[A-List] Gus Hall - (Hero or Zero) 1
charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us
Wed Jan 14 13:16:11 MST 2009
Fine, Socialist revolution will come from voting, in the opinion of Gus
CB; And in your opinion it won't. fine.
Let look at Chavez for a moment.
When Chavez regime was threatened with overthrow and he was imprisoned, a
referendum was not held where he was voted out of imprisonment.
CB: This is warped argumentation. He was voted _in_ . That meets the notion of change through electoral process.
It is a lack
of information at best, that makes one believe that the armed insurrection (in
the form of the existence of the state as military) , rooted in and based on
an upsurge (uprising) of the masses, did not free Chavez. A section of the
army sided with Chavez forces and would not slaughter the people and
destabilize "the revolution."
CB: That there was no vote in defending against the coup is not at all an argument that the current revolutionary Venezuelan process was not critically electoral.
There is a documentary on this process.
Tradition and history suggest the mass uprising as the thing that
destabilizes and polarize the state making it possible for a group of men and women to
seize power. The other tradition as history of real events, is a war time
collapse of the army as the thing that destabilize the state and makes possible
the capture of the commanding heights of power by revolutionaries.
The act of seizing power, described as the revolutionary crisis by Lenin, is
either as an insurrection or a military coup. If the group of men and women -
as a political association or organization, have members that are part of
the constitutional authority, and they will, they most certainly will have to
swing the armed forces over to the cause of revolution. Here is the meaning of
insurrection, and it is not counterpoised to voting, or more accurately
taking part in the electoral process, which is not limited to voting. Even with
the narrow and bizarre vision of voting as the path of the Socialist
revolution, the demand to line up a section of the military is necessary for political
change and this process is the meaning of the insurrectionary process.
The fact (meaning indisputable by anyone that examines the data and
information) of the matter is that political change in America always call for lining
up the forces of insurrection to one degree or another. When Colin Powell
lined up with Obama, the reason he is Colin Powell is as representative of the
armed forces. The reason Obama is recruiting existing members of the state
into his administration - (as armed force and intelligence agencies), is
because insurrection and military coup is an inherent aspect of all institutional
power, at all times in all of the history of classes, in the world. And
politics at the highest level is inconceivable without military forces and lining
them up to ones side.
What is wonderful is that we live in a mount of history where we can witness
revolutionary currents and process in real time.
Obama had to be able to win a section of the military to his side to get
elected with credibility, in the eyes of the state and the people. There is
nothing revolutionary about Obama, or rather, there is no evidence of Obama being
revolutionary, in as much as he is not even President yet. Lining up section
of the military is a public act in America, with an incredible amount of
transparency. The real military in America is polarized in a way no one has seen
or experienced since Vietnam. Also, the Obama campaign - as a process, had
characteristic of a mass uprising. To equate any of this with a concept of
ballot box socialism is a stretch.
The conception problem of the meaning of revolution and insurrection is part
of the bourgeoisie's job in keeping revolutionaries confused and to deny and
repudiate our own history. I will not repudiate our collective history.
Insurrection is the crown on the head of the revolution. Without it is
impossible to "stabilized the revolution."
Look at the October Revolution, which as a process involved voting. Lenin
was not running around with a gun, which is the concept the bourgeoisie wants
people to envision, when the word insurrection is mentioned. The
insurrectionary aspects of "the revolution" was the Solider Soviets and winning over a
decisive section of the military. Read "Ten Days That Shook The World" by John
Reed and read about the real insurrection.
The inordinate attention Chavez daily and hourly takes in reorganizing the
military is proof positive that "the revolutionary" process has to be
implemented, safe guarded by arms and stabilized by arms. Not a concept of "the
people have guns" or even "the armed people" but winning the "weighty"section of
the military to ones side. Chavez is insurrection or the insurrectionary
process made flesh. Chavez career was/in the military. The military is arms
personified and as the central focus of the meaning of the word "state," had to be
already polarized into opposing sides, for him to win office.
Chavez is a breath of fresh air, but a "peaceful change" in the production
relations in his country is minimally, predicated upon another series of
changes, interlocked with changes in America and the world. At least this is how
things seem in 2009. Maybe in 2012 things will look different. A revolutionary
America will be strong enough to pull most countries in its wake and opens
the possibility for a peaceful transition. The idea that Chavez represents
ballot box socialism is ridiculous or rather needs to be explained. Anytime a
section of th military divides and opposes itself unleashes the insurrectionary
process, or rather is by definition either insurrection or a military coup.
Change in social relations of production or what is the same, "production
relations" have a meaning. Communists, with a Marxist tradition, speaks of
changes in the production relations.
Production relations or "social relations of production" means "the laws
defining the relationship of people to property in the process of production."
Despotic inroads" into capital, on behalf of the people at large, are always
welcomed. At the end of the day you have to change institutional law from the
interest of one class to another. When this is attempted you better have the
armed forces, or a decisive section of it on your side. If a decisive section
of the armed forces are on your side that is the armed insurrection.
Nepal is a very different matter.
The act of seizing the commanding heights of power is called revolutionary
insurrection, when such seizure takes place in the context of a waves of
revolutionary change in the productive forces and whose expressed intention is the
overthrow of an institutional (power) class. Revolution, by definition
springs from qualitative changes in the productive forces, which compels society
to change the production relations (social relations of production). Not only
is society compelled to change from the center of gravity that is the fact
of changes in the material power of production, but such changes are already
taking place. Revolution must take place because these changes cannot be
completed, without a change in the "superstructure." The change in the
superstructure cannot be stabilized without the armed might of the state. This
stabilizing by the armed forces that is the state is called insurrection or the
Insurrection is the crown on the head of "the revolution." The ballot box
socialists, as an intellectual current are of course part of the revolutionary
change wave and I have always worked with them and respected their vision,
as the right wing of communism/Marxism. On the other hand I vote, have run for
offices and have won elections. I lost more than I won and find nothing
wrong with communists working in the general parliamentary arena. Most work of
communists and socialist in the parliamentary arena have been distribution of
their literature rather than voting.
This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com
More information about the A-List