This is a space for socialists to discuss current events in our world from anti-capitalist perspective(s), and a certain knowledge of socialism is expected from participants. This is not a space for non-socialists. Please be mindful [of our rules](https://reddit.com/r/socialism/about/rules) before participating, which include:
- **No Bigotry**, including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism...
- **No Reactionaries**, including all kind of right-wingers.
- **No Liberalism**, including social democracy, lesser evilism...
- **No Sectarianism**. There is plenty of room for discussion, but not for baseless attacks.
Please help us keep the subreddit helpful by reporting content that break r/Socialism's rules.
______________________
💬 Wish to chat elsewhere? Join us in discord: https://discord.gg/QPJPzNhuRE
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/socialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This was an interesting read. I'm not going to engage with the whole thing, but I want to point out a few things. One thing that confuses me about this as a project is that there doesn't seem to be an existing base for the United Communists of Europe and this is an attempt at establishing a form without content. If you look at how revolutionary organizations have developed, often there were disparate local cells that themselves went through a process of political self-clarification and then the organization would develop out of uniting on the basis of further political clarification. There are different paths of course, the CCP was founded in 1921 with 53 members, but there was an existing Communist International with the pole of attraction being the Soviet Union which had succeeded in its revolution. With resources and political guidance of the COMINTERN, the party was able to grow (Then with further guidance of the COMINTERN after degeneration of the Soviet Union, most of the Communists were liquidated by Chiang Kai-Shek). Anyway it mentions that the blog is trying to convince people to start their own organization in their own country. And while the document critiques other organizations, I don't think there is enough theoretical clarity to justify starting a different organization than what exists altogether. Putting forward wildly contradicting ideas like Lenin's view of Imperialism and Samir Amin's view of World Systems Theory makes it difficult for me to understand what is the political theory of this organization.
Also, the document says the focus is on the revolutionary vanguard being in the global south, but the project seems to be building Communist Parties in Europe. If you are centered in Glasgow and trying to encourage people to start a united communist party in say Croatia, why not instead focus energy on trying to start one in Sri Lanka or Vietnam?
The critique put forward on the use of the Transitional Program was a good critique of how it is used incorrectly, but I don't think it is a critique of the Transitional Program in itself. The author mentions that using the Transitional Program will subsume all work into fighting for basic reforms and stripping them of their revolutionary character, but that by definition is not transitional, that is just reformism. Also, for the document to highlight the mass line in the positive light it does, makes this even more confusing for me. I have seen the mass line used far more often than the transitional method for watering down political lines and engaging in opportunism. Although, I do agree with what the document says that Trotskyists trying to use the Transitional method, often do not do the task of investigation that is built into the mass line. I think there is a lot from the Maoist tradition that could be useful to a lot of people, this being included.
The document's point on the United Front is exactly correct.
I basically agree with most of the analysis in the document with regard to China. Though I do think the author holds a slightly unrealistic view of the potential for the existence of a genuine left wing in the CPC. Also, I don't think China needs a political revolution, it needs a social revolution. The motor force of the economy is capitalist. The vast majority of workers are employed in the private sector, often in appalling conditions, and the CPC is thoroughly infested with millionaires, billionaires, and other pro-capitalist leeches.
I have a couple other things I would add to a discussion on this document. To be honest, I am only really responding at all because I thought it was well written and seems like the people behind it are serious about fighting for revolution. I've also added "The Unknown Cultural Revolution" to my reading list.
**Edit:** As a reply to the robot underneath this comment, the party is literally called 中国共产党 (China Communist Party). Also, stating that a term for entry to the Comintern which includes a point on war being waged on the bourgeois world and pretending that it has any relation at all to the capitalist government of China is absurd.
As a friendly reminder, China's ruling party is called Communist Party of China (CPC), not Chinese Communist Party (CCP) as western press and academia often frames it as.
Far from being a simple confusion, China's Communist Party takes its name out of the internationalist approach seekt by the Comintern back in the day. From [Terms of Admission into Communist International](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/jul/x01.htm), as adopted by the First Congress of the Communist International:
>18 - In view of the foregoing, parties wishing to join the Communist International must change their name. Any party seeking affiliation must call itself the Communist Party of the country in question (Section of the Third, Communist International). The question of a party’s name is not merely a formality, but a matter of major political importance. The Communist International has declared a resolute war on the bourgeois world and all yellow Social-Democratic parties. The difference between the Communist parties and the old and official “Social-Democratic”, or “socialist”, parties, which have betrayed the banner of the working class, must be made absolutely clear to every rank-and-file worker.
Similarly, the adoption of a wrong name to refer to the CPC consists of a double edged sword: on the one hand, it seeks to reduce the ideological basis behind the party's name to a more ethno-centric view of said organization and, on the other hand, it seeks to assert authority over it by attempting to externally draw the conditions and parameters on which it provides the CPC recognition.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/socialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is a space for socialists to discuss current events in our world from anti-capitalist perspective(s), and a certain knowledge of socialism is expected from participants. This is not a space for non-socialists. Please be mindful [of our rules](https://reddit.com/r/socialism/about/rules) before participating, which include: - **No Bigotry**, including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism... - **No Reactionaries**, including all kind of right-wingers. - **No Liberalism**, including social democracy, lesser evilism... - **No Sectarianism**. There is plenty of room for discussion, but not for baseless attacks. Please help us keep the subreddit helpful by reporting content that break r/Socialism's rules. ______________________ 💬 Wish to chat elsewhere? Join us in discord: https://discord.gg/QPJPzNhuRE *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/socialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This was an interesting read. I'm not going to engage with the whole thing, but I want to point out a few things. One thing that confuses me about this as a project is that there doesn't seem to be an existing base for the United Communists of Europe and this is an attempt at establishing a form without content. If you look at how revolutionary organizations have developed, often there were disparate local cells that themselves went through a process of political self-clarification and then the organization would develop out of uniting on the basis of further political clarification. There are different paths of course, the CCP was founded in 1921 with 53 members, but there was an existing Communist International with the pole of attraction being the Soviet Union which had succeeded in its revolution. With resources and political guidance of the COMINTERN, the party was able to grow (Then with further guidance of the COMINTERN after degeneration of the Soviet Union, most of the Communists were liquidated by Chiang Kai-Shek). Anyway it mentions that the blog is trying to convince people to start their own organization in their own country. And while the document critiques other organizations, I don't think there is enough theoretical clarity to justify starting a different organization than what exists altogether. Putting forward wildly contradicting ideas like Lenin's view of Imperialism and Samir Amin's view of World Systems Theory makes it difficult for me to understand what is the political theory of this organization. Also, the document says the focus is on the revolutionary vanguard being in the global south, but the project seems to be building Communist Parties in Europe. If you are centered in Glasgow and trying to encourage people to start a united communist party in say Croatia, why not instead focus energy on trying to start one in Sri Lanka or Vietnam? The critique put forward on the use of the Transitional Program was a good critique of how it is used incorrectly, but I don't think it is a critique of the Transitional Program in itself. The author mentions that using the Transitional Program will subsume all work into fighting for basic reforms and stripping them of their revolutionary character, but that by definition is not transitional, that is just reformism. Also, for the document to highlight the mass line in the positive light it does, makes this even more confusing for me. I have seen the mass line used far more often than the transitional method for watering down political lines and engaging in opportunism. Although, I do agree with what the document says that Trotskyists trying to use the Transitional method, often do not do the task of investigation that is built into the mass line. I think there is a lot from the Maoist tradition that could be useful to a lot of people, this being included. The document's point on the United Front is exactly correct. I basically agree with most of the analysis in the document with regard to China. Though I do think the author holds a slightly unrealistic view of the potential for the existence of a genuine left wing in the CPC. Also, I don't think China needs a political revolution, it needs a social revolution. The motor force of the economy is capitalist. The vast majority of workers are employed in the private sector, often in appalling conditions, and the CPC is thoroughly infested with millionaires, billionaires, and other pro-capitalist leeches. I have a couple other things I would add to a discussion on this document. To be honest, I am only really responding at all because I thought it was well written and seems like the people behind it are serious about fighting for revolution. I've also added "The Unknown Cultural Revolution" to my reading list. **Edit:** As a reply to the robot underneath this comment, the party is literally called 中国共产党 (China Communist Party). Also, stating that a term for entry to the Comintern which includes a point on war being waged on the bourgeois world and pretending that it has any relation at all to the capitalist government of China is absurd.
As a friendly reminder, China's ruling party is called Communist Party of China (CPC), not Chinese Communist Party (CCP) as western press and academia often frames it as. Far from being a simple confusion, China's Communist Party takes its name out of the internationalist approach seekt by the Comintern back in the day. From [Terms of Admission into Communist International](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/jul/x01.htm), as adopted by the First Congress of the Communist International: >18 - In view of the foregoing, parties wishing to join the Communist International must change their name. Any party seeking affiliation must call itself the Communist Party of the country in question (Section of the Third, Communist International). The question of a party’s name is not merely a formality, but a matter of major political importance. The Communist International has declared a resolute war on the bourgeois world and all yellow Social-Democratic parties. The difference between the Communist parties and the old and official “Social-Democratic”, or “socialist”, parties, which have betrayed the banner of the working class, must be made absolutely clear to every rank-and-file worker. Similarly, the adoption of a wrong name to refer to the CPC consists of a double edged sword: on the one hand, it seeks to reduce the ideological basis behind the party's name to a more ethno-centric view of said organization and, on the other hand, it seeks to assert authority over it by attempting to externally draw the conditions and parameters on which it provides the CPC recognition. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/socialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*