prominence in bourgeois political organising of the 19th and 20th centuries. It’s got shit all to do with realities of contemporary proletarian life. In that period the prominence of various kinds of clubs, churches, organised crime and yea trade unions as facts of Proletarian life, and the prominence of the Party as a central pillar of political struggle and engagement across the spectrum gave the Party model an appeal that no longer exists. The Party in copying its concept from the bourgeois Party’s perpetuated systems of superstructural hierarchy and failed to build truely representative working class coalitions into itself. Innately privileging inherently the perspectives of those ‘agitators’ who most closely mirrored the skills, affect and ways of knowing and understanding of the bourgeois intellectual, those with the greatest ability to access bourgeois education.
The Party doesn’t any longer stand up to what you were quoting from Mao about the building the mass line and the Marxist theory of knowledge. You take that shit to the masses and you get laughed out of town. All these so called ‘Vanguard parties’ with 5 members rotating being general secretary. It’s pathetic.
@@jeffengel2607 I’ve been reading and writing a lot… but it’s gotta be shit that’s worked out on the ground amid the realities of proletarian life. I think it starts with looking outwards at our class around us and seeing how people are organising not just for explicitly political aims but for all kinds of things including the social, antisocial and creative in our actual contexts and trying to advance what already exists rather than coming up with some perfect model in the abstract. That’d be idealist.
The problem Marxist Paul, with the vanguard party, and leninism more broadly, are two fold. Firstly - is the issue of a general hierarchy which results from its formation - both prior and after acquiring power, for which it forms a state hierarchy. This is problematic because it is a fundamental misunderstanding of the definition of class in the Marxist perspective. Class in the Marxist perspective is necessarily contingent upon the extent to which hierarchy exists. Because 1) It is not defined - as it is so often misrepresented - as being in relation to property ownership (such a definition is pre-marxian) - but, on the contrary, it is defined in relation to the Marxist discovery of Surplus Value and, specifically, the economic relationship to its production, distribution and control. And 2) political hierarchy necessarily creates a qualitative shift in all aspects of that relationship - irrespective to whether the state "owns" all property. As Marx stated, property is but a super-structural legally codified *reflection* of the material economic relationship within a given system. It is not *the* material relationship. Feudalism, for example, was not based upon property ownership. Hierarchy is therefore of great importance, and totally neglected by Leninism and its derivatives. Secondly - because the vanguard party and the concept of "advanced class consciousness" is - in so many respects - a self-appointed position. It is essentially saying - for whatever reason the group or individual actors part of the vanguard may assume or contrive - that they - as self-assessed - have "higher levels of class consciousness" - and therefore should obtain leadership - and consequently decision making - supremacy - over those who have "less advanced class consciousness". Now this strikes me as semi-religious and really not a testable or verifiable claim or self-assessment. Its like the religious leader of old saying they have a greater connection to God, and therefore others should follow. Its simply not verifiable. As Marx states - "Just as we do not judge an individual by what they think about themselves, so we should not judge a period of transformation *by its own consciousness*, but rather that consciousness must be explained from the contradictions of material life". Now, with hindsight, and when we understand and consider the materialist conception of history - and that already discussed - the historic function of - say - the Russian Revolution - is questionable. What its leadership said - or believed they were doing, - constructing, or their sense of position in history - is not relevant to our consideration. That they believed they were creating socialism is irrelevant to our consideration. What is of importance of us to Marxists is our material understanding of those historic changes. Advanced class consciousness is a "belief" - often found to be unfounded and, in actuality, the rationalistion for acquiring class position - as outlined in my first paragraph. Its an extremely dangerous and dubious idea. Philosophically idealistic, even.
I have so much internet brain rot that every time I hear Paul say "from an ML and MLM perspective" I instantly think of Multi-Level Marketing schemes.
I have so much internet brain rot that every time I hear someone say "MLM" (man loving man, or, as you mentioned, multi level marketing) I think of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
@@AAA-qm9km goes both ways I guess lol.
@@AAA-qm9km based gay people
Multi-Level Marketing is another capitalist scheme
Same
Literally trying to explain this to a coworker the other day! Thanks comrade
V.I.Lenin "Where to begin?" - another important article related to topic. Every organisation should have a newspaper(media channel) to disseminate ideas among workers movement. The concept of full-time professional revolutionary is a little bit confusing. At Lenin's time every worker had a 10-12 hour working day to support his life being, but it was not a real reason for such a worker not to become a part of vanguard. Vanguard term is much more about members of a working class who gained a class consciousness and joined organised activity. Then every organisation and their structures form a party which becomes the entire Vanguard who knows and struggles for its class interests. So, the first step is creating organisation. If you still haven't joined or created it, then it is the right time :)
There are many parties and at least one I know has "full time" revolutionaries, who are paid a "workers wage" to work full-time for the party. This was the first party I joined - a Trotskyist party, as I knew no better at the time (joined the first "socialist party" on a google search, sent a message and was recruited instantly, before even having a basic grasp on Marxist or Leninist theory) - and they have since split twice since I left over 10 years ago. But they have been prominent here over the decades and there are other parties too. The revolutionary left here is dominated by Trots, with many parties and there are a couple of ML parties but they are revisionist or useless, spook-ridden, borderline reactionaries (but sometimes put out good content) and then there are small ultra left groups. But the point is that there are many parties, some quite well established and with due-paying members who do contribute to the parties having full-time workers, who would be considered full-time revolutionaries and I am sure that this is what they believe themselves to be. A party takes dues or subs from its members to fund full-timers and also newspapers (especially Trots - you know they love a good newspaper) but also other things such as offices, stuff for demos, leaflets, whatever else.
7:55
In German (and presumably French) the term for the vanguard is avant-garde. Simply by being a less "militaristic" term it might help avoid the common misconception that the party seeks to command the masses. The term evokes the avant-garde artist who may seek to push the masses in a certain direction but does so through conversation rather than command.
Is there a reason to use "masses" instead of just "people"? Is there a difference?
@@Landofjellono difference, just what marxist theorists historically have tended to call them. there’s a tactical point to be made for developing a similar terminology, that way misconceptions are less common. also just sounds cool
Great job on clarifying this, comrade. I've been hounding my friends to watch your socialism 101 series and it's paying off. Thank you for what you do.
The lack of subordination of the standing committees to the party rank and file and the workers at large is definitely a problem, and the failure to resolve the dialectic between democracy and centralism is definitely one wrecking parties and preventing the overthrow of capitalism. But I feel like I don't see people talking about how the role of the party changes pre- and post-revolution, and how the party's actions during the transition set up the success or failure of resolving the post-revolutionary dialectics.
For one, the dialectical tension between the true revolutionaries and the opportunists moves inside the party: pre-revolution, the most revolutionary movements are actively marginalized by the dominant class, so the kind of opportunists who want class-reconciliation for personal gain would be more focused on drawing away the workers from the vanguard; post-revolution, the worker state becomes the site for opportunists to self-aggrandize and push international class-reconciliation. In a system like what the Bolsheviks set up, the state is de facto subordinate to the party, and so the vanguard party becomes the primary site for opportunism. The knee-jerk, unprepared response is to go on witch-hunts for them, but witch-hunts can also be used by opportunists themselves to eliminate revolutionaries, and many true revolutionaries get caught up precisely because they are willing to fight for a position at all; the end result is only one faction surviving, and anyone else remaining is an opportunist, because the survivors went with whoever seemed to be winning (e.g. the Jacobins and the Thermidorians).
In the long run the opportunists can overtake the revolutionaries inside the party once the revolutionary generation dies off. "Vanguard party" is also a historical role, not one that can truly be self-declared. Plenty of self-declared "vanguard" parties have not been at the vanguard of anything. And in the case of the Paris Commune, none of the parties had advanced enough theory to be the vanguard on their own, it was only together that the dialectic of their various theoretical positions produced something even remotely effective--they were only the vanguard collectively. The vanguard party has to be prepared for its own potential obsolescence. If it remains the end-all and be-all of revolutionary politics in the proletarian state, it's stagnancy necessarily means the stagnancy of the revolutionary role of the entire project--the party, formerly vanguard, drags the entire state down with itself. Even if one accepts the democratic nature of leading a revolution, that gauntlet of legitimacy doesn't last once the war's over: mass support during the revolution doesn't equal mass support a generation later, let alone that one deserves support in perpetuity, or that the party's line is correct in the long run.
IMO Stalin's suggestion for the independence of the party and state was the better solution, and you see this more in Cuba and Vietnam. I think this also goes for pre-revolutionary party politics as well: opportunists will seek out committee posts, and the same mechanisms which allow this also allow infiltrators to wreck things, like with the Panthers. The goal is not to abandon the ability to act collectively at large scales by just abandoning all centralism out of ideological purity (like some would like)--that doesn't resolve the dialectic either, it just abandons trying to solve the problem. Personally I've been thinking that we need to start thinking about the dialectic between authority and leadership (or power and prestige; or formal and informal power; or whatever you want to call them).
The perfect example of the distinction is Mao during the Cultural Revolution: out of authority, but still exercising revolutionary leadership, while those in control of the party had authority, but no real leadership. Those who have the most personal leadership within the party, those who are respected, and at the intellectual vanguard (the Lenins, the Trotskys, the Maos) should be near authority but not actually exercising it, while those who exercise official decision-making roles should be those with potential but who do not have the same personal clout, mentored by those who have respect within the party. (The CPP inspired this idea for me with their tactic of mixing younger and older revolutionaries in leadership to ensure that the next generation was being trained and could put a check on the ossification of the older members' thinking.)
Basically, I don't think Lenin and Mao should've been committee members, but just standing delegates, with younger mentees exercising executive power. Committee seats would be effectively reduced to lower-status functionary jobs for up-and-coming party members; the point is to subordinate executive functions to the general body of the party, as the executive bodies of the state should be subordinated to the legislature (ironically meaning that you want to keep the politicians out of the executive and fill it with competent and loyal functionaries, leaving all the real politics and legitimacy to the legislature). I don't know if this is exactly how one would balance the dialectic between informal leadership and formal authority, but either way it's something that I think needs to be addressed, because the conflation of the two is a pre-requisite for despotic personality cults.
The state itself would of course contain party members in good standing, but the point is that party committee members and delegates would serve no role in the proletarian state. The party itself would do what it's supposed to do: organize workers on the ground, educate, formulate theory, and train revolutionaries. As long as someone adheres to the theoretical framework of the vanguard party and has proven through work to be pro-revolution, they should be able to hold office without interference from any party committee (i.e. no hand-picked candidates in non-competitive elections *cough*USSR*cough*). The tendency the Communist Party of Vietnam has shown for letting the leadership of the state be separate from the leadership of the Party is a good example of this at work, as well as the non-partisan nature of local Cuban politics and the role of Party members as community leaders.
And the other half is that the party needs to plan for its own obsolescence. The vanguard status is not maintained in perpetuity, so the immediate task of the party upon success is to propel the entire working class into revolutionary consciousness and economic capability as quickly as possible. This means going beyond just mass-literacy, but doing things like teaching everyone accounting, agriculture, and basic engineering from an early age as part of standard education, like Lenin talked about, so that any random person on the street could examine any company's books, or repair a machine, or grow their own food. Basically if your whole plan to defend your revolution is to just witch-hunt harder than the reactionaries can infiltrate you, your project is doomed. The best systems are the ones designed to survive catastrophic failure at multiple levels; brittle systems are for capitalists. Within 1-2 generations the average person should be effectively indistinguishable from any member of a revolutionary party in skills and ideological training, to the point that you could make half the population party members and it wouldn't matter. As many people as possible should have the formal knowledge and personal experience to fill as many roles as possible, to serve in union leadership, to manage shop floors, to act as political delegates, to fight revolutionary wars, etc. The first and most important role of the Party in constructing the proletarian state is to put in place systems to ensure that the next generation fits that description, otherwise the whole project can and probably will derail. The 2nd generation should be better communists than the revolutionaries themselves, not just going along to get along.
Very true, comrade, very true. I am a Chinese citizen and I can tell you that the reluctance of giving power to people would make a party of proletariat just another privileged class.
^ This is too insightful to remain just another TH-cam comment. I hope you at the very least save it and turn it into a blog, TH-cam vid, or letter, if you haven't already.
This comment was so insightful thank you!!
This comment was super eye opening, and I hope to come back to it at some point to better understand what you're saying. I'm in the process of unlearning the american understanding of Marxism and learning the experiences and lessons of the people that actually did revolution. I'm trying to put together and work my way through a reading list, is there any chance you might have some recommended works to flesh out the ideas you're talking about and/or their historical context.
Much appreciated if you happen to have anything 😁
@@XDarkxSteel I highly, HIGHLY recommend you read about the Paris commune, from all sides. Contested historical events always have people leaving out things, even when they're being honest. It's easier to get a fair and complete history of the French Revolution than socialist revolutions, because Jacobin ideology now rules the world. A lot of good stuff on the commune is in French, so the best English source from the left is Gluckstein's book. Learning about the Commune is what made me a communist, long after reading Marx, because it all clicked--dictatorship of the proletariat, proletarian democracy vs bourgeois republicanism, the importance of an alliance of the most politically engaged and radical to develop theory and radicalize the masses in preparation for when the masses have an opportunity to seize power for themselves (i.e. a revolutionary vanguard), the mortal threat that organized liberalism poses to democratic revolutions, etc. It also I think modeled a more dialectical relationship between central and local institutions that needs to be more closely studied; it wasn't anarchist, but it also didn't look like the USSR, in part because it was based on the urban commune. The ultimate aim was to build the new nation as a federation of communes with a strong (but not independent or dominant) central government. Centralism and decentralism are in a dialectical relationship that needs to be synthesized, but I don't see that much in discussions about post-capitalist governance.
But reading about the Commune from the anti-perspective in combination also gave me a better understanding of their errors, especially knowing as much as I do about the original Jacobins. (Also, you get to see how liberals blatantly gloss over the good things the Commune achieved, and how they seem compelled to turn everything into issues of politicians' individual personalities.) Like, Marx was right that they were too conciliatory initially, but what I never see talked about is how the Communards' early banning of the death penalty saved them from the worst consequences of their own political terror. Their best and most loyal general was constantly being imprisoned every time he didn't immediately crush the enemy, but they couldn't execute him, so a few days later they'd release him when they realized they needed him. He'd dutifully go back to leading the troops every time.
One of the most frustrating things about the Russian Revolution is the degree to which they repeated the errors of the French Revolution. The dumbest thing Gluckstein says is that the original Jacobin terror helped them win the war, but I know that it didn't; they won in spite of it. The terror actually enabled the later reaction. The staunchest reactionaries all fled and joined enemy governments (a la Cuba); the people who stuck around were the ones who believed in the revolution. The political commissioners went around executing generals in front of their own men for strategic retreats from unwinnable situations, because the retreats were evidence that they were "secret counter-revolutionaries." Yet the biggest traitor in the military fled safely when his attempt to martial his men against the government failed.
Fear is the most dangerous emotion for a revolution, because it's both highly motivating and reduces people to their stupidest selves on a neurological level. If you look at Vietnam historically and currently, what's striking is how confident they are, and how they don't let the reactionaries intimidate them into shooting themselves in the foot. The revolutions which most achieve their goals in the long run are the ones that quickly establish breathing room to develop their institutions and publicly debate, without constantly being at each other's throats. Rehabilitating genuine comrades who just succumb to an error was one of the good things about the Bolsheviks during Lenin's time, and it's the thing that seems to have most quickly gone out the window once he died. The people who care most about your shared goals are the ones who you want around, even if sometimes you fight, because the alternative is a bunch of opportunist sycophants and spies. Sincere error from a revolutionary socialist isn't the same as counter-revolution, even if it is very annoying.
That's why I like Mao. He pioneered long-term revolution, which required that he couldn't pull the stuff the Bolsheviks did that alienated the peasants during the Civil War. The army had to be highly disciplined in how it interacted with the masses, and it needed to provide for itself as much as possible, to minimize conflict with the people for food and goods. He screwed up some stuff with economic policy later, but generally he improved on the errors of the Bolsheviks. Ho Chi Minh did the same, because he ran into similar problems with how long they had to fight to liberate themselves. They built governments that could fully function even while at war and lacking a monopoly on force. They built schools, they prosecuted police, and they trained the masses to fight, while literally getting shelled. At that point expanding those institutions once you've won is easy. The CPP is really showing the world what that looks like. Much more so the Bolsheviks were winging it once the revolution started, frequently implementing policies and building institutions out of expediency without considering the long-term impact they would have in the post-revolutionary society. (The Russian Civil War was a messed up time for everyone.)
After years of searching up this question, I have to say this is the most concise yet detailed explanation I've ever seen. Thanks for the upload and the recommendations!
Mashallah daddy Marxist Paul has uploaded
mashallah daddy Naheed Ahmed has commented on daddy Marxist Paul's upload
So, Marxist Paul, there are a lot of people talking Marxism on TH-cam, but nobody does it like you do it. You are amazing and I'm glad you took the time to make these videos. Cheers, my friend. Wow. Just wow. Wonderful work you're doing.
do you consider yourself a marxist?
@@leeroybrownish I would say so, yes.
@@JPlaceCrooner What would you say made you want to go down that route?
@@leeroybrownish because capitalism’s logical conclusion is for power and wealth to consolidate into hands of peoples whose interest directly conflict with the health and well being of society. For true democracy, you need to have political and economic power shared more equally across society. While no system is perfect, our current capitalist system is not tenable, for the planet nor health and wealth of the people
@@JPlaceCrooner Do you know that people who have escaped from Communists countries, would tell you that Communism is solely about consolidation of control, land and wealth? Why is it do you think, when they escape they always come to the USA? Over the past 75 years, how many people have escaped USA in a boat going to Cuba?
This video shows why it's so important to actually study theory. I see so many terms and concepts be misunderstood or not critically examined online and that makes it very frustrating to move forward in a conversation. Then again, it's online. Even a constructive conversation won't exactly get anyone anywhere.
Damn, this Mao guy might be onto something with the "Mass Line" idea.
Yeah, he's very good at that. So after him, China began to strictly control mass movements.
Great explanation, comrade. Very succinct without over-simplifying much.
If folks are looking for other further reading on the topic, check out "Lenin and the Revolutionary Party" by Paul Le Blanc.
✊
Melody
paul le blanc is anti-leninist
the vanguard party CAN be kept in check if proper power is given to the workers
"It can easily be shown, from Lenin’s copious discussions of the professional revolutionary for years after WITBD, that to Lenin the term meant this: a party activist who devoted most (preferably all) of his spare time to revolutionary work. The professional revolutionary considers his revolutionary activity to be the center of his life (or of his life-style, if you will). He must work to earn a living, of course, but this is not his life’s center. Such is the professional revolutionary type.
I have come to believe that part of the confusion stems from the important difference in the meaning of professional between English and most Continental languages. In French (and I think the German, etc. usage stems directly from the French) the word professionnel refers simply to occupation. Whereas in English only lawyers, doctors and other recognized “professions” can be said to have “professional” activity, in French this can be said of anyone in any occupation; the reference is simply to occupational activity. Under the aegis of the English language, a “professional” revolutionary must be as full-time as a doctor or lawyer. (Of course this does not account for non-English Leninologists, and is only one factor in the confusion.)
It follows from Lenin’s view that even the “core” of professional revolutionaries were not necessarily expected to be full-time party activists, which usually means functionaries. (The number of functionaries in a revolutionary group is a question with its own history, but this history is not presently ours.) The point of defining a professional revolutionary as a full-timer, a functionary, is to fake the conclusion, or “deduction”: only non-workers can make up the party elite, hence only intellectuals. This conclusion is an invention of the Leninologists, based on nothing in Lenin."
Hal draper
This is great, many thanks. I’ve subscribed. I found this easier to follow at 0.75x speed and plan to listen again, soon!
I'm not convinced that Democratic Centralism can implement the mass line. I think it is better to have working groups that each have their own mandate to focus on. This and rotating the leaders makes the organization less efficient but more robust.
Thank you, comrade! I've been wanting to associate with two popular ML/MLM parties in my country, but wasn't sure yet which one. This really aided my decision. Thanks!
Love from Brazil ❤️ 🚩
Happy to help! Make sure to check out A Nova Democracia, they have a really good political line: anovademocracia.com.br/
It bugs me that when It comes to Joseph Stalin pictures and portraits they never put him or draw him with his military hat he always wore it.
Another excellent, worthwhile video, thank you.
These videos are really crisp and informative ^_^ love ‘em
Another great video from Marxist Paul. No surprises there.
Thank you, Paul! Another great one!
Extremely helpful! You're doing excelling work agitating and educating!
I totally understand the need for a vanguard party as a political and economic leader who has the scientific knowledge about marxism and the dialectics of the material conditions that the philosophy of building socialism is based on unlike the masses in ability to have the full knowledge of the complexity of marxism and its relation to building socialism .
In order for the people in society to hold the administrative and planning tasks must have the scientific knowledge needed or required for that and due to their lack of being that because of the division of labour between physical and mental labour there will be the need for a transitional period where the vanguard party fills till the cultural scientific knowledge level of the masses reach the required stage .
Love your channel from California!
I would highly suggest reading the capacity contract, I am really interested on what you'd have to say on its implications for Marxism when 'achieving class consciousness' can be viewed as a form of compulsory mental compacity that bars groups of people from being politically active in such a way
Thankyouuuuuuu... I was waiting for this 😍
I can already say this is based
Love it!
Very informative 👍
I have been studying Marxism Leninism and the early USSR may concern is a forced internal passport system freedom of movement is a basic human right solve that problem and I'm in
I would also strongly recommend the document "On the Construction of the Party" by the PCP
just to boost the algo, thanks for your work
Awesome video!
Well produced video as always.
President Vladimir gangsta till Comrade Vladimir wakes up from his sleep
Except the FBI destroyed the Panthers to prevent this.
Ty
Thank you for such a great explanation of the Vanguard party.
Based vanguardism
There are also other situations, where
there are coalitions + several parties +
own theories, joined in coalitions. of
several.parties, parties factions, non
party organizations,, individuals, etc.,
as in Commune of Paris, 1871, W + E
Europe, 1918 including Russia, Spanish
Republic, 1936 to 3?, France + Czecho
slovakia, 1968, Portugal. 1974, some
Central.America, 1970s 80s, etc.Thus,
we encounter several self proclaimed
vanguard parties, each + its own
broadly similar theory.
We needed this video, thanks comrade Paul!
Thank you Paul! There's not a lot of left-wing youtubers out here doing MLM focused videos, your videos are a great help in studying it! :D
Thank-you for covering this fundamentally important topic and the very interesting way you did it. However, I would just like to suggest if you could slow down your speech a bit - you've got a heavy accent so a slower speech I think would help some listeners. Also, some modulation and intonation would give your words more impact. Hope you don't mind me pointing this out to you.
Thanks! I'll keep this in mind.
I was under a lot of time pressure with this one, so it's a bit rushed. I'll slow things down for the next video. In the meantime, perhaps watching it at 0.75x speed with the captions turned on will help
Activity for the algorithm.
mashallah comrade paul has uploaded
It just doesn't do it for me. Provides too much opportunity for bullies and chauvinists to find themselves consolidating a lot of power around them and their buddies. The potential for a huge amount centralisation of power is too great and I believe when power is too centralised the potential for serious harm is immense. Especially when you see how every political party ever tries to protect the party at all costs and places it above the needs of the people. It's too dangerous and rather than making excuses for terrible past regimes we should acknowledge the failures and create something new, socialism is a science it needs to keep evolving.
I agree with this exactly. Lenin completed Marx’s critiques of Capitalism in my opinion, but his revolutionary theory lead to a country that created a new bourgeoisie through the party and state apparatus that the party controlled. It was essentially capitalism of the state.
Sounds like all ideologies around Marxism (Socialism, Communism, ML and Maoism) were fraud ideologies that brainwashed poor people into thinking they’ll be given more power and self determination only to be fighting to give power off to another establishment totalitarian state
Sorry about the duplicated comment - I had a problem posting it.
Another banger comrade
tldr: *DESTROY THE PIG SYSTEM!!!*
Based as always
im just here to find out how based my victoria 3 government is
UR KILLING ME comrade, 4 pages of notes.... our poor hand :(
Did the USSR eventually give away to ultra centralism?
Yes it became an autocractic sh*thole with Stalin, then it sorta became better with Kruschev and it then it devolved into a bureaucratic hellhole
How do we differentiate between a fulltime professional revolutionary emerging from the working class, and a hanger-on from the "middle class" or "professional class" ? (yes I know these are within the working class in terms of relationship to means of production but the experiences of these groups are often so different from the general proletariat as to create a disconnect from the reality of most workers)
Eg the DSA's discourse is full of insistence that the organization be "outward facing" to look "toward the working class" which implies the organization is not, or should not be, *of* the working class.
Also how do you see the differences and similarities between vanguardism (MLM and ML) and platformist anarchism? As far as I can tell the main differences are organizationally, just how decisions are made internally, not calling the organization a "party", and of course some ideological distinctions about states and whatnot.
"After the “League” had been disbanded at my behest in November 1852, I never belonged to any society again, whether secret or public; … the party, therefore, in this wholly ephemeral sense, ceased to exist for me eight years ago … since 1852 I had not been associated with any association and was firmly convinced that my theoretical studies were of greater use to the working class than my meddling with associations which had now had their day on the Continent. Because of this “inactivity” I was thereupon repeatedly and bitterly attacked. … Since 1852, then, I have known nothing of “party” in the sense implied in your letter. … The “League”, like the Société des Saisons in Paris and a hundred other societies, was simply an episode in the history of a party that is everywhere springing up naturally out of the soil of modern society. … I have tried to dispel the misunderstanding arising out of the impression that by “party” I meant a “League” that expired eight years ago, or an editorial board that was disbanded twelve years ago. By party, I meant the party in the broad historical sense." - Marx's letter to Ferdinand Freiligrath, 1860.
Should not the Russian Nihilists be mentioned, as they were both thinkers and an art movement, and partially were involved in the cultural shift towards revolutionary activity; many of the Nihilists joined the Bolsheviks and we're heavily criticized by reactionaries like Dostoyevsky.
Anyone using the term „ultra-democracy“ as a pejorative term immediately disqualifies themselves as a liberator.
There is no such thing as too much democracy. Everyone should have the right to decide on anything if they find that it’s relevant to them. It’s merely a question of organization. Instead of making all decisions in a plenum, have different councils for different areas of decision-making. And who should sit in those councils? -Those who are trusted by those most concerned by the decisions made by this councils. In other words: those who are considered experts by the interested public. I.e., WORKERS that actually are in touch with the reality on the ground not because they cultivate a habit of fraternizing with workers, but because they themselves *are* workers.
But this system of councils should be granular enough that you can basically vote on everything. Otherwise it will favor the detached know-it-alls that try to convince us that it is in our interest to pamper them so they can be useless full time revolutionaries.
"I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." - Che Guevara
I do think that one thing that Liberal Democracies get right is the attempt (often failed and imperfect) to not allow democracy to become mob rule. To recognise that minorities must also have rights within a democracy, and that sometimes the minority needs to be protected against the will of the majority. In that sense, you can have too much democracy - if a white nationalist majority can decide to expel or execute an entire non-white minority, then that is too much democracy. Similarly, in a democracy some rights must be respected _even if the majority do not want them_ - otherwise, the democracy itself would cease to function. If, for example, a majority wanted to remove due process and replace it with a system of guilty until proven innocent, that would undermine democracy itself. It cannot be allowed to happen.
What I'm getting that is that any form of democracy _must_ include checks and balances to make sure that everyone within that society has their interests and rights respected, regardless of what the majority might want. Pure populist majoritarianism can easily degenerate into tyranny. This must be the case on every level, whether national or at the level of a Soviet.
@@monkeymox2544 and who imposes those checks, balances and basic guidelines? Unelected and therefore unaccountable people? Or should they be elected and thereby be subject to the whims of the mob? I‘d clearly opt for the latter any day. Technocrats have no place in a democracy, they always corrupt whatever institution they’re allowed to run.
@@markuspfeifer8473 I don't claim to have a good answer, except that those checks do need to be there. Right now different countries have different solutions: constitutions, separate judiciaries, bicameral legislatures which contain unelected chambers appointed by the elected one, and the concept of representation rather than delegation. Some combination of these, perhaps with newer methods that haven't been tried, would serve the same function as they do now.
Let me turn the question back to you: how would you protect the rights of the individual, and the rights of minorities? Or are you willing to sacrifice those rights for pure majoritarianism? Because personally, I think that the pure tyranny of the majority would be a dystopia. I also think that that's the kind democracy that Plato thought was apt to devolve into less equitable forms of government, ones easily seized by populist leaders who become tyrants themselves.
@@monkeymox2544 I‘d probably want a constitution, too, but what matters is who enforced it because otherwise it’s just a piece of paper. And yes, you may need judges or something like that. But to me, it is of utmost importance that the people have a vote who those judges are or you’ll get fools who say that the EPA can’t regulate carbon emissions or that states can ban abortions and other stuff. Ideally, I wouldn’t even want to have judges that can decide on such a variety of topics, but specialized judges for different areas and no single Supreme Court but one per area. If that system produces discrimination, so be it. Can happen in a system with technocrats too, but it’s way more likely there. Technocrats can’t prevent a radicalized mob from screwing minorities, but they can and will mess with a generally progressive population that trust the bureaucrats more than themselves: Your average Joe may be a jerk, but most of them don’t want people at the border to die or gay people to live in misery. Those things usually are outgrowths of an alienated bureaucracy that makes decisions without knowing the reality on the ground.
United frontsmen less fuken goooo
is RAF or brigate rosse considered to be adventurism?
i cam here from the channel second thought... i don't exactly know why but I am having a tough time understanding your speech. I watch second thought's videos in 2x speed and still i have no problem in understanding each words of him. But here I watch in normal speed, though I found many many new words which I haven't heard at all before and also I think I am not understanding you accent. But you're topics are great. Can you give me some suggestions on what to do?
Turn on the captions/subtitles. They're available on every video on the channel for accessibility
You should do a video on badjacketing.
Did I understand this correctly?
There is many references to Mao and his theory of how the party should work continuously with the objective parties to prop up the process of always moving towards the utopian society. Which part of this did Mao get wrong? He drove the economy into the ground by reckless agricultural policy after the elimination of birds supposedly eating the crops. 50 million dead due to starvation seems to be the most common consensus. Secondly, aspiring to compete with global steel production in a ridiculous timeline. Surely there was objection to that crazy idea? Lysenko another example of how an ideology left unchecked can kill millions of your citizens. My point being is that with a capitalist market at least it squashes bad ideas if you have a crap product by nobody buying it. In communism you are left open to a party telling you that this is what you will consume.
Like I am sure many capitalists would have said on this channel, capitalism is not perfect by any means but it’s the lesser evil of the two options.
"we will just discuss it internally" Ah! that's where it comes from, professor dave "explains". I find it fascinating that you think that this has any chance of actually happening like you preach. On the positive side you are knowledgeable enough to get a spot in the vanguard so you should be fine $. Well this videos sure are useful, if you ever "win", I sure wouldn't go work the factories for you to debate it internally for me. I want that sweet vanguard position too! Better keep watching to learn more just in case.
algorithm bump
Party, hearty!
♥️☭
Don't forget Leninists (as distinguished from Marxist-Leninists)!
@@expedition346in my opinion, no. I think all Marxism-Blablaist titles are pretty useless since all of these different branches of marxism are just marxism applied by a person to their current state. So being a Leninist while not being a marxist is believing in ones personal view of a system while not believing in the core principles if the system as a whole.
So, you say that Maoism gives workers the permission they need to overthrow the party should a day come when they become disconnected from the masses. Could it not be said that this state has already occured in China? China has more billionaires in it's communist party than any other political party in the world. Independent unions are impossible, socialism as an economic system was never even attempted (though up unitl the modern era they couldn't have, and I'm defining a socialist economic system by Marx's writings in Critique of the gotha program including labour vouchers and bottom up control of production and distribution). Given this, and the other problems in China such as mass survalience and discriminitory policies against muslims, etc. would you be willing to agree the time is now for change?
China has walked down that path ever since Deng rose to power. Along with the liberalization of Chinese economy and their warmth toward the USA during the Cold War, they have grown more into a surveillance capitalist state than the actual socialist state.
Hey could you go over and review council communism/socialism please that is the system i think would work the best and i wanna know more about it
Im fine with most systems but the council i think is the best the ones i wouldn't be ok with is a totalitarian, authoritarian, or anything that has any oppression on the proletariat
Why don't we mix things up with references to Lukács and Gramsci. Gramsci and the 'Modern Prince' role of the party? Lenin on Dual power or Régis Debray on Foco guerrilla strategy.
Why not reference real world historical precedents of Vanguard parties like The Black Panther Party and The Young Lords doing prefigurative politics or what they called 'survival programs'. Also perhaps the Bolshevik party schools in exile, The Chinese Communists established guerrilla base areas in the 30s and 40s where they did prefigurative politics like carried out literacy programs, combat training, they helped set up cooperatives and provided basic medical assistance to the locals. The Communists carried out land reform and mobilized women into the political process. I'm thinking of the Jiangxi Soviet and the Yan'an era. The Yugoslav communists during WW2, the Cuban leftist revolutionaries in the Sierra Maestra mountains and the Vietnamese communists in the North during the liberation struggle, all did similar things.
Erik Van Ree has this interesting article about Stalin's organic theory of the party. Marxist-Leninist strategy is far more diverse and theoretically rich than what many comrades give it credit for.
What is to be done is such a great book, I like it more than state in rev imo.
Houston Socialist Movement
To be honest, I think every Marxist with a minimum of common knowledge would agree with most of the MLM ideas. But there is something that bothers me.
I am a ML and I agree with the Mass Line, critizism and self critizism, but I can't get behind the idea of the PPW.
Also, I see kinda silly adding "maoism" to ML; ML is a developing science, I don't think adding new names is useful.
Within Maoism, there's also debate about the universality of PPW (though it's true that most Maoists see it's creative application as a universally applicable proletarian military strategy), so this in itself shouldn't prevent you from diving further into MLM.
As for the latter point about it being silly to add that final M to ML, we could apply the same logic and say the very same thing about "Leninism" in Marxism-Leninism.
Remember, the science is not Marxism-Leninism per se. The science is historical materialism (and the philosophy underpinning that science is dialectical materialism). So if we apply this same understanding, that historical materialism is a developing science and that we never need to update its terminology based on that, then we wouldn't need to differentiate between Marxism and Marxism-Leninism.
But it's an undeniable fact that the quantitative developments brought forward by Lenin, Stalin, and the Bolshevik Revolution led to a qualitative leap to a higher level of revolutionary science. ML provided us with a concrete pathway to socialism, new inroads into the understanding of the national question, of the vanguard party, and expanded the understanding of capitalism into the age of capitalism-imperialism/monopoly capitalism.
Likewise, the experience of the Chinese Revolution takes revolutionary science to a qualitatively higher level beyond ML again, advancing Marxism in each of its three core components: philosophy, political economy, and scientific socialism.
The philosophy was deepened by Mao’s refinements of Dialectical Materialism through the universal Law of Contradiction; primary and secondary contradictions; antagonistic and non-antagonistic contradictions, etc., as well as the refined Marxist Theory of Knowledge.
The Maoist understanding of Political Economy provides the theory of bureacrat capitalism; and that Politics must always be in command of the economy, necessitating struggle at the levels of both Superstructure as well as the Base
And it further refines Scientific Socialism by clarifying that Class struggle continues in socialism via Cultural Revolution. It teaches the people how to capture power, with the fully developed proletarian military theory of Protracted People’s War. And, most importantly, it teaches us how to KEEP that power in the hands of the working class in order to avoid the backslide into capitalism, so that the class struggle can continue to advance towards communism.
Less than 2 years ago I was making the same point that you're making atm. It took me years of testing theory in practice with various organisations before I came around to recognising MLM as the third and highest stage of revolutionary science, so I understand why you feel this way. I felt that way for a long time, too
@@Marxism_Today I have disagreements with most MLM regarding a few points.
1- I don't think Gonzalo was that good of a leader.
2- I support AES such as China and Vietnam
3- I dont think a contradiction can be non-antagonistic. In my eyes is like saying a non-contradictory contradiction.
If you disagree with non-antagonistic contradiction, then you disagree with Lenin on a fundamental principle of dialectics.
"We must make a concrete study of the circumstances of each specific struggle of opposites and should not arbitrarily apply the formula discussed above to everything. Contradiction and struggle are universal and absolute, but the methods of resolving contradictions, that is, the forms of struggle, differ according to the differences in the nature of the contradictions. Some contradictions are characterized by open antagonism, others are not. In accordance with the concrete development of things, some contradictions which were originally non-antagonistic develop into antagonistic ones, while others which were originally antagonistic develop into non-antagonistic ones.
As already mentioned, so long as classes exist, contradictions between correct and incorrect ideas in the Communist Party are reflections within the Party of class contradictions. At first, with regard to certain issues, such contradictions may not manifest themselves as antagonistic. But with the development of the class struggle, they may grow and become antagonistic. The history of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union shows us that the contradictions between the correct thinking of Lenin and Stalin and the fallacious thinking of Trotsky, Bukharin and others did not at first manifest themselves in an antagonistic form, but that later they did develop into antagonism. There are similar cases in the history of the Chinese Communist Party. At first the contradictions between the correct thinking of many of our Party comrades and the fallacious thinking of Chen Tu-hsiu, Chang Kuo-tao and others also did not manifest themselves in an antagonistic form, but later they did develop into antagonism. At present the contradiction between correct and incorrect thinking in our Party does not manifest itself in an antagonistic form, and if comrades who have committed mistakes can correct them, it will not develop into antagonism. Therefore, the Party must on the one hand wage a serious struggle against erroneous thinking, and on the other give the comrades who have committed errors ample opportunity to wake up. This being the case, excessive struggle is obviously inappropriate. But if the people who have committed errors persist in them and aggravate them, there is the possibility that this contradiction will develop into antagonism.
Economically, the contradiction between town and country is an extremely antagonistic one both in capitalist society, where under the rule of the bourgeoisie the towns ruthlessly plunder the countryside, and in the Kuomintang areas in China, where under the rule of foreign imperialism and the Chinese big comprador bourgeoisie the towns most rapaciously plunder the countryside. But in a socialist country and in our revolutionary base areas, this antagonistic contradiction has changed into one that is non-antagonistic; and when communist society is reached it will be abolished.
Lenin said, "Antagonism and contradiction are not at all one and the same. Under socialism, the first will disappear, the second will remain." That is to say, antagonism is one form, but not the only form, of the struggle of opposites; the formula of antagonism cannot be arbitrarily applied everywhere."
(www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_17.htm )
@@Marxism_Today the Contradiction between countryside and towns is antagonistic because one exist because the other one. The thing is that in order to solve that Contradiction you firstly need to end clase conflict (because It is a secondary Contradiction)
?
It's not clear whether you accept Lenin's clarification that "Antagonism and contradiction are not at all one and the same".
Are you disagreeing with Lenin? If so, I strongly recommend reading both "Materialism and Empirio-criticism" (www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/ ) and "On Contradiction" (www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_17.htm )
To deny the role of antagonism, or antagonistic contradiction, is to deny the philosophical underpinning of all scientific socialist development from Lenin onwards
hi can you join 字幕 i can t remenber egelisi
The obliteration of hierarchy cannot be achieved by creating another hierarchy.
I'm sure random acts of spontaneous rebellion lacking any leadership or coordination will bring the capitalists to their knees. Any day now.
Read mao
Read Mao (2)
@@anushghosh4606 I'll get around to that right after I start giving a fuck about what tankies have to say.
@@anushghosh4606 TH-cam smash WFsufdgq6ms
FUCKING BASED
Why do we need a Vanguard Party? I still want to know 😂
To unite the spontaneous movements of the masses within a larger strategy for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie and seizure of power for the working class, avoiding the cul-de-sacs of movementism, economism and adventurism
@@Marxism_Today We can have government without state 😅
@@numberoneplutofan ye
Can a i work for you some spanish subs?
George Orwell got me into socialism. Can you give me a counter argument to Orwell's arguments against the vanguard party. You linked me to this video when I asked about the vanguard party on the democratic socialist video. I feel very confused after watching the video. You said Mao fixed the vanguard party and Mao fix look's like double-think/gaslighting based on Mao cult of personality and using the masses to remove his rivals plus CCP's human right abuse and going with kleptocratic state capitalism instead communism.
@@expedition346 He didn't directly criticize it because he mainly spoke in metaphors. He fought in the Spanish civil war where he talked to a bunch of anarchists that fled the from the Bolsheviks he the Russian civil war this is where he got most of his ideas about socialism. Over purification of the ideology which tends to lead to a hyper paranoid kill or be killed situation. Based on the idea that the problem with capitalism is that the capitalist class holds too much power of the economy and abuses it, what's the point of getting rid of capitalism if they just gonna give the means of production to a vanguard party and have them abuse it. Orwell thought they were implementing state capitalism during the Russian Revolution so Orwell would consider mao part of the bourgeoisie.
@@AndrewMellor-darkphotonI think Paul’s video covers a lot of these points on the correct implementation of the party line and the 3 tiered structure of the revolutionary party. One friendly point of clarification though, the Marxist critique of the state isn’t so much that the bourgeoisie has control over the economy. Our theory on the state is that it is a tool used by a ruling class for the suppression of all other classes in society (mostly bourgeoisie and proletarians at this point). Each class has its own political ideology, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism being that of the proletariat while the capitalist class’s ideology is liberalism. Under a liberal democracy, the capitalist class uses the state (police, military, courts, prisons, etc.) to suppress the working class and protect private property for capitalists.
On the other hand, Communists seek to abolish the capitalist state and all its structures. In its place, the vanguard party must lead the working class in building its own structures of class domination, some of which will likely exist in some form or another before the revolution (i.e. military). The proletarian state embraces its class character and expropriates the means of production and distribution as common property. Therefore I think it’s inaccurate to describe Mao as a capitalist due to his relation to the means of production. While he and other communist party leaders have had a substantial influence on the countries they led and the people that came after, it’s important to remember that no communist party is a monolith. As Paul mentions, line struggle is part of any communist party.
Unfortunately, internal and external pressures from the national and international capitalist class have won out in nominally communist countries. However, this doesn’t mean the ideas of Lenin and Mao were incorrect, it’s the opposite. The fact that these countries withstood the immense pressure of global capitalist imperialism for as long as they did is incredible. All the while, these socialist experiments were able to virtually eradicate poverty, homelessness, and starvation. They also increased life expectancy and literacy rates dramatically. All told, these historical experiences can guide our organizing and give us hope. Remember, capitalism tried and failed many times to establish itself in the world of feudal monarchies before finally taking hold and becoming the dominant global economic system. Climate change is here and time is running out, so we need to implement the ideas of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao as well as many others. It’s socialism or barbarism, and the vanguard party is the only proven path to socialism.
Orwell was an MI6 agent. Enough said.
The Vanguard Party as a solution to these problems is something given rise to by the prominence of the party organisation as a generalised structure of prominence in bourgeois political organising of the 19th and 20th centuries. It’s got shit all to do with realities of contemporary proletarian life. In that period the prominence of various kinds of clubs, churches, organised crime and yea trade unions as facts of Proletarian life, and the prominence of the Party as a central pillar of political struggle and engagement across the spectrum gave the Party model an appeal that no longer exists. The Party in copying its concept from the bourgeois Party’s perpetuated systems of superstructural hierarchy and failed to build truely representative working class coalitions into itself. Innately privileging inherently the perspectives of those ‘agitators’ who most closely mirrored the skills, affect and ways of knowing and understanding of the bourgeois intellectual, those with the greatest ability to access bourgeois education.
The Party doesn’t any longer stand up to what you were quoting from Mao about the building the mass line and the Marxist theory of knowledge. You take that shit to the masses and you get laughed out of town. All these so called ‘Vanguard parties’ with 5 members rotating being general secretary. It’s pathetic.
Do you have an alternative organization in mind for structuring or focusing revolutionary in mind?
@@jeffengel2607 I’ve been reading and writing a lot… but it’s gotta be shit that’s worked out on the ground amid the realities of proletarian life. I think it starts with looking outwards at our class around us and seeing how people are organising not just for explicitly political aims but for all kinds of things including the social, antisocial and creative in our actual contexts and trying to advance what already exists rather than coming up with some perfect model in the abstract. That’d be idealist.
😚😚
The problem Marxist Paul, with the vanguard party, and leninism more broadly, are two fold.
Firstly - is the issue of a general hierarchy which results from its formation - both prior and after acquiring power, for which it forms a state hierarchy. This is problematic because it is a fundamental misunderstanding of the definition of class in the Marxist perspective. Class in the Marxist perspective is necessarily contingent upon the extent to which hierarchy exists. Because 1) It is not defined - as it is so often misrepresented - as being in relation to property ownership (such a definition is pre-marxian) - but, on the contrary, it is defined in relation to the Marxist discovery of Surplus Value and, specifically, the economic relationship to its production, distribution and control. And 2) political hierarchy necessarily creates a qualitative shift in all aspects of that relationship - irrespective to whether the state "owns" all property. As Marx stated, property is but a super-structural legally codified *reflection* of the material economic relationship within a given system. It is not *the* material relationship. Feudalism, for example, was not based upon property ownership. Hierarchy is therefore of great importance, and totally neglected by Leninism and its derivatives.
Secondly - because the vanguard party and the concept of "advanced class consciousness" is - in so many respects - a self-appointed position. It is essentially saying - for whatever reason the group or individual actors part of the vanguard may assume or contrive - that they - as self-assessed - have "higher levels of class consciousness" - and therefore should obtain leadership - and consequently decision making - supremacy - over those who have "less advanced class consciousness". Now this strikes me as semi-religious and really not a testable or verifiable claim or self-assessment. Its like the religious leader of old saying they have a greater connection to God, and therefore others should follow. Its simply not verifiable. As Marx states - "Just as we do not judge an individual by what they think about themselves, so we should not judge a period of transformation *by its own consciousness*, but rather that consciousness must be explained from the contradictions of material life". Now, with hindsight, and when we understand and consider the materialist conception of history - and that already discussed - the historic function of - say - the Russian Revolution - is questionable. What its leadership said - or believed they were doing, - constructing, or their sense of position in history - is not relevant to our consideration. That they believed they were creating socialism is irrelevant to our consideration. What is of importance of us to Marxists is our material understanding of those historic changes. Advanced class consciousness is a "belief" - often found to be unfounded and, in actuality, the rationalistion for acquiring class position - as outlined in my first paragraph. Its an extremely dangerous and dubious idea. Philosophically idealistic, even.
The issue is investors need to be able to get a good return on their capital so CEOs are pressured to produce profit for the shareholders at all cost.
The historical vanguard parties we have seen have all ultimatly replaced the old elites with a new one.