Toronto Star profiles young communists
Tue, 2007-03-20 21:39
#1
Toronto Star profiles young communists
Tue, 2007-03-20 21:39
#2
An amazingly positive article and worthwhile read:
quote:
You might think of communism as a dying system, an ideology that has never worked in practice. You might think any Communists left in North America would be older immigrants clinging to the ideals of a country they left long ago. This is not the case for members of the Young Communists League, a youth group operating in cities throughout Canada.Frustrated by a political system that shuts out young people, those in the YCL see communism as a way to be involved in grassroots movements and feel as if they're making a difference.
"When you're in the Communist movement, it's not about communism, it's about seeing the struggle in a certain way and agreeing on the issues that the Communist party takes up. It has to do with social justice. I don't think there should be homeless people. I don't think we should treat the native people the way they do. I don't think my friend should be sent over to Afghanistan. Any youth who's ever worked in a job knows how much they're exploited. I've worked in call centres, greenhouses and restaurant kitchens. The boss is always trying to pay you less and cheat you in different ways.
Andrew, 19, The Annex
"I'm the organizer of Toronto for the YCL. I got involved in high school through the peace movement. I like to tell people we're not about Russian communism but Canadian communism.
"The primary goal of young Communists is democracy and not democracy that's, like, `Let's elect the best white rich guy.' We think in order to have true democracy, the people have to be involved. The working-class people should be in the government themselves."
Carmen Chan, 18, Markham
"Communism actually talks about youth issues and real change. I want a society where nobody lives in poverty and accumulates a majority of the wealth. Me and my friend operate a non-profit record label that distributes socially progressive music. We're very opposed to copyright, we support `copy left.' Everyone that wants music should get music and shouldn't have to pay for it."
Taylor Rothbell, 18, The Annex
"Capitalism is oppressive."
[url=http://www.thestar.com/article/191965]teens talk about communism[/url]
Tue, 2007-03-20 21:48
#3
Pogo
This positive spin is exactly what I have found with CP members. Funny that it made MSM.
[ 20 March 2007: Message edited by: Pogo ]
Tue, 2007-03-20 22:52
#4
Cueball
There isn't really anything that wrong with the communist ideology, in prinsiple. There is a problem with its mode of organization in Leninism, which is the main reason I always have statyed away from the Leninist groups.
And though Steppenwolf Allend, thinks that you can seperate Communism in it shitoric form, I think it is more or less the fact that when we say "communist" we mean Marxist-Leninist.
[ 20 March 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Thu, 2007-03-22 13:41
#5
social democracy is the way to go
Thu, 2007-03-22 13:53
#6
M. Spector
The CPC hasn't been "Leninist" for the last 70 years or so.
Thu, 2007-03-22 14:47
#7
N.Beltov
quote:
Cueball: There isn't really anything that wrong with the communist ideology, in principle. There is a problem with its mode of organization in Leninism ...
I don't think the YCL has democratic centralism inscribed into its Constitution/whatever. That's the key Leninist "mode of organization" that gets pointed to.
Mind you, the insistence that each generation forms its own views about socialism and that, therefore, young people [b]must[/b] have their own independent organization is an idea originally coined by ... (you guessed it) Vladimir Lenin. Therefore, the insistence that young people have the right to form their own non-Leninist socialist organization is ... Lenin's idea. Go figure.
Thu, 2007-03-22 15:54
#8
Cueball
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]The CPC hasn't been "Leninist" for the last 70 years or so.[/b]
Actually, yes it has. They observed a formalized Democratic Centralism, and Party Discipline. In terms of meaningful aspect of Leninism, that's pretty much it, other than theorizing about the role of the Vanguard of the Proleteriat, and some musings about the nature of imperialism there is not much else that is really relvant, as all the analysis is of the contemporary circumstance.
Really Lenin's contributions was his organizational system. Of which those three above are the highlights, and the first two were clearly observed by the CPC.
Perhaps today that is not the case, as N. Beltov says, but the system of party organization was in use at least up to the fall of the Berlin wall.
[ 22 March 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Thu, 2007-03-22 16:10
#9
N.Beltov
My points were that: (a) - having an organizationally separate youth organization was Lenin's idea, and (b) - that communist youth organization didn't impose the same kind of discipline or mode of organization on its membership that the parent party did/does.
Hell, I remember the YCL of 20 years ago was full of anarchists ... just as the LJCQ in Quebec was full of separatists.
[ 22 March 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]
Thu, 2007-03-22 17:21
#10
M. Spector
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Really Lenin's contributions was his organizational system.[/b]
Plus a few other tidbits, like his oratorical and writing skills, his thorough analysis of the state, a fully elaborated Marxist theory of imperialism, an appreciation of the crucial role of leadership in the proletarian revolution, an elaboration of Marxist positions on the national question and the emancipation of women, his tactical genius, and his unflinching dedication to the revolution.
In other words, most everything that's lacking in today's CPC.
Thu, 2007-03-22 17:56
#11
Cueball
But most of that, is non transferable "personality stuff" so essentially you are saying that there is no party of Lenin without Lenin. It is in fact this idea that I am bringing into focus, because if Lenin did not create a sound organizational structure that could effectively express Leninism, without Lenin, then Leninism in fact failed to reproduce itself through the organizational methodolgy which were at the heart of his politics.
These organizaitional structures for the most part are "Democratic Centralism" and his views on party discipline, as expressed by the policy on "Party Unity," and of course the Vanguard thing.
Therefore, since they failed, it is hardly even arguable that they are good theory, or at all desirable ideas.
[ 22 March 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Thu, 2007-03-22 18:09
#12
M. Spector
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]But most of that, is non transferable "personality stuff" so essentially you are saying that there is no party of Lenin without Lenin.[/b]
No I'm not. Lenin actually wrote all that stuff down. Anyone who cares to can read it and learn from it.
Thu, 2007-03-22 18:15
#13
Cueball
Right, and its expressed in his organization theory which is expressed through his policy, which failed to make the CP representative of his ideas for at least 70's years, [i]according to you,[/i] so therefore, the writing and the ideas, and the organization he helped build failed to achieve what they set out to achieve. So it seems only logical to assume that the ideas, the writing, at least on the organizational level, were in error.
Otherwise, those ideas and writing, and work would have paid off in the form of preserving the ideas, within the party he built. It is you who are indicating that his ideas failed to do what they were supposed to do, which was create a Leninist party that would survive Lenin.
[ 22 March 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Thu, 2007-03-22 21:49
#14
M. Spector
Right. The failure of the CPC is all Lenin's fault. [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
Thu, 2007-03-22 22:11
#15
Cueball:
quote:
you can seperate Communism in it shitoric form
Shitoric?
Mr Lahey is that you????
Sorry Cueball couldn't resist. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
"We're in the eye of the shiticane now Randy!"
Thu, 2007-03-22 22:17
#16
Cueball
If only that was not a typo.
Thu, 2007-03-22 22:53
#17
Cueball
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]Right. The failure of the CPC is all Lenin's fault. [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] [/b]
That's nothing more than rhetorical bluster.
Its the failure of his ideas to prevent failure. This is partcularly glaring, in that it was no mere failure but a human rights catastophy. You can't gloss over that fact.
The fact is that if you are going to make it your project to better the social relations between people, then you have to be able to show that your method works. There is no evidence Lenin's method does.
So far the Leninist model has only been able to provide a system of social critique, which is primarily to be found in Marx anyway, not Lenin, while his organizational ideas have only proven to be incapable of preventing the rise of tyrrany, in the name of those principles, which Stalin showed quite conclusively can be turned to great harm.
As for Marx, I can't imagine him ever suggesting that the course of history is defined by the machinations of personages sudh as Lenin, [i]or Stalin,[/i] upon whose shoulders the blame for the failure of the Leninist model is most usually placed. No. Marx would try and analyse the social relations in play, not reflect on the goodness or badness of any one person, or asign direct responsibilty to them for any ill or good in the general social sense. He would look to the dominant social relalations.
The fact is that the organizational practices that Lenin is largely identified with, manifested themselves in a general set of social relations, which certainly can not been shown to prevent the rise of tyrrany. Quite on the contrary. There is a lot of evidence that his ideas about organization became the tools of tyrrany.
To say anything more positive about his leagacy is to make crack pipe dreams out of the gnawed bones of past battles that should long ago have been burried.
I assert that you are wrong to say that the CP is and was not Leninist after the death Lenin, and that in fact it operated on the principles that Lenin helped put into place, and that the tyrrany that ensued was a direct result of how those theories played out in reality, and that this is true, even if Lenin did not intend for them to have the results that they had.
Further, I assert that any analysis of the of the rise of Stalanism, which solely depends upone laying the blame for the failure of the CP to live up to its stated goals upon the personality of Joseph Stalin, without taking into account the specifc political envrionment he inherited from his predecessors, among whom Lenin features prominently, is making an non-Marxist analysis.
[ 22 March 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]