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 ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005