What is the Role of Private Production in Getting to Socialism? (The Spark! #21, mltoday.com)

What is the Role of Private Production in Getting to Socialism?

by Asad Ali

Originally published in The Spark #21, extended version from mltoday.com

After a socialist revolution how exactly would Canada become socialist?

In "The Leninist Heritage of the Socialist Market Economy" (The Spark #20) C.J. Atkins says that using a socialist market economy to get to socialism can be traced to the policies Lenin introduced in the Soviet Union.

His article was originally published as a longer piece in 2007 in Political Affairs, the CPUSA's magazine, where some have even suggested that some socialist countries abandoned the market too quickly and should have read Lenin "more accurately" ("Democracy Matters: an interview with Sam Webb", Political Affairs, Jan. 2004).

Would a new government take over all businesses? Would all products would be centrally distributed to everyone? Would there need to be a transition period, and if so what would such a transition look like? Would a post-revolution Canada still be socialist if some production were privately owned?

How much private production would mean Canada is still a capitalist country? Would the government plan all production, or is that best left to individual enterprises?

How would these questions be answered in a less economically developed country?

These are questions about the transition to socialism from capitalism and remnants of even older production methods such as subsistence farming, small-scale crafts, and in some cases feudalism.

The Soviet Union and the Eastern European countries that made up a socialist system of states had on-going debates about the question of transition and were able to build the world's first socialist states, but also were later overthrown.

Some in the Communist movement say this is partially because their economy was too centralized and was not run on a profit basis

The view of the Communist Party of China is that Marxism is, above all ,about production and out-producing the old capitalist system (see "Building socialism with a specifically Chinese character," Selected Works of Deng Xiaoping, Vol. 3, p 48, Jun. 30, 1984), and that profit-oriented private production should continue under socialism to keep growing the economy.

In this article I will show that , although Lenin was in favor of increasing private production for post-war economic recovery, he was at the same time advocating destroying this same small and private production with centrally-planned large-scale state-owned production.

I will also show how the Soviet transition to socialism after Lenin was a direct continuation of Lenin's policies and in fact was key in defeating the Nazi German invasion.

I will also show how this debate was never finally settled in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe .Experiments with de-centralized and private production continued.

I will then show how China's economic policies not only don't have a Leninist heritage, which even the Chinese leaders disclaim, but are in fact making the transition to socialism increasingly distant.

I will also discuss how it was possible for Atkins and myself to get the almost exact opposite understanding of Lenin based on reading the same texts.Clarifying the Issues

The separate issues of centralization vs. decentralization and direct exchange of products vs. market exchange of commodities are often confused as the same.

The first issue is about whether, under socialism, there should be one unified economic plan, including setting prices centrally, or whether it is better to leave key aspects of the economy to be determined by individual enterprises.

The second issue is about whether under socialism everyone should directly produce what they can and take from what is socially produced, or whether production should be for sale as commodities to be bought on the market.

Atkins confuses these issues when for example he contrasts production based on supply and demand with "the decree of a central planning authority". Even under capitalism production and pricing are determined by decrees (of management), see for example R.M. Cyert and J.G. March's 1955 study of US department-store pricing "Organizational structure and pricing behavior in an oligopolistic market" (American Economic Review, Vol. 45 p 129-139). The issue of whether the decisions are centralized or de-centralized is separate from production of commodities for the market or of products for direct exchange.

As detailed in the book USSR State Industry During the Transition Period by Y. Avdakov and V. Borodin (Progress Publishers, 1977, downloadable for free at http://leninist.biz/en/1977/USITP299/index.html), central planning and pricing in the Soviet Union during the transition to socialism was an interactive process of individual enterprises formulating plans; elected officials as well as representatives of labor unions, technical experts, and managers reviewing them and setting the overall direction; and a central administration to propose long-term plans and provide oversight.

Retail networks and consumer cooperatives predicted demand, and adjustments to the plan were constantly made based on market events. Workers who thought they could do better than their enterprise's plan produced counter-plans and exceeded production targets, which is an important example of how central planning does not necessarily hold back local initiatives. Counter-plans were also featured later in Brezhnev's 1979 economic reforms, and by 1981 workers at 7% of enterprises adopted counter-plans (Ideology and rationality in the Soviet model: a legacy for Gorbachev Kristian Gerner and Stefan Hedlund, Routledge 1989, p. 249).

The erroneous idea that centralized production planning and pricing (not just general planning) is the opposite of production for commodity exchange (market supply and demand) is an enduring one. In 1931 the All Union Conference of Workers in Socialist Industry and in 1932 the Seventeenth Party Congress of the CPSU explicitly rejected the idea that the transition to socialism meant direct product exchange and the disappearance of money, which is a feature of communism and not socialism. Yet as late as 1951 Stalin found it was necessary to answer critics within the Soviet Union who were saying that commodity production (producing for sale on the market) should have been abandoned after nationalization:

"Commodity production is older than capitalist production. It existed in slave-owning society, and served it, but did not lead to capitalism. It existed in feudal society and served it, yet, although it prepared some of the conditions for capitalist production, it did not lead to capitalism.

Why then, one asks, cannot commodity production similarly serve our socialist society for a certain period without leading to capitalism, bearing in mind that in our country commodity production is not so boundless and all-embracing as it is under capitalist conditions, being confined within strict bounds thanks to such decisive economic conditions as social ownership of the means of production, the abolition of the system of wage labor, and the elimination of the system of exploitation?" (J.V. Stalin, "Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR", 1952, based on a talk in 1951).

In the same work Stalin answers those who cite Engels's Anti-Duhring to argue that commodity production should be done away with after the means of production have been seized, by pointing out that in the Soviet Union "not all (original italics), but only part of the means of production have been socialized" and that agriculture still included cooperatives and "small and medium owner-producers". This also shows how Atkins's suggestion that the Soviet Union adopted "total public ownership of all sectors" after Lenin is based on clichés rather than facts. Elizabeth Clayton's paper "Crop response to price in the Soviet Union" in Economic analysis of the Soviet-type system (Judith Thornton, Cambridge University Press Archive, 1976) shows how as late as the period 1953-59 the private sector played a significant role in agriculture and its prices behaved independently of state sector prices for the same crops (p. 360, Table 4: Estimates of crop supply elasticity USSR).
Lenin's Solution to the Transition to Socialism in Russia

The best description and defense Lenin gave of his solution to the transition to socialism is in his pamphlet The Tax in Kind, also translated as The Meaning of the Agricultural Tax, published in April 1921 soon after the introduction of the New Economic Policy (NEP). The clearest English translation I have found is by R.J. Rutgers published in his book The New Policies of Soviet Russia, available for free download online at http://www.archive.org/details/newpoliciesofsov00leni.

In The Tax in Kind Lenin credits War Communism, which included direct requisition and exchange of goods but also had some private production, with helping defeat the capitalist and landlord counter-revolutionaries in the Civil War, but points out that it was only a temporary measure and could not solve the problems of transitioning to socialism.

Lenin pointed out that there were five production systems in Russia in 1921: (1) subsistence farming, (2) small commodity production, (3) private capitalism, (4) state capitalism (defined by Lenin in the Soviet context as state-owned privately operated production, although there are several definitions), and (5) socialism, and that these five systems were in a life and death struggle. The dominant conflict Lenin pointed out was between small production and private capitalism against state capitalism and socialism. Lenin answered critics who were saying he was capitulating to state capitalism by pointing out:

"Between whom is this struggle conducted? Is it between the fourth and the fifth elements in the order in which I have enumerated them above? Certainly not. It is not a struggle between State Capitalism and Socialism, but a struggle of the petty bourgeoisie plus private Capitalism fighting against State Capitalism and Socialism. The petty bourgeoisie resists every form of State interference and control, no matter whether it is State Capitalism or State Socialism. This is an absolutely indisputable fact, and the failure to understand it lies at the root of quite a number of economic errors. ... The speculator is our chief enemy from within, and works against every form of Soviet economic policy. ... We know that the million tentacles of petty bourgeoisism grasp, in many places, certain sections of the workers themselves. Those who do not see this reveal by their blindness their servitude to the petty bourgeois prejudices." (p. 12-13 of Rutgers)

Lenin's answer on how socialism could win in this fight between 5 systems has two parts: (1) use small and private production to provide goods for agriculture that the socialist sector could not provide until economic recovery, this would lead to the agricultural goods needed to grow industry (2) at the same time use state capitalism and socialism to break up this very same small and private production to make larger-scale production with centralized planning ("national accounting and control") that would lay the technical basis for socialism, specifically the first stages of electrification

Lenin is clear in The Tax in Kind about the limited objectives about allowing small production:

"In this connection we must also bear in mind that our poverty and ruin is such that we cannot immediately (original italics) establish large State Socialist Factory Production. ... This means that it is necessary to a certain extent to assist the re-establishment of small industry, which does not require machinery, which does not require large Government stocks of raw material, fuel and food, and which can immediately give certain assistance to agriculture and raise its productivity." (p 24 of Rutgers).

Lenin is clear that once agricultural productivity increases, "State Socialist Factory Production" (original capitalization) would be possible and desirable. Lenin is also clear about using state-owned privately operated capitalism (one form of State Capitalism) to destroy this very same and necessary small and private production:

"Everybody now agrees that concessions are necessary, but not everybody fully appreciates the significance of concessions. What are concessions in a Soviet system from the point of view of socioeconomic strata and their inter-relations? They are a treaty, a block and alliance of the Soviet, i. e., the proletarian, State with State Capitalism, against small private ownership (patriarchal and petty bourgeois). A concessionaire is a capitalist. He (sic) conducts capitalist business for the sake of profits. He (sic) agrees to make a treaty with a proletarian government in order to receive extra profits, or for the sake of securing such raw materials as he otherwise would not be able, or would find it very difficult, to secure. The Soviet Government secures the advantage in the form of the development of productive forces, and an increase in the quantity of products available immediately or within a short period.

We have, say, hundreds of enterprises, mines, forests, etc.; we cannot develop them all, we have not enough machinery, food, or transport. For the same reasons we will develop badly the remaining sections. As a consequence of the bad or insufficient development of large undertakings we get the strengthening of this small private ownership movement with all its consequences: the deterioration of suburban (and later of all) agriculture, frittering away of its productive forces, decline of confidence in the Soviet Government, speculation, and mass and petty (the most dangerous) speculation.

In "planting" State Capitalism in the form of concessions, the Soviet Government strengthens large production against small production, the advanced against the backward, machine production against hand production, it increases the quantity of products of large industry in its hands and strengthens the State regulation of economic relations as a counterbalance to the petty bourgeois anarchic relations. The moderate and cautious introduction of a policy of concessions (to a certain and not very great extent) will rapidly improve the state of industry and the position of the workers and peasants—of course, at the price of a certain sacrifice, the surrender to the capitalists of tens of millions of poods of most valuable products." (Rutgers p 28-30)

Atkins has instead mixed-up the small private production used for economic recovery with the state capitalist production used for developing what the socialist sector could not develop, to say that private production should be used to develop the economy in general. He does this for example when he quotes Lenin saying starvation should be feared more than the petty bourgeoisie, ignoring that while Lenin did say that he also pointed out the dangers of the petty bourgeoisie as the "chief enemy within" and his solution of destroying it with large-scale state-controlled production.

One of the consequences is that economic recovery gets confused with economic development, the true role of State Capitalism to counter and destroy private and small production is then taken out of the New Economic Policy and seen only as a tool for economic development, and small private production is left alone even after it has served its recovery purpose. A further consequence is that Atkins can then suggest that the "economic model of socialism based on the centralized plan and total public ownership of all sectors may have been instituted prematurely in the past".

In fact centralized planning and ever-increasing (but never total, as Atkins suggests) public ownership of all sectors was a key feature of Lenin's New Economic Policy, even though at the same time under the NEP private de-centralized production was used for recovery. USSR State Industry During the Transition Period details how from Lenin's time until the collectivization of agriculture there was constant amalgamation of enterprises into trusts and sales syndicates which were with careful preparation involved in increasingly larger-scale planning by Union, Republic, and local level Soviets and state agencies.

These changes were begun within a year of the introduction of the NEP, 2-3 years before Lenin died in 1924. The Supreme Economic Council's Central Commodity Exchange was setup in December 1921. In February 1922 a congress of representatives from textile trusts and raw materials committees of Soviets centralized state textile sales and pricing with the All-Russia Amalgamated Textile Syndicate. At the end of 1923 some managers in the Red Director's Section of Moscow's Dzerzhinsky Business Club proposed that enterprises have the freedom to open plants and procure raw materials outside of the economic plan, and that trusts of state enterprises be turned into joint-stock companies. This proposal was not picked up because it was the opposite of Lenin's solution of centralizing production, as suggested by the authors of USSR State Industry During the Transition Period.The Philosophical Basis of the Different Approaches to Socialist Transition

Lenin's view of the economy as described in The Tax in Kind, in which five production systems are in a life and death struggle that can be used to establish the foundations of socialism, is dialectical because the economy develops into a socialist one through the struggle of the competing systems.

The view described by Atkins of private production developing the economy while under state regulation is mechanical, ignoring the antagonism between private and state production other than the regulation of the former by the latter. One of the problems with the mechanical view is that it does not answer the question of how exactly we will transition to socialism, and I will show in this article how this mistake is putting socialism increasingly further out of reach in China. How would the economy be nationalized once it is fully developed by private production, maybe on a Great Revolutionary Day? Lenin's approach of taking advantage of private production to jump-start the economy but using state-owned sometimes privately operated production to concentrate and centralize production and planning shows a clear and realistic path to a socialist economy.

The mechanical view leads to the appearance of the different Soviet economic policies of war communism, the NEP, and five-year plans with the collectivization of agriculture as opposite systems, a switch back and forth from centralization to de-centralization and back to centralization again.

The dialectical view, illustrated by Lenin's own words and then the decisions of the Communist Party after his death, show that the three systems were different stages of one development to socialism from the conditions Russia was in during the socialist revolution.

During the end of World War I and the Civil War, some requisition and direct exchange had to be used, as there was no other way to meet military needs given the ruined state of the economy. After the Civil War small private production was used to jump-start the economy to pre-War levels, while at the same time state-owned production in collaboration with capitalist operators was used to develop large-scale production that would make socialism possible.

Once elements Lenin described as the technical basis for socialism, namely economic recovery especially with agriculture; electrification; the education of technical specialists; and the concentration of industry had been achieved, the transition to socialism could be completed as a continuation of centralizing and planning processes started during the revolution and continued through the NEP years.

Small and private production, including private agriculture, could now be brought into the socialist system. To freeze the process at the stage of economic recovery, with the view that the economy can just keep being developed by private production, misses the point of the transition process to socialism that must bring private production into social ownership.

The temporary use of state capitalism was not an after-thought to War Communism, but was advocated by Lenin as early as May 5, 1918, early in the Civil War, in his pamphlet "'Left-wing Childishness' and the Petty-Bourgeois Mentality".

In the same work Lenin criticizes Bukharin, who later wanted to "continue" the NEP after it had served its role, for understanding the NEP as "renouncing the dictatorship of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie" rather than recruiting capitalist experts "into our service against small proprietary disintegration", and went to say in this Bukharin displayed "a total incapacity to think out the economic tasks of socialist construction". 

Soviet Central Planning Put to the Test

Although the discussion of how socialism in the Soviet Union was overthrown is still continuing within and outside the world Communist movement, Mark Harrison of the University of Warwick's Economics Department asked in a 2001 paper "Why Didn't the Soviet Economy Collapse in 1942?" He points out that many expected the Soviet Union to collapse as Russia had done in its war with Germany during World War I, even more so because this time the German army was more successful. Harrison shows that the Soviet government's economic decisions in the mid-1930s, made possible by increased centralized economic planning, accelerated military production beyond what was possible in the 1920s. The Soviet Union was then able to make production decisions in the early 1940s that enabled it to systematically out-produce Germany, even with only 70 percent of the resources. Allied aid to the Soviet Union played a necessary but minor part, making up only 5 percent of GNP in 1942, and 10 percent in 1943 and 1944.

Neville Panthaki's 1998 thesis The Reichsmark & The Ruble discusses how Germany did try to implement central planning in the middle of the war but was unsuccessful. Even so, by using increased centralization to counter enterprise-level decisions Albert Speer increased war producion by 230% with only a 28% increase in labor and 50% increase in iron.

While Soviet economic growth for the first half of the 20th century was unprecedented in history according to some scholars (e.g. History of Economic Thought: A Critical Perspective, E.K. Hunt, M.E. Sharpe 2002, p. 448), this does not mean that the central planning and production methods did not have problems that would be pose a bigger problem in the future. Examples from USSR State Industry During the Transition Period of how planning problems were solved in the 1930s include how the Seventeenth Congress of the Communist Party noted that some of the industrial amalgamations were unwieldy and inefficient. However, the solution adopted was not to de-centralize or privatize production. Instead, the problems of inefficiency were solved by increased centralization of planning while also re-organizing amalgamations into a greater number of increasingly specialized branches and committees. A different direction was taken in some of the experiments after World War II.Soviet and East European Experiments after World War II

It is outside the scope of this article to discuss in detail some of these experiments, however it is important to realize that the question of centralized vs. decentralization production was continuously debated and different answers were tried out.

(A) Soviet Union

Three examples: (1) Under Khrushchev some centralization of planning was reversed, for example in 1955 cooperative farms were released from state plans ("K's plan to reorganize nature", Radio Liberty [of the CIA] background report, Dec. 6, 1961, accessed at http://files.osa.ceu.hu/holdings/300/8/3/text/59-4-195.shtml), and government ministries devolved overall planning into Republic-level organizations ("Gosplan and the Sovnarkhozy", Radio Liberty background report, Jan. 17 1958, accessed at www.osa.ceu.hu/files/holdings/300/8/3/text/55-2-272.shtml).

(2) In early 1964 two ready-to-wear clothing manufacturers were released from the government plans in an experiment where they would organize their own sales and supplies and make their own production decisions based on consumer demand ("The "Bolshevichka" and "Mayak" Experiment Spreads Rapidly", K. Bush, Radio Liberty, Jan. 25 1964, accessed at http://files.osa.ceu.hu/holdings/300/8/3/text/62-3-272.shtml). One plan target they were released from was profitability, which had been set at a norm of 9% but the first firm could only achieve 5.6% at the beginning experiment. The fact that there was a profitability norm to begin with belies the spurious claim that the Soviet Union prematurely abandoned commodity-relations and the market.

These experiments were based on ideas first proposed by Yvsei Liberman in 1948 during a 12-year economics debate, which involved hundreds of economists. These reforms were opposed by notable leaders such as Aleksandr Zverev, USSR Finance Minister, whose article "Against Oversimplication in Solving Complex Problems" (Questions in Economics, 1962, #11, in Planning, Profit and Incentives in the USSR Vol. 1, The Liberman Discussion, ed. Myron E. Sharpe, International Arts and Sciences Press, 1966, p. 141) pointed out that profit rates cannot be even across enterprises but depend on specific conditions of capital equipment and investment, that basing prices on prices of production which is necessary under capitalism but not under socialism, and that Liberman's "understanding of profitability and profit contradicts generally accepted theoretical concepts, according to which profit is the main part of the surplus product created by the workers' surplus labor" (p. 148). However the Liberman experiments, also known as the Kosygin reforms, were expended to over 700 enterprises. These reforms were ended by 1978 when it became clear that having profit as the only target for enterprises prevented central planning of labor, investment, and

(3) The 1986 program of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union called for enterprises to make their own investment decisions, and for direct ties between "consumer enterprises and manufacturers" (p 28).

(B) German Democratic Republic (East Germany)

In 1963 Democratic Germany adopted the "New Economic System" which devolved planning to enterprises without review from the centre ("The GDR since 1949", Radio Liberty background report, Oct. 16, 1979, accessed at http://www.osa.ceu.hu/files/holdings/300/8/3/text/26-9-44.shtml). This system was ended under Erich Honecker.

(C) Poland

In 1973 20 percent of the factories, employing one million people altogether, were launched into a pilot project where enterprises could make changes to central production plans that their directors thought would increase profitability, and wages were tied to plant efficiency ("Gierek's three years: entrenchment and reform", Radio Liberty background report, Jan. 24, 1974, accessed at www.osa.ceu.hu/files/holdings/300/8/3/pdf/44-3-46.pdf).

(D) Czechoslovakia

The Czechoslovak Communist Party Central Committee's Action Program of 1968 called for independence of enterprises from the state and for the Communist Party to satisfy various interests rather than the interests of the working class alone. This experiment was actually started in 1965, and as is well-known, was ended when some Political Bureau members requested Warsaw Pact intervention (an on-line copy of the request is available at http://library.thinkquest.org/C001155/documents/doc67.htm). The Czechoslovak economists M. Fremer and F. Kolacek describe some of these reforms and its economic performance in "Reasons for the appearance of revisionism and opportunism in economic theory and practice", which is Ch. 23 in Right-Wing Revisionism Today (Progress Publishers, 1976, downloadable for free at http://leninist.biz/en/1976/RWRT554/index.txt).

(E) Hungary

In the same year, 1968, Hungary launched the "New Economic Mechanism" (NEM) which again devolved planning to where enterprises could make planning decisions independent of central planning authorities. At the November 1972 plenum of the Hungarian Socialist Workers Party (HWSP) Central Committee, however, the working class through the labor unions and Marxist-Leninists in the HSWP were able to halt and reverse the reforms in what is called a counter-reform, which belies the cliché that the reversals of socialism was not opposed by the working class or that the labor unions were unable to defend the working class. By 1975 Reszo Nyers, the main ideologist of the NEM and HSWP General Secretary, was dropped from the Political Bureau. However, by 1982 the NEM was re-implemented and continued until the overthrow of socialism (Hungary's negotiated revolution: economic reform, social change, and political succession 1957-1990, by Rudolph L Tokes, Cambridge University Press, 1996, pgs 102 -114). By 1989 15% of industry had been privatized as part of the New Economic Mechanism ("Eastern Europe: the shock of reform", G.J. Church, D. Benjamin Graff, and W. Mader, Time, Feb. 17, 1992).

A 1970s debate between G. Vorus, a professor and editor who called decentralization "neo-liberalism" and said "market socialism" is incompatible with Marxism, and D. Bonifert of the City Planning Institute who responded by accusing Vorus of name-calling and said that only indirect regulation from central bodies is effective rather than "administrative intervention", is covered in a Radio Liberty background report "An Important Controversy on Economic Management", accessible at http://www.osa.ceu.hu/files/holdings/300/8/3/text_da/36-1-129.shtml. I have found this debate as well as others in the examples cited here to be very similar to the debate going on today.

According to the Swedish article "Hungary, the Laboratory of Socialism – This Little Country Plans for a Thousand Million" by Sven Lindqvist in Dagens Nyheter (Jul. 20, 1986, p. 4, translated into English by the US Joint Publication Research Service, Eastern Europe Report, Aug. 26 1986, downloadable at http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA338407), the initial ideas for Chinese reforms were borrowed from Hungary, and several top Chinese economists spoke fluent Hungarian to study the NEM after their first economic visit in 1979.

(F) Bulgaria

From 1966-1968 Bulgaria launched a "New Economic System", and then in 1979 a "New Economic Approach" in agriculture which was extended to the whole economy in 1982 as a "New Economic Mechanism", where enterprises would be allowed to keep only profits from economic efficiency and not from price increases; wages would be based on enterprise economic performance and individually reviewed by the work collective; more flexible central planning indexes with supplemental planning at the enterprise and work collective levels; construction design would be competitive; scientific organizations would be rewarded only on their project's financial impact; producers would have more direct contact with consumers; ministerial economic organizations would be broken up into independent organizations; municipalities would be funded by municipal enterprises and rent from state enterprises; and collective management agency positions would be elected ("Grisha Filipov on the New Economic Mechanism", by R. N., Radio Liberty background report, Jan. 26, 1982, accessed at http://www.osa.ceu.hu/files/holdings/300/8/3/text/8-10-73.shtml).

Most of the sources I have cited are from Radio Liberty background reports, which are interesting to read also because they complain about "anti-reformers" who wanted to solve economic and planning problems with increased instead of decreased planning, as was done in the Soviet Union in the 1930s.China's Solution to the Transition to Socialism

Perhaps the first person to reject Atkin's argument that China's Socialist Market Economy (the Chinese government's term) has a "Leninist" heritage would be Deng Xiaoping himself, who declared that "none of the works of Karl Marx or of Lenin offers a guide for building socialism in China, and conditions differ from one country to another, each having its own unique experience." (excerpt from a talk with President Chissano of Mozambique, May 18, 1988, Selected Works of Deng Xiaoping, Vol. 3, p. 171). Conditions certainly vary from country to country but the general problems of the transition to socialism are common ones. For example, Nepal's Maoist finance minister Baburam Bhattarai's 1998 paper "The Politico-economic Rationale for Peoples War In Nepal", written before his party was elected into power, acknowledges a problem similar to the one Russia and China faced:

"...because of the backward semi-feudal state and a very low level of development of productive forces in Nepal, the principal form of the new production relations would not be socialism at the outset but of a capitalistic type and only after going through a transitional stage that a socialist transformation would be carried out. In the New Democratic stage big and basic industries and financial companies would be under social ownership of the state, some of the larger means of production would be jointly owned by the state and the individual and in agriculture, the largest sector of the economy, there will be private ownership by the peasants and in small and medium industry and trade there will be ownership by the industrialists and traders."

Both Lenin and Deng advocated the use of foreign investment and private production to grow the economy, and both claimed that it would not lead to capitalism as long as, as Atkins points out, the commanding heights of the economy were kept socialist. However, as discussed above Lenin saw the transition to socialism as the growth of state-controlled large-scale production as well as increased central planning to actually get to socialism. China's policies have gone in the opposite direction, where small enterprises are proliferating instead of being consolidated into larger state-controlled enterprises.

The National Bureau of Statistics of China's yearbook, available on the internet, shows for 1999 data that "super" and large-scale enterprises made up 5% of all enterprises, whereas by 2006 large enterprises were 1% of all enterprises (there was no longer a category of "super"). In1999 43% of gross industrial output value was produced by "super" and large-scale enterprises, but in 2006 it had fallen to 35%. Enterprises funded by foreigners in 1999 made up 1% of all enterprises and 16% of gross industrial output value, whereas in 2006 they made up 10% of all enterprises and 21% of output value. ("Main Economic Indicators of All Industrial Enterprises"). According to the OECD's China Summary for 2005, the private sector's share in value added in businesses grew from 53.5% in 2001 to 63.3% in 2003, and economy-wide from 50.4% to 59.2%.

Publicly owned sectors of the economy are being chipped away, for example in the steel industry in 2007 Arcelor Mittal became the first foreign company to take control (73%) of a Chinese steelmaker, allowed by the government because technically the Chinese company is registered in Bermuda, even though all of its steelmaking operations are in China ("Arcelor Mittal buys control of Chinese steel mill", A. Leung, Reuters, Nov. 22, 2007).

In agriculture China has also moved in the opposite direction, where local governments have expropriated land not for collective or state farming but for selling usage rights to private developers for municipal revenue, ("Peasant land tenure security in China's transitional economy", M. Rosato-Stevens, Boston University International Law Journal, Vol. 26, Spring 2008, p 108). A 2004 constitutional amendment made private property inviolable ("Private property amendment hailed by Chinese", Xinhua, Jan. 12, 2004).

In contrast to the transition to socialism in the Soviet Union, these trends move China further and further from being able to achieve socialism. The trends are showing an economy where small and private production is not only dominant, as Lenin described Russia in 1921, but where private production is winning the struggle over other forms of production, which is the danger Lenin warned about when he proposed enlisting State Capitalism to counter the small production that was necessary at the time for economic recovery. Arguably the government may still control the commanding heights, but the economy is moving further and further away from socialism.

Marxism-Leninism cannot be simply reduced to developing the economy through private production, but shows how private and public ownership have an interactive and antagonistic relationship that must be used to develop a socialist economy and that production problems can be solved with correspondingly increasingly centralized planning rather than de-centralization.

The mechanical interpretation of Lenin advocated by Atkins and others that relies on de-centralized private production for economic development will push socialism further away rather than showing a realistic transition to socialism.

Panelist Speech to Pension Summit of the Canadian Labour Congress and Ontario Federation of Labour

 

Film Review: District 9 (Rebel Youth #9)

(CORRECTION: The real District 6 was in Cape Town, not Johannesburg)

Film Review: District 9

Film Review: District 9
By Asad Ali
(Published in Rebel Youth issue #9, February 2010)


What if the “others” really weren’t human? Racism and discrimination play on the idea that the oppressed don’t deserve the same rights we do, because they’re different and less than human. But what if a group of extra-terrestrials lived among us? Would they be forced into ghettoes, and would we make up convenient explanations for why we have to keep them under our control? South African (and Vancouverite) sci-fi director Neill Blomkamp, and his Vancouverite co-writer Terri Thatchell, explore exactly this idea in District 9, a follow-up to his previous short “Alive in Joburg”. Blomkamp intended to simply make a sci-fi movie based in Johannesburg, but inevitably racism and apartheid figure large, as well as Blomkamp’s own anti-African prejudices.

The aliens in District 9 are stranded on Earth until they can get their mothership repaired, but meanwhile they are herded into ghettoes in Johannesburg (where they first appeared). Their social conditions turn the ghettoes into dens of crime and vice, although this link isn’t explicitly made. The real life District 9 in Johannesburg (“District 6”) was a multi-cultural neighborhood that was an oasis within apartheid, and was razed to the ground under the cover of an urban development project. North American cities also have had such neighborhoods that were a stronghold for disadvantaged communities until they became targeted for “urban renewal”, such as Africville of Halifax or the Hill District of Pittsburgh. The multi-cultural strengths of the real District 6 do not make it into District 9.

The racism of humans towards the aliens (who are all Canadian actors), and the dodging and self-justifying used to conveniently cover it up (“don’t they look like prawns?”) are great to see through the artistic device of having space aliens as the protagonists. The exposition of racism is subtle though, as you would have to be aware of racism in the real world to, for example, recognize how the talking heads in the movie fit with the role of talking heads on our evening news whose perverse ideas in the end only serve to justify robbery and murder. Some of the "person on the street" interviews at the beginning are from real interviews with South Africans about Zimbabwean immigrants. It’s easy to be in denial of racism in real life, but hopefully it’s easier to recognize denial in action in this movie.

Starting off as a mockumentary covering an anti-hero Afrikaaner who Blomkamp specifically wrote as anti-macho, to show the complicity of those who collaborate and cooperate with oppression from behind a desk, the film ends up taking us behind the scenes of what is a corporate profit-grab dressed up as a law-and-order exercise to “mop up” the aliens’ ghetto. In real life we often don’t get to see, until decades after the fact, that what was presented as a fight for peace and democracy (through war and fascism) is really the planned exploitation and promotion of racism and discrimination by the wealthy to get richer at everyone else’s expense. To stop the racist round-ups of the aliens’ ghetto and to sabotage the plans of the monopoly capitalists behind it, the anti-hero has to change sides in more than one way.

It’s possible the anti-racism in the movie is entirely unintended, and in interviews Blomkamp insists District 9 is primarily sci-fi. It’s easy to believe him, because there is also unintended racism in the movie towards Nigerians in particular and Africans in general. An underworld character from the alien’s ghetto is straight out of the nightmare we are fed about Africans daily on the news and in commercialized culture, complete with cannibalism, irrational rituals, sleaze, and just pure menace. When Blomkamp was asked by Brad Balfour in aHuffington Post interview about what the Nigerians were supposed to represent in the movie, he replied that “it’s just the way it is” that Nigerians are “a massive part” of crime in today’s Johannesburg! The anti-racism of District 9 might have been too subtle even for its director.

A technical tip to those who will download the movie: the aliens talk in their own language which is dubbed, but not necessarily in the same language as the rest of the movie. The aliens don't talk until 13:13, so check your downloads to make sure all the languages are the ones you’re looking for. It's also worth downloading the prequel "Alive in Joburg" for more real "person on the street" interviews!

Review: Can Capitalism Last? A Marxist Update (mltoday.com)

Review: Can Capitalism Last? A Marxist Update

from mltoday.com

It was hoped that Danny Rubin's Can Capitalism Last? would fill an important gap in Marxism for the post-Soviet world, enriching theory with new data especially from today's United States.

Unfortunately, those hopes have not been realized. The author's answer to the title question, "Can Capitalism Last?" amounts to "maybe yes, maybe no."

To be fair, Rubin presents clear explanations of some basic Marxist concepts.

Nevertheless, on the whole his account is muddied by much confusion and agnosticism. This is alarming, coming from a long-time Communist leader.

Instead of answering how we can get out of the latest stage of capitalist hell, Can Capitalism Last? ends up stepping back from a thoroughly scientific Marxist-Leninist approach to the understanding of capitalism, necessary for its revolutionary overthrow.

His biggest retreats from Marxism -- presented as "updates" -- can be found in, for example, revolutionary strategy and Marxist political economy.

Rubin offers a strategy for getting to socialism by a majoritarian coalition (required to avoid any violence) that will gradually curb the power of monopolies, the source of our problems today. Rubin claims a revolution can be sudden or gradual. This coalition will then broaden out to include more forces that will replace capitalism with a variety of forms of socialism (i.e. without eliminating private ownership and with ownership by different social groups, not necessarily the working class as a whole) to ensure it is democratic.

He believes this evolutionary process of creating the culture of a majoritarian coalition will take a long time. More likely, in this reviewerÂ’s opinion, it will be a never-ending story.  Rubin says Obama's electoral coalition, for example, is the kind of loose coalition that is the seedling for this process, winning demands based on the current levels of political consciousness The working class'’s role is leading (or in the process of becoming a leading role) not because of its advanced ideology but just by its sheer organizational power.

Let'’s scrutinize some of his "updates" to the Marxist legacy.

As Rubin points out CPUSA leader William Z. Foster in Twilight of World Capitalism conceived the strategy of an anti-monopoly coalition, made up of all forces suffering from the power of the capitalist monopolies, a more specific goal than overthrowing the capitalist class as a whole. The direct  economic aim of this anti-monopoly coalition was to actually nationalize the monopolies. How else can monopolies be curbed? The key idea for why monopolies have the power they do is that power comes from the ownership of the means of production, that is, private capitalist property.

Instead of breaking the back of corporate power by taking monopoly property into public ownership, a key task of the anti-monopoly stage of democratic struggle as conceived by Foster, Rubin says we can "“curb"” monopoly power with regulations and kindred reforms and is loathe to nationalize monopolies completely.  The truth is ,in the long run, regulations are limited by the simple fact of who owns the dominant means of production and who holds state power - the monopoly capitalists or the working class?  Rubin quietly has denied the main economic task of such a coalition, decisively weakening then ending private monopoly power by nationalizing it.  Instead of an update we get an reformist evisceration of a Marxist concept.

One of Rubin's most dangerous "“updates"” is that our role as Communists is not to raise consciousness but to work within the current levels of consciousness. This amounts to a repudiation of the leading role of the revolutionary party. He cites a passage from Lenin's What Is To Be Done allegedly proving that Communists should work with the working class and broader population at their current levels of consciousness .

He ignores the whole point of Lenin's call, to raise their consciousness to higher levels rather than accommodate existing consciousness in the name of "unity."

Rubin uses the ultra-left as a straw man to counter-pose "unity" and "consciousness-raising." In fact, consciousness-raising can actually forge greater unity, as anyone who has actually organized will know. Of course, activists need to become more aware of what's happening politically in order to unite with other people to change the situation. That's our role since The Communist Manifesto, to understand "the line of march" of the whole struggle.

Rubin belittles dialectics. One of Marx'’s key concepts of how change happens in society is that gradual, imperceptible changes build up to a point where there is a seemingly sudden change in the whole nature of what's changing, like a capitalist society becoming socialist. In Hegel's classic example from nature -- water heating up doesn'’t look any different than unheated water. But when it reaches the boiling point it changes from a liquid to a gas in a sudden qualitative transformation.

Rubin'’s update tries to mish-mash this dialectical connection into a claim that revolution can be either sudden or gradual. He ignores that a revolution is the sudden part of the process of social change. It is preceded by reforms that gradually raise the level of consciousness and political activity of the people, a rise that Rubin fears will disrupt unity.

Rubin conflates reform and revolution. To be sure, the struggle for reform is a necessary part of bringing about revolution, but it is not the same thing as revolution. To deny sudden changes by calling gradual changes "a revolution" is simple reformism.

The whole approach of a seemingly endless series of gradual reforms and developments is the same kind of revisionism that denied that the Russian Revolution was possible. When that  mighty revolution occurred revisionists and reformists said Russia was trying to go too fast. Denying revolution as a qualitative transformation of capitalism necessarily means an endless program of gradual reforms. In a manner of speaking, Rubin is afraid of the pot boiling over, so he wants us to believe we can make do with merely watching it get hotter.

In the transition from capitalism, some forms of ownership short of the working class as a class owning most of the means of production is unavoidable. As Stalin pointed out in Soviet economic debates in the late 1940s on a new textbook on political economy, a society can only arrive at Communism when there is enough production for superabundance, i.e., to meet all needs. 

However Rubin's idea of "multiple forms"” and "multiple paths" in effect takes the "transition" out of "“transition time." He changes the necessity of transitional patterns of mixed ownership into a positive virtue, and indeed into a guarantee of democracy! The whole point of transition is for the working class --  wielding state power -- to take ownership of the means of production as a class and use public property for its class interests, as it transforms the social relations of production.  Leaving property in the hands of individuals and cooperatives for a long time not only  leaves the struggle between the different forms of ownership unresolved, it is also amounts to throwing one's hands up in surrender. It is a formula for enabling class adversaries to restore capitalism.

Lenin'’s idea of the NEP  -- which was conceived before War Communism and not as an after-thought as Rubin alleges,  -- was centered on a struggle to find the correct forms of transition to full large-scale public ownership.   Rubin has -- in the name of Lenin -- taken out the revolutionary heartbeat of the NEP concept.

One of the distinctions between Marxist-Leninists and other types of socialists is that we have an understanding of human history that holds that the proletariat is the class within capitalism that only survives by selling its labor-power. It is the emerging class that has an interest in establishing communism and so must lead the other social forces in overthrowing capitalism.

This class leadership role is first made meaningless in Rubin'’s call to not raise consciousness beyond existing levels in the name of unity. He also weakens the very idea of "leading" by saying leading doesn't mean actually leading others to somewhere but just by being there with bodies and money, by mobilizing for elections rather than driving the agenda and demands. Rubin'’s concept of the leading role of the working class is to follow what the Democratic Party'’s candidate says, to "“lead"” by providing resources.

Marx pointed out that bourgeois economists will always have an explanation for capitalism's behavior because they can always find superficial explanations from the complexity of capitalist life. Such explanations don'’t stand up to scrutiny, however. To really understand something you have to get beneath the surface and look at the interconnections and historical development of its key contradictions.  In attempting to update Marx's political economy Rubin has undone Marx's scientific work with glib and confused amendments.

Rubin's understanding of the political economy of capitalism is one of the clearest places where his updates are a retreat  to the very surface observations Marx criticized his contemporaries for, and from which Marxism has liberated us. For example, Rubin reduces anti-monopoly struggle to regulation, as if capitalism's contradictions can be solved by better regulating capitalism. As for the economic cycle, Rubin says capitalists overestimate the demand for their products and then over-correct, which leads to booms and slumps. 

This opens the door for the illusion that capitalist crises are merely an information problem, that streamlining production to provide just-in-time information and just-in-time delivery could make the problem go away. This is a retreat from Marx'’s analysis, which says that the rate of profit ultimately falls from increases in productivity, which reduces the values of commodities. Rubin recycles fad theories like "financialization" instead of enriching and extending theory with new historical experience.

In Capital Volume III  Marx wrote about the internationalization of capitalist crisis. He showed that some countries might delude themselves that they have escaped from others' economic crisis. But the crisis would catch up to them. As monopoly became dominant, Lenin updated this idea to explain that, because of the increased interconnectedness of the world economy, economic crisis in the age of imperialism has a general character.

Rubin, in the name of making a further update, rejects this analysis of Marx and Lenin by claiming it is an innovation of Stalin. He says, "there is no reason to think we will go through a generalized capitalist crisis".” Given the crisis of 2008-2010 it would seem Rubin's update itself needs an update.

Marx'’s clear explanation is that capitalist crisis stems from the contradictions of production itself and not a lack of regulation, a social-democratic explanation. This is obscured by Rubin under agnostic arguments about how the world has become more "complex" than in Marx'’s day. So, he avers, we cannot predict in advance when a tendency Marx observed will prevail and when it will be countervailed by forces Marx himself foresaw.

This is like saying we can't predict the weather anymore and throwing our hands up in surrender. The whole point of a Marxist update is to update the science to new phenomena, not to jettisoning received time-tested theory that has been largely correct. Rubin admits that he's abandoned the very project his book title promises when he says "it is now much more difficult to make reliable predictions of the concrete path of capitalist development."

Rubin accuses the Soviets of dogmatism, by ignoring or understating the role of the law of value under socialism. But it's Rubin who is here treating laws of science as if they were divine laws. The law of gravity says objects are drawn towards larger objects within their gravitational field, but should we then accuse pilots of violating the law of gravity? On the contrary, aeronautical engineering uses a scientific understanding of the law of gravity to overcome the forces of gravity.

Conclusion

I have left out of this review many other important distortions of Marxism depicted as "“updates." We still badly need a Marxist update of general theory for our country and our times. Rubin has tried but failed to meet a genuine need.

Life often presents new phenomena. To update Marxism, let us explain new phenomena by building on and extending Marxist theory, instead of -- in the name of changing with the times dumbing down the incisive contributions of Marxist-Leninist classics to meaningless mish-mash.

As Lenin said in Materialism and Empirio-Criticism:

In a word, every ideology is historically conditional, but it is unconditionally true that to every scientific ideology (as distinct, for instance, from religious ideology), there corresponds an objective truth, absolute nature. You will say that this distinction between relative and absolute truth is indefinite. And I shall reply: yes, it is sufficiently "‘indefinite"’ to prevent science from becoming a dogma in the bad sense of the term, from becoming something dead, frozen, ossified; but it is at the same time sufficiently "‘definite" to enable us to dissociate ourselves in the most emphatic and irrevocable manner from fideism and agnosticism, from philosophical idealism and the sophistry of the followers of Hume and Kant. Here is a boundary, which you have not noticed, and not having noticed it, you have fallen into the swamp of reactionary philosophy. It is the boundary between dialectical materialism and relativism.

-end-

Can Capitalism Last? A Marxist Update
by Daniel Rubin
N. Y.,  International Publishers, 2009
http://www.intpubnyc.com/, $10.

Reviewed by Simon Capehart

Pakistan Army Continues Offensive Against Taliban (People's Voice)

Pakistan Army Continues Offensive Against Taliban

September 1, 2009

(published in People's Voice www.peoplesvoice.ca)

By Asad Ali

In early May, the Pakistan Army shelled and entered several towns in the North West Frontier Province (NWFP) held by the Pakistani Taliban, and announced they would continue into the rural areas of the province and then to the outlying Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), where the insurgency started. Hamid Mir, a Pakistani television reporter for Geo News, described the scenes of destruction as similar to Gaza after Israel's invasion earlier this year. The offensive has continued through the summer.

Statistics from the Pak Institute for Peace Studies show that the rate of civilian casualties in Pakistan between October 2008 and March 2009 is higher than the UN's estimate for Afghanistan. The Government of Pakistan estimates that over 1,000,000 civilians have been displaced. News reports say that many of the people in the areas being bombed remain there, without access to food or health care.

The Taliban's entry into Buner, an NWFP district that happens to be between the federal capital and FATA, was blamed by the government as the trigger of the military's offensive. However the Taliban only entered the area after the federal government delayed in implementing a peace agreement negotiated by the NWFP's ruling Awami (Popular) National Party (ANP). The ANP is a secular left-wing party that succeeds the 1930s non violent pro independence Red Shirt movement, which Gandhi had described as the only correct implementation of his philosophy. In the 2008 elections the ANP had won a landslide victory in the NWFP over a religious coalition and has formed provincial governments before.

The peace agreement was erroneously reported as a surrender and letting the Taliban implement Shari'a Law, but in fact the deal called for the ANP to implement Nizam e Adl (administration of religious justice) courts that were staffed by ANP selected judges who applied the plaintiffs' own concepts of religious law. This implementation became another point of contention for the Taliban, contrary to reports of Taliban vigilante control. Residents had said they were pleased with the ANP's implementation as the new courts were faster than the Provincial courts.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had called the peace agreement an "existential threat" to the world because of Pakistan's few nuclear weapons, yet it is the U.S. which has threatened nuclear first strikes under George W. Bush and with NATO has killed thousands of civilians in Afghanistan. The US commander in Afghanistan, Gen. McChrystal, recently described US air power as "the seeds of our own destruction" and implied civilians were killed by NATO forces not in any danger. Afghan Taliban leaders point out that their movement is distinct from the Pakistani Taliban with different objectives and social composition.

Progressive politicians, including ANP Senator Lala Khan from the Swat Valley, the first NWFP district the Taliban entered, say the root causes of the conflict are the lack of integration of the Tribal Areas as well as inequitable distribution of resources by the federal government, ignited by the NATO occupation of Afghanistan. Observers point out that the Federal Government did not give the ANP's peace agreement a chance and sabotaged it for the opportunity to launch a military campaign against its own citizens as demanded by NATO. Politicians from parties other than the ANP are calling for stopping the army and resuming dialogue with the Taliban for the sake of national unity and civilian lives.

How to Take Down a Communist Party in 10 Easy Steps (mltoday.com)

How to Take Down a Communist Party in 10 Easy Steps

by Simon Capehart

from mltoday.com

A document found in a (renovated, glass) recycling bin at 235 West 23rd Street in New York City, in the year 2010:

Have you ever been at a left-wing meeting and found that your pet hare-brained ideas get called out and defeated by the Communists? If you let these Communists be Communists they will dominate everything because people like their ideas. Or maybe you own a business, and all the union activists in your shop who have the best strategy to win are the Communists and their allies, and they are able to defeat the pliant workers who will make sweetheart deals with you.

These Communists understand Marx and Lenin, who over 100 years ago had to take on your silly ideas plus all the other bad ideas and defeat them to unite the people into revolutionary organizations. Marx and Lenin proved their ideas work when factory workers, peasants, and minorities in Russia used them to unite and overthrow the Tsar  -  imagine that! It's a pretty scary ideology when the poor can use it to defeat the rich. But fear not, there is a way to get these pesky Communists out of the way so that you can have things your way again. Just follow these 10 easy steps, simultaneously:

1. "Any socialism as long as it's capitalism" The best way to win Communists for capitalism is to tell them it's socialism. How can you do this? It's simple. Just tell them socialism, i.e., getting rid of capitalist private property which is the root of the problem, is too difficult to attain. So, we have to work towards it, but not in a way that actually gets there.

We have to say: "we can't predict when we'll get to socialism, that's too hard to tell. We just have to keep making reforms until we get to heaven some day." We can call this socialism because it has some central planning or some public ownership, while private property and the capitalists are still in the picture. Dig through Marx and Lenin. I am sure you can find some things they said about how to make the transition to socialism. But give only half the picture to make it look like they said, "We can't tell how to finish the job and get rid of private property." Never mind that their ideas scientifically show how to get to socialism, tell them "we have to be agnostic about anything beyond reforms," and "you can't predict the future because it's just like the weather." Before science started studying weather, that is. It will help if you point to the Soviet Union and make up stuff as you go along about how "the reason it's not here anymore is because the Soviets tried to actually get to socialism (and got there!) instead of taking the road of never-ending piecemeal reforms." You could call the goal "market socialism," or "the socialist market economy," or "socialism with American characteristics" (or Chinese or -- fill in the blank). You get the idea.

2. "I once caught a coalition THIS big!" What makes these Communists dangerous is that they unite the broadest alliance behind them to take on and defeat whatever the capitalists are doing. They do this by being public with their politics which are more advanced than anyone else's. So people join with them because they see that the Communists are the only ones fighting for what they need, for real solutions. This leaves the reformists with no choice but to join in or get isolated from the people gathering around the Communists.

The best way to kill the leading and independent role of the Communist Party is to say that this is "going it alone." It's not really a coalition because it calls for ideas that are different from the conventional and mainstream. Never mind that Communists have always worked in coalitions, tell them that "to lead with independent politics is to be on the sidelines" and that "a real coalition is one where you can't tell the Communists from the reformists." Say "the reformists will get scared if you say anything they don't like," so the Communists will forget that the reformists won't have a choice but to join if the Communists would reach out to the much bigger group of people who know half-measures won't help them. Never mind that it's not a real coalition if all of the partners aren't actually meeting to make decisions together, with every group having its own voice. Flunkies can always delude themselves into thinking they are an equal partner.

3. "War is peace; imperialism can be progressive." The best way to get Communists to support a war is to at first give lip service to "troops out now," but then point out how dangerous the victims of imperialism are. It helps to recycle war propaganda about the Islamic enemy as a threat to civilization, and say "we need to protect the world from these beasts." It helps if you call the people in the resistance "Islamo-fascist," even though it's imperialism that is invading and occupying one country after another. You can disguise imperialism pretty easily by saying "it's different this time because there is going to be international cooperation of imperialists with everyone else, for the progress of humanity." This is what Browder did in 1944, saying it would be in the interests of imperialists to rule the world together without fighting over the spoils. Never mind that private property drives them into conflict over who is going to come out on top. Tell the Communist Party members, "the new President or the Democrat candidate will make it all different this time," because it just has to be that way.

4. "Never let a Communist develop his or her own base." Communists who actually want to organize and educate can be dangerous in positions of leadership. It's better to hire them away as staff.  You can control them better. Then, later, let them go, or expel them. There will always be staff sycophants who will go along with anything to keep their paycheck and prestige. These people might never have actually done anything. They might not have any ideas of their own. But that makes it even better, because they depend on you. Those who flatter you the most are the most useful. The more obsequious they are, the higher you should promote them.

5. "Practice Undemocratic Self-centered-ism." The Communist idea of democratic centralism is dangerous for you because you have to freely discuss everything first (democratic) and then stick to the majority decision (centralism). You can kill the democratic part by deciding everything before the meeting, thereby killing or heading off any real discussion. Intimidate and bully people who disagree. Pack meetings with your supporters (especially paid staff). Stop people you don't agree with from even coming to the meeting.

Killing centralism is just as easy. Don't follow or implement the decisions you don't like. You can get away with it if there is no accountability. Instead of having a central leadership, be self-centered where you make all the decisions and then get everyone to agree without trying to listen to them because after all, you are the leader. It helps to factionalize with the people who will go along with you (see #4 "Those who flatter you the most are the most useful") so that it's too late by the time there is a convention.

Expel anyone who doesn't play along, even if you don't do it constitutionally, by (and here's the delicious irony) saying they "violated democratic centralism" or are "anti-party" or are "factional." Remember, once the members catch on to what you are doing they will resist. So, you will have to be even more undemocratic and self-centered each round to stay ahead of them.

6. "Un-organize the organized!" The best way to unorganize a Communist party is not to organize. Get in the way of anyone who is organizing. If people are catching on, do token organizing with ineffective mini-projects or election/educational leaflets that you don't really put out. Don't organize a distribution of the newspaper, or Communist schools that explain real Marxism. Try to avoid calling meetings or organizing your contacts into events and Communist-initiated campaigns and fund raisers. If someone tries this, tell them they are breaking unity and expel them if you have to (see #5 "Undemocratic Self-centered-ism"). Eventually some of the people who want to organize will leave, or get frustrated. It helps if you don't know how to organize in the first place and have never organized a campaign. That's the best way to add "un" in front of your Organizer title (again, see #4 "Those who flatter you the most are the most useful.")

7. Cold-case Communism. The first 24 hours in a missing person case are the most crucial in being able to find them alive. Similarly, to make the institutions of a Communist Party go missing and die off, like archives, bookstores, buildings (from being used for Communist work), publications like print magazines or print newspapers, eliminate them speedily without putting the question clearly in front of everyone and having an open discussion. It will be too late by the time everyone finds out.

Say that you "have to make cuts because of money, or because you haven't been using these resources, or because they've become outdated." Never mind that using these institutions collectively for organizing is what makes a Communist Party different and keeps it moving. Just say that "the same work will continue but without these resources or in a different way," even though you haven't been using these resources anyway (see #6 "Unorganize the organized"). If you're worried they won't buy it, resort to a Straw Man by saying "the opposition is trying to make it look like you can't both use these resources and do things in a new way," even though you are the one cutting the basic resources of the party.

8. "There is a Stalinist under my bed!" If any member actually starts arguing for socialism or revolution, or says anything good about the Soviet Union, or quotes Marx and Lenin to express their own ideas in a more articulate way, call them "Stalinists" or "dogmatic" or any other name you can think of. Label them "a small, sectarian" group or whatever else you have to say to isolate them from everyone else. It's best if you use the Straw Man frequently and say they said things that they never actually said. In a speakers list, arrange that someone who can do a really abusive hatchet job on them will speak next, so as to kill the discussion.

Also it helps if you keep repeating any slander uttered about the Soviet Union, Stalin, and the world Communist movement during the Cold War, as if they are true. Use only anti-Communist citations. Never mind that academic historians are admitting that a lot of the Cold War propaganda just wasn't true, or that Communist parties have been exposing these lies for decades. Just keep insisting it's obvious, or that everyone knows it's true. A bit like those weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

9. Marx and Lenin said "Don't listen to Marx and Lenin." You know the game is almost up when members start actually reading Marx and Lenin and the real context of your quotes from them, or study their party's history and see how you are using a foul old playbook and calling it "fresh" and "creative." This is why it's vital to create as much confusion about Marx and Lenin as possible. Show how they changed their mind about a side-issue to make it look like they went back and forth, when in fact what makes them different from the other philosophers and politicians is that they could keep marching forward on the same path they started on because they were correct. If the members realize this, they would realize they should keep going down that tested and proven path instead of believing there is no firm path and ending up in a swamp. Argue against quoting Marx and Lenin to support anything they actually said. Instead say "they should only be quoted to show one can change one's mind." It's even better if you can cut their quotes up and take a fragment to make it look like we shouldn't listen to them. For example, you could say Marx said "I am not a Marxist" when what he really said was "if that is Marxism, then I am not a Marxist," referring to an ultra-leftist of his time , rather than denying he had developed an ideology. The more you can make it look like Marx and Lenin didn't really mean for us to study what they were saying, or that they said anything at all, the better.

10. "Better Dead than Read!" Marx and Lenin were against turning their ideas into a dead ritual where you just say their magic words and then a revolution happens. Instead, they said you have to apply their teachings to your situation, and as we learn things through experience we can add to Marxism what we learn, in a way that continues what Marx started. However, you can turn this around to say that "Marx and Lenin said their ideas can be changed "(instead of being added to) and that "their basic teachings could be wrong" (not merely some secondary ideas  and facts that are not an essential part of their science), and that "it would still be Marxism if you took out what you didn't like." Claim that "times have changed." Of course, times do change, but not in a way that makes capitalism and imperialism change into something completely different, rather in a way that develops capitalism and imperialism further down the road Marx and Lenin analyzed in their time. You'll need to do some slick switcheroos to turn dialectical materialism, which explains the nature and causes of change in society, nature, and thought, into relativism, which is about things changing in any direction that's convenient for your agenda. But this can be done by appealing against "dogmatism" and then adding that naturally this means "everything is relative" and so it's OK to take anything revolutionary out of Marxism because it no longer applies, because you said so.

Of course, the reformist ideas you are inserting into Marxism under the excuse that "everything changes" are actually old dogmas that were defeated by Marx and Lenin in their time. Better hope your members don't read those old debates, and treat them as dead (see #9 "Marx and Lenin said don't listen to Marx and Lenin"). Otherwise they will realize you are the real dogmatist, resurrecting zombie ideas out of the grave in a desperate attempt to bury what is still alive and kicking in the working class.

Beware that once you liquidate the Communist Party, it will keep coming back because this movement is an inevitable (but not automatic) part of history. The working class will resist. People will keep rediscovering the ideas of Marx and Lenin. So it's very important to keep repeating these steps over and over again. You might even get caught by the members in the middle of wiping out their Party. They might get together and expel you. This is what happened to Browder in 1946. Don't worry though; you can still start the process all over again, just as long as the members aren't systematically getting Marxist-Leninist education to enable them to figure out what you are doing. Remember, as long as there is capitalism there will be Communists, but there will also be revisionists like us to bring the Communists back to capitalism.

This is a race -- to liquidate the party before its members put a stop to us. Better move fast before the members make it impossible for you to do any more damage by challenging you everywhere, voting according to their principles, and holding you accountable!

Come abbattere un partito comunista in 10 semplici mosse (resistenze.org)

http://www.resistenze.org/sito/te/cu/li/culi9l08-005597.htm

www.resistenze.org - cultura e memoria resistenti - linguaggio e comunicazione - 08-10-09 - n. 290

da MLToday - http://mltoday.com/en/how-to-take-down-a-communist-party-in-10-easy-steps-653.html

Traduzione dall'inglese per www.resistenze.org a cura del Centro di Cultura e Documentazione Popolare

Come abbattere un partito comunista in 10 semplici mosse

di Simon Capehart

Da un documento ritrovato in un cassonetto per il riciclaggio del vetro al numero 235 West della 23° Strada a New York [indirizzo del Partito Comunista USA, ndr], nel 2010:

Ti è capitato di assistere ad una riunione politica di sinistra e constatare che le tue convinzioni vengono attaccate e sconfitte dai comunisti? Se permetti a costoro di fare i comunisti, essi prenderanno il sopravvento perché le loro idee piacciono!

Se sei un imprenditore ti accorgerai che gli attivisti sindacali che hanno la meglio sono tutti comunisti o loro alleati. I comunisti sono in grado di contrastare i lavoratori "malleabili", quelli che ti sono complici nel sottoscrivere accordi per favorire pochi a scapito di molti.

Questi comunisti conoscono le teorie di Marx e Lenin. Marx e Lenin oltre 100 anni fa si batterono contro le tue idee insensate (e tutte le altre ideologie borghesi) e dimostrarono che le persone unite in organizzazioni rivoluzionarie possono sconfiggerci. Per esempio, queste idee hanno funzionato quando gli operai, i contadini e le minoranze in Russia se ne sono serviti per unirsi e rovesciare lo Zar. È un’ideologia assai pericolosa quella che i poveri possono utilizzare per sconfiggere i ricchi! Ma non temere, esiste un modo per fare fuori questi fastidiosi comunisti e fare andare di nuovo tutto come vuoi. Basta seguire queste 10 semplici mosse, simultaneamente:

1. "Socialismo a patto che permanga il capitalismo". Il modo migliore per far accettare il capitalismo ai comunisti è dire loro che questo è socialismo. Come si può fare? È semplice. Basta dire che il socialismo, l'abolizione della proprietà privata capitalista che costituisce la radice del problema, è troppo difficile da raggiungere. Quindi, dobbiamo andare verso il socialismo, ma non in un modo che consenta effettivamente di raggiungerlo.

Dobbiamo dire: "Non possiamo prevedere quando arriveremo al socialismo. Dobbiamo proseguire nelle riforme finché un giorno arriveremo al traguardo". Possiamo definire socialismo un sistema che contenga elementi di pianificazione centrale e/o alcune proprietà pubbliche, lasciando però nell’insieme intatta la proprietà privata capitalista. Cerca attentamente nelle opere di Marx e Lenin  i passaggi in cui hanno parlato della transizione al socialismo; poi racconta solo una parte, lasciando intendere che loro abbiano scritto: "È impossibile dire come portare a compimento questo processo e come sbarazzarsi della proprietà privata". Non importa che le loro idee mostrino scientificamente come arrivare al socialismo; tu sostieni che occorre diffidare di tutto ciò che va oltre il riformismo e scoraggia le previsioni: "Non si può predire il futuro, perché è come il tempo meteorologico" (prima che la meteorologia fosse oggetto di studio scientifico, s’intende). Ti sarà di aiuto se usi come esempio l'Unione Sovietica e prosegui inventando storie sulla ragione della sua fine, del tipo: "i sovietici hanno veramente cercato di arrivare al socialismo (e ci sono arrivati) invece di prendere la strada graduale delle riforme". Puoi definire l'obiettivo da raggiungere come "socialismo di mercato" o "economia socialista di mercato" o "socialismo con caratteristiche americane" (scegli l’aggettivo che più è conveniente). Ci siamo capiti.

2. "Attenzione alle coalizioni!" Quello che rende pericolosi questi comunisti è che riescono a costruire alleanze ampie attorno a loro, capaci di contrastare qualunque operazione capitalista. Fanno questo rendendo pubbliche le loro linee politiche, che sono più avanzate di quelle di chiunque altro; la gente si unisce a loro perché ne comprende la lotta, capisce che risponde concretamente ai suoi bisogni. L’unica opzione che resta ai riformisti è di allearsi ai comunisti, per non rimanere isolati.

Il modo migliore per uccidere il ruolo indipendente e di primo piano del Partito Comunista è dire che esso "combatte da solo"; bisogna sostenere che le sue idee non sono diffusamente sentite e accettate dalla maggioranza. Non importa che i comunisti abbiano sempre lavorato in coalizioni, basterà dire che "linee politiche indipendenti comportano la marginalità" e che "una coalizione vera è quella in cui non si possano distinguere i comunisti dai riformisti". Bisogna dire ai comunisti: "I riformisti avranno paura se dite qualcosa di troppo ardito". In questo modo i comunisti non potranno più rivolgersi al gran numero di persone che non vogliono mezze misure, e si dimenticheranno che l’unica opzione dei riformisti sarebbe di unirsi a loro. 

    

3. "La guerra è pace; l'imperialismo può essere progressivo". Il modo migliore per ottenere l’appoggio dei comunisti a una guerra è di cominciare fingendo di essere a favore di idee come "Ritiro immediato delle truppe", ma poi sottolineare come siano pericolose le vittime dell'imperialismo. È utile riciclare la propaganda di guerra sul nemico islamico come una minaccia alla civiltà, e dire "Abbiamo bisogno di proteggere il mondo da queste bestie". È utile chiamare i membri della resistenza "islamo-fascisti", anche se è l'imperialismo ad invadere ed occupare un paese dopo l'altro. È possibile presentare l'imperialismo sotto mentite spoglie piuttosto facilmente dicendo: "Questa volta è diverso perché ci sarà la cooperazione internazionale degli imperialisti con tutti gli altri, per il progresso dell'umanità". Questo è ciò che Browder fece nel 1944, dicendo che sarebbe stato nell'interesse degli imperialisti governare il mondo insieme senza litigare per avere un vantaggio l’uno sull’altro. Non importa che la proprietà privata li porti ad entrare in conflitto con chi domina, bisogna dire ai membri del Partito Comunista che "Il nuovo Presidente o il candidato del Partito Democratico farà in modo che questa volta tutto sarà diverso", perché deve essere così.

4. "Non lasciare che un comunista sviluppi una sua base". I comunisti che vogliono veramente organizzare ed educare possono essere pericolosi in posizioni di leadership. È meglio assumerli, così è possibile controllarli meglio. Poi, più tardi, si potrà licenziarli o espellerli. Ci saranno sempre dei dipendenti delatori che accetteranno qualsiasi cosa pur di mantenere il loro stipendio e il loro prestigio. Queste persone forse non hanno effettivamente mai fatto qualcosa. Forse non hanno delle idee proprie. Ma così va anche meglio, perché saranno condizionati da te. Coloro che ti lusingano maggiormente sono i più utili. Più ossequiosi sono, più in alto dovresti promuoverli.

5. "Praticare l’egocentrismo non-democratico". L'idea comunista del centralismo democratico è pericolosa perché ti costringe prima a discutere tutto in modo libero (democratico), quindi ad attenerti alle decisioni prese a maggioranza (centralismo). Puoi liquidare la parte democratica decidendo tutto prima della riunione, uccidendo o prevenendo in tal modo ogni dibattito vero. Minaccia e spaventa tutti coloro che dissentono. Assicura una massiccia presenza dei tuoi sostenitori alle riunioni (in particolare persone pagate da te). Impedisci alle persone con cui non sei d'accordo di essere anche solo presenti alle riunioni.

Uccidere il centralismo è altrettanto facile. Non seguire o non attuare le decisioni che non ti piacciono. Si può farla franca se non c’è nessuno a cui devi rendere conto del tuo operato. Invece di avere una leadership centrale, sii tu il centro, prendi tutte le decisioni, quindi ottieni l'accordo di tutti senza cercare di ascoltarli perché, dopo tutto, sei tu il leader. È utile formare una fazione con quelli che accettano le tue proposte (vedi il punto 4 " Coloro che ti lusingano maggiormente sono i più utili") in modo che sia troppo tardi quando finalmente vi sarà un accordo.

Espelli chiunque non accetti le tue proposte, anche se non lo fai in modo costituzionale, dicendo (e qui che sta l'ironia deliziosa) che queste persone "hanno violato il centralismo democratico," o sono "anti-partito" oppure sono "settari". Ricorda che una volta che gli iscritti avranno capito quello che stai facendo, opporranno resistenza. Così, devi essere ogni volta ancora più antidemocratico ed egocentrico per rimanere davanti a loro.

6. "De-organizzare chi è organizzato!" Il modo migliore per de-organizzare un Partito Comunista consiste nel non organizzare. Ostacola chiunque stia organizzando delle iniziative. Quando si comincia a capire quello che stai facendo, organizza delle azioni di pura facciata fatte di mini-progetti inefficaci od opuscoli elettorali/informativi che non vedranno mai la luce. Non organizzare la distribuzione del giornale e nemmeno di scuole comuniste che spieghino il vero marxismo. Cerca di evitare di indire riunioni o di organizzare i tuoi contatti per eventi e campagne di iniziativa comunista per raccogliere fondi. Se qualcuno tenta di farlo, digli che sta distruggendo l'unità del gruppo ed espellilo se devi (vedi punto 5 "Praticare l’egocentrismo non-democratico"). Alla fine, alcune delle persone che desiderano organizzare andranno via o si frustreranno. È utile se non sei capace ad organizzare e non hai mai organizzato una campagna. Questo costituisce il modo migliore per aggiungere un "de" davanti al tuo titolo di “organizzatore” (ancora una volta, vedi il punto 4 " Coloro che ti lusingano maggiormente sono i più utili")

7. Comunismo “cold case” cioè a traccia debole. Le prime 24 ore dopo la scomparsa di una persona sono quelle decisive nel determinare la possibilità di ritrovarla viva. Si possono adoperare tecniche simili per assicurarsi che le istituzioni di un partito comunista scompaiano e muoiano una dopo l’altra: gli archivi, le librerie, gli edifici (utilizzati per il lavoro comunista), le pubblicazioni cartacee come riviste o giornali. Basta eliminarli rapidamente, senza porre la questione con chiarezza di fronte a tutti ed evitando una aperta discussione. Quando gli altri scopriranno cos’è successo, sarà ormai troppo tardi.

Puoi dire che "È necessario effettuare dei tagli per ragioni economiche, o perché non avete usato queste risorse, o perché sono diventate superate." Non importa che l'utilizzo collettivo di queste istituzioni per il lavoro di organizzazione sia ciò che rende diverso un partito comunista e ne consente l’avanzamento. Devi solo dire che "Lo stesso lavoro continuerà, ma senza queste risorse o in un altro modo", anche se in ogni caso non utilizzerete queste risorse (vedi punto 6 "De-organizzare chi è organizzato"). Se sei preoccupato che non la bevano, puoi ricorrere ad un uomo di paglia, dicendo "L'opposizione sta cercando di far credere che non è possibile utilizzare queste risorse e fare le cose in modo nuovo", anche se sei tu quello che sta tagliando le risorse vitali del partito.

8. "C'è uno stalinista sotto il mio letto!" Qualora un membro del partito inizi a sostenere con argomenti convincenti il socialismo o la rivoluzione, oppure dica qualcosa di positivo a proposito dell’Unione Sovietica, o cita Marx o Lenin per esprimere le proprie idee in modo più articolato, dovresti etichettarlo come "stalinista" o "dogmatico". Definisci queste persone come un gruppo "piccolo e settario", o qualsiasi altra cosa sia utile per isolarli dagli altri. È meglio utilizzare spesso l'uomo di paglia che metta in bocca parole mai pronunciate. Nell’ordine degli interventi, fai in modo che qualcuno capace di sferrare un attacco malevolo contro di loro prenda la parola subito dopo di te, in modo da stroncare il dibattito.

È anche utile continuare a ripetere, come se fosse vera, qualsiasi calunnia pronunciata contro l’Unione Sovietica, Stalin ed il movimento comunista mondiale durante la guerra fredda. Utilizza solo citazioni anticomuniste. Non importa che gli storici accademici ora ammettano che molta propaganda della guerra fredda non era vera, o che da decenni i partiti comunisti hanno smascherato queste menzogne. Devi soltanto continuare ad insistere dicendo che tutto questo è ovvio, o che tutti sanno che è vero. Un po’ come quelle armi di distruzione di massa in Iraq.

9. Marx e Lenin dissero: “Non date retta a Marx e Lenin”. Sai che i membri del partito scopriranno il tuo giochino quando cominceranno a leggere Marx e Lenin e troveranno il vero contesto delle tue citazioni nelle loro opere, oppure quando studieranno la storia del loro partito e si accorgeranno che stai usando un vecchio e fetido programma politico chiamandolo "fresco" e "creativo". È per questo che è fondamentale creare più confusione possibile su Marx e Lenin. Dimostra come hanno cambiato le loro idee su problemi marginale per dare l’idea che andavano avanti e indietro, quando in realtà ciò che li rende diversi dagli altri filosofi e politici è di essere stati capaci di continuare ad avanzare sulla stessa strada che avevano intrapreso proprio perché avevano ragione. Se i membri del partito comprendono ciò, si renderanno conto che devono continuare a percorrere questa stessa strada di comprovata efficacia invece di credere che non vi sia alcun percorso affidabile e finire così in una palude. Sostieni che non è lecito citare Marx e Lenin per sostenere qualsiasi cosa che loro hanno veramente detto e afferma invece "Devono essere citati soltanto per dimostrare che si può cambiare idea". Meglio ancora se riesci spezzettare le citazioni e a prendere un frammento per far apparire che non dovremmo ascoltarli. Ad esempio, si potrebbe ribadire che Marx disse: "Io non sono un marxista" quando ciò che egli realmente ha detto è "Se questo è il marxismo, allora io non sono un marxista", riferendosi ad un contemporaneo dell’ultra-sinistra e non negando di aver sviluppato un’ideologia. Più riesci a far sembrare che Marx e Lenin in realtà non intendevano che si dovesse studiare quello che hanno detto, oppure che non hanno detto niente, meglio è.

10. "Better dead than read!/Meglio morti che informati!" [allusione allo slogan della guerra fredda, “Better dead than red”, N.d.T] Marx e Lenin si opponevano alla cristallizzazione e alla trasformazione delle loro idee in rituali morti, come se bastasse pronunciare alcune parole magiche per far avvenire la rivoluzione. Marx e Lenin invece hanno detto che ognuno deve applicare i loro insegnamenti alla propria situazione e aggiungere al marxismo ciò che di nuovo viene appreso proseguendo la lotta, continuando così l'opera che Marx aveva iniziato. Tuttavia, è possibile rovesciare questo concetto e dichiarare che "Marx e Lenin dissero che le loro idee possono essere cambiate" (anziché sviluppate) e che "I loro insegnamenti di base potrebbero essere sbagliati" (non solo alcune idee e fatti secondari e che non sono parte essenziale della loro scienza), e che "Sarebbe ancora marxismo pur togliendo quello che non piace". Puoi sostenere che "I tempi sono cambiati". Certo che i tempi cambiano, ma non in un modo per cui il capitalismo e l'imperialismo si trasformino in qualcosa di completamente diverso, quanto piuttosto che si sviluppino ulteriormente seguendo il percorso analizzato da Marx e Lenin nella loro epoca. Dovrai fare qualche capovolgimento ingegnoso per trasformare il materialismo dialettico, che spiega la natura e le cause del cambiamento della società, della natura e del pensiero, nel relativismo, ovvero che le cose cambiano in qualsiasi direzione torni comoda ai tuoi programmi. Ma ci si può riuscire facendo appello contro il "dogmatismo" e aggiungendo che "Tutto è relativo" e quindi è giusto togliere dal marxismo tutto quello che è rivoluzionario perché non è più valido, perché lo hai detto tu.

Naturalmente, le idee riformiste che introduci nel marxismo con la scusa che "tutto cambia" sono in realtà i ferri vecchi già a suo tempo sconfitti da Marx e Lenin. La tua unica speranza è che gli iscritti non leggano i dibattiti avvenuti allora (vedi punto 9 “Marx e Lenin dissero: ‘Non date retta a Marx e Lenin’"), altrimenti si renderanno conto che sei tu quello veramente dogmatico, quello che sta resuscitando dalla tomba delle idee morte nel disperato tentativo di seppellire ciò che è ancora vivo e vegeto nella classe operaia.

Attenzione però, perché una volta che avrai liquidato il Partito Comunista, ci si tornerà continuamente, dato che questo movimento è parte inevitabile (anche se non meccanica) della storia. La classe operaia resisterà. La gente continuerà a riscoprire le idee di Marx e di Lenin. Quindi è molto importante continuare a ripetere questi passi mille volte. Potrebbe anche succedere che gli iscritti ti sorprendano nel bel mezzo del tentativo di demolire il loro partito. Potrebbero unirsi ed espellerti. Questo è ciò che è successo a Browder nel 1946. Ma non ti preoccupare, è comunque possibile avviare il processo da capo, basta che i militanti non apprendano gli insegnamenti del marxismo-leninismo, perchè altrimenti capiscono cosa stai facendo. Ricordati che finché c'è il capitalismo ci saranno i comunisti, ma ci saranno anche i revisionisti come noi per ricondurre i comunisti al capitalismo.

È una gara: liquidare il partito prima che i suoi membri pongano fine a noi. Devi muoverti rapidamente prima che essi ti contestino ogni punto, votino secondo i loro principi e ti ritengano responsabile del tuo operato, neutralizzandoti in modo che tu non possa causare altri danni.