LOS ANGELES – "Money's horrible. This social system based on it is a disaster," declared a member of our study group. "Our mentality is so colonized by money!" said another, who had brought a friend for the first time. We continue to wrestle with questions about how communism could work, this time with a larger and very lively group.
One comrade has read a lot about communist history and often brings up examples. This time she made copies of excerpts that showed some mistakes communists made in building socialism in Russia and China. They said openly that the masses "weren't ready" to organize themselves so the Party had to do it instead.
In contrast, our Party insists on mobilizing the masses for communism. That idea had inspired the comrade to share the historical materials and to struggle with others to read and analyze it. We don't believe in having "experts," especially around developing our political line!
Some had read those materials and more, bringing the discussion immediately to a higher level.
Again the discussion began with "process" questions. Several of us have experienced problems in other groups that insist on "consensus" (general agreement). Determined naysayers can hold everything up. Important disagreements may be suppressed when people feel pressured to jump on the bandwagon. Ideals may be compro-
mised to get everyone on board.
Processes of communist decision-making (now and in the future) must emphasize open, principled struggle. We must develop mass communist consciousness.
Once decisions are made, we need to act in a unified way – like getting to the right place at the right time for a May Day march or a battle. Even then, however, we will revisit political disagreements as we evaluate the work through criticism and self-criticism.
Without money, will there ever be votes? Representatives? People kept asking.
A comrade offered that the key issue is not "process" but "relationships." For example, workers in a bike factory might meet every morning to evaluate and plan the work. In a nearby refrigerator factory, workers might take turns serving on a leadership committee instead.
But the same principles would guide them: mass participation in decision-making, no special privileges for anyone, social relationships of production are primary.
"Why do I insist on process," someone wondered aloud, "even though I agree that mass values and consciousness are the main thing?"
He worries that in his small, closely-knit church they "battle all the time." Sometimes people say "we're all about love – don't worry about structures" when others try to point out oppressive structures. He's also concerned with how
communism will protect minorities, unlike the persecution of religious pacifists in the early Soviet Union.
We want to learn more about collectivist societies and non-hierarchical mass movements in the past and the present. Someone mentioned the international Christian Bruderhof movement whose members "feel called to a way of life in which all are of one heart and soul, no one possesses anything, and everything is shared in common."
What about the indigenous mass movement in Bolivia? Factories taken over by workers in Argentina? A town in southern Mexico where people took turns being sheriff?
A teenager who'd mostly been listening had a lot to say at the end. "Is it a normal thing to want more, because we're used to being limited?" she asked. "So when everything is free, will people hoard and there will be chaos?"
She answered herself: "Before capitalism came, like the native American people, they used to share and help each other out. Sooner or later we'll come back to our senses."
She continued: "Like food drives, clothes drives, blood drives we do today– people do it out of kindness because it's the right thing to do. At first in communism we may not want to share but people will do it because we have to do it."
We'll write more about other parts of this discussion. Meanwhile, we hope that readers will respond.