File spoon-archives/marxism-general.archive/marxism-general_1997/97-01-04.073, message 10


Date: Wed, 1 Jan 1997 09:31:16 +0100 (MET)
From: malecki-AT-algonet.se (Robert Malecki)
Subject: M-G: Re: M-I: The Neo-Stalinist, etc., etc.


Joao wrote;

"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could be slightly outdated there, Bob.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."

Well, maybe! But I think there are only a couple of three women 
here-Zeynep,Sally for example. But I am also for the documents on "Work 
amongst women" from the first congresses of the Third International. This 
includes "special" organisational forms. And on this media it certainly will 
be neccessary if women are going to be able to discuss issues facing poor 
and working class women. So I naturally do not exclude the neccessity of 
special forums here that keeps the boys on the outside.

Joao said

> >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.

Malecki replied;
 > 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...

Joao said
"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.

malecki
First you claimed "No revolutionary development out of WW2" and then after 
my reply you change your story to the above! Not only was Capitalism 
threatened-but overthrown in these countries! Despite the Stalinists. 

joao
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."

Malecki
This is just Bullshit. Read Lenin on imperialism. It has not just been 
expanding. Aren't you forgetting something? Like a couple of World Wars and 
all that stuff?
Not counting all of the numerous civil wars and rebellions. Spain for example.
I that this proves that periods of "wars and revolutions" show quite clearly 
that capitalism can only expand up to a certain point and then a redivision 
of the spoils is neccessary. And this stuff about "feudal" and birth pains. 
Hmmm I think the October revolution quite clearly shows that the era of 
socialist revolutions did arrive quite long ago. The problem was not the 
conditions-they have been both pre revolutionary and revolutionary in 
numerous countries since 1917. The problem was that there was not a mature 
Leninist Communist International with the cadre to stand at the head of 
these events.

Joao writes;
"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."

Malecki-More bullshit! If this was the case then we would not have had the 
revolutions that we have had. In fact we would have had the revolutions in 
the advanced industrial countries which have not been only ripe but over 
ripe and rotten for decades. And to say that the bougeoisie were cowards is 
ridiculous. Not only was there a viscious civil war in Russia where both 
Britain and the Germans took and active side against the new workers 
republic and were defeated-but we have Spain and Franco which shows that 
they were hardly cowards and hardly alone in smashing a revolutionary situation.

Joao
"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.
snip,,

Malecki-Why look for symptoms now. I mean the symptons were their when Lenin 
was alive!  When Communists talk about "war or Revolution" it is because 
once again the contradictions of capitalist-imperialist society have once 
again reached a position where relative peaceful solutions like this last 
period can no longer solve the problems of the capitalists and 
imperialists-but a new redivsion of the spoils must take place. Just like 
WW1 and WW2. What we are seeing now is only the beginning of the 
inter-imperialist jockeying. In fact last night i saw a very interesting 
program on the news about the rise of nationalism in Japan and a definite 
turn towards rearming!
I think you should read less of what they imperialists say and watch what 
they are doing! Or what do you think this NATO move towards the eastern 
Europe is about "senility"? Or why not the inter-imperialist rivilry around 
the Balkins? I mean this general attack on the standards of the workers is 
only the beginning. This stuff can hardly solve their problems. And in fact 
most of the sects outside of the authodox Trotskyists are in fact telling 
the workers a lot of crap about
staying calm and we will reform society or whatever.(In your case being some 
sort of putting pressure on from below) Well the problem here is that they 
nor you believe in the theory of wars and revolutions. And when the guns 
start going off these suckers wind up voting for war credits for their own 
bougeoisies...

Joao;
"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."

OK "empirical" is all the stuff that you claim to be "facts". If the post 
war boom was a huge sucess it was not so much Keynes at all. But the 
destruction wraught by the WW2! It was a temporary political solution at 
best in the face of the military victories of the "red army" and the Chinese 
Revolution which put a good part of the world outside the imperialist 
network for a time. And the big boom is so top down-I mean empirical! coming 
>from you because of the above and because of your historical (in time) 
shortsightedness. What is 50 years and a great success for Keynes according 
to you is dipshit because your great success in fact solved NOTHING! Period!

The only thing it did was to strengthen imperialism not only because of 
Keynes and the Social Democrats -but Stalin and his line of peaceful 
coexistence.Which has led to that this short term "tactic" by the bougeoisie 
is now turning into a capitalist offensive against the working class 
Internationally while at the same time we once again are heading for a new 
imperialist showdown. That is what I mean about you being empirical. Not 
only empirical but stupidly one sided in seeing this stuff at all. My 
original statement which expresses your empirical view is "Poof"..Keynesian 
politics was a huge sucess. Bullshit! Prove this! You keep on saying it and 
the only thing i see is the "welfare states and degenerated workers states 
being dismantled.
Japan rearming, NATO moving in on Russia, The Germans doing very strange 
things in the Balkans, the Swedes leaping on to the imperialist bandwagon 
etc. What success are you talking about. You are talking empirically of the 
top of your head that is what about a very short period in the history of 
this century.

The rest of the stuff i won,t comment on except the "Jacobin stuff. I take 
this back on this list the Trotskyists should be the Jacobins in a sense. I 
mean with all the softies, Neo-Stalinists and Mensheviks.

Happy New Year Joao

Bob Malecki    
--------------------------------------------------------

http://www.kmf.org/malecki/

Read the book! Ha Ha Ha McNamara,
Vietnam-My Bellybutton is my Crystalball!

COCKROACH, a zine for poor and workingclass people
NOW ON LINE
--------------------------------------------------------





     --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005