The Young Communist League of Canada launched its 26th Central Convention discussion with special series of workshops held in Toronto this past month. The meeting marked the public release of the main political report and call to the YCL-LJC Convention, which is rallying behind the slogan "with unity and militancy, the youth will strengthen the fightback!" and was attended by activists from across southern Ontario and Quebec.
Rebel Youth magazine recently sat down with Johan Boyden, General Secretary of the YCL-LJC, to talk about the YCL's convention.
So when and where is the convention taking place?
It is at the University of Toronto in three months from now, May 23-25th, and is expected to bring together delegates from across the country and especially Quebec and Ontario. Non-members are welcome to come and check it out, and you can read the documents on our website and the Rebel Youth blog.
More: Read the documents here
Your documents say the convention comes together at an important time for youth. Isn't this just another tired phrase of the left?
Not at all! What we are saying in the documents is that there is a lot at stake for young people and need for a more active, visible and coordinated fight back of youth. With the economic crisis and the growing threat of war, we won't stay in the same place. Either our future is ripped from the current generation by the capitalists and we are thrust further -- much further than our parents -- into poverty, debt, insecurity, an increasingly dangerous world of imperialist war, and ecological catastrophe. Or we push back.
Showing posts with label strategy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label strategy. Show all posts
March 11, 2014
November 13, 2013
Peace, love and the need for theory
Labels:
action,
antoine stemarie,
kamloops,
philosophy,
strategy,
tactics,
theory,
theory and practice


Antoine SteMarie,
Guest commentary
A recent discussion with friends over facebook had me thinking about why we should consider theory important for the direction of social movements and activism. Here are just a few thoughts.
First of all, theorists and their theories are not simply some separate intellectual strata of people whose ideas have little bearing on the state of the world; at least, not substantial theorists. Theory is an attempt to understand the world.
That's not to deny that a good theory also needs to be easily digestible. Theoretical ideas need to be put in as accessible a format as possible.
Needless to say, a good understanding of the world is required for effective action. It is the same as a doctor requiring real understanding of the body to give an accurate diagnosis and thus a cure. Just taking any theory won't achieve the desired result.
Guest commentary
A recent discussion with friends over facebook had me thinking about why we should consider theory important for the direction of social movements and activism. Here are just a few thoughts.
First of all, theorists and their theories are not simply some separate intellectual strata of people whose ideas have little bearing on the state of the world; at least, not substantial theorists. Theory is an attempt to understand the world.
That's not to deny that a good theory also needs to be easily digestible. Theoretical ideas need to be put in as accessible a format as possible.
Needless to say, a good understanding of the world is required for effective action. It is the same as a doctor requiring real understanding of the body to give an accurate diagnosis and thus a cure. Just taking any theory won't achieve the desired result.
September 6, 2013
All or nothing? The case for cross-Canada student unity.
Labels:
anarchism,
assé,
campus conservatives,
cfs,
ethan cox,
nora loretto,
strategy,
students,
ultra-leftism


Nora Loreto presents a hard-hitting commentary from the blog Rabble.ca about renewed claims of 16 CFS disaffiliations across Canada. As has been said before, "Students have long rejected the parameters of Canada’s flawed Constitution, placing education as a provincial concern, and fought hard for a federal-level student movement... After smashing the CFS, what’s next? We would wake up with a horrible hangover and have to rebuild. At best, the defederation campaigns are an incredible waste of time and distraction; at worst they make all students, well beyond CFS members and including the Quebec’s student unions, incredibly vulnerable to the right’s agenda."
Please note that not all the opinions expressed in this article are necessarily those of the Rebel Youth editorial board.
Please note that not all the opinions expressed in this article are necessarily those of the Rebel Youth editorial board.
September 1, 2013
The Soviet experience with socialism
Labels:
communist party of canada,
labour history,
programme,
Russia,
socialism,
soviet union,
strategy,
USSR


Excerpt from Chapter Seven, "Building Socialism" from Canada's future is socialism, the Programme of the Communist Party of Canada
It is particularly important to assess the experiences and draw certain lessons from the development of socialism in the first workers’ state – the Soviet Union – and to understand why socialism was overturned, and capitalism restored, after more than seventy years. The question demands the most searching thought and discussion, for two reasons.
On the one hand, understanding both the great achievements of the Soviet people and the external and internal causes responsible for their grave setback can help Canadians in building socialism while avoiding the repetition of what went wrong there.
Secondly, the defeat of socialism in the USSR is a powerful ideological weapon in the hands of monopoly capitalism, which it uses in order to convince workers and progressive-minded people that socialism does not work. By negating socialism as the revolutionary alternative to capitalism, big business seeks to discourage the workers and weaken their class struggle, and instead lead them to find an accommodation with the prevailing capitalist order.
We reject the bourgeois contention that socialism is a failure, that it is an inherently inferior and unworkable alternative to capitalism. Socialism was weakened and ultimately crushed in the USSR (and in other former socialist countries) as a result of a complex combination of interrelated internal and external circumstances and contradictions which culminated in its defeat and the temporary victory of counterrevolution.
The October 1917 Socialist Revolution in Russia marked a genuine new dawn in human social development. For the first time in history, workers set out to build a new society free from exploitation and oppression. The Soviet Union scored many great social achievements, overcoming unemployment, illiteracy, starvation, homelessness, and deep alienation. Socialism in the Soviet Union transformed an economically and culturally “backward” country to one of the world’s leading powers, and made great advances in culture and science.
These achievements were all the more remarkable, considering the relentless imperialist pressures against the USSR throughout its history. In its unflagging efforts to crush socialism, imperialist powers twice undertook direct military invasions (in the first of which Canada participated). They applied harsh economic sanctions, and precipitated an immensely expensive and dangerous nuclear arms race to bleed the USSR white, while sustaining a prolonged ideological and propaganda war, and resorting to outright subversion and sabotage.
Internationally, the Soviet Union played the decisive role in the defeat of European fascism in World War II, championed the cause of decolonization, supported liberation movements throughout the Third World, and provided vital assistance to the newly emergent states. Its peace policy also restricted – though it could not entirely suppress – imperialism’s tendency to military aggression.
Socialism also benefited the working class in the advanced capitalist countries, greatly strengthening the pressure on the ruling classes to grant substantial concessions to working people in the form of labour rights, the forty-hour work week, unemployment insurance, women’s rights, health care, public education, and pensions.
The internal causes of the crisis and defeat of socialism in the Soviet Union were not rooted in the intrinsic nature of socialism, but rather involved distortions and outright departures from socialist theory and practice. They arose, in part, from the extremely difficult conditions under which socialism was built.
Pre-revolutionary Russia was a sprawling, but economically under-developed country. It had a massive peasant population, but a relatively small working class. Poverty and illiteracy were rampant. The First World War, and Civil War that followed, worsened the conditions which confronted the young Soviet republic. However, owing to the unslacking hostility of imperialism – not least, from Nazi Germany, which invaded in 1941 – it was necessary to bring about modern industrialization at a stupendous pace.
In large measure, the adverse objective conditions forced the Soviet government to accelerate the socialist transformation of economic and social life, rapidly jumping over many transition stages in building socialism which would have made for a much more balanced process of development. One of the serious errors was the failure to retain the independent character of Soviet trade unions as the self-defence organizations of Soviet workers.
In these conditions, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union had to assume the task of comprehensively representing the leading role of the working class. The Soviet working class itself was battered and massively decimated by the two brutally destructive wars fought on Soviet soil, with the places of the fallen and the administratively promoted being taken by inexperienced new workers recruited from the countryside.
This partly explains, but does not justify, the way that the operations of the Party increasingly merged with the functions of the state, in particular with the administrative-bureaucratic apparatus which necessarily arose to centralize and tightly control the country’s scarce and depleted resources. Nor do these difficult conditions justify the serious violations of socialist legality, purges, and serious crimes against innocent people.
Important economic successes were achieved with central economic planning for several decades. It was not planning as such, but rather stifling rigidities and a myriad of other distortions in the principles of socialist construction, combined with external imperialist pressures, that undermined the ability of socialist societies to master the scientific and technological revolution.
As a result, the USSR and other socialist countries fell dangerously behind the developed capitalist countries in labour productivity and the material standard of living. This had destabilizing consequences.
The Party itself became ever more integrated into the administration of the state. The functions of the elected Soviets (people’s governing councils) became increasingly formal in character. Genuine popular governance with open criticism gave way to bureaucracy and commandism.
Over time, the political connection between the Party and the working class and people as a whole suffered. Inner-party democracy was also eroded, too often replaced by careerism and opportunism inside the Party.
Great strides were made in advancing the conditions of Soviet women, especially on the job. But sexist limits to the emancipation of women were allowed to pass unchallenged.
All these negative developments reflected a degeneration of the central role of socialist democracy in the construction of a workers’ state, and stunted the development of the political role of the working class and its allies in leading this transformation and the building of a new socialist society.
Indeed, the violation of socialist democracy and legality was a major factor in eroding the people’s participation in the government and in the state, and led to widespread cynicism and social alienation.
There was also a dogmatic ossification of theory which increasingly sapped the Party’s dynamism and prevented a real analysis of concrete conditions and problems in the building of socialism.
Serious theoretical errors resulted – in estimating the world situation, in underestimating the resilience of capitalism, in proclaiming the irreversibility of socialist advances and relying on a military balance of forces between socialism and capitalism, as well as errors and insensitivity.
For instance, the national question was proclaimed to have been fully “solved,” and socialism was all but declared to have eliminated the need for any ecological concern. The shutdown of public and inner-party debate on such questions adversely affected the foreign and domestic policies that flowed from these mistakes.
The most costly result of the stagnation of Marxist-Leninist theory was the weakening of the Party itself, including its ability to identify and combat the rise of bourgeois, reformist and openly counter-revolutionary ideology within and beyond its own ranks.
In the presence of these internal and external factors, opportunist and counter-revolutionary forces gained the upper hand within the leadership of the Party, and finally brought about the collapse of the Soviet system and with it the other socialist states of Europe. Since the collapse of socialism, working people in these former socialist countries face massive privatization and the theft of social property, mass unemployment and poverty, the drastic erosion of education, health care and other social rights, the rise of organized crime and corruption, and the rise of ethnic and racial hatred.
It is particularly important to assess the experiences and draw certain lessons from the development of socialism in the first workers’ state – the Soviet Union – and to understand why socialism was overturned, and capitalism restored, after more than seventy years. The question demands the most searching thought and discussion, for two reasons.
On the one hand, understanding both the great achievements of the Soviet people and the external and internal causes responsible for their grave setback can help Canadians in building socialism while avoiding the repetition of what went wrong there.
Secondly, the defeat of socialism in the USSR is a powerful ideological weapon in the hands of monopoly capitalism, which it uses in order to convince workers and progressive-minded people that socialism does not work. By negating socialism as the revolutionary alternative to capitalism, big business seeks to discourage the workers and weaken their class struggle, and instead lead them to find an accommodation with the prevailing capitalist order.
We reject the bourgeois contention that socialism is a failure, that it is an inherently inferior and unworkable alternative to capitalism. Socialism was weakened and ultimately crushed in the USSR (and in other former socialist countries) as a result of a complex combination of interrelated internal and external circumstances and contradictions which culminated in its defeat and the temporary victory of counterrevolution.
The October 1917 Socialist Revolution in Russia marked a genuine new dawn in human social development. For the first time in history, workers set out to build a new society free from exploitation and oppression. The Soviet Union scored many great social achievements, overcoming unemployment, illiteracy, starvation, homelessness, and deep alienation. Socialism in the Soviet Union transformed an economically and culturally “backward” country to one of the world’s leading powers, and made great advances in culture and science.
These achievements were all the more remarkable, considering the relentless imperialist pressures against the USSR throughout its history. In its unflagging efforts to crush socialism, imperialist powers twice undertook direct military invasions (in the first of which Canada participated). They applied harsh economic sanctions, and precipitated an immensely expensive and dangerous nuclear arms race to bleed the USSR white, while sustaining a prolonged ideological and propaganda war, and resorting to outright subversion and sabotage.
Internationally, the Soviet Union played the decisive role in the defeat of European fascism in World War II, championed the cause of decolonization, supported liberation movements throughout the Third World, and provided vital assistance to the newly emergent states. Its peace policy also restricted – though it could not entirely suppress – imperialism’s tendency to military aggression.
Socialism also benefited the working class in the advanced capitalist countries, greatly strengthening the pressure on the ruling classes to grant substantial concessions to working people in the form of labour rights, the forty-hour work week, unemployment insurance, women’s rights, health care, public education, and pensions.
The internal causes of the crisis and defeat of socialism in the Soviet Union were not rooted in the intrinsic nature of socialism, but rather involved distortions and outright departures from socialist theory and practice. They arose, in part, from the extremely difficult conditions under which socialism was built.
Pre-revolutionary Russia was a sprawling, but economically under-developed country. It had a massive peasant population, but a relatively small working class. Poverty and illiteracy were rampant. The First World War, and Civil War that followed, worsened the conditions which confronted the young Soviet republic. However, owing to the unslacking hostility of imperialism – not least, from Nazi Germany, which invaded in 1941 – it was necessary to bring about modern industrialization at a stupendous pace.
In large measure, the adverse objective conditions forced the Soviet government to accelerate the socialist transformation of economic and social life, rapidly jumping over many transition stages in building socialism which would have made for a much more balanced process of development. One of the serious errors was the failure to retain the independent character of Soviet trade unions as the self-defence organizations of Soviet workers.

This partly explains, but does not justify, the way that the operations of the Party increasingly merged with the functions of the state, in particular with the administrative-bureaucratic apparatus which necessarily arose to centralize and tightly control the country’s scarce and depleted resources. Nor do these difficult conditions justify the serious violations of socialist legality, purges, and serious crimes against innocent people.

As a result, the USSR and other socialist countries fell dangerously behind the developed capitalist countries in labour productivity and the material standard of living. This had destabilizing consequences.
The Party itself became ever more integrated into the administration of the state. The functions of the elected Soviets (people’s governing councils) became increasingly formal in character. Genuine popular governance with open criticism gave way to bureaucracy and commandism.
Over time, the political connection between the Party and the working class and people as a whole suffered. Inner-party democracy was also eroded, too often replaced by careerism and opportunism inside the Party.
Great strides were made in advancing the conditions of Soviet women, especially on the job. But sexist limits to the emancipation of women were allowed to pass unchallenged.
All these negative developments reflected a degeneration of the central role of socialist democracy in the construction of a workers’ state, and stunted the development of the political role of the working class and its allies in leading this transformation and the building of a new socialist society.
Indeed, the violation of socialist democracy and legality was a major factor in eroding the people’s participation in the government and in the state, and led to widespread cynicism and social alienation.
There was also a dogmatic ossification of theory which increasingly sapped the Party’s dynamism and prevented a real analysis of concrete conditions and problems in the building of socialism.
Serious theoretical errors resulted – in estimating the world situation, in underestimating the resilience of capitalism, in proclaiming the irreversibility of socialist advances and relying on a military balance of forces between socialism and capitalism, as well as errors and insensitivity.
For instance, the national question was proclaimed to have been fully “solved,” and socialism was all but declared to have eliminated the need for any ecological concern. The shutdown of public and inner-party debate on such questions adversely affected the foreign and domestic policies that flowed from these mistakes.
The most costly result of the stagnation of Marxist-Leninist theory was the weakening of the Party itself, including its ability to identify and combat the rise of bourgeois, reformist and openly counter-revolutionary ideology within and beyond its own ranks.
In the presence of these internal and external factors, opportunist and counter-revolutionary forces gained the upper hand within the leadership of the Party, and finally brought about the collapse of the Soviet system and with it the other socialist states of Europe. Since the collapse of socialism, working people in these former socialist countries face massive privatization and the theft of social property, mass unemployment and poverty, the drastic erosion of education, health care and other social rights, the rise of organized crime and corruption, and the rise of ethnic and racial hatred.
June 27, 2013
Thatcher's legacy
By Tristan Dineen and Johan Boyden
Rarely has class conflict been made so blatantly obvious. Gathered under the vast dome of St Paul’s Cathedral and ringed by legions of police and military personnel, the royalty, robber barons, presidents, oligarchs, bankers, tycoons, war criminals, celebrities and aristocrats of the global capitalist class assembled in grand style to bid farewell to their champion: a woman who had dedicated her life to defending and expanding the profits and privileges of the few -- at the expense of the many.
But mere blocks away from where former British PM Margaret Thatcher lay in state masses of working class people gathered to basically celebrate the death of a woman who had brought them nothing but misery, impoverishment, heartless spending cuts, privatization of public services, foreign wars, union busting, regressive taxes, police crackdowns, and a reactionary legacy that keeps on killing, and uprooting.
Thatcher's trail of destruction is relevant for young people in Canada, to understand an important part of the global story of how gains of past struggle, and prospects for our future, were destroyed.
What went wrong?
Rarely has class conflict been made so blatantly obvious. Gathered under the vast dome of St Paul’s Cathedral and ringed by legions of police and military personnel, the royalty, robber barons, presidents, oligarchs, bankers, tycoons, war criminals, celebrities and aristocrats of the global capitalist class assembled in grand style to bid farewell to their champion: a woman who had dedicated her life to defending and expanding the profits and privileges of the few -- at the expense of the many.
But mere blocks away from where former British PM Margaret Thatcher lay in state masses of working class people gathered to basically celebrate the death of a woman who had brought them nothing but misery, impoverishment, heartless spending cuts, privatization of public services, foreign wars, union busting, regressive taxes, police crackdowns, and a reactionary legacy that keeps on killing, and uprooting.
Thatcher's trail of destruction is relevant for young people in Canada, to understand an important part of the global story of how gains of past struggle, and prospects for our future, were destroyed.
What went wrong?
June 17, 2013
Force and the struggle for a socialist Canada
This article is part of an seven-part series of short quotes Rebel Youth is issuing about class struggle, revolution, civil-war, and parliamentary democracy. See also: Lenin on elections; the Communist Party of Canada on a counter-offensive against capitalism; Engels on voting and street fighting; Lenin on Democracy and Class struggle; Communist and Worker's parties on the struggle for socialism; and Lenin on tactics and guerilla war; the Communist Party of Canada on force, and a peaceful transition to socialism.
A democratic, anti-monopoly, anti-imperialist alliance will have as its objective the democratic restructuring of Canadian society so that the interests of the majority of Canadians come first, and the stranglehold of finance capital on every aspect of life is broken. It will seek to advance the working people’s interests through all available avenues of struggle, based on massive and united extra-parliamentary action.
The alliance will strive to score electoral advances, and the winning of power by a people’s government dedicated to carrying out sweeping measures to democratize society and transform economic relations in the interests of the working class and the Canadian people as a whole.
Such a breakthrough will be difficult to accomplish given the sophisticated means at the disposal of the ruling class to manipulate public opinion, discourage political activism and otherwise influence the outcome of bourgeois elections. A crucial task for the alliance will be to defend and expand democracy and to fight against corporate and governmental attacks on the electoral process.
A democratic, anti-monopoly government, based on a parliamentary majority, and acting in concert with the united and militant extra-parliamentary movements of the people, would signal a qualitative shift in the balance of class forces in Canadian society, and open the door to the revolutionary transformation to socialism. It would involve the people in a truly meaningful way.
The people’s government would be committed to a program of action geared to serve people before profit. That program would arise in the course of the social, economic and political struggles of the working class and its democratic allies, and be subject to the widest discussion and approval among all of the forces of the alliance.
Communists will struggle to win support for the most advanced program of political, economic and social transformation possible in line with the changing conditions. The program must aim: (1) to confront and restrict the power of finance capital (both foreign and domestic), and to extend public ownership of key sectors of the economy; (2) to redistribute wealth and raise the living standards and conditions of life for the vast majority of the people; and (3) to introduce sweeping democratic reforms to enhance popular control and administration of the Canadian state at all levels of government. (...)
Although such measures would not constitute socialism, the victory of a people’s government devoted to carrying out such a broad program would mark a significant step in the struggle for fundamental change and socialist transformation.
To succeed, a people’s government would require the full and conscious mobilization of the working class and its allies outside Parliament. With each meaningful reform enacted, with each democratic measure secured, with each encroachment on the power and privilege of capital, the ruling class and its imperialist international partners would stiffen their resistance by all means at their disposal. But, at the same time, such measures can help to galvanize the masses, and promote working class actions in support of the people’s government.
This would be a period of intensified class struggle on all fronts – political, economic and ideological.
The successful implementation of the people’s program, and the pace with which it is carried out will depend on the unity and militancy of the working class and its revolutionary vanguard, and on the enduring unity of the entire democratic, anti-monopoly, anti-imperialist alliance. Prevailing regional and international conditions will also affect the pace of social transformations.
Throughout this process there will be social and political mobilization of the working class and people’s forces to support and implement the program of the people’s government – through electoral and workplace struggles, street demonstrations and other actions. At the same time, the threatened ruling class will attempt to shake the confidence and unity of the people’s forces and to frustrate their ability to carry out the people’s program.
To preserve its class privileges and re-establish its supremacy, the capitalist class will be inclined to resort to economic blackmail and sabotage, subversion from within those sections of the state apparatus it still influences and controls, political violence and terrorism, and even open rebellion and foreign intervention. The people’s government, with the full support of the working class, will be fully within its rights to counter any such anti-democratic and illegal assaults on people’s power
From Chapter 6 of the Programme of the Communist Party of Canada
June 10, 2013
Tactics, guerilla war and the struggle for socialism
Labels:
guerilla war,
lenin,
Marxism,
Revolution-series2013,
socialism,
strategy,
tactics


This article is part of an seven-part series of short quotes Rebel Youth is issuing about class struggle, revolution, civil-war, and parliamentary democracy. See also: Lenin on elections; the Communist Party of Canada on a counter-offensive against capitalism; Engels on voting and street fighting; Lenin on Democracy and Class struggle; Communist and Worker's parties on the struggle for socialism; and Lenin on tactics and guerilla war; the Communist Party of Canada on force, and a peaceful transition to socialism.
Let us begin from the beginning. What are the fundamental demands which every Marxist should make of an examination of the question of forms of struggle? In the first place, Marxism differs from all primitive forms of socialism by not binding the movement to any one particular form of struggle. It recognises the most varied forms of struggle; and it does not “concoct” them, but only generalises, organises, gives conscious expression to those forms of struggle of the revolutionary classes which arise of themselves in the course of the movement. Absolutely hostile to all abstract formulas and to all doctrinaire recipes, Marxism demands an attentive attitude to the mass struggle in progress, which, as the movement develops, as the class-consciousness of the masses grows, as economic and political crises become acute, continually gives rise to new and more varied methods of defence and attack. Marxism, therefore, positively does not reject any form of struggle. Under no circumstances does Marxism confine itself to the forms of struggle possible and in existence at the given moment only, recognising as it does that new forms of struggle, unknown to the participants of the given period, inevitably arise as the given social situation, changes. In this respect Marxism learns, if we may so express it, from mass practice, and makes no claim what ever to teach the masses forms of struggle invented by “systematisers” in the seclusion of their studies. We know—said Kautsky, for instance, when examining the forms of social revolution—that the coming crisis will introduce new forms of struggle that we are now unable to foresee.
In the second place, Marxism demands an absolutely historical examination of the question of the forms of struggle. To treat this question apart from the concrete historical situation betrays a failure to understand the rudiments of dialectical materialism. At different stages of economic evolution, depending on differences in political, national-cultural, living and other conditions, different forms of struggle come to the fore and become the principal forms of struggle; and in connection with this, the secondary, auxiliary forms of struggle undergo change in their turn. To attempt to answer yes or no to the question whether any particular means of struggle should be used, without making a detailed examination of the concrete situation of the given movement at the given stage of its development, means completely to abandon the Marxist position.
Lenin, Guerilla warfare (1906)
May 22, 2013
The peaceful struggle for socialism
This article is part of an seven-part series of short quotes Rebel Youth is issuing about class struggle, revolution, civil-war, and parliamentary democracy. See also: Lenin on elections; the Communist Party of Canada on a counter-offensive against capitalism; Engels on voting and street fighting; Lenin on Democracy and Class struggle; Communist and Worker's parties on the struggle for socialism; and Lenin on tactics and guerilla war; theCommunist Party of Canada on force, and a peaceful transition to socialism.
From November 14-16, 1957, representatives of 12 Communist and Workers Parties of Socialist countries, came together in Moscow for the celebration of the fortieth anniversary of the great October Socialist Revolution in Russia, and adopted a declaration, from which is taken this excerpt about the struggle for socialism. Among the endorsers were the Communist Party of China and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The text below is one section of the full statement.
The forms of the transition of socialism may vary for different countries. The working class and its vanguard—the Marxist-Leninist party—seek to achieve the Socialist revolution by peaceful means. This would accord with the interests of the working class and the people as a whole as well as with the national interests of the country.
Today in a number of capitalist countries the working class headed by its vanguard has the opportunity, given a united working-class and popular front or other workable forms of agreement and political cooperation between the different parties and public organizations, to unite a majority of the people, to win state power without civil war and ensure the transfer of the basic means of production to the hands of the people. It has this opportunity while relying on the majority of the people and decisively rebuffing the opportunist elements incapable of relinquishing the policy of compromise with the capitalists and landlords. The working class then, can defeat the reactionary, anti-popular forces, secure a firm majority in parliament, transform parliament from an instrument serving the class interests of the bourgeoisie into an instrument serving the working people, launch a non-parliamentary mass struggle, smash the resistance of the reactionary forces and create the necessary conditions for peaceful realization of the socialist revolution.
All this will be possible only by broad and ceaseless development of the class struggle of the workers, peasant masses and the urban middle strata against big monopoly capital, against reaction, for profound social reforms, for peace and socialism.
In the event of the ruling classes resorting to violence against people, the possibility of non-peaceful transition to socialism should be borne in mind. Leninism teaches, and experience confirms, that the ruling classes never relinquish power voluntarily. In this case the degree of bitterness and the forms of the class struggle will depend not so much on the proletariat as on the resistance put up by the reactionary circles to the will of the overwhelming majority of the people, on these circles using force at one or another stage of the struggle for socialism.
The possibility of one or another way to socialism depends on the concrete conditions in each country. In the struggle for better conditions for the working people, for preservation and extension of democratic rights, winning and maintaining national independence and peace among nations, and also in the struggle for winning power and building socialism, the Communist Parties seek cooperation with the Socialist parties. Although the Right-Wing Socialist Party leaders are doing their best to hamper this cooperation, there are increasing opportunities for cooperation between the Communists and Socialists on many issues. The ideological differences between the Communist and the Socialist parties should not keep them from establishing unity of action on the many pressing issues that confront the working-class movement.
Declaration of the Twelve Communist and Workers Parties, Meeting in Moscow, USSR, Nov. 14-16, 1957
From November 14-16, 1957, representatives of 12 Communist and Workers Parties of Socialist countries, came together in Moscow for the celebration of the fortieth anniversary of the great October Socialist Revolution in Russia, and adopted a declaration, from which is taken this excerpt about the struggle for socialism. Among the endorsers were the Communist Party of China and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The text below is one section of the full statement.
The forms of the transition of socialism may vary for different countries. The working class and its vanguard—the Marxist-Leninist party—seek to achieve the Socialist revolution by peaceful means. This would accord with the interests of the working class and the people as a whole as well as with the national interests of the country.
Today in a number of capitalist countries the working class headed by its vanguard has the opportunity, given a united working-class and popular front or other workable forms of agreement and political cooperation between the different parties and public organizations, to unite a majority of the people, to win state power without civil war and ensure the transfer of the basic means of production to the hands of the people. It has this opportunity while relying on the majority of the people and decisively rebuffing the opportunist elements incapable of relinquishing the policy of compromise with the capitalists and landlords. The working class then, can defeat the reactionary, anti-popular forces, secure a firm majority in parliament, transform parliament from an instrument serving the class interests of the bourgeoisie into an instrument serving the working people, launch a non-parliamentary mass struggle, smash the resistance of the reactionary forces and create the necessary conditions for peaceful realization of the socialist revolution.
All this will be possible only by broad and ceaseless development of the class struggle of the workers, peasant masses and the urban middle strata against big monopoly capital, against reaction, for profound social reforms, for peace and socialism.
In the event of the ruling classes resorting to violence against people, the possibility of non-peaceful transition to socialism should be borne in mind. Leninism teaches, and experience confirms, that the ruling classes never relinquish power voluntarily. In this case the degree of bitterness and the forms of the class struggle will depend not so much on the proletariat as on the resistance put up by the reactionary circles to the will of the overwhelming majority of the people, on these circles using force at one or another stage of the struggle for socialism.
The possibility of one or another way to socialism depends on the concrete conditions in each country. In the struggle for better conditions for the working people, for preservation and extension of democratic rights, winning and maintaining national independence and peace among nations, and also in the struggle for winning power and building socialism, the Communist Parties seek cooperation with the Socialist parties. Although the Right-Wing Socialist Party leaders are doing their best to hamper this cooperation, there are increasing opportunities for cooperation between the Communists and Socialists on many issues. The ideological differences between the Communist and the Socialist parties should not keep them from establishing unity of action on the many pressing issues that confront the working-class movement.
Declaration of the Twelve Communist and Workers Parties, Meeting in Moscow, USSR, Nov. 14-16, 1957
May 20, 2013
Force and the peaceful transistion to a socialist Canada
This article is part of an seven-part series of short quotes Rebel Youth is issuing about class struggle, revolution, civil-war, and parliamentary democracy. See also: Lenin on elections; the Communist Party of Canada on a counter-offensive against capitalism; Engels on voting and street fighting; Lenin on Democracy and Class struggle; Communist and Worker's parties on the struggle for socialism; and Lenin on tactics and guerilla war; theCommunist Party of Canada on force, and a peaceful transition to socialism.
Ample historical evidence testifies to the fact that reactionary capitalist forces will not give up their power and privilege voluntarily. They will try to halt the democratic process. The danger will inevitably arise of capitalist violence against the socialist state and the expressed will of the majority of the people. This cannot be overlooked except at severe cost. The working class and its allies, when they achieve socialist power, will be justified in using the power and authority of the state to protect the democratic will of the majority against the minority, who will strive to restore their lost positions. The nature of the laws and measures enacted to protect working class power will depend on the amount of resistance that the reactionary capitalist elements offer to socialist law and order.
The peaceful transition to socialism, which is desirable, depends not only on the wishes of the people but on the relationship of forces at the time. The maximum unity and single-minded purpose of the people, the united participation of the widest masses of the working class in political struggle and the forging of unity with the small producers (farmers, fishers and artisans) and with the middle strata of the population will be crucial to withstand and paralyze capitalist violence and political reaction. The working class must be ready to use all forms of struggle to combat capital’s inevitable resistance to social progress.
For the first time in Canada’s history, however, the majority of the people will rule the country and establish a genuine democracy. The dictatorship of capital over labour – the rule of the minority over the majority – will be abolished and replaced by a socialist democracy in which political power will reside with the working class and its allies. For the first time, the interests of the Canadian people will be the prime determinant of our economic, political and cultural life.
Irrespective of the form it will take, the socialist state, from the point of view of its class essence, will represent working class rule. Marx referred to this as “the dictatorship of the proletariat.” In practical terms, state power will be exercised by the great majority of the Canadian population – over the former capitalist minority.
From Chapter 7 of the Programme of the Communist Party of Canada
Ample historical evidence testifies to the fact that reactionary capitalist forces will not give up their power and privilege voluntarily. They will try to halt the democratic process. The danger will inevitably arise of capitalist violence against the socialist state and the expressed will of the majority of the people. This cannot be overlooked except at severe cost. The working class and its allies, when they achieve socialist power, will be justified in using the power and authority of the state to protect the democratic will of the majority against the minority, who will strive to restore their lost positions. The nature of the laws and measures enacted to protect working class power will depend on the amount of resistance that the reactionary capitalist elements offer to socialist law and order.
The peaceful transition to socialism, which is desirable, depends not only on the wishes of the people but on the relationship of forces at the time. The maximum unity and single-minded purpose of the people, the united participation of the widest masses of the working class in political struggle and the forging of unity with the small producers (farmers, fishers and artisans) and with the middle strata of the population will be crucial to withstand and paralyze capitalist violence and political reaction. The working class must be ready to use all forms of struggle to combat capital’s inevitable resistance to social progress.
For the first time in Canada’s history, however, the majority of the people will rule the country and establish a genuine democracy. The dictatorship of capital over labour – the rule of the minority over the majority – will be abolished and replaced by a socialist democracy in which political power will reside with the working class and its allies. For the first time, the interests of the Canadian people will be the prime determinant of our economic, political and cultural life.
Irrespective of the form it will take, the socialist state, from the point of view of its class essence, will represent working class rule. Marx referred to this as “the dictatorship of the proletariat.” In practical terms, state power will be exercised by the great majority of the Canadian population – over the former capitalist minority.
From Chapter 7 of the Programme of the Communist Party of Canada
May 15, 2013
Revolutionary tactics: Engels on voting and street fighting
This article is part of an seven-part series of short quotes Rebel Youth is issuing about class struggle, revolution, civil-war, and parliamentary democracy. See also: Lenin on elections; the Communist Party of Canada on a counter-offensive against capitalism; Engels on voting and street fighting; Lenin on Democracy and Class struggle; Communist and Worker's parties on the struggle for socialism; and Lenin on tactics and guerilla war; theCommunist Party of Canada on force, and a peaceful transition to socialism.
There had long been universal suffrage in France, but it had fallen into disrepute through the way it had been abused by the Bonapartist government. After the Commune there was no workers’ party to make use of it. It had also existed in Spain since the republic but in Spain election boycotts had been the rule for all serious opposition parties from time immemorial. The experience of the Swiss with universal suffrage was also anything but encouraging for a workers’ party. The revolutionary workers of the Latin countries had been wont to regard the suffrage as a snare, as an instrument of government trickery. It was different in Germany.
The Communist Manifesto had already proclaimed the winning of universal suffrage, of democracy, as one of the first and most important tasks of the militant proletariat, ["the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy" source] and Lassalle had again taken up this point.
Now that Bismarck found himself compelled to introduce this franchise as the only means of interesting the mass of the people in his plans, our workers immediately took it in earnest and sent August Bebel to the first, constituent Reichstag.
And from that day on they have used the franchise in a way which has paid them a thousandfold and has served as a model to the workers of all countries. The franchise has been, in the words of the French Marxist programme, transformé de moyen de duperie qu'il a été jusquici en instrument d'emancipation — transformed by them from a means of deception, which it was before, into an instrument of emancipation. [Engels quotes the theoretical Preamble to the French Workers’ Party’s programme adopted at the 1880 congress in Le Havre. The Preamble was written by Marx.]
And if universal suffrage had offered no other advantage than that it allowed us to count our numbers every three years; that by the regularly established, unexpectedly rapid rise in our vote it increased in equal measure the workers’ certainty of victory and the dismay of their opponents, and so became our best means of propaganda; that it accurately informed us of our own strength and that of all opposing parties, and thereby provided us with a measure of proportion second to none for our actions, safeguarding us from untimely timidity as much as from untimely foolhardiness — if this had been the only advantage we gained from the suffrage, it would still have been much more than enough. But it did more than this by far.
In election propaganda it provided us with a means, second to none, of getting in touch with the mass of the people where they still stand aloof from us; of forcing all parties to defend their views and actions against our attacks before all the people; and, further, it provided our representatives in the Reichstag with a platform from which they could speak to their opponents in parliament, and to the masses outside, with quite different authority and freedom than in the press or at meetings. Of what avail was their Anti-Socialist Law to the government and the bourgeoisie when election campaigning and socialist speeches in the Reichstag continually broke through it?
With this successful utilisation of universal suffrage, however, an entirely new method of proletarian struggle came into operation, and this method quickly took on a more tangible form. It was found that the state institutions, in which the rule of the bourgeoisie is organised, offer the working class still further levers to fight these very state institutions. The workers took part in elections to particular diets, to municipal councils and to trades courts; they contested with the bourgeoisie every post in the occupation of which a sufficient part of the proletariat had a say. And so it happened that the bourgeoisie and the government came to be much more afraid of the legal than of the illegal action of the workers’ party, of the results of elections than of those of rebellion.
For here, too, the conditions of the struggle had changed fundamentally. Rebellion in the old style, street fighting with barricades, which decided the issue everywhere up to 1848, had become largely outdated....
.... Does that mean that in the future street fighting will no longer play any role [in revolution] ? Certainly not. It only means that the conditions since 1848 have become far more unfavourable for civilian fighters and far more favourable for the military. In future, street fighting can, therefore, be victorious only if this disadvantageous situation is compensated by other factors. Accordingly, it will occur more seldom at the beginning of a great revolution than at its later stages, and will have to be undertaken with greater forces. These, however, may then well prefer, as in the whole great French Revolution or on September 4 and October 31, 1870, in Paris, the open attack to passive barricade tactics.
Does the reader now understand why the powers-that-be positively want to get us to go where the guns shoot and the sabres slash? Why they accuse us today of cowardice, because we do not take without more ado to the streets, where we are certain of defeat in advance? Why they so earnestly implore us to play for once the part of cannon fodder?
Engels, Introduction to Karl Marx’s The Class Struggles in France (1895)
There had long been universal suffrage in France, but it had fallen into disrepute through the way it had been abused by the Bonapartist government. After the Commune there was no workers’ party to make use of it. It had also existed in Spain since the republic but in Spain election boycotts had been the rule for all serious opposition parties from time immemorial. The experience of the Swiss with universal suffrage was also anything but encouraging for a workers’ party. The revolutionary workers of the Latin countries had been wont to regard the suffrage as a snare, as an instrument of government trickery. It was different in Germany.
The Communist Manifesto had already proclaimed the winning of universal suffrage, of democracy, as one of the first and most important tasks of the militant proletariat, ["the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy" source] and Lassalle had again taken up this point.
Now that Bismarck found himself compelled to introduce this franchise as the only means of interesting the mass of the people in his plans, our workers immediately took it in earnest and sent August Bebel to the first, constituent Reichstag.
And from that day on they have used the franchise in a way which has paid them a thousandfold and has served as a model to the workers of all countries. The franchise has been, in the words of the French Marxist programme, transformé de moyen de duperie qu'il a été jusquici en instrument d'emancipation — transformed by them from a means of deception, which it was before, into an instrument of emancipation. [Engels quotes the theoretical Preamble to the French Workers’ Party’s programme adopted at the 1880 congress in Le Havre. The Preamble was written by Marx.]
And if universal suffrage had offered no other advantage than that it allowed us to count our numbers every three years; that by the regularly established, unexpectedly rapid rise in our vote it increased in equal measure the workers’ certainty of victory and the dismay of their opponents, and so became our best means of propaganda; that it accurately informed us of our own strength and that of all opposing parties, and thereby provided us with a measure of proportion second to none for our actions, safeguarding us from untimely timidity as much as from untimely foolhardiness — if this had been the only advantage we gained from the suffrage, it would still have been much more than enough. But it did more than this by far.
In election propaganda it provided us with a means, second to none, of getting in touch with the mass of the people where they still stand aloof from us; of forcing all parties to defend their views and actions against our attacks before all the people; and, further, it provided our representatives in the Reichstag with a platform from which they could speak to their opponents in parliament, and to the masses outside, with quite different authority and freedom than in the press or at meetings. Of what avail was their Anti-Socialist Law to the government and the bourgeoisie when election campaigning and socialist speeches in the Reichstag continually broke through it?
With this successful utilisation of universal suffrage, however, an entirely new method of proletarian struggle came into operation, and this method quickly took on a more tangible form. It was found that the state institutions, in which the rule of the bourgeoisie is organised, offer the working class still further levers to fight these very state institutions. The workers took part in elections to particular diets, to municipal councils and to trades courts; they contested with the bourgeoisie every post in the occupation of which a sufficient part of the proletariat had a say. And so it happened that the bourgeoisie and the government came to be much more afraid of the legal than of the illegal action of the workers’ party, of the results of elections than of those of rebellion.
For here, too, the conditions of the struggle had changed fundamentally. Rebellion in the old style, street fighting with barricades, which decided the issue everywhere up to 1848, had become largely outdated....
.... Does that mean that in the future street fighting will no longer play any role [in revolution] ? Certainly not. It only means that the conditions since 1848 have become far more unfavourable for civilian fighters and far more favourable for the military. In future, street fighting can, therefore, be victorious only if this disadvantageous situation is compensated by other factors. Accordingly, it will occur more seldom at the beginning of a great revolution than at its later stages, and will have to be undertaken with greater forces. These, however, may then well prefer, as in the whole great French Revolution or on September 4 and October 31, 1870, in Paris, the open attack to passive barricade tactics.
Does the reader now understand why the powers-that-be positively want to get us to go where the guns shoot and the sabres slash? Why they accuse us today of cowardice, because we do not take without more ado to the streets, where we are certain of defeat in advance? Why they so earnestly implore us to play for once the part of cannon fodder?
Engels, Introduction to Karl Marx’s The Class Struggles in France (1895)
April 30, 2013
Lenin on elections and struggle
Labels:
lenin,
Marxism,
Revolution-series2013,
socialism,
strategy,
tactics,
theory,
ultra-leftism


This article is part of an seven-part series of short quotes Rebel Youth is issuing about class struggle, revolution, civil-war, and parliamentary democracy. See also: Lenin on elections; the Communist Party of Canada on a counter-offensive against capitalism; Engels on voting and street fighting; Lenin on Democracy and Class struggle; Communist and Worker's parties on the struggle for socialism; and Lenin on tactics and guerilla war; the Communist Party of Canada on force, and a peaceful transition to socialism.
In Western Europe and America, parliament has become most odious to the revolutionary vanguard of the working class. That cannot be denied. It can readily be understood, for it is difficult to imagine anything more infamous, vile or treacherous than the behaviour of the vast majority of socialist and Social-Democratic parliamentary deputies during and after the war. It would, however, be not only unreasonable but actually criminal to yield to this mood when deciding how this generally recognised evil should be fought. (...) Certainly, without a revolutionary mood among the masses, and without conditions facilitating the growth of this mood, revolutionary tactics will never develop into action. In Russia, however, lengthy, painful and sanguinary experience has taught us the truth that revolutionary tactics cannot be built on a revolutionary mood alone. Tactics must be based on a sober and strictly objective appraisal of all the class forces in a particular state (and of the states that surround it, and of all states the world over) as well as of the experience of revolutionary movements. (...) It is very easy to show one’s "revolutionary" temper merely by hurling abuse at parliamentary opportunism, or merely by repudiating participation in parliaments; its very ease, however, cannot turn this into a solution of a difficult, a very difficult, problem. To attempt to "circumvent" this difficulty by "skipping" the arduous job of utilising reactionary parliaments for revolutionary purposes is absolutely childish. You want to create a new society, yet you fear the difficulties involved in forming a good parliamentary group made up of convinced, devoted and heroic Communists, in a reactionary parliament! Is that not childish?
From Lenin, Should we Participate in Bourgeois Parliaments?
In Western Europe and America, parliament has become most odious to the revolutionary vanguard of the working class. That cannot be denied. It can readily be understood, for it is difficult to imagine anything more infamous, vile or treacherous than the behaviour of the vast majority of socialist and Social-Democratic parliamentary deputies during and after the war. It would, however, be not only unreasonable but actually criminal to yield to this mood when deciding how this generally recognised evil should be fought. (...) Certainly, without a revolutionary mood among the masses, and without conditions facilitating the growth of this mood, revolutionary tactics will never develop into action. In Russia, however, lengthy, painful and sanguinary experience has taught us the truth that revolutionary tactics cannot be built on a revolutionary mood alone. Tactics must be based on a sober and strictly objective appraisal of all the class forces in a particular state (and of the states that surround it, and of all states the world over) as well as of the experience of revolutionary movements. (...) It is very easy to show one’s "revolutionary" temper merely by hurling abuse at parliamentary opportunism, or merely by repudiating participation in parliaments; its very ease, however, cannot turn this into a solution of a difficult, a very difficult, problem. To attempt to "circumvent" this difficulty by "skipping" the arduous job of utilising reactionary parliaments for revolutionary purposes is absolutely childish. You want to create a new society, yet you fear the difficulties involved in forming a good parliamentary group made up of convinced, devoted and heroic Communists, in a reactionary parliament! Is that not childish?
From Lenin, Should we Participate in Bourgeois Parliaments?
December 23, 2012
November 27, 2012
"As long as the struggle remains a perspective of overcoming capitalism, the militancy of the working class will be intensified"
Rebel Youth is reprinting this selections from General Conclusions of the International Communist Seminar held in two years ago in Brussels, which was hosted by the Workers Party of Belgium. Despite the time past, we think it is still very relevant. The excerpt is taken from part two of the statement which can be read online in full here. We present it with our own suggested discussion questions, below, developing the idea of reform and revolution.
Being fully submerged in class struggle offers an excellent opportunity to train new generations of [communist] cadres. A major part of today's youth, and certainly the generation that has known the anticommunist wave since 1989, has never experienced a crisis of the current magnitude or seriousness. It is today that this generation is preparing itself to take up its revolutionary role for the coming decades.
Every Communist Party [and every YCL - RY eds.] is faced with the challenge to acquire a profound knowledge and a Marxist analysis of the systemic crisis. The writings of Marx and Lenin are astonishingly relevant today to understand the profound origins of the current crisis and to formulate a socialist alternative.
Today, Communist and workers' Parties have an excellent occasion to strengthen their links with the masses. Marxist-Leninist theory has to be a guide for practice. It depends on the work of the communists among the masses, particularly in the class struggle, to what extent the conscientisation of the masses broadens and deepens.
This means that first and foremost, they have to be present and active in every struggle, to support the demands put forward by the workers themselves. Communists must propose a complete package of demands, based on the workers' needs. The class in power has accumulated its wealth on the back of the workers and they continue to enrich themselves during this very crisis. For the struggle to advance, it is important to formulate demands that put the burden of the crisis on the side of the big fortunes and the big capitalists.
Throughout these struggles, the perspective of socialism must be made clear. Communists must bring forward demands for which the workers are willing to fight today, while orienting them towards socialism. The Communist Parties must advance demands that break with the logic of capitalism, that enhance political consciousness and that forge class unity. It is of the highest importance that this struggle is politicised, allowing people to understand that more fundamental changes in the balance of power are necessary in order to enjoy the wealth that they themselves produce.
Every struggle must serve to broaden class solidarity, to build alliances, to counter division, racism, bourgeois nationalism and yellow trade unionism. The yellow trade unions accept the governments’ plans for social destruction in the name of the 'salvation of the nation'. In reality, there is no common interest the working class and the bourgeoisie.
It is important to support the troops' morale. We must have a feeling for the issues the masses are ready to mobilise for and to obtain small victories. We must continuously fight for immediate demands, for concrete measures that cushion the gravity of the problems and offer some relieve. They must be imposed through the power of the movement. Nevertheless, under capitalism these gains will be temporary and precarious. The militancy of the working class will be intensified as long as the struggle maintains the perspective of overcoming the capitalist framework and challenging the bourgeois power.
For the Communist Parties, parliamentary work serves to better develop the struggle. Any fundamental change depends on the mobilisation of the masses. In the capitalist system, there can only be victories through the development of class struggle. We should not count on parliaments but develop extra-parliamentary movements.
Strengthening the Parties as such deserves particular attention. We must recruit new members, convince and organise them. The role of the communist newspaper is irreplaceable and an important tool for the mass work. In addition, it is necessary to make better use of the new technologies for our propaganda work and to broaden the contacts.
For discussion:
1. The above text is a
statement, or declaration (meaning that it aims to proclaim rather than debate
and convince) and reflects the conclusions of a seminar of several Communist
and left organizations. What are the
main points it is trying to make? What do you think?
2. The statement
claims that the writings of Marx and Lenin, while written many years ago, have ‘astonishing’
relevance. What do you think? How is Marxism useful for understanding today?
Have you read any theoretical works that have impressed you? How, or why not?
3. What do you think the text means when it says
Communists have to present ‘a complete package of demands’ that ‘put the burden
of the crisis on the side of the big fortunes’? Why not just call for immediate
revolution?¨
4. What do you think
about the claim that the struggle must be ‘politicized’ – what do the authors
mean by politics? What is the connection of their conception of ‘politics’ with
the state? The statement also says that, by engaging in elections, Communists can
develop the struggle but at the same time they should not count on parliaments.
Why or why not? Do parliaments have any use in the struggle? How could Communist
participation in parliaments ‘sharpen’ the struggle? How could parliamentary
gains be unreliable?
November 3, 2012
Why Canadians must oppose the war effort
![]() |
Photo: Protest in Israel against the war |
By Darrell Rankin
The question of war or peace in the Middle East is at a critical moment. The people and sovereignty of Iran and Syria are in grave danger. A small spark could set off a huge war engulfing many countries, including the NATO military alliance.
Backed by the corporate media and joining other Western powers, the Harper government is imposing sanctions and cutting diplomatic ties as a cover for its own war preparations. Adding to the problem, it is hard to find disagreement on this issue between Harper and the main opposition parties.
We need millions of Canadians to understand that Harper's war drive must be stopped. We need to explain the reasons behind Harper's role on the world stage, and his government's growing isolation from the world majority on the issue of peace in the Middle East.
We need to pressure Parliament to make Canada a voice for peace and disarmament in the region. Working people would lose from such a war, as any party that represents workers should know.
Trade unions and other popular organizations in Canada need to help build the anti‑war movement. This would be the greatest act of solidarity with working people of all nations and religions in the region, because a new war would kill workers of all kinds.
We need to understand the motivations why the corporate ruling class here and in the Middle East is moving towards war. Only a small handful of people would benefit, especially the arms dealers. To them, a new war is useful as a tool to blind workers and prevent their unity for a better world.
The Harper Tories have the foolish expectation that a new war would place Syria and Iran under the reactionary control of Turkey and Saudi Arabia, and give more time for Israel to tighten its grip over the Palestinian people.
Like masters at the chess board, Western powers want to alter the Middle East balance. Colonial attitudes that support regime change in Arab countries are alive and well in Ottawa and other Western capitals. But wars do not always reach the desired end.
For the West, the usual reason for Middle East wars ‑ oil ‑ is receding to the background. There is a growing anti‑popular, reactionary purpose to the latest war drive.
According to Prime Minister Stephen Harper the "hopeful spring of democracy" has given way to an "angry summer of populism... (R)arely has the free and democratic world been less secure."
These are convenient words for a true imperialist. They paint the world as full of threatening chaos, a world we must bring under control for the danger to disappear.
The words are a ruse employed by apologists to justify the drive to dominate other nations. They are used to conceal the danger and chaos created by imperialism in the first place, through sanctions, the arms race and open bellicose threats.
At first, a war might help the most reactionary circles in the West, who continue to use workers as pawns and cannon fodder. These corporate global overlords intend to crush the democratic, popular character of the Arab Spring and stop it from spreading.
As emphasized by Harper's own words, hatred of the popular movements is a prominent motivation behind the threats to Iran and Syria. War is a desperate measure by the West and its allies in the region to crush the popular movements and the hopes for global anti-imperialist unity. Even more serious, another Middle East war could easily grow into a world war, pitting the West against China and Russia.
Intense military preparations in several global hotspots are putting realistic solutions to hunger and climate change on the back burner, where the big oil and grain corporations want them to be. Militarism guarantees that the jobless will continue to go hungry.
Communist and workers' parties have long stated that another world war can be stopped by a very broad anti‑imperialist alliance. A new Middle East war would complicate building this unity.
From that perspective, it is vital to block a new war against Iran or Syria. At home and globally, the peace movement has much work ahead to explain the democratic alternatives to war.
We need to build broad, popular support for comprehensive, mutually agreed and verifiable disarmament in the Middle East, and for the right of the Palestinian people and all nations in the Middle East to decide their future.
This means ending arms shipments into Syria that violate its sovereignty. Canada must end arms sales to regimes that are violating Syria's sovereignty, such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United States.
One thing has not changed about the escalating war threat. The wallets of the Western arms corporations are growing fat off the Middle East.
This is a war we must stop!
July 29, 2012
The youth struggle today: reform and revolution, local and general
Labels:
90th anniversary,
bc,
cuba,
economic crisis,
economy,
fukashima,
iran,
japan,
Marxism,
moncada,
peace,
quebec student strike 2012,
reform,
revolution,
strategy,
students,
syria,
tactics,
theory


Based on a greetings given by Drew Garvie on behalf of the Central Executive Committee to a meeting of YCLers in Vancouver, July 2012
Thank you to the Young Communist League British Columbia for having me here today, on behalf of the Central Executive Committee, for your provincial convention which also takes place on the same weekend as Moncada Day.
This is entirely appropriate. Moncada Day celebrates the movement that grew into the triumphant Cuban revolution, which was born on the 26th of July 1953 when Fidel and Raul Castro and around 160 other brave revolutionaries attacked the Moncada Barracks in Santiago de Cuba.
This meeting of the Young Communist League comes at a juncture in the youth and student movement when the forces of monopoly capitalism are instituting a strong offensive against the people and the environment through their reactionary, pro-war governments: the Harper Conservatives in Ottawa and their allies, the Clark Liberals in Victoria.
At the same time, the fight back is developing at an accelerating rate.
Signs of this can be seen especially in the youth and student movement. The development of Occupy successfully popularized the struggle of the “99%” against the 1%. There is some increased militancy from the student movement across English-speaking Canada, drawing inspiration from the ongoing historic and massive Québec student strike. The Charter of Youth Rights campaign is emerging.
Quebec, although on the other side of the country, is especially important. The bold unity and sheer numbers of the mobilization has scared the ruling class and sent a call-out for youth to rise-up.
Millions of people are also participating in general strikes and demonstrations in countries like Greece, Portugal, Britain and India. Much of Latin America continues to advance as an anti-imperialist front.
The revolutionary uprisings across North Africa and the Middle East which started around 18 months ago have not faded away. In Egypt there are continued strikes by factory workers, and street demonstrations by students.
Comrades,
The growing youth resistance has borne-out what the YCL said almost two years ago at our Central Convention, that the youth should take courage at the weakness of capitalism and build the fight back. We are in dynamic times, with many dangers and challenges but also the potential for a better future for British Colombia and Canada – and resurgent socialism.
We are being told by the corporate media that the economic crisis is to blame for aggressive budget cutbacks. For example, the recent Harper Budget, the Omnibus Bill C-38. We are again told that we can no longer afford the social programs that working people have won after generations of struggle.
Governments are broke and there’s nothing they can do about it, except make the working class pay the bill.
This is what people are hearing in British Colombia, in Ontario, in Quebec, but also internationally in Greece, in Spain, in Britain, in Chile, in India, and elsewhere. It’s a refrain that the pro-capitalist governments, whether they are right-wing or social democratic, basically have in common around the world.
Is it true?
Young workers and student activists can clearly see the dangerous lie to the claims behind 'austerity' when we have a global perspective. Even in a provincial meeting like yours today, it is important that the international and the local are always dialectically connected.
Consider the global economic crisis; the question of war and peace; and environmental struggles. Or the campus struggles today, with the student uprising in Quebec and the challenges for the student movement here in BC. How is the general connected with the specific?
First, the 'financial crash' or 'long rescission' or 'slow recovery' or as we have been accurately calling it from the beginning the capitalist economic crisis.
This crisis was not created by social programs, or by the people. It was created by capitalism itself. In fact, because of the internal contradictions of the capitalist economy, it operates in cycles of boom, crisis, depression and recovery which is politely re-labeled by economists 'the business cycle'.
And whether in the form of the velvet glove of “welfare state” reformism or the iron fist of neoliberal reaction, the policies of finance capital and its state have merely created new contradictions.
Over the last 40 years, corporate profits have skyrocketed, and big business has paid less and less taxes to the State. By eroding the tax system, keeping wages down, speeding up the working day, busting unions, privatizing profitable parts of the public sector, and breaking into new markets through trade agreements and even war, the capitalists hoped to survive systemic contradictions -- especially falling rates of profit. Because while Capital has made larger and large profits, the rate of accumulation was not rising (as new technologies were introduced).
Capital put the bill in the hands of government and the people, forcing them to borrow from the capitalists. This debt itself became a commodity. When the economic crisis hit, it was public money that went to try and resuscitate Capital through bailouts -- causing more debt. Who holds this debt? Well the capitalists, of course!
Now we are told it is our duty to feed the machine more.
As the crisis broke in 2007, debt spiked further. Now, in Europe, they’re back to demand repayment on their loans, that were given to themselves. This is called 'the Eurozone crisis' but it is really just another example of the global economic crisis of capitalism. Even Prime Minister Stephen Harper quietly said the last Greek election could effect the world -- including Canada.
The Harper Conservatives would like us to believe the economic crisis has really not effected Canada, but you here in BC know otherwise.
The youth movement understands its local struggles clearer and better when it has a 'big-picture' focus.
Capitalism is a system without democratic social planning, which as Engels said produces an “anarchy of capital” which is the cause of the crisis – of misery, exploitation, unemployment, poverty wages, and environmental devastation around the world. It is what the People are up against, but there are alternatives.
Communism and socialism are not words to be embarrassed of.
Capitalism is the real failed system.
And we putting socialism back onto the negotiation table!
Comrades,
At our most recent meeting of the YCL Central Committee we drew the connection between economic crisis and war.
The World Federation of Democratic Youth, the World Peace Council and the Canadian Peace Congress, and the international meeting of Communist and Worker’s Parties have all warned of the increased aggressiveness by imperialism.
As we report in the latest Rebel Youth magazine, a military intervention in Syria is being planned right now by imperialist alliances like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or NATO.
As we have seen in Libya, Palestine, Afghanistan, Haiti, Colombia, Paraguay, and many other places: the people are not done any favors by imperialist intervention. ‘Regime change’ in Syria would led to a terrible blood-bath and provide a road for imperialism to hit at Iran.
On the way to BC, I saw the Economist magazine in the airport with an article entitled “Syria: the end game”.
How many millions of dollars will be spent on another war? Money that, as your meeting documents say, should go towards BC’s crisis of child poverty – and job creation with good union jobs.
We have called for all peace-loving youth in Canada to support a peaceful and political solution by the Syrian people themselves.
The question of peace is also a challenge for BC young workers and students to address as a movement, and find ways to mobilize opposition in the streets.
Even when these issues seem forgotten, the YCL has a duty to remember the importance of the struggle for peace. The YCL must never abandon the principle of working-class internationalism, the principle that working people of the world must stand united against capitalist wars and for the class struggle.
And so with the question of internationalism we return to the relationship between the specific and the general.
On the other side of the Pacific, there have been tremendous anti-nuclear protests in Japan. The March 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster has lead to the evacuation of close to 2,000 people and over 500 disaster-related deaths, as well as the release of radioactive material into the Pacific. We would like to take the occasion of this meeting to express our solidarity as the YCL with the environmental movement in Japan.
Turning our eyes to home, we also call for the evacuation of all US troops and the closure of the Nanose Military Base which is a weapons testing area for US nuclear submarines.
The environment is understandably of vital important to the youth, because it is a struggle for the future. Climate change, for example, shows clearly the link between the global and the local.
Just a few days ago, scientists announced a rapid and massive thaw of Greenland’s glaciers. After just a small rise in oceanic water temperatures, and this office could be threatened by tidal storm waters!
In this context, we also join with the people’s movements and shout out that militant solidarity can block the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline!
The YCL has a long and proud history of opposing project like this, exporting unprocessed raw materials, which strengthens U.S. imperialism and its Canadian cronies, but fails to create jobs.
It is great to see the youth and student resistance to the pipeline, here in BC!
The cynics and the disheartened progressives who thought that the working class and youth of North America were “hopeless” now have examples in Wisconsin, across the continent in the form of the Occupy movement, and the Quebec student uprising.
The Quebec student struggle is another case where a local struggle is framed in an international context of struggle for accessible education, and then becomes part of that international resistance.
Globally, accessible education is under dangerous attack with the Austerity agenda. Students in Britain and Spain been a part of that renewed militant fight back.
In Chile, students joined a general strike of the miners in the summer, and a political strike was launched to replace the Pinochet-era constitution with a new constitution that would enshrine guaranteed free and accessible education. 600 000 marchers hit the streets in a country of 15 million. The Young Communists of Chile have been at the forefront of this struggle.
I would like to touch on the Quebec student uprising which is perhaps foremost in our minds in the discussion people`s resistance today.
It is also a topic where the CEC has devoted much attention to, in consultation with the YCL`s all-Canada student working group telephone meeting, which is growing and meets a couple times a month.
We would really like to see the call grow and develop, to include more participating from BC.
One way to get a good handle on how strong a movement is, is to see what the thinkers of the capitalist class are saying about it. Former advisor to the US state Department on the Quebec student struggle, David Jones has spoken about the Quebec spring. This is not a man who is on our side of the class struggle.
What was David Jones greatest worry?
That "students elsewhere (may) determine Quebec has provided a ‘learning experience.’”
As the YCL, that is exactly what we want: for lessons of Quebec to be shared with other students – and young workers!
We can not simply say – oh, that’s those French speakers. They have a different, culture, history, language, territory and economy, etc.
That is what the corporate media is saying. Quebec is ‘special’ – so the student uprising can not come to BC.
It is striking that when Quebec demands its sovereignty -- which we broadly support, proposing a new constitution on an equal basis with English-speaking Canada, up to and including the right of separation – but when Quebec`s self-determination and the national question comes into question, these factors that make Quebec a nation are suddenly forgotten by the corporate media and Quebec is no longer ‘special.’
However, a communists we know that there is a common class struggle which unites the different nations in Canada.
The fight for accessible education is a class and democratic struggle.
I was in Montreal last May as part of a delegation of student journalists from Guelph, Ontario and we interviewed student leader Gabriel Nadeau Duboise of the CLASSE union. He told me about the repression they have been facing by the police and with Bill 78, but also the slogan – “Student Strike, People’s Struggle.”
The students in Quebec, through struggling for a freeze in tuition fees, have learned a great deal through their battles and are now advancing other people’s movement demands, as their new “Share Our Future” manifesto says. You can read it on our RY blog or in the latest People’s Voice. I would like to quote:
“This is the meaning of our vision, and the essence of our strike: it is a shared, collective action whose scope lies well beyond student interests. We are daring to call for a different world, one far removed from the blind submission our present commodity-based system requires”
This is an important political view for the YCL and also shows the strength of our analysis: that the quantitative struggle for reforms, like accessible education, are necessary because they help build towards a qualitative change in the people’s class consciousness, organization and unity; ultimately it is towards the realizing the necessity of fundamental social transformation and revolutionary change – socialist consciousness.
The struggle for immediate social progress, within the framework of capitalism, and the struggle for making a rupture, a sharp break overthrowing of the system, are objectively linked as a process.
This can be difficult to grasp in the youth and student movement not just because youth (as much as we hate to admit it!) can lack experience with struggle.
That’s true, but it is difficult because it gets at the question of how we understand, as revolutionaries, our basic reality. If reform and revolution are opposite tendencies – ideologically, politically and economically – how can they be a united process?
Reforms are won through the power of the movement. Any fundamental change depends on the mobilisation of the masses of people. Nevertheless, under capitalism reform gains will be temporary and precarious.
Let’s keep in mind Quebec here, which has the lowest tuition fees in the country – this is not the first student strike in Quebec, it is the eight strike. And still the capitalists keep trying to push up fees! While we haven’t seen a significant gain come out of the battle – yet! – the struggle has become a mass and social mobilization far beyond the campuses which maintains, albeit unclearly, a perspective of challenging corporate power.
If the movement, while thick in the action for immediate reform battles, can maintain a revolutionary qperspective of class struggle and overcoming capitalism it will intensify the militancy of the working class.
And that is the kind of position the youth and student movement needs to be in – militant and united.
Conditions are always changing. The earth spins around on its axis, marking each day. It may seem that day after day, or year after year, life is the same. But life proves Marxism`s claim that the capitalist system is unsustainable and crisis-ridden. The moment we are living in is making history. Political ‘ruptures’ have been breaking out around the world – take the Arab spring – and the strength of the movement and its leadership is often decisive.
Perhaps it is too early to judge the results of the Arab spring in Egypt and Tunisia, but we can see how true this strategic perspective is, by remembering the first successful socialist revolution in North America – in Cuba.
The Moncada day we are celebrating this weekend set the revolutionary process into action in Cuba. But the main demands of the youth who stormed the barracks were free and fair elections. Just a year before, in 1952, US-supported dictator Fulgencio Batista had organized a coup and rigged the elections. And so, disguised as businessmen interested in Clay Pigeon shooting, a group of young radicals came together under the leadership of Fidel, Raul and others, training at the University of Havana.
In the short term, their raid was tremendously unsuccessful. It did not start an uprising. Instead, many of the youth and students died. Fidel, Raul and the rest of the rebels went to prison. But we know the rest of the story. A mass movement of the Cuban people against Batista developed with force, conditions changed and a crisis developed.
Facing armed insurrection that had liberated most of the island, as well as a mass uprising and a general strike, in January 1959 on New Years day Batista fled into exile (to eventually settle in fascist Portugal). And the revolutionaries lead by Fidel and Che marched into a celebratory Havana!
After the overthrow of Batista, the Cuban revolution kept advancing. It developed into a socialist revolution and the Cuban people built the first free territory in the Americas.
By celebrating Moncada, we remember that the Cuban revolution was made possible by the people’s struggles that came before, and took many hard years of organization and work. The small immediate battles and the big sweeping changes were not separate, but in a contradictory relationship together.
The YCL is a unique group in the youth and student movement because it ‘gets’ this unity of reform and revolution.
While we don’t try to impatiently impose our demands on the youth movement, we don’t sit on the sidelines or simply ‘go with the flow.’ We are not compliant or complacent with the situation today where many movements have adopted tepid demands without a common strategy (other than voting NDP).
The vanguard role of the YCL arises in action, working in the political direction of the Communist Party of Canada, and applying that strategic direction within the youth and student movement of unity and militancy.
What can be learned from the Quebec student movement by student activists in English speaking Canada and BC?
This is an important question for your meeting to discuss.
In our statement for the Feburary 1st “Education is a Right” cross-Canada day of action, the YCL made a criticism of the current tactics of the Canadian Federaton of Students or CFS, in a constructive and respectful way. We called these protests an excellent step in the direction of developing into a truly broad and united fightback.
In other words, February 1st fell far short of being what was necessary but could have been a good start.
Afterwards, in People`s Voice, we said the poor turn-out was a ‘wake-up call’ exposing the ‘lack of an action plan’
We called for ramping‑up actions on campus. Sit ins. Occupations. More rallies. [and] bringing the struggle into the community and winning the moral support of the public which, at least in sentiment, is probably already there - but not yet in a visible way that cannot be ignored.
Our policy is for a united and militant student movement that moves the campuses into action and reaches out beyond, to stand with the struggles of labour and other people`s struggles.
Our current policy in the student movement is that:
1. The student movement and the CFS needs an escalating plan of action for a broad and united fight back;
2. This struggle should open a broad democratic debate about free, accessible, quality, public, not-for-profit education;
3. That the political reason for the student movement’s struggle must be brought into the hands of the members themselves through democratic empowerment;
4. The student movement must urgently find unity with Quebec and Aboriginal students, and it must be on the basis of their rights to sovereignty and self-determination as nations;
Since the CFS Day of Action, Quebec has exploded. We must say that the solidarity movement in Canada has really been outstanding – but not with any help from Mulclair`s NDP! – but now each point on this list, which may have seemed abstract in January, is very concretely on the table.
The Charter of Youth Rights campaign compliments this perspective on unity.
In addition to free education from cradle to grave (including childcare) the YCL also demands abolishing student debt, grants not loans, kicking military recruitment and research of our campuses, restoring and expanding funding to education including Aboriginal education, and a living stipend for students.
Winning these demands is not a question of magic structures or magic leaders but finding the way to organize for a major battle, drawing hundreds of thousands if not millions of students into struggle.
In such a battle a student strike would be, as we said in January, the most effective way to put moral pressure on the government. It should therefore be part of the student`s arsenal.
But here is an important point.
Beyond the debate about tactics we think there is an ideological battle here, which is also observable in the Labour movement.
On the one side are the strategies of ‘lobby or wait until the Election and vote NDP’ and right-wing social democracy.
On the other side are the left and progressive forces that are calling out for action.
We are not in the arm chair on these questions, we are in action.
The CEC and the YCL student conference call helped support and organize the recent “Student Solidarity Tour”, bringing Quebec activists to 9 cities in Ontario, largely organized by our comrades on the ground and comrade Ryan from YCL Hamilton who is also a member of the Central Committee.
This was a very positive step forward for the League in Ontario as well as Centrally and had a significant impact on the situation in Ontario. It was the first time that CLASSE leaders and the Canadian Federation of Students were connected on a project as large as this, from Ottawa to Windsor.
Turnout to the events were very good and CEC member and leader of the LJC-Q, comrade Marianne Breton Fontaine had a chance to address about a thousand Ontario student activists with our call for unity and militancy as the way forward.
This was built from other work including the “student activist conference” the YCL CEC and the LJC-Q convened in Montreal in January. Could we do the same thing with a YCL young workers conference?
This weekend, many of our activists are in Toronto at “student strike training workshops” which Marianne will be presenting at. Over lunch, the YCL is holding a special fraction meeting of all our members attending the conference , to coordinate our contribution.
To update you on other activities across the country, the YCL-Ontario just finished their convention a month ago. 14 delegates from 4 clubs were in attendance and dealt with over 60 amendments through thorough debate and we elected a renewed leadership with a PC of ten comrades, including young workers and student activists from our new clubs in Ottawa and Windsor. I was re-elected as the Ontario YCL organizer.
The YCL also had a visible presence through participation in the Toronto Pride parade which concluded the convention weekend.
Rebel Youth, after a delay in printing which some of you in this room will know about directly, has come out with a double issue, which features the Quebec student strike and is in colour. It is being well received as the youth movement is eager to learn about what is really going on in the streets of Montreal and Quebec city.
I am happy to see that your meeting will be discussing contributions from British Colombia to our magazine and we do need help making sure that issues are produced more frequently. Above all, we need participation and involvement in the commission, and building the magazine among young workers with new subscriptions. Our magazine should be at the centre of our agitation, organizational and educational work of the League across Canada.
In Cuba solidarity – which we should draw extra attention to this weekend as it is the anniversary of the July 26th movement and the storming of the Moncada Barracks which marked the beginning of the Cuban revolution – we have sent two members of the YCL on this year’s Che Brigade, including Central Committe member Dan Mozarowski, and will be using this participation to strengthen our solidarity work.
We will be visiting Nova Scotia this Fall for a school, and have started organizing efforts to grow the League on the East Coast.
We need to prioritize more the work of young workers who are being hit hard by the economic crisis.
Where we are visible, active and working collectively as the YCL we are growing, sometimes significantly.
The current economic and political conditions have caused more and more young workers and students to look for alternatives to cut-backs, privatization and austerity. We have answers to the questions that are now being raised. The case against war, poverty, misery, environmental devastation, unemployment, exploitation and oppression is really the case for socialism.
With these thoughts, comrades, I think I will conclude.
I also should mention that next year will be a special occasion for the YCL, the 90th anniversary of the League and our founding in 1923.
Our 90th anniversary will be a special occasion that we will have to celebrate in some way as we mark 90 years of fighting history for young workers.
Again, good luck with your work today and we hope your debates are fruitful. As our slogan says:
The Youth are the Future, The Future is Socialism!
August 23, 2011
Building broad and powerful youth struggles
Bizzarro Cartoon |
Special to Rebel Youth
The other day, I was talking about Walmart with a passionate youth activist.
Walmart is a global mega company -- the world's third-largest corporation traded on a stock market, the largest retailer in the world, and the biggest employer in the world with over 2 million workers.
The battle to organize...
Walmart first invaded Canada in 1994, with the purchase of the long-forgotten Woolco chain. Walmart began by effectively closing all the unionized Woolco stores. Since then, Walmart has been locked in a hard battle with the trade union movement in Canada. Today, there are over 200 Walmart discount stores and 124 "Supercenters." The Walmart "threat," as we have also reported, has been used effectively by employers like Loblaws to force bad "super scam" contracts on unions.
The main trade union trying to organize Walmart has been the United Food and Commercial Workers, or UFCW. UFCW drives have taken place across the country such as Quesnel and Terrace, BC; North Battleford and Weyburn, Saskatchewan; Thompson, Manitoba; Windsor, Ontario; as well as Jonquière, Brossard, St. Hyacinthe, and Gatineau in Québec.
Walmart has fought these drives tooth-and-nail, so to speak. The company will fly in an expert anti-union team on the company jet the moment it learns of a union organizing drive. So far, no Canadian shops have been able to secure a collective agreement.
... or stop them
Still, the labour movement has been struggling hard to not only organize Walmart workers into unions, but also to block construction of new stores, working with coalitions of environmentalists, anti-sweatshop activists, community groups and small business owners.
These campaigns have come and gone, and often brought a lot of well-deserved negative publicity to this corporate monster. Walmart, as a moral representative of bloodsucking monopoly capitalism, is a very poor spokesperson and has become a sort of flashpoint issue in the youth and student movement.
Back to the debate
And this brings us back to the passionate discussion I had with a fellow youth activist and friend: no matter how well-intentioned these campaigns, could there be a trap for labour and working‑class people here, they asked?
Sooner or later, these campaigns make the point that not only Walmart, but also shopping at Walmart is not such a good thing. Ethically speaking, the point is made, if you shop at Walmart you are supporting the beast.
Have you heard the line, "Why don't people just buy from a local small business?" my friend said.
Of course, I replied.
Sooner or later, my friend pointed out, the conclusion is reached that Walmart shoppers are ignorant but complicit schmucks. Some people might call this kind of attitude 'blaming the victim' or anti‑working class. "And here is the trap," they said.
The cost of living, after all, is going up while wages stagnate. It is not hard to understand why people shop at these stores. But nevertheless this idea "slips in." Walmart shoppers are also the problem, my friend said.
Okay, you have a point, I agreed.
But my friend went further.
Never mind trying to find genuinely local produce and small businesses to buy from -- they all seem to be eaten up by bigger capitalists very quickly -- this isn't the main problem. And the effectiveness of boycotts is also a separate discussion.
Read more about consumer boycotts and Buy Nothing Day here.The real problem, my friend argued, is that working people are uniting in struggles with social forces and elements from other classes.
To be fair, my friend didn't say exactly that.
They said something more like -- when you work with small businesses in coalition, their ideas and perspective also enter into the struggle and movement, and sometimes that petite-bourgeois point of view isn't really based on what labour union folks call "solidarity."
Now how often have the small business owners advocated for working class issues like raising the minimum wage? my friend asked me.
For example, my friend said, when the Postal Workers' negotiations broke down over pensions, wages and benefits, what did the Canadian Association of Small Business do?
They wrote an open letter to Canada Post urging the crown corporation to stand firm in their reactionary bargaining positions!
My friend was on a roll.
And what about rightward-thinking social democrats in such coalitions, who invariably try to bring the unity of the movement down to tepid and weak demands, or even try to shut a movement down in favor of waiting for the next election?
So the call for a certain critical understanding when working people fight with other groups, strata or classes in society, like those forces linked more with small business, is not unjustified.
In fact it is very justified, I agreed.
But my friend had a different conclusion.
Maybe truly progressive youth activists should be much more cautious, and restrict or focus our alliance work to just working class people?
At this point my friend and I passionately disagreed, and I argued that such an approach would be completely disastrous for progressive movements. The debate opens up a broader question about fundamentals of Marxism.
* * * *
I have to recognize, however, that my friend's argument might seem a very logical application of Marxist analysis.
First, identify the working class forces, or members within a movement -- a community group, tenant's rights organization, peace coalition, or campus student union.
Second, drop some spicy smart-sounding language about bourgeoisie and proletarians.
Third, propose that the true proletariat be pitted against the non‑working class elements.
The big and dangerous mistake here, however honestly made with good intentions, is to confuse the class with the movement.
Class
Marxists define a person's class according to the individual's relationship to the means of production: do they own the tools, equipment, machinery, natural resources, etc. used in making goods and services?
The working class majority do not own any means of production and must work for a living. Those who own the economy, and can survive without working themselves, are the capitalists.
As the old joke goes, all we want to do is give the capitalists jobs...
Moreover, as the labour movement saying goes, "an injury to one is an injury to all." The agenda of the working class embraces all progressive movements and causes.
In this it is unique as a social class.
The interests of the working class ultimately include liberation from, and the defeat of, capitalism by socialism.
Working people are not just the largest class in society. They are also the future.
As the 25th YCL-LJC Central Convention documents said:
...the working class is the only consistently revolutionary class in this historical epoch. (This) is the primary contradiction in our society – that between the social production of wealth and its private appropriation, which is ultimately maturing and leading towards the end of capitalist society. The working class, and especially its organized segment i.e. the trade union movement, is the only class which has the ultimate power to shut down the capitalist economy and [also] to seize state power.
As big business dominates all aspects of social life, it attacks in economic ways -- ie. lower wages, longer working hours, busting unions.
Mass movements
But monopoly capitalism and imperialism is also forced, in its drive for profit accumulation, to attack basic rights -- ie. democracy in the broad sense.
Not just elections, but people's democratic right to have an effective say over their own future.
Mass movements have a grievance that effects a large number of people, as well as a goal or demands -- ie. a reform.
Examples of mass democratic movements are legion. More and more forums of struggle keep opening up as big business further attacks the people and their rights.
Classic examples are the peace movement, the student movement, and the women's movement. But consider the Occupy movement or the Quebec student struggle.
Occupy raised the question of the anti-democratic nature of capitalism, a society where the 1% make all the decisions, and called for solidarity among the 99%
Basically, it was both a class and democratic demand.
The Quebec student strike was a battle for the right to education, which is both a democratic right to learn and something which strongly benefits working people. The student's opposed the capitalists policy towards education, which holds that it is a commodity and privilege.
And, by the way, according to the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, basic civil rights enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms were violated during the violent 'evictions' of the Occupy movement in fall 2011 and also by the attempt by the Charest Liberal's to smash the student strike through Bill 78 and police repression.
Democratic rights are also violated when the boss smashes a strike and forces workers back to work.
The multi-class nature of mass movements
If class and democratic demands are often inter-linked it should be no surprise because the large number are of people in mass movements are, of course, workers.
As much as any protest movement is a reflection of society, it will be vastly composed of people from working class backgrounds.
But while the boss class and the workers are the two main social classes they are not the only ones in contemporary Canadian society today.
There are also doctors, small business owners, lawyers, etc. that make up the so-called 'middle strata' or petty bourgeoisie as well as intellectuals, farmers, and other social strata and classes. Exact "class"-ifications vary, no pun intended.
Today, it is difficult to find a mass democratic struggle -- other than the labour movement -- which is not in some way a class mix or "cross‑class."
Farmers, for example, are concerned about climate change -- and the destruction of the Canadian Wheat Board.
Nuclear war also threatens doctors, Bishops, or the coffee shop franchise owner.
These folks are not very common at labour conventions, but I have met all such individuals in community organizing.
Here-in lies the difference between a movement and a class.
As anyone who has done real political work knows, folks who have certain qualifications, education or rank, who own a meeting space, or who can donate money can all be very helpful in struggle.
The attitudes and contributions of non-working class or 'middle-strata' elements in struggle varies.
They too have a tough-go under capitalism. Small businesses from little restaurants to mid-sized farms are more or less constantly going into bankruptcy.
Perhaps this can lead to a certain bravery in the face of adversity. Such attitudes can helpful in the fight for reforms -- or destructive, like individualism, impatience, adventurism, super-optimism, or its flip-side, despair.
Reforms
Because Marxists view their ideology as expressing the interests of the working class, they give it immediate struggles considerable attention.
Marxists argue that the experience of working class struggle for reforms, like being part of a labour union, can teach the necessity of organization, solidarity, collectivism and sober analysis.
It can teach class conciousness.
It can teach who is the main enemy and the possibility of winning.
It can teach the lesson that the people make history.
Social revolution, ie. overthrowing capitalism for socialism, is a rallying call which finds fertile soil among people engaged in such struggle.
The working class has a lot to gain on an immediate basis from participating in mass democratic movements, coalitions and alliances, both temporary and longer term, with other social forces.
After all, the working class is not just most revolutionary class in an abstract sense -- it also has the ability to lead society if it controls the economy, ie. socialism.
It is precisely through alliances, Marxists say, that these lessons are learned.
Reformists and Revolutionaries
Not all forces fighting for reform agree that social revolution to socialism is inevitable, positive and necessary.
Reformists argue that socialism, or at lest a better society, can be won through a path which avoids "violent confrontations" such as a series of incremental reforms. Social democrats believe a political party is necessary to achieve such a victory.
This, the Marxists say, seriously underestimates what we are up against -- the class power of capitalism with all its might of prisons, police, the army, laws, and ownership of the economy -- and ignores the reality that capitalism is a fundamentally unsustainable system.
It's not the Marxists who create the class struggle, but capitalism.
Marxists therefore "get their hands dirty" in reform struggles while combating reformism.
Marxists see as their role to put forward an immediate and long-term strategy oriented on defeating capitalism -- a political strategy and programme showing the way forward to socialism.
That requires a different vehicle, the Marxists say, that just a class or movement.
It requires a political party -- a Communist Party, which has certain features: like unity in action or democratic centralism, internationalism, and a revolutionary outlook, Marxism-Leninism, and a programme.
The communists need to be active and visible in reform struggle not because they are reformists, but so that they advance these urgently needed struggles, and so they can play a role in the struggle when capitalism enters its systemic and periodic crises and the ruling class looses its hold on power.
A major component of any revolutionary movement is young people.
Each generation of revolutionaries, however, comes to socialism in its own way. For this reason, the Communist Parties have generally not created "youth wings" like bourgeois parties and instead formed movements like the YCL-LJC Canada, which stands in political unity with the Communist Party of Canada but is organizationally autonomous.
Campaigns like the Young Communist League's "Charter of Youth Rights" branch out to progressive and working class youth, seeking the kind of broad, powerful unity that is needed to defeat the Harper government and win a new, progressive direction for Canada and ultimately socialism.
I
For my friend, reform struggles outside of the labour movement or a true working class base were suspicious. Non-working class ideas could actually take hold through such action.
This is a risk, however, the working people must not only take, but be prepared to actively engage on an ideological basis. Otherwise, we risk cutting our nose to spite our face because the working class needs to be present in multi-class movements.
Working class ideology will not be formed simply through book knowledge. It takes practice and action to hammer out differences and that includes the experience of working with other strata and social classes.
II
It is sometimes argued against alliances and coalitions on reform struggles because it is said that the class war should be brought inside people's movements.
This generally means identifying who is proletarian and who is not.
In practice, this sectarian route would be disastrous.
It would undermine the fighting unity of these forces, orienting the struggle inward instead of against the main enemy.
The people's forces already have a great deal of work to do just building a fighting unity.
This includes helping overcome organizational shortfalls, or convincing people to set aside minor differences and just sweat the big stuff, or helping create the political will for action.
Movements are not classes -- but they are part of the class struggle, whether we like it or not.
And as US radical historian Howard Zinn once said, "you can't be neutral on a moving train."
III
Sometimes it is argued that because mass movements struggle for reforms, they are therefore reformist.
To some extent this is just a play on words, but where the proponents of this idea are going is to claim that reform struggles are the same as reformism. This is clearly a misnomer but, by extension: if a revolutionary participating in a mass movement is reformism, then there is no difference for revolutionaries to covertly participate in reformist or social democratic political parties with the hope of somehow turning them into revolutionary organization, perhaps through a split.
The argument against this tactic (which is sometimes called 'entryism') is its general futility, and I've heard this one used both ways. For example, that revolutionaries working inside mass movements is a type of entryism.
While there is a certain logic to the concept of a revolutionary, who is not a reformist by definition, having to covertly 'enter' into a social democratic political party, it is difficult to understand how, for example, a student can 'enter' into the student movement when they are already a student. And even if students were to 'enter' within a factory workforce to, for example, organize a union -- they would still be workers at that factory.
As argued above, these three ideas are actually mis-understanding of class, movements, and political parties.
An earlier much short version of this article was published in the Sept 1st 2011 edition of People's Voice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Popular stories
-
Rebel Youth is looking for hitchhiking stories, and also experiences with the challenges faced by women, trans people, hitchhickers facing ...
-
The real abuse taking place in Cuba is the crippling and inhumane American blockade Rob Miller The Guardian, Thursday 26 November 2009 Your ...
-
A very important meeting for labour and social movements is taking place from August 21-24th in Ottawa. The People’s Social Forum (PS...
-
Special to RY Tyson Strandlund is the Communist Party of BC’s candidate in the upcoming election in Esquimalt-Metchosin, British Columbi...
-
J. Boyden Yesterday, January 18 th , was the 24 th anniversary of the death of Renato Guttuso. Renato Guttuso (1911-1987) was a com...
-
Jay Watts In 1995, a report issued as part of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples called suicide “one of the most urgent problems ...
-
World Federation of Democratic Youth (WFDY) would like to express its deepest condolences and sympathy to all those affected by the mu...
-
Adrien Welsh On April 23rd, the French people were called to chose two out of the eleven candidates running for the Presidential e...
-
This article is part of an seven-part series of short quotes Rebel Youth is issuing about class struggle, revolution, civil-war, and par...
-
Ajit Singh A couple weeks ago, a Palestinian child was beheaded by the "moderate rebels" in Syria, created, funded, and backe...