"The Politics of Critical Theory" (4/29/11 panel) 

Good presentations. Love that it gets reiterated (especially by the second speaker) that the top-down structuring of the movement and the party's role in the movement is a rejection of Marx et al, and not practice that is faithful to them. However, it would be much more digestible and accessible to the common proletarian if they used the language of the common proletarian, and made their ideas plainly understandable to the common proletarian. By keeping their ideas this abstract and high-brow, they place themselves above the proletariat and, despite talking about socialism as being a system of the proletariat, make it harder for the proletariat to see it that way. A lot like what the person says at about 1:23:00 concerning Lenin's warnings. That the very next person to speak dismisses it because "there are no more ignorant peasants" is more than a little disturbing, and not only because there really are around the world; most of them just aren't called "peasants" anymore. There are plenty of ignorant working class people, and plenty of people raised to believe that they need leaders to do all of the thinking and governing. It's not just an issue that just goes away as civilization develops technologically, economically or even with greater access to public education. Overestimating the proletariat and lumpenproletariat by assuming they're at the highest levels of education, and therefore capable of understanding your arguments as presented in this video, is patronizing. We as socialists need to look at where they are, not where we think they should be based on where WE are, and use that to teach the proletariat using terms they can understand. Talking about "dialectics" (which is very much overused and apparently misunderstood by some who use it) and using "expensive words" that are not common to the society is a massive turn-off and paints people who use them as the intelligentsia, not as proletarians. Lenin's warnings very much still apply. They will never not apply, because the proletariat will doesn't typically have the time to understand the deepest philosophical and most abstract concepts discussed in panels like these simply because they're busy working to survive, and if we're really lucky, organizing to understand the issues they're faced with in real terms. That it gets dismissed so quickly and easily by the guy at 1:24:50 should be disturbing to everyone. 1:31:30 "Actual existing socialism" is a crock. There's nothing "actual" about it. It exists, alright, but it's not socialism. Not even "mostly." Socialism isn't a set of policies, nor is it non-capitalist control of the State via a top-down party like the CCP. The MOVEMENT of socialism is one that pushes for policies that uplift the masses, such as free education and healthcare, and for capitalism to be removed from the State, but socialism, ACTUAL EXISTING SOCIALISM, is proletarian control of the economy and the State. People who reference countries as having "actual existing socialism" make a grave mistake that actually undermines the movement by saying "this is where our ideas lead, and we endorse it no matter how much we deny that that's what we want, because this is an example of what we fight for," all so that they can feel like there's been a "win" for socialism. China was not a win for socialism. It was a win for statism that, while definitely doing a lot of good in many ways, in the end was still oppressive and led to capitalism. The USSR was not much different in what it produced. "Actual existing socialism" isn't, and those who call themselves "Marxists" (or any branch of Marxism) while using that phrase hurt the movement more than any conservative think tank. Socialism must be nothing less than proletarian control, not through a party above the proletariat (as in every "actual existing socialism" example), but through bottom-up democracy. Not through a republic where the proletarians merely elect who will make the decisions for them, but through a system of community-based democracy where the proletarians make the decisions for themselves. 1:33:30 Yes. "The party" is easily reduced to "the leader," and that's why the party must never be more than an advisory and organizational tool for the proletariat to move forward on its own impetus, through its own efforts. If they don't get it done, then they don't get it done, but that is up to the proletariat to decide, not "Dear Leader." 1:37:20 Yes, the proletariat needs to organize ITSELF into a political party to counter the bourgeois parties...but that's not what happens, now, is it? They get organized by intellectuals like Lenin and Mao, who then lead the party according to their own philosophies (not just theirs, obviously. Neither Lenin nor Mao was a dictator, but were both one among many in central committees...of effective dictators over the proletariat). To be consistent with Marx (and Lenin), the intelligentsia can and should help the proletariat organize, and can and should help teach them class consciousness, but should rely on bottom-up democracy, not party rule, to lead the movement. You CANNOT create a bottom-up system like socialism (and eventual communism) from above; believing you can is a line of thinking that comes from Aristotle and enthusiastically supported by the bourgeoisie and other elitists. You can ONLY do it from below. If it doesn't happen, you can't do anything but exhort the working people to try harder, and explain why they should push for those goals, but never use the means of State violence to force them...as in every case of "real existing socialism." 1:40:00 It's easy to forget all of that. Even members of the same class are never 100% unified on everything, and the interests of one city/region will compete with others just as the interests of the urban will compete with those of the suburban and rural. Our ideas and our needs are just as diverse as every other aspect of our species. 2:02:50 Without leadership, you organize your communities and start practicing networking so that you don't require leaders telling you how to support them, but instead find out what each other need and how you can support each other. Socialists need to focus on building democracy at the lowest community levels, not looking for leaders to tell them to support policy X or go to protest Y. Coming together to help each other is what "solidarity" is all about, and building democratic communities is required for socialism.

Great discussion