File spoon-archives/aut-op-sy.archive/aut-op-sy_1997/aut-op-sy.9704, message 38


Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 16:49:05 -0400
From: LPA <blissett-AT-unpopular.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: economics of communist societies


>At 07.03 29/04/97 -0400, a self calling Luther Blissett (doesn't he know
>that the LBs decided one month ago to sign Blissettt (with 3 t)? wrote.
>>
>> I am confused. In correspondence with the CWO, they rather patronisingly
>>suggested that my rejection of Bolshevism was because I had "swallowed hook
>>line and sinker the bourgeoise's message of nasty organisation and nasty
>>bolsheviks" yet here Jock is describing the the GIK as revolutionaries. I
>>am presently working on an electronic version of the GIK's "Theses on
>>Bolshevism" which was also published as "The Bourgeois Role of Bolshevism".
>>I thought that CWO was one of those proto-party organisations that prided
>>itself on its political homogenity.
>>
>>Please clarify
>>
>>Luther Blissett
>
>The CWO will reply if they think it worths. I state just a note:
>one thing is a revolutionary group which mistaked (or mistake); o completely
>different thing is the current that after more than half a century insist on
>the mistake.
>For example: there is a descending parabola amongst Trotsky trotskism and
>trotskists, as amongst GIK, councilism and modern councilists -something else.
>Ciao
>m.jr

Your examples are contradictory. Trotsky abandonned communism in favour of
bolshevism. His ideological off-spring did not perpetuate his "mistakes"
but promoted reaction. Eg they actively partcipated in supporting the 2nd
World War. There is no "descending parabola". This is an all together case
from  your suggested heritage of GIK, councilism, modern councilists. What
this last term remains unclear - i.e Paul Cardan could be classed as a
'modern councilist' but his sorry trajectory came from Trotskyism, and like
so many other Trotskyists it ended up in outright reaction supporting
military invasion of the USSR having 'theorised' that there was no class
dynamic there.
        As regards the GIK, their text was written to correct a mistake
i.e. the previous recognition of the Bolsheviks as revolutionary
communists. Indeed I find it hard to understand why those whose defence of
the third International ends with the second congress - i.e. that at which
the Bolsheviks stitched it up - want to spend so much time defending
Bolshevism. At least the GIK set out to analyse their error, whereas groups
like C'WO seem to denigrate the Bolsheviks in practice while still
defending their name. I don't know if the Internationalist Communist Party
has a similarly bizarre position.

for communism
Leutha Blissett

http://www.unpopular.demon.co.uk
http://www.dsnet.it/qwerg/blissett/bliss0.htm
http://www.skatta.demon.co.uk




     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005