Special Announcement

We are inviting responses and comments about the Badiou polemic ("Alain Badiou's "Politics of Emancipation": A Communism Locked Within the Confines of the Bourgeois World).

Please send your comments to editors@demarcations-journal.org and we will post them online shortly.

— The Editors

Why Demarcations? Why Now?

Demarcations: A Journal of Communist Theory and Polemic seeks to set forth, defend, and further advance the theoretical framework for the beginning of a new stage of communist revolution in the contemporary world. This journal will promote the perspectives of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA.

Without revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary movement. Without drawing sharp dividing lines between communism as a living, critical, and developing science serving the emancipation of humanity, on the one hand, and other perspectives, paths, and programs that cannot lead to emancipation, on the other—whether openly reformist or claiming the mantle or moniker of "communism"—without making such demarcations, it will not be possible to achieve the requisite understanding and clarity to radically change the world. Demarcations will contribute to achieving that clarity.

In the wrangling spirit of Marxism, Demarcations will also delve into questions and challenges posed by major changes in the world today. The last quarter-century has seen intensified globalization, growing urbanization and shantytown-ization in the Third World, the rise of religious fundamentalism, shifting alignments in the world imperialist system, and the acceleration of environmental degradation. Demarcations will examine such changes, the discourses that have grown up in connection with them, and the ideological, political, and strategic implications of such developments for communist revolution. Demarcations will also undertake theoretical explorations of issues of art, science, and culture.

Demarcations makes its appearance at a particular historical juncture in the communist project, one best characterized as the "end of a stage, the beginning of a new stage."

The first wave of socialist revolutions and societies began with the short-lived Paris Commune of 1871, the first attempt to overthrow and replace bourgeois rule. It took a leap with the October Revolution in Russia in 1917, and went further and took yet another leap with the Chinese revolution of 1949, in particular the Cultural Revolution of 1966-1976. This first wave came to an end in 1976 with the overthrow of proletarian power and restoration of capitalist rule in China.

This first wave of socialist societies in the Soviet Union (1917-1956) and China (1949-1976) constituted an unprecedented and inspiring breakthrough in liberation for humanity. At the same time, and not surprisingly, this first wave was secondarily marked by shortcomings and mistakes; and while not the cause of capitalist restoration in the Soviet Union and China, these shortcomings did nonetheless play a role in the defeats of these revolutions.

With the end of this first stage, communists have been confronted with the objective responsibility of scientifically summing up the lessons and legacy of these revolutions and the rich experience of exercising state power towards the transition to communism, in order to forge the theoretical framework for going forward.

Bob Avakian, Chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA, has risen to that challenge and in the process qualitatively advanced communist theory. He has developed a theoretical framework for the new stage of communist revolutions, a new synthesis. This new synthesis is not a pasting-together of the "best of the previous experience" and the criticisms of these experiences. Rather, as the Manifesto from the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA, Communism: The Beginning of A New Stage puts it, the new synthesis "builds on all that has gone before, theoretically and practically, drawing the positive and negative lessons from this, and raising this to a new, higher level of synthesis."

In terms of philosophy and method, the new synthesis establishes communism even more fully and firmly on a scientific foundation. It deepens understanding of the material basis for internationalism and why, in an ultimate and overall sense, the world arena is most decisive, even in terms of revolution in a particular country. On the character of the dictatorship of the proletariat, Avakian has brought forward a model of socialism as a vibrant and dynamic society—characterized by great ferment, dissent, experimentation, and initiative—that is also a revolutionary transition to communism. The new synthesis also comprehends a breakthrough in the strategic approach to revolution in today's world, in particular an orientation for making revolution in the imperialist countries such as the U.S. For more, go to bobavakian.net.

As the Manifesto, Communism: The Beginning of A New Stage, points out, Bob Avakian's new synthesis objectively stands in opposition to two seemingly alternate but in fact mirror-opposite conceptions of communism that, among those who consider themselves, or at one time considered themselves, to be communists, have emerged in response to the defeat of the first wave.

In a nutshell, the first conception buys into the bourgeois verdict that the socialist societies in the Soviet Union and China in the 20th century were fundamentally flawed and oppressive—marked by the "totalitarian," "bureaucratic," and undemocratic "dictatorship of the party." Central to this conception is the rejection of what some of its adherents term the "party-state" framework, that is, the need to seize state power and establish the dictatorship of the proletariat as the transition to communism, and the need for the leadership of the vanguard party through this process.

Intertwined with this negative appraisal of the historical experience of the dictatorship of the proletariat is the supposition that revolution and the actual seizure of state power are no longer possible. This is accompanied by a rejection, sometimes expressly so and sometimes thinly lacquered with Marxist rhetoric, of the philosophy of dialectical materialism and of historical materialism (the scientific understanding of the development and transformation of human society based on the application of materialist dialectics). In their stead is the wholesale adoption of pragmatism and empiricism, the worship of bourgeois democracy, either explicitly or in the form of "new" thinking, that blunts the antagonistic contradiction of the masses with the capitalist-imperialist or dependent neocolonial state and affords the state "agency," unmoored and severed from the underlying production relations of society. This ends up, ultimately, in the advocacy of all manner of economism and reformism.

The second conception clings uncritically, in a quasi-religious way, to previous socialist experience—thus ranging itself against a scientific approach to historical summation of the communist project and to the further advance of the communist project in making revolution and emancipating humanity.

As the Manifesto from the RCP, USA, further points out, both of these conceptions share significant features. These include pragmatism in place of science; a profound lack of engagement with and appreciation for "Mao Tsetung's path-breaking analysis concerning the danger of and basis for capitalist restoration in socialist society... [and] with what principles and objectives Mao initiated and led this Cultural Revolution." Further, both of these conceptions hold in common a retreat to the past, either to the previous stage of socialist revolution, or even further back to the era of bourgeois revolution and its principles, "to what are in essence 18th century theories of (bourgeois) democracy, in the guise, or in the name, of '21st-century communism...'"

The Manifesto concludes this discussion with the following call:

It is only by rupturing with these erroneous tendencies, and deeply engaging with and becoming more firmly grounded in the viewpoint, methods, and principles of communism, as they have been developed up to this point (and must be continually developed further), that communists can rise to the great responsibility and challenge of indeed being a vanguard of the future, and not consign themselves to remaining, or degenerating into, a residue of the past, and in so doing betray the masses of people throughout the world for whom the communist revolution represents the only road out of the madness and horror of the present world and toward a world truly worth living in.

Demarcations is taking up this call and challenge to be part of the vanguard of the future.

To put it concisely, Demarcations is the polemical engagement of the new synthesis with other conceptions and approaches to the "problem" of the oppression and exploitation of world humanity...and its solution, to "what is to be done" to make revolution and emancipate humanity. Through articles and polemics, as well as through moderated debates and exchanges, Demarcations aims to assist those seeking a better world to compare and contrast various theoretical perspectives and programs and to draw a broader audience into a deeper understanding of and engagement with communism, as a living and developing science, and its most advanced expression in the new synthesis.

It is fitting that the inaugural issue of Demarcations opens with an extensive original polemic against the political philosophy and thought of Alain Badiou. Badiou's work, which is attracting growing interest, is one important expression of what has been described here as the retreat to the 18th century under the umbrella of rescuing "the communist hypothesis."

In keeping with the theme of communism at a crossroads, and the need for clear demarcations between a communist line and method and a revisionist one, this issue also includes an introduction, first published in Revolution newspaper, to a sharp polemical exchange between the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA (RCP, USA) and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) (CPN[M]) between October 2005 and November 2008.

New discoveries and theories in physics are prompting some to question the philosophical basis of Marxism, with important implications for the struggle for revolution—parallel in some ways to the phenomenon Lenin confronted in the early 20th century. How to understand these advances in physics, particularly in relation to philosophy? What is a communist, vs. a revisionist, exploration of the implications of these discoveries for the further development of dialectical materialism? In line with the themes and purpose of this journal, this issue of Demarcations is publishing a recent essay by Bob Avakian entitled "'Crises in Physics,' Crises in Philosophy and Politics."

Future issues of Demarcations will interrogate various political and theoretical trends exerting influence in the current conjuncture. Deep-going communist analysis is called for of the populist-nationalist regimes and outlooks of Hugo Chavez, Lula, and Evo Morales in Latin America; of the political philosophy and political economy of thinkers like Toni Negri and Michael Hardt; of the perspectives on Marxism of philosophers such as Slavoj Zizek; and of the political strategies advanced by influential anti-globalization thinkers and activists. There is a need for critical explorations of the work of previous generations of Marxists, like Antonio Gramsci. All of this falls within the purview of Demarcations.

Demarcations takes to heart Bob Avakian's injunction that "transformation goes through a lot of different 'channels,' and is not tied in a positivist or reductionist or linear way to however the main social contradictions are posing themselves at a given time." He is underscoring the relative autonomy and initiative of the superstructure; and the journal plans over time, as mentioned earlier, to feature articles on art, debates on communist ethics and values, and science.

Demarcations welcomes comments from readers and invites proposals for submissions within the broad mission outlined above.