http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?pag...s_iv_ctrl=1261

I've read this PSL article analysing China which I think I largely agree with.

I think personally my political line is probably quite close to that of the PSL. For my political stance in detail please see the "political statement" section in my profile. I'm principally influenced by Maoism and Trotskyism, but I'm also strongly influenced by Dialectical Materialism, System Theory, Pragmatism, Feminism, Luxemburgism, trade unionism, environmentalism, trans-humanism, queer theory, and to a lesser extent also by anarchism and Kautsky. My political line is quite electic, but Maoism and Trotskyism are at the core.

Unfortunately there is no possibility for me to ever join the PSL because I'm not in the US (I live in the UK) and you are a US-only party. However, I quite like your article on China here, which I almost agree with completely.

I have 2 questions:

1) What do you think about the new Maoist party (Maoist Communist Party of China - MCPC) that has emerged? Would you support its revolutionary actions in mainland China even though it has completely broken with the current CCP?

(See: The Ten Declarations of the MCPC http://www.revleft.com/vb/ten-declar...905/index.html)

2) What do you think about the Trotskyist organisation Committee For a Worker's International (CWI)? I have some contact with the CWI here in the UK and also in China. Currently the CWI is the only Western Trotskyist organisation with a branch in China, called CWI China or Chinaworker. The leading member of Chinaworker, who is Chinese, is a personal friend of mine.

Personally I think the CWI is better than the third-campist Trots, but would the PSL regard the CWI as a "genuine revolutionary socialist organisation", despite obvious differences? More specifically, what do you think about the CWI's call to "end the one-party dictatorship" in China?

I think if the MCPC is genuine and wants to take China back on the socialist road then we would probably throw our support behind them. You can read our book on China and see that we hope for a day when the proletarian of China rises up and takes the country back to socialism.

I'm not touching the second question lol

Why not?

To be honest that is something we as a party would have to decide if we view them as revolutionary. And I don't think as individuals on rev left we could give you a accurate party statement.

I personally don't mind the one party rule over a nation as long as that party has internal democracy and works in the interest of the working class and poor people of that nation. That said, I personally wish that the left wing could re take the CPC

So what is your personal opinion of the CWI? (Keeping in mind that you are not representing the PSL as a party here, nor will any of your comments ever be received in such a way)

Just bought your book on China.

I, personally, do not like the one party idea at all. I do not think there should be capitalist parties though. I think if the people are revolutionary they will vote for the revolutionary party. A party can become corrupt and reactionary like in china or in the later days of the USSR and without another revolutionary party to challenge them then it turns into a unstoppable spiral downwards.

But what about genuine direct democracy within the single party? Is it absolutely necessary for the existence of a contesting party to prevent corruption and degeneration, or would intra-party democracy be sufficient? If you think intra-party democracy is not sufficient, then why?

How can a multi-party system fit in with the Leninist ideal of democratic centralism?

I think in the actual revolution, i.e. the actual over throw of the capitalist system, Democratic centralism and the vanguard party are the 2 of the most important things. After the initial revolution though it is a different situation. In every situation there is a risk of a bureaucracy being created in a party. It is a major risk and danger to a revolution. My theory is that another party would do well to keeping the other party in line, so to speak. I feel that democracy must be participated with the whole population and if it is one party either everyone is in it or anyone can vote in the party's concerns. Democratic Centralism after a revolution and enacted in a country as its form of democracy can be potentially dangerous to the liberties of the people. To me democratic centralism is a pre revolution necessity but after the revolution, for the function of a country's democracy, I see it as a possible danger to criticism of the government and what ever else needs to be criticized. If it is a single party system then everyone must be allowed to vote and do not have to be official members of the party. Those that are official members of the party should follow the ideal of democratic centralism.

Sorry if I rambled, I just kept thinking of different ways to say what I was saying.

But without democratic centralism after the revolution, what's to prevent the restoration of capitalism without a strong socialist centre?

Revolution is never going to be an one-off event after which everyone can just put up their feet forever, that's utopian. Revolution, as Mao said, is a continuous process, there is always the risk of degeneration in any kind of political system, just to different extents. Mao initiated the Cultural Revolution partly because he wanted to challenge the emergence of bureaucratic capitalism in the party.

I am not intending to sound Utopian, what I am talking about is the actual overthrow of the capitalist government. There needs to be a line between reactionary and what is acceptable. This is just an example, Venezuela is on the road of revolution but because Chavez is of the people and is a true socialist and has improved the lives of the Venezuelans he has been able to stop any reactionary attacks. I do not view the Cultural Revolution as a success. There needs to be a restriction on the rights of reactionaries and counter revolutionaries, but still capability of the people to criticize actions of the government. There needs to be a force to fight against the counter revolutionaries. I guess what my view is, is that centralism is important but must be put into effect very carefully or else the power will be in to few hands.

The Cultural Revolution indeed objectively failed. That is true.

Ok actually I have been reading more about the Cuban System and how they view 1 party v multiparty systems. I Did not understand the concept before, but now I have a better understanding. I think that the Cuban political system is the best system ever practiced and it is truer democracy than anyone else knows. I say that a single party system like they have is the best way represent the people and hold the revolution.

Doesn't the Cuban system, as it stands now, lack direct democracy? (Meaning workers can't directly elect their leaders)

I don't see how the Cuban system is objectively different from the NK system. Does this mean you support the NK system too?

Personally, I stand by the standard Trotskyite analysis here. Workers need to have some means of directly electing and supervising their leaders, with real powers of recall. This is true both in the state as a whole and in the factory/company. Otherwise it's not genuine democracy.

Actually Cuba is extremely democratic, directly so. Cuba has 164 Municipal assemblies in which all the delegates are nominated by the people of that municipality. 2-8 candidates may run, no less than 2 the only advertising that is allowed is a biography, the The Communist Party may not nominate delegates or have a say in any assemblies, the delegates are nominated by the people and elected by the people, a delegate must have more than 50% to win. You do not have to be in the party to vote or run, when voting you vote for the a person not a party. The Municipal Assembly nominates delegates to the Provincial Assembly and the people vote for those nominated, The Provincial Assembly nominates delegates to the highest assembly, The National Assembly of the People, and the people vote on those delegates. The President of the National Assembly is the Head of state (Like The Speaker of the house in the US being president). The Head of State may not dissolve any of the assemblies or veto legislature passed by the National Assembly. Every resident of Cuba has voting rights if they are above the age of 16. There has been a voter turn out of more than 90% since 1976. There are thousands of organizations in Cuba and they may propose legislature to the assemblies and may present petitions. Cuba is more similar to a no party system. You do not vote for a party you vote for a person, and it is not uncommon that two opposing candidates will campaign together. It is less about politics and more about the people when it comes to democracy in Cuba.

That is nothing like the Korean Authoritarian Cult of Personality System.

So what is the role of the Communist Party in Cuban politics?

They act as the "guiding organ" of the revolution. They produce publications and act more like a political organization than a real party.