Hello, it's me again

This is another article that's been going around. I talked to some comrades up in Rhode Island and apparently the author of this kind of has some eh stuff going on and was actually kind of a jerk but still here's more kind of evidence of what's going on.

Notably one thing is that they say that the PSL Miami branch is dissolved. I don't know like anything about this.

It kind of feels like live archaeology at this point, just trying to archive and document the kind of discussions that have been going on. I honestly really have incredibly little faith in the party to continue to survive and end up being the party that we need. I think a new party is clearly going to need to form.

If you have any thoughts or additional points of information that can be used to, like, bring together the understanding of what went wrong and what's been going wrong, please put it below.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 53 points 20 hours ago (17 children)

This is the correct take. So many people in this thread acting like standing up against SA is anti communist or some bs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 19 hours ago* (9 children)

    kind-vladimir-ilyich Lenin would shoot everyone here

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 18 hours ago (8 children)

    While exiled in 1899, Bauman had an affair with the wife of a fellow revolutionary who became pregnant with Bauman's child.[7] Bauman responded by openly mocking her, and circulating a vicious cartoon of her as the Virgin Mary with a baby in her womb, with a caption asking "who the baby looked like". The woman later hanged herself.[8]

    This story had gained wide currency among Russian political exiles by the time Bauman reappeared in Switzerland in 1902, after the escape from Kiev.[citation needed] Some of those involved in producing Iskra, including Lenin's closest friend and collaborator, Julius Martov and Pavel Axelrod, one of the founders of Russian Marxism, wanted Bauman expelled from the organisation. In 1903, the board of Iskra adjudicated the matter, and Lenin interceded on Bauman's behalf. According to biographer Robert Service, Lenin rejected the party's right to interfere, arguing that the party's task "was to make revolution against the Romanov monarchy and to vet the morality of comrades only when and in so far as their actions affected the implementation of the task".[7] The subsequent controversy divided the party, and has been described as "one of the many personal clashes which came to define the ethical distinctions" between the Bolshevik and Menshevik factions after 1903.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

    I think this is fundamentally different. First, Lenin put him on risky assignments and he eventually was the first person to die for the Bolsheviks, this seemingly escalated after the affair. Second, the moral situation is very different now in America in comparison to 1899-1905 Russia. Third, Lenin described it as "not a party affair" because these two people were not national decision makers for the party. And finally, the quote:

    "was to make revolution against the Romanov monarchy and to vet the morality of comrades only when and in so far as their actions affected the implementation of the task

    Is very different in the modern day when the majority of Americans on the left disdain the sexual predators in office and women have many more rights than in 1899 Russia. If you want to meet the base you must root them out. Also, I sincerely doubt Eugene was as important for the PSL as Bauman was to the Bolsheviks, the Bolsheviks had Bauman smuggling tools into prisons for breakouts (see Memories of Lenin by Krupskaya) and had him armed to kill Tsarists. The PSL is not capable of doing such a thing, random street gangs are far more capable.

    Lenin also had an edgelord streak. He commented on two old communists killing themselves as good because if you are no longer useful to the party you may as well die. He could've just been in favor of euthanasia when the person consents, but he loved being edgy and had to make a quip.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 18 hours ago (6 children)

    Reposting what I've said from another pizzle post

    https://hexbear.net/comment/7448695

    I'll also point out that the Bolsheviks at the time of the Bauman affair were operating as an underground, clandestine and illegal political organization that operated both inside and outside the tsarist empire. That is directly contrary to the current status of the Communist movements in the u.s who operate as open public and legal political organizations. We have to understand that at different phases of agitation necessitate different standards of operation.

    If we were to take Lenin's core belief of revolution and the party over all, then we have to adjudicate what what may have been calculated in lenin's time as something that did not affect the implementation of the task to building the revolution, then in turn today with completely inverse material conditions we have to infer that this event does affect the task of building the revolution.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 17 hours ago (5 children)

    Damn, Bauman sounded like an awful person how he treated that woman. Would the refusal to sanction/expel him not have had a demoralizing effect on you?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 17 hours ago (4 children)

    Yes. If I was a Bolshevik in the RSDLP I would genuinely be sick to my stomach. I would still follow the will of the party and the central committee because I am committed to building the Party and the Revolution no matter the cost because that is exactly what it means to be a Bolshevik.

    I would be completely paralyzed if it was decision. I don't have the strength of heart, the strength of will, nor the wisdom to find the correct path like Lenin.

    But I am not Lenin, nor am I in the RSDLP(B) nor am I a member of pizzle so I thankful am for once in my life outside of the whole shitshow. I can however observe and take lessons to suggest to my people and anyone else willing to listen.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 13 hours ago (3 children)

    I mean, we don't know how things would have played out if Bauman had been ejected. I think it's not very rigorous to look back and say all Lenin's decisions were right because they preceded to a successful revolution. Certainly there's a tension between second guessing history and unquestioning faith in our heroes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

    Bauman was later beaten to death with a steel pipe by a Tsarist monarchist in the aftermath of the first Russian Revolution of 1905 as both the far right and revolutionary left begun skirmishing in the streets of Moscow. His death made him a martyr that would help build the Moscow Soviet and solidified the Bolshevik's hold in the city. By the standard of Bolshevik ethics, being the radical teleological and historicist worldview (historical materialism) hitched to the party goal of building and succeeding the Russian Revolution, Lenin made the correct decision to retain an excellent tool for achieving the goal of the Party. You have to understand that the Bolsheviks operated on what we westerners consider a completely alien moral system. If we were to resurrect any of the old guard, they'd outright dismiss entertaining the question of "what if bauman was ejected" as menshevik idealism purely because concrete material reality of what occurred is the ultimate judge of correctness. Lets examine deeper into this decision and the attempt to understand the decision process behind it.

    Lenin in the period of fall 1902 to the spring of 1903 lived in a quite tumultuous world. The Boxer Rebellion had occurred a few years prior and was squashed by the Imperialist powers that had sliced the wealth of Qing China amongst themselves, Tsarist Russia being one of the players who took the rebellion as an opportunity to move its armies into Manchuria, present day North-East China, and the Empire at this point in time attempting to solidify its hold on Manchuria while slowly trying to worm its way into Korea - the economic domain of the quietly growing Imperial Japan - as well as completing the great trans-siberian railway that would connect the Tsar's lands from the Baltic Sea to the Pacific Ocean (more or less). The Empire itself was in the throes of transforming from a backwards feudalistic economic mode of production to the modern capitalist system with the aid of foreign finance capital and domestic lordlings or venture capitalists. This of course brings the same economic hardships that was seen in the industrial revolution in Marx's time a few generations back in England, France, Germany, and the rest of western Europe. Peasants in the Commons being thrown to the cities to be transformed into proletarians and used as fuel and grease for the factories. Socialists of all flavors flowing amongst the exploited workers and building class consciousness among them. In fact every year since the Boxer Rebellion in 1900 has been a busy year for Lenin and the Bolsheviks both in Exile and in the Field as every year since has had sparks of labor uprisings and strikes both spontaneously or lead by the Bolsheviks in their respective regional cells. Quoting the book on the history of the Party

    A May Day strike at the Obukhov munitions plant in St. Petersburg in 1901 resulted in a bloody encounter between the workers and troops. The only weapons the workers could oppose to the armed forces of the tsar were stones and lumps of iron. The stubborn resistance of the workers was broken. This was followed by savage reprisals: about 800 workers were arrested, and many were cast into prison or condemned to penal servitude and exile. But the heroic "Obukhov defence" made a profound impression on the workers of Russia and called forth a wave of sympathy among them.

    In March 1902 big strikes and a demonstration of workers took place in Batum, organized by the Batum Social-Democratic Committee. The Batum demonstration stirred up the workers and peasants of Transcaucasia.

    In 1902 a big strike broke out in Rostov-on-Don as well. The first to come out were the railwaymen, who were soon joined by the workers of many factories. The strike agitated all the workers. As many as 30,000 would gather at meetings held outside the city limits on several successive days. At these meetings Social-Democratic proclamations were read aloud and speakers addressed the workers. The police and the Cossacks were powerless to disperse these meetings, attended as they were by many thousands. When several workers were killed by the police, a huge procession of working people attended their funeral on the following day. Only by summoning troops from surrounding cities was the tsarist government able to suppress the strike. The struggle of the Rostov workers was led by the Don Committee of the R.S.D.L.P.

    As you can gather, Lenin was very busy. The party that existed in Tsarist Russia was stretched by leagues and the agents at Lenin's disposal were too few for the ground that was needed to be covered. Every single cadre that acted as an agent of the central committee was a professional Revolutionary who professed of their own free will to rationally subordinate themselves to the party. To maintaining iron discipline to execute the Party's orders without question, to abandon family, to face death without hesitation. To live an ascetic life without property, stable employment, legal identity as needed, and subsist off of the allowance of the Party as needed in order to freely move where the Party needs them. To internalize and embody Bolshevik partiinost and understand that the Party is an instrument of history - Not a group of men and women with opinions contrary to the status quo but the embodiment of proletarian class consciousness. To oppose the Party is to oppose the working class; to oppose the working class is to oppose history itself. - and that they themself are a cell, filled with scientific consciousness mediated by Marxist theory, within the party and of the party thus must embody and act upon the party line to accomplish the Party's primary goal of the liberation of the working class. To cultivate to their best ability the skillset of Revolutionary Conspiracy, ranging from printing, cryptography, armed combat, agitation, forgery, administration, labor organization, criminal actions, etc. These cadre agents are people that operate miles and countries away from Lenin and the other members of the Central Committee, expected to operate autonomously from the party yet be the very face of the party enacting its very will. These kinds of dedicated people are few and far between, and even having an agent that can embody a fraction of these criterion and be trusted to do the will of the party are very valuable gameboard pieces. We have to assume with the scarce knowledge we currently have on Bauman and his life that over the course of his revolutionary career up to this point he had shown the Central Committee and Lenin skill, competence, results and loyalty to a significant degree that expelling him for his personal indiscretions and later horrific behavior would've costed the party more greatly in its operational programs than it did retaining him and suffering the backlash from the questionable morality of the party for protecting a wretched man as him.

    My personal theory on why Lenin did so is as follows with the questions he probably asked and answered himself: Who or what group demanded the expelling of this agent? Which class and which political groups benefitted by the expelling of this agent? What precedent would be set by expelling this agent? Does expelling this agent help build the revolutionary movement to overthrow the Tsar and begin the Communist Revolution?

    Later in the summer of this year of 1903, the Second Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party and the great split between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks was to occur, and two of the future leading voices of the Mensheviks, Julius Martov and Pavel Axelrod respectively, were the two most outspoken voices calling for the expulsion of Bauman. Without getting too far into the weeds of history, the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks had different visions for what a revolutionary political party should be and for Martov and Axelrod who desired a mass party instead of a vanguard party did not see the same way as Lenin did for the necessity of professional revolutionaries and believed the RSDLP would have a net gain expelling him over retaining him. The Bauman affair was a footnote to the developing ideological differences between the two factions ultimately but did contribute to the split at the congress.

    To Lenin, it was obvious that the Tsar and the Capitalists would ultimately benefit from expelling Bauman as it would prove that they could utilize moral outrage to pressure the RSDLP into cutting off ugly portions of itself to conform to their bourgeois morality as well as defang the Party of capable revolutionary agents fomenting revolution across the Empire.

    And the Precedent I would guess Lenin saw that would be set was what was previously mentioned that by showing that external moral tribunals could hold power over the party, be that liberal public opinion, bourgeois law, etc. it would fatally compromise the party's autonomy and its ability to make decisions based solely on revolutionary expediency towards its goals.

    Ultimately, these lines of thought would lead to the conclusion that expelling Bauman would ultimately be an action that hinders the movement to overthrow the Tsar and launch the Revolution. Which leads me back to my earlier statement that I wouldn't want to be in Lenin's position making such a decision because I recognize I still have significant bourgeois baggage that would hinder me from making any such cold analytical decisions in finding the correct path for the Revolution.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 hour ago

    From that perspective, wouldn't Bauman have been judged to be undisciplined and lacking in character expected of a communist? Also, thanks for the history (genuinely), but to bring this back to the situation with PSL, what is the lesson?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 6 hours ago*

    also some sources I found while poking around the archives

    DRAFT DISSENTING OPINION IN THE CASE OF N.E. BAUMAN 1 No later than October 4 (17), 1902.

    V.I. Lenin's draft with revisions by G.V. Plekhanov

    Having familiarized ourselves with the most important documents presented by 1* comrade Mitrov, and having taken part in several meetings of the board (consisting of 5 members of the editorial board and 2 members of the administration), we, the undersigned 2 * members of the 3 * editorial board, have come to the conclusion that we 4* must submit a dissenting opinion on this 5 * issue.

    We find that the case raised by Comrade Mitrov is a purely personal matter, arising under entirely exceptional circumstances. It cannot and, in our firm conviction, should not be examined by any revolutionary organization whatsoever. In particular, we, for our part, see at the present time absolutely no grounds for bringing charges of any morally reprehensible action or behavior against N.E. Bauman, a member of the Russian Iskra organization .

    We are communicating this dissenting opinion for now only to all members of the editorial board and administration of League 15 * and N.E. Bauman.

    Signatures 16 *

    Resolution by L. Martov

    Resolution by Yuliy Osipovich], which we also adopted: “In view of the disagreements that emerged at the meeting regarding the very nature of the matter proposed for discussion, the editorial board and administration did not consider it possible to discuss it.”

    Adopted on 17.X.02

    Fund 2, on. 1, d. 851 - autographs.

    1 * "the most important... presented" - rewritten by V.I. Lenin from: "documents presented".

    2 * "we, the undersigned..." - rewritten by V.I. Lenin from: "the three undersigned..."

    3 * Remains uncorrected.

    4 * "we" is written by V.I. Lenin above the crossed-out "they"

    5 * “given” - written by V.I. Lenin based on the word: “raised”.

    6 * "raised" is written by V.I. Lenin above the crossed-out "put forward"

    7 * “there is” — written by V.I. Lenin above the crossed-out “is”.

    8 * “personal... arising” - written by V.I. Lenin from the rewritten: “personal matter, arising”

    9 * “It” was crossed out by G.V. Plekhanov and above it was written: “This is a personal matter.”

    10 * “absolutely none” - crossed out by G.V. Plekhanov and written above them: “sufficient”.

    11 * “to initiate proceedings against” — written by V.I. Lenin instead of the crossed out: “to accuse the goods [looking for]”.

    12 * Written by V.I. Lenin above the crossed-out line: “ours.”

    13 * Further, V.I. Lenin crossed out: “and which one.”

    14 * “whatever... behavior” - crossed out by G.V. Plekhanov and written above them: “immoral act”.

    15 * Foreign League of Russian Revolutionary Social Democracy

    16 * No signatures

    It was not possible to determine what immoral act V.I. Mitrov accused N.E. Bauman of. It is known that in September 1902, Bauman met with V.I. Lenin after his successful escape from Lukyanovka Prison in Kiev, among ten other Social Democrats. Prior to this, Bauman had lived in Berlin.

    The discussion of the issue took place at a meeting of the editorial board of the Iskra newspaper in London. Written by V. I. Lenin with corrections by G. V. Plekhanov. https://web.archive.org/web/20160127194100/http://leninism.su/works/99-v-i-lenin-neizvestnye-dokumenty-1891-1922/3615-dokumenty-1902-1905-gg.html

    A people's tragedy : the Russian Revolution 1891-1924 by Orlando Figes https://archive.org/details/peoplestragedyru0000fige_c3c5/mode/2up

    https://archive.org/details/leninpoliticalli02serv_0/mode/2up

    Lenin, a political life vol 2 by Service, Robert

    https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch02.htm

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (4 children)

    So many people in this thread acting like standing up against SA is anti communist or some bs.

    Where? This post doesn't seem to be taking any sort of stance against SA, did you read the content of it? Lots of people assuming it does for some reason tho...

    Edit: kinda wanna delete this because of how fucked this has gotten since I made this comment. I hate all of this

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 19 hours ago (3 children)

    This post is a response to said running cover for the Blake family cult that makes up a disproportionate number of leadership positions. PSL is washed we need to accept that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 18 hours ago* (2 children)

    Right so like I said, it doesn't take any stance wrt SA. Not a single mention of that, though it does mention Walter Smolarek favorably who is trying to split the party in a deeply unserious manner. Who served on the central committee himself while conspiring to split the party rather than leaving, and did so not because of a disagreement over the way the party was led or anything to do with misconduct but instead supposedly because he wants to do a different kind of work than what the PSL is committed to (building the base vs building socialist consciousness iirc). Who seems to have pressured Marissa to wait to publish her experience with SA in the party until it was most beneficial for him and his goals.

    For the love of our common goals comrade, please read rather than bandwagoning, and do so critically. Our comrades don't deserve to be accused of claiming that standing up against SA is anticommunist or other such bullshit when they are clearly not.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 18 hours ago (1 child)

    It doesn't change the fact their leadership has repeatedly covered for abusers and fought to protect leadership from accountability. This article may not be about that but is representative of the same core issue that their leadership clique views itself above reproach. This is unacceptable.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

    Why are you even responding to me? You take a vaguely dismissive position in response to me noticing a problem with how we are discussing and engaging with this and then try to railroad the conversation away from the point I was making.

    Also did you even read the article yet? It isn't about that either, it's about a specific Branch's drama. It attempts to extrapolate beyond that but offers no evidence beyond referencing a document by an obvious wrecker who did engage in SA coverup.

  • source
  • parent