Wednesday, August 29, 2007

Ilia Milev: Crisis in SL. We have to seize this chance

SL is suffering an economical crisis due to the poor attendance and interest over Big companies islands, and these companies are losing money (hahaha!). By just making a first reading, these are good news from our point of view: big companies cannot enter a world where the most internal desires are shown and where human nature can be free. But does it depend on a class conscience or any kind of organization? Unfortunately this is not the case, and we can even think that the people who don’t visit BMW (for example) can have a BMW on real life. We are not sure of anything with these news, maybe the reason is just a chance lack of interest. But at least we can think that a percentage of this behaviour by the avatars is due to a rejection against the big companies.
I mean a conscious rejection of icons such as General motors, Coca-Cola and so on. We should exploit this moment, we should enquire people different from CPSL and other leftish organizations, may be we can even discover an intrinsic socialist conscience. I invite all of you to reflect upon this, and to try to ask more and more people to have an attitude of commitment. Please take a look over your neighbours no matter their groups or starting ideas. We can also do it from a CPSL scope.

There is some rush for this task, I wrote this artice some minutes after knowing the news, and I ask you all to do a response to this as fast as possible.

Greetings, comrades

Ilia Milev

Monday, August 27, 2007

Minutes/resume of CPSL meeting on Iraq (08/26/2007)

[11:32] HenryJames Milestone: Let's start with a round of comments. We will begin on my right, with comrade ggtk, and go around the circle until it ends back at me. If you don't want to speak, say pass.

[11:35] Boris Niekerk: Iraq was obviously an imperialist adventure planned before september 11th and we use all oppose this illegal occupation.

[11:36] PsyBorg Leonov: the war on Iraq is a continuation of imperialist policy towards the region since the sykes-picot agreement. We should support progressive elements that oppose the US and the UK etc.

[11:37] Dissident Vollmar: in response to supporting progressive elements, i think that care should be taken in not supporting radical islamist militants. obviously. The situation that i see in Iraq right now is one of civil war. i havent been keeping close track of the "progress" in Iraq, but from what I've heard, its devolving, with really nothing to be done about it.
too many people are vying for power. the sunnis and shiites have deep differences and resentments. so yes, the United states involvement is an issue, but that's not the only thing to be looked at here when talking about progressively helping the Iraqi people.

[11:40] Hideki Kojishi: We're all Marxists here ... Even the Sunni-Shiite conflict, at the top, is about controlling wealth ... It seems clear to me that the war in Iraq is entirely driven by the American war industry ... it has no other reasonable function ... it does not make America or Britain safer (to the contrary in Britain) ... it oppresses the Iraqis and inflames Islamic hatred ... the only way to end American militarism which drives this war - and the next in Iran - is to somehow disconnect the militaryindustrial complex from its lackeys in government ... Marx would understand: it's all about money.

[11:46] Lupe Matova: well, i think that we have to have sure, that all poblations have the right to defend their autonomy, and to choose their future, then the irakian also. Its right, that the resistence include a lot of smalls grups of differents lines....but the principal think to defend for comunist is the freedom of all countries, against ocupation and also to denonce the real interests of imperialism in the zone

[11:48] Kakumei Arashi: ok, first of all im a japanese and its 4am in japan, so im sleepy. m sorry if i make a misstake. in my oppinion, the war on iraq is never justified whether one is a communist or not, because there is no connection between 911 and iraq and sadam didnt have any wepons of mass destruction. so i think the war is a conspiracy of what we call empire, including US, british and japan. so, they have to retreat from iraq as soon as possible

[11:55] Alys Abruzzo: First I agree a lot with Lupe. I aplogise for the lack of babbler. I will keep my contribution short based around the 2 slogans, 'victory to the insurgency' and 'troops out of Iraq'. raIt is our duty in countries with troops in Iraq to campaign for their withdrawral. The situation of civil war has been created by the occupying forces and their arming of sectarian gangs. Bush made a point about linking defeat in Iraq to defeat in Vietnam and in a way he is right. A defeat for the US in Iraq will be a huge setback for their ambitions in the region.

[11:56] Rockerduck Bogdanovich: first of all i would say that like a comrade pointed out before, if we look at the reasons of this vile war, we find a set up that not a dangerous communist but President Eisenhower pointed out in his farewell speech. this is the tight connection between weapons industry lobbies and the US government. on the other hand its clear that Us and its allied are in the mid term aiming to China. to do that they do need to set up a strong military presence in the middle east. the so called Allied are building 4 permanet beses in Iraq and it is the reason why they stay here. i would note also that the composition of US Army is basically made of proletarians that fight just for bread or for a future. our problem is how this vicious circle can be broken. i think that the first weapon we need is the US people themselves, the other ciountries will follow. i dont live in Us so, i cant say that much. i will wait for a American corade to talk to extend my arguments.

[12:06] Rascal Ratelle: getting the us people on our side will not be easy. a good part of the USA is pro bush, namly the southern states. how do you propose we get those pro bush shoutherners on our side? red necks are the hardest minds to change, dam near imposible if you ask me and they hate communists

[12:13] HenryJames Milestone: I think that Iraq is more than a civil war or an occupation. It is part of a larger campaign by U.S. imperialism and its cartel of states to re-divide the world along lines most favorable to it. If there is a connection between 9/11 and Iraq, it is only in the sense that they both represent key elements in a larger strategy. We are seeing today in countries like the U.S. a growing disparity between its economic and military power. Quite simply, the army is bigger and stronger than the government's pocketbook is. The result is that there is a need to expand into more markets, to acquire more resources and access to resources, and to regain an advantageous position in relation to its rivals in Europe. This, in my view, is the basis of the Iraq occupation. It is not so much about the oil as it is control of its flow -- especially when it comes to the flow into Europe and China.
But in this occupation, there is not a simple "good guys / bad guys" arrangement. The reality is that both the occupation and the so-called "resistance" represent two sides of the same Dark Scenario being imposed on the world in the wake of the end of the Cold War. As communists, I believe that our first and most important task is to stand with the working people of Iraq, their organizations and movement, and that it is they who deserve our support. The organizations of the so-called "resistance", while ideologically diverse, are small and are composed mainly of either dispossessed elements of the former Iraqi ruling class -- i.e., Ba'athists -- or of reactionary bourgeois and petty-bourgeois elements masquerading as "anti-imperialists" for the media and the western left. While it is true that there are many thousands of Iraqis who have picked up the gun and have rightfully resisted, these are not what I am speaking about when I talk of the "resistance". Rather, I am speaking about the specific organizations that go around the world attempting to pass themselves off as the "voice of Iraq" -- such as those who went to the "Anti-Imperialist Camp" in Italy a few months ago.
As communists, I think we can all agree that immediate, unconditional withdrawal of all imperialist occupation forces is our top demand. In my view, this is the crux of how to defeat imperialism in Iraq. Support for reactionary "anti-imperialists" -- disgruntled ex-employees of imperialism -- is not a communist position, in my view.


[12:27] Boris Niekerk: One thing to remember comrades is that it is in the interests of large US companies to keep such a war such as this going. Us businesses made huge profits in WW1, WW2, Vietnam, the Gulf and Afghanistan. as usual the ordinary US citizens must die for this. This war must end as soon as possible.

[12:30] Lupe Matova: we can see in this days, that economy situacion in the world enter in a depresion fase...and if we remenber in all the history, when the imperialism see a danger for its economy, this is similar than more and more wars. The USA
all we are here, we know the situation in irak, and some comarades dont think than people in the mayorit are against irak war, american people...because they beleive that this war would be good for their interests...but the economy situation in this days, and for the future is very see the bourse crash in this days....and perspectives in the next months, were more difficulties in USA, and in all “rich" countries to mantain the econonomy....this will be a beginning of a lot of moviments into the labour class, and this will concience the labour people in the real situation,in the enormous spend of money, public money to make wars that defends multinationals interests.
the irakian war dont answer the spectatives of bigs companies...they dont win that the wanted, and now, i think than the real deal for USA governement is how to go away from irak. like say henry, militar spend is very big, but this traslate a minory spend in social help, social security, education, health...and with we say that ther will haven t work....this is an explosive situation. i agree with henry that we have to stay with working class of irak, and the workers, now are also into the resistance movement, then we have to stay near the resistence.
The real resistance is to the occupation and with the support of 80% of the Iraqi population, is carrying out a guerrilla war, centralizing its objective on the military mostly the occupational army and the collaborationists: The national guard and the Iraqi Police, military services created by the occupier to protect itself from the resistances. Its being used right now in counter insurgent operations. Its clear that like all national liberation movements its formed by mixed groups of different tendencies that are with contradictions, some progressive, and others reactionary like of the Islamist fundamentalists, all with a point in common thats the fight against the United States. Something similar happened in Europe during the German occupations when the resistance had in its ranks, reactionaries with monarchist elements as well as communists. This fact in no way put the progressive character of the national liberation movement an issue. The Marxists have to support the Iraqi liberation movement, in the same manner that the Iraqi Marxists participate in it, but not only disintegrating themselves in together of the movements, without surrendering their ideological and organizational independence. Exposing clearly that the fight by the national liberation can only triumph like a fight for a social liberation Denouncing the reactionary character of islamic extremism and the opportunism of the leaders, showing them like the other face of the same coin of Imperialism. Proposing within the movement a basic common program for the socialist transformation of society and the means to carry it out. A political program that attacks the Imperialist occupation, the fundamentals of feudalism and capitalism.

[12:34] Hideki Kojishi: Well said, Lupe ... Mikhail Bakunin said that the sole purpose of the state is war. We cannot think in terms of "the Iraqi people" or "the American people." The classic enemies are: wealth, religion and the military ... all are being damaged by America's runaway imperialism. We must beware of supporting oppressive Islam in our actions against the war. In America, the Left shall rise soon, as it shall globally. As more and more wealth is concentrated in fewer hands, the people rise up. That is as it has been in the 19th and the 20th centuries. Trade unionism, the soul of Comminism, is growing again in the U.S. Middle class wealth is vanishing and that will turn the tide, as people realize they are working and dying for the benefit of an elite. This tide swept the world in 1848 and with modern communications, it can move even faster today. the state and its military will lose control of the people when the underclass refuses to fight for its own oppression.

12:36] PsyBorg Leonov: The objective of the war in Iraq and the WOT in general has short, medium and long term aims. Short term, to establish closer control of the area and use it as a base for destabilisation of the region. A (probably nuclear) attack on Iran is almost certain and these developments are allowing Israel to aquire more territory and US and other multinationals to obtain lucrative business particularly in the arms and oil sector. Another short term reason is to cover up the general finacial collapse that is happening and carry out looting operations to refill the coffers. Lastly to criminalise dissent and opposition to the neo-liberal globalisation agenda Medium term, to prevent the emergence of regional powers who can challenge imperialist hegemony in the area and frustrate the eatablishment of an Arab Union along the lines of the EU or similar institution. Long term, to threten and encircle China and Russia. This is just the start. Meanehile they ignore the global warming crisis and this leads to further desperate situations and forced migrations etc. In my view it is very serious. we ain't seen nothing yet. There needs to be the broadist aliance of progressive forces along the lines of the World Social Forum and every single left, social justice, peace and environmental group that has generally progressive aims. We should be part of this. The prospect that the neo-liberals offer us is for a big world war which would be nuclear sooner or later and massive environmental damage. We need the broadist of fronts to repel this possibility.

[12:38] Rockerduck Bogdanovich: well i would comment on what Lupe and Hideki said. for what i can remember, there is no evidence that a economical crisis automatically leads to a increased consciousness of the workers. i would say, looking at the last century, that fear and other factors do lead instead to a aquaintance to fascist instances and this is what we see in EU today for instance, not to mention other Countries. So i woud say that there is a double danger we have to face and a double task we have to accomplish in our RLs as strongly as we can and that is to help our close neighbors as the first to think the consequences that follow to this aptitude to think in terms of national interests, fear of any difference, and willing of a strong lead.
for what about the Iraqi resistance, im all with HenryJames, we have to stand for the part of that that deserves to be sustained.

[12:50] Lupe Matova: rock, the evidence of economical crisis, is that to mantain economy, FED, and BCE have to puto 200 000 milions dollars in circulation... and also pur more cheap money for banks....this is a simptome of a very bad situation, and we cant see that can realy save the economy. and about resistence : Do not be misled by the distorted information given to us by the media owned by large capitalist monopolies. This media is utilized for the United States and their allies for presenting the Iraqi insurgency like a group of fanatical of the Islamist fundamentalists. It is the same divisions in the various factions, principly the Sunnies and the Shiites who go about terrorizing and indiscriminately kill the civilian population. This permits the occupation army to show the war like its a "war against terrorism" and presents themselves like the " saviours of democracy", defenders of the population who are incapable of taking their destiny into their own hands. Using the media, they convince public opinion that it is urgent necessity to maintain themselves in the territory of Iraq and thus control (They[US] Love them...) the energy resources of the region.

[12:54] HenryJames Milestone: I think it's important, first, to distinguish between the small-r resistance -- the people of Iraq fighting individually or as neighborhoods -- and the capital-r Resistance -- the organizations presenting themselves as the alternative to the occupation and the Maliki government. I would say that the resistance waged by the people in Iraq is something that is worth supporting to a point. But that is not the same, in my view, as what the "official" Resistance is doing. At the same time, there is also the issue of the sectarian militias and the role of political Islam in the country. The use of political religion by the occupation forces, the sectarian groups and the "official" Resistance is something that has virtually own the country apart. We cannot speak abstractly about what we as communists see as our view on Iraq. If the Islamists and Ba'athists were to win, for example, it has very real consequences for the workers of Iraq and the region. We cannot ignore this. It my be that we in the western countries can move on to the next headline, the next campaign or protest. But the workers of Iraq will have to live with it for years to come -- provided they are able to stay alive.

[13:00] HenryJames Milestone: This is why we need to look more toward the concrete situation and what each side in the conflict would mean for the people of Iraq. This not only includes the organizations of the "official" Resistance, but also the independent labor movement and the civil resistance being waged by organizations like the Iraq Freedom Congress. The IFC in particular is something we should look at closely. They have demonstrated an ability to build across sectarian and religious lines, to unite workers into a revolutionary-democratic movement for a socially-progressive future, and also put armed forces on the ground to make it a reality. For that effort, the occupation, the sectarian militas and the "official" Resistance have targeted them. Even if we do not formally support the IFC, we should recognize that their ability to unite the oil workers, the mechanics, the teachers, the unemployed unions and the main women's organizations is supportable. Also, I think we should look more at the work of the Federation of Workers' Councils in Iraq and support their efforts.

[13:05] Lupe Matova: i agree with henry that we have to differency the islamist and petit bourgois groups of the resistence. i know thar the ideal resistence dont exist, a concencius marxistresistence dont exist in anyway...always we will have no-homogene group, so, if we want to support working people, we have to support resistence, bat making a call out to iraqi youth and workers so that they make return to their revolutionary and anti-imperialist traditions that they have showed greatly on many on many occasions and to convince that this movements can only be founded on the bases of the working class, that they are the only class able to unite with different religious groups,ethnicities, nationalities and social stratums with the common objective of social transformation. And defend what is the only way out, the only way to defeat imperialism, is a unified revolutionary fight against the occupation , oppression and sectarianism.

[13:08] Boris Niekerk: Comrades if we are clear on our position surely we should spread our message to the people of SL? I know many who would agree with what has ben said here.

[13:16] Lupe Matova: about action, a propose....we can make a demostration against the foreign ocupation, and support working peopla in irak, the next sunday or another day we can al be. also, the secretary can make a resume of the meeting, in the commun points of all comrades, to give a comunicate of conclusions

[13:20] Smoke Wijaya: I think it is very clear we all agree on the need to end the occupation

[13:21] Lupe Matova: and its claer for all, that the only force can make free iraky people, is working class force against capitalism and make a socialist country.

[13:35] Rascal Ratelle: we should be carful when we say"By Force, becuase this conjures up bad images in the mind, such as Chinas GOV abuse of the capitalist system. China has run their system By firc, they controle the media to the point that they can't evan get the truth out, what they watch, read, see. my concerns is how do we make the people see we CPSL are not like the corrupt Chinies comunists?

[13:42] Lupe Matova: its important what you say, rascal, but to make the difference between china comunism, and us, is very simple....comunist burocracy of china is the same than capitlism....we are comunist, and defend the worker class power....and it is not the idea of burocreacy chinese comunist party

[13:42] Rascal Ratelle: Lupe how do we make the other people see that? How do we convice the working populis?

[13:44] Ernest Newman: I agree that the "C"word is a huge looking at the IFC documents, everything makes so much sense....anyone with a brain can see they are the only ones talking any sense...but then you see that they are a mainly communist formation....for so many otherwise intelligent people, that is such a negative buzzword....and, especially for "worker", average joes with limited education, that is, it may be an unsurmountable obstacle, for getting them to listen to anything else you have to say. what ever the reason, however unjust, incorrect, or whatever, it's the material fact.

[13:46] Lupe Matova: to make the people understand, only with meetingd, like this, debates , peeches, all around us, in SL, and RL...i know its difficult, but its our work.....explain with a lot of paciene our ideas...and always defending the working class power to govern....the capitalism use the confusion of stalinism to crash comunism...we have to separate us of stalinism sistem, and explain that is nor comunism

[13:49] ggtk Wei: maybe we can do a campaign with tracts, posters,... in SL to explain that "communism isn't" stalism, defends freedom,equality, workers, etc

[13:55] Lupe Matova: comunists, we have a very good instrument to explain what we want....the clasicals writtings of comunists like marx, engels, lenin, gramsci, rosa luxemburg, and also the method: the materialism dialectic, for ggtk propose of tract, is interesant, but i think that with these meetings, about specifical themes, we can explain our ideas about what is for us comunism, real comunism. we have to have pacience

[14:07] Lupe Matova: i agree, with comrades wants more action in CPSL.....and i propose some of this...onlythe secretary have to resome the conclusions and put it in web, also, we would make a demostration against irakian ocupaton
[14:08] Lupe Matova: its along yhe work we do here, that people see what we are and we all agree that stlinism arent comunist really, and we have to explain it always to each people ask

[14:09] Smoke Wijaya: I propose we end this meeting. That I make the chatlog avaiable and draft a resume, which I willpost together in the notices and blog. Then a new meeeting, like wednesday, to discuss that resume and decide on action accordingly.I think we got a more clear view of what we agree on....and from which we can launch raising awareness and action

[14:20] Smoke Wijaya: Thursday 30th of August, 10 AM PDT, continuing meeting on Iraq.

Tuesday, August 14, 2007


En unos estudios realizados en la III Conferencia Internacional: “La obra de Carlos Marx y los desafíos del siglo XXI”, la maestra y doctora en Servicio Social Claudia Mazzei Nogueira, presenta un análisis sobre el trabajo femenino y las desigualdades en el mundo productivo, donde estudia a través de datos concretos como se traduce en realidad el avance de la emancipación de la mujer a través de su inserción laboral dentro de un contexto de “acumulación flexible y de advenimiento del neoliberalismo”.

Los datos nos demuestran que frente al estancamiento y hasta la regresión del trabajo masculino, ha habido un aumento del trabajo remunerado femenino, pero este va ligado a las “áreas donde predominan los empleos precarios y vulnerables”, principalmente en el sector de servicios, empleos temporales (donde tiene un claro predominio la mujer), sub-empleos, etc… Los datos arrojados demuestran la tesis de que la división social y sexual del trabajo, en la configuración asumida por el capitalismo contemporáneo, intensifica fuertemente la explotación del trabajo, haciéndolo, no obstante, de modo aún más acentuado en relación al mundo del trabajo femenino.

Del paralelismo entre trabajo precario, baja remuneración, empleo parcial, e inserción de la mujer en el mercado laboral se desprende el elemento social aceptado de la conciliación entre la vida familiar y la laboral, y se presupone que esa conciliación es exclusiva del sexo femenino. A este respecto, la autora dice: “Y eso ocurre porque el capital, además de reducir al límite el salario femenino, también necesita del tiempo de trabajo de las mujeres en la esfera reproductiva, lo que es imprescindible para su proceso de valorización, toda vez que sería imposible para el capital realizar su ciclo productivo, sin el trabajo femenino realizado en la esfera reproductiva.” Es decir que para la supervivencia del sistema capitalista, es imprescindible mantener la división del trabajo en bases sexistas, manteniendo el salario femenino como un “complemento” a la economía familiar -cuando para la mayoría de los hogares de la clase trabajadora, esa aportación tiene un carácter vital-, y que las mujeres también se mantengan en su papel reproductor y de trabajadoras domésticas obviando de esta forma la arrogación por parte del Estado de ese sector, única medida concreta para adelantar efectivamente en la real emancipación femenina. Este estudio demuestra taxativamente, que esas desigualdades en la división del trabajo entre trabajadores y trabajadoras responden a los intereses directos de la clase dominante. El capitalismo utiliza la inserción laboral femenina como inserción de mano de obra más barata, más explotada, pero también como una forma de mayor presión a toda la clase trabajadora en su conjunto. En ese sentido, la autora cita a Helena Hirata, socióloga brasileña que dice así: “La autora (Helena Hirata) afirma que las mujeres trabajadoras son utilizadas por el capital como instrumentos para desmantelar aún más las normas de empleo dominantes, llevando a una precarización más amplia para lo conjunto de la clase trabajadora, incluyendo al contingente masculino.”

No es de extrañar, con todos estos datos que las mujeres trabajadoras tengan históricamente un papel destacado dentro de las luchas obreras, siendo el sector más explotado de la clase trabajadora. Lo vemos día a día en todos los conflictos, como inmediatamente son las que toman posiciones más “radicales”. En este contexto, cabe destacar la Ley de paridad aprobada por el parlamento español con el voto negativo del Partido Popular. Aunque esta ley será motivo de un posterior estudio exhaustivo que publicaremos en breve, sí podemos enunciar algunas líneas que nos parecen importantes. El hecho de que el PP se haya opuesto a esa ley, no es casualidad, responde a los intereses de la clase dominante en mantener esa desigualdad laboral sexista de la que hacíamos referencia más arriba; a los empresarios les es de vital importancia mantener el sector de trabajo precario y peor remunerado que representa el colectivo femenino por las razones antes expuestas. Esta ley, aunque no resuelva en su totalidad el problema de desigualdad (aquí ha quedado claro que en un contexto capitalista, es imposible), sí abre una puerta a la mejora de las condiciones de las mujeres trabajadoras en sus apartados específicos al mundo laboral: Título IV: El derecho al trabajo en igualdad de oportunidades, donde se introduce conceptos nuevos como es por ejemplo que: “mediante la negociación colectiva se podrán establecer medidas de acción positiva para favorecer el acceso de las mujeres al empleo y la aplicación efectiva del principio de igualdad de trato y no discriminación en las condiciones de trabajo entre mujeres y hombres”.

También se establece la obligatoriedad para las empresas de más de 250 trabajadores la elaboración de un Plan de Igualdad, y para las de menos trabajadores que ese plan se incluya dentro de la negociación colectiva: “ En el caso de las empresas de más de doscientos cincuenta trabajadores, las medidas de igualdad a que se refiere el apartado anterior deberán dirigirse a la elaboración y aplicación de un plan de igualdad, con el alcance y contenido establecidos en este capítulo, que deberá ser asimismo objeto de negociación en la forma que se determine en la legislación laboral”.

También en el tema jurídico, se introduce un elemento nuevo: “en aquellos procedimientos en los que las alegaciones de la parte actora se fundamenten en actuaciones discriminatorias, por razón de sexo, corresponderá a la persona demandada probar la ausencia de discriminación en las medidas adoptadas y de su proporcionalidad.” es decir que se da vuelta la tortilla, y en caso de denuncia de una mujer por ser objeto de acoso o discriminación, es la parte denunciada la que tiene que aportar prueba para demostrar su inocencia.

Como vemos, esta ley tiene que ser un instrumento dentro de los comités de empresa, en todos los sectores sindicales, para hacerla efectiva en todos los lugares de trabajo, de ahí la importancia de que las mujeres trabajadores se incorporen masivamente a esos sectores sociales y laborales para, ley en mano exigir que todos esos avances se plasmen en mejoras concretas. Por dar un ejemplo, una de las actuaciones concretas para que se haga efectiva esa igualdad de oportunidades, sería que las empresas pongan guarderías gratuitas en los centros de trabajo; con esa ley, se hace posible incluir este tipo de mejoras en los convenios colectivos dentro de ese plan de igualdad que están obligadas a llevar a cabo las empresas. El papel de la mujer trabajadora en todos los movimientos sociales, políticos, sindicales, nunca se ha visto más imprescindible dentro de la lucha global por la transformación socialista de la sociedad. Y nunca como antes, los trabajadores en su conjunto, han visto tan claramente la necesidad de incluir dentro de sus reivindicaciones las de las mujeres concretamente como un elemento más de liberación y mejoras de las condiciones de vida de la clase explotada. Las mujeres trabajadoras tenemos que tener muy claro que la mejor forma de defender nuestros derechos es unirnos a la lucha de la clase trabajadora por la transformación socialista porque somos las primeras interesadas en acabar con un sistema que defiende un modelo de familia tradicional donde nos quieren mantener en esos roles asignados para responder a los intereses de los capitalistas, así como una división del trabajo desigual y sexista ; y también tenemos que huir de toda desviación de “lucha feminista” de corte burgués, donde las reivindicaciones apuntan a igualar las condiciones no del conjunto de las mujeres trabajadoras, sino de las condiciones entre las mujeres burguesas con sus iguales masculinos. Al igual, también tenemos la tarea de explicar a nuestros compañeros de clase la importancia de que ellos mismo abracen la causa de las mujeres trabajadores como un elemento más de lucha en contra del sistema capitalista depredador.

English translation in the commentary section.

Friday, August 10, 2007

On Our Current Crisis

The recent statement by comrade Lupe Matova published on Second Shift and circulated among members is said to be an attempt "to clarify some points on the proposal" that was presented to and passed by the CPSL membership meeting of August 5. However, only a small proportion of the statement is actually dedicated to this task; most of the text is rather a personalistic polemic against me -- a continuation of the personal attacks she threw at me in our conversations of August 6-7.

I have said from the beginning of this dispute that I am only presenting my own opinions on the issue. I make no claim to being anything more than an individual communist with a point of view. I feel I must emphasize this point because it has become clear that Lupe, as with other comrades of a similar political viewpoint, have developed an unhealthy obsession with me and what I have to say. It is as if they believe that, because other CPSL comrades agree with me at times, I have somehow brainwashed them and I am some kind of cult leader. I think the other comrades can speak for themselves on this point. I will only say that this kind of defensive approach, combined with the use of personal attacks, points to a method that is alien to communist principle.

I must admit, I am rather angry that I have been forced to write this document. My first commitment is to the Real Life class struggle and the fight for a communist society in it. My presence and activity on Second Life is a small subset of the activity that the Real Life organization I belong to, the Communist League [International], carries out on the Internet. And this activity is aimed at one goal: helping to build the unity of proletarians around the world. However, there is a small group within the CPSL that, for whatever reason, places an equal sign between Second Life and Real Life. "SL is RL", as they have stated. Personally, I think that this kind of simplistic equating of a virtual world and the real world demonstrates a lack of understanding and exposes exactly how out of touch with the real world these comrades are.

But that is a subject for another document.

In the text below, I will attempt to explain my view of the dispute and the reasons behind the accusations made by both sides. I will also seek to outline a solution to the problem that, I think, can be acceptable to all members.


In her statement, comrade Lupe says that "all the actions that will be carried out will be only after a DEEP debate on the themes in question". She further attempts to defend her proposal by saying, "By no means has it been the intention to pressure or to impose anything. This proposal only intends to activate the political debate." Finally, she attempts to leave herself a means of polemical escape by saying that the criticisms of the proposal "perhaps they can be owed to the bad formulation that I have been able to do of it or to the difficulty of the translation of the language."

As I said above, at no time does she present the text of the proposal itself to defend her assertions. Indeed, she attempts to explain away any of the dispute (and, by implication, attempts to marginalize the wording of her own proposal!) as a translation problem. Perhaps she is not aware that comrade Smoke Wijaya made a decent translation of the proposal and sent it to other CPSL members following the August 5 meeting? Then again, perhaps she is aware of what comrade Smoke did, and that is precisely why she is not willing to cite her own proposal. For the benefit of CPSL comrades, here is the section of the proposal that is in dispute (my emphasis):

"19 of August: debate on situation in IRAQ. In the week, would be done a communiqué of support to the Iraqi anti-imperialist resistance, that would devise according to the conclusions of the debate voted by majority and the concentration of corresponding protest that would be able to do Sunday following, August 26 tambien some mailbox so that all the comrades can communicate the different fights of workers from their countries

"September 2: debate on Venezuela, the revolution bolivariana Of the international movement: 'Hands out of Venezuela' al that previously will report so that publish in its pages the event and the subsequent communiqué of support that will devise, as well as the demonstration that would be able to do in the place of SL: Republic Bolivariana Sunday 2 of September.

"September 9: debate on Middle East. Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Of the same form, communiqué of support to the Palestinian resistance and al Palestinian town, perhaps with a referring special one al town of Gaza that suffers in these moments the greater repression, and a distribution of publicity, pamphlets and concentracíon of protest Sunday 16.

"September 23: debate on situation in Mexico. Communiqué of support to the APPOS of Oaxaca, and concentration Sunday 30. September 30: Analisis report and balance on the activities attacked previously, and new proposals for following quarter."

I must ask the comrade: How exactly there is going to be a "DEEP debate on the themes in question" when communiqués of support have already been mandated by the proposal? How "by no means has it been the intention to pressure or to impose anything" when specific political positions were included in the proposal? How is this "bad formulation" or "the difficulty of the translation of the language".

Is this bad formulation, bad translation ... or merely bad faith on the part of comrade Lupe?

To mandate and require these positions be included in "communiqués of support" is to impose a political line in advance of a discussion by CPSL members. It places the CPSL on record as supporting the so-called "resistance" in Iraq, the "resistance" (i.e., Hamas) in Palestine, the Bolivarian Revolution and the APPO of Oaxaca. And it does so before any of the debates on these questions has taken place. The discussions themselves become political theater, akin to the "discussions" that are common in bureaucratic organizations, where the position is decided before the first voice is raised.

To attempt to say that nothing has been imposed or that there is to be a deep debate on the questions before a position is taken, when the text of the proposal does the opposite, is grossly misrepresenting the intent of the proposal.


This is not the first time that there has been problems like this in the CPSL. Indeed, the first meeting in June had similar problems. In both cases, there was an attempt by those motivating the meeting to steamroller the membership into adopting the positions they wanted. At the June CPSL meeting, the problem was merely an overzealous chairperson who attempted to apply the organizational methods of bureaucratic trade unions to the CPSL, and in the process deprived members of some of their rights in the meeting. Compared to what took place at the most recent meeting, such action can almost be forgiven.

From reading the transcript of the August 5 meeting, it is clear that many members were allowed to believe that the proposal was little more than a schedule of discussions, and that no political positions were taken at the meeting. Neither comrade Lupe nor the chairperson of the meeting attempted to clarify the section of the proposal quoted above. When comrade Smoke attempted to raise his concerns about the proposal setting out political positions on these questions, he was attacked by both comrades Lupe and Keksakallu Klata for being "undialectical", "non-Marxist" and, by implication, opposed to engaging in political action.

But in all of the long-winded statements from these two comrades, not one of them directly addressed his concern: that the CPSL was setting political policy without having a discussion first. Instead, they buried his argument under a mountain of boilerplate rhetoric. This is the method of steamrollering. They flatten their opponent with a flood of flowery language, and crush them with a mountain of pointless (in relation to the criticism being raised) rhetoric and appeals. And, in the process, they push through their proposals and implement them.

Steamrollering is a well-worn and preferred method of bureaucrats -- especially bureaucrats in the self-described socialist and communist movements. It allows them to posture as "orthodox", "revolutionary" and even "democratic", while acting in the most shamelessly dictatorial manner, and imposing doctrines and positions that are antithetical to communist or socialist thought. From the social-patriots in the Second International to the Stalinites in the Third International to the many, many epigones of Trotsky in the Fourth (and Fifth?) International, this bureaucratic method has been used to silence political criticisms and mislead the membership into accepting the most vile of positions.

And speaking of misleading the membership, it should also be pointed out that comrade Lupe's proposal as presented to the meeting was not agreed to by the Organizing Committee. Only the schedule was agreed to by the O.C.; the language about "communiqués of support" was not agreed to by comrade Broz Decosta.


The bureaucratic method on display at the August 5 CPSL meeting carried over into the following days, but in a different form: personalism. The use of personal attacks is generally the lowest form of debate within a political organization. However, that did not stop comrade Lupe from using such tactics when dealing with the criticisms of her proposal and how it was pushed through the meeting.

Now, it is somewhat understandable that, in the course of a heated and sharp political discussion, that a comrade might call someone an idiot, or say they are crazy for saying a certain thing. It does not make it right, but it can be an understandable reaction. After all, we are all human and we all have emotions we must deal with. But such outbursts are one thing; it is another thing entirely to accuse political critics of having "personal problems" or "brainwashing" other comrades into agreeing with them.

Both accusations were raised by comrade Lupe against me in the conversations that followed the August 5 meeting. In her recent statement, she attempts to apologize for such personalism, but in the process she attempts to justify it by claiming it was my political criticisms that led to her personal attacks. That may be true, but it is not an excuse and cannot (and should not!) be used to justify her comments.

Both of the personal comments she made are worth examining, because they offer an insight into how such comrades view political opposition -- and, to a certain extent, view themselves.
For example, the charge of "brainwashing" and having disproportionate influence on comrades is an important one to consider. The implication in this personal attack is threefold: first, that comrades who agree with a particular criticism cannot think for themselves and come to agree with an opponent; second, that such comrades would never dare challenge the accuser unless they hid behind the person who initially raised the criticism; and, third, that the person who raised the criticism is somehow acting in an underhanded and unethical manner. The arrogance that such a personal attack is based on is quite apparent. It assumes in advance that they are somehow above their comrades and fellow party members, in terms of ability to think, analyze and understand things. Moreover, it makes them believe that any other member who demonstrates an ability to think, analyze and understand is a competitor and challenger.

And since such comrades genuinely believe they are an embodiment of all things communist (and, also by implication, are "orthodox" and above reproach), all those who might challenge them by daring to raise a political criticism are seen as tricksters, brainwashers or ... mentally unbalanced. This is where the charge of having "personal problems" comes from. The attempt to slander a comrade by implying are mentally unbalanced -- which is what is really meant by using such a term -- is tied directly back to the accuser's arrogance and belief in their own superiority over their own comrades. It is used not only to force the accused to defend themselves (that is, to attempt to disprove the accusation), but also to inoculate other members against the critic's views.

The use of this kind of personal attack against political opponents became common in the movement during the post-Civil War Soviet government (especially under Stalin, but also at the end of Lenin's life). Indeed, history shows that thousands of political dissenters -- communists, democratic socialists, anarchists, etc. -- were declared "mentally unfit" and not only stripped of their rights as political activists and citizens, but also committed to insane asylums and "sanitariums". This process was repeated throughout the "official" Communist parties around the world as a means of purging political opponents and those comrades deemed to be a thorn in the leaderships' sides. And this disgusting method of dealing with political opponents continues to this day in many sectors of the movement.

That this method has raised its head here should not be too surprising. It is unfortunate, but not surprising.


It is not surprising because of the contradictions within CPSL itself. That is, it is not surprising that these problems with bureaucratism and personalism have developed in the party, because the CPSL is not a completely proletarian organization and includes self-described communists that are in and from other classes -- members who are and/or are from the petty-bourgeoisie or bourgeoisie.

These methods of dealing with opponents and "competitors" are natural to the exploiting and oppressing classes. Modified forms of them are used by the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie within the framework of the capitalist system on a daily basis. After all, if you are an owner or manager in a capitalist corporation, and your competitors are becoming a problem and are threatening your position, what better way to deal with them than to make others question their integrity, ability (both professional and mental) and stability? And what better way to corner the market than to crush your competitors and impose your authority in the industry?

Social being determines consciousness, Marx wrote. And no one from the exploiting and oppressing classes can leave behind the class consciousness they developed since birth by simply declaring one's self to be a communist. A clear and qualitative break with their social being must also take place if they are to make a similar break from their old consciousness. In today's society, where class antagonisms and divisions are much more clear and sharp, and the material ability to "de-class" no longer exists (due to the bourgeoisie's artificial maintenance and replenishment of the petty bourgeoisie, transforming it from a class of petty artisans and shopkeepers into one of "overseers, bailiffs and shopmen" -- managers, police and bureaucrats), only when a comrade from a non-proletarian background makes a clear and irreversible break from their previous class relations and integrates themselves into the working class can they develop a solid and unshakeable proletarian class consciousness.

(It should be mentioned here that, because of the dominant role of bourgeois ideology and the class-based division of labor in society, it is certainly common for proletarian elements that are active in a political organization dominated by non-proletarian "theoreticians" and "leaders" to take on the methods and, to a certain extent, characteristics of those elements. For example, an excessive amount of time as a local secretary or functionary, surrounded by non-proletarian elements and their "culture", can compel even the most honest and decent of proletarian comrades to adapt and act more like their peers -- to take on the bureaucratic, personalistic and dishonest methods of his or her colleagues.)

This understanding, based, in my opinion, in communist method (materialist dialectics) and experience (historical materialism), is admittedly still a minority view within the broader movement of self-described communists. The majority view, which is a falsification of the method used by Marx and Engels, and is based more on Hegelian idealism and Weberian sociology than Marxism, is that any person from any background can become a "proletarian revolutionary" as long as they proclaim their support for the correct political line. Which line that is, of course, depends entirely on which kind of self-described communist you speak to.

In this method, political doctrine is substituted for class consciousness. The forms of speech and thought used by Marx and Engels remain in place, but the content is qualitatively changed. In the process, the understanding of class itself is transformed. A class-conscious proletarian is no longer someone whose relations to the means of production and attempt to understand the world around them has led them to understand and fight for the overthrow of capitalist rule and, ultimately, the abolition of classes and class society. In this method, a class-conscious proletarian is someone who subscribes to particular articles of faith.

This latter point is a variant on Max Weber's concept of the Christian Corporatist Ethic, where the "community", held together by a set of ethics and principles, acts (or attempts to act) as a family and distinct social group. This concept trades material reality for "identity" and idealistic appeals to articles of faith (in the case of a self-described communist organization: "political line").


Within the broader movement, two particular trends are the most blatant and shameless when it comes to this petty-bourgeois conception of class and class consciousness: Maoism and Trotskyism. Both trends practice their own variants on the theme, but it is nonetheless the same theme. For the purposes of this document, I will limit myself to speaking only of the current that is relevant to the disputes in the CPSL, which also happens to be the current I am more familiar with: Trotskyism.

I will not attempt here to present my overall critique of Trotskyism as a political doctrine. It should suffice that comrades know I spent 15 years in the Trotskyist movement in the United States, and that I am more than familiar with the various sub-doctrines and trends within that movement -- including the three trends that are most visibly represented within CPSL. In fact, I spent time in or close to two of these trends in the past, and the third I observed very closely.

My overall problem with the Trotskyist comrades in CPSL is not with the general outlines of their doctrine -- that is, the overall principles that they claim to support. The fact is that I believe Trotsky did contribute some important analyses to communist theory during his time. His analysis of fascism, its class basis and dynamics are, in my opinion, very important for communists today to study and discuss. His theory of permanent revolution is not too far removed in principle from either Marx's "revolution in permanence" or Lenin's "uninterrupted revolution". (I happen to subscribe to Marx's "permanent revolution" myself.) And his attempt to understand the degeneration of the USSR is worth studying, even if you disagree with it (as I do). My problem with these comrades is the arrogant belief that their movement is the only one that fought against the degeneration of the USSR -- or, more to the point, that it fought them correctly and at the right time.

From 1918 to 1923, many different dissident communist trends emerged that sought to fight against the growing power of the petty-bourgeois bureaucracy within the USSR, including the trend I consider myself to be a supporter of: the Myasnikovists; the "Workers Group" current. It is worth noting that when these currents were raising the same demands and criticisms that were later raised by the Left Opposition, Trotsky and Stalin (and, yes, sometimes Lenin) stood together to denounce and attack them. It was only when these dissident movements had been crushed, their leaders held in prisons or "sanitariums", their publicaions banned, etc., that Trotsky opened up his fight.

In his essay, How Did Stalin Defeat the Opposition?, Trotsky writes: "To be sure, the banner of the Bolshevik-Leninists gathered tens of thousands of the best revolutionary fighters, including some military men. The advanced workers were sympathetic to the Opposition, but that sympathy remained passive; the masses no longer believed that the situation could be seriously changed by struggle. Meanwhile the bureaucracy asserted: 'The Opposition proposes international revolution and is ready to drag us into a revolutionary war. Enough of shake-ups and misery. We have earned the right to rest. We need no more of "permanent revolution." We will build the socialist society at home. Workers and peasants, rely on us, your leaders!' This nationalist and conservative agitation was accompanied – to mention it in passing – by furious slanders, sometimes absolutely reactionary, against the internationalists. It drew the military and state bureaucracies tightly together, and indubitably found an echo in the weary and backward masses. So the Bolshevik vanguard found itself isolated and crushed piecemeal. Therein lies the secret of the victory of the Thermidorean bureaucracy."

This is only partially correct. To be certain, by the time that the Left Opposition began its struggle, the class-conscious proletarians in the Soviet republic were tired and passive, and "no longer believed that the situation could be seriously changed by struggle". But this passivity and exhaustion was due in no small part to the role Trotsky played in crushing the proletarian oppositions that arose from 1918 to 1923, including the Workers' Opposition, the Democratic Centralists and the Workers' Group, which each had greater support among Soviet workers than the Left Opposition was ever able to gather. (Indeed, the Workers' Group numbered in the tens of thousands, and functioned as an underground organization!)


My point in this discussion about Trotskyism and its origins relates directly to the understanding of CPSL as a multi-tendency political-cultural organization. We have comrades that come from various political trends in the broader communist movement. They bring with them experiences and lessons, as well as historical perspectives, that can only serve to enrich and deepen our overall understanding of communist theory and practice. However, this kind of comradely educational and practical development is hindered when some comrades approach the organization with the belief that they hold the monopoly on what is and is not "Marxism" or communism. Unfortunately, the Trotskyist comrades come to CPSL with such a view.

You can read it in their statements among other comrades. Time and again, they present themselves as the only members who hold a "Marxist line", who are "dialectical", who want "revolutionary action". They appoint themselves judge and jury over the entire party, and have no problem passing judgment against their supposed comrades. Such self-serving arrogance is poison to a multi-tendency political organization. It does precisely what it has done in CPSL: force divisions between members; turn the organization inward instead of outward; compel members to make bureaucratic and personal attacks; move the focus of the struggle away from broader political issues and toward administrative solutions.

Such methods might be able to be contained, relatively speaking, within a political organization that has a single, unifying political doctrine -- a propaganda sect. But more often than not, these methods lead to splits and splinters, as contending factions attempt to prove who is the better judge of what a past communist theoretician might be thinking today. Such debates are reminiscent of the "debates" that religious leaders have over interpretation of the Talmud, Bible or Qu'ran. And they, too, often lead to schisms and splits -- and new sects that proclaim the Truth, the Light and the Way.

A multi-tendency political political organization requires a different culture among its members. Respect, trust and common experience become more important to organizational culture. Doctrinal differences must be placed in a broader context of general political principle and method. Material reality asserts its central role by demanding a common anchor and point of reference among comrades. Freedom of criticism takes on a different meaning -- a broader and deeper meaning. And unity in action, if it is practiced, means just that. It means that, even though each member may have a different doctrinal view on the particular question, there are common principles we all agree on and that is what motivates us to stand together for or against something.

I do not claim to be an expert on this subject, but I have spent the last five years in multi-tendency organizations, both in the U.S. and Britain, and I think I have learned a considerable amount about what makes a successful (and what makes a failing) multi-tendency organization.


It is with this in mind that I would like to address briefly the question of Iraq and the communist view toward it. Comrade Lupe, in her recent statement, criticizes me for not responding to her contribution to the discussion when she first posted it in June. I can accept that criticism, and I can understand that my lack of a contribution might be concerning, especially since I have made it clear to many CPSL members that I oppose any "communiqué" or other statement of support for the so-called "resistance" in Iraq.

As anyone who has discussed this question with me -- or, at the very least, has visited Currlin Hall -- is aware, I am a supporter of the growing proletarian movement for a democratic, secular and non-sectarian republic in Iraq. This movement is unified in organization such as the Federation of Workers' Councils and Unions, the Organization for Women's Freedom, the Union of the Unemployed and the Iraq Freedom Congress.

The IFC is the only movement fighting against the occupation, the Ba'athist/Islamist "resistance" and the sectarian militias. It has the support of broad sectors of the Iraqi proletariat, including most importantly the oil workers in Basra and Suleymania. They broadcast a daily satellite television program, Sana'a TV, and the IFC's Safety Forces patrol and protect several neighborhoods in Baghdad and a number of smaller towns and regions.
This work has led to the IFC being attacked on all sides. On July 4, occupation forces kidnapped and assassinated the commander of the IFC's Safety Forces. Only a week ago, sectarian militias assassinated the producer of Sana'a TV. Islamist and Ba'athist "resistance" forces have regularly engaged in exchanges of gunfire with the Safety Forces and have attempted on more than one occasion to bomb their offices and regional "People's Houses".

Nevertheless, the revolutionary-democratic movement organized by the IFC continues to grow, not only inside of Iraq but also as an international coalition. The Real Life organization I belong to, the Communist League, is active in the U.S. and British chapters of the IFC, and one of our members is an associate editor on the IFC's English-language newsletter, Iraq Freedom. Other members of the League work closely with Iraqi women's rights activists like Houzan Mahmoud. And League members have organized contingents at several antiwar demonstrations to raise the slogan and demand for a socially-progressive future for Iraq.

In my opinion, our method of approaching this question is based solidly on the method and experiences of those communists who came before us. We have cloesly studied how Marx and Engels dealt with the issue, as well as the debates within the Communist International in 1920 and 1922 on the national and colonial question and anti-imperialism. In those latter discussions, it is clear that they, like us, made distinctions between socially-progressive and socially-reactionary movements that present themselves as "anti-imperialist". Further, they drew a clear line of distinction between movements of disaffected or ousted elements of the ruling class and popular-revolutionary movements -- denouncing support of the former, either in general or in specific, as "social-democratic" and "opportunist".

I happen to agree with those characterizations of such support, whether it is labeled "critical" or not. It is not the role of communists to add a "revolutionary" or "anti-imperialist" character to a movement that is only incidentally and momentarily pointing their guns in the same direction as us, and it is not our responsibility to support or defend such a movement, especially since any victory they achieve will only be a prelude to their violent suppression of the proletariat. Instead, it is our responsibility to aid the organization of the working class in a country that is in a position like Iraq (or Afghanistan, Palestine, etc.) so that they may be able to step forward as a powerful independent force that can transform imperialist war into class war. And that understanding also requires those of us in the imperialist Great Power countries to engage in similar organizing among our class brothers and sisters "at home".

In spite of the differences between my political current and that of the Trotskyists, there remains a basis for marching together on the question of Iraq. For example, both our current and theirs agree on the need for an immediate, unconditional withdrawal of all occupation and private mercenary forces from Iraq. Both our current and theirs agree on the need for not one penny and not one person more to the imperialist war machine. And both our current and theirs agree on the view that the main enemy is at home. These three slogans can serve as a basis for united action against the war and occupation of Iraq. Beyond that, each current and trend should be able to express their views and even discuss them openly -- thus drawing wider circles of proletarians into the debate.


I have no doubt that similar agreement can be reached on the other questions that have been raised: Palestine, Oaxaca and Venezuela. It may indeed be the case that the position the CPSL takes is precisely what comrade Lupe wishes it to be. But the membership must have the first and last word on that!

At the upcoming CPSL Emergency Meeting (Sunday, August 12, 2007 -- 11 a.m. SL time; 1800 GMT), I believe it is in the best interests of the members of the CPSL to modify the proposal presented by comrade Lupe, to remove any language that describes "communiqués of support". In place of that, there should be language adopted that allows members to submit draft statements that can frame a discussion and can be either approved or rejected by the meetings and the membership. If there are opposing statements on an issue, they can both be discussed and voted on at the same meeting. If it is clear that it will take more than one meeting to reach an agreement, the schedule should be adjusted so that the next meeting is a continuation of the previous discussion.

In my opinion, this arrangement would resolve the immediate division within CPSL. However, it is clear that there are broader problems that must be addressed. There must be a kind of "cultural revolution" within CPSL, which would aid comrades who come from doctrinaire political currents in learning how to function as comrades and equals in a multi-tendency political organization. The use of bureaucratic and personalistic methods must cease, and all members should be on guard against them. Clarity must be a key priority in every meeting, whether we are discussing administrative/organizational or political issues.

Most importantly, it must become the personal responsibility of each active member of CPSL to do what they can to encourage other members to become active, to attend meetings and events, to participate in discussions and debates. We must begin to build a "culture of liberation" within CPSL, so that even the newest, youngest or least experienced member can learn, develop and grow into a theoretical and practical leader in their own right.

The victory over capitalism cannot succeed without a class-conscious and self-acting proletariat. We must not only practice the methods necessary to build such a movement in Real Life; we must also adapt them for our activity in Second Life. If we are going to act more as a political movement in this virtual world, then we should not forget the lessons we have learned in the real world.

NOTE: Translations of this document will be added in the comments section.

Wednesday, August 8, 2007

So much confusion

Let's clear some stuff out: every damn meeting must elect a chairman and a secretary.
Secretarys job is to summerize the meeting, going through the agenda point by point and show what was decided so that everybody can read and understand it without reading several pages of chatloggs.

The secretary also at the meeting summerizes the suggestions so that everybody knows what theyre voting about if something is unclear the author of the suggestion may explain what she/he means. This is to avoid confusion.

Then when everything is summerized and everybody understands what they're voting about the propositions will get their name after their author for example:

can we support smokes suggestion?

As explained earlier every suggestion has to go through the contrapropostion order meaning that if you put the two contradicting suggestions against eachother and then you vote upon it and the one that gets the most yes votes win.
As for example the chairman will ask the meeting: can we support miles suggestion? 17 people vote yes
can we support goelros suggestion? 12 people vote yes
then that means miles proposition wins. And when the chair asks the meeting if they can support miles the ones who agree with goelro dont shout out no they have to wait for the question do you support goelro suggestion? and vote yes.
This is to avoid confusion.

The contraproposition order is determend by wich suggestions comes up last starts up first.
For example Ninia has a suggestion and then Rock comes up with a suggestion but the orginal suggestion was from enf then we will first vote on the suggestions of Ninia and Rock and the winning one of the two goes against enfs orginal suggestion then the winning one of these will go against enfs orginal decision and then if people are really, really unhappy of enfs suggestion enfs suggestion will be put against dissmissal.

Ok to clear things up this is how the vote would have gone down:
Ninia vs. Rock - Ninias suggestions wins over Rock - Ninias suggestion vs. Enf's suggestion -Enf wins - Enfs suggestions vs. dissmissal of the whole thing.

These are pretty simple rules and as last meeting shows we must deal with the organizational issues becuase without them chaos will rule and nobody knows what they're really voting for.

Yes people we MUST have structure, we must deal with the frame of the orginazation becuase the only ones who benefit from chaos are those scheeming and plotting to get their will through no matter if this means that they don't have majority support. Organisation demcracy is as important as communism itself because if we can't handle the orginasation of CPSL how will we ever be able to handle the orginisation of the whole society?
Yes, this is damn boring, it's a fucking snooze pill but we owe it to ourselves to have a party, an orginisation that works becuase without it how can we ever get anything accomplished?

Tuesday, August 7, 2007



Quiero aclarar algunos puntos sobre la propuesta que se presentó a la asamblea del 5 de agosto pasado.

En primer lugar, todos los miembros de la organización tienen el derecho a presentar las propuestas que le parezcan oportunas para el debate, derecho que también me corresponde.
Pero también tienen el derecho a defenderlas cuando se malinterpretan como es el caso del compañero Henryjames.

En esa propuesta, se expone claramente que todas las actuaciones que se realicen serán sólo después de un PROFUNDO debate sobre las temas en cuestión. Es decir que si a lo largo de ese debate, la posición que defiende que no se apoye a tal o cual movimiento, o que que no se haga ninguna movilización tiene el apoyo de los camaradas....esa seria la línea de actuación del grupo, poniendo por encima de todo el sistema democrático sobre cualquier imposición de cualquier índole.

De ninguna manera ha sido la intención de presionar o imponer nada. Esta propuesta sólo pretende activar el debate político. Y por supuesto, todos esos puntos que se están planteando sobre la resistencia en Irak, la Revolución Bolivariana, o el movimiento de las APPOS, no los voy a discutir ahora porque son precisamente el material que precisamos para debatir en las reuniones programadas.
(Por cierto, y dicho sea de paso, hace unos meses colgué un articulo sobre la posición marxista ante la situación en Irak en esta misma página, y no veo que James haya ni siquiera contestado., exponiendo sus ideas).

Hubiera sido de muy mala fe de mi parte, aprovechar la inclusión de las posibles actividades en el texto del programa para exigir que se hagan porque se ha votado en conjunto. Eso, si se entiende así, por supuesto que significaría una actuación burocratica. Pero no es el caso, ni mi estilo. Sólo son conjeturas y prejuicios, quizás hasta pueden ser debidos a la mala formulación que he podido hacer de ello o a la dificultad de la traducción del idioma.

Ayer, expliqué a los camaradas presentes esto, pero en el caso que haya quedado alguna duda, estoy a su disposición para aclararselas y tambien quiero decir que en ningun momento de la charla exprese que la culpa la tuvieran los camaradas por no entender la propuesta, y eso se puede comprobar fácilmente ya que tanto James como yo, tenemos toda la charla archivada, y la podemos dar a conocer a los camaradas que lo deseen.

También le pido disculpas a Henryjames si lo he lastimado en el transcurso de la charla, pero el hecho de que sin casi escucharme me tachara de burócrata y pequeña burguesa delante los camaradas, quizás me haya hecho perder la compostura en algún momento.

Ahora, también quisiera aclarar algunos conceptos : en el acta fundacional del CPSL, está reflejada la línea a desarrollar dentro de SL, que es el “promocionar y difundir las ideas marxistas”. El marxismo, no es un dogma cerrado y estático, es una filosofía cuya herramienta y método, es el materialismo dialéctico cuya principal premisa dice que todo está en constante movimiento, y que cada cosa tiene su contrario en ella misma. Al proponer que en CPSL se lleve a cabo un método marxista no estoy sino aplicando los propios conceptos ya integrados en los estatutos del CPSL. Para despejar sus dudas sobre esto, los camaradas pueden leerlo.

También me parece importante explicar el significado del TROTSKISMO, es ni más ni menos que la linea de OPOSICIÓN DE IZQUIERDA liderada por Trotsky en contra del ESTALINISMO , que Trotsky denunció desde el principo como una degeneracíon burocrática del comunismo. Pero como todo marxistas, también estudiamos los textos de Marx, Engels, Rosa Luxemburg, Gramsci, Preobrazhenski, y muchos otros.

Como conclusión , destacaré que las acusaciones que hace James sobre mi supuesto sectarismo pequeño burgués y burocrático, evidentemente no están fundamentadas por las actuaciones mías.

Cuando llegué a CPSL, él ya tenía la intención de formar una fracción. Al no saber la causa, le pregunté, y me dijo que era por discrepancias con otros miembros de CPSL que yo ni siquiera conocía, en los mismos términos que los de esta carta del 6 de agosto. Recuerdo, que le dije que esa no era una solución y que el método correcto es exponer las ideas a todos los camaradas y abrir un debate, de ahí viene mi iniciativa a proponer esta agenda.

De la misma forma, hay que recordar que en la primera asamblea que hubo, insistí en proponer a James para que integre el Comité de Organización, a lo que se negó una y otra vez. Ahí estan las actas de la reunión para demostrarlo. Y por último, antes de esta última reunión, Boz y yo decidimos proponer a los camaradas que James fuera el chairman, teniendo en cuenta que con esa responsabilidad le correspondía ese voto de calidad que fue propuesta de él mismo en la segunda asamblea y que se aprobó tambié decir que hasta ahora, todas las propuestas que James planteó en las asambleas, las apoyé con mi voto, porque me parecieron correctas a mi forma de ver, sin ningun tipo de sectarismo....(por contra, en el primer miting, voté en contra de la propuesta de KEKS, que curiosamente es Trotskista!)

Es esa una actitud sectaria? Es esa la manera de imponer ideas trotskistas? De querer eliminar “oponentes políticos”, como pretende hacer creer Henryjames?

Ningún camarada podrá decir que en algún momento lo he predispuesto en contra de James, o contra cualquier otra persona; en todas las charlas individuales que he mantenido con los camaradas, siempre he defendido la idea de aunar todas las sensibilidades, y de debatir los temas para encontrar puntos de acuerdos donde poder trabajar juntos.

Vuelvo hoy con toda humildad, a reiterar esa idea, invitando al camarada James que reconsidere su posición y que convoque él mismo una reunión donde poder limar esas asperezas, y poner en marcha de alguna forma la actividad del CPSL, que por todo esto está paralizada.

Sin mas, (por ahora), os mando un saludo cordial.