Louis R Godena
louisgodena at ids.net
Mon Aug 12 17:04:00 MDT 1996
Neil C writes:
>Thank you for your up-front confessions of the general social nature and
> jaded outlook of some leading cadre of the CPUSA.
>Personalisms and psychological rundowns though have a way of actually masking
>what are at root political and class questions! I would rather stick to those
>This is PART of your dilemma in that outfit surely, and if you are sincere
>about your subjective revolutionary impulse to fight this dead end of
>pragmatism, cynicism and opportunism., i will not be sectarian toward you with
>cheap shots & you have my sympathy.
Neil, I am not clear as to what you mean by my "confessions" or "jaded
outlook". I am merely trying to explain my own position on the 1996
elections, with general references to my organization--the Communist
Party--as sort of a background. I have held these views for some time,
and they are fairly well known to the leadership of the CP. If I have
been guilty of "rundowns"(?), psychological or otherwise, then it is clear
that I have been talking too much, and that it is time to give this general
thread a rest.
You continue, on a personal note:
>I am not an anarchist, for proletarian class battles i believe, prove we do
>need leadership ability in developed political organization to effecticvly
>capital and the state in the real world. However , there is the point about
>rountinism, toadyism, and megalomania that has gone with the NON-REVOLUTIONARY
>methods and Centrism of most of the self-proclaimed Marxist groups in the
>This goes for both theory and practice.
>One part of the solution for revolutionaries forming up again to try 2year
>rotations in office maybe, 2 years leadership-2 years back in the workforce,
>also all leaders should be instantly recallable and removed for using their
>on a anti-revolutionary bourgeois way. What do you think?
It is tempting, when dealing with an encrusted, obstinate, or seemingly
incompetent leadership, to want to make short work of it, and get on with
the struggle. This may be viscerally satisfying, but it can have untoward
consequences for the stability of the Party. There is also the
continuity of work to consider, not only in Party-generated organizations
and fronts, but in allied areas as well. And then there is always the
morale of Party members to consider. I tend to fight shy of pre-existing
formulas ("two years in--two years out"), preferring instead maximum
flexibility among comrades themselves to decide policy, in close
cooperation with whomever happens to occupy leadership positions. This is
part of the problem with Democratic Centralism as it has been applied in
western communist parties--keeping the leadership sharp, responsive,
competent, while at the same time insuring the viability and stability of
the Party, often under extremely trying circumstances. Personally, I
would always rather err on the side of flexibility, even risking somewhat
the charge of indiscipline, if that somehow would keep the Party fresher,
more peripatetic, more responsive to rapidly changing conditions.
Neil, now waxes didactic:
>Louis G. , Workerism,ie being "close' to the class, even going to market and
>church with them does not a revolutionary group make either! If all you can do
>is be welcomed along to shop in mini- malls, bake sales, pray in church on
>Sunday and support labor fakers in the union.. I',m sorry, this is not a
>passing grade for "communist day to day work". It is liberal do-gooder work ,
>and has nothing to do with the political preparations of the class in
>fight the rich..
Neil, again, I am not sure what exactly you mean here. I have always
tried to go where the people are. Yes, that has frequently meant shopping
malls, construction sites, VFW halls, 4-H fairs, anywhere I could talk
politics from the perspective of one communist. I have been in the
parlors and living rooms of people who have never voted anything but
Republican in their entire lives. I have had new experiences (I had never
heard "Tennessee Birdwalk played on the trombone before) and learned much
>from all of them. In my own way, I tried, in your words, to "set the
class in motion" not just to fight the rich, but to struggle against the
monolith called capitalism that, sooner or later, will devour them all.
I simply do not know how to do it any other way.
I think we have just about exhausted whatever potential this thread has had.
Let others pick it up, if they wish, and let's agree to disagree and remain
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism