Ecuador: Seeing the Possibility of Communism
Recently I went with a group to visit Valencia, a community in Ecuador, south of Quito, more than 3,000 meters above sea level. Valencia was originally populated by peasants who got their land through the government’s land reform. It’s an example of communal organization from which we can learn lessons of how to organize production and social relations without money. However, it also exposes the limits of the “solidarity economy” and autonomy.
“We reject the budget assigned to us by the mayor’s office. We want asphalt machinery, that’s what we really need,” explained Jose, a member of the community. The inhabitants of Valencia have organized themselves in shifts called “Mingas.” As we arrived, a group of 50 people, all inhabitants of the community, were working on the asphalt of one of the main streets. This was a collective task, based on need.
The community has also organized for water collection, livestock, crops and recreation. This community dynamic shows us how the masses can be organized in a new economy, a new way of producing, living without money and without capitalist social relations.
The community is constantly fighting to defend its territory from transnational mining companies and state-owned companies. The mining company occupies more and more territory and contaminates one of the rivers of the community. The State wants to get resources from this land for the operation of the industrial and residential areas of the largest cities.
But there are also problems within the community: the new generations migrate to the city looking for work. “Young people don’t work in the fields. Today they are in the factories or they become police officers.” It’s here that we see the limits of community organization within a capitalist society are clearest.
Valencia shows us that it is possible to mobilize the masses to work collectively, but it also shows us that we need to control a considerable geographical area to be able to get the resources (in harmony with the environment) to meet these needs. To meet the needs of a given population, with planned production based on human needs, we have to organize a communist revolution.
It is very important for the members of this community to integrate themselves into the discussion of the new communist society and how we can organize ourselves to achieve it. We hope that the contacts we have made will become active readers of Red Flag.
—Young comrade
I found this on an obscure web site that had some old labor songs. I like Mendelssohn’s music, but the words about god and angels don’t appeal to me. Perhaps other Red Flag readers will prefer to sing these words by the US labor activist Joe Hill. I think there are other verses, but I only got this one, and now I can’t find the site again.
Hark the mass of workers sing,
Glory to the future king.
Peace on earth and mercy mild,
Not one worker is reviled.
Joyful all ye nations rise,
Give the bosses a surprise,
When we win we will proclaim,
Love is free; money’s to blame.
Hark the mass of workers sing,
We together will be king.
—Musical reader
Center the Discussion about Racism on the Fight for Communism
Recent letters about liberal, Marxist and communist answers to racism have led to a lot of useful discussion. Here’s my take on it.
Some say that the key difference is between a liberal view and a Marxist view. Briefly, many liberals believe racism benefits white people (the “white privilege” argument) whereas Marxists believe that racism is harmful to all workers.
This is true as far as it goes, but I think a true Marxist fights for communism. Since its inception, our party has made convincing people that communism will end racism our priority. In communism, all workers will be better off and there will be no privileges for anyone. That’s where our writing, discussions and practice should focus.
While explaining how only communism can end the scourge of racism, all kinds of capitalist illusions (like white-skin privilege) will come up. How much time should we spend convincing people that white privilege is a myth? Some, but not most and certainly not in lieu of focusing on communist solutions.
Our priority is winning people to communism. Not to just a ‘Marxist’ point of view that says only that racism hurts all workers under capitalism.
I think we should reject the idea that workers need to be prepared before they can consider communism. There are many examples of this on both large and small scales. For most of the last century communists thought that a long period of socialism was necessary to prepare the way for communism. In the mass movement, they believed that workers needed to be prepared by militant reform struggles.
A growing number of Red Flag articles and letters start off advocating communism. We’re slowly moving away from postponing the discussion of communism to the second half so that the reader can be prepared for it. In this regard, the difference between Red Flag and other left publications is striking.
Do we put off discussing communism with new people in order to prepare them by convincing them (for example) that racism hurts workers under capitalism? In the past, communists set up whole organizations to facilitate such preparation.
A better approach (in my opinion) is to lead with communism. When we meet a new person we can trust, we should start by talking to them about communism and getting them involved in some communist activities. In my experience, even people who have disagreements are often happy to help.
At Boeing, we have a close friend who brings our communist approach to dozens of young and old activists. At one time, he was active in the union and all kinds of movements against racism. Did we spend most of our time convincing him how bad these groups were? No, we offered him a communist alternative which he adopted as his own. Any discussions we now have about reformist groups we have in the context of his communist work.
In the movement, we organize people to fight as communists, not as mere militants in some front organization. Finally, we’ve scrapped the idea of socialism as preparation for communism. It’s communism from day one!
—Boeing comrade
We Must Refute Nationalist and “Privilege” Ideas about Racism
This letter adds some comments and some experiences from campus work at a California college to the letter in the last issue (Vol 8, No. 15) titled “Marxism Versus Liberalism on Race and Racism.” The “white skin privilege” idea that most whites benefit from racism is by far the most common view of students and faculty on this campus. This wrong idea supports the nationalist outlook and organizing that is the most common kind of campus activism about racism. Students who like Red Flag, including those who have joined our study groups, often see the nationalist organizations like Mecha and A. Ch. A. (Chicano nationalist groups) or Students for Justice in Palestine as alternatives to the party, rather than places to bring communist ideas.
I teach an ethics course that includes a unit on why racism is wrong and how to fight it. Students often get the point that capitalists benefit from racism. Many are very skeptical, however, about the idea that it is class, not race, that determines who has common interests. This seems to be particularly true of African-American students.
Both in campus political work and in class, the “white skin privilege” view proves to be an important obstacle to seeing racism as a product of capitalism and to agreeing with us that only communism can end racism. I think that it is very important for our party to take on and refute nationalist and “privilege” ideas about racism. This is essential to win masses to our line.
— Red Teacher
Tradition and Communism
A comrade in Africa asked about communist society and ancestors and traditions.
My parents were from Mexico and I was born there. I was raised in a Mexican household in the USA and still live in the USA. My parents, like many Mexicans in California, were farm workers while I was growing up.
I think the comrade was essentially asking about culture. Culture encompasses all aspects of a group’s way of life. It includes language, religious beliefs, customs, etiquette and values and ideas people use to organize their lives and interpret their existence.
Families have more in common than different, based more on level of income, than on culture. I like and dislike some traditions I grew up with.
I like being well-connected to immediate and extended family. The connectedness extended to our community. Weddings and Quinceneras were huge events with family and community all helping to make them fun and successful. Connectedness was important and valuable.
But I dislike the machismo/sexism in our culture. I recall once when we came home from grocery shopping. My father was tired and hungry, as were we all, but he demanded that my mother hurry and make dinner. My mother was busy putting groceries away and settling us in (I was 3, one sister was 2, and the other was 5). Perhaps she was not moving fast enough for my father. He became aggressive and threw a bag of beans across the room. The bag tore open and we had to get busy picking them up, while our mother wept.
The following day my older sister asked our mom about what had happened. She said something about my dad temporarily losing his marbles, but nothing about the unreasonableness of his expectations.
In Mexican culture the woman is supposed to take care of her man’s needs while the man is the provider. However, my mother worked alongside my father in the fields so I did not understand it. Thankfully for our family, around this time we met the communist party. Comrades struggled with both of my parents around the issue of sexism and my father’s machismo.
I think that under communism we will continue with practices/traditions that are helpful to our collective society. We’ll struggle with each other to do away with past practices that hurt us as a collective society. Each culture has some good and some bad. It will be up to us all to figure this out and to do the struggling.
—California (US) Comrade
December 13— Argentine workers, young and old, confront cops and soldiers in massive, militant protests against a new pension reform law that will steal $5.6 billion USD from retired workers, many of whom will go hungry. Capitalism squeezes its profits from our labor and then throws us away to die. In communism, food and everything else will be shared, not bought and sold. People of all ages will be able to contribute their labor, as they are willing and able, to meet the needs of the masses.
Front page of this issue
