Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 10:53:30 +0100 (MET)
From: Leslaw Smutek <leszek-AT-I-LO.tarnow.pl>
Subject: Re: M-G: family  



	Malecki writes:

	"Zimbawi was hardly ever Marxist and in fact the solutions you
talk about after the gurreillas took power were first in a situation where
a state of war stilll existed with the then Aparthied South africa. In
fact the Cubans did play a fairly important role in this difficult period.
And despite the bureaucratic planning, the military support from the
Cubans and the dependency on the still then Soviet Unionn it was a better
solution then aparthied. This concretely means for "real" Marxists that we
were for the military victory of Zimbawi and the ANC against the aparthied
regime while at the same time did not give one ounce of political support
to the Black nationalist guerillas backed up by the Cuban and Russian
stalinists." 

	Well, well, well. I wouldn't be so sure disclaiming Marxism in
Robert Mugabe, i.e. Zimbabwe's ruler, and certainly not as far as his
party went. But this is only off the record because, as I've noticed
elsewhere, Marxists have a very strange skill and ability to get rid of
their former followers once it becomes obvious that they've been up to no
good. The point I was trying to make in my previous letter was that apart
>from strong apartheid system, it did provide Africans with the meat
rations you've mentioned, at least in South Africa. The best proof is that
it is from Zimbabwe and Angola (to name only two countries) people would
sneak into South Africa, and not in the other direction! 

"The Stalinists are always ready to make a deal with im,perialism and
certainly would have been prepared to trade these African states for
peaceful coexistence and keeping the east European block countries in
their sphere. It did not turn out that way and in fact those African
countries who were dependent on Soviet Economic help like Zimbawi are in
deep shit today just like Cuba is!"
	
	Well, again I must protest! Are you saying that Zimbabwe, Cuba and
other countries "dependent on Soviet economic help" are so poor because
this help suddenly stopped? Come on, Robert, I seem to discern two
mistakes in your reasoning. First, Soviet economic help was never
significant simply because the former Soviet Union had nothing to offer,
except, that is, weaponry and heavy industry. Another point is that not
very long time ago someone on this list claimed that NEP in the Soviet
Russia in the 1920's was a strategic move, because Lenin and Trotsky
suddenly realised how hard the position of the revolution had become and
so they decided to make a deal with imperialism. Were they Stalinists as
well? 

"But you Lezek are taking the easy way out and siding with something worse
imperialism and its fake democracy. In fact many of the realities of the
Eastern European Stalinist regimes which you mention above exist in every
western country to one degree or another. And for millions of people the
"meat" question is pretty decisive when you live under the starvation
level as 30 million Americans do in the United States. If you look at some
of the statistics you will see that the United States on most key
questions lie lower then any of the western counties and I would not be
surprised the Eastern block countries of the then Stalinist regimes. So
the price for "democracy" for some people is pretty fucking high." 

	Could you give me any examples of those "many of the
realities(...)  which (...) exist in every western country"? To be quite
frank, I'm not an a blind admirer of the West and its democracy. I would
be if it meant liberty, just like the 19th century capitalism in America
did. And I would also be careful with statistics, because it does not
always verify reality. You write about those 30 million Americans living
under starvation level. Do you realize what it really means? That these
people won't probably survive another few months. Have you heard about
mass deaths in the US recently? I haven't. And of course, I'm not trying
to be cynical in view of such serious problems; I'm just trying to be
reasonable. 

"In fact I will send you a short piece which I call "Lumpen Rage" which
describes some of the incredible stuff poor and working class people have
to experience in your model democracies in this case America where I grew
up as a Pollack. Not to mention some of the incredible conditions in the
slaughter houses in Chicago during the early 1900,s where mostly Pollacks
were employed. Because of the "Meat Question".. 

	I'm not putting in doubt the conditions in the slaughterhouses.
But again, I'd like to pose a serious question. Have you ever wondered
what made all those Pollacks (and not only them) come to the States and
get a job in those slaughterhouses? This is a question somehow connected
with ther question mentioned above. People never migrate in search of
worse living conditions. If they make up their mind to travel, they must
do it because they believe they will be better off. And, mind you, hardly
anybody would come back, not because of lack of money. I know something
about it because I had such cases in my family. 
	The next point you've mentioned, i.e. the Catholic Church, is not
part of our discussion, at least not yet. Therefore, I'd prefer not to
bring it into it. 
 
 
(...)"the right for women to decide about their own bodies." 

	This statement is obviously untrue, logically speaking. No one
wants to take this right away from women on condition that it pertains
solely to their bodies. If, however, they have already conceived, then
>from a logical as well as biological point of view, their bodies have been
entered by a separate being, with their total consent( leaving aside,
naturally, such cases as rape). So they can't logically claim any more
that there is nothing within them because, sorry for the expression, the
foetus is not just another type of food! But this is just off the margin,
because I wouldn't like to drag away from the main point. 


"Of course society should be responsible for the health of women and the
freedom of choice is the question of a woman deciding if she wants to have
an abortion or not. I mean you would not be saying that smokers who get
cancer should not be treated with money of people who don,t smoke claiming
the "right" to choose would you? 

	Why not? In my vision of the society, every individual is free to
make their own choices, and be responsible for them. If you want to smoke,
drink alcohol or take drugs - it's your will and/but your problem. If
medical care is private, you pay for your follies and nobody else! In your
vision, healthy people are bound to pay taxes for hospitals and medical
treatment of those who decided to taste something different, who wanted to
be liberated, who I don't know what. Which reminds me of the problem of
AIDS and those who are ill with it.  I feel sorry for them, but in most
cases I believe it really is their fault. If, as statistics warn us, the
most efficient way to protect yourself against AIDS is having one partner
- then how would you call their ostentatious "unfaithfulness?"  I'm not
speaking here about obvious cases of contracting AIDS, such as blood
transfusion. And to come back to the question... Is it fair, in your
opinion, that some hard-working responsible people should support others
who are reckless and unreliable? 

"When it comes to the family as and institution you defend it. I say that
the family is something else entirely. Well we have a big difference here
Lezek!
 So perhaps we should be more concrete and take up the question in
relationship to for example child uppbringing.Schools, daycare centers,
healthcare for example. I think that we could start here and talk about
the above in relationship to collective responsibility verses the family
responsibility. Is this the absolute private property of individuals in
society or the collective responsibility of the whole. Is their positive
and negatiuve consequences to the two forms etc. How do women vis a vis
men view this stuff? Then perhaps we can draw others into this discussion
and see where it takes us." 
	Yes, I'd be glad to do so! 

"Finally once again I see you grasping for solutions that are what you
think are in "your" interests but in fact have become a pawn in
institutions and systems of another sort. Your motivation is your hate of
the Stalinist regimes who in fact use many of the same kind of tactics to
impose their bureaucratic rule as the capitalists do to enforce their
economic rule. And you are doing this under the cover of the "right" to
choose. In fact the choices overed you are in fact made by institutions
whose only interest is to in the final analisis oppress poor and working
class rule either for their *own* economic priviledge or their *own*
bureaucratic priviledges! 

Actually you are being sucked into the old trap about being given the
"right" to decide the color of the curtains while everything else is
decided by either the capitalists or in your case the former Stalinist
bureaucrats that you obviously hate. But the only real solution is
overthrowing capitalism and in the case of the former Soviet Union then
was a political revolution against the priviledged Stalinist bureaucracy." 

	Sorry, but I can find nothing convincing in the above piece. I
mean, I can see your point quite clearly, but I must say that it is not
so. First and foremost, my motivation is not my "hate of the Stalinist
regimes"; at least it isn't the most important reason. I believe that a
human being is truly free when he/she can decide on their own. They may
take decisions on the basis of their knowledge, their experience, their
memories, their reason.  And they need not take into consideration
institutions and other forces that oppress the working class. And, I
assure you, I hardly ever do. And the only limitation that there can exist
is THE LAW. As someone said, the movements of my fist are limited by the
proximity of your nose. Now you'll probably say that law is also a product
of wretched capitalists to oppress the working classes.  But this time
I'll ask for examples. 

	As for the piece "Lumpen rage", I have read it and will send you
my thoughts on it in the near future. 

	Looking forward to hearing from you,

						Leszek Smutek

PS. I did not, of course, forget your next mail, but because this letter
has already become quite long, I'll state only the essential things. 
	Your question is: "Do you really think that people in the West
have a >Right< to choose how to bring up children?" 

	My answer is: I don't really know, but I guess that if they want
to, they naturally have this right granted. 
	
	You write: "the majority of people on the planet have hardly the
right to choose anything at all but are forced by circumstances evolving
>from a system based on profit to just be able to reach the magic age of
30!" 

	The problem with you, Bob, is that you seem to believe that there
is a system which will, one day, liberate people from the chains of class
oppression and will lead them into another Garden of Eden. That's why you
condemn anything you see around. You take pity on "the majority of people
on this earth", and so do I. But I see this in another light. I look back
200 hundred years ago and try to compare the world of the 1700s and the
world of the 1990s. What I see is that where capitalism has been
attempted, people have profited from it. I can also see that where it has
been opposed, either by revolutions or "social reforms", there people have
suffered a lot, although, in theory, it was to have been different. 
That's why the conclusions are clear. 

	You try to convince me that you "believe that Soviet foreign
policy (despite the Stalinists) gave more *real* help to the Third World
and in fact Poland after the war than imperialism ever would have". Well,
I'll be damned!  Sorry for the language, but I would really appreciate
being given examples unless you mean help in the persons of military
advisors, commanders-in-chief, KGB agents infiltrating everything worth
infiltrating, old-fashioned technologies, totally devastated and polluted
environment, etc.etc. 

	Finally, my treatment of the French and Bolshevik revolutions
which I find cruel and atrocious disasters. Why, of course! What they
brought about was unbelievable bloodshed and even more oppressive form of
tyranny than ever before.  What is more, they both deluded people who
believed in revolutionary ideals. As in any revolution, the two
above-mentioned changed the banners only, but did not change institutions
against which they were fighting. Think about the innocent people who fell
victims to the revolutionaries only because they did not want to reject
their faith, their beliefs, their ideals, their property, their kids... 
Think about Wandea, in France, where peasants stood up in revolt, think
about some sailors in Russia who also opposed the Leninist order. They
were mercilessly done away with, and proclaimed enemies of the working
class. This is ridiculous!  What is more, this very Lenin began forming
camps of compulsory labour for those who were of different opinions or who
were just given away by their neighbourd, friends or whoever. This is why
when I wrote about collective upbringing, I was so scared of it.
Revolution always begins with a strong belief in a cause, and then has to
rely on terror to fulfill its promises, which it doesn't anyway! So, if
you believe Lenin to have been a real Marxist, then I'm afraid of such
people who will try to teach me only their version of the story. 

	Thanks again. 
							Leszek Smutek



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