Two papers stimulated by Bob Avakian's recent article, "Why The World Is So Messed Up, And What Can Be Done to Radically Change This—A Basic Scientific Understanding," appeared on revcom.us recently (here and here). They carried a fierce spirit of revolutionary optimism grounded in the materialist analysis of history and its underlying dynamics laid out in BA's article. Each piece helped me pick up on points in BA's analysis that had slipped past me before—and these points were doubly powerful because they came alive with such a far-sighted determination to upend this outmoded system which has long outlived its usefulness, seeing that the basis exists for a radically different way of organizing society.
In his piece, BA lays out the scientific basis for understanding the driving dynamics of human societies throughout history, and the basis for revolutionary leaps from one form of society to something new, and state power which maintains that form of society:
To sum up this essential understanding of the relations in society and the basis for radically changing society: The economic base (the mode of production) is the foundation of society, which sets the ultimate terms and limits for what can happen in a given society; but it is in the superstructure where revolution can and must be made, by overthrowing the existing state power and system of political rule, and establishing a radically different state power and system of political rule, in order to move forward to transform the economic base, the social relations, and the superstructure as a whole, including the political institutions and processes as well as the culture and ideology.1
For the moment, I'd like to focus on "A New State Power—How Cool Is That!" This piece focuses on the crucial point of what cannot be done without revolutionary state power, the dictatorship of the proletariat, and what potential can be unleashed by the new socialist state owning and wielding the means of production not at the dictates of the profit motive by competing centers of capital, but to meet social needs, and to take on and uproot the horrors of the old order. It gives inspiring examples of how this can, and must, unleash the creativity and energies of the masses in going to work on the challenges of society. One sharp example uses the materialist analysis laid out in BA's piece to cut through the stultifying and mind-numbing “everybody knows” verdict which says selfishness and competition are needed for society to work and that ignoring this “truth of human nature” causes economies and societies to grind to a halt—the discussion on how the people can take on the rebuilding of society, and the role of the state in this:
All these youth hanging around on corners, would love to be put to work if they had the ability to build homes for people in their community. We have seen how people come together to figure out how to help each other during crisis. Well, this is what will be promoted, and will have the backing of the state. There will be a lot of work, a lot of repairing to be done after the revolution. There will need to be a lot of collectivity, people working together, a lot of figuring out/planning how to best address the needs of humanity.
This lays out the role of the revolutionary state, creating new production and property relations, giving people collectively the means to meet their needs, including mobilizing people into the planning for this. Many who have been cast aside by this system will have been part of, or have been shaped by, the struggle to bring down the old system, and will see something radically different has come into being, with unimaginable horizons opening up—thinking about this for just a few minutes brings a sense of the spirit-shaking effect that unleashing the energies and creativity of the people will have on individuals, throughout the new society, and throughout the world. Many people will enter this era with a new outlook, new ideas, new thinking, in large part because of the work of the revolutionaries throughout the whole process leading up to the seizure of power. Others will need to be won to this though, especially as conflicts and challenges come up, including through sharp struggle to cast aside old ways of getting by.
And some urgent objectives of the new society will not be as tangible and immediate, not as literally or figuratively "in their backyard," as people rebuilding their own community. And different political forces (with different outlooks and interests, and ultimately with different class outlooks) will be pulling and mobilizing people, at times to act in ways contrary to what is urgently needed. Think about the shattering of supply chains and economic relations of imperialist domination that will happen with this revolution, and the new contradictions this would open up. What will this mean in the short run, in terms of meeting needs here? And, decisively, think about the ongoing need to support to the greatest degree possible the advance of revolution throughout the globe, and meeting great needs of people throughout the world in a less linear way—taking the essential approach that the whole world comes first.
And it's entirely possible there will be great needs that, if not sufficiently met by people voluntarily stepping up, could require some degree of compulsion (BA's discussion in his book, The New Communism, on the Constitution for the New Socialist Republic in North America, the nature of the people's armed forces, and the question of a draft in socialist society, goes into some of these contradictions better than I can at this time). All of this brings me to reflect on the role of the socialist state, beyond bringing these new production and property relations into being through the new order. What really defines this revolutionary state, beyond creation and enforcement of this new order?
The revolutionary state—and the state power we need—must serve the new production and property relations, and these are not invented out of a dream for a more equitable and just world, but stem from the fundamental contradictions in socialist society—a new society shaped by the deep imprints of class-divided society as it has evolved, which mark the world the new power sets out to transform. As stated in BAsics 2:5,
Socialism is the new society established after the seizure of power. Socialism is three things: a new economic system, a new political system and a transition to the final goal of communism.2
BA has done invaluable work over the past few decades assessing the experience of past socialist societies, understanding the necessity they faced and the dynamics at work as a leading force seeks to carry forward the revolution while confronting the persisting legacy of class-divided society, as it manifests in unanticipated ways among the people, in the international situation, and in the vanguard itself. He shows how it is crucial to have a well-grounded leading solid core that, through a fearless process that follows truth wherever it leads, can come to understand the situation and transform the necessity they face by scientifically approaching these contradictions and working on them to wrench freedom from what on the surface may appear to be insurmountable challenges, on the basis of the underlying contradictions. In doing so, he has set communism on a more scientific foundation, and given us tools we must grasp and wield now, as they will be essential to identifying and seizing on opportunities in the current stage and will be essential to making great revolutionary leaps once revolutionary communists do hold state power.
To this end, he states that the leading force in socialist society, the solid core, has four objectives:
I have spoken before about the four objectives of the solid core, in socialist society—namely: to maintain power for the proletarian revolution; to expand the solid core to the greatest extent possible at any given time; to work to constantly narrow, and work toward finally overcoming, the difference between the solid core and the rest of society (this speaks to "the withering away of the state"); and to foster the maximum elasticity on the basis of the necessary solid core at any given time. All four of these objectives form a unity and are mutually interdependent and mutually influence each other, one way or the other. And, as I’ve said, even in communist society—although in a radically different way—this same principle will still apply, because it conforms to, or is an expression of, the nature of reality and its development through contradictory motion. (From BAsics 2:28.)
As I see it, this passage really goes to the heart of the link between an approach to ascertaining the truth (or our epistemology) and communism as a scientific practice to carrying out the world historic task before us today: understanding the world, especially, but not only its socio-political evolution, character, and avenues for radical transformation—so that we can transform it.
As discussed above, there is great potential for transformation in socialism, but also the seeds for great discord and contention. A key aspect of this is posed immediately in the wake of the seizure of power, but the dynamics that create these shifts in the allegiance of large groups play out in other times, too. BA has formulated an extremely important understanding of this—the parachute point, where in the process of making revolution masses become compressed around the revolution but then after victory, things open up. This is a breakthrough in orientation and strategy which is worth studying in full, but I would like to focus attention on a brief excerpt here:
So here is where, after power is consolidated, "the parachute opens back out." In other words, all the diversity of political programs, outlooks, inclinations, and so on...all these things assert, or reassert, themselves. And if you go on the assumption that, because people all rallied to you at that particular moment when only your program could break through—if you identify that with the notion that they're all going to be marching in lockstep with you and in agreement with you at every point all the way to communism—you are going to make very serious errors.” (BAsics 3:29)3
BA has noted elsewhere,
It is easy to have a society where a privileged intellectual elite has considerable freedom to grapple with ideas—as long as they stay within certain confines and don’t fundamentally challenge the existing order….
The hard thing is turning all of this upside down without stifling the critical spirit, the wrangling over ideas and theories and so on. Because we have also seen from history that it might be quite easy to institute a kind of monolithic system where only a few ideas are allowed to be debated out and where there is not real critical thinking and dissent. And we have seen that, to the degree that this is a tendency in socialist society, it works against socialism, against the revolutionary transformation of society, against the advance to communism. (BAsics 2:19)
Finding ways to carry this forward without relying on the ability of the state to set the terms, through law and domination of major institutions, is crucial to the revolution actually creating a liberating society, and for carrying forward a process that increasingly "fits the masses to rule." This includes "relying on the masses to grasp their own interests and act accordingly, with leadership and through lively, vigorous debate and struggle."4 (BAsics 2:21) To do this, "we have to conceive of this process not as a neat and orderly one but as a very tumultuous one—and a volatile and chaotic one at times—through which a lot of things get brought forward and thrashed out by the masses."5 (BAsics 2:24)
All of this is fundamental to the very nature of the socialist state, alongside the new property and production relations, and the changes that can be achieved on the basis of this through a long back-and-forth process. When confronting the dire challenges laid out above, we should actively be seeking to transform the situation we confront to the greatest degree possible, on the basis of our understanding of the objective situation and its complex dynamics, seeing a rich web of greater and lesser contradictions and finding the decisive elements of the underlying structure of this interconnected web being shaped and determined by the most decisive contradiction(s). Working to understand the interplay of these contradictions in any of the situations above will require listening and learning from the people, their thoughts and views, as a part of leading, and advocating for, what is needed. This is the way we understand the "lay of the land" when it comes to the rich features of objective reality, the thinking of people, the sources of pushback and resistance, the factors which allow non-revolutionary tides to pull at the masses. This must be scientific and must fundamentally rely on the people. It is essential to making any real change and is a key part of how people in greater and greater numbers can not only understand the needs of society, but understand how this can be an all-the-way revolution and why it must be.
It's exciting to examine the Constitution for the New Socialist Republic in North America with an eye to both how it describes the new society, and also how it lays out the structural and institutional means to approach this kind of process. I'll briefly describe a few points here. It gives fundamental protections to the rights of people, to speak out, to organize, to use the mass media to get their views out there, and this applies for people who have major disagreements with the leadership. It also pays attention to the fact that a lot of these conflicts get expressed (or get expressed differently) on the local level, and even apportions legislative seats in ways that could link this decision-making and knowledge-generating process between the local level and the central level of the Socialist Republic as a whole. While this is not discussed in great detail, here I'm noting in Article I, Section 1.3.i, "20% of the total seats" in the central legislature for the Republic "shall be determined through votes cast by the organs of government at workplaces, neighborhoods, educational institutions, and other basic institutions of society (these organs of government shall themselves be elected by popular vote—see Article II, Section 2)"6 and that these and the various elected leadership bodies "shall, through meetings and assemblies and in other ways, report on their work and hold discussions of this work—and other matters of concern not only regarding the particular institution but the larger society and world—with those regularly involved in these institutions. In this and other ways, these leadership bodies and the members of these bodies should strive to build close relations with, to listen to the opinions and criticisms of, and to learn from at the same time as leading the people who are the foundation of these basic institutions, and of the society as a whole. This fundamental principle and approach should be applied by leadership in general, at all levels of society and government." (from Article II, Section 2.4)7
As one quick final note, I think in light of all of this, it's worth thinking about how we would handle the contradictions around the powder-keg question of the oppression of women and the various forms it takes today, and would take under a socialist state power. This is hit on powerfully by the statement that porn would be outlawed in socialism. Aside from applying the force of law to make change, I think it would be really beneficial to think about all of the things wrapped up with this, and how revolutionary leadership would address this.
There is much more in these essays that is exciting, provocative, and merits much deeper discussion, but out of time limits, I will stop here for now.