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 I think your views could be slightly outdated there, Bob.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 ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005