Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 17:38:58 +0000 From: Joćo Paulo Monteiro <jpmonteiro-AT-mail.telepac.pt> Subject: M-G: Re: M-I: The Neo-Stalinist, etc., etc. Robert Malecki wrote: > > > The above is very funny. I think their should be a list for women here. And > we all have our problems on the personal level. Mine is and 11 year old that > wants to ride on the snow mobile 24 hours a day and a puppy that is pissing > and sghitting everywhere at present. > Very funny indeed. But this is the list for women. I think your views could be slightly outdated there, Bob. Besides, its in the 'Transitional Program', point 20: "place for labouring women etc., etc." Take care. You could be engaged in a important deviation there. Uh, what a menshevik smell. > >No revolutionary development came out of WW2. Apparently, some "theory" > >guaranteed it would but it just didn't show up. Some of you are still > >trying to force the facts back into the theory. That's why so much of > >your literature is just useless trash. > > What? How about China? Vietnam? North Korea? These being deformed > revolutions naturally and the weakest link in the imperialist chain at the > end of the war. China came in 49 despite the Stalinists, Korea a little > latter on, and Vietnam it took 30 or so more years because of the > Stalinists. But to say that there was NO revolutionary development is just > ridiculous. In fact East Europe in a sense was a revolution. A revolution in > the sense that the Red Army occupied half of it! Naturally the reason that > it did not go any futher then this must be blamed not on the assumption that > this was not a period of wars and revolutions-but the bankruptcy of the > Stalinist leadership... > Let me try to put one thing through your head (whithout much hope): All of the revolutionary upheavels that we've had so far had nothing to do with capitalism having naturally reached the end of its days. As far as we know, capitalism can have yet some inner fuel to prevent its contradictions to reach explosive levels. The revolutions that we've had had nothing to do with that. They had to do, at best, with the birth pains of bourgeois society itself, or, still more backward, with some processes of spontaneous "feudal" decomposition. It's only very, very recently that we can say that capitalism reigns supreme the world over and has vanquished all the remains of precedent modes of production. Aparently, Marx came a little too soon. He could have been writing 'Capital' (with a different style and new insights, of course) in this precise moment. Now is the time when the clock is starting to count for capitalism's overthrow. So far, it has only been expanding. Revolutions only marginaly have to do with wars. The most these can do is have some detonator effect, which in some cases can be indeed decisive. But this effect only works on societies that are ripe for it, with their contradictions well exposed and reaching a decisive turning point. So far, this has only hapened in societies in transit to capitalism and not from it. These revolutions (due to various factors, including the fragility and renown cowardice of late coming bourgeoisies) can have borrowed marxist colours but that couldn't, by itself, made them historicaly anti-capitalist. On the other hand, the more mature capitalist societies have stood two world wars without any visible shake on their foundations. Now is the time for start looking at symptoms of capitalist senility. And we are lucky enough to know where to look for them: downfall of the rate of profit, institutional obstacles on the development of the means of production. These appear to be at work. We are entering a structural crisis. Is this it? We can't be sure. We'll have to reach for it and fight. Gather all our streghts and go to the assault. If we can't break through yet, then capitalism must still have another breath and it befalls on our sons or grand-sons to bury it. It can't be too far away. I can see signs (I repeat - signs, that's all) of capitalist senescence. What I can't see yet, and should be appearing, is the rising of the army of its grave diggers. I think that's what we should be taking care right now. But I guess you will say that all we need is Trotsky's theories, dialecticaly intertwined with trotskyist sectlets to do the job. For whoever is interested in the broad picture given above, I can recomend o good book, with which I have many important divergences - Claude Bitot's 'Le communisme n'a pas encore commencé'. You can order it from: Spartacus, 8, impasse Crozatier, 75012 Paris. It will cost you 130 french franks, plus postage. Another good work is Tom Thomas' 'A propos des révolutions du XX=E8me si=E8cle ou le detour irlandais'. You can order it from the author itself: 83, rue de Tolbiac, 75013 Paris. With a bit a luck (I had it), he will send you it for nothing. Strange guy. He aparently doesn't leave home, receives no-one and has the most capricious moods. You'll have to read some french but I guarantee it's worth the effort. These are the kind of works who are keeping marxism alive, not sectarian chewing-gum or academic amenities. > > > >Yes, keynesianism was all that and a lot more and it was a big success > >at it all. > >Except, of course, like all things, it didn't last forever. I think this > >is self-evident and I don't need to enter into technicalities. Trotsky > >said capitalism had no way out but fascism. He was damn wrong again. > >Capitalism still had that on its sleeve. It can still have other stuff > >right now. You're again brushing away facts that don't fit in you're > >established wisdom. That's why this here is so devaluated these days. > >Keep on with it. > > This stuff is just stupid. And you are ignoring the fact that you are taking > the post war boom as the "only" example of your so called success of Keynes. > It is so empirical and false and so typical new leftist in that you think > the whole world turns around the spoiled brat generation who was lucky > enough to grow up and be old in this period. Now you are trying to justify > this shit into some permanant law of god! > Now I know what you mean by "empirical" (it kept apearing in your posts). It's all facts that just don't fit in Trotsky's theory. They are, therefore, of no use to you and merelly "empirical" trash to be thrown away. Oh, but keynesianism and post-war boom are just such a huge, enormous fact. You cannot hide it, Bob. Get real and don't lose your temper. > > > >I mantain what I've said - which you not always listen carefully. > >Historical fascism (there were of course different brands of it) was > >suported by a reaccionary bloc of classes that are not all still there. > >Of course, given a sharpening of class struggle, the bourgeoisie will > >resort to any other kind of muscular regime - and there have been many > >in its history. > > Another snowjob Joao. No Hitler will not rise from the grave! But the facist > solution by capitalism which is always ultimately directed at disarming a > pre-revolutionary situation or a revolutionary situation will be very *real* > in the future! > I don't say it won't be real. Just not the exact ressurection of fascism. But this is mostly just a therminological matter that will probably have a reduced political importance. Stuff for the historians. > >This is just too insane. Let me try to put it back up again. The > >contraditions of capitalism will generate pressure for its overthrow. > >The party is an organized expression of that pressure. Good tactics and > >wise leadership can help it have success... if the pressure mantains > >itself stable and rising. If not - adios amigo. > >You can put all your books on the shelves again. > > The contradictions of capitalism will create the conditions for its > overthrow yes! But it will not disappear by it self . It must be smashed by > the proletariat led of a Bolshevik Party Internationally. And I have a > question for you J0a0. Is the above you attempt to formulate the mini-maxi > stuff or is it just straight out Bernsteinism? > I'm not buying that Mini-maxi stuff very willingly, remember? Read again. The rest here is just a provocative diversion manoeuvre on your part. > >I didn't say immediately. This will take decades, maybe more than a > >century to complete itself. Combined and uneven development are indeed > >problems we must face. There are others: unequal exchange, profit > >repatriation, financial drainage. Those are the mechanisms of > >imperialism who shape the world as we know it. That's why the hutus take > >on the tutsis, the serbs take on the muslins, the liberians anything > >that moves and the MRTA makes hostages to the disgust of Vargas Llosa. > >We are facing Chaos. And it is the workings of the law of value > >operating on a global scale. > > Not really Joao! The decades stuff is pretty difficult to answer. It depends > a lot on what happens. But we have just gone through a period of decades of > peaceful-coexistence and now things are once again beginning to heat up > everywhere. Been reading the newspapers lately Joao. From Korea to Sweden, > from Israel to Germany, From Greece to the French Truckers etc. But what > bothers me Joao is that you my "socialist" friend see the "chaos" where > communists-Bolshevik Leninists see the possibilities! > There you go calling me names again. Chaos is what world capitalist rule means for people on the outer periphery and many other parts too. Sure, there are lots of possibilities there. I'm just not in a mood for jumping with joy right now. > >Our present task must be create economic organisms of solidarity among > >workers to face the big bosses and the multinationals. From there we > >will be able to create a revolutionary party. A party of the > >revolutionary workers of the world. This party will not conspire to make > >a revolution in Peru and perhaps another in Indonesia next year. We can > >do nothing with these countries, once isolated. This party will aim at > >overthrowing capitalism on the whole world, which can only be done by > >striking decisively at all the core capitalist countries, even if this > >is achieved by an enveloping movement. The point is that the move must > >be coordinated and have strategic consistency. This is what I call world > >revolution. We are still very far from it. But it's the only thing worth > >considering. > > The above reminds me of somebody ridding the A-train to work each morning. > Ho Hum- now some coffee-a bisquit and the latest on evolution! Not the > explosive character of the epoch we are living in and the possibilities of > the Communist to intervene in this and change the course of history. So > don't choke on you coffee and bisquit Joao. And take out a good pension > insurance because with your plan for revolution if successful will get you a > place in a nice warm old people's home! > Your imagination is charming but, actualy, I go to my job on foot. Read my reply to Bedggood on what I think are revolutionary duties and their relation with this question of ripe/not ripe. Or read Marx on the Paris Commune. > >You can't take a country, hold it, and wait to spread the revolution > >from there later. You would be dead as a workers state very soon. The > >russian revolution stood some 3-4 years of real workers power, all of > >them ruinous war years. After that it was defeated, because it was > >unable (had no material and human resources to) create a real workers > >state built anew. All it had was the old czarist state on new hands. The > >old crept in very rapidly. Even when the red army was heroicaly fighting > >the whites and the imperialist intervention, the old was rapidly taking > >hold in the russian state. Men are fragile stuff. They mold themselves > >in whatever established strutures they come to rest upon. Mere stated > >revolutionary will is impotent against that. And that's what Trotsky > >stands for - all revolutionary will, crippled, bankruped, sanctified > >theories and no real transformation of the state and the power > >structures throughout society at large. Pure jacobin voluntarism. We > >will just have to believe his word that he is there holding power in the > >old bourgeois state (under some kind of exceptional regime) in name of > >the workers. His word will fade away and things will just find ways of > >persisting on being the same - capitalist exploitation. > > Trotsky a "Jacobkin"?. Well- in fact you are doing here what the state > capitalists have always been doing. A plague on both your houses. The > politics of sitting on the fence while gigantic battles are taking place. > > I don't know this plague business, but I'm developing a stronger and stronger will to make one on you Bob. > >The only hope is world revolution. Burn down the bourgeois state all > >over and build an entirely new one - the world dictatorship of the > >proletariat. > > Ah. Somethin we agree on. But then you have to have a program and a party > which can do this Internationally and not just wait around or at best try to > put a little pressure on from below as you recommend. > O.K., Bob. I agree with you too here. > > > >I do defend the right of the proletariat to have guns. And I certainly > >have no ilusions as to, if we are to go somewhere, they'll have to be > >used at some point. Good enough? > > Yes! That is very good at least on paper! > I haven't much practice, as yet. But I'll shoot, yes, if necessary. If Fred Engels did it, why shoudn't I. I'm not any more precious than he was. > >Against imperialism, I'll defend almost anything really. I mean, I > >defended Saddam Hussein. Didn't you? > > Naturally i defended Irak and the Kurds from imperialism, but without giving > one bit of political support to any of these people who claim to be their > political leaders. Now > What is this "imperialism" then you would defend almost anything really? > Political support, on this sense, I'll give it only to Cuba presently, with many, many reservations naturally. Salutes, Jo=E3o Paulo --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005