[Reader-list] Fwd: Latin America & Twenty-First Century Socialism
Shuddhabrata Sengupta
shuddha at sarai.net
Tue Aug 31 01:00:05 IST 2010
Dear Venugopalan,
Many thanks for forwarding this very interesting text. It can be a
useful starting point for a lively discussion on why the left,
worldwide, has been particularly susceptible to being affected by the
dead hand of bureaucratism. I would like to respond, for now,
however, to a fascinating nugget of detail that is offered by this
post by way of a quotation of a fragment of Alexandra Kollontai's
1921text -
> "...What would happen if some of the members of the Russian Communist
> Party—those, for instance, who are fond of birds—decided to form
> a society
> for the preservation of birds?:
Here, Kollontai makes a surprising allusione to the love of birds
within the culture of Communist Parties in the early twentieth
century and indeed, in the the working class movement.
This is not as accidental as it may sound. Birds, (pigeon fancying,
pigeon racing) and birdwatching were an important segment of the
margins of working class life and culture. Marx and Engels were both
avid bird-men.
It is no accident, that the Zimmerwald Conference, which was to
crystallize into the principled proto-Communist-Internationalist
opposition to the nationalist degeneration of European Social
Democracy during the First World War, was convened under the cover of
an 'ornithological congress'. Rosa Luxemburg, whose position (even in
absentia) carried the day at Zimmerwald, and prepared the way for a
genuine revival of Communist Internationalism, was an avid bird lover
and naturalist. Her letters from prison contain many references to
birds, and ornithology.
Kollontai, as is well known, was very sympathetic to Rosa Luxemburg's
position, before it got marginalized within the Communist movement.
Perhaps, her reference to ' a society for the preservation of birds'
is a coded reference (written, in a kind of esoteric 'language of the
birds' sort of style) of the need for a revival of the spirit of
Zimmerwald, of a critical, free thinking, democratic spirit within
the Communist movement, which, like a rare bird species was, rapidly
becoming endangered, as the political ecology and culture of
Communist parties became increasingly authoritarian.
Those, like me, who are interested in the fascinating intersections
between the parallel histories of Marxism and Bird Watching, may find
the following references of some use -
1. For more on Zimmerwald Conference, see Zimmerwald Conference 1915:
Revolutionaries against the Imperialist War, International Communist
Current http://en.internationalism.org/wr/290_zimmerwald.html
2. For the Ornithological ‘cover’ of the Zimmerwald Congress, See
Marxism and Bird Watching by Rick Kuhn, Austalian National University
http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/birds/marxbird.htm
3. For more on Rosa Luxemburg’s interest in Ornithology, see Marx at
Karlsbad by Walt Contreras Sheasby in Capitalism Nature Socialism 12
(3) September 2001
best, lets keep stretching our wings,
Shuddha
On 30-Aug-10, at 1:57 PM, Venugopalan K M wrote:
> "Alexandra Kollontai, the militant feminist and leader of the
> Workers’
> Opposition, gives an enlightening example:
>
> What would happen if some of the members of the Russian Communist
> Party—those, for instance, who are fond of birds—decided to form
> a society
> for the preservation of birds? The idea itself seems useful. It
> does not in
> any way undermine any state project. But it only seems this way.
> All of a
> sudden there would appear some bureaucratic institution which would
> claim
> the right to manage this particular undertaking. That particular
> institution
> would immediately “incorporate” the society into the Soviet
> machine,
> deadening, thereby, the direct initiative. And instead of direct
> initiative,
> there would appear a heap of paper decrees and regulations which
> would give
> enough work to hundreds of other officials.162"
>
>
>
> *Latin America & Twenty-First Century Socialism: Inventing to Avoid
> Mistakes*
>
> *Marta Harnecker*
>
> *
> *
>
> *Bureaucracy: The Biggest Scourge *
>
> *One of the deviations that did the most damage in the historical
> experience
> of Soviet socialism was bureaucratism. Bureaucratism destroys the
> people’s
> energy and creativity, and, as the people are the real builders of
> the new
> society, it prevents the goal of twenty-first century socialism
> from being
> reached. The goal is that women and men develop themselves completely
> through revolutionary practice itself.*
>
> *Earlier, in discussing decentralization, we said that one cannot
> attribute
> the existence of bureaucracy in the Soviet state simply to the
> legacy of the
> tsarist past; it is more correct to say that it begins in the
> excessive
> centralization that existed in that state. However, if excessive
> centralization inevitably leads to bureaucratism, this phenomenon
> can also
> arise in state institutions, parties, and other kinds of public and
> private
> institutions. Moreover, if it were only a matter of the red tape
> and being
> shunted around, all that would have to be done would be to improve
> management methods, but that would not work.*
>
> *Where lies the root of this disaster? It is related to a basic
> issue: how
> management in an institution is conceived of and implemented. Do
> the top
> civil servants or cadres make the decisions—because they think
> they are the
> only ones who have the expertise to do so—or is trust placed in the
> membership and the organized people, in their energy and creativity?*
>
> *It was often said in the Soviet Union, devastated by an
> imperialist war and
> a civil war, that progress could only come about if the workers and
> peasants
> en masse were committed to work for the country’s reconstruction.
> But when
> workers and peasants took these remarks seriously and tried to
> apply them by
> taking the initiative (organizing, for example, a people’s
> cafeteria or a
> daycare center), their efforts were rejected by the central
> authorities.
> This was done on various pretexts, but the bottom line was that the
> authorities could not stand the fact that people had done things
> outside
> their control.*
>
> *Bureaucratism is the direct negation of people’s autonomous
> activity. Any
> independent initiative, any new thought is considered heresy, a
> violation of
> party discipline. The center must decide and supervise each and
> every thing
> that is done. Nothing can be done if the order didn’t come from
> the center.*
>
> *Alexandra Kollontai, the militant feminist and leader of the
> Workers’
> Opposition, gives an enlightening example: *
>
> *What would happen if some of the members of the Russian Communist
> Party—those, for instance, who are fond of birds—decided to form
> a society
> for the preservation of birds? The idea itself seems useful. It
> does not in
> any way undermine any state project. But it only seems this way.
> All of a
> sudden there would appear some bureaucratic institution which would
> claim
> the right to manage this particular undertaking. That particular
> institution
> would immediately “incorporate” the society into the Soviet
> machine,
> deadening, thereby, the direct initiative. And instead of direct
> initiative,
> there would appear a heap of paper decrees and regulations which
> would give
> enough work to hundreds of other
> officials.**162*<http://monthlyreview.org/
> 100701harneckerPart2-7.php#en50>
>
> *Bureaucratism tries to solve problems with formal decisions taken
> by one
> person or a small group, both in the party and in some state
> institutions,
> but the real stakeholders are never consulted. This way of
> operating not
> only restricts the initiative of party members but also that of the
> nonparty
> masses. The essence of bureaucratism is that someone else decides
> for you.*
>
> *The Need to Encourage Public Criticism *
>
> *As we said previously, a long process of cultural transformation is
> required to free ourselves of the muck of the inherited culture.
> According
> to Marx, this transformation can only be achieved after decades of
> civil
> wars and people’s struggles, and history has proved him right. It
> is not
> only difficult for the common people to change; this is also true
> of some of
> those who are members of the political organization itself.*
>
> *Even the parties with the most experience in revolutionary
> struggle, those
> that led wars of national liberation for many years, such as the
> Chinese
> Communist Party or the Vietnamese Communist Party, have suffered
> from the
> scourge of bureaucratism and corruption. In spite of the enormous
> sacrifices
> they made during the long years of struggle to liberate their peoples,
> several of the leaders no longer serve the people. They have moved
> away from
> them, and have become comfortable and arrogant; they treat others in a
> high-handed, authoritarian manner; they enjoy privileges, and have
> become
> corrupt.*
>
> *Why do these situations arise? We must remember that revolutions
> carry the
> load of an inherited culture on their shoulders, a culture in which
> those
> who held public office had special considerations and privileges. *
>
> *It is natural that these civil servants, if their political future
> does not
> depend on the people, would be more inclined to satisfy the demands
> of their
> superiors than to respond to people’s needs and aspirations. What
> tends to
> happen is that, because they want to please their superiors or to
> obtain
> more monetary rewards, they falsify data or obtain results demanded
> of them
> at the cost of the quality of public works. It was rather common in
> the past
> in socialist countries to inflate production data. This was not only
> negative from a moral point of view, it was also negative from a
> political
> point of view because faulty information was provided about an actual
> situation. This prevented the party or government from taking the
> necessary
> corrective measures in time.*
>
> *We should also add that what tends to happen is that those who
> fawn over
> their bosses tend to be promoted to posts with more responsibility,
> whereas
> those who criticize and adopt an independent posture are
> marginalized in
> spite of being competent. And, since there is no encouragement for the
> people to exercise control over the way cadres behave,
> misappropriation of
> public resources for personal purposes becomes very tempting.*
>
> *How can we fight against these errors and deviations? Can we trust
> the
> party itself to resolve its problems internally by, for example,
> creating an
> ethics committee charged with dealing with these situations? It
> seems that
> this is not the solution.*
>
> *History has shown—especially in one-party regimes or regimes with
> an
> obviously hegemonic party that controls the government and often
> confuses
> itself with the government—that it is necessary for the party to be
> controlled from below, to be subject to public criticism. That
> seems to be
> the only way to prevent cadres from becoming bureaucratized or
> corrupt. As
> well, it prevents cadres from thinking they are the lords of the
> people’s
> destiny and putting the brakes on popular protagonism.*
>
> *Mao Zedong explained the need for criticism and self-criticism by
> using the
> image of a room that need cleaning regularly to prevent it from
> filling up
> with dust. His words on this point were: “[T]he only effective way
> to
> prevent all kinds of political dust and germs from contaminating
> the minds
> of our comrades and the body of our Party” is, among other
> things, “to fear
> neither criticism nor self-criticism,” to “say all you know and
> say it
> without reserve,” “Blame not the speaker but be warned by his
> words,” and
> “Correct mistakes if you have committed them and guard against
> them if you
> have not.”**163* <http://monthlyreview.org/
> 100701harneckerPart2-7.php#en49>
>
> *Criticizing Functionaries to Save the Party*
>
> *There are some authors who, when faced with the mistakes and
> deviations
> committed by party cadres, try to convince us that any party or, in my
> preferred terminology, any political instrument is bad. I think enough
> arguments have been made above to substantiate the thesis that we
> cannot do
> without a party when building socialism. The point, then, is not to
> try to
> do without a political instrument, but to find ways of correcting
> these
> possible deviations.*
>
> *Therefore, in the same way that Lenin thought that to save the Soviet
> state, it was necessary to accept the existence of strike movements
> that
> fight against bureaucratic deviations, we today think that to save the
> political instrument—which is much more than the sum of its
> leaders—we must
> allow the organized people to question publicly the mistakes and
> deviations
> that some of its cadres may commit. *
>
> *There is a basic argument for this: we must remember that the
> political
> organization is an instrument created so we can achieve the
> socialist goal
> of full human development for all people and that it is therefore
> the people
> and not the party that is most important. The people have the right
> to watch
> over the instrument; they need to make sure that it fulfills its
> role, that
> its cadres really help develop popular protagonism, that they do
> not stifle
> people’s initiatives, or use their positions to gain privileges or
> unjustified rewards.*
>
> *If we are realists, we cannot think that the very leaders of the
> party will
> commit harakiri. There is a tendency for them to want to protect
> themselves
> from criticism by their subordinates and by the people in general.
> Therefore, it is extremely important that it be the people who
> supervise the
> actions of government and party leaders. For that reason, the
> people must be
> allowed to criticize their leaders’ mistakes, without being
> accused of
> having an “anti-party attitude.” The political instrument has to
> understand
> that getting rid of these arrogant, corrupt officials who are
> causing it to
> lose prestige can only strengthen the party. *
>
> *It is important that the mistakes or deviations made by the
> leaders are not
> suffered in silence. Otherwise, the people’s discontent will build
> up and
> could explode at any movement. But if channels for expressing this
> discontent are established, the defects identified can be corrected
> in time.
> *
>
> *An argument often used to condemn public criticism is that enemies
> employ
> it to weaken the party and the transformation process. This is the
> reason
> some accuse those who make criticisms of being anti-party or
> counterrevolutionaries.*
>
> *The remarks Fidel Castro made on criticism and self-criticism are
> quite
> important on this point. He made these remarks after half a century of
> revolution, in an interview given to Ignacio Ramonet, editor of Le
> Monde
> Diplomatique, at the end of 2005. Some days previously, on November
> 17, the
> leader of the Cuban Revolution said that “a fight to the finish”
> must be
> waged against certain evils that exist in Cuba, such as small-scale
> corruption, theft from the state, and illegal enrichment. He also told
> Ramonet that they were “inviting the whole country to cooperate in
> this
> battle, the battle against all defects, including small theft and
> massive
> waste, of any sort and in any place.” *
>
> *When Ramonet asked him why the usual method of criticism and self-
> criticism
> hadn’t worked, Fidel replied: *
>
> *We used to trust in criticism and self-criticism, it’s true. But
> this has
> become almost fossilized. That method, in the way it was being
> used, no
> longer really worked because the criticism tended to be inside a small
> group; broader criticism was never used, criticism in a theatre, for
> example, with hundreds or thousands of people….We have to resort to
> criticism and self-criticism in the classroom, in the work place
> and outside
> the workplace, in the municipality, and in the country….We must take
> advantage of the shame that I am sure people
> feel.**164*<http://monthlyreview.org/100701harneckerPart2-7.php#en48>
>
> *A little later on, after having admitted to various mistakes made
> by the
> revolution, he said: “I am not afraid of accepting the
> responsibility I have
> to accept. We cannot go about being wimpy. Let them attack me, let
> them
> criticize me. Yes, many must be hurting a little…[but] we have to
> take
> risks, we have to have the courage to tell the truth.”*
>
> *However, what I found the most surprising and the most interesting
> was what
> Castro said next: *
>
> *It doesn’t matter what those bandits abroad say….He who laughs
> last laughs
> loudest. And that is not saying bad things about the revolution.
> That is
> saying very good things about the revolutions because we are
> talking about a
> revolution that can deal with these problems, can take the bull by the
> horns, better than a Madrid bullfighter. We must have the courage
> to admit
> our own mistakes…because this is the only way to achieve the
> objective we
> set out to achieve.**165*<http://monthlyreview.org/
> 100701harneckerPart2-7.php#en47>
>
> *To sum up, although public criticism can be used by the enemy to
> attack the
> party and the revolution, it can be better used by revolutionaries to
> correct mistakes and to strengthen the party and the revolution.*
>
> *There would be no need for public criticism if the political
> instrument had
> an excellent information system that allowed it to quickly identify
> which of
> its cadres had fallen into errors or deviations, and if, moreover,
> it took
> immediate measures against those cadres. Nor would there be any
> need for
> criticism if this information were provided from outside the party
> or from
> its own grassroots members, and if the party had time to process the
> information and adopt the relevant sanctions.*
>
> *However, if these conditions do not exist, and the mistakes and
> deviations
> that occur every day are in full view of everyone, including the
> opposition,
> there is no other option but to denounce them publicly, so as to
> appeal, as
> Fidel says, to the shame of those who are destroying the political
> instrument by their attitudes. Is it not better to ask the people,
> those who
> have firsthand experience of these defects in the cadres, to watch
> over the
> cadres’ behavior and, in a constructive manner, denounce the
> mistakes and
> deviations they commit? Is that not better than letting our
> enemies, filled
> with rage and the desire to destroy our revolutionary project,
> denounce
> them?*
>
> *But stressing the need for public criticism does not mean
> swallowing any
> old criticism. We must avoid anarchic, destructive, and ill-founded
> condemnation. Criticism must be filled with the desire to solve
> problems,
> not to increase their number.*
>
> *To do this it is necessary that: (a) criticism and denunciations be
> well-founded; (b) strong sanctions exist for those who make unfounded
> criticisms or denunciations; (c) criticisms are accompanied by
> proposals for
> solutions; and (d) an effort is made to bring criticisms to the
> party first
> (and if they have not been answered after a short time, then they
> can be
> made public). The ideal situation would be for the party to take the
> initiative by opening up spaces, so that all those interested can
> make their
> opinions known on how the party and state cadres in a given
> locality are
> operating.*
> Notes
>
> 1. 162. ↩ <http://monthlyreview.org/
> 100701harneckerPart2-7.php#n50> An
> internal current in the Bolshevik Party that advocated greater
> internal
> party democracy; Kollontai, *The Workers’ Opposition*,
> http://marxists.org/archive/kollonta/1921/workers-opposition/
> ch03.htm.
> 2. 163. ↩
> <http://monthlyreview.org/100701harneckerPart2-7.php#n49>Mao Zedong,
> *On Coalition Government*,* *April 24, 1945,
> http://marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/
> volume-3/mswv3_25.htm
> .
> 3. 164. ↩
> <http://monthlyreview.org/100701harneckerPart2-7.php#n48>Ignacio
> Ramonet,
> *Cien Horas con Fidel* (La Habana: Publication Office of the
> Council of
> State), 677.
> 4. 165. ↩
> <http://monthlyreview.org/100701harneckerPart2-7.php#n47>Ibid.,
> 682-83.
>
>>> The Political Instrument Needed to Lead the Transition<http://
>>> monthlyreview.org/100701harneckerPart2-6.php>
>
>>> Conclusion <http://monthlyreview.org/100701harneckerPart3.php>
>
> --------------------
>
> Source: http://monthlyreview.org/100701harneckerPart2-7.php
>
> | Top <http://monthlyreview.org/100701harneckerPart2-7.php#Volume> |
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> You cannot build anything on the foundations of caste. You cannot
> build up a
> nation, you cannot build up a morality. Anything that you will
> build on the
> foundations of caste will crack and will never be a whole.
> -AMBEDKAR
>
>
>
> http://venukm.blogspot.com
>
> http://www.shelfari.com/kmvenuannur
>
> http://kmvenuannur.livejournal.com
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with
> subscribe in the subject header.
> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
Shuddhabrata Sengupta
The Sarai Programme at CSDS
Raqs Media Collective
shuddha at sarai.net
www.sarai.net
www.raqsmediacollective.net
More information about the reader-list
mailing list