Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 10:35:59 +0000
Subject: Re: M-G: Re: M-I: Democratic Congo


> Karl accuses me of asking rhetorical questions and refusing to 
debate him:

> DAVE: Insnt this a contradiction. Either socialist revolution can
> happen or it can't. If it can they we have a duty to fight for it,
> and as you correctly point out fight for a global revolution. Do you
> think that a revolution in central Africa would have no
> repercussions in the rest of Africa?

Karl edits out another question: did he think that South Africa had 
the required objective and subjective conditions for revolution?
> 
> KARL ANSWERS: Socialist revolution cannot happen in the countries in the
> centre of Africa because both the necessary subjective and objective
> are lacking. Revolution must break out in one or more of what is
> often called one of the more capitalistically advanced countries if
> socialism is to be established. conditions for its establishment.
> 
> You naively ask me the following question: Do you think that 
> a revolution in central Africa would have no repercussions in the rest
> of Africa? What you dont seem to be able to grasp is the simple fact 
> that socialist revolution cannot take place in these backward places. 
> Consequently there is no question of any repercussions.
>
What about the repercussions that followed the October Revolution?
 
> Even if it were possible which is not for socialist revolution to
> establish itself in the regions under question it would not last long
> because of capitalist encirclement. You suggest that the masses in
> the surrounding African countries would break with imperialism in
> support of this revolution. There is no evidence to show that this is
> the case. At this point you are grasping at straws by engaging in
> this kind of feeble speculation. It is nice and comfy for people like
> you to recommend to the masses in Africa that they rise up against
> the system in this and that way when your skin is not at stake. I'm
> sure they will be very relieved to have your word for it that the
> masses in the surrounding countryside will break with imperialism.
> However if events were to prove you wrong it is these masses who will
> suffer immediately not you, comfortably sitting in front of your PC
> sipping coffee or whatever.
>
feeble speculation?  I dont agree. Karl's position is feeble 
speculation. It argues that the rebels in Zaire at the moment are not 
only incapable of overthrowing the bourgeoise, they cannot even 
overthrow imperialism without first waiting until some imperialist 
power is ready to lead the way.  He is like a jilted lover. Having been 
let down by the Russian revolution he isnt going to love anyone ever 
again unless they guarantee in advance that they will love him back. 
 
> The point is that all this rhetoric of yours is all extremely 
> hypothetIcal stuff. The point is that it is not possible to establish 
> a socialist revolution within the limits of a few backward countries. 
> The conditions for socialism entail highly developed productive forces 
> which do not exist in this particular places.

The last sentence is obviously  true but so what?  These "particular places" 
are part of the world capitalist economy and the international class struggle. 
They don't exist in isolation and imperialism forces semi-colonial 
peoples to rise up against super-exploitation.  Should they not rise 
up, or wait for Karl to give the word when he has got off his PC and 
has organised a revolution in Britain?
 
> DAVE: What kind of obscurantist trotskyism are you a refugee from? Lenin 
> makes a distinction between a socialist revolution - the Bolshevik 
> revolution - and building socialism in Russia, the former happening 
> because Russia was the `weakest link' in imperialism, the latter not 
> happening unless the world revolution came to the rescue. 
> Isnt that good enough for Zaire too? Or do we tell the workers and 
> peasants to wait until some more advanced state with a "fully" 
> developed working class begins its revolution before they rise up?
> Don't you see this is a left cover for democratic imperialism.?
> 
> KARL: Bully for you! So what if Lenin said this or that. He is not
> god. Just becaue Saint Lenin made a statement does not mean it is
> correct. I suppose if he said it is reactionary to wipe your arse
> with white toilet paper inbstead you would say he is right. A
> statement taken from the works of dear Lenin can never be a
> substitute for argument.
>
I doesnt follow that Lenin's political accuracy on the question of 
revolution translates to the type of toilet paper he advocated.

DAVE:If Leninism is counter-revolution you are going to have lots of 
> trouble recognising  the prescribed pre-conditions for revolution,
> because even Lenin admitted that in revolutionary times he got left 
> behind,  and the rest of the Bolsheviks were behind him.  
> 
> KARL: Perhaps this was one of the few times when what Saint Lenin
> said is true. However it is also a statement of his that may offer
> a good reason for subbing off  Leninism.
> 
Why believe him now when you dont want to know what kind of toilet 
paper to use?

 Instead of responding to my argument with a counter-argument you offer
> me a series of rhetorical questions. Such a response suggests
> inability to defend your own politics. As with many people on this and
> other Spoon lists it is virtually impossible to develop argument and
> discussion with you. This is evidence of the weakness of revolutionary
> politics in the contemporary world today and just goes to prove my
> point. 
>                                     
My questions are not rhetorical. They are just a short cut to getting 
you to recognise the bankruptcy of your politics. 

Dave> 



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