Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 12:36:38 +0100 (MET)
Subject: M-G: Re: family vs communism




On Thu, 16 Jan 1997, Leslaw Smutek wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> And you still have not replied to my first letter. I am especially 
> interested about the Polish "Meat Ration"...
> 
> Bob Malecki
> 
>         Hi Bob,
> 
>         Sorry for leaving your question so long unanswered - I've read your mes
> sage
> carefully and taken some time to consider certain issues that you've raised.
>         First, some basic things. You wrote, "And to paint up the Eastern block 
> countries as some sort of horror story and especially Poland is just not true. 
> In fact the meat ration in Poland since the war has always been higher than 
> the meat ration in the former Soviet Union".
>         Well, I never painted up the Eastern block countries as "some sort
> of horror story and especially Poland!" Of course not! And fortunately
> not! Peo ple were born here, they grew up and died just like anywhere else
> in the world. They were rid of certain rights, e.g. free speech, trade
> unions, access to free media(i.e. bourgeouis ones), travelling abroad
> (i.e. to the capitalist countrie s), demonstrations, privacy(your home
> could be broken into any time by the Secret Police), true history and the
> like trivia. These things need not be considered important because, in the
> words of Carl Marx, being precedes consciousness (I'm sorry if I've
> rendered the maxim inexactly). Are you trying to imply that the meat
> ration is the decisive factor in establishing whether you live in "some
> sort of horror story" or not? Sorry for being malicious, but we really are
> not at Sotheby's! I know the tragic statistics for the Third World. And
> the question I often ask myself is: whose fault is it? Let me draw your
> att ention to one country: former Rodesia now Zimbabwe. What has happened
> to this once so rich and resourceful country? It seems that once they got
> rid of wretched colonialis ts and started following certain Marxist
> economic solutions, they've managed to drag their own country from the top
> to the bottom of the list in Africa! But this is just off the record, as
> that has hardly anything to do with the topic. 
>         Another thing you wrote - "In fact the Catholic Church wants to
> reintroduce forbidding abortions (If they have not done it already)". The
> right to abortion was granted by the Parliament in November/December 1996.
> The Catholic church naturally opposed it. So did about 10 million people
> in over 3 million petitions which had flooded the Parliament before the
> crucial session. Most petitions were signed by your beloved working class
> members. How about that? Do you smell any menshevik agents among the
> working class who managed to successfully deaden the working class
> instincts of the petition writers? What is more, according to the new
> abortion law, all Polish citizens, even those who oppose the new law, will
> have to pay for the right of every single woman to have an abortion
> because abortions will be "sponsored" by the state budget! I understand
> that there are people who can't see anything wrong about abortion, but it
> does not mean that if they want to introduce such a forbidding law, it has
> to be financed by its opponents as well! Which reminds me of my main point
> - the right of choice.
>         Another thing. You wrote that "For Communists the problem is put
> in freeing people from this medieval institution". If by "this medieval
> institution" you happen to mean the family, then you're simply mistaken,
> as the family, fortunately, has been in existence for more than 500 years. 
>         You also wrote that "the family has always been used by the
> bourgeoisie, the church and the Stalinists to oppress people. To create a
> unit which puts its personal well-being before the well-being of the
> collective whole". I think you have omitted fascism from the list although
> it is not so distant a relative to some extremist leftist movements(
> remember what NSDAP stood for? YES! Nationalsozialistiche Deutsche
> Arbeiterpartei - National and Socialist Workers' Party). But that is
> something trivial and obvious. What makes me more interested in your
> proposition is that all of a sudden you try to exchange the well known for
> the unknown, i.e. the well-being of the family for the well-being of the
> collective whole. It may even sound OK, because it appears to be devoid of
> any selfishness, you can claim to be impartial and interested in the good
> of others. But the point is that you create a being which does not exist!
> There is no such a thing as a collective whole, whereas the family exists
> and can be investigated. I, as a father, know very well what I should do
> in order to provide for my family. I know that my kids need clothes,
> education, certain entertainment, some moral code, and, above all, love
> and guidance, the latter until they are mature enough to get rid of it.
> When I approach the collective whole, I'm in the dark because I know
> nothing. The collective whole is an abstract notion which may fit
> philosophical dissertations but simply does not exist. What is the
> well-being of this collective whole? That it has jobs? Money? Owns
> factories? Is not alienated from their means of production? Isn't
> homeless? Can get rid of wretched capitalists? Has power to rule? I simply
> don't know and I'm afraid you don't know, either. You simply extrapolate
> what you wish it were like and then take it for granted that it must be
> so. The collective whole is a collection of different and various
> characters as well as personalities who have different needs and dreams,
> and who may not even have any. And what then? Will you suggest that such
> people, as anti-collectivist, should undergo some kind of special
> treatment in mental asylums so as to be able to get back to the collective
> as fully valuable units? Or, perhaps, they should be got rid of as enemies
> of the working class and the collective whole? Because I'm afraid that
> you, Marxists, claim to know better what the needs and wants of this
> collective whole are and the task for you is to implant them on to the
> working class. Of course, with you, Marxists, as the avantguard. Was it
> Lenin who said that the working class should be given the leadership in
> the society and that the Party is to enlighten the working class? In case
> working class just fails to grasp their real needs and wants. So, to sum
> up this paragraph, if you maintain that "the bourgeoisie, the church and
> the Stalinists" oppressed people by means of the family, I can agree only
> about the Stalinists. I would also add, hesitatingly though, that a new
> kind of oppression is just about to appear. The oppression of people who
> know much better thatn yourself what is better for you and your fellow
> citizens, who always have ready answers, who would like to provide you
> with Paradise on earth on condition, that is, that you are totally
> subjected to their mode of thinking. Well, NO, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>         These are just a couple of thoughts I've had. Must be finishing
> now. Anyway, this e-mail is already very long. Thank you. Hope to hear
> from you soon. 
>                                                                 Leszek
> Smutek
> 
> PS. As for your e-mail from January 15, be assured that it will be
> answered much sooner
>     than this one.
> 			Kind regards,
> 					Leszek
> 
> 



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